Prez Obama declares the time for talking about Universal health care is over.

ynotdu

Overheal wrote: »

And now the Reonciliation package vote...

And you wanted to start the We Did it thread. lol.

Wolf Blitzer from the best Fuc*in political team on Television !:D has said the Senate are sure to pass it,with may'be some tweaks but not much.

CNN are saying Obama is ready to go live shortly.

and as i was trying to get clarified earlior in the thread,if any changes are made to the reconcilliation bill,it will have to go back to house of representives.

nice speech in the end by Obama with VP Joe Biden by his side,no gloating by him and 32 million more people covered{approx the population of Canada}

Bill expected to arriave for signing in the Oval office within 60 hours.

Overheal

HEALTH BILL
What it does:

• Covers an additional 32 million Americans by expanding Medicaid and providing federal subsidies

• Requires most American citizens and legal residents to buy health insurance

• Creates a health care exchange, a marketplace where uninsured individuals and small businesses can comparison shop for insurance policies

• Fines employers with 50 or more employees if any full-time workers qualify for health care subsidies

• Increases Medicare payroll tax and expands it to include investment income

• Prohibits insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing medical conditions

• Reduces out-of-pocket prescription expenses for seniors on Medicare


What's next:


• President Obama signs the Senate health care bill once the House passes it.

• The Senate must approve separate legislation, also scheduled to be approved by the House on Sunday night, that makes changes to the Senate health bill.

Source: USA TODAY research

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-21-health-vote_N.htm

I would have been just as happy if all we got passed was the emboldened, but hey: we'll see how it plays out.

Anyway the rest of the news coverage tonight is going to be a bunch of political circle jerking. Out y'all.

ynotdu

Overheal the part You have highlighted is to Me the best thing of all from the Bill!

"we will only insure the healthy" WTF were they there for, Greed is good might just become 'So Yesterday'!

Manic Moran

Though I'm fine with some of the issues of the bill as a concept, I'll be curious to read the fine print. For example, "Prohibits insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing medical conditions" doesn't mean much on its own. In Ireland, an insurance company must provide a quote for car insurance. Try being a 19-year-old male insuring a Golf GTi. Nothing in the Irish system says that the insurance premium has to be that which one wants to, or even can afford. If such is the case in the healthcare bill, and c ombine that with the fact that it will fine people for not having insurance, and I'm curious to see how that's going to end up.

However, it's not so much the 'what' that really has gotten my goat over this, it's the 'how'. And from the reports, I'm not alone. The Minority Leader was not wrong when he asked if this really was passed in the right way. How many backroom deals were incorporated to secure votes? One of the last compromises made yesterday was something to do with student loans. Just what else is in the bible-sized piece of legislation? I can tolerate the whole 'reconciliation' piece, though I certainly don't like it. I'm more generous than some on that. I saw a cartoon in the paper recently which is likely to be somewhat apt: The scene on a WWII carrier, with the Japanese pilots(obviously Kamikaze) getting spoken to by their leader. The 'plane had "Healthcare reform" on the side of it, the pilots had "Democrats up for re-election" on the backs of their jackets. The leader was saying "This is an important mission, most of you will not come back"

After the 1994 disaster, the 1996 Democratic Party Platform had the following to say: "we are proud of the courageous Democrats who defied the gun lobby and sacrificed their seats in Congress to make America safer." That's the sort of holier-than-thou attitude which most irks me. If you lose your seat due to one vote on an issue, it's not due to a lobby. A lobby can't vote you out of office. It's due to the fact that you didn't listen to your constituents and went and voted the way you wanted to or thought was 'best for the constituents, even if they don't know any better', not the way your constituents wanted you to. What are the chances that the 2012 Democratic Party Platform will say "we are proud of the courageous Democrats who defied the insurance lobby and sacrificed their seats in Congress to provide affordable healthcare to Americans"?

Saw a couple of days ago in a Reuters report that Barbara Boxer's seat (D-CA) in the Senate is now at risk. That has been as safe a Democrat seat as Kennedy's was in Massachussets, and she's not even dead yet (Well, medically, at any rate). Quoteing the article,"Voters are really recoiling at what is going on in Washington with health reform," DiCamillo said. "Whether you are a supporter of health reform or not, you don't like the way the process has been handled."

They've got six months to fix their reputations. Less time than they had in 1994, I do believe. Frankly, I hope they get hammered. Healthcare reform was needed. There was a right way to do it, and a wrong way to do it. IMO, they chose poorly. They'd have been better off with a bunch of smaller, narrower bills as opposed to a huge bill filled with compromises and riders.

NTM

Mark200

Manic Moran wrote: »

Though I'm fine with some of the issues of the bill as a concept, I'll be curious to read the fine print. For example, "Prohibits insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing medical conditions" doesn't mean much on its own. In Ireland, an insurance company must provide a quote for car insurance. Try being a 19-year-old male insuring a Golf GTi. Nothing in the Irish system says that the insurance premium has to be that which one wants to, or even can afford. If such is the case in the healthcare bill, and c ombine that with the fact that it will fine people for not having insurance, and I'm curious to see how that's going to end up.

It's my understanding that the actual law will be that they can't discriminate against those with a pre-existing condition, meaning that they can't charge a higher price either.

Manic Moran wrote: »

However, it's not so much the 'what' that really has gotten my goat over this, it's the 'how'. And from the reports, I'm not alone. The Minority Leader was not wrong when he asked if this really was passed in the right way. How many backroom deals were incorporated to secure votes? One of the last compromises made yesterday was something to do with student loans. Just what else is in the bible-sized piece of legislation?

The student loans thing will be included in the reconciliation bill. The reason for this is that a while ago a similar bill dealing with student loans was passed in the House, but couldn't get through the Senate. So they decided to take this chance and get it passed with a simple majority (instead of 60 votes) along with healthcare. To do this, they needed to include it in the same reconciliation bill.

Manic Moran wrote: »

A lobby can't vote you out of office. It's due to the fact that you didn't listen to your constituents and went and voted the way you wanted to or thought was 'best for the constituents, even if they don't know any better', not the way your constituents wanted you to. What are the chances that the 2012 Democratic Party Platform will say "we are proud of the courageous Democrats who defied the insurance lobby and sacrificed their seats in Congress to provide affordable healthcare to Americans"?

I don't think it's as near as unpopular as some are suggesting. Polls have consistently shown that Americans support each of the key provisions of the healthcare bill on their own merits, it's only when they're all lumped together and labelled as things like "Government takeover" by the Republicans and lobbyists that people start to oppose it. As well as that, many people who would have replied to polls saying that they 'disapprove' of the legislation would have done so because they may have wanted to see things like Single Payer, or more liberal reforms. Not necessarily because they hold anything like Republican views. An example of this is Michael Moore - who has called the bill a 'joke' and said in an interview that if he was surveyed in one of those polls, he would have said he disapproved of the bill. Yet, strongly encouraged all lawmakers to vote for it.

It has been compared by the Democrats to the civil rights movement, which wasn't popular with all Americans - but was still the right thing to do.

Amerika

I guess only time will tell what doctors will do regarding the changes to their livelihood. I’d know I’d be pissed and look to make a change, if the government suddenly said I had to earn 20% less for doing the same, if not more, of my job. Personally, if I couldn’t make a profit on treating patients because of Democrat congress actions, I’d retire if able. And if not, I’d tell that patient to go get treatment from their Congressman/woman who voted for this form of health care reform. (I wonder if my doctor would prefer some of those Confederate dollars I have laying around somewhere, or the government free insurance card, as payment for his service. They are probably worth about the same.)

And as for this Bill, if it is so great why was there a need for the Cornhusker kickback, Louisiana purchase, Gator aid, union back room deals, and so forth? Also just recently in order to get votes, the increased water supply allocation to Central Valley, CA district farmers of 25%, rather than the expected 5%, a new provision providing $100 million in extra Medicaid money for Tennessee, not to mention Pelosi’s deal to give 17 states additional Medicare money. And since a particular Florida district representative (whose home is to the Kennedy Space Center) has now changed the vote from no to yes, watch for an increase in the NASA budget. But maybe the worse of all is politicians supporting and voting for a bill they cannot possibly have read. And maybe the biggest question of all, will Dennis Kucinich get an airport named after him?

Me thinks Democrats need to go back to school and see how a bill is supposed to become law. Schoolhouse Rock made a video titled "How a Bill Becomes a Law," that even Democrats should be able to understand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ

I think the Democrats blew it for the sake of Obama’s legacy. With the election of Scott Brown in MA, their version of Health Care Reform should have died. Then restarted from scratch with Republican help, to come up with a form of health care reform the American people would have liked. Americans do want health care reform, just not the Democrat version. Think about it, the only bipartisanship in this thing was in the oposition to the bill.

And the biggest warning of all to Democrats is: What is done through reconciliation, can be undone through reconciliation! First a change to congress in 2010, then a change to president in 2012 (to avoid the veto). Then we can stop this travesty they call reform, in which the Democrats have basically told America to Drop Dead.

dlofnep

Amerika wrote: »

I guess only time will tell what doctors will do regarding the changes to their livelihood. I’d know I’d be pissed and look to make a change, if the government suddenly said I had to earn 20% less for doing the same, if not more, of my job. Personally, if I couldn’t make a profit on treating patients because of Democrat congress actions, I’d retire if able. And if not, I’d tell that patient to go get treatment from their Congressman/woman who voted for this form of health care reform. (I wonder if my doctor would prefer some of those Confederate dollars I have laying around somewhere, or the government free insurance card, as payment for his service. They are probably worth about the same.)

Evidence for doctors earning 20% less after this bill?

Amerika wrote: »

I think the Democrats blew it for the sake of Obama’s legacy. With the election of Scott Brown in MA, their version of Health Care Reform should have died. Then restarted from scratch with Republican help, to come up with a form of health care reform the American people would have liked. Americans do want health care reform, just not the Democrat version. Think about it, the only bipartisanship in this thing was in the oposition to the bill.

And the biggest warning of all to Democrats is: What is done through reconciliation, can be undone through reconciliation! First a change to congress in 2010, then a change to president in 2012 (to avoid the veto). Then we can stop this travesty they call reform, in which the Democrats have basically told America to Drop Dead.

Where was a healthcare bill from Republicans in all this time prior to Obama being elected? The Democrats sought to instill a much needed change in American healthcare.

That's democracy.

Amerika

Sorry. My bad. I should have said 21%.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/04/news/economy/medicare_doctor_costs/index.htm

Jobs are a more important than health care reform right now. Democrats made health care an issue.

(pew research)

Mark200

Amerika wrote: »

And as for this Bill, if it is so great why was there a need for the Cornhusker kickback, Louisiana purchase, Gator aid, union back room deals, and so forth?

I'm not saying that it's right to include such earmarks in bills, but it's common practice in Congress. To pretend it's not is just ridiculous. Congressmen use whatever chance they can to get money for their districts - it doesn't mean that they dislike the bill otherwise.

Amerika wrote: »

But maybe the worse of all is politicians supporting and voting for a bill they cannot possibly have read. And maybe the biggest question of all, will Dennis Kucinich get an airport named after him?

How on Earth can you make such a ridiculous claim? The Senate bill has been around since before Christmas - that's 3 months. The word count of the Senate bill is 384,067 (according to here).

Here's the word counts of the Harry Potter books:

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone - 76,944 words
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets - 85,141 words
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - 107,253 words
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - 190,637 words
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - 257,045 words
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - 168,923
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Approximately 198,227

(According to here).

So two Harry Potter books could be far longer than the Senate bill. They could have easily managed.

Amerika wrote: »

I think the Democrats blew it for the sake of Obama’s legacy. With the election of Scott Brown in MA, their version of Health Care Reform should have died. Then restarted from scratch with Republican help, to come up with a form of health care reform the American people would have liked. Americans do want health care reform, just not the Democrat version. Think about it, the only bipartisanship in this thing was in the oposition to the bill.

Yeah because the Republicans were sooo helpful. It's funny how the Republicans have said (and even got people to believe) that they are representing the views of the American people. Yes, the majority disapproved of the bill. But that also includes liberal voters who wanted to see Single Payer, or a public option. Polls have shown that the majority of people wanted a public option. Something that is nowhere near what would be in a bill that Republicans have a say in.

Amerika wrote: »

And the biggest warning of all to Democrats is: What is done through reconciliation, can be undone through reconciliation! First a change to congress in 2010, then a change to president in 2012 (to avoid the veto). Then we can stop this travesty they call reform, in which the Democrats have basically told America to Drop Dead.

They'll need the House, Senate and Presidency. Unlikely, especially if they're going to run on taking away the insurance that children with pre-existing conditions, and older people in the 'doughnut hole' would have gotten by then.

Amerika wrote: »

Sorry. My bad. I should have said 21%.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/04/news/economy/medicare_doctor_costs/index.htm

Jobs are a more important than health care reform right now. Democrats made health care an issue.

That 21% refers to Medicare payments only. Not to all Doctors income in general. Also, I'd definitely question the accuracy of that figure.

The Democrats made health care an issue because Obama ran on the promise of bringing about healthcare reform. He won the election. So he brought about healthcare reform.

The Democrats passed a stimulus very soon after the elections, and just the other week passed a new jobs bill. You're acting like they've done nothing.

Also, to just mention your nice little chart for a second. First of all I don't see how the percentages add up, unless people were able to vote for more than one 'top priority' which would be odd. But assuming they were, then...

The healthcare bill takes care of:

1) Healthcare (57% voted for as a top priority)

2) Deficit Reduction (60% voted for as a top priority)

3) Medicare (63% voted for as a top priority)

A bill to reform student loans will be passed along with the reconciliation bill - so that's taken care of (assuming it's passed).

dlofnep

Amerika wrote: »

Sorry. My bad. I should have said 21%.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/04/news/economy/medicare_doctor_costs/index.htm

21% decrease in medicare payment, of which only accounts for 30% of his total income. That's around 6% in total. I'd still have to look into the figures in further detail, as I'm not sure that this even tells the full story.

Medicare is now going to pay for wellness visits. I'm assuming that this will bring more income for Doctors.

Amerika wrote: »

Jobs are a more important than health care reform right now. Democrats made health care an issue.

Jobs will always be more important than something. That doesn't mean that healthcare should not be reformed.

Amerika

1. So the answer to the problem of treating Medicare patients at a loss, is now to treat them with more visits at a loss? Somehow I just don’t quite get the logic.

2. And?

Mark200

Amerika wrote: »

1. So the answer to the problem of treating Medicare patients at a loss, is now to treat them with more visits at a loss? Somehow I just don’t quite get the logic.

Just skimmed through the article, but I didn't find the word "loss" mentioned there once. I think the argument in the article being made was that he wasn't earning much from Medicare patients - so yes, if you treat more patients that you're earning a little from - then you will make a lot.

Not to mention that since the bill will provide 32 million more people with health insurance, the doctors are getting a lot more customers.

Amerika wrote: »

2. And?

And therefore the point you made was irrelevant.

Amerika

Mark200 wrote: »

How on Earth can you make such a ridiculous claim?

Sometimes it is best to answer a question with a question. Who said “If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes.” (hint: It wasn't a Republican).

Yes, the majority disapproved of the bill.

So, you do agree with my comment that Democrats basically said to the American people "Drop Dead" (or maybe a better way of saying it is "We know better than you what is good for you.")

jank

Amerika wrote: »

I guess only time will tell what doctors will do regarding the changes to their livelihood. I’d know I’d be pissed and look to make a change, if the government suddenly said I had to earn 20% less for doing the same, if not more, of my job. Personally, if I couldn’t make a profit on treating patients because of Democrat congress actions, I’d retire if able. And if not, I’d tell that patient to go get treatment from their Congressman/woman who voted for this form of health care reform. (I wonder if my doctor would prefer some of those Confederate dollars I have laying around somewhere, or the government free insurance card, as payment for his service. They are probably worth about the same.)

And as for this Bill, if it is so great why was there a need for the Cornhusker kickback, Louisiana purchase, Gator aid, union back room deals, and so forth? Also just recently in order to get votes, the increased water supply allocation to Central Valley, CA district farmers of 25%, rather than the expected 5%, a new provision providing $100 million in extra Medicaid money for Tennessee, not to mention Pelosi’s deal to give 17 states additional Medicare money. And since a particular Florida district representative (whose home is to the Kennedy Space Center) has now changed the vote from no to yes, watch for an increase in the NASA budget. But maybe the worse of all is politicians supporting and voting for a bill they cannot possibly have read. And maybe the biggest question of all, will Dennis Kucinich get an airport named after him?

Me thinks Democrats need to go back to school and see how a bill is supposed to become law. Schoolhouse Rock made a video titled "How a Bill Becomes a Law," that even Democrats should be able to understand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ

I think the Democrats blew it for the sake of Obama’s legacy. With the election of Scott Brown in MA, their version of Health Care Reform should have died. Then restarted from scratch with Republican help, to come up with a form of health care reform the American people would have liked. Americans do want health care reform, just not the Democrat version. Think about it, the only bipartisanship in this thing was in the oposition to the bill.

And the biggest warning of all to Democrats is: What is done through reconciliation, can be undone through reconciliation! First a change to congress in 2010, then a change to president in 2012 (to avoid the veto). Then we can stop this travesty they call reform, in which the Democrats have basically told America to Drop Dead.

Where do I start. OK first of all you do know that many of the provisions in this bill were proposed by the GOP back in 92 when this debate was going on. But 18 years later they say no to the very same things they wanted? Strange that!
The GOP were NEVER going to play ball with this, not in a million years. They are using the same but clever tactic as they did in 92 when they got booted out of office. Stop doing their jobs. Say no, blame the government for everything and get into government and do it anyway!!

The Dems HAD to go it alone. Of course its very easy to point and rant and scream when you are in opposition but if health care was so important why did they do it a few years back when they controlled all branches of government?

Also funny how you mention about repealing it. You admit that health care needs reform yet want to repeal all of it in 3 years and start new!! LOL why not get into power to change it for the better instead you know it may be more productive!

Anyway this will NEVER be repealed. I would love to see the GOP campaign for the removal of health care for 35 million Americans cause that is what it will be. Once you give something its impossible to take it back.

Also I think the most impressive addition to this bill in terms of politics is the fact that parents can now include their children up to the age of 26 under their own cover. Previously it was 18. Yeap thats a whole sway of middle class america right there that is going to queue up and ask for that to be taken away..... NOT!

Exile 1798

Manic Moran wrote: »

However, it's not so much the 'what' that really has gotten my goat over this, it's the 'how'. And from the reports, I'm not alone. The Minority Leader was not wrong when he asked if this really was passed in the right way. How many backroom deals were incorporated to secure votes? One of the last compromises made yesterday was something to do with student loans. Just what else is in the bible-sized piece of legislation? I can tolerate the whole 'reconciliation' piece, though I certainly don't like it. I'm more generous than some on that.

Do the back room deals with corporate lobbyists to secure opposition bother you?

Manic Moran wrote: »

I saw a cartoon in the paper recently which is likely to be somewhat apt: The scene on a WWII carrier, with the Japanese pilots(obviously Kamikaze) getting spoken to by their leader. The 'plane had "Healthcare reform" on the side of it, the pilots had "Democrats up for re-election" on the backs of their jackets. The leader was saying "This is an important mission, most of you will not come back"

After the 1994 disaster, the 1996 Democratic Party Platform had the following to say: "we are proud of the courageous Democrats who defied the gun lobby and sacrificed their seats in Congress to make America safer." That's the sort of holier-than-thou attitude which most irks me. If you lose your seat due to one vote on an issue, it's not due to a lobby. A lobby can't vote you out of office. It's due to the fact that you didn't listen to your constituents and went and voted the way you wanted to or thought was 'best for the constituents, even if they don't know any better', not the way your constituents wanted you to. What are the chances that the 2012 Democratic Party Platform will say "we are proud of the courageous Democrats who defied the insurance lobby and sacrificed their seats in Congress to provide affordable healthcare to Americans"?

Saw a couple of days ago in a Reuters report that Barbara Boxer's seat (D-CA) in the Senate is now at risk. That has been as safe a Democrat seat as Kennedy's was in Massachussets, and she's not even dead yet (Well, medically, at any rate). Quoteing the article,"Voters are really recoiling at what is going on in Washington with health reform," DiCamillo said. "Whether you are a supporter of health reform or not, you don't like the way the process has been handled."

They've got six months to fix their reputations. Less time than they had in 1994, I do believe. Frankly, I hope they get hammered. Healthcare reform was needed. There was a right way to do it, and a wrong way to do it. IMO, they chose poorly. They'd have been better off with a bunch of smaller, narrower bills as opposed to a huge bill filled with compromises and riders.

NTM

Why shouldn't Democrats who sacrifice their seats for what they believe to be right feel themselves holier then Democrats who voted no simply to save their seat, or Republicans who voted no because they are simply corporatists and have no interest in addressing this long standing problem?

Surely those politicians not motivated by self preservation or corporate money are better people and are fully justified in thinking so?

jank

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Do the back room deals with corporate lobbyists to secure opposition bother you?



Why shouldn't Democrats who sacrifice their seats for what they believe to be right feel themselves holier then Democrats who voted no simply to save their seat, or Republicans who voted no because they are simply corporatists and have no interest in addressing this long standing problem?

Surely those politicians not motivated by self preservation or corporate money are better people and are fully justified in thinking so?

Couldn't say it better myself. They did what was right not was politically smart. You complain about lobby's but then give out about this?

Manic Moran

Do the back room deals with corporate lobbyists to secure opposition bother you?

To a point, but I can tolerate them as long as they remain within ethics rules. At least they're on subject, unlike the Sacramento River Delta Fish Stocks (Some sort of smelt at issue, apparently) or whatever other ridiculously unrelated subject is being attached to garner support for the bill.

Why shouldn't Democrats who sacrifice their seats for what they believe to be right feel themselves holier then Democrats who voted no simply to save their seat

I'm not convinced you understand the purpose of the representative in a representative republic. If the Democrat in question votes in accordance with the wishes of the majorty of their electorate, then they would have little need to be concerned about the security of their seat. I do not elect my representatives so as to allow them the opportunity to feel good about themselves. Their job is to represent the people in their constituency.

Here's the word counts of the Harry Potter books

Novels tend to be easy reading. Have you ever tried reading a third of a million words of legalese? I've a law degree. I know I wouldn't enjoy it.

It's my understanding that the actual law will be that they can't discriminate against those with a pre-existing condition, meaning that they can't charge a higher price either.

Oh goodie. So all our premia will rise then.

Polls have consistently shown that Americans support each of the key provisions of the healthcare bill on their own merits, it's only when they're all lumped together and labelled as things like "Government takeover" by the Republicans and lobbyists that people start to oppose it.

I agree with the first part of that, and indeed was reading an article on that very subject not long ago. However, I don't think it's right to just put the negativity on the Republicans and Lobbyists. The US electorate is not a binary system where people fully agree with their representative or else fully disagree with them. The more things you bundle in together, the more chance you're going to add a 'spoiler' which ruins the deal for any particular voter. Just because 60% agree with three items does not mean that the same 60% agree with all three items, for example.

As well as that, many people who would have replied to polls saying that they 'disapprove' of the legislation would have done so because they may have wanted to see things like Single Payer, or more liberal reforms. Not necessarily because they hold anything like Republican views

Another good reason for breaking it down into smaller pieces. As long as we have disparity in the opinions of voters like that, put the various subjects, be it single payer, federal abortion funds or whatever, to independent votes. That way there's far less doubt if the representative is simply being representative of if (s)he's going on a bit of a personal tangent which accommodates outlying opinions. It adds accountability

NTM

Black Swan

The mandatory health care insurance enrollment provision, with penalties if you don't, reads like hidden capitalism in practice, given that the vast majority of citizens will have to take a policy with a for-profit insurance corporation, rather than allowing for a public alternative?

Exile 1798

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not convinced you understand the purpose of the representative in a representative republic. If the Democrat in question votes in accordance with the wishes of the majorty of their electorate, then they would have little need to be concerned about the security of their seat. I do not elect my representatives so as to allow them the opportunity to feel good about themselves. Their job is to represent the people in their constituency.

Actually I think it's you who doesn't understand the proper function of a representative democracy.

The idea that reps should vote according to the results of some poll carried out in their districts is absurd. None of the people polled have read the bill and even fewer understand the basics of it.

You're extremely cynical in your preference for corporate Democrats and Republicans over reform Democrats.

In any case, I think you're overstating the opposition to reform from the public.

Manic Moran

Exile 1798 wrote: »

The idea that reps should vote according to the results of some poll carried out in their districts is absurd. None of the people polled have read the bill and even fewer understand the basics of it.

I don't see how that's any different from most of the representatives, to be honest. You really think my representative has sat down and read the whole thing, and had analysts provide greater detail than the talking heads on CNN? Do representatives suddenly become subject matter experts with oodles of time upon election? I'm still trying to figure out where the benefit to most Americans is in all this, those of us who -do- have insurance and are paying ridiculous sums of money for bizarre levels of responsiveness.

You're extremely cynical in your preference for corporate Democrats and Republicans over reform Democrats.

I'm extremely cynical about most politicians in the US. The only checks and balances we have over them is their responsiveness to the electorate and their adherence to the legal structure. If they ignore the first on the premise that 'they know best', that removes their one link to the people they're representing.

In any case, I think you're overstating the opposition to reform from the public.

I have a newspaper next to me, headline is "Obama's Big Bet. Victory on healthcare reform may have consequences for President and his party'.

Allow me to quote parts of it:

Washington- Barack Obama achieved what every Democratic President sinceHarry Truman has attempted when the House passed a healthcare overhaul. Now he'll find out what price he and his party may have paid for the victory.

"There's no doubt that he's pushed a lot of his political chips to the middle of the tale,' David Axelrod, senior White House advisor, said in an interview.

"This obviously is hugely important to the President, but you have to realise that there are some people who took a vote that will probably cost them their election" said Rep Anthony Weiner, D-NY. Obama will likely be forced to scale back energy and climate change legislation, several House members said. Rep Baron Hill, D-IN "I feel like I am walking the plank"

The President, starting with the economic stimulus bill, "pushed Democrats into casting a lot of unpopular votes," said George Edwards, a presidential historian at Texas A&M. "And now people will be saying "Don't ask me to cast more that are going to end my career"

There is no doubt that there are going to be reprecussions for the votes. Democrats are saying so, not only Republicans. Note that I'm not saying that there was opposition to reform, I think most people know it needs fixing. But this way, and in this manner? We'll find out in about eight months. For now, let the representatives sweat.

NTM

Memnoch

Manic Moran wrote: »

There is no doubt that there are going to be reprecussions for the votes. Democrats are saying so, not only Republicans. Note that I'm not saying that there was opposition to reform, I think most people know it needs fixing. But this way, and in this manner? We'll find out in about eight months. For now, let the representatives sweat.

NTM

The republicans were in power for the last 8 years and made no efforts to fix it. Now all of a sudden that someone is trying to fix it they are like, "oh yeah, but we don't like the WAY you are fixing it."

The problem I have with the current state of American politics is the impossibility of compromise. I genuinely believe that Obama wanted to work WITH the republicans, I don't however for a second believe that the reciprocal is true here.

They don't seem to care about what is good for the country or the populace beyond the narrow prism of advancing their own political power. i.e. they just want to win by blocking Obama at every step, regardless of whether his ideas are good or not.

I don't also for a second think that if Obama had pulled back or included more of their ideas it would have made a blind bit of difference. They were going to block obama because that's all they seem to care about.

Not a SINGLE republican crossed party lines to vote with Obama, while more than 30 democrats dissented during the vote. Shouldn't it be a little of both? But American politics has become so ridiculously divisive (in no small part due to the incitement of the republican base by the GOP) that there seems little room for compromise and in trying to take the middle ground Obama ends up risking alienating his base.

It's good that your health insurance is working for you and your family. It's great that you have been lucky enough to be where you are. There are millions of Americans who aren't so fortunate. And this bill WILL help them immensly.

Manic Moran

Memnoch wrote: »

The republicans were in power for the last 8 years and made no efforts to fix it. Now all of a sudden that someone is trying to fix it they are like, "oh yeah, but we don't like the WAY you are fixing it."

And when have I ever lauded the Republicans for their (in)actions on healthcare? This isn't binary just because one side is wrong does not mean that the other side's position need be any better.

The problem I have with the current state of American politics is the impossibility of compromise. I genuinely believe that Obama wanted to work WITH the republicans, I don't however for a second believe that the reciprocal is true here.

I'm not convinced that a radical overhaul that Mr Obama wanted is possible with compromise. In many respects the philosophical differences are just too disparate, and I'll wager he knew that from the start. Astute, mind, say that you're willing to be bi-partisan with the opposition, and know that you won't need to ever be forced to do so. It's like saying you're willing to compromise on an abortion treaty with the Holy See. That isn't to say, however, that many of the glaring problems with the system can't be fixed without having to go to the extremes proposed.

They don't seem to care about what is good for the country or the populace beyond the narrow prism of advancing their own political power. i.e. they just want to win by blocking Obama at every step, regardless of whether his ideas are good or not.

And how does that logic apply to the numerous Democrats who needed to be bribed into supporting the legislation? (or even those who couldn't be bribed and still voted against).

Not a SINGLE republican crossed party lines to vote with Obama, while more than 30 democrats dissented during the vote. Shouldn't it be a little of both?

No. If you didn't notice, most of the 'swing' seats in the last election went Democrat. That means that the Republicans who are left generally represent the more conservative districts. If they're following the desires of their constituents, I see no reason why any of them should be 'required' to cross over to make it seem 'fair and balanced' when the makeup of their demographics lean heavily against. One would presume that it's the same reason the 34 Democrats also voted against. Those who voted for, but only after a kickback, are presumably going to to go to their constituents and say "Yeah, I realise you guys didn't really like it, but look at this benefit I negotiated to mollify your anger."

But American politics has become so ridiculously divisive (in no small part due to the incitement of the republican base by the GOP)

Oh, blame the Republicans again. I don't suppose you've ever bounced around websites like Democraticunderground.com, especially when Bush was in power? If you want to talk about incitement of the Base, the Democrats are just as guilty of it as Republicans.

that there seems little room for compromise and in trying to take the middle ground Obama ends up risking alienating his base.

This is true. But if you ask me, the whole reliance on the 'base' is stupidity to begin with. There are more registered independents out there than there are either Democrats or Republicans, and the 'base' certainly isn't going to vote for the other guy no matter how pissed off they may be with 'their man.' It's the independents that the parties need to be concerned about. I'm one of them, and I'm not happy. I know I'm not alone.

It's good that your health insurance is working for you and your family. It's great that you have been lucky enough to be where you are. There are millions of Americans who aren't so fortunate. And this bill WILL help them immensly.

I like to think a little hard work also resulted in how I ended up where I am. I've just spent the last year doing a job which many Americans don't want to do, but which is open to the most disadvantaged person from the wrong side of the railroad tracks if they have a mind to do so. I'm sure the bill will help immensely. But there will have been far more efficient ways of getting to the same result which, by the way, would probably helped them -and- others as well. Millions of Americans have no healthcare insurance because they can't afford the premia. Instead of providing it to them 'gratis', try fixing the system so that premia become more affordable. Then everyone wins. Except, maybe, the insurance companies.

NTM

PeakOutput

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm still trying to figure out where the benefit to most Americans is in all this

you need to let go off this selfish attitude the idea behind the bill is not to help most americans as most americans are fine as it is


its the disadvantaged(which im assuming you are not) who will be helped, the minority

the economists podcast today has a good rundown of what this bill means

it has extended access to either insurance or medicare and medicade to 95% of americans

Fr Tod Umptious

I really have no opinion on the actual Bill as I don't live in America so it does not affect me.

What does interest me however is how it will effect the mid term elections.

I was listening to Mary Wilson on Drive time last evening and she was talking to Niall Stanich and they were both falling over themselves to congratulate Obama and the Dems on what they did and how it would be such a huge bust to them in the Nov elections, cos the 35 million who suddenly have heath care will all vote Democrat.

I tend to disagree; the 35 million who did not have health care are likely to be the same people who never vote.

I'd expect the nov mid term to be the same as the Massachusetts’s special election few months back, there will be a huge backlash from well organized middle income people who do not want their existing healthcare messed with and do not fancy paying more taxes to subsidize someone else’s healthcare .

Kepti

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I tend to disagree; the 35 million who did not have health care are likely to be the same people who never vote.

What do you base this on? Genuinely curious here.

20Cent

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I really have no opinion on the actual Bill as I don't live in America so it does not affect me.

What does interest me however is how it will effect the mid term elections.

I was listening to Mary Wilson on Drive time last evening and she was talking to Niall Stanich and they were both falling over themselves to congratulate Obama and the Dems on what they did and how it would be such a huge bust to them in the Nov elections, cos the 35 million who suddenly have heath care will all vote Democrat.

I tend to disagree; the 35 million who did not have health care are likely to be the same people who never vote.

I'd expect the nov mid term to be the same as the Massachusetts’s special election few months back, there will be a huge backlash from well organized middle income people who do not want their existing healthcare messed with and do not fancy paying more taxes to subsidize someone else’s healthcare .

What if they find in Nov that their existing healthcare arrangements have not changed at all and that taxes are still the same?

Fr Tod Umptious

Kepti wrote: »

What do you base this on? Genuinely curious here.

Nothing scientific obviously but based on the following assumptions.

No insurance therefore person is more likely to be poor

Poor people tend to have lower education levels

People with lower education level tend not be to as politically aware and thus are less likely to be registered to vote.

Middle calls people on the other hand tend to be better educated, more politically aware and are more likely to be organized thus are more likely to vote.

20Cent wrote: »

What if they find in Nov that their existing healthcare arrangements have not changed at all and that taxes are still the same?

The fear fact may still be there that the worst has yet to come, plus it's unlikely that all of the 35 million un-insured will see the fruits of this Bill by then and would thus be unlikley to make a effort to get out as cast that 'thank you' vote

Amerika

A recent CBS poll (hardly a GOP/Right sympathetic entity) asked why Democrats worked to pass a health care bill. Approximately 57 percent said "mostly political reasons," while just 35 percent said it was because Democrats think the bill is good policy.

Perception is everything. I think come November, you will see a lot of Democrats lose out in the elections. I’m guessing the GOP will pick up around 7 senate seats, and maybe around 25 house seats, thanks in large part to the public’s perception about the Democrat push for health care reform, and their seemingly lack of interest in the economy and jobs. The senate will shift to GOP control, while the house will remain Democrat controlled. Probably a good thing, and possibly the only hope for some true bipartisanship going forward.

It is notable that the same poll indicated that Americans had an even more cynical view of Republican motivations: Sixty-one percent said Republicans were acting on the basis of political concerns, while 29 percent said Republicans truly believed the bill was bad policy. But this is not a Republican bill, nor are the Republicans in control of any section of Congress that passed this highly unpopular bit of legislation. And America puts a much higher priority on the economy and jobs than it does health care.

I see Nancy Pelosi is already demonizing the insurance companies as her political talking point strategy to try and win over public perception. It will be a loser come November if this remains their strategy. “So the Democrat answer to big bad insurance companies is to force more people to purchase their product. Brilliant!”

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000941-503544.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Manic Moran

PeakOutput wrote: »

you need to let go off this selfish attitude the idea behind the bill is not to help most americans as most americans are fine as it is

Are we?!

Are not comparisons between countries on dollars-per-capita spent on healthcare routinely touted on these boards showing that Americans pay ridiculous levels of money for their coverage? And it's certainly not the 'disadvantaged' paying that ridiculous level, because they can't afford the coverage in the first place. It's the majority of us who are currently covered who are paying it.

How will reducing the cost of insurance overall not help make available healthcare coverage to those who cannot currently afford it in addition to benefitting everyone else? Where is the downside to that concept?

NTM

jank

Amerika wrote: »

A recent CBS poll (hardly a GOP/Right sympathetic entity) asked why Democrats worked to pass a health care bill. Approximately 57 percent said "mostly political reasons," while just 35 percent said it was because Democrats think the bill is good policy.

Perception is everything. I think come November, you will see a lot of Democrats lose out in the elections. I’m guessing the GOP will pick up around 7 senate seats, and maybe around 25 house seats, thanks in large part to the public’s perception about the Democrat push for health care reform, and their seemingly lack of interest in the economy and jobs. The senate will shift to GOP control, while the house will remain Democrat controlled. [/URL]

Those swings will not be enough for the GOP to take either house.

ynotdu

jank wrote: »

Those swings will not be enough for the GOP to take either house.

Hi jank,dunno if you know i don't believe in the mid-terms,well past there sell by dates!

but bearing in mind that this is mostly an Irish site and in the hope that what people understand they might take more of an interest in,Just wanna say that the GOP stands for the 'Grand Old Party':){really it does for those who might think i'm kidding,bettter known as the Republican Party!

Ludo

Interesting:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-23-health-poll-favorable_N.htm

Actually, not that interesting at all as I put no faith whatsoever in these kind of polls, but is a nice contrast to various other polls published recently.

Memnoch

Ludo wrote: »

Interesting:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-23-health-poll-favorable_N.htm

Actually, not that interesting at all as I put no faith whatsoever in these kind of polls, but is a nice contrast to various other polls published recently.

Clearly left wing, liberal, pinky, socialist, communist, jihadi bias designed to subvert the constitution of the United States of America and rob its people of their hard fought freedoms.

jank

Never forget the power of fear in controlling the masses, you saw it in the run up to the Iraq war when every week there was a new orange alert.
Enough fear can make you turn against your own mother and father. Sad but true.

PeakOutput

jank wrote: »

Never forget the power of fear in controlling the masses, you saw it in the run up to the Iraq war when every week there was a new orange alert.
Enough fear can make you turn against your own mother and father. Sad but true.

so which side are you saying has been using fear tactics?

Mark200

Ludo wrote: »

Interesting:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-23-health-poll-favorable_N.htm

Actually, not that interesting at all as I put no faith whatsoever in these kind of polls, but is a nice contrast to various other polls published recently.

The problem with the other cited polls was that the question was "Do you approve or disapprove of the bill"... which meant that people (for example Michael Moore) who thought that the bill didn't do enough would be replying with a "disapprove", even though they wanted the bill to pass.

Overheal

PeakOutput wrote: »

so which side are you saying has been using fear tactics?

Glen Beck, self-professed non-journalist, Conservative Republican, Informer and Entertainer, believes both sides employ fear. He says, as he tell his viewers that they are shoving healthcare down the throat of america and leading us to be slaughtered.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65036694&postcount=59

Manic Moran

Surprised this is the most relevant thread, but an interesting, if not unanticipated development.

The Great Commonwealth of Virginia has won its first step of what is undoubtedly going to be a long battle, as a Federal judge has declared part of the Health Care Act unConstitutional.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/12/13/va.healthcare.ruling.pdf

NTM

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

Surprised this is the most relevant thread, but an interesting, if not unanticipated development.

The Great Commonwealth of Virginia has won its first step of what is undoubtedly going to be a long battle, as a Federal judge has declared part of the Health Care Act unConstitutional.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/12/13/va.healthcare.ruling.pdf

NTM

Yes. Particularly the bit that mandates americans must own Health Care Insurance (Either buy purchasing a Private plan or purchasing the Public Option) or pay a fine. Something I recall criticizing myself earlier in this thread/threads like it: thinking of no other thing the government forces us to buy, aside from whatever comes from the 16th Amendment. I quite agree with the conservatives here: that section of the bill was a handjob for insurance company lobbyists.

kaiser sauze

Even the GOP are running away from this one as the judge who ruled is involved with organisations who want to overturn it and hid ruling is potentially going to interfere with their claims elsewhere.

Manic Moran

The Great State of Florida* has just won its first stage in Federal court as well. This judge ruled the whole shebang unConstitutional, not just the bit about the mandated purchase, but mainly on the basis that if you took away the mandated purchase, everything else falls apart.

Ruling is here.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47905937/Health-Care-Ruling-by-Judge-Vinson

Virginia is in the 4th Circuit, Florida in the 11th. It's going to get interesting.

NTM

*Joined by 25 other States.

EastTexas

That is the very reason for the repeal.
I can’t see the SC holding up this 2700 page backroom deal monstrosity either.

Black Swan

Former Republican governor Mitt Romney signed into law a health care bill in Mass that mandated participation in their health care plan, or there would be penalties (e.g., denial of tax credits). How is this different from attaching penalties for non-participation in the bill that Obama signed?

Did the Mass Supreme Court challenge the Mitt Romney signed bill?

For the record, I don't favour health care legislation that forces citizens to enroll in private-sector-for-profit health care plans, or be penalized, be they in Mass or the entire USA; and I don't care if it's Republicans (or Tea Party Republicans) or Democrats sponsoring the bill.

EastTexas

Black Swan wrote: »

Former Republican governor Mitt Romney signed into law a health care bill in Mass that mandated participation in their health care plan, or there would be penalties (e.g., denial of tax credits). How is this different from attaching penalties for non-participation in the bill that Obama signed?

Did the Mass Supreme Court challenge the Mitt Romney signed bill?

For the record, I don't favour health care legislation that forces citizens to enroll in private-sector-for-profit health care plans, or be penalized, be they in Mass or the entire USA; and I don't care if it's Republicans (or Tea Party Republicans) or Democrats sponsoring the bill.

That’s the difference between state and federal law.
The individual states have more room for passing laws that benefit their particular economy and fitting to their individual situations.
Passing laws for them self.
Not that Mitt’s bill is anything like the 2700 page boondoggle Democrats rammed through.
Whereas the federal government is prohibited by the constitution to pass a mandate over the states and their people.

Memnoch

EastTexas wrote: »

Whereas the federal government is prohibited by the constitution to pass a mandate over the states and their people.

Nonsense.

If that was the case than half the laws currently running the country would be illegal.

Typical tea party oversimplification illogic.

Black Swan

EastTexas wrote: »

Whereas the federal government is prohibited by the constitution to pass a mandate over the states and their people.

What about the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution?

Source: http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm

EastTexas

Black Swan wrote: »

What about the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution?

Source: http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm

Can you be more specific please?
I am not going to read the entire text on this link to figure out what your are asking.
Thanx

Black Swan

EastTexas wrote: »

Can you be more specific please?
I am not going to read the entire text on this link to figure out what your are asking.
Thanx

Supremacy Clause, United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

EastTexas

Memnoch wrote: »

Nonsense.

If that was the case than half the laws currently running the country would be illegal.

Typical tea party oversimplification illogic.

Fuming about it not does not change US law.
The federal government cannot dictate to a citizen to purchase anything, especially not from a private vendor.

It is prohibited by the constitution to do so.

EastTexas

Black Swan wrote: »

Supremacy Clause, United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

And what is your point or specific question pertaining to the healthcare bill?