Looks like the public option has enough votes to pass the senate

[nageov3t]

my prediction: harry reid is using this to placate liberals and setting it up to blame republicans when the public option can't get through congress, ignoring the fact that the democrats are the ones in charge and can pass whatever they want

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Some sort of public approach makes sense, but people need to realize that health care is expensive and budget for it as they budget for anything important in their lives like a house or a car. Many people will pay $500/month for their car, but that for insurance for their health? Fvck that!

What do you expect when 45% of Americans pay not taxes or get tax credits?

45% of Americans have no skin in the game to begin with so what difference does it make to them?

all americans pay taxes

I dare say he's referring to income tax.

which makes his point pretty dumb, doesn't it?

 

[jpeyton]

Yes! Go Reid!

And a big FU to Snowe.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: loki8481
my prediction: harry reid is using this to placate liberals and setting it up to blame republicans when the public option can't get through congress, ignoring the fact that the democrats are the ones in charge and can pass whatever they want

Democrats aren't monolithic. The Bluedogs won't play, and that means that the Dems in fact cannot pass this, and there is nothing that anyone can do.

It's not as simple as you state.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Some sort of public approach makes sense, but people need to realize that health care is expensive and budget for it as they budget for anything important in their lives like a house or a car. Many people will pay $500/month for their car, but that for insurance for their health? Fvck that!

What do you expect when 45% of Americans pay not taxes or get tax credits?

45% of Americans have no skin in the game to begin with so what difference does it make to them?

all americans pay taxes

I dare say he's referring to income tax.

which makes his point pretty dumb, doesn't it?

Wasn't apologizing, just clarifying

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Some sort of public approach makes sense, but people need to realize that health care is expensive and budget for it as they budget for anything important in their lives like a house or a car. Many people will pay $500/month for their car, but that for insurance for their health? Fvck that!

I just don't see someone with a $500/month car payment skipping health insurance. If they can afford that kind of car payment, they're working a good job with benefits.

The guy without health insurance is the guy whose car cost $500.

I know a guy who has no health insurance. Works full time tending bar at a pretty decent place. He drives a BMW that he doesn't have paid off(payment more than my mortgage). Seems to me he's making the choice not to buy Insurance.

There are literally millions of people without health insurance with a household income over $70k, this number was thrown around recently. A great number of those without health insurance do indeed find the money for things like $500 car payments.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Some sort of public approach makes sense, but people need to realize that health care is expensive and budget for it as they budget for anything important in their lives like a house or a car. Many people will pay $500/month for their car, but that for insurance for their health? Fvck that!

I just don't see someone with a $500/month car payment skipping health insurance. If they can afford that kind of car payment, they're working a good job with benefits.

The guy without health insurance is the guy whose car cost $500.

I know a guy who has no health insurance. Works full time tending bar at a pretty decent place. He drives a BMW that he doesn't have paid off(payment more than my mortgage). Seems to me he's making the choice not to buy Insurance.

There are literally millions of people without health insurance with a household income over $70k, this number was thrown around recently. A great number of those without health insurance do indeed find the money for things like $500 car payments.

Or balloon payments on the mortgage. People with decent incomes are cash strapped, and if you don't have cash flow then income is irrelevant.

Besides, what if people have had to pay large medical payments and that's sapping their money? We hear how much of a problem that is, so we're going to fine them as well?

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

We are inching closer to the ultimate solution, a NHS. This is not it, but once we make everyone accustomed to health care for all, we can turn it into a government backed health care system that can solve the problem completely by letting doctors do their jobs and just paying them.

Ahh, if only.

The RA case I spoke was Medicare. Other situations were medicaid and private insurance. In other words programs which were in place for years or even decades have not had their problems fixed, nor has there ONCE been talks of serious reform.

The assumption you make is that our politicians will do what's best for the public, but from their POV, the "best" is defined by holding onto power. Since health care reform is going to be very very very expensive up front to do right, people WILL have to pay for it. That means more taxes, and more taxes is a pretty good way to get kicked out.

I've been providing health care in one way or another for longer than many here have lived. In all that time, I have yet to see the welfare of the patient put first. If I believed that what you suggest would happen, then I'd say go for it.

Since they didn't bother to address the real problems at all, and indeed don't seem to understand that which they are legislating, I have no faith in it.

Do it over, do it right and I'll support it.

Let me ask you this...

If they did it right from the start, and made an elegant plan that would cuts costs, increase supply and quality of doctors through inventive programs, increase time with patients, and have it all laid out well...

Do you think it would pass? Because I don't.

We have the type of congressional system where most things come from small, costly steeping stones instead of large, well thought out, initially costly but less costly than the small jumps over time, elegant plans.

Sad but true.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

We are inching closer to the ultimate solution, a NHS. This is not it, but once we make everyone accustomed to health care for all, we can turn it into a government backed health care system that can solve the problem completely by letting doctors do their jobs and just paying them.

Ahh, if only.

The RA case I spoke was Medicare. Other situations were medicaid and private insurance. In other words programs which were in place for years or even decades have not had their problems fixed, nor has there ONCE been talks of serious reform.

The assumption you make is that our politicians will do what's best for the public, but from their POV, the "best" is defined by holding onto power. Since health care reform is going to be very very very expensive up front to do right, people WILL have to pay for it. That means more taxes, and more taxes is a pretty good way to get kicked out.

I've been providing health care in one way or another for longer than many here have lived. In all that time, I have yet to see the welfare of the patient put first. If I believed that what you suggest would happen, then I'd say go for it.

Since they didn't bother to address the real problems at all, and indeed don't seem to understand that which they are legislating, I have no faith in it.

Do it over, do it right and I'll support it.

Let me ask you this...

If they did it right from the start, and made an elegant plan that would cuts costs, increase supply and quality of doctors through inventive programs, increase time with patients, and have it all laid out well...

Do you think it would pass? Because I don't.

We have the type of congressional system where most things come from small, costly steeping stones instead of large, well thought out, initially costly but less costly than the small jumps over time, elegant plans.

Sad but true.

Then Horatio, the fault is not in the politicians but in ourselves, to borrow a bit from the Bard.

The advantage of having an open detailed inspection of the whole system would have made a rational argument, and that would have benefited the Dems. Consider that they (republicans) wouldn't have the issue of obfuscation, or rushing, or ill considered legislation. They would have to counter based on logic, and that means they would have to demonstrate that the opinions of a considerable body of professionals was wrong on a medical, not a political basis.

Now you could counter that Republicans can always come up with some objection, but it's not them you need convince. It's people like me who understand what's involved and have the capacity to argue a point on merits. You need educated people who place politics on a lower tier than genuine well being.

We're from Missouri. Show us that you have the wit and wisdom to do what you propose. Then it, not you will sell the plan.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

We are inching closer to the ultimate solution, a NHS. This is not it, but once we make everyone accustomed to health care for all, we can turn it into a government backed health care system that can solve the problem completely by letting doctors do their jobs and just paying them.

Ahh, if only.

The RA case I spoke was Medicare. Other situations were medicaid and private insurance. In other words programs which were in place for years or even decades have not had their problems fixed, nor has there ONCE been talks of serious reform.

The assumption you make is that our politicians will do what's best for the public, but from their POV, the "best" is defined by holding onto power. Since health care reform is going to be very very very expensive up front to do right, people WILL have to pay for it. That means more taxes, and more taxes is a pretty good way to get kicked out.

I've been providing health care in one way or another for longer than many here have lived. In all that time, I have yet to see the welfare of the patient put first. If I believed that what you suggest would happen, then I'd say go for it.

Since they didn't bother to address the real problems at all, and indeed don't seem to understand that which they are legislating, I have no faith in it.

Do it over, do it right and I'll support it.

Let me ask you this...

If they did it right from the start, and made an elegant plan that would cuts costs, increase supply and quality of doctors through inventive programs, increase time with patients, and have it all laid out well...

Do you think it would pass? Because I don't.

We have the type of congressional system where most things come from small, costly steeping stones instead of large, well thought out, initially costly but less costly than the small jumps over time, elegant plans.

Sad but true.

i agree they won't but then whats the point of something that is not going to fix the problems? and add far more problems to the situation?

i am for UHC but i do not think the people writing it are capable of writing what needs to be done.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Poor repubs brought this on themselves

They could have easily come to the table and negotiated away the public option if they hate it that much. But no their idea of bipartanship and comprimize amounted to offering up 1 inconcequential RHINO. So they get whats handed to them.

You had to know this was the most likely endgame strategy by the dems, the repups made it very clear they wouldn't give an inch on anything. Reid has probably been working on securing the 60 procedural votes for months. And since the repubs have made it near impossible to pass any bill with 60 votes Reid has made the correct call, if they force you to pass it with a partisan vote of less than 60 might as well satisfy the bulk of the dems and include the public option. And the idea that 1 lowly RHINO vote makes it a bipartisan bill is just stupid, Olympia Snow has never been a factor IMO.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Poor repubs brought this on themselves

They could have easily come to the table and negotiated away the public option if they hate it that much. But no their idea of bipartanship and comprimize amounted to offering up 1 inconcequential RHINO. So they get whats handed to them.

You had to know this was the most likely endgame strategy by the dems, the repups made it very clear they wouldn't give an inch on anything. Reid has probably been working on securing the 60 procedural votes for months. And since the repubs have made it near impossible to pass any bill with 60 votes Reid has made the correct call, if they force you to pass it with a partisan vote of less than 60 might as well satisfy the bulk of the dems and include the public option.

afaik, the GOP had their own bills and amendments and got shot down across the board.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Ausm
Saaweet! About fricking time now,I think this bill is finally in sight of the finishing line


http://blogs.abcnews.com/theno...c-option-its-back.html

Here's the key bit from your article:

That would appear to be a problem because Reid needs 60 votes to pass a health care bill and there are simply not 60 Senators who support a public option. But Reid is now convinced that Democratic critics of the public option will support him when it counts ? on the procedural motion, which requires 60 votes, to defeat a certain GOP-led filibuster of the bill. Once the filibuster is beaten, it only takes 51 votes to pass the bill.

For this to be true, senators need to trust that voters will understand the nuanced difference between voting for the bill and voting for cloture.

I'm not sure they do...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Waggy, I think that you, TruePaige and myself aren't that far apart, but while we have our own opinions we don't bang the table and scream. My opinion is that we want good health care first, and all else is secondary. I maintain that if the practitioner is allowed to do what they know to be in the best interest of the patient, then that will in itself lower the cost of health care, which is going to be very expensive indeed. Remember that many now who complain about the elderly are the ones most likely to develop Alzheimers and other age related conditions. It's demographics, and not just the Boomers. If we cannot get a grasp of sound therapeutics, what good will all the weeping and gnashing of teeth about insurance profits do? Nothing.

It's not economics, it's health care. Do it right and the former will take care of itself. That's my position.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: loki8481

afaik, the GOP had their own bills and amendments and got shot down across the board.

Thats exactly the GOP's problem, they no longer have the majority and the can't seem to except it. Since when does the minority party control the design of legislation? Maybe if they had tried to negotiate a bill sponsered by the majority instead of stonewalling and throwing out a few "look at me I'm stupid" bills of their own they wouldn't be in this shape.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Ausm
Saaweet! About fricking time now,I think this bill is finally in sight of the finishing line


http://blogs.abcnews.com/theno...c-option-its-back.html

Here's the key bit from your article:

That would appear to be a problem because Reid needs 60 votes to pass a health care bill and there are simply not 60 Senators who support a public option. But Reid is now convinced that Democratic critics of the public option will support him when it counts ? on the procedural motion, which requires 60 votes, to defeat a certain GOP-led filibuster of the bill. Once the filibuster is beaten, it only takes 51 votes to pass the bill.

For this to be true, senators need to trust that voters will understand the nuanced difference between voting for the bill and voting for cloture.

I'm not sure they do...

And thats exactly why Reid can get the blue dogs to vote on the procedural issue, because they understand that the majority of their constituents will only understand that they voted against the bill.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: loki8481

afaik, the GOP had their own bills and amendments and got shot down across the board.

Thats exactly the GOP's problem, they no longer have the majority and the can't seem to except it. Since when does the minority party control the design of legislation? Maybe if they had tried to negotiate a bill sponsered by the majority instead of stonewalling and throwing out a few "look at me I'm stupid" bills of their own they wouldn't be in this shape.

Ok, why should the rest of us who aren't political hacks care why children fight in the sandbox? Because the bratty kids are trying to run our health care.

The Reps and Dems BOTH need to grow up and get over themselves. It's the welfare of the patient that's paramount, and if you can't deal with that get out of the way and let adults handle the situation.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Some sort of public approach makes sense, but people need to realize that health care is expensive and budget for it as they budget for anything important in their lives like a house or a car. Many people will pay $500/month for their car, but that for insurance for their health? Fvck that!

I just don't see someone with a $500/month car payment skipping health insurance. If they can afford that kind of car payment, they're working a good job with benefits.

The guy without health insurance is the guy whose car cost $500.

I know a guy who has no health insurance. Works full time tending bar at a pretty decent place. He drives a BMW that he doesn't have paid off(payment more than my mortgage). Seems to me he's making the choice not to buy Insurance.

There are literally millions of people without health insurance with a household income over $70k, this number was thrown around recently. A great number of those without health insurance do indeed find the money for things like $500 car payments.

Going out health insurance is stupid especially if you make that type of money.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Some sort of public approach makes sense, but people need to realize that health care is expensive and budget for it as they budget for anything important in their lives like a house or a car. Many people will pay $500/month for their car, but that for insurance for their health? Fvck that!

I just don't see someone with a $500/month car payment skipping health insurance. If they can afford that kind of car payment, they're working a good job with benefits.

The guy without health insurance is the guy whose car cost $500.

I know a guy who has no health insurance. Works full time tending bar at a pretty decent place. He drives a BMW that he doesn't have paid off(payment more than my mortgage). Seems to me he's making the choice not to buy Insurance.

There are literally millions of people without health insurance with a household income over $70k, this number was thrown around recently. A great number of those without health insurance do indeed find the money for things like $500 car payments.

Going out health insurance is stupid especially if you make that type of money.

Look at my post in response to his. SOL?

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Poor repubs brought this on themselves

They could have easily come to the table and negotiated away the public option if they hate it that much. But no their idea of bipartanship and comprimize amounted to offering up 1 inconcequential RHINO. So they get whats handed to them.

You had to know this was the most likely endgame strategy by the dems, the repups made it very clear they wouldn't give an inch on anything. Reid has probably been working on securing the 60 procedural votes for months. And since the repubs have made it near impossible to pass any bill with 60 votes Reid has made the correct call, if they force you to pass it with a partisan vote of less than 60 might as well satisfy the bulk of the dems and include the public option.

afaik, the GOP had their own bills and amendments and got shot down across the board.

LOL yeah their healthcare plan consisted of 16 pages

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Ausm
Saaweet! About fricking time now,I think this bill is finally in sight of the finishing line


http://blogs.abcnews.com/theno...c-option-its-back.html

Here's the key bit from your article:

That would appear to be a problem because Reid needs 60 votes to pass a health care bill and there are simply not 60 Senators who support a public option. But Reid is now convinced that Democratic critics of the public option will support him when it counts ? on the procedural motion, which requires 60 votes, to defeat a certain GOP-led filibuster of the bill. Once the filibuster is beaten, it only takes 51 votes to pass the bill.

For this to be true, senators need to trust that voters will understand the nuanced difference between voting for the bill and voting for cloture.

I'm not sure they do...

And thats exactly why Reid can get the blue dogs to vote on the procedural issue, because they understand that the majority of their constituents will only understand that they voted against the bill.

Until their competitors start airing commercials that say, "I voted for it before I voted against it."

Also, what does Reid have to do with the Blue Dog Coalition?

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Poor repubs brought this on themselves

They could have easily come to the table and negotiated away the public option if they hate it that much. But no their idea of bipartanship and comprimize amounted to offering up 1 inconcequential RHINO. So they get whats handed to them.

You had to know this was the most likely endgame strategy by the dems, the repups made it very clear they wouldn't give an inch on anything. Reid has probably been working on securing the 60 procedural votes for months. And since the repubs have made it near impossible to pass any bill with 60 votes Reid has made the correct call, if they force you to pass it with a partisan vote of less than 60 might as well satisfy the bulk of the dems and include the public option.

afaik, the GOP had their own bills and amendments and got shot down across the board.

LOL yeah their healthcare plan consisted of 16 pages

heh. people might have actually read a 16 page bill.

 

[sportage]

Public option is a must. Period.

And I do hope it will lead to the demise of the insurance industry. As the insurance industry fears it will.
You know... that middle man making all the money while not in itself
involved with making sick people better. The ones handeling all the cash.
Making all the calls. Doing none of the work. In the old days we called the likes of
these folks THE MOB.

Imagine a middle man in the utilities industry.
You wouldn?t pay the water supplier directly, you'd pay some
middle man who takes 50% off the top, then forwards the
rest to the water company. Naturally, the middle man gets
greedy and demands more and more. And you pay more and more.

Hey... I think I stumbled onto something.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Waggy, I think that you, TruePaige and myself aren't that far apart, but while we have our own opinions we don't bang the table and scream. My opinion is that we want good health care first, and all else is secondary. I maintain that if the practitioner is allowed to do what they know to be in the best interest of the patient, then that will in itself lower the cost of health care, which is going to be very expensive indeed. Remember that many now who complain about the elderly are the ones most likely to develop Alzheimers and other age related conditions. It's demographics, and not just the Boomers. If we cannot get a grasp of sound therapeutics, what good will all the weeping and gnashing of teeth about insurance profits do? Nothing.

It's not economics, it's health care. Do it right and the former will take care of itself. That's my position.

Indeed, I think you and I both agree on what needs to be done, we need to allow the doctors to do their jobs without restraining them based on costs or plans, so that proper healthcare will bring down costs (along with the same, much lower prices that the rest of the world pays for medicine, I believe you can agree with me on that).

I don't believe the kind of politicians we have in this country can pass that in a single bill because of:

1) Their own interests (Making sure they are elected in 2010)
2) Their "special interests" (Lobbyists and groups influencing their decisions).
3) General lack of knowledge on their own part on the matter.
4) Public lack of knowledge and easy swaying by those who wish to push constituents one way or the other for their own ends (people who either want the politicians seat or want the revenue streams that would be destroyed).

 

[Ozoned]

I like the public option. I am trying to think like a politician, so this is how I think it will work.

1.) Everyone gets a health care credit card to pay for health care.
2.) The credit card company goes belly up.
3.) Government bails out credit card company with money we borrow from
rich middle east countries and the chinese.


Works for me.