Health Care Bill Passed

kev9100

JohnMc1 wrote: »

The Dems playing a cooking the books scam isn't going to cut it. This is going to add to defecit one way or another. And you and every middle class and under American will be paying for all of this.

How can you possibly say the Dems are cooking the books? The CBO has to becompletely non-partisan or the whole legislative system would have even less credibility than before.

With regards to your earlier comments, yes the bill has changed dramatically since October. Olympia Snowe voted for the Baucus Bill and now she considers the current bill unconstitutional. That is what we call a bill that has changed.

Manic Moran

Could also be a Congresscritter that has changed. (That would be a shocker, wouldn't it?). Or, more likely, both.

NTM

Overheal

If the glove dont fit, youre full of sh!t.

Current Bill: 8%, Yes or No. October be damned. In October we had a Public Option, iirc.

kev9100 wrote: »

Come on John you can do better than that. This bill will reduce the deficit. You might not want to believe it, but its true. Just look up the CBO report.

I'll bite though: how will this reduce the deficit?

Anonymous1987

Healthcare passed and still from all the news reports all I can get is that there is a tax on tanning and coverage will be extended by enforcing mandatory insurance, seems sort of a let down from a 2,000 + page document. In the grand scheme of things this is a tiny step forward and it doesn't do anything to deal with the spiralling cost of healthcare in the US. Personally I think Obama has only himself to blame by not reaching out to republicans.

Trouser_Press

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

Personally I think Obama has only himself to blame by not reaching out to republicans.

Thanks for that, the old ones are always the best!

kev9100

Overheal wrote: »

I'll bite though: how will this reduce the deficit?

Well from what I can gather taxation will play a part in reducing the deficit in both bills. However it is not the 8% John keeps going on about. It will be targeted at people on higher incomes and more costly premiums. You can find the exact figures in my previous posts.Administrative costs and costly programs will have their spending reduced as well. Also with the mandate it will be mandotory for people to get insurance so people will no longer be forced to go to the emergency room for treatment which will also reduce costs. For a much more detailed analysis I would advise you to go to the CBO website which explains things much better than I can.

Does that answer your question?

Anonymous1987

Trouser_Press wrote: »

Thanks for that, the old ones are always the best!

Well for a guy that promised bi-partisanship during the election campaign, I don't recall any attempt to do so at all. If Obama attempted to bring some republicans on side and then they through it back in his face then fair enough but I don't recall any such attempt. I suppose you support every single policy of the democratic party and oppose every policy of the republican party, at least that what you're response suggests.

bobbyjoe

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

Well for a guy that promised bi-partisanship during the election campaign, I don't recall any attempt to do so at all. If Obama attempted to bring some republicans on side and then they through it back in his face then fair enough but I don't recall any such attempt. I suppose you support every single policy of the democratic party and oppose every policy of the republican party, at least that what you're response suggests.

You serious?

Anonymous1987

bobbyjoe wrote: »

You serious?

Let me backtrack on my previous comment, Obama most likely isn't just to blame its the whole Dems v Reps culture that makes anything difficult to pass any legislation but he is the leader of the country and has made healthcare the number one priority of his first year as president. Why don't you suggest to me why bi-parisan healthcare reform is or is not possbile?

Overheal

Why pass Healthcare under the banner of Economic Recovery though?

Whats the percentage of Americans seeking healthcare again? And how many are out of work now? Im not talking about little Billy Tanner who skinned his elbow and his mome paid $50 for a doctor visit (even though these statistics are tacked on to fluff the numbers) Im talking about greivously affected americans who are consumed with inescapable mountains of debt, through the fault of their caretakers and not their own stupidity?

The real crisis is so many people are out of an employer healthcare plan now. Why dont we get people back to work Then do Healthcare to Death in year 2?

edit: and how come nobody, senator or congressman, has tried to turn this into a Referendum despite repeated calls to do so from their constituents

"Well, that's a fascinating idea to have a referendum," Specter said. "Well, that's one of the ideas I'm going to take back to Washington, a referendum."

Congressional aides [in august] said they had not heard any discussion of a health care reform referendum during talks on Capitol Hill.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/11/sen-specter-says-hell-pitch-fascinating-option-health-care-referendum/

Anonymous1987

Overheal wrote: »

Why pass Healthcare under the banner of Economic Recovery though?

Whats the percentage of Americans seeking healthcare again? And how many are out of work now?

Of course the majority of Americans are not seeking healthcare, they have adequate coverage but that doesn't mean it should not be a priority for those that don't. I agree that at this moment in time economic recovery is the number one priority of the american people while Obama is focused on healthcare however universal healthcare is closely liked to productivity and has been neglected for a long time. Unfortunately another major failure of the US healthcare system that has largely been bypassed is the sheer cost of it which is likely to have economic implications in the form of high taxes. I don't think healthcare is being bundled under economic recovery maybe you could explain further?

Anonymous1987

Overheal wrote: »

The real crisis is so many people are out of an employer healthcare plan now. Why dont we get people back to work Then do Healthcare to Death in year 2?

edit: and how come nobody, senator or congressman, has tried to turn this into a Referendum despite repeated calls to do so from their constituents

"Well, that's a fascinating idea to have a referendum," Specter said. "Well, that's one of the ideas I'm going to take back to Washington, a referendum."

Congressional aides [in august] said they had not heard any discussion of a health care reform referendum during talks on Capitol Hill.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/11/sen-specter-says-hell-pitch-fascinating-option-health-care-referendum/

A referendum is not likely to get votes, why would I burden myself with a higher tax bill so some people in the lowest income percentile can afford healthcare? It doesn't mean its right it just the tyranny of the majority over the minority.

Overheal

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

A referendum is not likely to get votes,

Ha ha no. Theres a clear line of support for healthcare changes just as there is a clear line of Opposition. Thats what Im saying. The country is Split (surprise) and a referendum could go either way.

Have people go to a booth, vote on 20 or so propositions and then base the changes on what people vote for.

kev9100

Overheal wrote: »

Ha ha no. Theres a clear line of support for healthcare changes just as there is a clear line of Opposition. Thats what Im saying. The country is Split (surprise) and a referendum could go either way.

Have people go to a booth, vote on 20 or so propositions and then base the changes on what people vote for.

Well, if you want to go down that road what is the point of having a legislature? Do you want to have a referendum on every piece of legislation or just the "important" ones?

Overheal

kev9100 wrote: »

Well, if you want to go down that road what is the point of having a legislature? Do you want to have a referendum on every piece of legislation or just the "important" ones?

kev9100

eh.... why did you post Tommy Lee Jones glaring at me? Its kind of unnverving:eek:.

Anonymous1987

Overheal wrote: »

Ha ha no. Theres a clear line of support for healthcare changes just as there is a clear line of Opposition. Thats what Im saying. The country is Split (surprise) and a referendum could go either way.

Have people go to a booth, vote on 20 or so propositions and then base the changes on what people vote for.

Why a referendum its not altering the constitution? Like Kev says its the job of the legislature. Besides would we really want to invite all that mis-information and propaganda from both sides anyway?

Overheal

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

Why a referendum its not altering the constitution? Like Kev says its the job of the legislature. Besides would we really want to invite all that mis-information and propaganda from both sides anyway?

Its giving people "An Inalienable Right" to Healthcare. Alongisde Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness.

http://www.forward.com/articles/122205/

“What this bill does is, we finally take that step from health care as a privilege, to health care as an inalienable right of every single American citizen,” said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).

If thats not Referendum Material, Im not sure what is.

Well, if you want to go down that road what is the point of having a legislature? Do you want to have a referendum on every piece of legislation or just the "important" ones?

I trust the Legislature when it regards Security and State. This involves My Heart and Lungs. I dont think they have a business running businesses either, but at least there, while theyve wasted countless billions and bankrupted dozens of goverco's, they have one or two of the carmakers by the balls and we may see the Electric Car yet. But back off my Tangent, they have no place forcing me to give them control of my health.

Anonymous1987

Overheal wrote: »

Its giving people "An Inalienable Right" to Healthcare. Alongisde Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness

In practice, yes I guess that is what universal healthcare would mean but where is the constitutional amendment for universal education at primary and second level? Having said that though a referendum would give some legitimacy to any legislation passed and may not be the worst thing to do.

bobbyjoe

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

Let me backtrack on my previous comment, Obama most likely isn't just to blame its the whole Dems v Reps culture that makes anything difficult to pass any legislation but he is the leader of the country and has made healthcare the number one priority of his first year as president. Why don't you suggest to me why bi-parisan healthcare reform is or is not possbile?

Because the Republicans have no interest in healthcare reform. Their contributions to the debate were all attacks on Obama, "death panels", "Obama wants to kill your granny" etc. This was from senators and republican leaders!!
One of them even called Obama a liar during a speech in congress. (Joe Wilson)

Obama bent over backwards to accommodate them even having bipartisan hearings on health care reform and allowing them to make a load of amendments.

kev9100

Overheal wrote: »

They have no place forcing me to give them control of my health.

You do know who you`re beginning to sound like, dont you?:D Nowhere in this bill wil the Goverment control your health care.

Back to your point on referendums, how would you set them up? Would it be a simple popular vote or would a majority of the States have to accept one of your 20 options? And what about the States that already have Universal Health care like Hawaii? Would they be forced to accept what the other States chose even if it is worse than their current system?

Trouser_Press

Overheal wrote: »

they have no place forcing me to give them control of my health.

Yawn.

Overheal

Trouser_Press wrote: »

Yawn.

A stirring contribution, thank you.

For the record though I find Manic Moran to be one of the better posters here. I dont know why you need to snipe him.

Back to your point on referendums, how would you set them up? Would it be a simple popular vote or would a majority of the States have to accept one of your 20 options? And what about the States that already have Universal Health care like Hawaii? Would they be forced to accept what the other States chose even if it is worse than their current system?

That is the kind of thing our elected officials are there to execute.

Anonymous1987

bobbyjoe wrote: »

Because the Republicans have no interest in healthcare reform. Their contributions to the debate were all attacks on Obama, "death panels", "Obama wants to kill your granny" etc. This was from senators and republican leaders!!
One of them even called Obama a liar during a speech in congress. (Joe Wilson)

Obama bent over backwards to accommodate them even having bipartisan hearings on health care reform and allowing them to make a load of amendments.

It might be naive to say so but a greater focus on cutting costs might bring some republicans on board, not that cost cutting is is easy but the current system costs twice the amount per GDP as the NHS in the UK and achieves broadly similar results. The CBO at the very least are unsure of the cost savings benefits of the current bill.

Is US politics really just ideological party politics i.e. if you are a democrat you want healthcare reform if you are a republican you do not. In fairness I would be under the assumption that those incidents you mentioned are commited by the extreme types of the republican party. At one stage a quarter of republican voters were in favour of healthcare reform. Obviously nothing extraordinary but surely enough to gain some marginal support which would add credibility that healthcare is not just a democratic agenda.

Anonymous1987

Trouser_Press wrote: »

Yawn.

Call the other side a moron without presenting an argument does not help your cause

bobbyjoe

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

It might be to say so but a greater focus on cutting costs might bring some republicans on board, not that cost cutting is is easy but the current system costs twice the amount as the NHS in the UK and achieves boradly similar results. The CBO at the very least are unsure of the cost savings benefits of the current bill.

Is US politics really just ideological party politics i.e. if you are a democrat you want healthcare reform if you are a republican you do not. In fairness I would be under the assumption that those incidents you mentioned are commited by the extreme types of the republican party. At one stage a quarter of republican voters were in favour of healthcare reform. Obviously nothing extraordinary but surely enough to gain some marginal support which would add credibility that healthcare is not just a democratic agenda.

Since when does everything have to be bipartisan agreed by both sides?
Don't recall any of this stuff under Bush. He just slammed whatever he wanted through, none of that Town Hall stuff either.
Obama needs to get tougher, come down hard on the Blue Dogs and Lieberman, expell them or do whatever he can. Be a bit more like Bush was in that regard.

Anonymous1987

Overheal wrote: »

they have no place forcing me to give them control of my health.

You say that now but I don't think anyone who needed healthcare treatment would reject it. You might be healthy today anything could happen tomorrow. I agree with your views on the role of the state to some degree but I view manadory health insurance like safety regulations, they limit our freedom a little but the benefits outway the costs.

Anonymous1987

bobbyjoe wrote: »

Since when does everything have to be bipartisan agreed by both sides?
Don't recall any of this stuff under Bush. He just slammed whatever he wanted through, none of that Town Hall stuff either.
Obama needs to get tougher, come down hard on the Blue Dogs and Lieberman, expell them or do whatever he can. Be a bit more like Bush was in that regard.

I guess you don't need bipartisan support and Obama could just disipline his party to push legislation through but that would mean to ignore legitimate criticism like the cost of healthcare and end up with a poor piece of legislation that while achieveing its primary goal brings with it other problems. I'm not really satisifed with the legisaltion but I guess it is progress.

Overheal

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

You say that now but I don't think anyone who needed healthcare treatment would reject it.

Thats a bit of a given isnt it? I need healthcare, and someone is going to give it to me... yeah.

You might be healthy today anything could happen tomorrow. I agree with your views on the role of the state to some degree but I view mandatory health insurance like safety regulations, they limit our freedom a little but the benefits outweigh the costs.

Honestly I see this going down as smoothly as Television Licenses in Ireland... at Best.

This isnt a safety regulation though. Not really. I could see mandating insurance if you had Dependents. But single users it seems unfair to. And I am one.

Existing Health and Safety Regulations are there to protect Others, not necessarily yourself. There are very few regulations with the sole function of protecting the individual, it usually extends to the protection of others, a company, entity, etc.

bobbyjoe wrote: »

Since when does everything have to be bipartisan agreed by both sides?
Don't recall any of this stuff under Bush. He just slammed whatever he wanted through, none of that Town Hall stuff either.
Obama needs to get tougher, come down hard on the Blue Dogs and Lieberman, expell them or do whatever he can. Be a bit more like Bush was in that regard.

Yeah, that wouldnt be political suicide.

Anonymous1987

Overheal wrote: »

Honestly I see this going down as smoothly as Television Licenses in Ireland... at Best.

This isnt a safety regulation though. Not really. I could see mandating insurance if you had Dependents. But single users it seems unfair to. And I am one.

Existing Health and Safety Regulations are there to protect Others, not necessarily yourself. There are very few regulations with the sole function of protecting the individual, it usually extends to the protection of others, a company, entity, etc.

Its not exacly a safety regulation but their are similarities. Working on a building site gives a fair few examples of safety regulation designed to protect the individual from themselves like having to wear a hard hat, safety harness etc. Health insurance is really protecting youreself financially from medical expenses associated with health. Few people will act more erratically with regards to their health after getting cover.

Universal healthcare like education could also be argued to be necessary to offer individuals equal oppertunites. I would favour free healthcare for low income earners. Take a low income individual having to undergo surgey, they then have to pay off their hospital debt which immediately puts them in a difficult situation through no fault of their own. Healthcare is relatively a lot more expensive at lower incomes while if you can't afford surgey you can't get back to work.

Thats also why I think it might be diffiult to pass legislation like this as while it helps the lowest income earners in the country, the vast majority of people will have to foot the bill which will not bring them any noticeable benefits, the benefits are to society. So yes it is unfair to the individual and fair to society which is probably where the claims of socialism come from. But that is the tradeoff that must be made if you want equal oppertunites and greater social mobility.