Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 05:47:13 -0500 From: MD <[email protected]> Because the bill excludes tort reform, one of the foremost factors in causing health care in America to be so expensive? Also, the bill doesn't change the current restrictions on health insurance companies that prevent them from competing nationwide? These two provisions alone would reduce health care costs considerably and make health insurance more affordable for millions of Americans.
It will be easier for us (or for me at least) if you explain the reason for the exclusions? Weather republicans or democrats. Because, if what President Obama had in mind, could not get through to pass into a bill, there is a compromise formula. 'You scratch my donkey...I scratch your ***? It would be great if you explain this. American politics and how it functions is beyond many of us. Mario responds: MD, first of all thanks for the opportunity to explain what is going on here. Like any democratic political process when you have a country that is as politically divided as we are now, the process is like making chorizos, but I will explain as best I can. It is important for non-Americans to know this stuff, because, love us or hate us, you cannot prosper without us, or be able to preserve your freedom and democracy without our presence. If you don't believe me, think of who in this world can count on any western European country in any dire emergency, either financial or political. The US has three co-equal branches of government: the Executive Branch, i.e. the President, the Legislative Branch, which has 435 members in the House of Representatives and 100 members in the Senate, and the Judicial Branch, i.e. the Supreme Court, which is like a referee. Any one of these can stop the other cold under proper constitutional circumstances. When you see people, including me, say without qualification that Bush did this or Clinton did that or Obama did something, the fact is they can do NOTHING on their own which cannot be stopped or changed by one of the other two branches. The President can lead, inspire, propose, influence, cajole, pursuade, veto, and get people to lobby their representatives, but he still depends on constitutional acquiescience and voting majorities to get his way. For example, President Bush, who was constitutionally in-charge of foreign policy, could order the attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan, but he got prior agreement from the Legislature because they have primary responsibility for the budget and could have stopped him that way. Which is what the Democrats did under political pressure from the anti-war-wing to force the US to withdraw from Vietnam just as they were winning. We now have a radical far left wing President Hussein Obama, who is a Democrat and wants to turn America upside down and make it more like Europe. Then we have the House of Representatives, where we currently have 257 Democrats (59%) and 178 (41%) Republicans. In the Senate we have 58 Democrats, 40 Republicans and 2 Independants who vote mostly with the Democrats. Thus the Democrats have complete control of the US government right now if they all voted as one, which they do most of the time, but not always. Remember, a few Democrats are conservative just as a few Republicans are liberals and these may side with the opposition on a case by case basis. This assumes they do everything lawfully under the constitution. If not the Supreme Court could step in to stop them. President Obama and the Democrat leadership have shown no interest in compromising with the Republicans and are trying to ram through this bill with their majorities. However, the problem they are running into is that not all Democrats are going along with the Democrat leadership, especially those who were elected in relatively conservative districts, who are worried about re-election next year. In the House to pass a bill requires 218 votes. In the Senate, it requires 61 votes because of certain legislative rules and procedures. A bill like health care reform must pass both the House and Senate. The Democrats did not allow a single Republican to include amendments or proposals in their bill. This is why tort reform and insurance reform were excluded. When put to the vote the Democrat bill passed 220 to 215. One Republican voted for the bill and 38 Democrats voted against it. The Senate has not taken up their version yet. If they vote it down that means the health care bill is dead. If they pass a Senate version with 61 votes then they will have to get together with the House and come up with a compromise version that can pass both houses. Such compromise versions require simple majorities in both houses. The reason tort reform has been excluded by the Democrats is because the Trial Lawyers are a powerful political lobby and overwhelmingly support the Democrats financially. These lawyers oppose tort reform because it will restrict their ability to bring frivolous lawsuits against medical service providers, which is one reason health care is so expensive. In the US such frivolous lawsuits put tremendous financial burdens on a medical service provider, because even if they win it comes at a high cost in time and attorney fees which are not compensated by those bringing the frivolous lawsuit. Of course, these lawyers think none of their lawsuits are frivolous. To pay these costs medical service providers carry malpractice insurance which is expensive. In addition they practice "defensively", i.e. do many additional tests and procedures they would not do otherwise which can be used in a possible lawsuit to show they did everything possible, which adds costs as well. All this puts an unnecessary burden on the patient and their health care insurance premiums, which then some cannot afford. Good tort reform would make the losing side pay the costs of the winning side, which would eliminate frivolous lawsuits and focus only on real malpractice. The Republicans tried very hard to include such reform but every attempt was voted down by the overwhelming Democrat majority. In the US private health insurance has been regulated by individual states which restrict the insurance companies who can do business in the state and also restrict what they can offer or not offer. This restricts the market for each insurance company which raises the cost of insurance which can vary wildly from state to state. Reform in this case would remove restrictions and allow the insurance companies to compete nationwide - just like every other insurance that we have like homeowners, auto insurance, life insurance etc. This open competition would reduce the number of insurance companies, increase the volume of business that each survivor will do, and will reduce costs without doing anything else. Most Democrats even opposed this with their votes when the Republicans proposed it because of political pressure from those insurance companies who will not be able to compete nationally. MD wrote: About abortion, let me explain, there are pills, the morning after, I think some schools even provide 'rain coats'. That being the case, why get pregnant if you do not want to? Aborting a healthy foetus I believe is morally wrong. The mother if not immediately, will suffer for this immoral act. At the same time, so many couples in America are on the waiting list with the adoption agencies, so why not deliver the healthy baby and give it out for adoption. The only reason could be the mothers are concerned about keeping their figure. But the mother will always have thought about the child she aborted. Prevention is better than cure, is it not? This is not an issue that only concerns Catholic Bishops, this is Humanitarian issue. What do Pro-Lifers comment about this? Mario responds: Pro-lifers like me who prefer the adoption alternative, agree with you 100%, but do not have the votes to change the laws that allow abortions on demand in the first trimester, and later abortions depending on the health of the mother. There are many Christian organizations that encourage adoptions as an alternative to abortions, but we still have over a million abortions each year because most political liberals support a woman's right to have an abortion. BTW, President Hussein Obama is the most pro-abortion president in US history and gets tremendous political support from pro-abortionists who are overwhelmingly political liberals. When he was a state Senator in Illinois he even voted four times AGAINST a bill called the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, that requires medical facilities to take steps to preserve the life of a baby born from a botched abortion. Previously, those babies were left to die unattended. His explanation was that it would be a first step towards restricting abortions. During the campaign last year he said that if his daughters got pregnant inadvertantly he would not want them to be "punished with a baby". Apparently, he considers a child from an unexpected pregnancy to be a "punishment", instead of supporting the adoption alternative as you have suggested. The issue of abortion in the health care bill is that conservatives do not want any taxpayer funding for abortions, whereas the liberals do, as you saw in the original post from Venantius that started this thread. Conservative Democrats got an amendment to the House bill passed that abortions would not be paid for with tax-payer money. Now we hear that Obama will try and re-insert the provision in the bill so that abortions will be paid for. The Catholic Bishops will not be happy: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/15/axelrod-signals-obama-try-strip-abortion-language-health-care/ MD wrote: To finance this, the Bonus to chief Executives can be taxed 80% or more, Troops from Afghanistan should be brought back home, Similarly Iraq should be asked to repay what US has spent for its liberation. It is an oil rich country that has considerable crude oil. If we think rationally, there is answer in itself for every problem,there could be somany avenues where savings will be possible and what is wrong in having a deficit budget,that can be balanced in the coming years, once the economy pics up. Mario responds: What you consider "rational", others may consider "irrational". For example, leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban and exhorbitant tax rates on the most productive income earners who already pay most of the income taxes would be considered irrational by a political conservative like myself. I would support making Iraq repay the debt they owe to the US once Iraq is stabilized and the sectarian insurgents are stopped. There is nothing wrong with having a deficit as long as the country's GDP keeps pace. At the end of the Bush term the deficit was 3.5% of GDP, whereas it was 10% after one year under Obama and expected to go even higher, while the unemployment rate has gone from a high of 5.8% under Bush to 10.2% under Obama and expected to go even higher. The reason is that Obama's deficit spending is not aimed at the small and medium sized businesses that create economic activity and over 80% of the jobs in the US. Instead it is aimed at preserving local, state and federal government jobs, which are mostly unproductive and a burden on the economy. In addition, he is creating massive economic uncertainty by forcing into the current mix very bad health care and climate change proposals, which cause businesses to be very careful in implementing growth and hiring plans because they have no idea what additional costs they will incur down the road.
