The Debate Hall Social Thread

[Aesir]

I mean yeah, does anyone really think that the outcome of this trial isn't pre-determined? There may be procedural reasons why some people want a civilian trial, but there's zero chance that KSM gets acquitted no matter where or how he's tried.

In this case no, but in other cases? you bet. In the KSM case he already pleaded guilty so it wouldn't even go to trial. Literally it would take 5 minutes, and he would be put behind bars. In other cases of "suspected" terrorists yes I would support federal trials, because there's always the chance we're wrong like so many of the suspected terrorists in Gitmo.

We should handle these cases the say way we handled the OK city bomber.

Also Succumbio's analysis while simple really strikes at the heart of it, everyone in that room is a member of the military do you honestly think they're going to give you a fair unbiased trial? Of course not, the judge is a soldier, the jury are soldiers, opposing counsel is a soldier, and your defender is a soldier. There's going to be a lot of bias in that trial. In a civilian trial there's less of a chance that'll happen. Unless of course it was in NY, but if they handle the case like we did the OK city bomber than that shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Why is a soldier more likely to be biased than a civilian? They're both equally likely to be targeted by terrorists.

 

[Aesir]

Why is a soldier more likely to be biased than a civilian? They're both equally likely to be targeted by terrorists.

Soldiers interact with them far more on a regular basis, I don't understand where you think we're both equally targeted when it's soldiers coming back from Afghanistan maimed. A soldier interacts with a terrorist more than a civilian does, I don't even understand how you can dispute this but whatever. It's because of that interaction it doesn't make them the best judge if a suspect is a terrorist or not.


Furthermore military tribunals have low standards of evidence, I forgot to mention that.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Soldiers interact with them far more on a regular basis, I don't understand where you think we're both equally targeted when it's soldiers coming back from Afghanistan maimed. A soldier interacts with a terrorist more than a civilian does, I don't even understand how you can dispute this but whatever. It's because of that interaction it doesn't make them the best judge if a suspect is a terrorist or not.


Furthermore military tribunals have low standards of evidence, I forgot to mention that.

The World Trade Center was a civilian target. The airline over Detroit was a civilian target. The federal building in Oklahoma City was a civilian target. The shoe bomber targeted civilians. The foiled attack on JFK airport was targeting civilians. I could go on and on, but I think I've proved the point.

 

[Aesir]

The World Trade Center was a civilian target. The airline over Detroit was a civilian target. The federal building in Oklahoma City was a civilian target. The shoe bomber targeted civilians. The foiled attack on JFK airport was targeting civilians. I could go on and on, but I think I've proved the point.

What exactly do you think you've proven? Terrorist attacks on US soil? Big deal. These guys fight terrorists in the middle east all the time, do you really think our experience amounts to even a days worth of theirs? You haven't proven anything.

Also you realize a majority of those attacks have been tried in federal courts right?

 

[Jam Stunna]

I didn't say that civilian experience is equal to soldier's experience. I said that civilians are as likely to be targeted by terrorists as soldiers are, and provided a list of examples to illustrate this. Contact with terrorists is not my point.

Besides, I don't understand the basis of your complaint about the military not being impartial. Are you suggesting that the military system of justice is incapable of being impartial by its very nature? And if so, where is your proof for this claim? Simply saying, "They're soldiers, they can't be impartial" is not only a weak argument, it's a pretty broad slap to the people who make up the military. They're not zealots or maniacs, they're soldiers, and many of them are regular people who in times of peace do regular things. By putting on a uniform, do they suddenly lose their capacity to consider evidence and determine guilt or innocence accordingly?

 

[Aesir]

I didn't say that civilian experience is equal to soldier's experience. I said that civilians are as likely to be targeted by terrorists as soldiers are, and provided a list of examples to illustrate this. Contact with terrorists is not my point.

A soldier is more likely to be the target of a terrorist. I don't see how you can argue against that. When they're the ones who are actually fighting with terrorists them selves, they're far more open to attacks than we are.

Besides, I don't understand the basis of your complaint about the military not being impartial. Are you suggesting that the military system of justice is incapable of being impartial by its very nature? And if so, where is your proof for this claim? Simply saying, "They're soldiers, they can't be impartial" is not only a weak argument, it's a pretty broad slap to the people who make up the military. They're not zealots or maniacs, they're soldiers, and many of them are regular people who in times of peace do regular things. By putting on a uniform, do they suddenly lose their capacity to consider evidence and determine guilt or innocence accordingly?

Oh please, I'm saying their experience as a soldier doesn't exactly make them impartial. I'm not saying they're going to deliberately go out of their way to find someone guilty. However given the low standard of evidence and the people who are actually seeing the trial, not to mention the lack of an appeals process a military tribunal is not a good alternative to federal courts. Simple as that.

It's a culmination of different things that makes the process lose credibility.

 

[Jam Stunna]

There's a big difference between this statement:

.

Also Succumbio's analysis while simple really strikes at the heart of it, everyone in that room is a member of the military do you honestly think they're going to give you a fair unbiased trial? Of course not, the judge is a soldier, the jury are soldiers, opposing counsel is a soldier, and your defender is a soldier. There's going to be a lot of bias in that trial.

and this one:

Oh please, I'm saying their experience as a soldier doesn't exactly make them impartial. I'm not saying they're going to deliberately go out of their way to find someone guilty. However given the low standard of evidence and the people who are actually seeing the trial, not to mention the lack of an appeals process a military tribunal is not a good alternative to federal courts. Simple as that.

It's a culmination of different things that makes the process lose credibility.

Like I've said before, if you believe that the structural differences between a civilian trial and a military tribunal is problematic, then fine, that's a defensible opinion. It's not defensible to say that simply because a soldier is a soldier that their impartiality is compromised. The suggestion seems to be that military justice is inherently biased and arbitrary, and I vehemently disagree with that.

 

[Sucumbio]

Here's several points that may help clear some of this up for us. -souce

In November, 2001, President George W. Bush issued an executive order allowing persons involved with terrorism, whether captured in the United States or abroad, to be tried by military commissions. The order was met with some criticism because of fears of the possibility that citizens, or others, could have their civil rights violated in a court with lower standards of evidence than a civil court, and with the possibility of an unappealable death sentence. Others countered that terrorists placed themselves outside of civil society, and the rules thereof, of their own volition, and did not deserve the protections of the Constitution.

The UCMJ and the Court-Martial:

Military justice is a separate entity from civilian justice. Members of the military can be tried in a court-martial (military court) under the rules of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The UCMJ defines crimes that are the same as those in civilian courts, such as murder, ****, and robbery. But it also includes violations of order and discipline, such as disobedience to a superior officer, drunkenness on duty, misconduct as a prisoner of war, even adultery.

Each armed force has its own judicial system, and unless under circumstances prescribed by the President, members of one service are not prosecuted under the courts-martial of another. For non-service personnel, the accused is held under the court of the service that has the person in custody. General courts-martial can try a service member for any crime described in the UCMJ, including capital crimes (those for which the death penalty can apply). A general court-martial cannot try a non-service member for a capital crime. Special and summary courts-martial have more limited jurisdictions.

Many rights of the accused familiar in civilian courts are present in military court, but to a much more limited degree. The right against self-incrimination exists, for example, the accused must be informed of the crime, and double jeopardy is prohibited. The Court of Military Appeals has held that all rights afforded civilians are afforded service members, unless the UCMJ expressly overrides a right. As for the votes of the court-martial, the death penalty must be found by a unanimous vote. Other offenses are by a two-thirds vote. Sentences of ten years confinement or more must be agreed by three-fourths of the court.

Civilian courts have no jurisdiction to review military cases, with the sole exception of the Supreme Court, which, in 1984, was given appellate jurisdiction over the Court of Military Appeals. The only remaining exception to this exclusive jurisdiction is the habeas corpus process, in which a civilian court can compel the military to show cause to hold a prisoner.

Each service has a Judge Advocate General or JAG. The Judge Advocate General has a staff of judge advocates, who perform the roles of defense attorney and prosecutor. The term "judge" is historical and does not indicate the person acts as a judge in the sense that they preside over a case.

Not only do military courts follow their own rules in the UCMJ, but they are seemingly "above" the law in some respects, including this wiggle room for UCMJ exceptions to override certain rights.

This shouldn't come as a surprise, either. When you sign up for the military, you agree to enter into the organization, effectively willing away your rights as a civilian. This does not mean you have no rights, of course, but it does mean that your rights are no longer civilian in nature. You have effectively ceased to be civilian, and are now part of another group of people, military personnel.

The suggestion seems to be that military justice is inherently biased and arbitrary, and I vehemently disagree with that.

Well i think what he's driving at with this:

the judge is a soldier, the jury are soldiers, opposing counsel is a soldier, and your defender is a soldier.

... imagine going to trial for **** and it turns out your Judge is a former **** victim, as is your prosecutor, all the jurors, and even your defense attorney!

I know that seems silly but what he's really pointing out is that a military court room does not have non-military personnel involved, and as such, this lends itself automatically to a certain type of bias, Ingroup bias. Essentially its you the accused vs they the court-martial and because of this you're less apt to receive fair treatment. At least in a civilian court setting, you the accused rapist, murderer, etc. will be tried in front of jury of broad spectrum peers, who come from different walks of life, share different views, have different value sets etc. That's not to say jugheads are all clones. It's to say that in any way that matters in terms of a court setting, they are all clones.

 

[Aesir]

There's a big difference between this statement:



and this one:



Like I've said before, if you believe that the structural differences between a civilian trial and a military tribunal is problematic, then fine, that's a defensible opinion. It's not defensible to say that simply because a soldier is a soldier that their impartiality is compromised. The suggestion seems to be that military justice is inherently biased and arbitrary, and I vehemently disagree with that.

It is bias and arbitrary because of the structure of the system. Military tribunals are designed to give speedy trials, often times justice is over looked for that speed. It's a legitimate point to bring up. and the partiality of the people hearing the case is legitimate. I'm not saying everyone in the military is out for blood but it's open to bias and corruption, where a federal court not so much.


Edit: off topic, we should all come up with our own health care bills and post them and have a good ol fashion debate about it and see who has the better proposal

 

[blazedaces]

Edit: off topic, we should all come up with our own health care bills and post them and have a good ol fashion debate about it and see who has the better proposal

Yeah, I was considering posting something about health care. Sounds like a plan, I'll come up with something by the end of the weekend. -blazed

 

[Jam Stunna]

Edit: off topic, we should all come up with our own health care bills and post them and have a good ol fashion debate about it and see who has the better proposal

Single payer.

If you're going to do it, go all the way.

 

[Sucumbio]

First: A quick comparison chart. The US is flat out SAD.

Health care plan of choice: Universal Health Care

How is it paid for: Health Tax, 6% of gross taxable income charged to all taxable wages earned. This is in addition to current federal withholding.

Who is/not covered: All citizens living in the US irregardless of their tax status are covered. This also includes unemployed, homeless, disabled, retired, etc. Citizens living/working abroad (who are not paying the 6% tax as a result) are not covered, but may elect to pay an estimated market cost for public health care services, or may go for private services. The same would go for non-citizens, visitors, or illegals.

What does it/not cover: all physical and mental health screenings, evaluations, treatments, experimental treatments, inpatient/outpatient services, prescriptions, hospital stays, ER, and ambulance/airlift services.

Dental is covered for all citizens under the age of 18 and includes 2 yearly checkups/cleanings, free x-rays and fillings for cavities, treatment surgery for cleft palette, and free evaluation for orthodontic procedures. Recommended orthodontic procedures that fall under cosmetic surgery are not covered (see below). Citizens over 18 years of age may continue to visit with their Dentist/Orthodontist at their own expense or under a supplemental coverage system (ie Delta Dental, etc.)

Vision is covered for all citizens. This includes 1 yearly checkup, free prescriptions for corrective lenses, treatment or surgery for lazy eye syndrome, treatment for glaucoma, retinal detachment or trauma, and free consultation for Lasik eye surgery. Purchase of corrective lenses will remain a private responsibility as would Lasik eye surgery.

Cosmetic Surgery related to a serious health hazard (ie burn victims, pre-cancerous moles or other skin lesions, sex reassignment surgery, etc.) will be fully covered. Non-serious health issues will be paid for in private.

Implementation:

A "ramp-up" period of 3 years will be set forth to allow the current system to shift from private to public. During this time frame, the tax will slowly increase each year from 2% to 4% then 6% while similarly private insurers will relinquish health care responsibility gradually. This will take place across the full spectrum of citizens, with special attention paid at first to hospitals, in-patient and out-patient care, and first responders. Family Care practitioners will similarly change over time from charging health care providers to charging the government. All private transactions will remain private until such time as the specific practice or procedure is caught under the umbrella of the government plan.

Articles of Attachment (special needs, veterans benefits, medicare or other elderly/retired supplemental plans, etc.):

Any special needs citizen will be granted the same treatment and care, but during the ramp-up period these cases will continue to be handled by private insurers or their respective current systems (medicare/medicaid, VA benefits, etc.) This will allow for extra time to be taken where these services are involved, and for a swift rather than gradual change to take place at the end of the 3 year period.

Ethical Decisions: The universal government health care plan will NOT force any ethical decisions upon its practitioners.

For example, a doctor may make an ethical decision to not write Oxycotin prescriptions except for hospice patients.

Or, a doctor may make an ethical decision to refuse to perform abortion procedures except in situations where the mother's life is threatened.

Or, a pharmacy may refuse to give the "morning after" pill without a prescription.

Compensation:

All practitioners will receive their compensation for services rendered from the government universal health care fund. Practitioners include doctors, surgeons, nurses, pharmacists, pharmaceutical companies, medical technology developers, medical building and planning contractors, transportation contractors and medical specialists.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Bumping this to make a fairly bold statement, but I think I don't hold the view in singularity:

Dre's more recent posts are, @ the very least, smart trolling.

I'm really finding it hard to find any good in his arguments (especially on some of his responses to GS).

I want to know what others think about this though, so feel free to reply.

Elsewhere, Bob Jane is coming along nicely. He should definitely be let in soon.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Bumping this to make a fairly bold statement, but I think I don't hold the view in singularity:

Dre's more recent posts are, @ the very least, smart trolling.

I'm really finding it hard to find any good in his arguments (especially on some of his responses to GS).

I wouldn't go so far as smart trolling. HOWEVER, I'm not so much in support of Dre anymore. I'm kind of on the fence. Dre uses anecdotal evidence too much, unfortunately. I would like to hear other people's opinions, because like I said I'm not really leaning towards either side right now.

I want to know what others think about this though, so feel free to reply.

Elsewhere, Bob Jane is coming along nicely. He should definitely be let in soon.

Agreed. Bob Jane is good.


------------------------------------------


Hey, I was thinking of posting a new topic, but I'm not sure yet. It's kind of a philosophical/moral debate. Remember when we had that topic about whether people can really fundamentally change? It's similar to that. I was going to specifically bring up the case of Stanley "Tookie" Williams, who was one of the two main founders of the Crips, a notorious Los Angeles street gang. Williams was caught committing a series of robberies, during which he killed four people. He was sentenced to the death penalty. Long story short, he seemed to have a change of heart while in jail and was actually nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for his anti-gang books. Thousands of people were asking governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to grant Williams clemency, but he declined, and Williams was put to death (in 2004). Basically, the gist of the debate is whether people can really change, and to a more specific extent, how much does the type of crime play into it and what must be done to prove to the public that you've changed.

I might post this topic if there's some support for it. If you don't support it that's fine, and I can understand why since it's very abstract/philosophical/moral in nature.

 

[Sucumbio]

awesome topic idea, go for it...

Dre. ... ... . I dunno, lol. I want to think he'd be a decent debater, but then I see his posts (did anyone read his posts in the 'Ask an Atheist' UB?) and its clear he's not actually debating, he's arguing. The key difference is that a debate -uses- arguments (in addition to other debate tools), it's not the argument itself. When he submits an argument, and its rebutted, he fails to re-posit his idea in a more convincing or clear-cut manner, and instead literally rehashes what he's said. Lastly, and most importantly, he has failed to demonstrate his ability to properly cite materials and sources. I know we're not writing book reports here, but seriously, if I were his teacher I'd have flunked him on this point. In fact I made several pointers on proper debate strategy and technique way early on when he showed up and he's taken almost none of it to heart, and to his own detriment.

Bob T should have already been up in here, dunno what the hold up is...

 

[Aesir]

I'm against Dre now.

Also I didn't think people would actually follow through with my health care proposal ideals so I'll just drop mine. I wrote up the major provisions as I sat in during a committee meeting a week ago. (yeah I have a lot of free time during my internship)

• Abolish Medicaid
• Abolish CHIP
• Expand Medicare to all Americans
• Medicare will cover 60% of Health Care costs
• Private insurance companies may exist still, and can be used to cover the additional 40% and offer more coverage
• Remove the subsidies insurance companies have, and revoke their anti-trust law protections. (No more will we have states like Maine who only have one health insurance company)
• Hospitals and clinics can be privately and publicly owned, this is to prevent hospitals from failing and to prevent wait times as seen in Canada.

That's the general gist of it.

 

[Sucumbio]

• Abolish Medicaid

Definitely.

• Abolish CHIP

Sure, so long as there's some other program enabled to ensure all children regardless of their parent's tax status are covered.

• Expand Medicare to all Americans

Medicare is crap. It's not only fairly limited in -what- it covers, it also institutes the "doughnut." While expanding a program to cover all citizens is a great idea, the type of program that's expanded is important also. In this vein I'd say Medicare would work if and only if Medicare was completely revamped to mirror better coverage choices like HMOs.

• Medicare will cover 60% of Health Care costs

Ironically, Medicare currently only covers about that much in terms of total Health Care needs.

• Private insurance companies may exist still, and can be used to cover the additional 40% and offer more coverage

Ok, this does help alleviate the problems with Universal Medicare, but it still requires the US citizen to be gainfully employed, which is why CHIP would not want to be removed in this case, because you'll end up with too many children without total health coverage (true they'd have the 60% via universal medicare, but a child needs 100%).

• Remove the subsidies insurance companies have, and revoke their anti-trust law protections. (No more will we have states like Maine who only have one health insurance company)

Excellent suggestions here.

• Hospitals and clinics can be privately and publicly owned, this is to prevent hospitals from failing and to prevent wait times as seen in Canada.

So rather than one or the other, combine the funding? I like that, it'd absolutely assist in maintaining poorer community hospitals. I do not quite see how this affects wait times, though, can you elaborate on this point?

 

[Aesir]

Sure, so long as there's some other program enabled to ensure all children regardless of their parent's tax status are covered.

It's called Medicare

Medicare is crap. It's not only fairly limited in -what- it covers, it also institutes the "doughnut." While expanding a program to cover all citizens is a great idea, the type of program that's expanded is important also. In this vein I'd say Medicare would work if and only if Medicare was completely revamped to mirror better coverage choices like HMOs.

You do realize you basically argued for a medicare system right? (Part D was a mistake, that should be repealed asap.) Medicare is single payer health care. I'm putting everyone under the same system because it increases the bargaining power of the system. One of the main problems with Medicare is it's toothless, this will help give it back some of the teeth it's lost over the years of deregulation and reaganism. When medicare was first introduced it was a strong system but over the years it's power has been reduced to being a mostly toothless system.

We need a governmental body to argue down the prices for medical equipment, drugs and other miscellaneous things. That's where most of our money is being spent. In the US you can spend anywhere from 100-150 dollars on a standard doctor visit. In France it'll cost you 33 dollars. other countries get more bang for their buck we don't, it's because we spend about 3x more than any other industrialized country, they don't have an out of control market because the government regulates that market.

Ironically, Medicare currently only covers about that much in terms of total Health Care needs.

Yeah that's a problem, I'm not saying medicare is perfect, but I'm saying we put everyone under that system and make it stronger.

Ok, this does help alleviate the problems with Universal Medicare, but it still requires the US citizen to be gainfully employed, which is why CHIP would not want to be removed in this case, because you'll end up with too many children without total health coverage (true they'd have the 60% via universal medicare, but a child needs 100%)

Generally I would argue that children and the elderly would be given 100% all costs paid for. If you're under 18 and over 65 you don't pay a dime.

So rather than one or the other, combine the funding? I like that, it'd absolutely assist in maintaining poorer community hospitals. I do not quite see how this affects wait times, though, can you elaborate on this point?

The biggest problem with Canada's wait times is they do not have a private system to alleviate the burdens. This is why in France you don't see wait times, they have a system that uses both the public hospitals/clinics along with the private ones. Basically we're mitigating the flow so the system doesn't get bogged down.

 

[blazedaces]

Just wanted to say that I had my power out till just last night since Saturday, which is why I had not posted anything. But I'm wondering if you guys are up for me making ... another... health-care/health-bill thread? I've been revved up by the current political atmosphere, plus I listen to NPR a lot more these days. -blazed

 

[Aesir]

God I love my country

Once again I'm reminded that the Republican party is just obstructing for the sake of obstructing. The whole "deem and Pass" procedure otherwise known as the self-executing rule. Which is a completely legitimate process in the house. They keep making this an argument about procedure instead of about substance. First with reconciliation and now this? it's pretty absurd.

in any case I can't wait till this is all over, it's been a stressful year watching this bull crap.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Yeah, it's ridiculous. They're more concerned with being re-elected than doing what right for the country.


EDIT: Hopefully (homework permitting) I'll be able to get that topic up this weekend.

 

[Aesir]

I must say, I never would have expected the Democrats to drop the whole "Deem and pass" thing to troll the republicans and distract them while they get the votes they need to pass health care reform.

Yeah they're trying to out fox the republicans, I guess we'll be able to see if it passes on Sunday lol.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I bet it'll make it through the house, but I'm worried about the senate.

 

[Aesir]

If the house passes the senate bill which they will, the senate will just fix it through reconciliation which only requires 51 votes. Passing the house has been the hurtle once it's done with that we're basically home free.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Yeah, it's ridiculous. They're more concerned with being re-elected than doing what right for the country.


EDIT: Hopefully (homework permitting) I'll be able to get that topic up this weekend.

Isn't that every political party lol? They want to be re-elected, and then do what they think is best for themselves and the country. That's why they take may bribes, listen lobbyists etc. Seriously, you don't listen to lobbyists, if you want good policy.

Furthermore, don't the Democrats have a majority in the Senate? I know that some Democrats will vote against the health-care reform bill, but it won't be that many to stop the bill being passed through, right?

I'm not really all that familiar with politics in the USA, so if I look like an idiot, it's either because of that, or because I'm an idiot.

Edit: I'm actually allowed in YES!

 

[Aesir]

They lost their filibuster proof majority during the Mass elections when Ted Kennedy's vaccant seat was open due to his death.

so now they have 59 seats. Which means they can be filibustered

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

They lost their filibuster proof majority during the Mass elections when Ted Kennedy's vaccant seat was open due to his death.

so now they have 59 seats. Which means they can be filibustered

So basically, the Republicans can just talk forever about the bill, so that it doesn't get passed?

And why does a majority of 60 as opposed to 59 stop them from being filibustered?

 

[adumbrodeus]

So basically, the Republicans can just talk forever about the bill, so that it doesn't get passed?

And why does a majority of 60 as opposed to 59 stop them from being filibustered?

60 allows them to pass a motion to end debate and take a floor vote, said motion has priority, so they can interrupt.

 

[Jam Stunna]

said motion has priority, so they can interrupt.

If only all debates could be explained in gaming terminology.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Isn't that every political party lol? They want to be re-elected, and then do what they think is best for themselves and the country. That's why they take may bribes, listen lobbyists etc. Seriously, you don't listen to lobbyists, if you want good policy.

Furthermore, don't the Democrats have a majority in the Senate? I know that some Democrats will vote against the health-care reform bill, but it won't be that many to stop the bill being passed through, right?

I'm not really all that familiar with politics in the USA, so if I look like an idiot, it's either because of that, or because I'm an idiot.

Edit: I'm actually allowed in YES!

The main difference is that some democrats are willing to vote outside party lines; the same cannot be said of the republicans as we can see based on the polls in the house of representatives. As of 11pm last night, 31 democrats were voting against health care and 29 were undecided. Every single republican (178 in the house) confirmed that they would vote it down.

Of the 29 undecided voters (all democrats), the bill needs 23 of them to vote yes for it to pass. It's going to be close.

Also, congrats on making it into the DH!

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Oh, I suppose that that makes sense. Thanks guys for letting me in by the way!

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Oh, I suppose that that makes sense. Thanks guys for letting me in by the way!

Congrats mah d00d. :bigthumbu

Elsewhere, it finally happened.

Albeit considering the enormous amount of concessions made for it, was it really worth it?

I think I would say no to this. What would the rest of you guys say?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I think I would say no to this. What would the rest of you guys say?

I wouldn't know, but it how many more people will it cover? Somewhere in the realm of 32 million, I think. That has to be good news. Furthermore, it may reduce the government deficit by close to $1 trillion. It probably is worth it.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I wouldn't know, but it how many more people will it cover? Somewhere in the realm of 32 million, I think. That has to be good news. Furthermore, it may reduce the government deficit by close to $1 trillion. It probably is worth it.

Correct. About 32 million more americans will be covered under this bill.

Here's some other things the bill would do:

-- Creates a public health insurance option and a national exchange for the uninsured and small businesses to purchase health insurance. The Secretary of Health and Human Services would negotiate rates with doctors and hospitals on reimbursement rates.

-- The bill includes mandates for individuals to purchase and businesses to provide health insurance or pay a fine. Individual penalty is 2.5 percent of gross income unless they get a waiver. Businesses that don't offer insurance pay a fine equal to 8 percent of their payroll. Businesses with a payroll of less than $500,000 are exempt from the mandate.

-- Insurance companies are prohibited from denying coverage based on a pre-existing condition. There are caps on deductibles and annual out of pocket spending is capped at $5000.

-- Eliminates the Medicare doughnut hole* over ten years.

-- Allows individuals up to 27-years-old to stay on their parent's health insurance

-- Expands Medicaid from 100 percent to 150 percent of the Federal Poverty Level.

-- Provides tax subsidies for individuals between 150 and 400 percent (sliding scale) of the Federal Poverty Level. There are also tax subsidies for small businesses.

-- As amended, it prohibits federal funds from covering abortions. Women would need to purchase riders to insurance purchased on the exchange if they wanted that coverage.

-- The bill taxes individuals making more than $500,000 and $1 million for couples. It is a 5.4 percent tax.

-- Reduces overpayments to doctors who treat Medicare Advantage patients. It is estimated they are paid 14 percent more than doctors who treat Medicare patients.

*

Spoiler

The medicare doughnut hole is basically when a medicare beneficiary exceeds a certain level of cost for Medicare and is forced to pay for their own perscription drugs. Expenses in this "doughnut hole" can reach up to $3600.

There are plenty of great parts to this bill, so I'm glad the house passed it.

 

[CRASHiC]

I'd like to point out the the suit to be filed by Virgina is completely insane.

I believe their reasoning for it being unconstitutional went something like "Never in the history of this country has our citizens been required to purchase a good or service"

What state do these people live in? In this state, (Virgina), you are required to purchase a vehical inspection from a car repair shop onnce a year. The requirements in this bill of the individual are far less than that. I'm glad I'm moving in 4 months, because this place is crazy.

-craws back into the shadows to prepare more trolls for Skylar-

 

[Jam Stunna]

I'd like to point out the the suit to be filed by Virgina is completely insane.

I believe their reasoning for it being unconstitutional went something like "Never in the history of this country has our citizens been required to purchase a good or service"

What state do these people live in? In this state, (Virgina), you are required to purchase a vehical inspection from a car repair shop onnce a year. The requirements in this bill of the individual are far less than that. I'm glad I'm moving in 4 months, because this place is crazy.

-craws back into the shadows to prepare more trolls for Skylar-

The difference is that those are state laws. States can make you do all sorts of things; the argument is that the federal government doesn't have the power under the Constitution to compel a citizen to purchase a service.

It's a fair question, but the way it's being used as a political tactic is shameful.

 

[Aesir]

The bill could possibly get better, just as long as the senate can get the reconciliation bill through the reconciliation process.

None of this couldn't have been possible had it not been for Obama upping his rhetoric, and Nancy doing her thing behind the scenes.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I'm interested to know how some topics might go down here for debates. See, I have a few debate topics that have been stewing in my mind, and I want to know what you guys think of them.

• Obesity: How do we tackle the problem?
• Population: 6 Billion and Counting, is that too many?

So, what do you think?

 

[Jam Stunna]

They could be okay, although I think you might be playing with fire with the second topic.

I read these two op-eds today, and I thought they were really good.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/03/18/why_cant_uncle_sam_learn.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/19/AR2010031903679.html

Part of the problem is that "education reform" itself is an industry, and no plan, no matter how great it is, will work if it's constantly being changed.