No Health Care Vote Before August Break

[Fingolfin269]

If only Obama would go 'Ross Perot' on this issue everything would be easy to explain. I want charts. I want graphs. I want visuals damnit!

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Isn't it funny how all the anti uhc pretend to hide around the "don't rush it" mantra, which so happens to be the way to stall and kill legislation. You people aren't clever and you are very much for the status quo, despite your posturing. You are as obvious as can be.

It is also obvious people like you want something, ANYTHING, passed for the sake of passing something, not because it is really a good idea.

We've been talking about health care reform/UHC/etc. since WWII ended. If nothing gets done now, Obama and the Democrats will probably lose their next elections and if not, they won't get it done. We'll have to wait through another 8+ years of Republicans ignoring the issue while the Middle Class continues to suffer. (Yeah, I know you're fine and always will be fine so therefore everyone else must be the same way.)

With that in mind, something needs to be passed and the rough edges can be smoothed over later.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Isn't it funny how all the anti uhc pretend to hide around the "don't rush it" mantra, which so happens to be the way to stall and kill legislation. You people aren't clever and you are very much for the status quo, despite your posturing. You are as obvious as can be.

It is also obvious people like you want something, ANYTHING, passed for the sake of passing something, not because it is really a good idea.

Yes, and from the other thread it seems he's passionately for UHC because he wants an alternative to for-profit insurance yet has no idea if a gov sponsored HI plan will even be in the bill. At this point, nobody can say if it'll contain a provision for gov sponsored HI plan, co-op type, or neither. And it's the Dems themselves who are fighting over that.

Fern

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Isn't it funny how all the anti uhc pretend to hide around the "don't rush it" mantra, which so happens to be the way to stall and kill legislation. You people aren't clever and you are very much for the status quo, despite your posturing. You are as obvious as can be.

It is also obvious people like you want something, ANYTHING, passed for the sake of passing something, not because it is really a good idea.

Yes, and from the other thread it seems he's passionately for UHC because he wants an alternative to for-profit insurance yet has no idea if a gov sponsored HI plan will even be in the bill. At this point, nobody can if if it'll contain a provision for gov sponsored HI plan, co-op type, or neither. And it's the Dems themselves who are fighting over that.

Fern

If they pass a watered down bill to appease the DINO Blue Dogs, the Democrats will be in trouble.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

If they pass a watered down bill to appease the DINO Blue Dogs, the Democrats will be in trouble.

If they pass what they have now, we're ALL going to be in trouble. It does not rein in costs sufficiently. There are links throughout the forums about the CBO's estimates of what will happen. Here is an article from today summarizing it:

Health ?Reform? That Isn?t

The fact that it has been worked on since WWII and still has never been implemented is not a sufficient reason to pass a poorly designed plan.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: SammyJr

If they pass a watered down bill to appease the DINO Blue Dogs, the Democrats will be in trouble.

If they pass what they have now, we're ALL going to be in trouble. It does not rein in costs sufficiently. There are links throughout the forums about the CBO's estimates of what will happen. Here is an article from today summarizing it:

Health ?Reform? That Isn?t

The fact that it has been worked on since WWII and still has never been implemented is not a sufficient reason to pass a poorly designed plan.

Absolutely agree 110%. Not sure why these guys think that they can come up with a good (best? LOL ) solution in just a few weeks. Like Geico insurance....so easy that a Congressman...er...caveman could do it.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

We've been talking about health care reform/UHC/etc. since WWII ended. If nothing gets done now, Obama and the Democrats will probably lose their next elections and if not, they won't get it done. We'll have to wait through another 8+ years of Republicans ignoring the issue while the Middle Class continues to suffer. (Yeah, I know you're fine and always will be fine so therefore everyone else must be the same way.)

With that in mind, something needs to be passed and the rough edges can be smoothed over later.

I certainly hope you're not implying that Obama and Co. should pass something just to ensure that they all get re-elected. I don't think you are, but I wanted to make sure.

Your crack about me "being fine and always being fine, so therefore everyone is fine" is not true. How do I know my job, and therefore, my insurance, will last? I don't. I have also never denied that reform is needed and I have also never denied that insurance companies will screw people over on occasion.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: SammyJr
-snip-
If they pass a watered down bill to appease the DINO Blue Dogs, the Democrats will be in trouble.

I see trouble for them either way.

If there's no gov sponsored HI plan, some on the left may stay home etc.

If they pass what the further left wants, and the Blue Dogs vote for it I bet many of them are out next election. The Blue Dogs are already in trouble back home for helping pass Cap-N-Trade.

And if they pass something that's monumentally crappy, like the current version(s) seems to me they may lose in a lot of districts.

Watching all the fighting going on now - and it's among the Dems themselves at this point - I can why pols in the past have been reluctant to approach any full-scale changes like this. IMO, may have been better to take an incremental approach and attack the various problems seperately.

Fern

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: SammyJr

We've been talking about health care reform/UHC/etc. since WWII ended. If nothing gets done now, Obama and the Democrats will probably lose their next elections and if not, they won't get it done. We'll have to wait through another 8+ years of Republicans ignoring the issue while the Middle Class continues to suffer. (Yeah, I know you're fine and always will be fine so therefore everyone else must be the same way.)

With that in mind, something needs to be passed and the rough edges can be smoothed over later.

I certainly hope you're not implying that Obama and Co. should pass something just to ensure that they all get re-elected. I don't think you are, but I wanted to make sure.

Your crack about me "being fine and always being fine, so therefore everyone is fine" is not true. How do I know my job, and therefore, my insurance, will last? I don't. I have also never denied that reform is needed and I have also never denied that insurance companies will screw people over on occasion.

Actually, that's exactly what I am saying. The progressive wing of the Democrats will abandon them if they don't get this done and the Democrats will lose without them. There are a lot of areas where the Democrats carry slim margins.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: SammyJr

We've been talking about health care reform/UHC/etc. since WWII ended. If nothing gets done now, Obama and the Democrats will probably lose their next elections and if not, they won't get it done. We'll have to wait through another 8+ years of Republicans ignoring the issue while the Middle Class continues to suffer. (Yeah, I know you're fine and always will be fine so therefore everyone else must be the same way.)

With that in mind, something needs to be passed and the rough edges can be smoothed over later.

I certainly hope you're not implying that Obama and Co. should pass something just to ensure that they all get re-elected. I don't think you are, but I wanted to make sure.

Your crack about me "being fine and always being fine, so therefore everyone is fine" is not true. How do I know my job, and therefore, my insurance, will last? I don't. I have also never denied that reform is needed and I have also never denied that insurance companies will screw people over on occasion.

Actually, that's exactly what I am saying. The progressive wing of the Democrats will abandon them if they don't get this done and the Democrats will lose without them. There are a lot of areas where the Democrats carry slim margins.

So regardless of how bad the plan is, they should pass "something" just to get re-elected? That doesn't sound like people who want to put the country and its interests ahead of their personal ambitions, does it?

Nevermind, we're talking about politicians here, so I know the answer.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: SammyJr
-snip-
If they pass a watered down bill to appease the DINO Blue Dogs, the Democrats will be in trouble.

I see trouble for them either way.

If there's no gov sponsored HI plan, some on the left may stay home etc.

If they pass what the further left wants, and the Blue Dogs vote for it I bet many of them are out next election. The Blue Dogs are already in trouble back home for helping pass Cap-N-Trade.

And if they pass something that's monumentally crappy, like the current version(s) seems to me they may lose in a lot of districts.

Watching all the fighting going on now - and it's among the Dems themselves at this point - I can why pols in the past have been reluctant to approach any full-scale changes like this. IMO, may have been better to take an incremental approach and attack the various problems seperately.

Fern

The public health insurance option is an incremental step. Since its an option, you don't have to use it. A full-scale change would be like a complete elimination of the private system.

A lot of the problems have to do with FUD from the right. If they pass it with the public option, the insured public will see that their insurance is exactly the same as the day before and it'll be just fine. And people who are having trouble getting insurance will finally have an affordable option.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: SammyJr

We've been talking about health care reform/UHC/etc. since WWII ended. If nothing gets done now, Obama and the Democrats will probably lose their next elections and if not, they won't get it done. We'll have to wait through another 8+ years of Republicans ignoring the issue while the Middle Class continues to suffer. (Yeah, I know you're fine and always will be fine so therefore everyone else must be the same way.)

With that in mind, something needs to be passed and the rough edges can be smoothed over later.

I certainly hope you're not implying that Obama and Co. should pass something just to ensure that they all get re-elected. I don't think you are, but I wanted to make sure.

Your crack about me "being fine and always being fine, so therefore everyone is fine" is not true. How do I know my job, and therefore, my insurance, will last? I don't. I have also never denied that reform is needed and I have also never denied that insurance companies will screw people over on occasion.

Actually, that's exactly what I am saying. The progressive wing of the Democrats will abandon them if they don't get this done and the Democrats will lose without them. There are a lot of areas where the Democrats carry slim margins.

So regardless of how bad the plan is, they should pass "something" just to get re-elected? That doesn't sound like people who want to put the country and its interests ahead of their personal ambitions, does it?

Nevermind, we're talking about politicians here, so I know the answer.

No, they should pass something to get the UHC ball rolling.

You make the concept of getting re-elected sound so seedy. I voted for these clowns so they could represent me. I want steps taken towards UHC. They take those steps and I vote for them again. They don't and I vote them out or stay home.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: SammyJr
-snip-
The public health insurance option is an incremental step.

You and I have a different understanding of the word "incremental", and the public option isn't the only thing in the bill - not by a longshot.

"Incremental" doesn't need 1,000 + pages.

Fern

 

[EndGame]

Just saw an interesting tid bit on TV, don't know if it is in print online yet, a quick search provided no links but I'm sure it will.

HLN reported that Gov. Perry of Texas, along with 14 other states are considering invoking 10th amendment rights and challenging Obama and the Federal Gov. if this healthcare bill is passed. Apparently siting "disastorous" implications should this bill be passed.....

Probably a partisn attempt to cause problems but I'm waiting to see what these "disastorous" implications are and also what others states are involved......I have to leave soon but hopefully someone will find/follow up on this!

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: EndGame
Just saw an interesting tid bit on TV, don't know if it is in print online yet, a quick search provided no links but I'm sure it will.

HLN reported that Gov. Perry of Texas, along with 14 other states are considering invoking 10th amendment rights and challenging Obama and the Federal Gov. if this healthcare bill is passed. Apparently siting "disastorous" implications should this bill be passed.....

Probably a partisn attempt to cause problems but I'm waiting to see what these "disastorous" implications are and also what others states are involved......I have to leave soon but hopefully someone will find/follow up on this!

Didn't Perry want to sescede earlier this year? What an ass.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: SammyJr
The public health insurance option is an incremental step. Since its an option, you don't have to use it. A full-scale change would be like a complete elimination of the private system.

Except the excerpts from the bill indicate that the public option would become mandatory over time so it's not really an option at all, is it?

Originally posted by: SammyJr
No, they should pass something to get the UHC ball rolling.

This bill is not a "get the ball rolling" step. This 1000+ page bill is a "Indiana Jones is running away from the runaway trap boulder because he can't stop it" step. A "get the ball rolling" step is 'Ok, let's make this change and see how it works. If it works well, we can build upon it. If it works poorly we can go back and re-think'. This bill, if passed, would be complete and utter change and overhaul of the system. That's not a 'dip your toe in the pool' change that's 'jump off the high-dive change'.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

You make the concept of getting re-elected sound so seedy. I voted for these clowns so they could represent me. I want steps taken towards UHC. They take those steps and I vote for them again. They don't and I vote them out or stay home.

Nothing is wrong with getting re-elected. What is wrong is passing something to get re-elected when they very well know it will not achieve the stated cost reduction goals and will greatly increase the deficit.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: SammyJr
The public health insurance option is an incremental step. Since its an option, you don't have to use it. A full-scale change would be like a complete elimination of the private system.

Except the excerpts from the bill indicate that the public option would become mandatory over time so it's not really an option at all, is it?

Originally posted by: SammyJr
No, they should pass something to get the UHC ball rolling.

This bill is not a "get the ball rolling" step. This 1000+ page bill is a "Indiana Jones is running away from the runaway trap boulder because he can't stop it" step. A "get the ball rolling" step is 'Ok, let's make this change and see how it works. If it works well, we can build upon it. If it works poorly we can go back and re-think'. This bill, if passed, would be complete and utter change and overhaul of the system. That's not a 'dip your toe in the pool' change that's 'jump off the high-dive change'.

This man knows of what he speaks. :thumbsup:

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: EndGame
Just saw an interesting tid bit on TV, don't know if it is in print online yet, a quick search provided no links but I'm sure it will.

HLN reported that Gov. Perry of Texas, along with 14 other states are considering invoking 10th amendment rights and challenging Obama and the Federal Gov. if this healthcare bill is passed. Apparently siting "disastorous" implications should this bill be passed.....

Probably a partisn attempt to cause problems but I'm waiting to see what these "disastorous" implications are and also what others states are involved......I have to leave soon but hopefully someone will find/follow up on this!

From what I understand both D and R governors are vehemently against this plan, since it seems like the Feds want to stick this up the States' collective a$$es.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: SammyJr
The public health insurance option is an incremental step. Since its an option, you don't have to use it. A full-scale change would be like a complete elimination of the private system.

Except the excerpts from the bill indicate that the public option would become mandatory over time so it's not really an option at all, is it?

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

Originally posted by: SammyJr
No, they should pass something to get the UHC ball rolling.

This bill is not a "get the ball rolling" step. This 1000+ page bill is a "Indiana Jones is running away from the runaway trap boulder because he can't stop it" step. A "get the ball rolling" step is 'Ok, let's make this change and see how it works. If it works well, we can build upon it. If it works poorly we can go back and re-think'. This bill, if passed, would be complete and utter change and overhaul of the system. That's not a 'dip your toe in the pool' change that's 'jump off the high-dive change'.

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?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: EndGame
Just saw an interesting tid bit on TV, don't know if it is in print online yet, a quick search provided no links but I'm sure it will.

HLN reported that Gov. Perry of Texas, along with 14 other states are considering invoking 10th amendment rights and challenging Obama and the Federal Gov. if this healthcare bill is passed. Apparently siting "disastorous" implications should this bill be passed.....

Probably a partisn attempt to cause problems but I'm waiting to see what these "disastorous" implications are and also what others states are involved......I have to leave soon but hopefully someone will find/follow up on this!

From what I understand both D and R governors are vehemently against this plan, since it seems like the Feds want to stick this up the States' collective a$$es.

I can't blame them either. This is one of the big issues I have with the Federal government as well.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: EndGame
Just saw an interesting tid bit on TV, don't know if it is in print online yet, a quick search provided no links but I'm sure it will.

HLN reported that Gov. Perry of Texas, along with 14 other states are considering invoking 10th amendment rights and challenging Obama and the Federal Gov. if this healthcare bill is passed. Apparently siting "disastorous" implications should this bill be passed.....

Probably a partisn attempt to cause problems but I'm waiting to see what these "disastorous" implications are and also what others states are involved......I have to leave soon but hopefully someone will find/follow up on this!

From what I understand both D and R governors are vehemently against this plan, since it seems like the Feds want to stick this up the States' collective a$$es.

I'm from Illinois, so frankly, I don't give a shit what our corrupt State Government wants.

 

[theeedude]

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

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: EndGame
Just saw an interesting tid bit on TV, don't know if it is in print online yet, a quick search provided no links but I'm sure it will.

HLN reported that Gov. Perry of Texas, along with 14 other states are considering invoking 10th amendment rights and challenging Obama and the Federal Gov. if this healthcare bill is passed. Apparently siting "disastorous" implications should this bill be passed.....

Probably a partisn attempt to cause problems but I'm waiting to see what these "disastorous" implications are and also what others states are involved......I have to leave soon but hopefully someone will find/follow up on this!

From what I understand both D and R governors are vehemently against this plan, since it seems like the Feds want to stick this up the States' collective a$$es.

I'm from Illinois, so frankly, I don't give a shit what our corrupt State Government wants.

Are you a stupid partisan democrat? Please read this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07...h/policy/20health.html

Another evidence that you partisan hacks voted in an empty suit who can't get things done. All Hail the Obamessiah!

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: EndGame
Just saw an interesting tid bit on TV, don't know if it is in print online yet, a quick search provided no links but I'm sure it will.

HLN reported that Gov. Perry of Texas, along with 14 other states are considering invoking 10th amendment rights and challenging Obama and the Federal Gov. if this healthcare bill is passed. Apparently siting "disastorous" implications should this bill be passed.....

Probably a partisn attempt to cause problems but I'm waiting to see what these "disastorous" implications are and also what others states are involved......I have to leave soon but hopefully someone will find/follow up on this!

From what I understand both D and R governors are vehemently against this plan, since it seems like the Feds want to stick this up the States' collective a$$es.

I'm from Illinois, so frankly, I don't give a shit what our corrupt State Government wants.

Are you a stupid partisan democrat? Please read this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07...h/policy/20health.html

Another evidence that you partisan hacks voted in an empty suit who can't get things done. All Hail the Obamessiah!

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.