The moment of truth? *HOUSE PASSES HEALTH CARE BILL*

[Toe Jam]

Let's see what happens.

Predictions?

[twa]

somebody is gonna get fleeced

who is up for grabs

[Spec138]

Let's see what happens.

Predictions?

I'm going to say 260 - 175 based on no research. GOP starts off strong but some turnovers late in the game ultimately cost them the win. ;)

[StillUnknown]

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1109/Dems_sources_218_is_on_the_way.html?showall

November 07, 2009 Categories:



House (http://dyn.politico.com/livepulse/index.cfm/category/House) (http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1109/Dems_sources_218_is_on_the_way.html?showall#)
Dems sources: 218 is on the way (http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1109/Dems_sources_218_is_on_the_way.html?showall#)


At this moment, Democratic sources say their internal head counts have them breaking through the 218 mark this afternoon. Whether that will mean that more Democrats will come on board, or that Pelosi is going to cut other members lose, is still unclear. But Dems are confident they have won.
By John Bresnahan
Posted by Chris Frates 05:11 PM


i say the dems get 223 votes

[Toe Jam]

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1109/dems_sources_218_is_on_the_way.html?showall


i say the dems get 223 votes

:)

[ThinSkin]

If it actually comes to a vote, it would mean Pelosi had certainly bribed the required number of Dems for the bill to pass. But my guess is, that there is just enough Dems with a conscious who will refuse to foist this turkey on the American people.

[twa]

the real battle is in the senate...you know..the grown ups;)

[sacase]

Doesn't really mean anything because the senate is not going to accept it.

[Toe Jam]

the real battle is in the senate...you know..the grown ups;)

Wasn't the general consensus a few months ago that the bill wouldn't get through the House either?

And yet here we are.


Doesn't really mean anything because the senate is not going to accept it.

We'll see.

[twa]

Wasn't the general consensus a few months ago that the bill wouldn't get through the House either?

And yet here we are.



We'll see.

Yes we will

Actions do have consequences

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/11/06/yes-26-trillion-a-closer-look-at-the-full-10-years-of-spending-in-the-house-health-bill/

Yes, $2.6 Trillion! A Closer Look at the Full 10 Years of Spending in the House Health Bill

[Toe Jam]

Stupak amendment sucks.

[Toe Jam]

House passes the Stupak Amendment.

[Hubbs]

House passes the Stupak Amendment.

Gotta be kidding me.

[Oldskool]

240-194 isn't a good sign for the left as the vote gets near.

[Toe Jam]

Gotta be kidding me.

Nope. Not kidding.

[twa]

Why the surprise?...it's all part of the game to pass this POS

[Toe Jam]

Republicans trying to stall.

[Toe Jam]

Voting now.

So far 15 dems have voted nay.

[Toe Jam]

Every single Republican is going to vote against this.

Unbelievable.

[Toe Jam]

Dems: 36 nay votes.

This is going to be very close.

[DeanCollins]

well?..............

[Oldskool]

Every single Republican is going to vote against this.

Unbelievable.

If you think that is "unbelievable" I seriously doubt you have been following politics much.

With any luck, the Blue Dogs will fear their constituents more than Pelosi and not go along with the party line.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Passed

218 needed. It's 218 to 214 now.

[Toe Jam]

BILL PASSES THE HOUSE!!!

Yes!

[Hubbs]

I hope like hell that they know what they're doing.

[Toe Jam]

One more step!!!!

[skinfan13]

what a circus...

the Constitution is dead.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Lmao. One Republican swoops in at the end and becomes the lone GOP vote for it. I wonder who that is.

[Toe Jam]

A republican voted Yes.

Anyone know who?

[Toe Jam]

what a circus...

the Constitution is dead.

I'm tearing up. Seriously.

:laugh:

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

A republican voted Yes.

Anyone know who?

Watch it be Ron Paul. SnyderShrugged's head would explode.


They're saying now it's Joseph Gaou(sp?) from Louisiana.

[Toe Jam]

Watch it be Ron Paul. SnyderShrugged's head would explode.


They're saying now it's Joseph Gaou(sp?) from Louisiana.

Now that's interesting.

[skinfan13]

I'm tearing up. Seriously.

:laugh: I'm furious. Our federal government deserves to be disbanded. not just for this, but for everything. We need to start over. I'm ****ing serious.

[Oldskool]

I'm predicting many blue dogs losing their seats next year over this.

Hopefully the Senate version is completely neutered compared to this POS House version.

[Jumbo]

what a circus...

the Constitution is dead.


You should immediately leave military school. Unless you're planning to participate in an armed rebellion to evict the unlawful occupants of the White House and Congress. ;)

[Jumbo]

I'm furious. Our federal government deserves to be disbanded. not just for this, but for everything. We need to start over. I'm ****ing serious.


Oops. I guess I posted too soon. :)

[Johnny Punani]

I guess the dems thought they better get something passed before losing control of congress iin the next elections.

[Toe Jam]

It will be interesting to see what happens in the Senate.

I think Ol' Joe Liberman is going to play spoiler.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Now that's interesting.

Here he is:

Joseph Cao
http://www.nndb.com/people/622/000179085/

[Toe Jam]

Here he is:

Joseph Cao
http://www.nndb.com/people/622/000179085/

This says it all:

Joseph Cao is the Congressman for Louisiana's 2nd Congressional district, the first Republican to represent it since 1891.

[skinfan13]

You should immediately leave military school. Unless you're planning to participate in an armed rebellion to evict the unlawful occupants of the White House and Congress. ;)


Oops. I guess I posted too soon. :)

I'm sorry, I'm just really upset right now. this is the icing on the cake of what has been a terrible week.

[StillUnknown]

i want to slap this dude who brought his baby to the floor

[Seabee1973]

I wonder how many of these people will lose there seats.

[Toe Jam]

I wonder how many of these people will lose there seats.

None.:)

[Seabee1973]

i want to slap this dude who brought his baby to the floor

Nancy Pelosi is a good start and she does look like a dude

[Seabee1973]

None.:)


I know there is one in NM that avoided one of his cities till OCT wet to the major cities but avoided this city that i livein there he finally came and had a little meeting and from what i was told he gotr chewed out by the residents

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

This says it all:

Joseph Cao is the Congressman for Louisiana's 2nd Congressional district, the first Republican to represent it since 1891.

Ah, you know what it is he beat William Jefferson for that seat. It's in New Orleans. Jefferson got arrested by the FBI for corruption before that election (and is now going to be going to prison soon).

Still, Cao's got to be one lonely guy right now. You know his whole side hates him now.

[Who Del]

I know there is one in NM that avoided one of his cities till OCT wet to the major cities but avoided this city that i livein there he finally came and had a little meeting and from what i was told he gotr chewed out by the residents

Thats one hell of a run-on sentence

[Who Del]

Ah, you know what it is he beat William Jefferson for that seat. It's in New Orleans. Jefferson got arrested by the FBI for corruption before that election (and is now going to be going to prison soon).

Still, Cao's got to be one lonely guy right now. You know his whole side hates him now.

One is the loneliest number that youll ever fiiiiinnd

[Ken]

I can't believe you guys think this wwf style debate is real. It is all show. If it isn't then they all are mindless idiots who can't think for themselves.

How can all but 1 Republican vote against it? Only one person thought it was a good idea?

And only 39 thought this was unamerican from the Dem side...ok.

It is ridiculous. The whole system is a sham and we are getting the shaft.


Sorry, a little annoyed about this.

[Who Del]

i want to slap this dude who brought his baby to the floor

Wait? What?

Did the baby cast the vote?

[Toe Jam]

Still, Cao's got to be one lonely guy right now. You know his whole side hates him now.

Republican Rep on CNN made a point to say that "one vote does not represent the Republicans or make this a bi-partisan bill" and then went on to rant about political BS.

[Toe Jam]

Sorry, a little annoyed about this.

I'm glad you're annoyed. It gets me off.:D

[Who Del]

I can't believe you guys think this wwf style debate is real. It is all show. If it isn't then they all are mindless idiots who can't think for themselves.

How can all but 1 Republican vote against it? Only one person thought it was a good idea?

And only 39 thought this was unamerican from the Dem side...ok.

It is ridiculous. The whole system is a sham and we are getting the shaft.


Sorry, a little annoyed about this.

Hey dont look at me. I voted for Dennis Kucinich in the last 2 elections.
He looks like the Keebler Elf. Free Cookies 4 Everyone.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Republican Rep on CNN made a point to say that "one vote does not represent the Republicans or make this a bi-partisan bill" and then went on to rant about political BS.

I wonder if they'll egg his house.

[Toe Jam]

Joe Wilson weighs in:

"Sadly for America, the Pelosi Takeover prevailed by 220 to 215,"

[Who Del]

http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/horror-john-shadegg-uses-baby-maddie-pr

Props to Colin for the link.

lol.

Maddie doesnt know ****. Shes hungry. Someone get her some Gerber Banana Medley

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/horror-john-shadegg-uses-baby-maddie-pr

Props to Colin for the link.

lol.

Maddie doesnt know ****. Shes hungry. Someone get her some Gerber Banana Medley

You're so wrong dude. Maddie loves freedom. Maddie cries for America.

[Ken]

Does anyone know why this just HAD to be done at 11 PM EST on a Saturday?

Anyone?

[Who Del]

You're so wrong dude. Maddie loves freedom. Maddie cries for America.

Maddie cries because she has colic. And because shes a republican *****.

(Its okay to make fun of infants propped up in the healthcare debate right?)

[Oldskool]

None.:)

You're living in a dream world right now, Toe Jam. The euphoria will wear off soon.

[Jumbo]

I'm sorry, I'm just really upset right now. this is the icing on the cake of what has been a terrible week.

Hey, I know you're passionate about it, amigo. I care too. And I'm jokin a bit hoping you'll keep your feet on the ground even while you're understandably so upset. I may have become a bit old and jaded, but by the time I was 19 I had marched for the legalization of marijuana and civil rights, been arrested for it, co-led "welcome home" demonstrations at Ft. Richardson in Anchorage during Vietnam and been in fights (and then arrested) because of it, AND voted for Tricky Dick (McGovern/Eagleton was as bad as Kerry/Edwards) and then later advocated for his impeachment. So I do relate. ;)

[Toe Jam]

You're living in a dream world right now, Toe Jam. The euphoria will wear off soon.

Don't kill my happiness. :silly:

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

I wonder if Nancy Pelosi was hot when she was younger.

[StillUnknown]

Maddie cries because she has colic. And because shes a republican *****.

(Its okay to make fun of infants propped up in the healthcare debate right?)

maddie cries because even as an infant, she has more common sense than her pappy

[Toe Jam]

Maddie cries because she has colic. And because shes a republican *****.

(Its okay to make fun of infants propped up in the healthcare debate right?)

I didn't know there was a difference between infants and Republicans.:evilg:

[Oldskool]

Don't kill my happiness. :silly:

With this crap bill passing, its the only way I can stay sane. Sorry, im here to harsh your mellow. :D

[Toe Jam]

This tweet from the biggest right wing blowhard I know:

Who was the Republican who voted for this atrocity?! OUT WITH HIM! He is not fit to serve! I WANT HIS NAME. LET'S VOICE OUR DISAPPROVAL

Classic.

[skinfan13]

Hey, I know you're passionate about it, amigo. I care too. And I'm jokin a bit hoping you'll keep your feet on the ground even while you're understandably so upset. I may have become a bit old and jaded, but by the time I was 19 I had marched for the legalization of marijuana and civil rights, ben arrested for it, co-led "welcome home" groups at Ft. Richardson in Anchorage during Vietnam and been in giths 9and then arrested) because of it, AND voted for Tricky Dick (McGovern/Eagleton was as bad as Kerry/Edwards) and then later advocated for his impeachment. So I do relate. ;) well I was referring more to the people dropping like flies around me this week, but there's that too :)

idk, I should probably just sign off for a bit to collect myself. Today has been tough, I don't imagine tomorrow will be any better.

[Who Del]

I wonder if Nancy Pelosi was hot when she was younger.

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/582/nancypelosi1962.jpg

Thats whats up. I would holler at the early 60s nancy. No way Id touch the 09 Nancy. She looks like vulcanized rubber. You could use her cheek as a hockey puck.

[Oldskool]

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/582/nancypelosi1962.jpg

Thats whats up.

Wow, so making a pact with Satan really does turn you into a crone.

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Politics/images-2/nancy-pelosi-scary.jpg

Whodathunkit?

[DieselPwr44]

Does anyone know why this just HAD to be done at 11 PM EST on a Saturday?

Anyone?

Thieves work best at night.

[Jumbo]

well I was referring more to the people dropping like flies around me this week, but there's that too :)



Understood amigo. Sometimes some of the geography and relevant background details for some the folks here (as they apply to various important matters) gets by me. :(

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Thats whats up. I would holler at the early 60s nancy. No way Id touch the 09 Nancy. She looks like vulcanized rubber. You could use her cheek as a hockey puck.

Man I would have crushed that.

[Johnny Punani]

The avgerage cost for this is $5,300 + $2,000 in cost sharing for singles and $15,000 + $5,500 for a family of 4 by 2016.

[Who Del]

Man I would have crushed that.

I can see you two going to the Sock Hop together.

Throw on a little Buddy Holly. Shed have been yours by 10pm.

[Toe Jam]

Thieves work best at night.

Clever.

You get points for effort.:hysterical:

[skinfan13]

Understood amigo. Sometimes some of the geography and relevant background details for some the folks here (as they apply to various important matters) gets by me. :( hey, don't worry about it :cool:

[nonniey]

Wasn't the general consensus a few months ago that the bill wouldn't get through the House either?

And yet here we are.



We'll see.

No, I don't think that was the General consensus. Heck, not even close to the general consensus. I'm almost certain a few months back most people though the bill would pass the house by a very comfortable margin. It was the Senate that was the question (Would the Senate be able to overcome a filibuster? - given the closeness in the house that is not likely).

[nonniey]

Ah, you know what it is he beat William Jefferson for that seat. It's in New Orleans. Jefferson got arrested by the FBI for corruption before that election (and is now going to be going to prison soon).

Still, Cao's got to be one lonely guy right now. You know his whole side hates him now.

Not really, didn't he wait until it passed to vot?. He almost certainly would have voted against it if he had the deciding vote. He is just grasping at straws to use to try to hold his seat but this still won't save him in that district.

[nonniey]

After reading all the threads I don't understand all the angst for those who opposed the bill. It barely passed guys. Barely, that is very bad news for proponents, as this indicates that a filibuster will likely succeed in the Senate.

[ace8842]

Don't think I've ever been more embarrassed to be an American than after watching the Democratic debacle in Congress today passing this bill. Some of them, it was like preaching at a southern baptist church or something where the speaker is all revved up. They were all swayed by the emotion of the moment, the historical impact, etc....There was almost no financial discussion at all by the Democrats. They aren't even trying to save money...it's just irresponsible use of our funds, and it is drive by ideology, not by desire to bring down costs and insure more people. In the future, we need to put more accountants in Congress and less trial lawyers. Does anyone have any clue how to balance a budget in Congress? I heard the Dems put a provision in the bill that not only didn't contain tort reform..it did the opposite, actually helping out trial lawyers more...I will not ever vote for someone who is for big government or cap and trade again, if I have already. Just disgusting how partisan Obama, Reid, and Pelosi have all become...

I don't know how reps live Sheila Jackson Lee even got elected.

[ace8842]

I wonder how many of these people will lose there seats.

A lot. The Dems lost 2/3 of the independent vote in Virginia and New Jersey, after Obama had won them in the Presidential election of 2008. Cap and trade and this health care bill are not popular among the people. What's worse, is these bills hurt the economy and jobs. I don't see Obama doing anything between now and Nov. 2010 to change the unemployment number. People want him focusing on the economy before health care, and I see the Dems getting hammered in 2010...

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Don't think I've ever been more embarrassed to be an American than after watching the Democratic debacle in Congress today passing this bill. Some of them, it was like preaching at a southern baptist church or something where the speaker is all revved up. They were all swayed by the emotion of the moment, the historical impact, etc....There was almost no financial discussion at all by the Democrats.

I agree with you. They didn't even bring a freedom-loving baby to with them. Slippin'.

[Tut77]

They aren't even trying to save money...it's just irresponsible use of our funds, and it is drive by ideology, not by desire to bring down costs and insure more people.


Wrong.
See here (pertinent part pasted below): http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091108/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul/print

"The bill is projected to expand coverage to 36 million uninsured, resulting in 96 percent of the nation's eligible population having insurance. To pay for the expansion of coverage, the bill cuts Medicare's projected spending by more than $400 billion over a decade. It also imposes a tax surcharge of 5.4 percent on income over $500,000 in the case of individuals and $1 million for families.
The bill was estimated to reduce federal deficits by about $104 billion over a decade, although it lacked two of the key cost-cutting provisions under consideration in the Senate, and its longer-term impact on government red ink was far from clear."

[Tut77]

After reading all the threads I don't understand all the angst for those who opposed the bill. It barely passed guys. Barely, that is very bad news for proponents, as this indicates that a filibuster will likely succeed in the Senate. It indicates nothing of the sort. One had nothing to do with the other.

[aREDSKIN]

The socialists have run amuck. Hopefully, come 2010 when the dems get their walking papers and if this bill actually gets passed the Senate, it will be neutered.

[ace8842]

Wrong.
See here (pertinent part pasted below): http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091108/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul/print

"The bill is projected to expand coverage to 36 million uninsured, resulting in 96 percent of the nation's eligible population having insurance. To pay for the expansion of coverage, the bill cuts Medicare's projected spending by more than $400 billion over a decade. It also imposes a tax surcharge of 5.4 percent on income over $500,000 in the case of individuals and $1 million for families.
The bill was estimated to reduce federal deficits by about $104 billion over a decade, although it lacked two of the key cost-cutting provisions under consideration in the Senate, and its longer-term impact on government red ink was far from clear."

Fuzzy math. The longer term impact showed it didn't reduce costs as it claimed. In fact everything Obama said it would do, this bill doesn't do. I am really ticked about the part thrown in by the Dems about trial lawyers. The bill is too complicated for even the CBO to figure out with over 2,000 pages, as much is based on "anticipated" savings. And this bill only pays for itself for a certain time period, and it won't pay for itself if certain tax cuts that are unpopular from the bill are later thrown out. Long term, there is no way to promise it saves costs, and it kills small businesses. The letter states 45,000 die each year due to an inability to access healthcare. This number comes from a study with ties to the Physicians for a National Health Program. They wouldn't be biased would they?
The study does not look at the cause of death nor mention that over a million people who have insurance die every year, almost 200,000 of these die due to medical errors. Given these odds, maybe having health insurance is hazardous to one's health.

Look what Dennis Kucinich said. "Personally, I supported President Obama in the primaries and the election but do not support him on this corporate giveaway built on broken campaign promises. I voted for the Barack Obama who opposed the individual mandate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7N_JtuwZtOo), who said the negotiations would be televised on C-SPAN (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Api4fUziAnI) and who campaigned against backroom deals with PhARMA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCRO0g9CfAw)."

[Peeping Wizard]

Every single Republican is going to vote against this.

Unbelievable.

Why is that unbelievable? The fact that we aren't using this bloated bill as toilet paper is the only thing not to be believed.

[Peeping Wizard]

Don't think I've ever been more embarrassed to be an American than after watching the Democratic debacle in Congress today passing this bill. Some of them, it was like preaching at a southern baptist church or something where the speaker is all revved up. They were all swayed by the emotion of the moment, the historical impact, etc....There was almost no financial discussion at all by the Democrats. They aren't even trying to save money...it's just irresponsible use of our funds, and it is drive by ideology, not by desire to bring down costs and insure more people. In the future, we need to put more accountants in Congress and less trial lawyers. Does anyone have any clue how to balance a budget in Congress? I heard the Dems put a provision in the bill that not only didn't contain tort reform..it did the opposite, actually helping out trial lawyers more...I will not ever vote for someone who is for big government or cap and trade again, if I have already. Just disgusting how partisan Obama, Reid, and Pelosi have all become...

I don't know how reps live Sheila Jackson Lee even got elected.

Watching Congressional hearings on C-Span always makes me feel awful about the hands this Country is in. I can't help but believe that many in Congress are a very dangerous combination of stupid, corrupt and nihilistic.

Of course if you look at the constituincies of some of the Representatives like Sheila Jackson, I guess you see how they were spawned.

A plane flying into the Capitol dome last night would have been the best stimulus package ever. I'm going to run for Congress on a platform of term limits for members of Congress.

[Burgold]

I wonder how identical the reactions were when Medicare was first passed? Or when public education became mandatory? Or Social Security?

Was there this kind of upheaveal, the world is going to end, they're burning our Constitution kind of language and feelings?

[AsburySkinsFan]

This shouldn't come as a surprise, but I'm really kinda happy about this vote, entirely disappointed in the Republicans who think they are serving their people by voting nearly unanamously with the party orders, gotta love the Louisiana guy breaking ranks and stealing their thunder though. No one can honestly tell me that every single Republican in the House honestly wanted to vote against this bill, sad pathetic little people.

I am however tempering my joy because the real hurdle comes next. Here's to hoping that this bill doesn't end up in complete shambles before it gets out of the Senate.

60 votes, get it done Harry its your turn now.

[#98QBKiller]

Was there this kind of upheaveal, the world is going to end, they're burning our Constitution kind of language and feelings?


I'm not sure but IMO, this is a new kind of language and is really just a cloak for disagreeing with anything that the opposition does. Not that that sort of behavior is limited to just one party though.

[Thiebear]

With all my children I'll save on the medical plan itself.
But i think it'll cost me 30% more than i'm paying right now in other ways.

Medicare Plan B with AARP gap insurance is 320 a month for my 68yr old Mo-in-law.
I don't see how this new plan gets under that... (its not even part D, Drug enabled)

Theres just no idea on what the ACTUAL cost is going to be? I can't find ANY REAL numbers anywhere.

[twa]

I wonder how identical the reactions were when Medicare was first passed? Or when public education became mandatory? Or Social Security?

Was there this kind of upheaveal, the world is going to end, they're burning our Constitution kind of language and feelings?

of course,and just like those(if it passes) ,our world will never be the same again.

All those came with both good and bad effects...just as this will.

tis a fundamental change in the way we do things

[DieselPwr44]

I wonder how identical the reactions were when Medicare was first passed? Or when public education became mandatory? Or Social Security? ?

All of the above are in shambles right now.

Healthcare didn't just get better with this, it got worse.

[Midnight Judges]

Nancy Pelosi is a good start and she does look like a dude

In your opinion, exactly how hot is a 69 year old woman suposed to be?

[Midnight Judges]

This post is awesome.


Fuzzy math. The longer term impact showed it didn't reduce costs as it claimed. In fact everything Obama said it would do, this bill doesn't do.

That's quite the statement. "Everything" Obama said it would do is false. So it won't insure people who are uninsured even.


I am really ticked about the part thrown in by the Dems about trial lawyers. The bill is too complicated for even the CBO to figure out with over 2,000 pages, as much is based on "anticipated" savings.

Ah yes, this bill is waaaaay too complicated for the CBO to figure out whether or not is will save money. But it's a piece of cake for a random internet Republican such as yourself. Alas, if only the simps at the congressional budget office were privy to your resources and wisdom...


And this bill only pays for itself for a certain time period, and it won't pay for itself if certain tax cuts that are unpopular from the bill are later thrown out. Long term, there is no way to promise it saves costs, and it kills small businesses.

Actually this bill would help smal business to a very large degree. As it stands now, our current system is killing small business. Costs are increasing by 8% a year, and many small businesses are forced to reduce benefits, and increase out of pocket expenses for their employees. That's if they don't drop the option altogether, thus making it impossible for them to compete with big businesses for the most qualified employees. This is in part due to the fact that small businesses generally don't have a large pool of employees to average out the costs.

The new legislation allows for exchange pools t be created with the assistance of Government. Small businesses would be allowed to pair up with other small businesses and obtain the cost savings that are currently exclusively accessable to big business.

Bottom line: You have no clue what you are talking about.


The letter states 45,000 die each year due to an inability to access healthcare. This number comes from a study with ties to the Physicians for a National Health Program. They wouldn't be biased would they?
The study does not look at the cause of death nor mention that over a million people who have insurance die every year, almost 200,000 of these die due to medical errors. Given these odds, maybe having health insurance is hazardous to one's health.


That is the second stupidest Republican argument I've heard during this entire months-long healthcare debate. And that's saying a lot.

If you honestly believed that you wouldn't have health insurance ever, for your entire life. Good luck with that strategy.

[Burgold]

of course,and just like those(if it passes) ,our world will never be the same again.

All those came with both good and bad effects...just as this will.

tis a fundamental change in the way we do things

I think that's very true. I think more good will come out of it, but it certainly will have some clumsy toddler moments, and hopefully they can raise the thing and fix the things they screwed up on as it stands now. The good thing about our system of governance is that our laws and ideas are living and thus mutable.

[War Paint]

Wow, so making a pact with Satan really does turn you into a crone.

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Politics/images-2/nancy-pelosi-scary.jpg

Whodathunkit?

LOL. She looks like Fire Marshall Bill in that pic.

[Koolblue13]

Did they figure out why HC is so overpriced and going to fix that, so it's affordable or did they just buy a few new trucks to dump our tax dollars into the ocean?

[Madison Redskin]

All of the above are in shambles right now.

Let's assume you are right and both are in shambles. What are the implications of that assumption? That we should repeal laws requiring minors to go to school and abolish the Social Security Administration?

[D'KanSkinFan]

:doh: I haven't lost my senses - the Senate will stop this craziness........

http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare

specifically:

Side-by-Side Policy Comparison of Pelosi Health Care Bill & GOP Alternative (PDF) (http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/a_tale_of_two_approaches.pdf)

[ThinSkin]

Sunday, November 8, 2009

Sarah Palin: The People Who Gave Us Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac Now Want To Run Health Care (http://citizenpalin4president.blogspot.com/2009/11/sarah-palin-pelosi-bill-was-rammed.html)


We’ve got to hold on to hope, and we’ve got to fight hard because Congressional action tonight just put America on a path toward an unrecognizable country.
The same government leaders that got us into the mortgage business and the car business are now getting us into the health care business.
Despite Americans’ decisive message last Tuesday that they reject the troubling path this country has been taking, Speaker Pelosi has broken her own promises of transparency to ram a health “care” bill through the House of Representatives just before midnight. Why did she push the 2,000 page bill this weekend? Was she perhaps afraid to give her peers and the constituents for whom she works the chance to actually read this monstrous bill carefully, if at all? Was she concerned that Americans might really digest the details of a bill that the Wall Street Journal has called “the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced”?


This out-of-control bureaucratic mess will be disastrous for our economy, our small businesses, and our personal liberty. It will slam businesses at a time when we are at double-digit unemployment rates – the highest we’ve seen in a quarter of a century. This massive new bureaucracy will cost us and our children money we don’t have. It will rob Americans of more of our freedom and further hamper the free market.

Make no mistake: we’re on course to have government commandeer one-sixth of our economy. The people who gave us Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac now want to run our health care. Think about that.
All of us who value the sanctity of life are grateful for the success of the pro-life majority in the House this evening in its battle against federal funding of abortion in this bill, but it’s ironic because we were promised that abortion wasn’t covered in the bill to begin with. Our healthy distrust of these government leaders made us look deeper into the bill because unfortunately we knew better than to trust what they were saying. The victory tonight to amend the bill and eliminate that federal funding for abortion was great – because abortion is not health care. Now we can only hope that Rep. Stupak’s amendment will hold in the final bill, though the Democratic leadership has already refused to promise that it won’t be scrapped later.

We had been told there were no “death panels” in the bill either. But look closely at the provision mandating bureaucratic panels that will be calling the shots regarding who will receive government health care.
Look closely at provisions addressing illegal aliens’ health care coverage too.
http://citizenpalin4president.blogspot.com/2009/11/sarah-palin-pelosi-bill-was-rammed.html

[Fergasun]

You partisan folks having fun bickering back and forth.

Face it, both parties are corrupt and we have a corrupt Congress. So what if it's not as corrupt as places like Afghanistan... but why do we keep trusting new Congresses over and over again? Congress, politicians, and the current political parties can't be trusted to take out the trash.

I can't believe people guy into the BS. These same Congress folks were the people who believed that the stimulus and TARP would save our economy, and that the Iraq War would be short and cheap (remember the GOP firing the guy who estimated the cost at $200B?) . Just like I'm sure the Democrats would've fired any CBO who estimated the cost of the health care plan as the true $1T/year which it will end up in 10 years.

[deejaydana]

I haven't read through all pages of this thread but I'm wondering, is making medical coverage mandatory constitutional?

[Burgold]

The funny thing is... without health care reform this country is doomed. What we are doing and what the health care industry is doing to us is unsustainable.

Did we get it right? I'm doubtful, but the necessity for reform is clear. And it must be the job of the government because the private sector will not curtail its profits and greed for our benefit or even for our nation's survival.

[deejaydana]

The funny thing is... without health care reform this country is doomed. What we are doing and what the health care industry is doing to us is unsustainable.

Did we get it right? I'm doubtful, but the necessity for reform is clear. And it must be the job of the government because the private sector will not curtail its profits and greed for our benefit or even for our nation's survival.


What about gov't greed?

[Koolblue13]

The funny thing is... without health care reform this country is doomed. What we are doing and what the health care industry is doing to us is unsustainable.

Did we get it right? I'm doubtful, but the necessity for reform is clear. And it must be the job of the government because the private sector will not curtail its profits and greed for our benefit or even for our nation's survival.

Especially, since the government being involved is what helped it to become so expensive in the first place. They should definitely be the ones who will make it cheaper.

[Burgold]

Hard to argue the point, deejaydana. Still, I think that I'd back the government's horse a little more because it is in their best interest to keep the minions happy. It's in a corporation's interest to keep their board and stockholders happy. So, there's a slightly higher probability that government looks out for us.

[Burgold]

Especially, since the government being involved is what helped it to become so expensive in the first place. They should definitely be the ones who will make it cheaper.

I don't fully buy that, KB. I partially do, but if the child beats another child to death, I may fire the principal, but I don't put him in jail.

[Fergasun]

Burgold,
What do you think of this (http://market-ticker.org/categories/16-Health-Reform)plan?

Why do we need a 2000 page bill to accomplish something that should be simple and clear on what the reform is going to be? Why can't we start out with small steps that are good....

[Baculus]

Yep. The replies are predictable. Worst yet are seeing the people who don't say a peep about our $500 billion-a-year military budget decrying a bill that is estimated to cost between $80 to $100 billion a year. Our tax dollars are better spent when they are given to the military-industrial-complex, it would seem.

You know the hyperbole is going to be ramped up every further. I have already seen one article decrying the end of the American health care system as we know it (is that a bad thing?) as the government "takes over."

I am not completely happy with the bill, but it is a better step forward then the "no-reform" efforts of the opposition.

[Baculus]

Burgold,
What do you think of this (http://market-ticker.org/categories/16-Health-Reform)plan?

Why do we need a 2000 page bill to accomplish something that should be simple and clear on what the reform is going to be? Why can't we start out with small steps that are good....

I don't see these "four points" doing a great deal to reform the system. As it is, the third point is already in existence -- hospitals already charge the federal government for reimbursement of treating uninsured people.

[twa]

I haven't read through all pages of this thread but I'm wondering, is making medical coverage mandatory constitutional?

Not imo and others, but it is until ruled otherwise


just as other mistakes or injustices.

way to attempt to deflect Bac:hysterical:

[Fergasun]

It looks like there are two groups of thought regarding health insurance reform:
1) It costs too much all around and there are reforms to bring in costs for everyone, but doesn't cover anyone else.
2) We need to do more to help cover the uninsured.

Group #2 also believe there's some way to reduce costs as well, but I find that hard to do while covering more people. Clearly I'm in group 1. Of course I'm against the health care plan, but I can't argue that group 2 won the election in 2008.

[nonniey]

It indicates nothing of the sort. One had nothing to do with the other.

Directly no, but politically it most certainly does. This is an indicator that the support just isn't there for this bill. The Senate will not pass this bill.

[Fergasun]

I don't see these "four points" doing a great deal to reform the system. As it is, the third point is already in existence -- hospitals already charge the federal government for reimbursement of treating uninsured people.Yes; but the federal government doesn't pay the same rate everyone else does. Its a comprehensive plan, not a point-by-point plan.

Here's point 2.

All health providers must publish a price list and may not bill or accept payment at anything other than that price; doing so becomes a violation of Robinson-Patman and exposes the provider to civil suit for treble damages. This instantly stops the practice of billing the uninsured or privately insured at a higher price than Medicare, for example - a practice that is rampant, particularly among hospitals. Every hospital has a detailed price list for every function and thing in their health care panoply - this enforces even billing and even pricing for everyone, without discrimination. The complaint that health providers cannot make a living at Medicare's reimbursement rates does not give that provider license to cost shift the expense of government-subsidized care to privately-insured or uninsured patients. Everyone would raise hell if your car was three times as expensive if you worked for Ford than if you worked for GM, yet it is accepted that if you're not insured by Kaiser (for example) your heart bypass surgery costs a different amount. If Medicare's "price schedule" is inadequate the solution is for providers to refuse to provide the service at that price and thus negotiate for a higher price for that procedure, not cost-shift the care of older Americans onto younger. This is a more than $200 billion dollar a year rip-off of working-age Americans, it bankrupts the uninsured or those denied coverage after a health event, and it must be made explicitly unlawful.

[Burgold]

Burgold,
What do you think of this (http://market-ticker.org/categories/16-Health-Reform)plan?

Why do we need a 2000 page bill to accomplish something that should be simple and clear on what the reform is going to be? Why can't we start out with small steps that are good....

Most of those elements I don't really have a problem with, but that's not a plan. It's an idea. I fully disagree with the notion that we could develop something that is simple and clear, it's too complex and mult-faceted an issue. Now, I wouldn't necessarily mind if the ultimate health care reform were broken up into 20 Bills... although I get the idea that they may be somewhat interdependent.

[Baculus]

I haven't read through all pages of this thread but I'm wondering, is making medical coverage mandatory constitutional?

This article from 1993 discusses this issue. This is one key point that was used in reference to Social Security:

"In rejecting the notion that principles of federalism somehow rendered the old age benefits of the Social Security Act of 1935 invalid under the Tenth Amendment, the Supreme Court admonished that "nation-wide calamit. . . may be checked, if Congress so determines, by the resources of the Nation [in order] to save men and women from the rigors of the poor house as well as from the haunting fear that such a lot awaits them when journey's end is near."

This is a second further point that was made as well:

"Equally fundamental with the private right is that of the public to regulate it in the common interest. ... Thus has this court from the early days affirmed that the power to promote the general welfare is inherent in government. ... [N]o exercise of the legislative prerogative to regulate the conduct of the citizen [can be imagined] which will not to some extent abridge his liberty or affect his property. But subject only to constitutional restraint the private right must yield to the public need."

Ultimately, "the liberty protected by the Constitution is '[I]liberty in a social organization which requires the protection of law against the evils which menace the health, safety, morals and welfare of the people.'" Furthermore, "Health care reform will require responsible participation "in the interests of the community." And "the balance which our Nation, built upon postulates of respect for the liberty of the individual, has struck between that liberty and the demands of organized society."

http://www.justice.gov/olc/1stlady.htm

You may agree or disagree with the high court's decision, but that is what they decided on the issue.

EDITED for clarity.

[Baculus]

Directly no, but politically it most certainly does. This is an indicator that the support just isn't there for this bill. The Senate will not pass this bill.

I have a feeling that it will pass it after a tough battle. It will be close, though.

[Baculus]

Yes; but the federal government doesn't pay the same rate everyone else does. Its a comprehensive plan, not a point-by-point plan.

Here's point 2.

Well, that is a sort of price control which has been opposed by anti-reformers during this health care reform effort. That is part of the issue. I think this bill tries to achieve what is suggested in that point via the health insurance exchange and the public option, which, along with increased client rolls, will lead to drops in insurance rates.

[nonniey]

Yep. The replies are predictable. Worst yet are seeing the people who don't say a peep about our $500 billion-a-year military budget decrying a bill that is estimated to cost between $80 to $100 billion a year. Our tax dollars are better spent when they are given to the military-industrial-complex, it would seem. .

You know this is a weak argument. Spending money on the military is something a government is supposed to do. It is debatable that health care spending is an area the government should be in at all (Like a stock holder complaining how much money Boeing is spending on building planes versus what they should be spending on building housing).

[deejaydana]

I don't have any faith whatsoever that, once passed, this bill will do anything to lower costs. It only makes sense that once you expand coverage to "96%" of the population you'll have a number of outcomes:

1) higher costs for everyone generally
2) coverage for more people (which is what its main intent is)
3) a degradation in service for most people (longer waits, no choice of specific doctor)

I'd love to know if I'm wrong here but doing the math it just makes sense that this is what will happen. I would just like more honesty from our politicians on this program but I don't think that many in Congress really know the playing field more than your average man on the street (the exception being the doctors are elected officials, of which there are a few).

[Fergasun]

It would seem like this Health Care bill creates a completely different case. Additionally, the DoJ at that time would be digging up cases that further their point of view, whereas there probably are numerous other cases which argue the other point.

I'm pretty sure the Rehnquist Court would have numerous rulings which limit the Federal goverment powers that can be drawn upon to argue this is unconstitutional.

[Baculus]

You know this is a weak argument. Spending money on the military is something a government is supposed to do. It is debatable that health care spending is an area the government should be in at all (Like a stock holder complaining how much money Boeing is spending on building planes versus what they should be spending on building housing).

You seemed to have completely missed my point.

How is it a "weak argument" when I am talking about the budget of both the DOD and health care?

Reform has been attacked due to the cost involved -- what about the cost involved with bloated military programs? In the ten years this health care bill may cost a billion, we will spend over five billion on the DOD.

I am all for a well-armed and equipped military, but seeing how pet state projects receive hundreds of millions in dollars while our men and women out in the field aren't even properly equipped, pork barrel projects, which are often unnecessary, becomes an obvious issue. Many of the Republicans who voted against this health care bill are more than happy to receive federal money for their home district for such pork barrel projects.

Which sort of undermines the "your health care is not my problem!" argument, when my feeling is, "Your district's need for pork barrel is not my problem!"

If you want to debate the Constitutionality of this subject, please refer to my post from a page ago.

[Baculus]

It would seem like this Health Care bill creates a completely different case. Additionally, the DoJ at that time would be digging up cases that further their point of view, whereas there probably are numerous other cases which argue the other point.

I'm pretty sure the Rehnquist Court would have numerous rulings which limit the Federal goverment powers that can be drawn upon to argue this is unconstitutional.

They would have found Medicare to be unconstitutional, or the sixteenth amendment for that matter, if that were the case.

[Fergasun]

Baculus,
Interesting. I'm not sure anyone has challenged Medicare, and I don't believe Medicare is compulsary.

While Googling around I found this lawsuit challenging (http://www.medicarelawsuit.org/index.html) some Medicare rules.

[Baculus]

1) higher costs for everyone generally

How so? If anything, with more users in the insurance pool, rates should drop. Also, this bill creates an insurance exchange, which will lead to greater competition. As of right now, many areas in the country are only serviced by a couple of insurance companies -- monopolies often result in uncompetitive pricing.


2) coverage for more people (which is what its main intent is)

That's the idea. Are you saying that is a negative?


3) a degradation in service for most people (longer waits, no choice of specific doctor)

I fail to see how you won't have a choice of specific doctor.

As far as the longer waits . . . it really depends on various factors. It is possible that wait times may increase at first with the number of people rushing to use newly available health care services. But, at the same time, new medical personnel hiring may also alleviate this issue.

[Baculus]

Baculus,
Interesting. I'm not sure anyone has challenged Medicare, and I don't believe Medicare is compulsary.

While Googling around I found this lawsuit challenging (http://www.medicarelawsuit.org/index.html) some Medicare rules.

That lawsuit seems to be related "illegal and coercive policies that deny otherwise eligible retirees their rightful Social Security benefits if those retirees choose not to enroll in Medicare."

In short, it seems like the lawsuit wants to ensure that everyone who is eligible for Social Security can actually receive it if they do not participate in Medicare.

Unfortunately, I don't know enough about this situation to remark on it. What are the rules in this case? Does someone have to participate in Medicare to receive Social Security? Are they joined at the hip?

[Mad Mike]

Hard to argue the point, deejaydana. Still, I think that I'd back the government's horse a little more because it is in their best interest to keep the minions happy. It's in a corporation's interest to keep their board and stockholders happy. So, there's a slightly higher probability that government looks out for us.

Ding.

Capitalism, while a powerful economic engine, is not the best solution to everything.

Insurance companies, by their very nature are inefficient at providing health care. They exist for the purpose of taking money OUT of the system in the form of profits.

http://www.insurancenewsnet.com/article.asp?n=1&innID=1055762211


In an e-mail, one Guardian Life Insurance Co. executive called high-cost patients such as Mr. Pearl "dogs" that the company could "get rid of."

[twa]

Cost will rise from increased utilization and the studies show preventive care is not cheap.
The drug companies are sure pleased though...seems they got their money's worth.

Should be interesting how it shakes out if passed...kinda like the scene of a crash.;)

[Baculus]

Cost will rise from increased utilization and the studies show preventive care is not cheap.
The drug companies are sure pleased though...seems they got their money's worth.

Should be interesting how it shakes out if passed...kinda like the scene of a crash.;)

Costs already rise in our current system. Look at the New Yorker article which examined some of the reasons why this happens.

[Burgold]

I think it depends what we call preventative care. Surely, treating a cold is cheaper than treating double pneumonia. Surely, it's cheaper to treat stage 1 cancer than stage 5. Surely, it's cheaper to eat a portion of fruit a day and walk ten thousand steps then have triple bypass surgery.

[Fergasun]

I just don't see how the public option will be able to cover everyone and keep costs down.

My wife is from Korea and she thinks that Americans are delusion or naive to think that socialized medicine in America is going to cover everyone. In fact in her country they have socialized system to deal with all of the small health issues. But anything that is catastrophic they still carry "heart attack" or "cancer" insurance for anything that costs a lot of money.

Is there an expectation that the public option would pay for these catastrophic type of problems too?

[twa]

I think it depends what we call preventative care. Surely, treating a cold is cheaper than treating double pneumonia. Surely, it's cheaper to treat stage 1 cancer than stage 5. Surely, it's cheaper to eat a portion of fruit a day and walk ten thousand steps then have triple bypass surgery.

The CBO and others have some interesting data on that, with results that may surprise you...PeterMP has linked many of them before

costs vs QOL is a different critter though

added

you think the reform is gonna change lifestyles as far as exercise and eating right? lol

[twa]

Is there an expectation that the public option would pay for these catastrophic type of problems too?

It most certainly will


except the treatments the death panels cut:evilg:

[Burgold]

Well, if you're right that prevention is more expensive and it's not simply a problem of a bad operational definition, than that it is one more reason why health care reform needs to happen.

[Fergasun]

Does this mean we're going to all go on the 10% fat diet, we're going to subsidize folks for eating vegetables and fruits, and there's going to be a helluva tax on sugar, lard, bacon and all the other stuff that causes heart attacks?

[Burgold]

We do subsidize people for eating fruits and veggies and have for decades. Farming subsidies help to control prices.

[Prosperity]

We do subsidize people for eating fruits and veggies and have for decades. Farming subsidies help to control prices.
this is very wrong, the opposite is true


farm subsidies don't go to fruits and vegetables, they go to corn, soybeans, sugar, wheat and cotton.

Most of the food derived from those crops is high starch and sugar processed food like soda (high fructose corn syrup sound familiar) Agri subsidies are part of the reason why it's cheaper to buy twinkies than carrots.


You Are What You Grow
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/magazine/22wwlnlede.t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine


A few years ago, an obesity researcher at the University of Washington named Adam Drewnowski ventured into the supermarket to solve a mystery. He wanted to figure out why it is that the most reliable predictor of obesity in America today is a person’s wealth. For most of history, after all, the poor have typically suffered from a shortage of calories, not a surfeit. So how is it that today the people with the least amount of money to spend on food are the ones most likely to be overweight?
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image

Drewnowski gave himself a hypothetical dollar to spend, using it to purchase as many calories as he possibly could. He discovered that he could buy the most calories per dollar in the middle aisles of the supermarket, among the towering canyons of processed food and soft drink. (In the typical American supermarket, the fresh foods — dairy, meat, fish and produce — line the perimeter walls, while the imperishable packaged goods dominate the center.) Drewnowski found that a dollar could buy 1,200 calories of cookies or potato chips but only 250 calories of carrots. Looking for something to wash down those chips, he discovered that his dollar bought 875 calories of soda but only 170 calories of orange juice.

As a rule, processed foods are more “energy dense” than fresh foods: they contain less water and fiber but more added fat and sugar, which makes them both less filling and more fattening. These particular calories also happen to be the least healthful ones in the marketplace, which is why we call the foods that contain them “junk.” Drewnowski concluded that the rules of the food game in America are organized in such a way that if you are eating on a budget, the most rational economic strategy is to eat badly — and get fat.

This perverse state of affairs is not, as you might think, the inevitable result of the free market. Compared with a bunch of carrots, a package of Twinkies, to take one iconic processed foodlike substance as an example, is a highly complicated, high-tech piece of manufacture, involving no fewer than 39 ingredients, many themselves elaborately manufactured, as well as the packaging and a hefty marketing budget. So how can the supermarket possibly sell a pair of these synthetic cream-filled pseudocakes for less than a bunch of roots?

For the answer, you need look no farther than the farm bill. This resolutely unglamorous and head-hurtingly complicated piece of legislation, which comes around roughly every five years and is about to do so again, sets the rules for the American food system — indeed, to a considerable extent, for the world’s food system. Among other things, it determines which crops will be subsidized and which will not, and in the case of the carrot and the Twinkie, the farm bill as currently written offers a lot more support to the cake than to the root. Like most processed foods, the Twinkie is basically a clever arrangement of carbohydrates and fats teased out of corn, soybeans and wheat — three of the five commodity crops that the farm bill supports, to the tune of some $25 billion a year. (Rice and cotton are the others.) For the last several decades — indeed, for about as long as the American waistline has been ballooning — U.S. agricultural policy has been designed in such a way as to promote the overproduction of these five commodities, especially corn and soy.

That’s because the current farm bill helps commodity farmers by cutting them a check based on how many bushels they can grow, rather than, say, by supporting prices and limiting production, as farm bills once did. The result? A food system awash in added sugars (derived from corn) and added fats (derived mainly from soy), as well as dirt-cheap meat and milk (derived from both). By comparison, the farm bill does almost nothing to support farmers growing fresh produce. A result of these policy choices is on stark display in your supermarket, where the real price of fruits and vegetables between 1985 and 2000 increased by nearly 40 percent while the real price of soft drinks (a k a liquid corn) declined by 23 percent. The reason the least healthful calories in the supermarket are the cheapest is that those are the ones the farm bill encourages farmers to grow.

[Duckus]

No, I don't think that was the General consensus. Heck, not even close to the general consensus. I'm almost certain a few months back most people though the bill would pass the house by a very comfortable margin. It was the Senate that was the question (Would the Senate be able to overcome a filibuster? - given the closeness in the house that is not likely).

The vote total really means nothing - unless you know the inside politics of the vote. The leaders release votes once they have enough to pass it. Meaning, they get people in competitive districts to vote against it so it can't be used against them in 2010, because they don't need the votes to pass. It passes, the members are safe. Win-win.

It is pretty standard political practice.

[Baculus]

This is an incredibly obnoxious video -- the Democratic Women’s Caucus were speaking on the floor of the House, and Republicans, time and time again, refused to let them speak.

Apparently Republicans have zero sense of decorum.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/07/gop-gone-wild/

[DRSmith]

Well I must say I was surprised it passed, but then again I was also surprised Obama got elected

Maybe talk radio and FNC although getting more virol is losing it's pull on the people

[ThinSkin]

WASHINGTON, Nov. 8, 2009

Graham: House Bill "D.O.A." in the Senate

Would Filibuster Health Care Reform with Public Option, Declaring "Liberal" House Bill Would Mean "Disaster"


(CBS) Senator Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said the health care bill passed last night by the House of Representatives is "dead on arrival to the Senate."

Graham argued that the House bill was "written for liberals, by liberals.

"Just look at how it passed; it passed 220 to 215. It passed by two votes. You had [39] Democrats vote against the bill," Graham told "Face the Nation" host Bob Schieffer Sunday.

He also admitted that if it were to come down to it, he would join his independent colleague Senator Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., in filibustering a bill including the so-called public option should it come to the Senate floor.

"The House bill is a non-starter in the Senate," he added. "I just think the construct out of the House and what exists in the Senate is not going to pass, and I hope and pray it doesn't because it would be a disaster for the economy and health care," Graham concluded.

Graham believed a public option would "destroy" private health care, saying that insurance companies could not compete against the lower premiums of a government-backed plan. "It will be a death blow to private choice," he said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/08/ftn/main5576519.shtml

[jpyaks3]

WASHINGTON, Nov. 8, 2009


Graham believed a public option would "destroy" private health care, saying that insurance companies could not compete against the lower premiums of a government-backed plan. "It will be a death blow to private choice," he said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/08/ftn/main5576519.shtml

Can someone explain why lower premiums would be a bad thing?

[DRSmith]

Can someone explain why lower premiums would be a bad thing?

It is fear mongering

Up here there is still private insurance

What it would do is put more money back into the pockets of businesses and people and help the economy

[Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin]

Insurance companies, by their very nature are inefficient at providing health care. They exist for the purpose of taking money OUT of the system in the form of profits.



That's kind of a dumb statement. It's the profit incentive which led to capitalism which led to cheaper goods (this is one of the earliest complaints about it!) and more accessibility to higher quality goods.

Your argument could apply to those involved in food production, car insurance, automobile sales, home sales, home insurance, life insurance, MP3 sales---EVERYTHING. The market reduces costs, it doesn't increase them unless you pair it with government distortion in the form of regulation and subsidy and direct spending.

[jpyaks3]

I think Kucinich puts forth a pretty good argument against our current system and against this ****ty bill, just thought I would share

“We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system.

“Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick.

“But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies — a bailout under a blue cross.

“By incurring only a new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, a weakened public option, and a few other important but limited concessions, the health insurance companies are getting quite a deal. The Center for American Progress’ blog, Think Progress, states “since the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option, health insurance stocks have been on the rise.” Similarly, healthcare stocks rallied when Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill without a public option. Bloomberg reports that Curtis Lane, a prominent health industry investor, predicted a few weeks ago that “money will start flowing in again” to health insurance stocks after passage of the legislation. Investors.com last month reported that pharmacy benefit managers share prices are hitting all-time highs, with the only industry worry that the Administration would reverse its decision not to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices, leaving in place a Bush Administration policy.

“During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The “robust public option” which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies.

“Recent rises in unemployment indicate a widening separation between the finance economy and the real economy. The finance economy considers the health of Wall Street, rising corporate profits, and banks’ hoarding of cash, much of it from taxpayers, as sign of an economic recovery. However in the real economy -- in which most Americans live -- the recession is not over. Rising unemployment, business failures, bankruptcies and foreclosures are still hammering Main Street.

“This health care bill continues the redistribution of wealth to Wall Street at the expense of America’s manufacturing and service economies which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear, especially the cost of health care. America continues to stand out among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care system. As a result, we are less competitive in steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports in these areas through socializing the cost of health care.

“Notwithstanding the fate of H.R. 3962, America will someday come to recognize the broad social and economic benefits of a not-for-profit, single-payer health care system, which is good for the American people and good for America’s businesses, with of course the notable exceptions being insurance and pharmaceuticals.”

[jbooma]

This bill will not pass in the senate. There will need to be a lot of changes for it to pass.

[twa]

This bill will not pass in the senate. There will need to be a lot of changes for it to pass.

Don't know about that, depends on how much money they toss around

http://www.newsmax.com/morris/healthcare_reform_bribe/2009/11/08/283349.html
Obamacare Endorsements: What the Bribe Was

everyone has a price ;)

If they were willing to add the abortion funding ban for the house vote ain't no telling what they might offer next

[Tulane Skins Fan]

That's kind of a dumb statement. It's the profit incentive which led to capitalism which led to cheaper goods (this is one of the earliest complaints about it!) and more accessibility to higher quality goods.

Your argument could apply to those involved in food production, car insurance, automobile sales, home sales, home insurance, life insurance, MP3 sales---EVERYTHING. The market reduces costs, it doesn't increase them unless you pair it with government distortion in the form of regulation and subsidy and direct spending.

That would be true if insurance companies competed against one another with lower premiums instead of shared information - legally through the antitrust exemption they have. So, its true, insurance companies are highly inefficient at delivering cheap and quality services to people. They are extremely efficient at turning a profit for themselves.

[Destino]

It is fear mongering

Up here there is still private insurance

What it would do is put more money back into the pockets of businesses and people and help the economy

Thoughts on preexisting conditions? You do realize the number of people that will experience this problem is a rather large percentage right?

fear mongering? lol please.

[Destino]

That's kind of a dumb statement. It's the profit incentive which led to capitalism which led to cheaper goods (this is one of the earliest complaints about it!) and more accessibility to higher quality goods.
Capitalism and essential services have never worked well together. Did you enjoy what Enron did with energy in California? Do you enjoy the vast choices you have for energy at you home? What about the wonderful phone companies that until the government cracked down made sure you'd pay as much as possible for as little as possible... like renting your phone?

Health care is no different. Investments went bad and the US has seen premiums rise at an alarming rate... a rate that the US simply can not sustain, with no reason to believe they will slow down.

[Seabee1973]

this is very wrong, the opposite is true


farm subsidies don't go to fruits and vegetables, they go to corn, soybeans, sugar, wheat and cotton.

Most of the food derived from those crops is high starch and sugar processed food like soda (high fructose corn syrup sound familiar) Agri subsidies are part of the reason why it's cheaper to buy twinkies than carrots.


You Are What You Grow
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/magazine/22wwlnlede.t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine


The corn america grows is horrible.

[DjTj]

Thoughts on preexisting conditions? You do realize the number of people that will experience this problem is a rather large percentage right?

fear mongering? lol please.:secret: DRSmith lives in Canada and supports universal health insurance.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?p=5563593

He is saying that the Republicans' claim that private insurance will disappear is fear-mongering.

After the public option passes, private companies will still provide the vast majority of health insurance in the United States. They will simply be forced to compete with the public option and there should be a downward pressure on costs that is good for the market as a whole.

[twa]

After the public option passes, private companies will still provide the vast majority of health insurance in the United States. They will simply be forced to compete with the public option and there should be a downward pressure on costs that is good for the market as a whole.

How will there be downward pressure with wellness care and preexisting conditions added to many policies?

More expense does not equal lower premiums anywhere

What they gonna cut?

[wilsonian]

That's kind of a dumb statement. It's the profit incentive which led to capitalism which led to cheaper goods (this is one of the earliest complaints about it!) and more accessibility to higher quality goods.

Your argument could apply to those involved in food production, car insurance, automobile sales, home sales, home insurance, life insurance, MP3 sales---EVERYTHING. The market reduces costs, it doesn't increase them unless you pair it with government distortion in the form of regulation and subsidy and direct spending.

Nice point, Nibbs.

If you look at areas in healthcare where the government is not involved, like cosmetic surgery or lasik eye surgery, prices are falling every year.

[Destino]

:secret: DRSmith lives in Canada and supports universal health insurance.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?p=5563593

He is saying that the Republicans' claim that private insurance will disappear is fear-mongering.

After the public option passes, private companies will still provide the vast majority of health insurance in the United States. They will simply be forced to compete with the public option and there should be a downward pressure on costs that is good for the market as a whole.

Well then he's friggin right. (and I look like a moron) :doh:

[DjTj]

How will there be downward pressure with wellness care and preexisting conditions added to many policies?

More expense does not equal lower premiums anywhere

What they gonna cut?Many monopolists have made that same argument, but where there is competition, companies will find ways to cut. That is the magic of the market. Prices should decrease once you provide consumers with more choices,in the form of a public option or by simply mandating portability and creating insurance exchanges.

There are also substantive cost-saving measures such as computerized records, negotiating lower prescription drug prices, and moving away from the fee-for-service model. But the motivating factor will be market competition.


Nice point, Nibbs.

If you look at areas in healthcare where the government is not involved, like cosmetic surgery or lasik eye surgery, prices are falling every year.This can be seen in the markets for elective surgery that isn't fully covered by most insurance plans. It's not the absence of government, but the presence of the consumer that creates downward pressure on prices for these procedures. Insurance exchanges and the public option have the same goal of increasing the consumer's role in their own health care.

[twa]

Strange that it will restrict my choices

How does the exchange create true competition?...what has changed?

[jpyaks3]

Strange that it will restrict my choices

How does the exchange create true competition?...what has changed?

What choice is being restricted? Other then the choice to not get health coverage and be a potential burden on society.

[DjTj]

Strange that it will restrict my choices

How does the exchange create true competition?...what has changed?Of course, the devil is in the details, but the general idea is that the self-employed and uninsured will be able to buy insurance at bulk rates by going through an insurance exchange rather than buying individual plans from the insurance companies that often charge much higher rates.

The White House says:
The health insurance exchange is a marketplace that will offer affordable high-quality health insurance options. It will provide relief to families who have no insurance or do not get adequate insurance at work and cannot afford to buy it in the costly individual or small group market. It is also for small businesses that cannot afford small group health insurance. It is one-stop shopping that will enable you and your family to find a plan that is right for you.http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#i1

Here was a more detailed explanation of the concept from the Washington Post a while ago:
The Health Insurance Exchange, combines the benefits of choice that are theoretically available on the individual market with the bargaining power and scale that's generally accessible only in large employers (and the exchange will, in theory, have more bargaining power than even the largest employers, as it will have a much larger base of customers). You also have a space to test out innovative ideas that might make the market better, like Sen. Jay Rockefeller's (D-W.Va.) insurance rating agency, or the public insurance option. You can standardize billing and payment methods and force the adoption of electronic medical records.

And what happens when you introduce productive competition, efficiencies of scale, more innovation and increased consumer power into a market as dysfunctional as the current situation for health insurance? In theory, you get lower prices and higher quality. And if the Health Insurance Exchange has lower prices and higher quality, more individuals will use it and more companies will buy into it. And if that happens, then the efficiencies of scale should increase, and so should the pace of innovation (as the rewards will be greater with more customers), and so the Health Insurance Exchange should further outpace the other markets, thereby attracting yet more customers, thereby further accelerating the virtuous cycle. Eventually, it could become the country's primary insurance market.http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/health_insurance_exchanges_the.html

[twa]

What choice is being restricted? Other then the choice to not get health coverage and be a potential burden on society.

We will see..as DJTJ said,the devil is in the details

Frankly I have not read the newest edition(like most congresscritters;))

The earlier proposal would not allow the type policy I carry nor the HSA,this one they will have to release before I could tell ya for sure.

Funny that you don't consider providing subsidies and adding taxes a burden on society though.

I've managed to both insure and pay my own way for a long while,so no worries there

[Thiebear]

partial quote

Of course, the devil is in the details, but the general idea is

Do really believe that quote? The innovation circle of thought that leads to lower costs? REALLY?, innovation from a government program?
Post office, Medicare, Medicaid, SS, Rail. I must have missed the innovation in the last 20 years that has been created?

[Hubbs]

So, can anyone in Congress explain to me why it would be a bad idea to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller...?

[Larry]

So, can anyone in Congress explain to me why it would be a bad idea to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller...?

Because it's guaranteed not to happen? Because even describing it that way is a lie?

Because what the insurance companies really are asking their lobbyists to buy for them, is a law that eliminates all state regulations and consumer protections now in effect, and replace them with a system where the states will compete to see which state can pass laws that most heavily favor the insurance companies over their customers?

Nah. That couldn't be it.

[DjTj]

So, can anyone in Congress explain to me why it would be a bad idea to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller...?FYI, I believe that the bill allows interstate competition in the form of multi-state insurance compacts.
The latest version of the House health bill, unveiled last week, would allow states to form insurance compacts where consumers could choose from purchase insurance products offered by providers in multiple states.

Republican lawmakers and the insurance industry have long argued that removing regulatory barriers to interstate commerce in health insurance would increase competition and bring down costs.http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200911022100dowjonesdjonline000 441&title=states-see-promiseperil-in-house-bills-insurance-compacts