WASHINGTON – In a victory for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House narrowly passed landmark health care legislation Saturday night to expand coverage to tens of millions who lack it and place tough new restrictions on the insurance industry. Republican opposition was nearly unanimous.
The 220-215 vote cleared the way for the Senate to begin debate on the issue that has come to overshadow all others in Congress.
A triumphant Speaker Nancy Pelosi likened the legislation to the passage of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare 30 years later.
"It provides coverage for 96 percent of Americans. It offers everyone, regardless of health or income, the peace of mind that comes from knowing they will have access to affordable health care when they need it," said Rep. John Dingell, the 83-year-old Michigan lawmaker who has introduced national health insurance in every Congress since succeeding his father in 1955.
Read more here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul
The public option lives!
That said, the sausage grinder grinds on. Next up, the senate.
That little a$$hat Dan Boren broke from POTUS Obama...he's a chump.
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1109/Democratic_no_votes_.html?showall
Democratic no votes
"House Democratic leadership saw 39 of their members vote against the bill and, with one Republican yes vote, Democrats passed sweeping health reform legislation 220-215. While the reasons these Democrats have offered for opposing the $1.2 trillion bill vary, as my colleagues Patrick O'Connor and Charle Mahtesian wrote earlier tonight, they nearly all share a common trait: They are among the most politically vulnerable incumbents in the House, and they tend to represent conservative-minded seats that John McCain won in 2008."
Guess Dan Boren never knew Mike Synar nor the real people in his own district. The little squirt must be feeling vulnerable.
Yes, next up the mighty impotent GOP minority...Dr. No, it's your time. Go in there and act like the multi millionaire Doctor/Senaturd you are!
That's rich. You had a problem with Repiglicans rubber-stamping Bush inititatives, but don't have anything good to say about someone capable of thinking outside party arm-twisting?
Dan's a moderate, he represents a district with moderate Democrat values. Has that ever been a secret? Representatives are supposed to vote in the best interests of their own constituency. He was reluctant to endorse Obama's campaign. Where's the mystery here?
Quote from: Conan71 on November 08, 2009, 09:28:44 AM
That's rich. You had a problem with Repiglicans rubber-stamping Bush inititatives, but don't have anything good to say about someone capable of thinking outside party arm-twisting?
Dan's a moderate, he represents a district with moderate Democrat values. Has that ever been a secret? Representatives are supposed to vote in the best interests of their own constituency. He was reluctant to endorse Obama's campaign. Where's the mystery here?
So. Dan Boren's constituents don't like medicare and are against health reform? Nope. He's a dope.
And dopey is a DINO.
Quote from: FOTD on November 08, 2009, 09:45:51 AM
So. Dan Boren's constituents don't like medicare and are against health reform? Nope. He's a dope.
Where's your poll numbers to back that up?
The bill is a pile and he knows it.
If the healthcare bill empowers me to be able to change jobs.... or not have to worry about my pre-existing condition if I lose my job, then serve me the "pile." It beats my status-quo "market-based" alternatives.... "choice" in healthcare? Gimme a break. The only entity that chooses is my employer, and if I don't like the insurance company my employer has chosen for me, I am SOL..... and if we do nothing and I'm denied coverage in the coming years due to a pre-existing condition, isn't that a form of "rationing?"
So, I don't want the baby thrown out with the bathwater... I want that bathwater used to drown Grover Nordquist and this criminal...
(http://www.makethemaccountable.com/images/0906/BaldHeadedFacedLiar.jpg)
****FOTD.... back when Mike Synar was in office, did that house district include Durant? I don't think Synar could have ever won elected office in Wes Watkins' district (b/c of the Daily Oklahoman factor)....
Quote from: USRufnex on November 08, 2009, 12:12:41 PM
If the healthcare bill empowers me to be able to change jobs.... or not have to worry about my pre-existing condition if I lose my job, then serve me the "pile"
If the healthcare bill empowers me to be able to change jobs.... or not have to worry about my pre-existing condition if I lose my job,
paid for by someone else because I am compelled to mooch off others then serve me the "pile."
FIFY
The House bill is DOA in the Senate, according to RINO Lindsey Graham. We shall see.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/08/ftn/main5576519.shtml
Quote from: guido911 on November 08, 2009, 01:37:58 PM
If the healthcare bill empowers me to be able to change jobs.... or not have to worry about my pre-existing condition if I lose my job, paid for by someone else because I am compelled to mooch off others then serve me the "pile."
FIFY
Frankly, I wish you'd stop acting like YOU pay for everything and benefit from nothing....
You didn't have any problem with George Kaiser mooching off the public dime for the River Tax....
Funny dat. ::)
Quote from: guido911 on November 08, 2009, 01:44:06 PM
The House bill is DOA in the Senate, according to RINO Lindsey Graham. We shall see.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/08/ftn/main5576519.shtml
Dear Guido,
I hope you get cancer, then lose your job, get a letter from COBRA, then end up in a high risk insurance pool.
Have a nice day, and do what you do best.... mooch $$$ off the working class by charging them up the hoo-hah, then pretend YOU'RE the one who actually "creates wealth." Pompous windbag. >:(
Quote from: USRufnex on November 08, 2009, 03:44:17 PM
Dear Guido,
I hope you get cancer, then lose your job, get a letter from COBRA, then end up in a high risk insurance pool.
Have a nice day, and do what you do best.... mooch $$$ off the working class, then pretend YOU'RE the one who "creates wealth." >:(
Aw, you gave me a "mad face". Now I'm really hurt. I'll top ya with two >:( >:(
Quote from: USRufnex on November 08, 2009, 12:12:41 PM
****FOTD.... back when Mike Synar was in office, did that house district include Durant? I don't think Synar could have ever won elected office in Wes Watkins' district (b/c of the Daily Oklahoman factor)....
I don't know about Durant but some clever gerrymandering after (I believe) the 1980 census extended a loooong finger of Synar's district into northern Bixby and southeastern Tulsa in order to protect Jim Jones. I didn't like either one of them. They sounded good at town meetings and then went back to DC and voted something else.
That's from my memory and I am not going to waste any time trying to document it for the non-believers. It was too long ago.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 08, 2009, 03:57:07 PM
I don't know about Durant but some clever gerrymandering after (I believe) the 1980 census extended a loooong finger of Synar's district into northern Bixby and southeastern Tulsa in order to protect Jim Jones. I didn't like either one of them. They sounded good at town meetings and then went back to DC and voted something else.
That's from my memory and I am not going to waste any time trying to document it for the non-believers. It was too long ago.
That gerrymandering is what took place.
Look, if that little dildo Dan had voted no for all the right reasons like Kucinich, at least you would have to give him credit for his reasoning. But he did this to get re-elected.
Kucinich's Brave Health Vote Vs. Obama's Failed Promise"People like Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader and Michael Moore have been made pariahs by establishment Democrats. They have all been marginalized and made fun of...but check their records. They have been considered 'fringe' because they are telling us the truth about corporate abuses of power long before most of the rest of us catch up to the reality of what's happened."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-stranahan/kucinichs-brave-health-vo_b_349857.html
Quote from: guido911 on November 08, 2009, 03:54:35 PM
Aw, you gave me a "mad face". Now I'm really hurt. I'll top ya with two >:( >:(
I watched other people have to go through "pre-existing conditions" -- one example, a friend of mine who was brutally raped by a man at Lake Hefner/OKC who had counseling sessions right after hers-- turned out he was a sex offender, cut the fuel line on her car, then offered her a ride.... she was denied healthcare coverage due to an unrelated health issue..... had to declare bankruptcy....
I have colon cancer.
I only ask that I be treated decently, and not be forced into bankruptcy.
I have worked hard for what I have, and do not want to be a burden to family, friends or anyone else.....
I am not "mooching" off anyone, you sad excuse for a human being.
Now, go die in a fire....
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=die%20in%20a%20fire
2. die in a fire
A statement that shows such utter disgust, contempt, hatred, and/or loathing for a fellow human being that you wish for them to expire in an extremely painful(and one would assume spectacular and tragic) way. This is usually precipitated by someone so violating what the wisher considers basic human decency, morals, or intelligence that little other recourse is avaliable.
Healing vibes for Ruf!
Lucked out, FOTD.
After the surgery, it was Stage 1.... blood tests good.... 93% five-year survival rate..... I like my odds....
Is there a 93% chance I will work for the same employer 5 years from now?
Not sure. Volatile industry.... who knows?
There are some real weaknesses in the employer based health system.... feast or famine, hit or miss, have or have-not....
Ruf,
You appear to have had a different experience with COBRA. I was told that one reason to carry COBRA from one job to the next was to avoid the "previous condition" problem. This will obviously depend on COBRA not running out before your next insurance kicks in.
Liebermann restates his position that he will not permit the House version of health care to come to a floor vote.
http://www.breitbart.tv/sen-lieberman-restates-vow-to-fillibuster-house-health-bill/
All that drama last night appears to have been a waste. On the up side I get to watch usruf have his hopes to have others pay for his health care momentarily crushed (I am convinced there will be some changes--hopefully focused more on cost containment).
Quote from: FOTD on November 08, 2009, 04:04:02 PM
Look, if that little dildo Dan had voted no for all the right reasons like Kucinich, at least you would have to give him credit for his reasoning. But he did this to get re-elected.
Thank you for stating the obvious. Dan Boren is charged with representing the interests of the 2nd Congressional District of Oklahoma. If Dan is re-elected to his position, that means he's voting the way his constituency wishes. That's what the man is being paid to do.
Do I need to have an 8th grade civics book left on your doorstep?
Quote from: Conan71 on November 08, 2009, 06:38:40 PM
Do I need to have an 8th grade civics book left on your doorstep?
On what do you base your assumption that aox can read/understand 8th grade material?
Quote from: guido911 on November 08, 2009, 06:26:58 PM
Liebermann restates his position that he will not permit the House version of health care to come to a floor vote.
http://www.breitbart.tv/sen-lieberman-restates-vow-to-fillibuster-house-health-bill/
All that drama last night appears to have been a waste. On the up side I get to watch usruf have his hopes to have others pay for his health care momentarily crushed (I am convinced there will be some changes--hopefully focused more on cost containment).
Hmmm.
Joe "Aetna I'm glad I met ya" Liebermann?Here's to the REAL moochers.....
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/10/hbc-90005996
Others pay for my healthcare?
Nope. It's called fairness. Simple fairness. Evidently, this concept is lost on so-called lawyers like Gweed........ oh, but wait.... Gweed gives to charity, so we should be kissing his
pancake for being such a great guy... and his insistence that I pay out the wazoo for insurance if I change jobs is... the equivalent of me being a "moocher"....... yeah, pull my finger.... or maybe I should just get Senator Coburn to be a "good neighbor" and hold a bakesale for me..... ::)
RA, I got one of those COBRA letters a decade ago after the boss decided to subcontract most of the Chicago-based positions to a golfing buddy's company in Orlando.... capitalist and market forces at work, or maybe it was just cronyism, I'll never know... anyway, I never took unemployment, and the costs for COBRA back then were far too high considering I had just lost my job.... I was younger, so I did without health insurance for a few weeks.
If I had to deal with a job layoff when, in late 2007, I first noticed blood in my stool, I can tell you right now that I would've likely waited for months until I was able to secure a new job and health benefits before I would've talked to the doctor about it....... and the cancer would have spread, costing the insurance company and my employer lots of money and costing me either chemo or possibly my life with Stage 2 or 3 or 4....
As I read it, part of the 2009 stimulus $$$ was used to subsidize COBRA so that people who are drawing unemployment can more easily deal with the extra expense-- this is especially important for people with kids.... I guess those people are "moochers" --- I wonder how many are vets.
Frankly, I thought Obama campaigned that young people shouldn't be mandated to purchase health insurance, that insurance should simply be made more affordable to allow more of the uninsured to purchase it.... yet the proposal likely to come out of congress and be signed by the president will more closely resemble Hillarycare and Romneycare....... go figure.
Even moderate Republicans are calling for an end to "pre-existing conditions" used by insurance companies to deny care and/or charge higher and higher prices. Heck, anybody remember when Andy Ewing (R) dubiously campaigned that we should mooch off the Canadian single payer system by importing drugs from there for our senior citizens? ::)
I will be a much more productive citizen over the next few decades (god willing) if I do not have the pre-existing condition of cancer hanging over my head if I ever change jobs or dream a little and try to start a business....
Funny how the same guy who's going off in this MOOCHER song-and-dance hasn't said one thing about my interest in getting Tulsa a pro-soccer team when I do not have the $$$ to make it happen....... that, my friend, is "mooching".... although I prefer to call it "schmoozing".....
I just saw a commercial from Medicare Today applauding Inhofe and Coburn for resisting cuts to medicare...... guess it's okay for them to try to dismantle medicare the previous year in order to pay to make Bush's tax cuts permanent...... interesting.
http://washingtonindependent.com/55219/gop-embraces-medicare-to-kill-health-care-reform
The moochers from AMA, AARP back House health care bill
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/05/health.care/index.html
Quote from: USRufnex on November 08, 2009, 07:00:30 PM
Hmmm. Joe "Aetna I'm glad I met ya" Liebermann?
Here's to the REAL moochers.....
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/10/hbc-90005996
Others pay for my healthcare?
Nope. It's called fairness. Simple fairness. Evidently, this concept is lost on so-called lawyers like Gweed........ oh, but wait.... Gweed gives to charity, so we should be kissing his pancake for being such a great guy... and his insistence that I pay out the wazoo for insurance if I change jobs is... the equivalent of me being a "moocher"....... yeah, pull my finger.... or maybe I should just get Senator Coburn to be a "good neighbor" and hold a bakesale for me..... ::)
Fair to who; you? How is government taking someone else's property by threat of fine or imprisonment and giving it to you "fair"? No, what you advocate is the punishment of those who sacrifice and take chances (you know, the folks that made it possible for you to have a job and, yes, insurance) and reward mediocrity or even failure. And another thing, stop with the whole "working class", which by itself is not only tired but is nothing but sixties/Stalinist era BS lingo for wealth envy, and how the rich are mooching off them. I wonder if your boss knows you think of him as a mooch.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 08, 2009, 06:38:40 PM
Thank you for stating the obvious. Dan Boren is charged with representing the interests of the 2nd Congressional District of Oklahoma. If Dan is re-elected to his position, that means he's voting the way his constituency wishes. That's what the man is being paid to do.
Do I need to have an 8th grade civics book left on your doorstep?
CoCo,
Looks like he's ignoring %30 0f non-elderly uninsured in his district. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/08/us/politics/1108-health-care-vote.html
Let's not ever hear you complain how there are two or more pharmacies on every corner.
And you and Boren can stick up for the health care mafia. No civics lesson necessary.
Ruf, they've been running those ads nonstop....ad nausea?
Healthcare is a RIGHT, not a privilege. So is a good public education.
When someone goes into the emergency room, that person is treated, even if they have no insurance. We have a problem with people who don't have insurance going to expensive emergency rooms rather than doctors/clinics....
When someone loses their insurance through no fault of their own, maybe you'd rather they just be uninsured and DIE.
Government is ALREADY TAKING TAX MONEY to subsidize and coddle the insurance industry.... and the financial industry....
I do not have wealth envy.
I believe in meritocracy and equal opportunity.
I just don't like heartless, pompous, holier-and-richer-than-thou dogmatic conservatives like yourself, Gweed. So, you get to live because of your perceived value to society, and I get to play Russian Roulette with my cancer using the current system because you perceive me as a "moocher." Got it. ::)
I hope that doctor of yours can fit your sorry a$$ through the eye of a needle....
I shouldn't have to lose access to healthcare due to the oftentimes arbitrary and draconian limitations of an outdated, for-profit, bloated employer-based system.... and neither should anyone else. People used to work for the "company store" all their lives back when an employer-based system made some sense; but those days are over. And I'd rather have regressive taxes on "sodas and potato chips" pay for this than tax the rich, but hey, what you gonna do?
Simple, eh?
RUF,
When I (involuntarily) changed jobs about 6-1/2 years ago, I bought COBRA just in case, even though it was way more expensive than I thought it should be. I was fortunate enough to have enough savings to do it until my new insurance took effect.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 08, 2009, 10:45:09 PM
RUF,
When I (involuntarily) changed jobs about 6-1/2 years ago, I bought COBRA just in case, even though it was way more expensive than I thought it should be. I was fortunate enough to have enough savings to do it until my new insurance took effect.
But the whole point is that it should never take more than half of your salary to pay for insurance. The insurance companies are making out like bandits and would rather see the status quo than to have a competitive market place. My insurance will go up AGAIN this year; the third such raising of rates in three years, and never in line with my pay raise each year, which has been minimal and just enough to cover the COL increases.
Time the insurance companies felt the pain and learned how to compete in a 'fair-market'. As it is now, some states allow near-monopolies for some insurance companies.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 08, 2009, 10:45:09 PM
RUF,
When I (involuntarily) changed jobs about 6-1/2 years ago, I bought COBRA just in case, even though it was way more expensive than I thought it should be. I was fortunate enough to have enough savings to do it until my new insurance took effect.
It seemed expensive because you were seeing the full cost of your insurance for the first time. When my SO last switched jobs she got a COBRA notice (but didn't need to use it because she had no gap in coverage anyway). The coverage for the both of us would have been around $2000 a month. She was paying around $150 a month to her employer to cover us.
It was a nice plan, though. Medical (including mental health), dental, and vision. There was no medical deductible and the highest copay was the relatively punitive $50 for an ER visit. A regular doctor's visit was $10 or $15.
Quote from: nathanm on November 09, 2009, 12:23:12 AM
It seemed expensive because you were seeing the full cost of your insurance for the first time. When my SO last switched jobs she got a COBRA notice (but didn't need to use it because she had no gap in coverage anyway). The coverage for the both of us would have been around $2000 a month. She was paying around $150 a month to her employer to cover us.
It was a nice plan, though. Medical (including mental health), dental, and vision. There was no medical deductible and the highest copay was the relatively punitive $50 for an ER visit. A regular doctor's visit was $10 or $15.
It not only seemed expensive, it was. Being single it wasn't as bad as it could have been if I had dependents. I know that I was paying the full cost at my former employer's rate but it was probably still a lot less expensive than finding some insurance on my own. I was already old enough to have a possible pre-existing condition to make paying the premium the correct choice for me.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 09, 2009, 08:00:18 AM
I was already old enough to have a possible pre-existing condition to make paying the premium the correct choice for me.
About the only fortunate thing about the current system is that the pre-existing conditions clause only applies if you
knew of the condition before buying the insurance. And group coverage has no pre-existing condition limitation after the first 6 months.
It's really only the self-employed, employees of businesses that do not provide health insurance, and the poor that are so poorly served at the present time. That's why folks like guido crow on about "best health care in the nation." Sure, it is when you have gold plated coverage like I used to. Not so much when a high deductible catastrophic coverage plan runs you $200 a month because you're self-employed.
The system as it stands is completely broken for a third (and more, if you count the underinsured) of our citizens. The plan that came out of the House is by no means perfect, but it's better than anything else we've got going. It's a pretty good bill, all in all. Much better than the turd the Senate will probably push forth. My biggest concern with that is the conference committee keeping the mandate and kicking the public option to the curb, leaving us with the same lack of competition only now with increased insurance company profits!
Quote from: nathanm on November 09, 2009, 06:42:34 PM
About the only fortunate thing about the current system is that the pre-existing conditions clause only applies if you knew of the condition before buying the insurance. And group coverage has no pre-existing condition limitation after the first 6 months.
I've had to fill out too many "do you have or
have you ever had" forms.
According to Rachel and Jeff, our little rat fink DINO DAN is taking his marching orders from "the family."
Dan Boren, piss ant C Streeter.
All this matters not because now that it's past the house, the Senate can go crazy.
And for a minute FOTD foolishly thought maybe Pelosi had told DINO DAN to go ahead and vote no because she had enough votes to pass health care anyway and this would insure his re election in his backwards district.
Oh wait - that's his job: vote as his constituents dictate.
Funny, that last post actually reads something like this:
"Waaaaaah! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!"
Maybe if the residents of his district aren't smart enough to vote according to your vagaries, you should go down there and straighten them out.
I'm not really interested in the House Bill. It will not survive in tack in any way in the Senate. So I'll worry about it after the Senate butchers it and save myself some time.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on November 10, 2009, 11:45:10 AM
I'm not really interested in the House Bill. It will not survive in tack in any way in the Senate. So I'll worry about it after the Senate butchers it and save myself some time.
Come on....predictions? Will Joe No be the schmoe?
Quote from: FOTD on November 10, 2009, 12:46:20 PM
Come on....predictions? Will Joe No be the schmoe?
prediction:
using much better words than I can summon:
Once the senate finishes it will be -
"but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
Quote from: Townsend on November 10, 2009, 12:51:41 PM
prediction:
using much better words than I can summon:
Once the senate finishes it will be -
"but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
Or, as Conan so artfully put it, a smile sandwich.
Quote from: we vs us on November 10, 2009, 03:31:00 PM
Or, as Conan so artfully put it, a smile sandwich.
Well that's how they said "smile sandwich" back in the day.
AP POLL: Tax the rich to pay for health bill
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091117/ap_on_bi_ge/us_ap_poll_health_taxes
"WASHINGTON – When it comes to paying for a health care overhaul, Americans see just one way to go: Tax the rich.
That finding from a new Associated Press poll will be welcome news for House Democrats, who proposed doing just that in their sweeping remake of the U.S. medical system, which passed earlier this month and would extend coverage to millions of uninsured Americans.
The poll found participants sour on other ways of paying for the health overhaul that is being considered in Congress, including taxing insurers on high-value coverage packages derided by President Barack Obama and Democrats as "Cadillac plans."
That approach is being weighed in the Senate. It is one of the few proposals in any congressional legislation that analysts say would help reduce the nation's health expenditures, but it has come under fire from organized labor and has little support in the House.
Lawmakers also are looking at levying new taxes on insurance companies, drug companies and medical device makers. But the only approach that got majority support in the AP poll was a tax on upper-income Americans.
The House bill would impose a 5.4 percent income tax surcharge on individuals making more than $500,000 a year and households making more than $1 million.
The poll tested views on an even more punitive taxation scheme that was under consideration earlier, when the tax would have hit people making more than $250,000 a year. Even at that level the poll showed majority support, with 57 percent in favor and 36 percent opposed.
"You know, I mean, why not? If they have that much money, it should be taxed," said Mary Pat Rondthaler, 60, of Menlo Park, Calif. "It isn't the same way that the guy making $21,000 is."
Not everyone agreed.
"They earn their money. And they shouldn't have to pay for somebody else. It doesn't seem fair," said Emerson Wilkins, 62, of Powder Springs, Ga.
The latest survey was conducted by Stanford University with the nonpartisan Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Overall, the poll found the public split on Congress' health care plans. In response to some questions, participants said the current system needed to be changed, but they also voiced concerns about the potential impact on their own pocketbooks, preferring to push any new costs onto wealthier Americans.
For example, 77 percent said the cost of health care in the United States was higher than it should be, and 74 percent favored the broad goal of reducing the amount of money paid by patients and their insurers. But 49 percent said any changes made by the government probably would cause them to pay more for health care. Thirty-two percent said it wouldn't change what they pay, and just 12 percent said they would end up paying less.
With lawmakers searching for new revenue sources to pay for their overhaul legislation, upper-income taxes may be increasingly gaining favor.
Legislation passed by Senate committees did not go that route, but now Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has a free hand in merging two committee-passed bills, is considering raising the payroll tax that goes to Medicare on income above $250,000 a year, officials told The Associated Press last week. Current law sets the tax at 1.45 percent of income, an amount matched by employers.
The Senate Finance Committee bill would tax health insurance plans costing more than $8,000 annually for individuals and $21,000 for families, although those numbers could rise. Union members are lined up against that approach because they fear their benefits could be hurt, and the public doesn't like it either, the AP poll found. Fifty-six percent were opposed and only 29 percent in favor.
Other payment methods being contemplated on Capitol Hill also met with disapproval. Participants in the poll didn't support new taxes on medical device makers, drug companies or even insurers — even though they said in response to different questions that drug companies and insurance companies made too much money.
Forty-eight percent in the poll were opposed to new taxes on insurance companies, and 42 percent were in support. Fifty-one percent opposed raising taxes on drug and device makers, while 41 percent supported that approach.
But 72 percent of people polled said insurance companies made too much profit, compared with 23 percent who said they made about the right amount of profit. And 74 percent said drug companies made too much profit, versus 21 percent who said they made about the right amount of profit.
People who told pollsters they generally supported Congress' health care overhaul plan were also more receptive to new taxes to pay for it. Taxing health care companies, drug companies and equipment manufacturers eked out majority support from that group.
The payment approach that met with least approval by far in the poll was borrowing the money and increasing the federal debt, something Obama has repeatedly vowed not to do. Just 6 percent of people polled said they could support that approach, while 88 percent opposed it.
The poll was based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,502 adults from Oct. 29 to Nov. 8. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. The interviews were conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs and Media. Stanford University's participation was made possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which conducts research on all facets of the health care system."
Looks like Americans are getting educated on health care....
Lookin' like the Senate will get something done....
Quote from: FOTD on November 20, 2009, 01:42:57 PM
Lookin' like the Senate will get something done....
FOTD
Either you are sliding to the right some (fat chance) or I am missing your sarcasm.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 20, 2009, 09:29:00 PM
FOTD
Either you are sliding to the right some (fat chance) or I am missing your sarcasm.
In spite of his hedonistic, totally gonzo posts, he's still a realist. Look, when they have to pay Landreau $100mm to get her vote, even FOTD knows this one is a pile!!! (or smile sandwich if you prefer)
http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf
Top 14 Health Care Reform Provisions That Take Effect Immediately on January 1, 2010
Amid all the negative rumors and misleading assumptions that are floating around here about what the Affordable Health Care For America Act will or will not do for/to Americans, some actual facts about what positive changes HCR will enact as of January 1, 2010 should the bill now being debated in the Senate be signed into law by President Obama by the end of the year:
1. BEGINS TO CLOSE THE MEDICARE PART D DONUT HOLE - Reduces the donut hole by $500 and institutes a 50% discount on brand-name drugs, effective January 1. 2010.
2. IMMEDIATE HELP FOR THE UNINSURED UNTIL EXCHANGE IS AVAILABLE (INTERIM HIGH-RISK POLL) - Creates a temporary insurance program until the Exchange is available for individuals who have been uninsured for several months or have been denied a policy because of pre-existing conditions.
3. BANS LIFETIME LIMITS ON COVERAGE - Prohibits health insurance companies from placing lifetime caps on coverage.
4. ENDS RESCISSIONS - Prohibits insurers from nullifying or rescinding a patient's policy when they file a claim for benefits, except in the case of fraud.
5. EXTENDS COVERAGE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE UP TO 27TH BIRTHDAY THROUGH PARENT'S INSURANCE - Requires health plans to allow young people through age 26 to remain n their parents' insurance policy, at the parents' choice.
6. ELIMINATES COST-SHARING FOR PREVENTATIVE SERVICES IN MEDICARE - Eliminates co-payments for preventative services and exempts preventative services from deductibles from the Medicare program.
7. IMPROVES HELP FOR LOW-INCOME MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES - Improves the low-income protection programs in Medicare to assure more individuals are able to access this vital help.
8. PROVIDES NEW CONSUMER PROTECTIONS IN MEDICARE ADVANTAGE - Prohibits Medicare Advantage plans from charging enrollees higher cost-sharing for services in their private plan than what is charged in traditional Medicare.
9. IMMEDIATE SUNSHINE ON PRICE GOUGING - Discourages excessive price increases by insurance companies through review and disclosure of insurance rate increases.
10. CONTINUITY FOR DISPLACED WORKERS - Allows Americans to keep their COBRA coverage until the Exchange is in place and they can access affordable coverage.
11. CREATES NEW, VOLUNTARY, PUBLIC LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE PROGRAM - Creates a long-term care insurance program to be financed by voluntary payroll deductions to provide benefits to adults who become functionally disabled.
12. HELP FOR EARLY RETIREES - Creates a $10 billion fund to finance a temporary reinsurance program to help offset the costs of expensive health claims for employers that provide health benefits for retirees age 55-64.
13. COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS - Increases funding for Community Health Centers to allow for a doubling of the number of patients seen by the centers over the next 5 years.
14. INCREASING NUMBER OF PRIMARY CARE DOCTORS - Provides new investment in training programs to increase the number of primary doctors, nurses, and public health professionals.
Now. Why are our Senators so indebted to Big Pharma and Big Insurance?
They both have severe conflicts of interest and the poor and the unemployed and the pre existers rank low on Inhofe's and Coburn's priority list. Why do republicans have to lie about the healthcare bill instead of debating it on its merits?
Because the devilish details in the other 1,199 pages outweigh the sunshine and rainbows on this one. Of course, the overlords wish us to think that sunshine and rainbows is the full extent...
(http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/55/couricobama.jpg)
Sorry to interrupt, but Beyonce has a better booty!
(http://www.nerve.com/CS/blogs/theremoteisland/2009/03/kanye-west-400a071107.jpg)
Breadburner, you seem to be improving your ability to pass on photoshopped images....just another way of passing gas...er, lies.
(http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/8035/image0011be.jpg)
Breadburner sleeps with the moderators...
Quote from: Breadburner on November 28, 2009, 09:29:44 AM
(http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/8035/image0011be.jpg)
Man that Michelle is one big dude (begins at approx. 1:40):
O/T. If anyone wants to see a funny headline/pic re: healthcare go over to drudge right now and look at that sulking pic of that pathetic Harry Reid.
Just saw that the Senate dems are kicking out both the public option and the medicare buy-in proposals in the reform package.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/harkin-theres-enough-good-in-this-bill-without-medicare-buy-in-trigger.php#comments
Predictably (and much to my delight), heads are exploding at dailykos and dooshbag underground (it goes without saying there are strong language issues):
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/14/814006/-UPDATEX7:-My-ThoughtF**K-You,-Senator-Lieberman!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x56598
Quote from: guido911 on December 14, 2009, 06:39:42 PM
Just saw that the Senate dems are kicking out both the public option and the medicare buy-in proposals in the reform package.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/harkin-theres-enough-good-in-this-bill-without-medicare-buy-in-trigger.php#comments
Predictably (and much to my delight), heads are exploding at dailykos and dooshbag underground (it goes without saying there are strong language issues):
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/14/814006/-UPDATEX7:-My-ThoughtF**K-You,-Senator-Lieberman!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x56598
Hmmm, looks like this pile won't have gravy on it....
Quote from: Conan71 on December 14, 2009, 07:17:41 PM
Hmmm, looks like this pile won't have gravy on it....
Thanks an a$$load for that mental picture. :)
Just read the Dorgan Amendment which would have permitted drug reimportation to occur and presumably reduce the cost of medicine failed in the Senate.
http://news.firedoglake.com/2009/12/15/dorgan-reimportation-amendment-up-for-a-vote/
Read the comments after the story (language warning). The "progressives", you know, liberals that don't want to be called liberals any more because of stigma, are seriously unhinged.
***Please be advised that there was never a significant "public option" or "medicare buy-in" touted or promised for "Obamacare" in the first place...... don't believe me?... ask Rahmbo.... http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/12/18/rahm-emanuel-dont-worry-about-the-left/
Please check below for the words "public option" and/or "medicare for all"
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf
My objection is that Obama campaigned on making healthcare more affordable to the uninsured without resorting to mandated coverage for the working poor or those twentysomethings who may want to forgo insurance for a few weeks/months/years..... this was supposed to be the major difference between "Obamacare" and "Hillarycare"..... nobody was promised a single-payer system, otherwise the dems woulda nominated Dennis Kucinich.... nobody was promised a "public option," otherwise the dems woulda nominated Hillary Clinton http://healthinsurance.about.com/od/healthinsurancebasics/a/clintonreform.htm ....
Some moderate Republicans should have been able to support and help this effort..... but instead, those political cowards insisted on making politcal hay by claiming healthcare reform would "pull the plug on grandma"..... and guess what we're gonna get after all the dust settles?...... drumroll please......
A pork-laden version of Romneycare...... can't wait to hear Mitt Romney's positions for 2012 after we've basically adopted most of his healthcare reform policies......
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/20/romney.health.care/index.html
"Analysts say "Romney care" is basically "Obama care" minus the public option."
No, I didn't think much of Mitt Romney. And I didn't vote for Hillary. I supported Barack Obama.
And I am disappointed at legislation that will mandate the purchase of private insurance.
Without a public option or substantial public subsidies to help those who can't afford to purchase health insurance, will we see advertisements during Springer and Judge Judy for SR-22 health insurance for "high risk" patients to "keep you legal for less" ?!?
Do those who can't afford insurance get fined? jail time? community service?
In these times of local and state budget cuts, will we see people who aren't "legally insured" mowing lawns at LaFortune Park or picking up litter on 11th St to pay for their "crimes"?
BIGGEST LIE OF 2009.
(http://www.tampabay.com/universal/politifact/photos/first-place.jpg)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/18/politifact-lie-year-death-panels/
I voted for Obama and I didn't get what I wanted!!!
Call whine-one-one and get me a whaaaaambulance!!!!
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/parenting/images/300/baby_crying_closeup.jpg)
Actually I wonder what YOU'RE whining about Conan........ the idealist in me is disappointed, the pragmatist side of me thinks Romneycare is better than what we have now.... I'm stating facts, unlike the naive status quo folks who tell us private insurance is "good, as is," no changes necessary.... any government reform of healthcare is gonna automatically be a smile sandwich.....
"I hate political sausage making!"
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OQd_KCf5zUo/SZjx9FcfMjI/AAAAAAAAAKA/5uWxAn4TmU0/s400/spoiled-brat.jpg)
Quote from: USRufnex on December 21, 2009, 10:55:27 AM
"I hate political sausage making!"
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OQd_KCf5zUo/SZjx9FcfMjI/AAAAAAAAAKA/5uWxAn4TmU0/s400/spoiled-brat.jpg)
Okay, I got photo envy, I like your crybaby better than mine. He's rather dapper in the tie.
Ah, the conundrum of the left-leaning idealist: only accept everything you want or compromise for incremental change.
Problems for the Democrats:
1) a fractured caucus, created by Dean's 50 states strategy. Dean said: we'll run someone in every election, even in districts where they're guaranteed to lose. The result was much Dem success but a group that, in order to win, had to run with what would win on the local level. In many cases that includes conservatives that wouldn't normally be considered Dems.
2) lobbyist money: everybody takes it, everybody's beholden. Even in those moments when there's a flash of honest deal-making, no one will believe it because in most every other case the lobbyists rule.
3) a minority party dedicated to obstructionism (compare the use of the filibuster since the R's lost congress vs any other time in American history and you'll be stunned by the numbers).
4) weak leadership: Pelosi's got more leverage in her chamber than Reid (mostly because of a bigger majority) but both are fairly squishy with the rank and file. Reid in particular, has the Lieberman problem undermining him at every turn and he hasn't been able find the leverage to shut him down.
5) Passive-aggressive white house leadership: they watched the way the Clintons tried and failed to pass a monolithic healthcare bill without much congressional buy in, so decided to foist the burden for being the public face of the bill onto congress. Obama's offered encouraging speechifying but not much else (and IMO his lack of specificity led directly to the death of the public option). Behind the scenes you have Rahm Emanuel breaking kneecaps but Obama's been visibly removed from the policy making. Regardless of what the GOP might say, Obama is the single biggest thing the Dems have going for them at this point with the public, and they've kept him away from the fight.
Or I should say he's kept himself out of the fight. He's responsible for how this has gone down, so he owns successes and failures . . . and that includes abdicating a lot of the responsibility to other parties.
Quote from: we vs us on December 21, 2009, 12:13:41 PM
Ah, the conundrum of the left-leaning idealist: only accept everything you want or compromise for incremental change.
Problems for the Democrats:
1) a fractured caucus, created by Dean's 50 states strategy. Dean said: we'll run someone in every election, even in districts where they're guaranteed to lose. The result was much Dem success but a group that, in order to win, had to run with what would win on the local level. In many cases that includes conservatives that wouldn't normally be considered Dems.
2) lobbyist money: everybody takes it, everybody's beholden. Even in those moments when there's a flash of honest deal-making, no one will believe it because in most every other case the lobbyists rule.
3) a minority party dedicated to obstructionism (compare the use of the filibuster since the R's lost congress vs any other time in American history and you'll be stunned by the numbers).
4) weak leadership: Pelosi's got more leverage in her chamber than Reid (mostly because of a bigger majority) but both are fairly squishy with the rank and file. Reid in particular, has the Lieberman problem undermining him at every turn and he hasn't been able find the leverage to shut him down.
5) Passive-aggressive white house leadership: they watched the way the Clintons tried and failed to pass a monolithic healthcare bill without much congressional buy in, so decided to foist the burden for being the public face of the bill onto congress. Obama's offered encouraging speechifying but not much else (and IMO his lack of specificity led directly to the death of the public option). Behind the scenes you have Rahm Emanuel breaking kneecaps but Obama's been visibly removed from the policy making. Regardless of what the GOP might say, Obama is the single biggest thing the Dems have going for them at this point with the public, and they've kept him away from the fight.
Or I should say he's kept himself out of the fight. He's responsible for how this has gone down, so he owns successes and failures . . . and that includes abdicating a lot of the responsibility to other parties.
Well reasoned. I think Dean needs to be careful. If they make the party too beholden to the more liberal faction, I think you might see an implosion not unlike the back-lash in the GOP from the moderates against the far right.
Point 5 you made was a pretty good analysis. The Obama team and everyone else on board in Congress knows that if they want to keep him in office until 2016, they have to keep the focus on Congress on the most controversial issues, not the White House. I can't believe we are already 11 months into this admin, this year has flown past. And yet, we are not over-run with radical muslims and we haven't become a total socialist republic...yet ;)
Just think, the campaign for 2012 starts in about 12 months. GHACK!!
12 months Conan? Hell, it started last August.
I don't think real campaigning has started.
Opposing party hacks take shots at you immediately and you have staff people already postioning and photographing you immediately as well. You can generalize it and call it campaigning, but it is all pre-game.
The real campaign for President happens one year out. That is when you have to have staffers on the ground in the early battleground states. The January and February primaries mean everything as to who will win.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 21, 2009, 01:06:49 PM
I don't think real campaigning has started.
Opposing party hacks take shots at you immediately and you have staff people already postioning and photographing you immediately as well. You can generalize it and call it campaigning, but it is all pre-game.
The real campaign for President happens one year out. That is when you have to have staffers on the ground in the early battleground states. The January and February primaries mean everything as to who will win.
Nope, candidates were announcing about six weeks after the 2006 mid-term for POTUS '08.
The Republijerks "NO EVERYTHING" campaign will fizzle....
Sen. Whitehouse: There Will Be A 'Reckoning' For GOP's 'Desperate, No-Holds-Barred Mission Of Propaganda' (VIDEO)http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/sen-whitehouse-there-will-be-a-reckoning-for-gops-desperate-no-holds-barred-mission-of-propaganda.php
"On the Senate floor yesterday, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) slammed Republicans for their "desperate, no-holds-barred mission of propaganda, falsehood, obstruction and fear," which he said will result in a "day of judgment" by the American people.
Whitehouse began his monologue by quoting 1950s intellectual Richard Hofstadter, warning that a right-wing minority could create "a political environment in which the rational pursuit of our well-being and safety would become impossible."
"The malignant and vindictive passions that have descended on the Senate are busily creating just such a political climate," said Whitehouse. "
Did you really listen to all 5:27 of that blow-hard's speech? I was asleep after 1:02.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 21, 2009, 04:18:25 PM
Did you really listen to all 5:27 of that blow-hard's speech? I was asleep after 1:02.
Proof dear COCO....you have ADD!
The sausage makers are all ill from the bill making process. :D
Oklahoma legislators seek to opt out of the new federal health care system:
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200912237893/politics-and-economics/lawmakers-file-qfreedom-of-healthcare-choice-actq.html
The Freedom of Healthcare Choice Act is coming to a polling station near you. According to the article:
The proposed constitutional amendment would
* Prohibit any law or rule from directly or indirectly compelling any person or employer to participate in any health care system;
* Allow any person or employer to pay directly for lawful health care services without paying any penalties or fines;
* Permit a health care provider to provide directly purchased lawful health services without paying any penalties or fines; and
* Stipulate that subject to reasonable and necessary rules that do not substantially limit a person's options, the purchase or sale of private health insurance will not be prohibited.
Looks to be a testing of the contours of the 10th Amendment. All I know is that if enacted it will make ruf unhappy, so I am pleased. :D
Yawn.
South Carolina Now 24th State to Defend Health Care ChoiceNovember 23, 2009
http://www.alec.org/Content/NavigationMenu/ALECNEWS/PressReleases/release_4/default.htm
The proposed South Carolina constitutional amendment preserves the rights of individuals to pay directly for medical care—something not allowed in single-payer countries like Canada—and
prohibits any individual from being penalized for not purchasing government-defined insurance. Any state attempt to require an individual to purchase health insurance—or forbid an individual from purchasing services outside of the required health care system—would be rendered unconstitutional. The measure may also cause a federalism clash if Congress passes a law with either of these provisions.
Similar constitutional amendments have been filed or pre-filed in twelve states—Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming. An additional twelve states have indicated their intent to introduce this legislation—Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Montana, Tennessee, and Utah. Arizona's measure, which passed the legislature in June, will be put before voters on the 2010 ballot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***Well I guess that sinks the single-payer legislation the Senate just passed.... oh, wait.
Boy howdy, if this means these states won't be enforcing fines for the people who violate their requirement to purchase health insurance.... well.....
Quote from: USRufnex on December 20, 2009, 05:07:10 PM
My objection is that Obama campaigned on making healthcare more affordable to the uninsured without resorting to mandated coverage for the working poor or those twentysomethings who may want to forgo insurance for a few weeks/months/years.....
Do those who can't afford insurance get fined? jail time? community service?
In these times of local and state budget cuts, will we see people who aren't "legally insured" mowing lawns at LaFortune Park or picking up litter on 11th St to pay for their "crimes"?
I'm sure that when the time comes, our courageous Republican state legislators will bravely defend the young and the poor who fall behind on their government-mandated healthcare payments to private insurance bureaucracies..... /sarcasm.
I think we should scrap this whole bill, instead I propose that we ban health insurance providers and medicare altogether. I am fine with paying out of my own pocket if everyone else is. Insurance is a giant ponzi scheme anyway which is already illegal. It should be considered a dangerous product like heroin or communism.
Quote from: brianh on December 27, 2009, 03:11:23 PM
I think we should scrap this whole bill, instead I propose that we ban health insurance providers and medicare altogether. I am fine with paying out of my own pocket if everyone else is. Insurance is a giant ponzi scheme anyway which is already illegal. It should be considered a dangerous product like heroin or communism.
James Burke of the TV show "Connections" could take your post all the way to anarchy. Insurance is by its nature, socialistic. It is one that is usually even accepted by most conservatives as a necessary evil. Where to draw the line will always be a point of contention.
Edit: added "Connections"
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 27, 2009, 04:16:34 PM
James Burke of the TV show could take your post all the way to anarchy. Insurance is by its nature, socialistic. It is one that is usually even accepted by most conservatives as a necessary evil. Where to draw the line will always be a point of contention.
Except that on both sides, if the insurance lobbies weren't paying the lawmakers so much in campaign contributions, they wouldn't give two spits about insurance either way.
I think what we're gonna get is Romneycare..... is that gonna be an improvement over the current system?.... I think so.
Is the "individual mandate" gonna be a violation of one of Obama's healthcare promises?.... I think so.
Romney a victim in health care debate
By ANDY BARR | 9/26/09 6:44 PM EST
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27610.html
Conservative attacks on his program have forced Romney to defend his once lauded achievement and to cede leadership to others in the party on one of his strongest policy areas.
"Naturally there are critics," Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said. "Liberals are unhappy that it wasn't a single payer and conservatives objected to the individual mandate. But the fact is Mitt Romney created a workable affordable system that insures everyone and keeps personal choice and private insurance intact."
"Elements of the Romney plan are being copied by Republicans and Democrats," Fehrnstrom pointed out. "Governor Romney is proud of what he got done in Massachusetts. He knew, a lot of us knew, the bill wasn't perfect. Anything that revolutionary couldn't be perfect."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some in Massachusetts have stepped up to defend Romney, agreeing with the former governor that cost estimates are in line and blaming current Democratic state leadership for any growth in the price tag. So far though, Romney has few defenders on the national level.
"The major public criticism, false though it may be, is that it's breaking the bank and that it's unaffordable and that hasn't been the experience," said Michael J. Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, which recently released a study defending Romney. "The Massachusetts plan has been criticized from both the left and the right, whether it's Howard Dean or David Brooks."
"The left and the right have been critical of the Massachusetts experiment because nobody thought any state could achieve universal access without violating ideological principles," Widmer said. "Really from the very first moment the bill was signed you've seen all these interests working to make sure the bill is portrayed as a failure."
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 27, 2009, 04:16:34 PM
James Burke of the TV show "Connections" could take your post all the way to anarchy. Insurance is by its nature, socialistic. It is one that is usually even accepted by most conservatives as a necessary evil. Where to draw the line will always be a point of contention.
Edit: added "Connections"
Awesome show, if a little dry, btw.
Quote from: nathanm on December 28, 2009, 12:08:17 AM
Awesome show, if a little dry, btw.
I've been renting the seasons from netflix. I have 2 discs at home now.
The Mrs has been tolerant but I think she wants movies again.
Great show. It's as good as I remembered as a kid.