Historic health care bill nears key Senate vote

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Looks like the arm twisting and payoffs, I mean incentives (;)), finally got the 60 votes to pass this thing. I know this bill isn't perfect but I think it is a step in the right direction.

Link to story on Yahoo! News

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent David Espo, Ap Special Correspondent – 1 hr 2 mins ago

WASHINGTON – In a show of unity, Senate Democrats sealed a 60-vote majority needed to advance health care legislation Saturday ahead of an evening showdown with Republicans eager to doom the bill and inflict a punishing defeat on President Barack Obama.

Two final holdouts, Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, announced in speeches a few hours apart on the Senate floor they would vote to clear the way for what is expected to be a bruising, full-scale health care debate after Thanksgiving.

At a 10-year cost approaching $1 trillion, the measure is designed to extend coverage to roughly 31 million who lack it, crack down on insurance company practices that deny benefits, and curtail the growth of spending on medical care nationally.

"It is clear to me that doing nothing is not an option," said Landrieu, who noted the legislation includes $100 million to help her state pay the costs of health care for the poor.

Lincoln, who faces a tough re-election next year, said the evening vote will "mark the beginning of consideration of this bill by the U.S. Senate, not the end."

Both stressed they were not committing in advance to vote for the bill that ultimately emerges from next month's debate. Even so, their announcements marked a major victory for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and the White House in a year-end drive to enact the most sweeping changes to the nation's health care system in a half-century or more.

The legislation would require most Americans to carry insurance, and large firms would incur large costs if they did not provide it to their workforce.

Congressional budget analysts put the legislation's cost at $979 billion over a decade and said it would reduce deficits over the same period while extending coverage to 94 percent of the eligible population.

The House approved its version of the bill earlier this month on a near party line vote of 220-215.

In hours of debate before the Saturday evening vote, Republicans attacked the legislation as a government takeover of health care and worse.

"Move over, Bernie Madoff. Tip your hat to a trillion-dollar scam," said Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., likening the bill's supporters to the imprisoned investor who fleeced millions.

Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., said Reid had delayed implementation of many of the bill's key provisions and made it look less costly as a result. He put the true price tag at $2.5 trillion over a decade once implemented.

"Senators who support this bill have a lot of explaining to do," said the Republican leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. "Americans know that a vote to proceed on this bill is a vote for higher premiums, higher taxes and massive cuts to Medicare. That's a pretty hard thing to justify supporting."

That was a rebuttal to Landrieu and other Democrats who described the evening vote as one of procedure instead of substance.

In her remarks, Landrieu said, "I've decided that there are enough significant reforms and safeguards in this bill to move forward, but much more work needs to be done." She also touted the $100 million included in the legislation to help her state cover its costs under Medicaid, the state-federal health care program for the poor.

"I'm proud to have fought for it. And I will continue to," she said.

Reid worked for weeks drafting the legislation, a blend of bills approved earlier by two committees with new provisions designed to straddle the ideological divide among Senate Democrats.

Among the most controversial is a requirement for the government to sell insurance in competition with private industry, unless individual states opt out.

Landrieu, Lincoln and other Democrats have expressed unease about it, and attempts to modify the so-called public option are certain once debate begins in earnest. One possibility would require the federal government stay out of the insurance business unless there was a shortage of competition or affordable coverage offered by private companies.

At its core, the legislation would create insurance exchanges beginning in 2014 where individuals, most of them lower income and uninsured, would shop for coverage. The bill sets aside hundreds of billions of dollars in tax credits to help those earning up to 400 percent of poverty, $88,200 for a family of four.

Additional funds would be available to help small businesses defray the cost of providing coverage to their employees.

The insurance industry would come under significant new regulation under the bill, which would first ease and then ban the practice of denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions. Beginning in 2014, there would be no limits on lifetime coverage. Effective immediately, children could remain on their parents' insurance policies until age 26, three years longer than under current law, another attempt to cut into the ranks of the uninsured.

Individuals would be required to purchase coverage or pay a fine, unless affordable coverage was not available. Larger employers would not be required to provide coverage, but would face penalties if they did not and any of their workers received federal subsidies to buy individual coverage.

To finance the expanded coverage, Reid proposed higher taxes as well as cuts totaling hundreds of billions of dollars in projected Medicare payments. Hardest hit would be the private insurance Medicare plans, although providers such as home health agencies would also receive significantly less in future years than now estimated.

The bill raises payroll taxes on incomes over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. Reid eased the impact of an earlier proposal to tax high-value insurance plans, which has emerged as one of the principal methods for restraining the growth in health costs.

The bill includes tax increases on insurance companies, medical device makers, patients electing to undergo cosmetic surgery and drugmakers.
___

Associated Press writer Donna Cassata contributed to this article.
 

cubeless

Diamond Member
Sep 17, 2001
4,295
1
81
so taxes go up on everybody... and can't wait to see all the new lawyers getting employed suing about what's 'affordable'... and, of course, they are 'taxing evil businesses' who, of course, get the money they pay the taxes with from the money fairy...

but hey, it's going to happen anyways, so let's do it and start getting used to the new order...
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
Looks like the arm twisting and payoffs, I mean incentives (;)), finally got the 60 votes to pass this thing. I know this bill isn't perfect but I think it is a step in the right direction.

Link to story on Yahoo! News

This isn't anywhere close to passing. Read more carefully. And this is NOT a step in the right direction. It does nothing to fix any of the problems of healthcare and just turns everything over to government. And, as you said, its all about 'twisting and payoffs'. I know thats a step in the right direction for democrats who have large freezers full of cash, or soon will, but for the rest of us thats called corruption.
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
Today looking like to be a very bad day for Republicans. :D

You should be saying its a good day for Americans. But since you don't, I can only assume you hate America. Of course, you voted for your hero George Bush so I think its pretty clear you do hate America.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
All this Saturday debate does is provide permission to start debating the bill on the Senate floor.

The actual passage of the bill through the Senate is at least a month away and probably longer. Meanwhile the bill can be amended and changed once the debate starts.

All the GOP is trying to do is stop it at the pre debate stage, a limbo we have been in for at least six months already.

In short, opponents of health care reform are afraid to debate the actual issues. And would rather set up straw men and knock them down with endless FUD, just as they have been doing since 1992.

I for one would rather see a full and honest debate for a change even if it scares the hell out of some lobbyists.
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
All this Saturday debate does is provide permission to start debating the bill on the Senate floor.

The actual passage of the bill through the Senate is at least a month away and probably longer. Meanwhile the bill can be amended and changed once the debate starts.

All the GOP is trying to do is stop it at the pre debate stage, a limbo we have been in for at least six months already.

In short, opponents of health care reform are afraid to debate the actual issues. And would rather set up straw men and knock them down with endless FUD, just as they have been doing since 1992.

I for one would rather see a full and honest debate for a change even if it scares the hell out of some lobbyists.

By most polls, it seems to scare the hell out of at least 50% of Americans as well.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
I'm surprised nobody posted about another wall of text. Oh wait ..............

Couldn't resist. :)
 

brblx

Diamond Member
Mar 23, 2009
5,499
2
0
I'm surprised nobody posted about another wall of text. Oh wait ..............

Couldn't resist. :)

possibly because it's a link to a news article and not an extremist opinion piece that some illiterate asshole is trying to pass off as his own words?
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
so taxes go up on everybody... and can't wait to see all the new lawyers getting employed suing about what's 'affordable'... and, of course, they are 'taxing evil businesses' who, of course, get the money they pay the taxes with from the money fairy...

but hey, it's going to happen anyways, so let's do it and start getting used to the new order...

If we don't need to increase taxes for 2 endless wars, a 1 trillion dollar corporate bailout, or 700 billion a year in empire building, I don't think 80 billion a year will create a need for one... lol.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
December 7th wasn't as bad as the day this turd ever becomes law.
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,213
14
81
You should be saying its a good day for Americans. But since you don't, I can only assume you hate America. Of course, you voted for your hero George Bush so I think its pretty clear you do hate America.

I really don't consider Republican's looking out for regular American's interests.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
The Republican's said the same thing about Social Security and Medicare now you guys embrace it.
And how much of our $105 Trillion unfunded liability are the result of those programs?

You can go through life if you so desire with blinders on assuming the government is great and good. Or, you can get your head out of your ass and realize that this legislation, despite its good and honorable intentions will be modified and bastardized through the coming years into something that will be unrecognizable. Just as the two programs you mentioned above have been expanded vastly beyond their original intentions into programs that are now a liability to this nation, so will UHC.

To think it will be different this time is naiveté at it's worst. Two pages of legislation were written into this bill to funnel $100 Million as a payoff to Louisiana to get this bill to the floor. You don't think these shenanigans will stop after passage do you? Our Representatives will have yet another piece of legislation to manipulate for the sake of special interests, vote buying, and all the other sordid evils our Representatives prove day in and day out they are not only capable of doing, that they relish doing.

It's all about the cost. Some of us have been around long enough to know when we're being lied to. The fact that the fees, taxes and the like start immediately, get paid for three or five years (I've read both figures) before benefits commence should be as big a red flag as there could be to you. We're going to provide this level of coverage but we need to front load the system, build up a war chest first, but oh, everything's going to be fine? The first thing that should come to your mind is that perhaps these benefits aren't going to be sustainable at the levels they're proposed at the costs they proclaim. Reasonable people would realize this.

The CBO by law must score the bill for 10 years. When you build up the coffers for 3 to 5 of those years before benefits commence, the CBO must include those years where no benefits are provided, because that's when the bill goes into effect. Dirty political manipulations shamelessly waved in front of our eyes. It's a free country, so feel free to ignore it. Keep the blinders on. The ends justify the means? Start reading my post again, looking carefully at that $105 Trillion figure. It's not going to get smaller. What will be the next bubble to burst in this nation? Who will we borrow from then to keep us afloat?

Make certain you really want us all in lockstep with one another. Think of the dangers without dissenting opinion. Somebody has to be willing to think like an adult. We can't trust Congress to do so.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
There will always be fear mongers like you to prevent progression... but you are just a carbon copy of those that came before you. Your side always loses.

And there will always be the ignorant seeking revenge for some outrage like you. Unfortunately you'll probably win because ignorance is indeed strength.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
And how much of our $105 Trillion unfunded liability are the result of those programs?

You can go through life if you so desire with blinders on assuming the government is great and good. Or, you can get your head out of your ass and realize that this legislation, despite its good and honorable intentions will be modified and bastardized through the coming years into something that will be unrecognizable. Just as the two programs you mentioned above have been expanded vastly beyond their original intentions into programs that are now a liability to this nation, so will UHC.

To think it will be different this time is naiveté at it's worst. Two pages of legislation were written into this bill to funnel $100 Million as a payoff to Louisiana to get this bill to the floor. You don't think these shenanigans will stop after passage do you? Our Representatives will have yet another piece of legislation to manipulate for the sake of special interests, vote buying, and all the other sordid evils our Representatives prove day in and day out they are not only capable of doing, that they relish doing.

It's all about the cost. Some of us have been around long enough to know when we're being lied to. The fact that the fees, taxes and the like start immediately, get paid for three or five years (I've read both figures) before benefits commence should be as big a red flag as there could be to you. We're going to provide this level of coverage but we need to front load the system, build up a war chest first, but oh, everything's going to be fine? The first thing that should come to your mind is that perhaps these benefits aren't going to be sustainable at the levels they're proposed at the costs they proclaim. Reasonable people would realize this.

The CBO by law must score the bill for 10 years. When you build up the coffers for 3 to 5 of those years before benefits commence, the CBO must include those years where no benefits are provided, because that's when the bill goes into effect. Dirty political manipulations shamelessly waved in front of our eyes. It's a free country, so feel free to ignore it. Keep the blinders on. The ends justify the means? Start reading my post again, looking carefully at that $105 Trillion figure. It's not going to get smaller. What will be the next bubble to burst in this nation? Who will we borrow from then to keep us afloat?

Make certain you really want us all in lockstep with one another. Think of the dangers without dissenting opinion. Somebody has to be willing to think like an adult. We can't trust Congress to do so.

+1000

Yip, the loony left are frothing at the mouth to destroy this country just so they can say "We stuck it to the man", unfortunately for America that "man" is the middle class, and working poor they pretend to care about.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
+1000

Yip, the loony left are frothing at the mouth to destroy this country just so they can say "We stuck it to the man", unfortunately for America that "man" is the middle class, and working poor they pretend to care about.

Yeah, that's it. :rolleyes:
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
+1000

Yip, the loony left are frothing at the mouth to destroy this country just so they can say "We stuck it to the man", unfortunately for America that "man" is the middle class, and working poor they pretend to care about.

Let no thread go untarnished by this man's hate. Am I the only one who thinks it's somewhat ironic that John uses his hatred of liberals to say liberals hate America?

I mean seriously, I don't agree with the Conservative philosophy of government (or lack thereof I suppose), but I don't go around spouting that I think they are out to destroy America.

I usually like hearing what everyone has to say, even the people I basically never agree with, but I'm starting to think that ignore feature might not be so bad.

In case you are wondering John, my objection is that you post nothing of substance, only raw, unfiltered anger. You are making petty attempts to silence those who disagree with you, but I suspect if any of us were to respond in kind you'd start touting the 1st amendment like no tomorrow.
 
Last edited: