Sex criminals to get Viagra?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I think we moved past your point above on page 1.

The issue isn't about the amendment, it's the irony that a "conservative" would propose additional and unnecessary legislation to create more government...

But I know you know that and are just being a pain, sort of like Coburn.

-spence

How does barring something from this overloaded bill create more government?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

How does barring something from this overloaded bill create more government?

You're creating another law to be enforced. Is the government going to run background checks on everyone who gets insurance, or perform audits on prescriptions by sex offenders to see if the law has been broken?

If not...why have the law? It could never be enforced.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You're creating another law to be enforced. Is the government going to run background checks on everyone who gets insurance, or perform audits on prescriptions by sex offenders to see if the law has been broken?

If not...why have the law? It could never be enforced.

-spence

Wouldn't the government just mandate that responsibility to the insurance providers?

Most laws are not 100% enforceable. Especially true of cheating on the government. Catching a percentage of cheats seems to be the acceptable mode of discouraging the law-breakers. If the responsibilty were to fall to the Government, the new IRS enforcers will just have a teeny blip of extra responsibility added to the mountain of junk the bill gives them to climb.

Besides, this "extra" government would "save" the tax payers money, just as how the HC bill will "lower costs."

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Wouldn't the government just mandate that responsibility to the insurance providers?

Passing the cost of regulation onto the consumer? Still not very conservative...

Most laws are not 100% enforceable. Especially true of cheating on the government. Catching a percentage of cheats seems to be the acceptable mode of discouraging the law-breakers. If the responsibilty were to fall to the Government, the new IRS enforcers will just have a teeny blip of extra responsibility added to the mountain of junk the bill gives them to climb.

This assumes there's a problem to begin with. I'd be curious to know how much federally funded sex drugs actually make it to sex offenders. It's already verboten under Medicare and Medicaid.

Oh wait, this actually isn't the problem! Perhaps the bill is really an attempt to limit abortion drugs.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Passing the cost of regulation onto the consumer? Still not very conservative...

Yeah, "conservatives" are not perfect. They might even stoop to all manner of dirty, underhanded, unconstitutional, lying, promise breaking tricks to defeat or hamper a bill that was conjured in just those ways. Of course, I can see why you are annoyed with such a major "conservative" hypocrisy. After all, the Health Care Bill is "Centrist" and should make everyone happy.

This assumes there's a problem to begin with. I'd be curious to know how much federally funded sex drugs actually make it to sex offenders. It's already verboten under Medicare and Medicaid.

Oh, why did they ever create such extra government to forbid something that is not enforceable? Maybe that's how Coburn got his idea.

Oh wait, this actually isn't the problem! Perhaps the bill is really an attempt to limit abortion drugs.
-spence

Oh wait, the whole Health Care Bill is the problem. It doesn't lower costs. It raises premiums. It raises taxes. It costs taxpayers too much. Except for collecting taxes, it doesn't go into effect for four years, and still won't insure all those it was supposed to cover. It is more an income redistribution than it is a "health" bill. It is unconstitutional. It is FAR more unnecessary and a FAR greater annoyance than Coburns little stuff. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE DOING THIS. This should be in the domain of the States and the private sector.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yeah, "conservatives" are not perfect. They might even stoop to all manner of dirty, underhanded, unconstitutional, lying, promise breaking tricks to defeat or hamper a bill that was conjured in just those ways. Of course, I can see why you are annoyed with such a major "conservative" hypocrisy. After all, the Health Care Bill is "Centrist" and should make everyone happy.

I believe I simply found it ironic.

Oh, why did they ever create such extra government to forbid something that is not enforceable? Maybe that's how Coburn got his idea.

Huh?

Oh wait, the whole Health Care Bill is the problem. It doesn't lower costs. It raises premiums.

It's projected by the CBO to slow the increase and therefore deliver deficit reduction. I think there's a good argument that some of these savings are at the expense of State budgets.

It raises taxes. It costs taxpayers too much.

On the wealthy and the HC industry. If it really delivers deficit reduction, than I'm not sure it can cost too much...strategic investments don't usually payback rapidly.

Except for collecting taxes, it doesn't go into effect for four years, and still won't insure all those it was supposed to cover.

There are several provisions that are active within the first year, preexisting conditions for children being one of them. I believe they're targeting 95% coverage which would contain the bulk of the uninsured.

It is more an income redistribution than it is a "health" bill.

It certainly is both.

It is unconstitutional.

That's for the Supreme Court to decide.

It is FAR more unnecessary and a FAR greater annoyance than Coburns little stuff.

Why don't you think Coburn was proposing these amendments a year or six months ago?

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE DOING THIS. This should be in the domain of the States and the private sector.

I'd like to see the states being a larger part of the solution, but don't believe a problem such as this can really be solved without Federal action. There's just no way the states could prioritize and coordinate activities in a meaningful manner...

Generally, I'd agree with the position taken by those pragmatic Brits at the Economist.

That:

A) A country as wealthy as the US should have affordable care available to everyone

and

B) That this bill, crappy as it is, is a necessary motivator to drive the follow-on solutions to better address the root causes of the issue. That doing nothing is actually worse, as it will delay the action and let the problems fester. That being said, the bill in it's current state will not adequately address the issue.

The bill as passed can accommodate for tort reform and state competition in the future. I fully expect these initiatives to be incorporated in the next 5 years.

-spence

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=spence;757699]I believe I simply found it ironic.


You "believe" you "simply" found it ironic? So you're not sure? And "simply" is disingenuous.

Your irony is founded on the false premise that to be "conservative" means to be be perfectly and slavishly bound by some narrow perception of "conservative" philosopy. And anyone who doesn't strictly follow the cookie-cutter mold is in conflict with the "guidelines." Since, in reality, everyone is unique, it would be difficult , if not impossible, to fit a large constituency into one mold. The basic tenet that binds most "conservatives" is adherence to, and preservation of, the Constitution and its original intent. "Conservatives," within whatever tent that label encompasses, argue with each other about all issues, economic, social, policy, the one common bond is the Constitution. Coburn did not violate that bond with his amendment.

Now, it is not ironic that, though you find irony in Coburn's amendment, you don't muster any objection to the sneaky way the Dems passed the bill. It is taken for granted that such would be. One cannot complain to a rattlesnake if it bites you and injects its venom in your veins. That is its nature. That is what it does. And it is the nature of the left to succeed by any means necessary. That is what they do.

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=spence;757699]Huh?

You said Coburn's amendment to bar sex offenders from getting insurance paid Viagra was creating more government by creating another law to be enforced and that such a law could not be enforced. Then you said it's already verboten under Medicare and Medicaid. Ergo my question about why such extra unenforcable government (the Medicare and Medicaid restriction) was created.

It's projected by the CBO to slow the increase and therefore deliver deficit reduction.

Garbage in, garbage out.

On the wealthy and the HC industry. If it really delivers deficit reduction, than I'm not sure it can cost too much...strategic investments don't usually payback rapidly.

Taxes on the wealthy and, especially, on industry, eventually trickle down to consumers in higher costs.

Class warfare is a leftist tactic to gain support of the "masses." The wealthy are demonized as somehow hurting the not wealthy. This justifies taxing them at higher and higher rates in order to "level." How does it hurt you if someone is wealthier than you? Is not the drive to wealth a more positive than a negative factor in free market economies?

There are several provisions that are active within the first year, preexisting conditions for children being one of them. I believe they're targeting 95% coverage which would contain the bulk of the uninsured.

Several?

The 95% being "targeted" includes the 85% who already are covered which means that of the 15% that are not, only 2/3 are "targeted." Which means one third will not be insured. As I said, the bill won't insure all those who were the reason for its existence.

It certainly is both.

We agree. My contention is that it is more income redistributive in its intent than it is intended to distribute health care, which can be done by free market methods in concert with the will and consent of the people in their different state and local venues, and without harm either to original constitutional intent or to the pockets of the citizens whom that constitution protects.

That's for the Supreme Court to decide.

That is, for "conservatives," the problem. The Supreme Court has gone way beyond original intent in "interpreting" the general welfare clause. And as long as it continues to accede to whatever wishes the Congress desires to tax and spend for "the general welfare", the Federal Government will have nearly unlimited power over the States and the people. NOT THE INTENT OF THE FOUNDERS.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Why don't you think Coburn was proposing these amendments a year or six months ago?

Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass the bill to find out what was in it.

I'd like to see the states being a larger part of the solution, but don't believe a problem such as this can really be solved without Federal action. There's just no way the states could prioritize and coordinate activities in a meaningful manner...

The States can create "programs" that suit the specific needs of their citizens. And they can be "models" for each other. And failures can be FAR more easily corrected at State levels than national. State legislators have to be more responsive to their constituents. Those national congressional representatives all come from the States. They don't magically get smarter or more competent when they put on federal suits. If anything, they become more contentious and obstructive.

Generally, I'd agree with the position taken by those pragmatic Brits at the Economist.

That:

A) A country as wealthy as the US should have affordable care available to everyone

"Wealth" is class warfare code for "shame on you." Our health care, pre the BILL, is better than Britain's, so poo on their opinion.

and

B) That this bill, crappy as it is, is a necessary motivator to drive the follow-on solutions to better address the root causes of the issue.

Gobbledegook.

That doing nothing is actually worse, as it will delay the action and let the problems fester. That being said, the bill in it's current state will not adequately address the issue.

Nobody says do nothing. Things have been evolving for a long time. Things have been, and are being tried. Festering is a good motivator to cure. A bad "cure" is often fatal and can delay real progress.

The bill as passed can accommodate for tort reform and state competition in the future. I fully expect these initiatives to be incorporated in the next 5 years.

-spence

Good luck with that.