Republicans

[Spiderman]

Wasn't the above the whole idea behind line-item vetos, so the president could veto certain parts of the bill without having to send the whole thing back to Congress?

 

[train]

Wasn't the above the whole idea behind line-item vetos, so the president could veto certain parts of the bill without having to send the whole thing back to Congress?

It was - but since it bypassed the original intent of the constitution for the president to approve or disapprove of a "bill" as a whole, it would have to be an amendment to the constitution before it could actually be implemented without challenge.

BUT - it also opens the door for cherry-picking and many bills would lose support if legislator specifics added to the bill were removed, etc. Then the bill could become a law, not as intended by the houses of congress.

If a line item veto is actually going to be implemented - it would be best to have all line items in a bill represented individually. This would also open the door to cherry-picking, but if really supported by the Houses, and not just one or two members in the House and their vote for a larger bill, then it would be able to defeat a veto.

 

[Spiderman]

Congress should lose the ability to attach riders to bills then... Seems they want their cake and eat it too...

 

[EricBess]

Not only that, but since political "concessions" are done by giving each party a bit of what they want instead of trying to find a solution for both, the line-item veto could lead to problems where the parties aren't willing to work together at all. If the president can get rid of all of the line items from the other party that were made to "compromise", then absolutely nothing will get done.

Then again, that might force the parties to come up with solutions that meet more needs rather than just scratching each other's backs...

 

[Spiderman]

I get the impression that the line item vetoes would be used for stuff that isn't prone to negotiating or compromises - Clinton had it for two years and I don't think there was a major holdups where he vetoed everything Republican.

 

[train]

I get the impression that the line item vetoes would be used for stuff that isn't prone to negotiating or compromises - Clinton had it for two years and I don't think there was a major holdups where he vetoed everything Republican.

There actually wasn't a fear of whole-party line-item abuse, and it was even Republicans offering the bill while Clinton was in office that eventually was law until determined unconstitutional.

Having the line-item vetoes still only prolonged issues, as congress overrode almost half of the line-items that were invoked.

to get things going the right direction - red tape needs to be eliminated, and legislators held more accountable to their constituents.

another thing that gets me is the whole "ethical" premise the legislators are to adhere to...
- If that's really the case - quit wasting so much MONEY!!!...

 

[Oversoul]

Well, I was expecting to get back to this the same day, but I've been busy and haven't been online much because of computer problems. Not this computer, actually. My brand new computer that is running a hard disk test right now. Anyway, I forget what I had wanted to say to Train but hadn't had the time to say back then, so I'll just move on. Sorry about that. I guess the main point was that I agreed with much of what you said, but don't believe a dichotomous view is typically helpful when it comes to the legal system or government in general for that matter. I don't think that was your main point though, even if it does kind of look that way. I gather that perhaps you're referring more to deliberate convolution and obfuscation by government and legislators in particular, which I also see as a problem...

Fair point. I guess it would be more correct to say that once the dust settled, they introduced a system where the federal government did not tax the people and taxation was left to the states. Honestly, I don't know enough about the history to know when and why a federal tax was introduced, but I'm guessing that it came down to national security and having a federal military. Still, the door was opened and now the federal government has taken it upon themselves to try to regulate any and everything that they think might be "wrong" in society.

Pretty much. I mean, it's a question of where we go from here. And I don't pretend to have the best answer or even a particularly good one. Well, I do know one thing: my priorities. Whatever they're worth.

Can we agree, however, that the current system of health care is not market driven? If costs are hidden from the end consumer and not controlled by the doctor, then where is the incentive to compete?

As far as I understand, this is exactly right (discounting components of the system that are not direct "care" so much as products like pharmaceuticals and medical instruments).

If you look at the current housing situation, there is a strong argument that the reason prices skyrocketted is because so much effort was made to make sure that everyone could have a house, even if they really couldn't afford it. I'm not saying that this is completely analogous because I agree that everyone should have access to health care, but I just point out that "doing more" when referring to the federal government, often leads to far bigger problems in the future.

And to be clear, I certain aknowledge that I don't have "the answer" any more than anyone does. I just don't think it would be as hard to come up with a more catious solution as they claim. Part of the problem with the 2,4,6 year thing is that long-term doesn't mean much in politics.

Yes. But how important is caution in this case? I mean, obviously there's something to be said for it. But how much caution is the right amount? Not trying to play devil's advocate for the Democrats or anyone. But it is a possible point of contention.

I was thinking about how government works over the weekend and it seems that our current system has gone off track. Instead of "let's compromise on points and look for a system we all can agree on" (granted, a very tall order), it seems its more about everything being either "our way" or "your way" and the compromises are "we'll give you this legislation exactly how you want it if you give us that legislation how we want it". So you end up with special interests on both sides getting all of the taxpayer money and the taxpayers in the middle going bankrupt.

I always thought that the job of politicians was to look out for the interest of the people they represent. But clearly, their job, like everyone else's, is to make try to make money. Like Oversoul said, they are human, so if the options are 1) represent those who voted for you, or 2) represent those who give you money, what are you going to do.

To me, it comes back to what was said about people researching candidates. People aren't elected based on what they stand for. They are elected based on how visible they are. Media at that level is expensive, so a big corporation with a lot of money can get someone elected far easier than the best candidate in the world who relys on word of mouth to be known.

Exactly. That's the problem. Well, maybe not the problem. It's certainly a problem and a large part of the problem. And the solution?

Congress should lose the ability to attach riders to bills then... Seems they want their cake and eat it too...

Oh man, I hate riders so much, but even if it were in my power to make a rule eliminating them, I'm not sure how I'd try to phrase it. It's not like they get tags with "RIDER" spelled out on them. While some things are obviously riders, others are a little less obviously so. I'd imagine if we had some particular examples we could find ones that some her would call riders and others here would disagree and call them legitimate parts of the bill in question. Wherever the line would be drawn, I'm sure some legislators would be pushing it as much as they could.

 

[EricBess]

Yes. But how important is caution in this case? I mean, obviously there's something to be said for it. But how much caution is the right amount? Not trying to play devil's advocate for the Democrats or anyone. But it is a possible point of contention.

So let me paint a picture here. Now, I'm not saying that this is what will happen, I'm only saying that it is a reasonable extrapolation of what might happen.

Government passes a law putting additional regulation on insurance companies, including an inability to discriminate on pre-existing conditions. Now, the natural conclusion here is why get health insurance if you can simply buy it when you need it, so government also introduces legislation to mandate health insurance and fine people who don't have it. To "encourage competition", they introduce a public option which is inexpensive because it "cuts inefficiencies", but is also taxpayer subsidized to make sure it can compete.

BTW - I spoke with a friend of mine from Australia and while I haven't done the research myself, from what he says, they have a socialized plan that completes with public plans and it works very well for them. The difference, however, is that the government doesn't regulate what the public plans can and cannot offer.

Okay, so back to my hypothetical. Things work fine for a while and insurance companies actually start lowering their prices to compete. However, the fine imposed for not having insurance is still less than the cost of insurance, so a sufficient number of people don't get insurance until they need it, opting to instead pay the fine. Eventually, someone challenges the fine and it goes to the supreme court, who determine that it is unconstitutional anyway (comparing it to car insurance is not valid because people have the option of not driving), so that portion is thrown out.

More and more people start playing the system. The government option isn't hugely effected because there is a slightly longer waiting line for a doctor that takes the government plan (since they don't pay doctors quite as much as the insurance companies do), so more and more of a burden is place on the public insurance companies, who are forced to raise their premiums in order to even make a profit.

With premiums on public plans increasing, more and more companies opt to offer employees the public option. Many people lose their jobs and eventually, most of the private insurance companies are forced to close their doors as they simply cannot continue to compete. A couple of the largest manage to stay in business and still have decent health insurance plans, but they are very expensive.

All of this is fine because the government plan is similar to Medicare, and we all know that Medicare is pretty decent insurance, right?

Except that the way Medicare is structured, over the next 5 years, the amount that doctors are paid for medical procedures is scheduled to decrease. I don't know the exact amount, but SR1776 was proposed to postpone the reductions (and to get the AMA to publicly support health care reform), but it didn't pass (this last paragraph is not hypothetical, BTW), so unless something changes, Medicare payments to doctors will be reduced.

As Medicare payments are reduced, the natural consequence is that fewer and fewer doctors will take Medicare (we can argue over extent of impact, but anyone would be hard pressed to argue that fewer doctors will be taking Medicare).

Back to the hypothetical again, the same thing happens with the public option, with a reduced payment plan over a 10- to 15-year period (I know they have talked about the reduced payment plan, but I don't know the details - the theory is that over time, we will have more efficiency so we won't have to pay as much, but whose to say exactly what that means). So, there are fewer and fewer options for most people who can't afford private insurance and fewer and fewer doctors taking the public insurance, which is what most people will have. If you need to see a doctor, that's not a problem, but you will need to wait 3 months to get an appointment. If you need a life-saving procedure, we might be able to see you in a couple of weeks. Its not that the doctor's don't want to see you sooner, its just that they already have 100 appointments per day, all with equally dire conditions.

BTW - In order to try to treat everyone, doctors will be forced to spend less and less time with each patient and will often not have the information they need to make good decisions.

What might normally happen in such a situation is innovation and technology that produces more diagnostic tools and allow doctors to see more patients with more efficiency, but such technology is expensive to research and since doctors are basically going to be getting paid the same regardless of whether or not they innovate, then there is no incentive to do such research and the costs to pay the people trying to do the research to impliment the technology just don't make any sense, so very few of those technologies actually get implimented.

Yes, more people will have "health insurance", but fewer people will have the "health care" that they require. Right now, everyone has access to "heath care". Hospitals aren't allowed to turn away anyone that comes into the emergency room. If load increases and staff decreases, then it won't be a question of desire, there simply won't be enough people to meet the demand and waiting times will increase. ERs already have this problem and it is fair to argue that the rule that they can't turn anyone away is part of the reason why wait times are so long in the ER. That's an example of "de facto" socialization because those who do pay their bills end up paying more and waiting longer to compensate for those who don't.

Again, I'm not saying that any of this will happen, only that it is a fairly reasonable extrapolation of what could happen. But if it does happen, then what will government propose next to correct things?

 

[Spiderman]

Having the line-item vetoes still only prolonged issues, as congress overrode almost half of the line-items that were invoked.

Still, that means half of the other stuff didn't get through. I don't mind the checks and balances if they can be done timely.

Speaking of which, I just read that Obama (or the president) had to present the budget for the next fiscal year (2011, which starts Oct. 1, 2010) by Feb 1. So Congress has all of that time - Feb to Oct - to pass this thing and they never do it? What's up with that? They shouldn't get summer recess until everything's pretty much squared away

Oversoul: True, but I think anything getting attached to a bill after it's passed committee? at some point can be considered a rider. But I don't know much about them either, only they're a great way for legislators to insert pork and other stuff not meant for the original bill.

 

[EricBess]

Sorry, that was a bit longer than I had intended. Bottom line is that I agree that the current system has some huge gaping problems, but I'm concerned that the long-term effects of what is being proposed will be far worse, but once plans like that are implimented, it is very difficult to remove them.

Medicare is nearly bankrupt and has become a real burden on a lot of taxpayers. But how do you end it? How do you tell someone that they have been paying taxes all of their life for others to be covered, but the program is ending so they won't get the benefit?

There is huge potential for some really big problems in the future, including doctor shortages and other things that simply won't be quick to adjust for, even if you throw everything out and start over. If there are only so many doctors, it takes a lot of time to train more. I think that is smarter to encourage local innovation. Plus, everyone has an oppinion and no one knows which opionion will actually work best, so if each state impliments their own policy, wouldn't that allow us to see what works and what doesn't before trying to impliment things on a national level?

 

[Spiderman]

I think that not doing anything in fear of causing bigger problems is worse than attempting it and seeing what actually happens.

 

[EricBess]

I'm not saying do nothing. I'm saying try various things on a smaller scale.

I think there are some very strong parallels to what the goverment is proposing with health care and what happened in the housing market.

 

[turgy22]

Under the Turgeon Dictatorship Health Plan, all citizens of the United States will automatically have "health care." And by that, I mean if someone is sick, they just go to the doctor or a hospital and get treated. Simple. All health expenses will be automatically taxed and doctors will be paid by the central government, based on performance, patient satisfaction and quality of care. No one will need to worry about health insurance and billions of wasted dollars paying administrators to shuffle papers around will end.

 

[Oversoul]

Oversoul: True, but I think anything getting attached to a bill after it's passed committee? at some point can be considered a rider. But I don't know much about them either, only they're a great way for legislators to insert pork and other stuff not meant for the original bill.

Well, that bolded part is basically what they are. All it means for something to be a rider is that it's a provision that is perceived as not belonging on a bill and is typically included in order to get it passed by letting it "ride" along on the larger bill.

Oh, and they've been used to circumvent vetoes too, as executives cannot veto only the rider. They'd have to veto the entire bill.

Also, in some other countries, particularly ones with parliamentary systems, they do have some rules that at least partially prevent riders. I guess there will always be loopholes, but at least those guys are trying.

 

[Spiderman]

I'm not saying do nothing. I'm saying try various things on a smaller scale.

But would they be as effective? I would agree, like fixing those gaping problems that the current system has, but sometimes it's better to totally overhaul something rather than put band-aids on the current problem.

I think there are some very strong parallels to what the goverment is proposing with health care and what happened in the housing market.

Like what? From what I've read, the "only" thing the government did wrong (or rather, didn't do) was regulate those derivative trading schemes that were cooked up. Banks and lending houses went on their own to pad their profits by using them and somehow allowing/convincing people that they could afford an unaffordable house.

Oversoul: Yeah, but you mentioned earlier

While some things are obviously riders, others are a little less obviously so. I'd imagine if we had some particular examples we could find ones that some her would call riders and others here would disagree and call them legitimate parts of the bill in question.

which seemed to indicate there's some ambiguity about what is a rider and what isn't.

 

[EricBess]

Like what? From what I've read, the "only" thing the government did wrong (or rather, didn't do) was regulate those derivative trading schemes that were cooked up. Banks and lending houses went on their own to pad their profits by using them and somehow allowing/convincing people that they could afford an unaffordable house.

There were a lot of mistakes made in many different areas and regulation may or may not have avoided the problem, but from what I've read, as early as Lyndon Johnson, there were bills and legislation designed to help people get housing, even if they couldn't afford it. Over time, this morphed into issues like 1) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buying subprime loans, and 2) Crazy money-making schemes where people were effectively buying "insurance" on mortgages and a lot of other stuff where good loans could be grouped with bad loans and either sold or "insured" as a bundle. Ultimately, the lack of regulation lead to a lot of confusion over who actually owed what, which is why a lot of people are able to stay in their homes now without paying while banks try to sort out who actually owns the morgage.

The parallels are that we are trying to make sure that everyone has access to "health care", even if they cannot afford it or don't even want it (read: don't want to pay for it at any cost).

And the wording is very important. I don't remember it being a "crisis" until recently (a very high percentage of Americans are happy with their heath coverage). What's more, the problem isn't so much that people don't have "health care" as they don't have "health insurance". For expensive procedures, that amounts to the same thing, however, I have a co-worker who developed pneumonia and ended up needing surgery and a 6-month recovery because it infected his lungs. He didn't go to the doctor because he didn't have insurance, but had he researched it, he could have afforded the $100 for a doctor visit and $40 for antibiotics had he been of that mindset (I don't know the actual $ amounts in his case, but based on talking to my doctors recently, this is a rough guess of what it would have cost him without insurance).

But as for the similarities, it is Government trying to "protect the little guy" when it doesn't make good economic sense long-term and will likely just lead to worse problems in the future.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not heartless. I think that "health care for all" is a very admirable goal, so I don't question the motives, which I think are deserving of our respect. But I think that Americans are a generous enough people that they are willing to help out most unfortunates on their own, but resent it when the government tells them they have to.

BTW - a precepts of the free market system is that greed drives the economy and is kept in check by risk management. I find it ironic with the housing collapse that the same people who blame greed for causing the problem (which on many levels it did) have bailed out the banks, thus making it unnecessary to mitigate greed with risk management.

But would they be as effective? I would agree, like fixing those gaping problems that the current system has, but sometimes it's better to totally overhaul something rather than put band-aids on the current problem.

Be as effective as what? We don't know how effective the current reform bill will be and there is plenty of reason to be aprehensive that it will lead to necessary rationing of care.

If you let each state decide whether they want a small change or an overhaul, you get to try different things and see what works and what doesn't, then make larger changes once you have more information.

I don't know a lot about Texas's health care, but my understanding is that they are one of the least regulated states and they have some of the lowest health care costs in the nation (what I've heard, so I don't have links and I could be misinformed).

On the other hand, Massachusetts has a plan involving a public option and it is financially unstable and costs have been rising.

 

[turgy22]

I don't have time to read this into detail, but it looks like Hawaii, Maryland and New Jersey have some of the lowest health care costs, while Mississippi, Louisiana and West Virginia are the highest. Also note that Massachusetts is better than Texas in every health care cost related category.

http://usahealthcarecosts.blogspot.com/2009/07/which-state-has-lowest-health-insurance.html

 

[train]

Speaking of which, I just read that Obama (or the president) had to present the budget for the next fiscal year (2011, which starts Oct. 1, 2010) by Feb 1. So Congress has all of that time - Feb to Oct - to pass this thing and they never do it? What's up with that? They shouldn't get summer recess until everything's pretty much squared away

AMEN e-brother!!!... It's along the lines of accountability...

As for fixing the health care - here's how you do it:

you offer the public option.

you regulate the expenses of all medical operations, testing, etc.

At the first point they are eligible, you ensure that insurance, private or
public is obtained by all individuals.

if not, then fine them.

when individuals without insurance, that didn't get it when first eligible, apply for the insurance with conditions they need insurance to cover - they have to pay up the difference of all the time that they didn't have insurance, and for the instant convenience, be charged an additional fee
- or
individuals acquiring insurance just to cover pre-exitsing conditions after their initial enrollment period pay higher rates for the convenience. (and they paid the fine before or didn't)

Then if there are any issues refer them to train for execution proceedings.

 

[Oversoul]

Oversoul: Yeah, but you mentioned earlier which seemed to indicate there's some ambiguity about what is a rider and what isn't.

Ambiguity about whether or not something counts as a rider. If a bill is exceedingly specific in what it targets, a rider is probably going to stand out. But a lot of bills are vague and sort of lump several different things under one umbrella issue. When that happens, something that one person might look at and call a rider, another person might see as simply falling under the purpose of the bill. Bias being what it is and all.

I think usually it's obvious when something is a rider, but I've never heard of any systematic test for it. In Britain, every provision in the bill must be accounted for by the title of the bill itself (the titles are often quite long).

I can't actually think of an example where it seemed unclear whether something was or was not a rider, but I'm probably a bit of a curmudgeon who would call it a rider anyway because I want my legislation to be as straightforward and transparent as possible (except when I want it to be as confusing and inaccessible as possible).

And in case anyone is really bored, here's the SCOTUS decision on the line item veto: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=97-1374

 

[Spiderman]

There were a lot of mistakes made in many different areas and regulation may or may not have avoided the problem, but from what I've read, as early as Lyndon Johnson, there were bills and legislation designed to help people get housing, even if they couldn't afford it. Over time, this morphed into issues like 1) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buying subprime loans, and 2) Crazy money-making schemes where people were effectively buying "insurance" on mortgages and a lot of other stuff where good loans could be grouped with bad loans and either sold or "insured" as a bundle. Ultimately, the lack of regulation lead to a lot of confusion over who actually owed what, which is why a lot of people are able to stay in their homes now without paying while banks try to sort out who actually owns the morgage.

The problem I have with these statements is the one beginning with Lyndon Johnson. That was what, 40 years ago? Yet the "housing crisis" that we're talking about happened in the last 5 or so years (well, 10 years roughly if we're counting the start of the housing "boom" that led to the "bust"). So really, the first 30 years were fine.

The #2 point that you made started 10 years ago with AIG? Some big firm looking to expand their profits and getting into a "market" that they weren't in previously (I think they just made loans or insured loans before, they didn't repackage them). Once they started into the repackaging and everyone saw how much money they were making, they wanted in on it too. And there was one fed regulator who wanted to start looking at them and regulate them but was shot down at the time by Greenspan, the Treasury chief, and the her own boss - the chief of the Central Bank or whatever. THAT's what led to the problem.

So I don't see the parallel you're trying to make with health care. With the housing, the feds were trying to stay out of the whole situation and no one was forcing anything on anyone. With health care, depending on your point of view of the feds "forcing" or "taking the initiative", either way they're actively trying to address something.

Be as effective as what? We don't know how effective the current reform bill will be and there is plenty of reason to be aprehensive that it will lead to necessary rationing of care.

Again, that's the fea, but no real certainty that that's what's going to happen.

I don't know a lot about Texas's health care, but my understanding is that they are one of the least regulated states and they have some of the lowest health care costs in the nation (what I've heard, so I don't have links and I could be misinformed).

On the other hand, Massachusetts has a plan involving a public option and it is financially unstable and costs have been rising.

train might know more about Texas since he lived there for awhile.

That's interesting about what you say about Massachusetts because Edwards was elected alot for saying he'd oppose the fed health care and pointing to his state's plan as a "model" of what it should be....

I don't have time to read this into detail, but it looks like Hawaii, Maryland and New Jersey have some of the lowest health care costs,

Despite being from Maryland, I can't comment on it because I'm with the federal government so my health plan is the Federal one, meaning it's not quite what the private sector pays.

Oversoul: Hmm, I thought generally, most bills were specific to what they're meant for. It may be the more complex ones, like the budget, are just easier to get stuff attached to because since they're so big, no one bothers to read them all the way through