No Health Care Vote Before August Break

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Sounds like the Federal Government is going to pick up the different in Medicaid costs, so its not as bad as they make it sound.

I agree that Medicaid is a shitty way of getting things done. I think it should be completely eliminated in favor of the public insurance option.

So you acknowledge the fact that the current bill is crap and rushing into passing "something" is not desirable?

I trust my state government (trust is perhaps not the right word, since I don't put the words trust and politicians together) much more so than some fvcking bureaucrat in DC who decides how my federal tax dollars should be spent. Congress is run by a bunch of idiots, and there is no leadership from the Obamessiah how to put this together. Change I never believed in!

Maybe they should've asked Hillary how to put something together that wouldn't piss too many people off. I would imagine she learned a lot of lessons when she tried to push UHC back in 93.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: senseamp
OK, since it's now going to be voted after the break, hopefully the people who want Congress to slow down will shut up.

Oh, are they working to revise the bill over their break? Of course not. We don't want them to slow down -- we want them to slow down AND fix the bill. Keeping the bill the same and just delaying the vote accomplishes nothing.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

No. Insurance will be mandatory. The public option will become the default for people who aren't enrolled in a private plan.

Has the language in the House bill been removed that states that no new private policies can be issued after the public option goes into effect? Has that been proven to be false? This is not a rhetorical question, I honestly have not been following closely enough to know.

Originally posted by: SammyJr
So let's say you're like me and have good insurance and a plan you are happy with. This bill passes, what's really going to change for me?

Aside from the concern above, taxes. Lots and lots of taxes. And you're right, nothing may change. This bill may provide no better care vs funding than we have now. But that's only tangentially on topic to the quibble I had with your original statement. You said we need this to "get the ball rolling". I don't think this is a "get the ball rolling" move, it's a "we're committed whole hog, consequences be damned" move.

What if nothing changes? What if quality of care is no better? What if cost of care continues to climb? How do we go back after a bill like this? We can't!

People complain that the tax code is obtuse, bloated, confusing, and ineffective. That's because it is a hodge-podge of law passed over decades and centuries with no inherent flow. If we jump into the UHC pool with this bill and it doesn't work, we'll be left with patchwork fixes that will put the inefficiency of the tax code to shame.

As much as we need a system that works, the cost of a system that doesn't work is so great as to invalidate a slapdick effort such as this.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: senseamp
OK, since it's now going to be voted after the break, hopefully the people who want Congress to slow down will shut up.

Oh, are they working to revise the bill over their break? Of course not. We don't want them to slow down -- we want them to slow down AND fix the bill. Keeping the bill the same and just delaying the vote accomplishes nothing.

Well, if they weren't going to change it, they'd just vote on it before recess.
They are slowing down to change the bill, so critics who say "slow down" need to STFU now.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: senseamp
OK, since it's now going to be voted after the break, hopefully the people who want Congress to slow down will shut up.

Oh, are they working to revise the bill over their break? Of course not. We don't want them to slow down -- we want them to slow down AND fix the bill. Keeping the bill the same and just delaying the vote accomplishes nothing.

Well, if they weren't going to change it, they'd just vote on it before recess.
They are slowing down to change the bill, so critics who say "slow down" need to STFU now.

They didn't have the votes is my understanding, due mainly to the Blue Dog democrats. Maybe I misunderstood, but if that is still the case, my fear is that the true reason for the delay may be nothing more than a stall tactic to sell the current plan to them. This is NOT what we need.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: senseamp
OK, since it's now going to be voted after the break, hopefully the people who want Congress to slow down will shut up.

Oh, are they working to revise the bill over their break? Of course not. We don't want them to slow down -- we want them to slow down AND fix the bill. Keeping the bill the same and just delaying the vote accomplishes nothing.

Well, if they weren't going to change it, they'd just vote on it before recess.
They are slowing down to change the bill, so critics who say "slow down" need to STFU now.

They didn't have the votes is my understanding, due mainly to the Blue Dog democrats. Maybe I misunderstood, but if that is still the case, my fear is that the true reason for the delay may be nothing more than a stall tactic to sell the current plan to them. This is NOT what we need.

I think it's exactly what we need.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Sounds like the Federal Government is going to pick up the different in Medicaid costs, so its not as bad as they make it sound.

I agree that Medicaid is a shitty way of getting things done. I think it should be completely eliminated in favor of the public insurance option.

So you acknowledge the fact that the current bill is crap and rushing into passing "something" is not desirable?

Like all bills, it has its good points and bad points.

I trust my state government (trust is perhaps not the right word, since I don't put the words trust and politicians together) much more so than some fvcking bureaucrat in DC who decides how my federal tax dollars should be spent. Congress is run by a bunch of idiots, and there is no leadership from the Obamessiah how to put this together. Change I never believed in!

That Obamessiah part makes you sound incredibly brilliant. You should write books or something.

What's the different between a state bureaucrat and a federal bureaucrat? Why do you hate the fed guy for spending your money but not the state guy?

Maybe they should've asked Hillary how to put something together that wouldn't piss too many people off. I would imagine she learned a lot of lessons when she tried to push UHC back in 93.

LOL. You guys would be pissed off with anything Obama did. If Obama wanted to invade Iran and cut taxes for the wealthy to zero, you'd be pissed. If Obama wanted to give a tax credit for Jesus camps, you'd be pissed. Obama could adopt the entire RNC playbook and you'd be pissed.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: senseamp
OK, since it's now going to be voted after the break, hopefully the people who want Congress to slow down will shut up.

Oh, are they working to revise the bill over their break? Of course not. We don't want them to slow down -- we want them to slow down AND fix the bill. Keeping the bill the same and just delaying the vote accomplishes nothing.

Well, if they weren't going to change it, they'd just vote on it before recess.
They are slowing down to change the bill, so critics who say "slow down" need to STFU now.

They didn't have the votes is my understanding, due mainly to the Blue Dog democrats. Maybe I misunderstood, but if that is still the case, my fear is that the true reason for the delay may be nothing more than a stall tactic to sell the current plan to them. This is NOT what we need.

I think it's exactly what we need.

Because driving up the deficit, not curtailing the skyrocketing growth rate of healthcare costs, and shifting the majority of the burden for healthcare to the Federal government is a GREAT idea. :roll:

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

LOL. You guys would be pissed off with anything Obama did. If Obama wanted to invade Iran and cut taxes for the wealthy to zero, you'd be pissed. If Obama wanted to give a tax credit for Jesus camps, you'd be pissed. Obama could adopt the entire RNC playbook and you'd be pissed.

Speaking for myself, that is not true. I am disgusted with both parties and their petty political games. If I see something I consider bad for our country, I will speak out on it regardless if it is a Republican, Democrat, etc. at the helm.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: SammyJr

No. Insurance will be mandatory. The public option will become the default for people who aren't enrolled in a private plan.

Has the language in the House bill been removed that states that no new private policies can be issued after the public option goes into effect? Has that been proven to be false? This is not a rhetorical question, I honestly have not been following closely enough to know.

I don't think that was ever in the bill. The goal hasn't been to kill private insurance and a provision like that would certainly do so.

Originally posted by: SammyJr
So let's say you're like me and have good insurance and a plan you are happy with. This bill passes, what's really going to change for me?

Aside from the concern above, taxes. Lots and lots of taxes. And you're right, nothing may change. This bill may provide no better care vs funding than we have now. But that's only tangentially on topic to the quibble I had with your original statement. You said we need this to "get the ball rolling". I don't think this is a "get the ball rolling" move, it's a "we're committed whole hog, consequences be damned" move.

Taxes have yet to be determined. It seems like a benefit tax is out. If taxes are raised, its going to be one the top brackets. I'm nowhere near the top bracket, although the tax rate isn't going to prevent me from trying to enter it. People on the public option will pay premiums and employers above a certain size who don't offer insurance will be paying into the system as well.

Unless there is something that I haven't heard of, I don't think I'll see new taxes.

What if nothing changes? What if quality of care is no better? What if cost of care continues to climb? How do we go back after a bill like this? We can't!

Assuming there is a public option, more people will be covered and hopefully, bankruptcies will be reduced.

Reducing the cost of care is a huge problem and requires huge amount of data to analyze and fix. Health costs for the same diseases vary between location. The EMR systems that have been proposed will help collect this data. When we have more data, doctors can make better choices. This will also help with tort reform since it will be a lot easier for doctors to defend their actions with hard data.

Hindsight is 20/20.

People complain that the tax code is obtuse, bloated, confusing, and ineffective. That's because it is a hodge-podge of law passed over decades and centuries with no inherent flow. If we jump into the UHC pool with this bill and it doesn't work, we'll be left with patchwork fixes that will put the inefficiency of the tax code to shame.

As much as we need a system that works, the cost of a system that doesn't work is so great as to invalidate a slapdick effort such as this.

It is impossible to do a complete rebuild. The only thing we can do is reshape what we have.

The biggest problem we have here is the Republicans, as always. They should be offering their own plan, but all they can do is flap their gums about tax cuts and obstruct. They should be seizing onto the Mayo Clinic recommendation - letting everyone buy into the Federal Employees Health Insurance pool. Its would be a fully private system with no public option and would neatly solve the preexisting conditions issue.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: senseamp
OK, since it's now going to be voted after the break, hopefully the people who want Congress to slow down will shut up.

Oh, are they working to revise the bill over their break? Of course not. We don't want them to slow down -- we want them to slow down AND fix the bill. Keeping the bill the same and just delaying the vote accomplishes nothing.

Well, if they weren't going to change it, they'd just vote on it before recess.
They are slowing down to change the bill, so critics who say "slow down" need to STFU now.

They didn't have the votes is my understanding, due mainly to the Blue Dog democrats. Maybe I misunderstood, but if that is still the case, my fear is that the true reason for the delay may be nothing more than a stall tactic to sell the current plan to them. This is NOT what we need.

I think it's exactly what we need.

Except for the Blue Dogs arent going to vote for it as it is currently written, just like they didn't vote for Cap and Trade.

Cap and Trade passed narrowly thanks to a handful of RINOs. If they bring this to the house floor as is next week, without a massive rewrite, the bill won't pass. It doesnt have the support of moderate dems, or the support of Blue Dogs. It doesnt have the RINO support either.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: SammyJr
-snip-
The biggest problem we have here is the Republicans

That's BS.

The Repubs haven't got anything to do with the current stalemate. It's the Dems fighting among themselves. As noted above, and reported everywhere in the MSM the Dems have basically broken into 3 camps: (Far) Left, so-called moderate and 'conservative' Blue Dog Dems.

Even the Obama channel, er I mean MSNBC says so. In fact most the left leaning talking heads are surprised Obama is ripping the Repubs for the stalemate when everybody knows the problem in his own party. Rahm Emanuel called the Blue Dogs in for a meeting to pressure them, but doesn't look like it worked etc.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Wreckem
-snip-
Except for the Blue Dogs arent going to vote for it as it is currently written, just like they didn't vote for Cap and Trade.

The Blue Dog from my district voted for Cap-N-trade and he's been getting reamed non-stop. Oddly enough he didn't vote for the stim bill, but I think the Dems knew they had enough votes to pass it and so let him and other Blue Dogs slide

But right now because of that Cap-N-Trade vote his re-election chances for next year look pretty remote.

I'll be quite surprised if he votes for the current UHC bill. If so, he better hope the Repubs put up a crappy candidate - which is entirely possible. The last one was a nutball who angered the Repub parties around here by calling for Bush's impeachment for not stopping illegal immigration (IIRC), among other loopy things.

Fern

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
We will be paying 10x or 100x more if it pass.

Really? REALLY?

Because, you know, 10x more is 100% of our GDP and 100x more is 10 USA's.

...so..

Wow. How bad are you at math?

 

[FerrelGeek]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: senseamp
OK, since it's now going to be voted after the break, hopefully the people who want Congress to slow down will shut up.

Oh, are they working to revise the bill over their break? Of course not. We don't want them to slow down -- we want them to slow down AND fix the bill. Keeping the bill the same and just delaying the vote accomplishes nothing.

Well, if they weren't going to change it, they'd just vote on it before recess.
They are slowing down to change the bill, so critics who say "slow down" need to STFU now.

They didn't have the votes is my understanding, due mainly to the Blue Dog democrats. Maybe I misunderstood, but if that is still the case, my fear is that the true reason for the delay may be nothing more than a stall tactic to sell the current plan to them. This is NOT what we need.

I think it's exactly what we need.

Oh yes, let's rush to pass a poorly conceived piece of garbage just to make you stop pouting and stomping your little size 6 foot. You've done nothing in this thread but hold yourself up as the poster boy that people like Rush like to lampoon. Way ta go!

Anything worth doing is worth doing well. If we're realy going to reform healthcare, let's do it in a way that won't screw up the 80%+ of Americans that have it. But all you care about is checking the box.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: FerrelGeek

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: senseamp
OK, since it's now going to be voted after the break, hopefully the people who want Congress to slow down will shut up.

Oh, are they working to revise the bill over their break? Of course not. We don't want them to slow down -- we want them to slow down AND fix the bill. Keeping the bill the same and just delaying the vote accomplishes nothing.

Well, if they weren't going to change it, they'd just vote on it before recess.
They are slowing down to change the bill, so critics who say "slow down" need to STFU now.

They didn't have the votes is my understanding, due mainly to the Blue Dog democrats. Maybe I misunderstood, but if that is still the case, my fear is that the true reason for the delay may be nothing more than a stall tactic to sell the current plan to them. This is NOT what we need.

I think it's exactly what we need.

Oh yes, let's rush to pass a poorly conceived piece of garbage just to make you stop pouting and stomping your little size 6 foot. You've done nothing in this thread but hold yourself up as the poster boy that people like Rush like to lampoon. Way ta go!

Anything worth doing is worth doing well. If we're realy going to reform healthcare, let's do it in a way that won't screw up the 80%+ of Americans that have it. But all you care about is checking the box.

I don't think it's poorly conceived. Looks like it has a public option in place. If you think providing care to the uninsured is screwing everyone else, well, we already screw everyone at the ER then.

 

[bigbrent88]

I think the problem with the bill, the reason it is so massive and vague, stems from the fact that it has to balance public and private concerns of insurance. If it were reform in one or the other it would still be large, but more focused. I don't know what the best current option is for this bill, I haven't read it and only have the bullet points on how would work.

This bill has cuased me to think more about UHC and better ways to implement it outside of a full national program. Couldn't we start passing some powers down to states again?! Maybe pass legislation that would require states to provide UHC with cost split 50-50 between the fed and state governments. The plans could be different in each state based on what those citizens truly want for insurance, that way you don't force 400 million people to get a certain plan. Include a minimum of coverage that the state has to follow and bonuses for improving health of citizens like the UK does for doctors. It would also give bragging rights for states to encourage companies or people to move there.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: blanghorst
Because driving up the deficit, not curtailing the skyrocketing growth rate of healthcare costs, and shifting the majority of the burden for healthcare to the Federal government is a GREAT idea. :roll:

At least you admit that healthcare costs are skyrocketing under status quo, and a bill is needed to curtail them. That is better than the "problem? what problem?" crew.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

What's the different between a state bureaucrat and a federal bureaucrat? Why do you hate the fed guy for spending your money but not the state guy?

LOL. You guys would be pissed off with anything Obama did. If Obama wanted to invade Iran and cut taxes for the wealthy to zero, you'd be pissed. If Obama wanted to give a tax credit for Jesus camps, you'd be pissed. Obama could adopt the entire RNC playbook and you'd be pissed.

Because it's easier to scrutinize politicians at the state level than at the federal level.

You guys? I'm an independent. I never believed Obama's so called change. It was a bunch of bullsh!t and you sheeples were worshipping him. He is a horrible president (as shown from this health care legislation) due to his lack of experience, balls and ideology. For the record, I think cap-n-trade was horribly written, the bailouts and stimulus was a flop, and this health care thing is also poorly drafted, all under the Obamessiah's watch. Your party controls both the legislative and executive branch, so guess who I'm going to blame?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blanghorst
Because driving up the deficit, not curtailing the skyrocketing growth rate of healthcare costs, and shifting the majority of the burden for healthcare to the Federal government is a GREAT idea. :roll:

At least you admit that healthcare costs are skyrocketing under status quo, and a bill is needed to curtail them. That is better than the "problem? what problem?" crew.

Hey, I have never denied that reform is needed and to be quite honest, I don't recall seeing any "problem? what problem?" posters here either (though I may have missed a few threads). The current bill does nothing to stop the rising costs -- they will still rise at an unsustainable pace.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: senseamp
-snip-
Looks like it has a public option in place.

No it doesn't, not if reporters like Chuck Todd and many others are to be believed.

In fact, that seems to be the #1 cause of the Dem stalemate.

Fern

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

I don't think that was ever in the bill. The goal hasn't been to kill private insurance and a provision like that would certainly do so.

It was somewhere in the bill- it was linked here on ATP&N. There was some discussion about how it would be interpreted or enforced. I never hear what the resolution was. I hate the fusetalk search, so maybe someone can help dig this thread up if they have some free time.

Taxes have yet to be determined. It seems like a benefit tax is out. If taxes are raised, its going to be one the top brackets. I'm nowhere near the top bracket, although the tax rate isn't going to prevent me from trying to enter it. People on the public option will pay premiums and employers above a certain size who don't offer insurance will be paying into the system as well.

Unless there is something that I haven't heard of, I don't think I'll see new taxes.

This hinges somewhat on the resolution to the item above, but if coverage for pre-existing conditions is federally mandated, the whole system becomes one giant hidden tax. Insurance is designed to share risk; we know that something will happen to someone, but we don't know who, so everyone pitches in in case it's them. Once the event has occurred, the uncertainty is gone. Allowing someone to participate in the pool in case something happens but covering those events that have already happened is no longer risk sharing/insurance. At that point it becomes a tax. So, by covering pre-existing conditions any premium you pay is no longer sharing risk among those who might have something occur but instead a tax on those who have not had something occur to transfer money to the unfortunate. It basically becomes a system akin to SSI.

Assuming there is a public option, more people will be covered and hopefully, bankruptcies will be reduced.

Reducing the cost of care is a huge problem and requires huge amount of data to analyze and fix. Health costs for the same diseases vary between location. The EMR systems that have been proposed will help collect this data. When we have more data, doctors can make better choices. This will also help with tort reform since it will be a lot easier for doctors to defend their actions with hard data.

Hindsight is 20/20.

I agree with some of what you said here (concerning data analysis and choices) but this bill doesn't allow for that since it proposes solutions to the problem before the data can be analyzed. It's putting the cart before the horse. You advocated earlier for "getting the ball rolling". If the bill had just this in it, that would be getting the ball rolling. But you can't say "We don't know so we'll study it. Oh, and here's a solution!". You either dedicate the resources to finding the root cause and then offer solutions or throw fixes at it (like this bill) without knowing the cause, and without paying lip service to and wasting resources in "research".

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blanghorst
Because driving up the deficit, not curtailing the skyrocketing growth rate of healthcare costs, and shifting the majority of the burden for healthcare to the Federal government is a GREAT idea. :roll:

At least you admit that healthcare costs are skyrocketing under status quo, and a bill is needed to curtail them. That is better than the "problem? what problem?" crew.

Hey, I have never denied that reform is needed and to be quite honest, I don't recall seeing any "problem? what problem?" posters here either (though I may have missed a few threads). The current bill does nothing to stop the rising costs -- they will still rise at an unsustainable pace.

That's the only good thing about the status quo, something that can't go on forever will eventually end. I guess we could wait for it to collapse, then rebuild the system from the ground up, though a lot more people will have to suffer before than happens, but it may end up better than trying to patch the current system with a public option.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: sactoking
It was somewhere in the bill- it was linked here on ATP&N. There was some discussion about how it would be interpreted or enforced. I never hear what the resolution was. I hate the fusetalk search, so maybe someone can help dig this thread up if they have some free time.

It's on page 16 of the bill. There, you can read all about "Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage," and the subsequent vague foundation for the eventual elimination of any/all private insurance.

After all, if you're only allowed to choose from the Government's approved list of providers -- the mysterious and all-powerful "Federal Health Insurance Exchange" -- what happens when the Government's new healthcare "Commissioner" decides to take every private provider off said list?

woops.

And that's just one of the many ambiguous sections in this fun-filled House version of the bill...

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blanghorst
Because driving up the deficit, not curtailing the skyrocketing growth rate of healthcare costs, and shifting the majority of the burden for healthcare to the Federal government is a GREAT idea. :roll:

At least you admit that healthcare costs are skyrocketing under status quo, and a bill is needed to curtail them. That is better than the "problem? what problem?" crew.

Hey, I have never denied that reform is needed and to be quite honest, I don't recall seeing any "problem? what problem?" posters here either (though I may have missed a few threads). The current bill does nothing to stop the rising costs -- they will still rise at an unsustainable pace.

That's the only good thing about the status quo, something that can't go on forever will eventually end. I guess we could wait for it to collapse, then rebuild the system from the ground up, though a lot more people will have to suffer before than happens, but it may end up better than trying to patch the current system with a public option.

I couldn't agree more. Wanna guess the dollar amount of treasury notes being sold in the next week (including today)?