This bodes well, I believe, for moderates and Independents as I detail:
http://themoderatevoice.com/55994/independents-…

Actually, Sil, it seems that you didn't study very well if you think that the General Welfare Clause has any weight at all. Indeed, the General Welfare Clause is surplussage, and has been since the days when the Chief Justice of the United States was John Jay. Nothing can use the General Welfare Clause as backing for legislation. It is merely preambulatory, and preambulatory language, like the Militia Clause of the Second Amendment, the Preamble itself, and the Sciences and Useful Arts Clause, cannot be used to justify legislation. So, no general welfare clause. It carries no meaning in law, and has not since the earliest days of the Republic.

Yup, no serious Constitutional scholar, or person who spent any real quality time researching this would make a argument using the General Welfare Clause.

I have to agree: it's looking more like pure pork all the time.

Here is a rundown by the Associated Press.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALe…

A few nuggets

SEN. BEN NELSON, D-NEB., who provided the critical 60th vote that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid needed, received numerous benefits for Nebraska, along with tighter curbs on abortion. Among the Nebraska-specific provisions:
_The federal government will pick up the full cost of a proposed expansion of Medicaid, at an estimated cost of $100 million over 10 years.
_Blue Cross Blue Shield of Nebraska will be exempted from an annual fee on insurers; the exemption could also apply to nonprofit insurers in other states, possibly including Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan.
_Supplemental “Medigap” policies such as those sold by Mutual of Omaha are exempted from the annual fee on insurers, something that would help other companies selling such policies.
_A physician-owned hospital being built in Bellevue, Neb., could get referrals from doctors who own it, avoiding a new ban in the Senate bill that will apply to hospitals built in the future. Without mentioning Nebraska or other states by name, the Senate bill pushes back some legal deadlines by several months, in effect making a few hospitals near completion eligible to continue receiving referrals from the doctors who own them.

SEN. BILL NELSON, D-FLA., pushed a provision he said will let about 800,000 Florida seniors enrolled in private Medicare Advantage plans keep their extra benefits. It also helps seniors in a handful of other states. Elsewhere, Medicare Advantage patients risk losing benefits because the private plans are a major target of planned cuts to Medicare.

The American Medical Association announced its coveted endorsement Monday after Reid made a series of change to please doctors, including eliminating a 5 percent tax on elective cosmetic surgery procedures, replacing it with a 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services; eliminating payment cuts to specialty and other physicians that were to be used to pay for bonuses to primary care physicians and general surgeons in underserved areas (the bonuses remain); and dropping a proposed $300 fee (to be used to fight fraud) on physicians who participate in Medicare.

Doctors and hospitals in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming will get paid more than providers in other states under formulas in the bill designed to help the so-called Frontier States.

lots more go to the link.

Money can't buy the best stuff . May you all enjoy some.

I'm not really sure how to respond to this.

I'm the guy who brought up single payer, so I assume you're talking about me, even though you refused to name anyone. And though I'm not sure what “correct adjective” you're hiding behind those three dots, I am sure it's intended to be an insult.

I can only say–and I think this is obvious–there is no bad faith in any of my comments here. So I decline to get into any kind of pointless argument about this.

Happy holidays to you.

“Poll: Support for Health Care Reform and Obama Go Up in December 6 Percent”

The following, however, is not a poll. They are my sincere bi-partisan Christmas wishes for Republicans and Democrats and all TMV readers and contributors:

I wish that the wealthy and the healthy will continue to enjoy the best health insurance money can buy (and good health, too) and that the poor who are sick will finally begin to enjoy the decent health care all Americans deserve.

Merry Christmas to everyone

>Dorian

Well, you figure out the correct adjective there.

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States”
**************
The “general welfare of the United States” can be construed to include providing basic health care for its GDP-producing workforce and their supportive family members/future generations of workers and those elderly retired workers. A drop in overall health of the workers of this nation past, present and future is a real and tangible threat to the stability of the United States as a leading world nation. Therefore it is within the powers of the Congress to enact and provide for general universal health care coverage for United States Citizens as underpinnings for the very fiscal solvency of America as a whole.

Interestingly enough, also in this Section is the reason the deal cut with Nebraska will be Constitutionally overturned. Seems the distinguished Senator from Nebraska didn't study American Government very well in highschool..lol..

Can you say “loss ratio equals 1000%”?

Oh, now you're just being silly. Everyone knows that these people are experts: what they say laws will do is what they'll end up doing.

Remember: experts!

you're wrong about the definition of single payer

Yeah, I never realized that the definition of “single payer” included multiple payers (or is that multiple single payers?). Maybe people could clear that confusion up by using the term “government payer”. Just a thought.

You never asked me to explain why!

Well, Prof, I hate to think we've gotten off on the wrong foot. So, maybe, in the future, if you're going to disagree with me (or anyone), you might explain why you're disagreeing while you're doing it.

It's my experience that most people who don't have Medicare coverage don't know about the supplemental insurance–they think Medicare pays 100% of covered costs. That's why I think most people consider Medicare the equivalent of a single payer system.

Also, Prof, you're wrong about the definition of single payer.. It doesn't mean the elimination of all other insurance. Here's a snip from the Wikipedia:

Health care in Canada is an example of single-payer health care. The national government provides part of the funding, provincial governments manage the hospitals and provide the bulk of the funding, and doctors in private practice contract with the government for fee-for-service payments. Although many Canadian citizens have supplemental private insurance from their employers, this covers non-medically necessary expenses not covered by Canadian Medicare, and accounts for only 12% of national health care spending.

I added some emphasis to show there is still private insurance in Canada, where single payer is in effect.

Since you can't be bothered to explain why

You never asked me to explain why! Single payer is the elimination of all other insurance. The poll only asked if people wanted to allow the option of purchasing Medicare. Of course, few people understand what sort of trouble SS/Medicare/Medicaid is in, or what the cost of the policy would be, so it's not really that fair a question.

Now, to be fair, can you explain how a medicare buy-in and support for single payer are the same?

Kinda makes you wonder about their new information supposed to herd the masses into not wanting health care reform..

I gather you disagree.

Since you can't be bothered to explain why, so what?