PDA

View Full Version : Pro Life Amendment, No Public Option, No Medicare Buy-In, No Drug Reimportation



Rick-Mi
12-16-2009, 10:51 AM
Is this the type of health care reform that democrats had in mind when they elected Obama and put their party in total control of Congress?

Ian McColgin
12-16-2009, 10:52 AM
Nope. I don't even think the suckers who voted for Lieberman had it in mind.

Rick-Mi
12-16-2009, 10:59 AM
Nope. I don't even think the suckers who voted for Lieberman had it in mind.

Even those of us on the outside looking in are shaking our heads at how virtually every key component pushed for by the base has been gutted. Do you think democrats will check their conscience at the door and support anything just to say they passed health care reform?

perldog007
12-16-2009, 11:04 AM
Joe ( Lieberman and Biden) both know what pot plants look like at least. It's a start.

#include<larrycableguy.h>

Lord, I'm sorry. That was wrong....

BA.Barcolounger
12-16-2009, 11:45 AM
The GOP playbook:

Step 1 - Wait for Democrats to propose a solution to a glaring problem. Make no GOP proposals.
Step 2 - Fight and obstruct until the bill is watered down and ineffective. Include as many ridiculous amendments as possible, even though you have no plans to vote in favor of the final bill.
Step 3 - Run to the nearest Fox News reporter and say "Look at the crap the Democrats came up with!"

Rick-Mi
12-16-2009, 12:04 PM
The GOP playbook:

Step 1 - Wait for Democrats to propose a solution to a glaring problem. Make no GOP proposals.
Step 2 - Fight and obstruct until the bill is watered down and ineffective. Include as many ridiculous amendments as possible, even though you have no plans to vote in favor of the final bill.
Step 3 - Run to the nearest Fox News reporter and say "Look at the crap the Democrats came up with!"


You forgot something, democrats don't need republicans to pass HCR.

John of Phoenix
12-16-2009, 12:14 PM
Lieberman will retire a very rich man.

JimD
12-16-2009, 12:17 PM
You forgot something, democrats don't need republicans to pass HCR.

But they do need Democrats that act like Democrats. Strange party system you have down there.

Rick-Mi
12-16-2009, 01:08 PM
But they do need Democrats that act like Democrats. Strange party system you have down there.

Sad to say, our political system has become very corrupt. I can understand the battle over some of the health care issues on the table, but not the Dorgan Amendment. How could democrats not pass an amendment that would have saved their constituents 80 billion dollars in prescription drug costs? I guess big pharma profits are more important than the people they represent.

BrianW
12-16-2009, 01:08 PM
Democrat plan...
Promise the world, win elections, deliver nothing, blame Republicans.

Democrat voter plan...
Accept it all, ask for more.

skuthorp
12-16-2009, 01:32 PM
Sad to say, our political system has become very corrupt. I can understand the battle over some of the health care issues on the table, but not the Dorgan Amendment. How could democrats not pass an amendment that would have saved their constituents 80 billion dollars in prescription drug costs? I guess big pharma profits are more important than the people they represent.

They've been bought, sold, parcelled up and bought again. Congratulations.

perldog007
12-16-2009, 01:43 PM
Lieberman will retire a very rich man.

As opposed to Schumer, Rangle, Pelosi, Reid, Boeher, McCain, Frank, and the rest of them who will be at the corner store scraping up coins off the sidewalk to buy Top Ramen noodles for Sunday dinner?

JimD
12-16-2009, 02:05 PM
Sad to say, our political system has become very corrupt. I can understand the battle over some of the health care issues on the table, but not the Dorgan Amendment. How could democrats not pass an amendment that would have saved their constituents 80 billion dollars in prescription drug costs? I guess big pharma profits are more important than the people they represent.

Corruption aside, without party loyalty there are no parties in any practical sense. They are colour coded red and blue to imply a distinction that isn't there. What America has is a system of elected independent representatives and a president who must appeal to enough of them to get his laws passed. Frankly, I think this can be a very good way to do things. But insisting on seeing politics in terms of party division when in fact blue and red are blended into grey is an unecessary distraction from what is really going on.

johnw
12-16-2009, 02:23 PM
You forgot something, democrats don't need republicans to pass HCR.
There are 58 Democrats. Every important piece of legislation is requiring 60 votes because the filibuster is being used more than ever before. They need some votes from non-Democrats.

The filibuster needs to be weakened. Both parties have blocked too many judges, and its increasing use is making the country ungovernable.

As for healthcare reform, I think if we get most Americans covered, get rid of recisions and refusing to insure people because of pre-existing conditions, and reform the market for individuals, that will be worth doing. I'd like to see more co-ops like Group Health, but those appear to be hard to start.

Importing drugs is controversial because how can you make sure people won't ship in fake drugs? I think the answer is to allow shipment of drugs approved by countries that do a good job of policing their drug industry, but then you run afoul of the free trade commitments we've made.

We've sure got to find some way to cut costs, and the system we've got doesn't work like a market should at all. A good start might be repealing the health insurance companies' exemption from anti-trust legislation.

Kaa
12-16-2009, 02:45 PM
There are 58 Democrats. Every important piece of legislation is requiring 60 votes because the filibuster is being used more than ever before. They need some votes from non-Democrats.

And they still don't need any votes from Republicans.

Kaa

Chris Coose
12-16-2009, 03:03 PM
I pay premiums to a sh*tty health insurance company and some of that goes to Lieberman, Snowe and Collins to keep things just the way they are (or worse).
I take it up the toucas twice.

My New Year's resolution is to reduce income just enough to qualify for Medicaid for next year.

ccmanuals
12-16-2009, 04:45 PM
Our system is broken and a great deal of the blame lies at the hands of the American people. They continue to vote into office representatives who could care less about representing the people they are elected to. The last presidential election should have been a clue to these folks that it's not politics as usual. Hopefully, a change can also be made in the mid terms.

Kaa
12-16-2009, 04:56 PM
The last presidential election should have been a clue to these folks that it's not politics as usual.

The last presidential election was run to the sound of loud proclamations that it's not going to be politics as usual.

Kaa

johnw
12-16-2009, 05:04 PM
And they still don't need any votes from Republicans.

Kaa
Yes, that's already been said. Perhaps you weren't paying attention. But Republican votes can substitute for independent votes or even blue dog votes.

ccmanuals
12-16-2009, 05:04 PM
The last presidential election was run to the sound of loud proclamations that it's not going to be politics as usual.

Kaa

Kaa, I think you missed the point a bit. A black man was elected as President with an overwhelming majority. Regardless of who promised what and promises galore were made on both sides, as usual, this was a historic vote. I think you will see more historic votes being made with some congressmen who have held their seats, uncontested for many years, looking for a new job.

johnw
12-16-2009, 05:04 PM
The last presidential election was run to the sound of loud proclamations that it's not going to be politics as usual.

Kaa
Apparently, one person can't change the system. Who knew?

Kaa
12-16-2009, 05:10 PM
Apparently, one person can't change the system. Who knew?

So was Obama's CHANGE a deliberate lie?

http://tpwdesign.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/obama-change-poster.jpg

Kaa

Kaa
12-16-2009, 05:11 PM
...this was a historic vote.

Sure, it was.

And now that the historic vote is over, we're back to politics as usual -- isn't that so?

Kaa

McMike
12-16-2009, 05:17 PM
It looks that way.

Was it so wrong to hope?

I would still have voted for Obama over McPalin. It just sucks that we’re still stuck with the lesser of the two evils.

Now what?

McMike
12-16-2009, 05:23 PM
Democrat plan...
Promise the world, win elections, deliver nothing, blame Republicans.

Democrat voter plan...
Accept it all, ask for more.


What makes the Republicans any better? Do you really think they have your best interests at heart? I don't think so and feel anyone who thinks they're on the better side is kidding themselves. In the back rooms at the capital they're all the same.

Kaa
12-16-2009, 05:35 PM
Was it so wrong to hope?

Well, that depends on whether you have a repetitive pattern of doing the same thing every four years... :D

Kaa

McMike
12-16-2009, 05:44 PM
Well, that depends on whether you have a repetitive pattern of doing the same thing every four years... :D

Kaa

Nope, canít say that Iím a habitual hopester.

perldog007
12-16-2009, 05:58 PM
We can only hope so. :)
I'm still a strong believer in term limits. If we had them we'd have a government more in tune with the public and less likely to consider themselves the permanent ruling class.

I tend to like the idea as well. Why should we limit the presidency when we have career politicians on the Hill? Some of those clowns have been in so long their G-town mortgages are paid off.

johnw
12-16-2009, 07:16 PM
So was Obama's CHANGE a deliberate lie?

http://tpwdesign.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/obama-change-poster.jpg

Kaa

No.

Not a good day for you, Kaa. Maybe some coffee would help.

In eight years, how much progress did Bush make on reforming our healthcare system? We're getting progress on closing Gitmo, getting out of Iraq, and after years of drift, an actual plan for Afghanistan. The next battle will likely be tackling climate change. He can't change the whole system, but he's changed the agenda, and seems willing to tackle some tough problems.

Kaa
12-16-2009, 08:46 PM
Not a good day for you, Kaa. Maybe some coffee would help.

Thank you for your concern. Thankfully, it is unfounded -- the day doesn't seem to be "not a good day" for me. For future reference, I usually prefer tea.


In eight years, how much progress did Bush make on reforming our healthcare system?

Relevancy to Obama running on a fake slogan of change: zero.


We're getting progress on closing Gitmo

...progress? It's been almost a year and all we're still getting is "progress"? How about Obama just closes it down as he promised?


getting out of Iraq, and after years of drift, an actual plan for Afghanistan.

An actual plan? LOL. It sounds very much like the "surge" -- let's throw more soldiers at the problem.

I thought we are talking about change. Do you see much change in Afghanistan? Oh yeah, the casualties are up...


The next battle will likely be tackling climate change.

Next battle already? Why haven't you touched on what was supposed to be the pinnacle of the first term -- the health care reform..?

Oh, right. The creation process went awry so now we have an undead monstrosity shambling around while the array of congresscritters frantically cuts off and staples back large and mismatched body parts that are supposed to make this look decent. Unfortunately the reek is so bad very few people can stand taking more than a single glance at the abomination. The congresscritters, of course, are used to such aromas.

Kaa

Lew Barrett
12-16-2009, 09:22 PM
. For future reference, I usually prefer tea.




We should have known! :)

Kaa, from day one, there has been not one hint of any Republican willingness to cross over and compromise on any matters remotely related to items brought up for legislation by Obama's team.

With the one rare exception of some faint praise for Obama's recent decision to stick to it in Afghanistan (and equally faint praise for his Nobel Prize acceptance speech) I can't think of a single meaningful place where a single Republican legislator has crossed over to support any of Obama's initiatives. Not a single bit of compromise has been shown. And I think it's fair to say, none was ever intended to be shown.

For his effectiveness at steering new laws and regulations to protect us through the Congress, Obama gets a failing grade. For their total lack of conscience and care for the American people, the ideological billet of lead that is the Republican part should be melted down and re-cast as toy soldiers.

The greatest problem the Dems have is their complete inability to act in unison, and there's no doubt about that. Beyond that, the Reps have been merciless not only to their opponents, but to people. It's clear there are no "moderate" Republicans. Such a thing does not exist. A party of wingers.

brad9798
12-17-2009, 12:27 AM
Dims cannot blame the rips for this fiasco ... they don't need rips ...

What a shame ... reminds me a former administration that promised the same some 15 years ago!

:D

johnw
12-17-2009, 01:34 PM
Thank you for your concern. Thankfully, it is unfounded -- the day doesn't seem to be "not a good day" for me. For future reference, I usually prefer tea.



Relevancy to Obama running on a fake slogan of change: zero.



...progress? It's been almost a year and all we're still getting is "progress"? How about Obama just closes it down as he promised?



An actual plan? LOL. It sounds very much like the "surge" -- let's throw more soldiers at the problem.

I thought we are talking about change. Do you see much change in Afghanistan? Oh yeah, the casualties are up...



Next battle already? Why haven't you touched on what was supposed to be the pinnacle of the first term -- the health care reform..?

Oh, right. The creation process went awry so now we have an undead monstrosity shambling around while the array of congresscritters frantically cuts off and staples back large and mismatched body parts that are supposed to make this look decent. Unfortunately the reek is so bad very few people can stand taking more than a single glance at the abomination. The congresscritters, of course, are used to such aromas.

Kaa
I'm quite fond of Darjeeling. I thought you were having a bad day because your posts weren't up to your usual standard.

Too bad you haven't kept up with the news on Gitmo. They've started moving cases to trial and picked a prison to move the remainder of the detainees to.

We're closer to healthcare reform than we've ever been. And by the way, 'change' would be in comparison to what was happening before. Yet you claim what was happening before has no 'relevance.' That's incoherent thinking.

It's funny how only the people who would never have voted for Obama think he was promising a whole new world. Those who did vote for him expected him to change what he could, mainly the priorities of the administration. So we get conservatives crowing that Obama is not a 'savior' when most of those who voted for him did so because they thought he was a politician who would work toward a set of goals they agreed with.

Kaa
12-17-2009, 02:10 PM
I'm quite fond of Darjeeling.

I like Darjeeling, too. But be careful that you're getting the real thing -- I was told that the amount of Darjeeling tea sold globally is about twice the amount of the annual harvest in the Darjeeling region :-)


We're closer to healthcare reform than we've ever been.

I beg to disagree. We're closer to passing a health care bill, which, I would argue, neither constitutes a true health care reform, nor brings us closer to one.


It's funny how only the people who would never have voted for Obama think he was promising a whole new world.

Funny how that was one of the major (if not the major) themes of his election campaign... :-)

Kaa

Kaa
12-17-2009, 02:16 PM
Kaa, from day one, there has been not one hint of any Republican willingness to cross over and compromise on any matters remotely related to items brought up for legislation by Obama's team.

It's not the function of the opposition party to help the governing one. The opposition party's function is to be a thorn in the side of the governing one and to limit its power.

From the other side, if you have the votes and believe that what you're doing is the best for the country, there is absolutely no reason to seek compromises with people who think otherwise. No good reason, that is -- bipartisanship is most often used as a shield against criticism and as a CYA device.

Kaa

LeeG
12-17-2009, 02:21 PM
Is this the type of health care reform that democrats had in mind when they elected Obama and put their party in total control of Congress?

thanks for the reminder, time to send some money to NARAL

johnw
12-17-2009, 02:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnw http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2425797#post2425797)
It's funny how only the people who would never have voted for Obama think he was promising a whole new world.

Funny how that was one of the major (if not the major) themes of his election campaign... :-)

Now you're re-writing history. Obama's doing what he said he would, which seems to upset people on the left and the right. He's a center-left pragmatist, and never pretended to be otherwise.

Kaa
12-17-2009, 02:50 PM
Now you're re-writing history. Obama's doing what he said he would, which seems to upset people on the left and the right. He's a center-left pragmatist, and never pretended to be otherwise.

Obama:


We are looking for more than just a change of party in the White House. We're looking to fundamentally change the status quo in Washington. ...

This election is about the past vs. the future. It's about whether we settle for the same divisions and distractions and drama that passes for politics today or whether we reach for a politics of common sense and innovation, a politics of shared sacrifice and shared prosperity. ...

Yes, we can. Yes, we can change. Yes, we can.

Yes, we can heal this nation. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/26/obama.transcript/index.html)

I am sure I can find lots more...

Kaa

Lew Barrett
12-17-2009, 03:10 PM
It's not the function of the opposition party to help the governing one. The opposition party's function is to be a thorn in the side of the governing one and to limit its power. Kaa

From one point of view. Perhaps, even from the most realistic one. But if that is the chief function that is served.....obstruction....then all the criticism leveled at the Republicans for being only self serving is 100% on target. What we have is a party interested in blocking any meaningful forward action offered by the other side because.....because.... it impedes governance. An upfront admission of action only in self interest. What an agenda!

From the other side, if you have the votes and believe that what you're doing is the best for the country, there is absolutely no reason to seek compromises with people who think otherwise. No good reason, that is -- bipartisanship is most often used as a shield against criticism and as a CYA device.

Kaa

This presumes you believe what you are doing is in the best interests of....whomever. See point one. As for bipartisanship being a shield against criticism of being a CYA device, you'll have to explain that one to me. Despite my personal irritation with people like Lieberman and certain of the Blue Dogs who seem to me to be acting only in the most narrow of self interests, there is some appeal in a party that does not act in lock step unison. There is in that at least the appearance of a conscious choice in taking a stand for the benefit of the nation.

This polarization is very largely of the Republicans doing, and if true as stated, your comments support that. Enjoy a house divided? I don't.

TomF
12-17-2009, 03:17 PM
It's not the function of the opposition party to help the governing one. The opposition party's function is to be a thorn in the side of the governing one and to limit its power.

From the other side, if you have the votes and believe that what you're doing is the best for the country, there is absolutely no reason to seek compromises with people who think otherwise. No good reason, that is -- bipartisanship is most often used as a shield against criticism and as a CYA device.

KaaIt's different in Parliamentary governments ... especially when there's a minority government ... and a defeat on a budget matter will trigger a general election. Here, the Opposition's role is certainly to oppose ... but to work towards genuine compromise. And only trigger an election on issues substantial enough that the citizens won't punish you at the polls next time for wasting the millions of $ an election costs.

That's how it works in principle; in reality, our current PM and the one we had through the 1990s each governed with no care at all for the Opposition's perspectives. Significantly debasing one of the most notable benefits of parliamentary government, and polarizing our politics till they start to resemble yours.

TomF
12-17-2009, 03:19 PM
Obama:

(http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/26/obama.transcript/index.html)

I am sure I can find lots more...

KaaWhile you're at it, look for those nice statements by The Maverick and The Rogue, when they saw that "change" was a word that worked in the polls ... and added it to their podium banners too.

Kaa
12-17-2009, 03:38 PM
Enjoy a house divided? I don't.

We seem to have a basic disagreement :-)

Yes, I enjoy a house divided. More, I think it's absolutely necessary.

I don't think political life in a democracy should be run on a committee-decided consensus basis. Bipartisanship smells too much like a one-party-rule to me.

For a vital, effective, self-correcting political life you MUST have disagreements, conflicts, knock-down-and-drag-out fights. There should be a broad thriving ecology of views and ideas some of which are in active opposition to each other. There is time for compromises, but there is also times to make a stand and follow Nancy Regan's advice: Just Say No.

I don't want a group of insiders to hammer out a compromise which, by definition, is a solution equally unsatisfactory to everyone. I want a group which is in power (and Democrats with their control of both the House and Senate and the White House are definitely in power) to implement its own ideas, regardless of what their opposition wants or says.

I'm tired of the excuse that "but then the Republicans will be able to use it against us" -- yes, so? You were elected to govern and to implement your ideas and proposals -- not to cower in fear of soundbites during a future election campaign. If you think it's the right thing to do -- do it, FFS, and don't whine how the guys who lost don't come join your bandwagon.

In my opinion the US is severely lacking in political diversity and all the noises about the necessity of bipartisanship only make the situation worse.

Kaa

Rick-Mi
12-17-2009, 03:56 PM
Well, it appears Howard Dean is demonstrating some honesty and showing some leadership on this issue. And my gosh, can Keith Olbermann get any more scathing? If that isn't enough, check into DU where democrats are being honest among themselves.

I haven't spent any time studying the political tea leaves in depth, but at this point it doesn't look like the senate version has the chance of an ice cube in hell. Reconciliation seems to be the only logical approach, but these two bodies are miles apart as well. Signs are pointing to a major Obama failure on this key democrat issue.

johnw
12-17-2009, 04:21 PM
Obama:

(http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/26/obama.transcript/index.html)

I am sure I can find lots more...

Kaa
I interpret that as meaning that he will change the behavior of the President. You seem to think he has failed if he doesn't change the behavior of the Republicans.

Keith Wilson
12-17-2009, 04:25 PM
Signs are pointing to a major Obama failure on this key democrat issue. Here we go again. They try their best to prevent something from happening, then criticize Obama for not doing it anyway.

Kaa
12-17-2009, 04:29 PM
I interpret that as meaning that he will change the behavior of the President.

Umm... That's quite a stretch you're doing :-)

"We are looking for more than just a change of party in the White House. We're looking to fundamentally change the status quo in Washington."

"Yes, we can heal this nation."

Kaa

Rick-Mi
12-17-2009, 04:34 PM
Here we go again. They try their best to prevent something from happening, then criticize Obama for not doing it anyway.


In case you haven't noticed Keith, the democrat natives are getting pretty restless regarding the gutting and complete disarray of the health care reform issue. Howard Dean and Keith Olbermann have had enough and are going public with their true feelings. All this time where has the Obama leadership been?

It would seem to me on one of his key issues the president would be guiding his fellow democrats and public opinion from the bully pulpit instead of taking the invisible man approach. He didn't seem to have any problem stepping to the plate when it came to his war speech escalating the conflict!

Keith Wilson
12-17-2009, 04:42 PM
Wait and see. Interesting things can happen during the reconciliation process. I don't like the Senate bill either; it has some good parts, but not enough.

TomF
12-17-2009, 04:52 PM
Ooh! Ooh! My turn!

Two quotes from Sept 2008 ... first was spoken by The Maverick, the second by The Rogue:

"My friends, the word is: Change is coming and change is coming. Two mavericks coming to Washington and we're going to shake it up."

"... in politics there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers, and then there are others, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change..." Kaa?

You think they were talking about the Reps' commitment to fundamental change in Washington too? Change that went beyond simple words, and got at the mean-spiritedness and careerist political agendas of the Washington insiders?

Or did they just like the word back in the fall of '08, and its polling effects?

ccmanuals
12-17-2009, 04:52 PM
Isn't there a single republican on this list who isn't just a tad pissed that their party is not interested in representing the people who elected them? There only interest is partisian politics, the mid term elections and self preservation. I really find it hard to believe that every single republican in congress thinks our current health care system is fine and doesn't need any reform.

Kaa
12-17-2009, 04:56 PM
Or did they just like the word back in the fall of '08, and its polling effects?

Oh, they certainly liked the word :-)

But the context is that I pointed out that Obama's *major* campaign theme was CHANGE and johnw said:


Originally Posted by johnw http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2425873#post2425873)
Now you're re-writing history. Obama's doing what he said he would, which seems to upset people on the left and the right. He's a center-left pragmatist, and never pretended to be otherwise.I don't think I'm the one doing the re-writing...

Kaa

Keith Wilson
12-17-2009, 05:02 PM
My GOD! A politician promised more than he realistically can deliver in a year? Maybe more than he ever can deliver? I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you! This is unprecedented!!! In all the history of the republic it has never once happened! The horror! :D

TomF
12-17-2009, 05:04 PM
Oh, Obama's trying to change things alright. Even being a center-left pragmatist represents a change.

For instance:

putting even some controls on the bailout money paid to Wall Street execs was a change.
Same with demanding accountability (e.g. a new CEO) from General Motors, upon receiving their bailout money. It's a pleasant change that car sales are up too.
Acting to put bounds 'round the incredibly open-ended War on Terror is change too. The Iraq war's shutting down, and Afghanistan's war is re-focusing, with the intention to shut down.
Even beginning to get rid of Gitmo's change. Though not enough change yet.
Ditto Health Reform. You've read my comments - maybe he can change his tactics here, since the first set overestimated his adversaries' good faith.
The speech and subsequent diplomatic openings to Muslims are very welcome change.
Not too bad, for the first year in office ... while fighting 2 wars, and trudging through the worst financial crisis since the 1930s.

johnw
12-17-2009, 08:40 PM
Umm... That's quite a stretch you're doing :-)

"We are looking for more than just a change of party in the White House. We're looking to fundamentally change the status quo in Washington."

"Yes, we can heal this nation."

Kaa
O God it isn't healed yet he must be a lying weasel!

At least Bush and Cheney aren't still picking at it, so things can start to heal. I'd say Obama is doing his best in what we all knew would be a difficult situation. And he cannot change the Republicans overnight from nihilists to partners. He's the president, and what he can change is what the president does.

Maybe he can't change things as much as he'd like to. Would he be the first? Is an aspiration unfulfilled after less than a year of effort a lie?

brad9798
12-17-2009, 09:33 PM
Where is lj to set this ship upright? Lj? Correct us in our misunderstandings!

:D

Nicholas Carey
12-18-2009, 12:21 AM
Wait and see. Interesting things can happen during the reconciliation process. I don't like the Senate bill either; it has some good parts, but not enough.Reconciliation in the conference committee shouldn't be very interesting at all. Unless I'm completely off in my reading of the Rules, the Conference Committtee has limited authority. It should be nigh impossible for matter not addressed in either version of the Bill to be introduced in Conference. If, say, the "government option" is omitted from both the House and Senate versions of the Bill, there should be no way for it to magically creep in under cover of Conference.

Text in common between the two versions must remain unchanged.

Where there is disagreement, the conferees may select either version, or, at their discretion may introduce substitute text that is
a germane modification of the matter in disagreement. The introduction of any language presenting specific additional matter not committed to the conference committee by either House does not constitute a germane modification of the matter in disagreement. Moreover, a conference report may not include matter not committed to the conference committee by either House and may not include a modification of specific matter committed to the conference committee by either or both Houses if that modification is beyond the scope of that specific matter as committed to the conference committee.
-- House Rule XXII.9The germane Rules are


Senate Rule XXVIII (http://rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=RulesOfSenate.View&Rule_id=fd8af2a4-e84b-42b5-a968-15ae11b902e2&CFID=26875896&CFTOKEN=46347959)
House of Representatives Rule XXII.9 (http://www.rules.house.gov/ruleprec/111th.pdf)

FMTYEWTK[1] in Riddick's Senate Procedure" (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/riddick/index.html) and House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and
Procedures of the House (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/hpractice/index.html).

[1] Far More Than You Ever Wanted To Know

Lew Barrett
12-18-2009, 11:03 AM
We seem to have a basic disagreement :-)

Yes, I enjoy a house divided. More, I think it's absolutely necessary.

I don't think political life in a democracy should be run on a committee-decided consensus basis. Bipartisanship smells too much like a one-party-rule to me.

Kaa

Nobody expects people to cross over on their principles and abandon sensible disagreement. That's not what we have here. What we have here is disagreement based on political gain and for political profit only. Huge difference.

As a reasonably astute historian, I'm sure you realize that "a house divided" is a reference to Lincoln's era, and suggests acrimony beyond any option for sensible compromise.


I'll say it again. Partisanship for it's own sake, or as gamesmanship is entirely useless and self serving. Partisanship based on healthy disagreements and founded in a reasonable respect for what the electorate requires is all to the good. But that's not what is on offer here. What I believe you are condoning is obstruction for the purpose of manipulating the hands on the reins, and it's not limited to just the battle over healthcare. It's a tactic for creating deadlock as a means of halting progress.

I think it's bad juju.

Kaa
12-18-2009, 11:31 AM
Nobody expects people to cross over on their principles and abandon sensible disagreement. That's not what we have here. What we have here is disagreement based on political gain and for political profit only. Huge difference.

Huh? Are you suggesting that deep in their souls Republicans love and want Obamacare and it's just sordid political calculations that prevent them from singing hallelujahs to the current bill?

It doesn't seem even the Democrats can agree on substance, and here you are asserting that the Republicans have no substantive disagreement??


...suggests acrimony beyond any option for sensible compromise.

Lew, re-read my post. I don't like compromises. I think they are a bad thing often enough.


I'll say it again. Partisanship for it's own sake, or as gamesmanship is entirely useless and self serving.

And I'll say it again, too -- I disagree :-) The primary function of the opposition party is to limit the power and reach of the governing party. That, to my mind, is a highly useful function.


What I believe you are condoning is obstruction for the purpose of manipulating the hands on the reins,

That's how politics works -- at least since the times of Ancient Romans and probably before them, as well. Attempts to get everyone to hold hands and happily sing around the campfire usually end badly.


It's a tactic for creating deadlock as a means of halting progress.

I think there are very significant disagreements as to what constitutes "progress".

Kaa

Keith Wilson
12-18-2009, 11:38 AM
Here's the beginning of Lincoln's "house divided" speech, June 1858, Illinois Republican state convention. The rest is here. (http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/house.htm) It was widely considered too radical and politically unwise.
Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention: If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initiated, with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only, not ceased, but has constantly augmented.

In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.

Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South. It's a paraphrase of Matthew 12:25:
And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.This is your dose of sanctimonious pedantry for Friday, December 18th. :D

Lew Barrett
12-18-2009, 12:23 PM
Kaa,

As you say and as sometimes happens, we disagree! I would hope for better than pure acrimony in respect to our elected individuals, and something better than the governance as it was practiced in the Roman Empire!

Clearly, your view is that the Republicans are happy to rule on an Imperial basis without consideration of any governmental refinements such as....say the Magna Carta ;) In the event, I'd say Washington was correct to eschew the development of political parties.

Kaa
12-18-2009, 12:32 PM
As you say and as sometimes happens, we disagree! I would hope for better than pure acrimony in respect to our elected individuals, and something better than the governance as it was practiced in the Roman Empire!

Rome was a republic before it became an empire and its governance wasn't all that bad, at least judging by the results :-)


Clearly, your view is that the Republicans are happy to rule on an Imperial basis without consideration of any governmental refinements such as....say the Magna Carta ;)

LOL. From where do you come up with such stuff? Sense make much not..? :-)

Kaa

Keith Wilson
12-18-2009, 01:00 PM
For a political party or an individual there is always tension between doing what one thinks is best for the country, doing what's best for political advantage in the next election, and merely trying to make your opponents look bad. Of course, everyone in politics thinks that if they get more power, then they'll really be able to do what's good for the country. Still, it does seem that the some Republicans have edged over too far toward obstructionism in the hope of political advantage.

TomF
12-18-2009, 07:47 PM
Standing up against socialized medicine is obstructionism in the same way that a guardrail is an obstruction to those who want to drive their family off the cliff.No. Family cars have been driving over that cliff for decades.

You're the guy preventing the Highway department from getting a crew out there to install a guardrail. And doing it by convincing people that because they're unionized public employees, the public works crew must be socialists.

Rick-Mi
12-18-2009, 08:13 PM
Standing up against socialized medicine is obstructionism in the same way that a guardrail is an obstruction to those who want to drive their family off the cliff.


Big Woody, you sure have a way of stating the way things are.....

johnw
12-18-2009, 08:51 PM
Big Woody, you sure have a way of stating the way things are.....NOT
Fixed that for you.

Lew Barrett
12-19-2009, 11:31 AM
LOL. From where do you come up with such stuff? Sense make much not..? :-)

Kaa

Kaa, let your mind roam free! :p

You have been suggesting that we should be governed by our basest instincts....greed, lust for power and so on, and that recognizing and accepting this as reality only makes sense as that's the way it's been through history.

My response is little more than taking yours as jumping off point!
Happy I could make you chuckle! I find you amusing too, or I wouldn't converse with you. :)

Nicholas Scheuer
12-19-2009, 11:38 AM
We get the government we deserve.

The rest of the civilized world is currently laughing their collective a---- off at the USA.

Maybe time for us to let Germany, Japan, and Korea to pony up for their own defense; let Germany and France either become tight allies, or be defeated like the old "Domino Deal".

Think how much Health Care we could get for what we saved being the world's police.

Moby Nick

perldog007
12-19-2009, 11:41 AM
Does anybody yet know what exactly is being passed?

My understanding is that 60 votes are good to go before the specifics are even known, and 40 against - again without knowing what it being voted on. I should expect that the rest of the world deserves a good laugh.

Paul Girouard
12-19-2009, 11:45 AM
Harry Reed's saying he's got "your" votes, so much for transparency, having the bills on-line for, what was it, 5 days, having the talks be on C span , working across party line ( the final bills have been hammered out in the dark of night behind locked doors, POTUS meeting with Demo's only , etc. etc.

Change you can count on, my arse.


Nice thoughts Nic , "We got ours , now pull up the boarding ladder".

Rolling back the way the US inter-acts with the world to 1915 isolationist policies, way to go dude!

Paul Girouard
12-19-2009, 11:46 AM
Does anybody yet know what exactly is being passed?



It clearly does NOT matter , whats important is Pres. O's legacy building. The next FDR??

Pugwash
12-19-2009, 11:54 AM
Rolling back the way the US inter-acts with the world to 1915 isolationist policies, way to go dude!

I don't think you need to go that far back.


But the Wagner-Rogers Bill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner-Rogers_Bill) to admit 20,000 Jewish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew) refugees under the age of 14 to the United States from Nazi Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany), co-sponsored by Sen. Robert F. Wagner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Wagner) (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Edith Rogers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Rogers) (R-Mass.), failed to get Congressional approval in February 1939.

:rolleyes:

perldog007
12-19-2009, 12:00 PM
It clearly does NOT matter , whats important is Pres. O's legacy building. The next FDR??

It matters to me. If my representatives are pushing something through on a weekend to get some kind of pork for themselves or simply to "pass something" then they won't get my support for another term.

If they have a good bill, why the rush? :confused::confused:

Paul Girouard
12-19-2009, 12:01 PM
I don't think you need to go that far back.





Thats a little different than Nic's "Pull back the troops" post. Well way different, but have it your way Puggy.:rolleyes:

Paul Girouard
12-19-2009, 12:06 PM
It matters to me. If my representatives are pushing something through on a weekend to get some kind of pork for themselves or simply to "pass something" then they won't get my support for another term.

Your views are to conserative, thats why.

If they have a good bill, why the rush?




So no one knows whats in it cuz it's a POS bill. No ones saying it's "good" but just that " it's needed" , just like the stimulus money they "had to have" way back when thats not been spent.

If it doesn't get done now ( rammed thru) Pres. O's legacy will suffer, and thats what it's really all about.

It's all done with mirrors and strings , just like landing a jet on a boat. Mirrors and strings , none of it is real. Look over "here"!

And isn't it odd Pres. O returns from the global warming summit it a day before winter arrives early blizzard like snow storm,

I'm sure glad they got that "crisis" deal done as well.

What a friggin joke! But I'm not laughing!

Pugwash
12-19-2009, 12:10 PM
Thats a little different than Nic's "Pull back the troops" post. Well way different, but have it your way Puggy.:rolleyes:

I thought your reference was to the US being isolationist in 1915. I was merely pointing out that the US was isolationist well after that.

But have it your way, Paul.:rolleyes:

Paul Girouard
12-19-2009, 12:18 PM
I thought your reference was to the US being isolationist in 1915. I was merely pointing out that the US was isolationist well after that.

But have it your way, Paul.




We ( US) became less isolationist post WW-1.

I tend to think Nic's idea would be good for the US , but not so much for the rest of the world.

I'm sure my reasoning would be questioned by most folks , you especially , and folks who tend to think like you. Peter Sibley , ACB, LeeG, Tom M. ,etc.,etc. To name a few.

Nicholas Scheuer
12-19-2009, 12:18 PM
I'm not recommending a return to 1915 "Isolationists policy" at all, Paul. Notice I did not enumerate ALL of the places we presently station troops. Having major Air Force Basses in such places as Kuwait, the UK (along with a submarine base), etc sould continue in my view.

Only the extreem "right" would believe that "fight them there rather than fight them here at home" is a rosey role for the USA in the eyes of private citizens throught Europe. Don't you think they would rather not have cannon and missile fre emminating from their town squares? They did that scene for four long years in WW2 in a films starring Audie Murphy and millions of others in supporting roles.

Obama is on the right track in what he is telling the World. It's time that they "step up".

Moby Nick

I, Rowboat
12-19-2009, 12:34 PM
Back at home, I'm just making preparations to increase my family's comfort while the world slides into catastrophic climate change and permanent economic collapse. At some point, it becomes time to stop patching the leaks and start heading to the lifeboat.

Paul Girouard
12-19-2009, 12:39 PM
Back at home, I'm just making preparations to increase my family's comfort while the world slides into catastrophic climate change and permanent economic collapse. At some point, it becomes time to stop patching the leaks and start heading to the lifeboat.



Abandon ship , abandon ship , this is not a drill!

Where ya gonna run to Row?

perldog007
12-19-2009, 12:43 PM
Back at home, I'm just making preparations to increase my family's comfort while the world slides into catastrophic climate change and permanent economic collapse. At some point, it becomes time to stop patching the leaks and start heading to the lifeboat.

During the last administration, I thought it prudent to work on my depression era skills, to include raising/capturing sustenance, frugal living, getting along without utilities, etc.

Now, I see such preparations as necessary.

Nicholas Scheuer
12-19-2009, 12:56 PM
I learned all that stuff as a Boy Scout, and reinforced it as an adult BS Leader Trainer, the whole nine yards.

Have also taken steps to even the odds in the hallways of our home, too.

However, I'm optimistic. Notice that in regard to "nations preparing for war", the enemy is now riding around in Nissan Pickups instead of Panzers superior to our current offering, the M-1 Abrams, and the smarmy towel-heads planting IED's are being countered by troops riding vehicles with armored bottom pans. No more Bismarks and Graf Speys, neither.

Moby Nick

I, Rowboat
12-19-2009, 01:33 PM
During the last administration, I thought it prudent to work on my depression era skills, to include raising/capturing sustenance, frugal living, getting along without utilities, etc.

Now, I see such preparations as necessary.

Yep, what he said, although let's remember that 30+ years of fiscal irresponsibility and financial deregulation, along with a complete disregard for the consequences of peak domestic oil production (and now, it appears, global production) can't be blamed on Mr. Obama.

I sold my house and am renting. I'm happy to let someone else have the pleasure of watching their property value plummet, plus I now have mobility and cash (and some of that is in other stores of value) I'm also trying to keep my dollars as local as I can and building local relationships in the process. I would say that about 50 percent of our food comes from within 5 miles, including a significant portion either grown or caught by me. And I'm working on increasing that.

As for health, I am young and healthy, so I have the mixed blessing of watching this descent for more than half of my life. I eat well (see above), and I am hoping I won't need the healthcare system much, which quite likely will deteriorate drastically, along with other complex systems which no longer will have easy access to credit or customers who can afford to keep them in business. I have become meticulous about brushing and flossing though, because poor dentition has been a major source of misery for humans in less affluent times.

But I feel really bad for my kids though, who will be the first generation to really be less well-off than their parents in quite some time. However, at least my kids will already know how to work hard, how to entertain themselves, what to do when powdery mildrew or carrot rust strikes, and how to catch and clean a fish. They will be sadly deficient in how to create a MySpace page, or how to text message, drive, and talk on the phone at the same time, but I suspect those skills will become significantly less important by the time they're teenagers.

perldog007
12-19-2009, 01:50 PM
I really don't smell TEOTWAKI yet, but just think that being prepared can't hurt. I know Mormon families that have kept a year's worth of pantry on hand for generations without any adverse effects from doing so.....

I, Rowboat
12-19-2009, 02:21 PM
I really don't smell TEOTWAKI yet, but just think that being prepared can't hurt. I know Mormon families that have kept a year's worth of pantry on hand for generations without any adverse effects from doing so.....

I suspect these things may appear to progress slowly, when in fact they're happening quite rapidly. I mean, in less than a year and a half the stock market has crashed, we're between 10 and 25% unemployment (depending on if you use the gubmint's happy numbers or not), 140 banks are belly-up, FDIC is badly strained, Iceland is bankrupt, Greece's credit rating is strongly downgraded, California and New York are on the cusp of bankruptcy, along with several states on their heels, countless businesses, including GM have gone bankrupt, and most local agencies are deep into deficit spending (and their bond rating downgrades reflect this). This is a breakneck pace for the financial and governmental systems to fall apart. Easy credit as-we-know-it is over, and it was the key to the past 30 years of economic expansion. I suspect a lot of anger and anxiety will build as we fail to resume the era of happy motoring and easy consumption.

perldog007
12-19-2009, 02:31 PM
I agree hard times ahead, harder than we have seen. Collapse of society, ??? I am not sold yet, but suffice it to say that any zombies marching up this sidewalk stand an excellent chance of being well met.

Being a small child in a V.W. Bus trying to make it over the 14th street bridge in the riots of 68 left me with an impression of how quickly civilities can be suspended.

Still, I hope we avoid a total meltdown, but I agree that it's not on person or administration, it's something that has been coming for a while, whatever "it" turns out to be.

Being prepared is just smart. I have always believed that being able to look after yourself for a few days is just good citizenship in case of disaster.

I am afraid that you might be right about anger and anxiety. Signs are everywhere, but I remain hopeful on hand in my other hand... Oops, almost quoted Mao. Barely dodged Beck on that one! :D

Paul Girouard
12-19-2009, 02:45 PM
I suspect these things may appear to progress slowly, when in fact they're happening quite rapidly. I mean, in less than a year and a half the stock market has crashed, we're between 10 and 25% unemployment (depending on if you use the gubmint's happy numbers or not), 140 banks are belly-up, FDIC is badly strained, Iceland is bankrupt, Greece's credit rating is strongly downgraded, California and New York are on the cusp of bankruptcy, along with several states on their heels, countless businesses, including GM have gone bankrupt, and most local agencies are deep into deficit spending (and their bond rating downgrades reflect this). This is a breakneck pace for the financial and governmental systems to fall apart. Easy credit as-we-know-it is over, and it was the key to the past 30 years of economic expansion. I suspect a lot of anger and anxiety will build as we fail to resume the era of happy motoring and easy consumption.



Are you Tyler Durden's permanent replacement? Or just some cheap rental from the temp agency?

Where the endless , or so it seemed, C&P doom and gloom references? Your going to have to "step it up" or we'll send you back to "Labor Ready"!

I, Rowboat
12-19-2009, 03:15 PM
Are you Tyler Durden's permanent replacement? Or just some cheap rental from the temp agency?

Where the endless , or so it seemed, C&P doom and gloom references? Your going to have to "step it up" or we'll send you back to "Labor Ready"!
Them's fightin' words, PG. For the record, that was all extemporaneous - no need for C&P. But hey, why worry, right? Grocery stores have plenty of food, right? And the gas stations are still open for business. You'll be fine. What could possibly go wrong?

Paul Girouard
12-19-2009, 03:24 PM
But hey, why worry, right? Grocery stores have plenty of food, right? And the gas stations are still open for business. You'll be fine. What could possibly go wrong?



With the gifted leader and speaker we currently have as POTUS you're right! Be very afraid.

Dig that bunker, buy those guns , sort up that food, teach your kids to hunt and fish, Wait when global warming melts all the ice , or is it when all the water turns to ice, they'll be nothing to hunt or fish for.

It's all but over bend over and kiss yer arse goodbye!

You really need to add those C&P off left wing wacko websites and the such to get any street "cred" here in the bilge.

John Smith
12-19-2009, 03:36 PM
I hate to point out the obvious, but we've not reached a finish line yet. It all ends if the present senate bill can't muster 60 votes.

If it does muster 60 votes for cloture, then it will go to conference. The House has a much stronger bill, and there's a lot of pushback coming from the more progressive side.

I'm doing all I can to join that push back.

While I don't expect anything good, I do believe that a lot of good things can get put back into this legislation in conference.

It's also my opinion that if this comes out of conference with that strong public option 60% of the peope want, and, with final bill in hand, the supporters can tell us how we benefit, this will be a very difficult bill to vote against.

Nelson, for example, may be concerned about supporting abortions, but I suspect he has many pro-life people with no health insurance in his state who are far less concerned about that part of the bill.

There remain good possibilites here, but ONLY if the senate votes for cloture.

Paul Girouard
12-19-2009, 03:56 PM
I hate to point out the obvious, but we've not reached a finish line yet. It all ends if the present senate bill can't muster 60 votes.

Reed claims he's got 60 ,

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/12/19/ben-nelson-i-intend-to-vote-for-health-care-reform/

If it does muster 60 votes for cloture, then it will go to conference. The House has a much stronger bill, and there's a lot of pushback coming from the more progressive side.

Nelson was against it and now he's for it, some say a base closure in his state was used to convince him.

While I don't expect anything good, I do believe that a lot of good things can get put back into this legislation in conference.

Even though you have no idea whats in the bill , it's just gotta be good right?

It's also my opinion that if this comes out of conference with that strong public option 60% of the peope want,

Doesn't that depend on who's poll you want to use?



There remain good possibilites here, but ONLY if the senate votes for cloture.



Haste makes waste.

perldog007
12-19-2009, 04:29 PM
this is a very very bad idea to rush something this important through. Bad juju.

I, Rowboat
12-19-2009, 04:58 PM
Paul --
You've been playing in the sandbox for too long. It sounds like you need some of this:
http://www.vagisil.com/images/cremeorig_new.jpg

Nicholas Scheuer
12-19-2009, 05:02 PM
Yeah, we should listen to the contrived excuses and and contorted loogic of the Repubs and delay HC indefinately.

Indifinately, that is, untill the downtrodden jobless masses get tired of being crapped on wholsale and start dropping concrete blocks on us from expressway bridges as we speed off to our jobs.

Great strategy those Repubs have.

Moby Nick

George Jung
12-19-2009, 05:23 PM
If we're being honest here, I'd ask - does anybody really believe that, historically, the Reps have been the party of 'no', and the Dems have been pure as the driven snow, only concerned about the welfare of their constituents? If so, contact me - I have a heck of a deal on some land, a lil' west of our east bank. I think Kaa makes a good point - sometimes 'gridlock' can be a good thing.
Yeah, I've heard that rumor on Nelson, as well - but haven't seen a thing about it in the Mass Media. Anyone know?
Krugman has an editorial about passing this current, very flawed bill - he's for it, noting that the nose in the tent is the first step towards getting the camel all the way in, and a vote 'down' could signal a very long term failure. I think they have the votes. I hope this is a good bill. Not sure; still haven't seen a 'final draft' (any links, anyone?)

johnw
12-19-2009, 05:27 PM
this is a very very bad idea to rush something this important through. Bad juju.
Not sure what's being rushed here. They've been working on this since last Spring. Feels like forever.

johnw
12-19-2009, 05:33 PM
If we're being honest here, I'd ask - does anybody really believe that, historically, the Reps have been the party of 'no', and the Dems have been pure as the driven snow, only concerned about the welfare of their constituents? If so, contact me - I have a heck of a deal on some land, a lil' west of our east bank. I think Kaa makes a good point - sometimes 'gridlock' can be a good thing.
Yeah, I've heard that rumor on Nelson, as well - but haven't seen a thing about it in the Mass Media. Anyone know?
Krugman has an editorial about passing this current, very flawed bill - he's for it, noting that the nose in the tent is the first step towards getting the camel all the way in, and a vote 'down' could signal a very long term failure. I think they have the votes. I hope this is a good bill. Not sure; still haven't seen a 'final draft' (any links, anyone?)
When someone says it's not about the money, it's about the money.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/12/19/nelson-medicai/

There is a compromise on abortion, and I'm wondering how it will go over in the House. Stupak is rumored to be coordinating with Republicans to kill it.

perldog007
12-19-2009, 05:34 PM
Yeah, we should listen to the contrived excuses and and contorted loogic of the Repubs and delay HC indefinately.

Indifinately, that is, untill the downtrodden jobless masses get tired of being crapped on wholsale and start dropping concrete blocks on us from expressway bridges as we speed off to our jobs.

Great strategy those Repubs have.

Moby Nick

I think it would be a better idea to air the bill and take as much time as needed to go through it. This is beginning to look like a "shove down their throats before they know what's in it" type of operation.

If the bill is righteous as proponents say it is, then letting the repubs kick and scream while we go through it on C-span one amendment at at a time will make them look bad and help the dems.

If this bill passes in a hurry, it might indeed be good legislation, but that won't matter as much as perception.

If the bill does not stand up to scrutiny, best to put in the work now and get decent reform. Starting to look like Mr. Right vs. Mr. Right Now. Just Sayin'...

johnw
12-19-2009, 05:38 PM
If you don't know what's in it by now, when will you?

George Jung
12-19-2009, 05:41 PM
Interesting link, that. I hadn't heard about that 'compromise'; reading the readers responses, neither Bill or Ben seem real popular right now.

johnw
12-19-2009, 05:45 PM
In case you haven't been keeping track of it and noting the changes as it went along, here's the bill.

http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/managers-amendment.pdf

They have been reading it aloud, so if you have about six hours to kill I guess you can watch it, but reading aloud takes much longer than reading the text. If you trust a summing-up of what's in the bill, here it is.

Below, a look at what Democrats are calling the highlights in the proposal:
---
Manager’s Amendment to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
Providing More Competition & Affordable Choices for Americans
The Manager’s Amendment to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act builds upon the strong bill we already have. It demands greater accountability from health insurance companies while creating more choice and competition for consumers. It implements new programs to further rein in health costs and makes health insurance policies more affordable; and it improves access to quality, affordable health care for children and vulnerable populations.
Tougher Accountability Policies for Health Insurance Companies
• Stronger medical loss ratios. Health insurers will be required to spend more of their premium revenues on clinical services and quality activities, with less going to administrative costs and profits – or else pay rebates to policyholders. These stricter limits will continue even after the Exchanges begin in 2011, and apply to all plans, including grandfathered plans.
• Accountability for excessive rate increases. A health insurer’s participation in the Exchanges will depend on its performance. Insurers that jack up their premiums before the Exchanges begin will be excluded – a powerful incentive to keep premiums affordable.
• Immediate ban on pre-existing condition exclusions for children. Health insurers will be immediately prohibited from excluding coverage of pre-existing conditions for children.
• Patient protections. Health insurers will have to abide by a set of patient protections that, for example, protect choice of doctors and ensure access to emergency care.
• Ensuring access to needed care. The use of annual limits on benefits will be tightly restricted to ensure access to needed care immediately, and will be prohibited completely beginning in 2014.
• Guaranteed opportunity to appeal coverage denials. All health insurers will be required to implement an internal appeals process for coverage denials, and states will ensure the availability of an external appeals process that is independent and holds insurance companies accountable.
Stronger Policies to Make Health Care Affordable
• Innovation. Medicare will be able to test new models and, if successful, implement them via a stronger Innovation Center, Independent Payment Advisory Board, and other authorities.
• Transparency. New requirements will ensure that insurers and health care providers report on their performance, empowering patients to make the best possible decisions.
• Small businesses. A package of improvements include starting the health insurance tax credit in 2010, expanding eligibility for the credit, and improving the purchasing power of small businesses.
More Health Insurance Choices
• Multi-state option. Health insurance carriers will offer plans under the supervision of the Office of Personnel Management, the same entity that oversees health plans for Members of Congress. At least one plan must be non-profit, and the plans will be available nationwide. This will promote competition and choice.
• Free choice vouchers. Workers who qualify for an affordability exemption to the individual responsibility policy but do not qualify for tax credits can take their employer contribution and join an exchange plan.
Improved Access to Quality Health Care for Seniors, Children, and Vulnerable Populations
• Quality of care in Medicare. Seniors will benefit when additional health care providers are reimbursed by Medicare for the quality of care they deliver, not the quantity of services they provide.
• Children’s health. Support will be extended for the Children’s Health Insurance Program and the adoption tax credit. Foster care children aging out of Medicaid will be able to retain its comprehensive coverage.
• Community Health Centers. A substantial investment in Community Health Centers will provide funding to expand access to health care in communities where it is most needed
• Rural and underserved communities. Access will be expanded through funding for rural health care providers and training programs for physician and other types of health care providers.
• Vulnerable populations. A range of new programs will tackle diseases such as cancer, diabetes, and children’s congenital heart disease, will improve the Indian Health System, and will provide support for pregnant teens and victims of domestic violence.
Identifying Alternatives to Litigation
• Testing new models. States will be eligible for grants to test alternatives to civil tort litigation that emphasize patient safety, disclosure of health care errors, and early resolution of disputes, with a provision for patients to opt-out of these alternatives at any time. Alternatives will be evaluated to determine their effectiveness.

perldog007
12-19-2009, 05:47 PM
If you don't know what's in it by now, when will you?
The bill seems to be ever evolving, if there is an exemption for Nebraska on paying into Medicaid, then my representatives should object.

I think the short answer is we will know what's in the bill when the amendments stop and the bill is thoroughly examined.

The proposed transparency measures that we haven't yet seen would be a step in the right direction.

johnw
12-19-2009, 05:49 PM
Interesting link, that. I hadn't heard about that 'compromise'; reading the readers responses, neither Bill or Ben seem real popular right now.
The audience for that site probably does not reflect the sentiment in Nebraska.

perldog007
12-19-2009, 05:59 PM
That's a nice summary, but it's just marketing. I don't see anything in there about all the deals that were made, we don't know about all of the pork yet. Again, if it's a sound beneficial piece of legislation, why the rush to push it though? wouldn't it be better to let the republicans hang themselves by having them pick it apart and come up short? Or is somebody afraid the bill won't stand prolonged scrutiny.

We have waited a long time for healthcare reform, it's not worth another month or two to make sure we have it right?

johnw
12-19-2009, 06:55 PM
The bill seems to be ever evolving, if there is an exemption for Nebraska on paying into Medicaid, then my representatives should object.

I think the short answer is we will know what's in the bill when the amendments stop and the bill is thoroughly examined.

The proposed transparency measures that we haven't yet seen would be a step in the right direction.
Ah, so the way to block it indefinitely would be to keep amending it? That's already part of the playbook.

I gave you a link to the bill. If you want transparency, being able to read the actual bill would be the ultimate, wouldn't it? I'm not sure what more you could ask for. If you don't want to take the time to read it, and I certainly won't blame you if you don't, you could trust our elected representatives to know what's in it. There have been versions of this bill circulating since last spring, and if they haven't kept up with the changes, they aren't doing their jobs. Versions of the bill have been working through the system since at least March, and plenty of people have spotted things they wanted changed, and plenty has been changed. It seems to me that this is what you are saying should happen, so you'll be glad to know it has happened. Nine months spent on getting the bill in shape does not sound to me like something rushed.

Nicholas Carey
12-19-2009, 07:25 PM
Not sure what's being rushed here. They've been working on this since last Spring. Feels like forever.Last spring? Do you mean the spring of 1949, when Truman was pushing for a national single-payer system as part of his "Fair Deal"? Or maybe the spring of 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt was pushing for it (almost made it -- Congress was on the verge of passing it when we got involved in WW I. The oppositon managed to kill it by tarring it as originating in Germany.

Health care reform has been on simmer for a long time.

perldog007
12-19-2009, 07:32 PM
Ah, so the way to block it indefinitely would be to keep amending it? That's already part of the playbook.

I gave you a link to the bill. If you want transparency, being able to read the actual bill would be the ultimate, wouldn't it? I'm not sure what more you could ask for. If you don't want to take the time to read it, and I certainly won't blame you if you don't, you could trust our elected representatives to know what's in it. There have been versions of this bill circulating since last spring, and if they haven't kept up with the changes, they aren't doing their jobs. Versions of the bill have been working through the system since at least March, and plenty of people have spotted things they wanted changed, and plenty has been changed. It seems to me that this is what you are saying should happen, so you'll be glad to know it has happened. Nine months spent on getting the bill in shape does not sound to me like something rushed.

No, I think the thing to do would be to stop amending the bill and beat it to death in situ, then vote on it. Another two months won't make any difference, except that it will discredit anyone who is saying that the legislation is being rushed through.

Remember the stimulus? If we keep muscling stuff through with this siege mentality at some point it becomes crying wolf, even if it's not.

The bill is entirely a Democratic initiative with no republican fingerprints on it. Glory or blame, I am not that confident of glory with this legislation.

Sure we can tell the insurance companies that they can't exclude pre-existing conditions or have policy limits. What do we do if the insurance companies drop like flies and rates skyrocket? We already have a "crisis". Are we shopping for a bigger one?

Plain and simple, eliminating exclusions and limits will cause revenues to decrease. The companies will be derelict to their shareholders if they don't make up the loss. How will they do that? Lower premiums? I think not.

It's a nifty notion, but how does it work in reality? Where does the money come from? How much more can your afford to spend on your insurance?

Now if all of these questions I am raising are moot points then wouldn't it be prudent to settle that in the court of public opinion before making this law? What's another month or two? the votes aren't going anywhere, right?

Now we are married to this thing and it has to be right. I would just feel better about that with another month of debate on a final version to quell the criticism of being rushed through in the 11th hour. Appearances matter sometimes.

Paul Girouard
12-19-2009, 08:09 PM
Sure we can tell the insurance companies that they can't exclude pre-existing conditions or have policy limits. What do we do if the insurance companies drop like flies and rates skyrocket?

Thats part of the plan.


We already have a "crisis". Are we shopping for a bigger one?

Govt only option. Bigger and bigger Govt. bring you more and more "free" stuff.



Now if all of these questions I am raising are moot points then wouldn't it be prudent to settle that in the court of public opinion before making this law? What's another month or two? the votes aren't going anywhere, right?




No, once people see whats going to happen the votes won't be there. Speed is this bills only hope, if it's examined , at all , the pork , ear marks , and other "goodies" will outrage the people.

George Jung
12-19-2009, 08:12 PM
Thanks for that, JohnW.; looks pretty darned good, to me. Of course, as noted, there may be a lot of wiggle room in this one, but.... I don't see anything that most of us should consider a deal breaker - unless we're one of the ox about to get gored.
Anyone else have a specific complaint? If not, I do believe it's time for a roll-call vote.

perldog007
12-19-2009, 08:14 PM
No, once people see whats going to happen the votes won't be there. Speed is this bills only hope, if it's examined , at all , the pork , ear marks , and other "goodies" will outrage the people.

I am afraid that I am at a loss to come to any other conclusion, but folks will find out sooner or later.

This is unfortunate and shaping up to be another disaster on the order of Monicagate. We won that battle and lost the executive branch for the next eight years.

Funny thing about actions, they have equal and opposite reactions.

Hope I am wrong.

I, Rowboat
12-19-2009, 10:39 PM
If you don't know what's in it by now, when will you?

Maybe he's waiting for Harry Reid to personally call him up and read the entire thing to him over the phone.

perldog007
12-19-2009, 10:56 PM
Maybe he's waiting for Harry Reid to personally call him up and read the entire thing to him over the phone.

Since you are an expert, can you kindly run down all of the earmaks and unrelated pork in the bill. I freely admit to not being an attorney so it's hard for me to pick all of those out of the language.

Explain if you would how the deals with Louisiana and Nebraska are equitable to states like mine who have to pay for those votes.

I am not sure Mr. Reid would tell me about all of the earmarks. If he calls I'll be sure to ask, judging from his public remarks I don't think he will talk about that.

Also, please explain how the insurance companies are going to absorb losses they will incur when they can't deny claims on pre-existing conditions or have limits on policies. Will they just throw up their hands and say "Gosh Darn it! Pay cuts all around!".

Tell me how this bill makes the situation better and cite the exact language in the bill that backs up your talking points. What I see is a flawed attempt to pass something, regardless of what is needed or what the people want.

If this is the right solution then taking a littletime to air it out after all the amendments stop and the earmarks and special deals can be reviewed just makes sense, unless we are afraid it won't withstand the scrutiny in which case we ought not to pass this.

Folks we are talking about congress here. Anybody else know about the Spy magazine story regarding "Freedonia"?

I, Rowboat
12-19-2009, 11:40 PM
Maybe he's waiting for Mitch McConnell to personally call him up and read the entire thing to him over the phone.

Why give the Rethugnicans more time to mount another baseless fear campaign? That's what they want the time for - to figure out how market the paranoid delusion that the Democrats are trying to kill grandma again.

perldog007
12-19-2009, 11:51 PM
Maybe he's waiting for Mitch McConnell to personally call him up and read the entire thing to him over the phone.

Well see here's the thing. According to one of them it's all good, the other it's all bad. Anybody who thinks that Mcconnell or Reid aren't both full of male bovine feces is probably a can or so short of a sixpack.

So either you can back up the rosy summary posted above with exact language in the bill and refute all the criticisms of the bill in the same fashion or you are just taking some politicians word for it.

I am not skilled at reading legalise and don't trust either one of them. The rush to get the bill passed as soon as the ink is dry on the manager's amendment makes me suspicious. YMMV.

Maybe you can explain how taking a month or so to hammer this out and squelch all the criticism of rushing and earmarks is going to hurt if it's good solid legislation. Most of the benefits don't kick in immediately anyway, we have been waiting a long time for health care reform, what's another month or two?

George Jung
12-20-2009, 12:25 AM
Rethugnicans? It's that level of (low brow) partisanship that really screws up

the negotiations on legislation such as this. You talk about bipartisanship,

but comments like this betray the fact - you don't really believe in it, nor do

you want it. Ultimately, your undoing.

I, Rowboat
12-20-2009, 01:33 AM
When have I ever talked about bipartisanship? Never.
You must've been thinking of someone else.

perldog007
12-20-2009, 03:56 AM
Why give the Rethugnicans more time to mount another baseless fear campaign? That's what they want the time for - to figure out how market the paranoid delusion that the Democrats are trying to kill grandma again.

The minority party can't stop the bill, so why worry about fear campaigns?

Again, how do you know that the legalize supports the promotional language. Going by the summary above this bill sounds like the best thing since sliced bread.

If that's true then all the fear campaigns in the world can't change that and the minority party has zero chance of stopping the bill for at least another three years.

By your post, you have pretty much identified yourself as a partisan that believes whatever his party tells him. Me, I believe in my party's platform but don't trust a politician to do the same at all times. Especially when there's money on the table like there is now.

If the bill really is what the democratic leadership summary says it is then taking the time to deliberately hammer it out can only hurt the minority party.

More importantly it refutes any charges of "rushing" the bill through. I realize that the legislation has been around for a while in various forms, the current form is less than a week old.

Folks who always vote for one party or the other don't need persuading. It's always the swing voters. Red, blue and those who have yet to decide. Muscling this through before the holiday break plays right into the minority party's charges of malfeasance.

There won't be any meaningful way to refute that before the 010 elections so why do it?

Give the minority another month to do whatever they want to while laboriously defending the bill. If it's what Reid says it is that should only strengthen public support and the democratic party in the 010 elections.

perldog007
12-20-2009, 09:22 AM
perldog007, you know they will never do that. The only way for democraps to stay in power is to lie , cheat and steal. There can never be any transparency in them. They know liberalism is a bag of sh#t for America.

from my bias, I would say progressivism is the bag of recycled bovine feed. I consider myself an old school JFK liberal of sorts. Embrace civil rights, pay any price, bear any burden, all that sort of thing.

It would appear that other Democrats pretending to hold the same values were merely holding out for a better deal.

My experiences leave me suspicious of government run health care, but if a single payer system is the only way can meet our obligations to medicare and medicaid AND it will provide universal coverage maybe that's what we need to be discussing.

The current proposal seems unworkable to me for reasons stated and I am still waiting for a supporter to refute those objections with language from the bill. I don't even see any language in the summary that tells us how insurance companies will meet these requirements and still fulfill their obligations to shareholders without raising premiums for all.

I don't need that right now and if it doesn't bring coverage to all i say pass, let's try again. The arguments concerning urgency are starting to ring hollow. The mess isn't going anywhere, passing this bill today won't solve the problem today. As has been pointed out many of the benefits aren't immediate.

The one about going bankrupt is almost comical in light of the deficit spending from this and the last administration.


We can do better.

McMike
12-20-2009, 09:49 AM
perldog007, you know they will never do that. The only way for democraps to stay in power is to lie , cheat and steal. There can never be any transparency in them. They know liberalism is a bag of sh#t for America.

I would love to have an explanation as to why you think your side is so innocent.

You got it only part right, most of the politicians on BOTH sides are proxies of big business. That means you are blindly supporting politicians that are hurting you, your family, your neighbors, and your country. There are no clear good guys here and for you claim to know who they are is preposterous and egotistical.

perldog007
12-20-2009, 10:01 AM
I would love to have an explanation as to why you think your side is so innocent.

You got it only part right, most of the politicians on BOTH sides are proxies of big business. That means you are blindly supporting politicians that are hurting you, your family, your neighbors, and your country. There are no clear good guys here and for you claim to know who they are is preposterous and egotistical.


I believe you are on the path to truth. I don't trust any of these folks. I am not sure that a majority of either party is engaged beyond self interest.

The congress will do what they will, and the people are going to react in 010. The tragedy will be if the incoming class thinks they are chosen rather than understanding that the outgoing class was being fired.

To quote "We Won". It's actually more like "They got fired". Big difference. Failure to understand that is the first step down the garden path.

McMike
12-20-2009, 10:55 AM
The people on top think (rightfully so) that the majority of this country is too ignorant to make decisions on "real" policy, therefor we have a representative government. We the people are cut out of the process because weíve never collectively owned our right to be represented. With that, "big business" has the full share of the voice that is heard by our government. The real question is how are we going to take it back.

What this country needs to focus on is the constitution, that means equal rights for ALL. It means that all laws and policy has to be based on measurable truth, not faith based "truth", not opinion. The social agenda that is the public side of politics needs to just go away but in order for that to happen we as a people collectively need to mature mentally past the age of 16. Live and let live, gays, Christians, rednecks, and hippie-pot-smokers. Your rights end where mine begin. We are a collective whether we like it or not and fighting over cultural supremacy is a carefully crafted meme created by those in power that is meant to divert the masses from the real issues.

We should never and could never remove "big business" from the discussion but we need to take away from "big business" the ability of being able to generate the policy that is meant to govern them.

Pugwash
12-20-2009, 11:13 AM
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2007/Jun/Aiming-Higher--Results-from-a-State-Scorecard-on-Health-System-Performance.aspx

McMike
12-20-2009, 11:21 AM
McMike , my side ? You do not know my side ? My side are the founding fathers of America. They knew about corruption and the fallen nature of man.
Your side is clueless and devoid of morals and wisdom. Your side can go take a sleigh ride to hell.

Whatís your interpretation of what the Founding Fathers intended?

capt jake
12-20-2009, 11:22 AM
McMike , my side ? You do not know my side ? My side are the founding fathers of America. They knew about corruption and the fallen nature of man.
Your side is clueless and devoid of morals and wisdom. Your side can go take a sleigh ride to hell.

WOW! That kind of blindness scares the Hell out of me! Talk about follow the leader with blinders on.....

Chris Coose
12-20-2009, 11:38 AM
Vidor was one of hundreds of communities in America known as "sundown towns," places where blacks were not welcome after dark. In some of these towns, signs -- handwritten or printed -- were posted, saying things like "Whites Only After Dark
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/08/oppenheim.sundown.town/index.html

These are the founding fathers of Jblows birthplace (Vidor, TX). "All politics is local", as another great American once stated.
Wasn't Stan from there too?

More frm Vidor history:
"One of the most memorable instances of that was in 1993, when the federal government tried to change years of racial separation, and brought a handful of black families into Vidor's public housing. In response, the Klan marched in Vidor. Within months, the few black families moved out. And African-Americans were left with a deep impression that still exists today."

perldog007
12-20-2009, 11:42 AM
These are the founding fathers of Jblows birthplace (Vidor, TX). "All politics is local", as another great American once stated.
Wasn't Stan from there too?

My own ultra progressive parents once reminded me not to have the "homies" over for a drink when I was house sitting for them on Capitol Hill.

I hope you are not trying to suggest that progressives are immune to racism.

2MeterTroll
12-20-2009, 11:43 AM
Paul take a pill will ya.
Rowboat I'm with you. i keep watching and what i see is we haven't hit bottom yet but its rushing to meet us.

Erica and i noticed our local grocery has fewer of things on the shelf than usual. usual being the shelves are filled as deep as you can stock them. now we are seeing space behind. Some of the selection is being cut as well the store seems to be leaning toward carbs again. the store is stocking 20# sacks of flour now. they never had anything over 5 lbs before. it's boom time on canning jars and the candy isle is being reduced.

little signs but there are enough to say that the national chains are feeling the pinch and setting up for a major hit.

2MeterTroll
12-20-2009, 11:49 AM
and people wonder why JB is on my ignore list.

Paul Girouard
12-20-2009, 11:57 AM
Paul take a pill will ya.

Are you talkin to me ?

Rowboat I'm with you. i keep watching and what i see is we haven't hit bottom yet but its rushing to meet us.

You're right things are going to get worst before or IF they get better. Bigger Govt = higher taxes. How do you pay more Govt. employees with the same OR less tax dollars? Those added employees don't produce any thing that is sale-able , they are a negitive or a cost that BIGGER Govt. has to pay for some how , that how is ALWAYS higher taxes.

Business have no choice but to pass that tax onto the consumer which = higher prices.

You think those store stay open on good will?
We get this FREE health care your personal SS benefits will get reduced.



Erica and i noticed our local grocery has fewer of things on the shelf than usual. usual being the shelves are filled as deep as you can stock them. now we are seeing space behind. Some of the selection is being cut as well the store seems to be leaning toward carbs again. the store is stocking 20# sacks of flour now. they never had anything over 5 lbs before. it's boom time on canning jars and the candy isle is being reduced.

Stores are stocking less and less , as they are selling less and less. Right now Dec. , stores are cutting even further as they have to pay sales tax on the inventory they have on the shelf. All store , lumber yard , plumbing supply house, and on down the list everyone wants bare bones shelves come Dec 31.



little signs but there are enough to say that the national chains are feeling the pinch and setting up for a major hit.



It's not rocket science , it's supply and demand, the underlying currents are swift , the tax man come-ith!

You take your pill , don't worry about me.

Then again MAYBE you meant some other Paul on this thread , if so skip on merrily by.:D

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-20-2009, 12:00 PM
Listened to Democrat Ben Wilson talk about the 'compromise' .... and it seems likely things really aren't going to change much for americans when it comes to health care. No political will to do it. It certainly has been a triumph for the right wing to deceive the american public about what public health care is. Oh well, I guess that is what america wants.

My stepmother is recovering from major surgery. She was diagnosed and operated on in less than a week, 10 days in hospital. No cost to her personally. She is going to be okay I think. I'm glad.

Cuyahoga Chuck
12-20-2009, 12:02 PM
I think it would be a better idea to air the bill and take as much time as needed to go through it. This is beginning to look like a "shove down their throats before they know what's in it" type of operation.

If the bill is righteous as proponents say it is, then letting the repubs kick and scream while we go through it on C-span one amendment at at a time will make them look bad and help the dems.

If this bill passes in a hurry, it might indeed be good legislation, but that won't matter as much as perception.

If the bill does not stand up to scrutiny, best to put in the work now and get decent reform. Starting to look like Mr. Right vs. Mr. Right Now. Just Sayin'...

The difficulties of getting any legislation thru the congress in the present climate make killing a bill with "death by a thousand cuts" readily possible. Time is not on the side of proponents. They have to keep the bill's inertia alive by whatever means possible.
In this case the out party, which has been kicked in the crotch by the voters, is trying to flex it's muscle prior to the next election cycle.
No martter what kind of bill comes out of congress it will be monumental in that it has been waiting in the wings for about 100 years.
You are a witness to great historical events. Ain't you glad to be around to see them?

Cuyahoga Chuck
12-20-2009, 12:09 PM
Rethugnicans? It's that level of (low brow) partisanship that really screws up


Yeah. I agree.
It's REPUGNICANS!

Nicholas Scheuer
12-20-2009, 12:09 PM
Sounds reasonable, pearldog007, except for just ONE detail; noet even ONE Repub will vote "in favor", not ONE.

Don't know 'bout you, but I smell a rat.

Oh, well, Obama will get a chance to get even, what with so many Repubs wanting pork for their constituents. Hey, let's cancel a BIG Submarine contract in New London; that oughta take of kthat a--h--e Lieberman, eh?

Moby Nick.

Pugwash
12-20-2009, 12:15 PM
Your side can go take a sleigh ride to hell.

'Tis the season.....



If all states could approach the low levels of mortality from conditions amenable to care achieved by the top state, nearly 90,000 fewer deaths before the age of 75 would occur annually. If insurance rates nationwide reached that of the top states, the uninsured population would be halved. Matching the performance of the best states on chronic care would enable close to four million more diabetics across the nation to receive basic recommended care and avoid preventable complications, such as renal failure or limb amputation. By matching levels achieved in the best-performing states, the nation could save billions of dollars a year by reducing potentially preventable hospitalizations or readmissions, and by improving care for frail nursing home residents. If annual per-person costs for Medicare in higher-cost states came down to median rates or those achieved in the lowest quartile of states, the nation would save $22 billion to $38 billion per year. While some savings would be offset by the costs of interventions and insurance coverage expansions, there would be a net gain in value from a higher-performing health care system.


I don't think you need to be a communist to find those goal commendable.

:rolleyes:

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-20-2009, 12:18 PM
McMike , my side ? You do not know my side ? My side are the founding fathers of America. They knew about corruption and the fallen nature of man.
Your side is clueless and devoid of morals and wisdom. Your side can go take a sleigh ride to hell.

IMUSTSTAYOUTOFTHEBILGEIMUSTSTAYOUTOFTHEBILGE:rolle yes::D:D

perldog007
12-20-2009, 01:56 PM
The difficulties of getting any legislation thru the congress in the present climate make killing a bill with "death by a thousand cuts" readily possible. Time is not on the side of proponents. They have to keep the bill's inertia alive by whatever means possible.
In this case the out party, which has been kicked in the crotch by the voters, is trying to flex it's muscle prior to the next election cycle.
No martter what kind of bill comes out of congress it will be monumental in that it has been waiting in the wings for about 100 years.
You are a witness to great historical events. Ain't you glad to be around to see them?
I would argue that a bill that makes the situation degrade is worse than no bill at all. If we do pass a bill that adds to the recession a republican take over is not out of the question and a halt to reforms may follow.

Of course I feel blessed to have witnessed so much history in the last century and in this one. I think you have some valid points, but if this bill really is a good thing and it's finally in good form, let's take the time to beat the detractors down point by point. If not now then before voting on a final version of the bill.

That only helps the majority. Any appearances of hurrying the bill through before the public has heard exhaustive arguments on a final version is anathema to the democrats and plays into republican hands.

I found this humorous photo that might illustrate some fears of the folks in the middle who are now backing away from support of the bill. We are facing a health care crisis, however:

http://lh5.ggpht.com/goldhck/SFipwMnMlWI/AAAAAAAABOA/aAx1rwTkZRE/wm-Got%20Stuck.jpg

Not everybody who shows up at the scene is here to help.



It's very simple to label one side or the other as the villan. In reality, it's usually a bit more complex than that.

McMike
12-20-2009, 02:09 PM
http://lh5.ggpht.com/goldhck/SFipwMnMlWI/AAAAAAAABOA/aAx1rwTkZRE/wm-Got%20Stuck.jpg

Not everybody who shows up at the scene is here to help.


How very appropriate!!!! ;)

perldog007
12-20-2009, 02:10 PM
Sounds reasonable, pearldog007, except for just ONE detail; noet even ONE Repub will vote "in favor", not ONE.

Don't know 'bout you, but I smell a rat.

Oh, well, Obama will get a chance to get even, what with so many Repubs wanting pork for their constituents. Hey, let's cancel a BIG Submarine contract in New London; that oughta take of kthat a--h--e Lieberman, eh?

Moby Nick.

No republican support is even more reason to be deliberate.

I, Rowboat
12-20-2009, 02:31 PM
No republican support is even more reason to be deliberate.

No Republican support is good reason to suspect you're headed in the correct direction. :D

perldog007
12-20-2009, 05:25 PM
No Republican support is good reason to suspect you're headed in the correct direction. :D

Its also good reason to make sure you are dead right as the blame only goes one way. There is not agreement within our party that the senate or house bill is the right way to proceed.

At the end of the day,republican and democratic support does not win elections, it those pesky bastages in the middle who make up their own minds. Take the time to beat down all the objections thoroughly and get the independents on board before the 010 elections.

That's the way to keep momentum.

Both parties seem adept at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory of late, so I don't expect that to happen.;)

This bill is getting rammed through and midterms will be more interesting for it. No matter how good the reform is the benefits won't be fully in place but the revenue raising devices will. Recipe for disaster on election day unless we have a miraculous economic rebound in the meantime. Just my guess.

Captain Blight
12-20-2009, 06:32 PM
I've got to dive back in headfirst by saying that the bill is posted on several websites, is updated as changes are proposed. All the pork, all the disembowelment is there as a matter of public record. If you aren't keeping yourself informed, you have no one but yourself to blame. The information is clearly and publicly available.

Understanding, however, must come from within.

perldog007
12-20-2009, 10:26 PM
I've already copped to being illiterate when it comes to legalize. I try, but fall short. What I understand is that the latest Senate version places limits on what Insurance companies can do as far as restricting coverage and payouts. limits, pre-existing conditions, etcetera.

What I can't find in the legislation, and so far nobody can point it out for me, is what keeps the insurance companies from simply raising rates to meet their obligations to their shareholders for lost profits caused by the mandates.

On paper we get more people covered but not everybody, we don't get a single payer system with optional private coverage. Higher rates and a mandate to pay them might not help the recovery.

It may very well be better than nothing. It will interesting to see what comes out of committee in the final version. When Howard Dean and McConnell both say kill the bill, I have to wonder.

It is bipartisan though, the far right and the far left both hate it, that's one indication we may be moving in the right direction. Still, 20 million left uninsured is a lot. At least this version gets it into the process to hammer out a final bill.

I won't be dull. That's a given.

Captain Blight
12-20-2009, 10:52 PM
Well, that's the thing: The insurance companies are indeed free to raise their rates to compensate for loss of income due to people flocking to the National Health. Which will cause more people to take on the more-affordable option, which will cause the insurance companies to "adjust" their rates yet again. Whatever, and tough toe-nails to them; freedom to succeed also includes freedom to starve. There is no case law anywhere which says that government is responsible for continuation of profits to either the individual or the corporation.


Ten years, and market forces will impel the insurance companies to rein themselves in, or face going under because of a taxpayer-funded system. I won't shed any tears.

2MeterTroll
12-20-2009, 11:33 PM
It's not rocket science , it's supply and demand, the underlying currents are swift , the tax man come-ith!

You take your pill , don't worry about me.

Then again MAYBE you meant some other Paul on this thread , if so skip on merrily by.:D
but paul i do worry about you, even when your being an ass :)

naa your explanation is not valid for my area i sometimes wish it was. fact is the grocery has fewer items and less verity.
we live in a affluent part of portland.

one thing to think of is we live in the armpthe it of america the PNW will be the first batch to feel the pinch cause we dont matter. think about it you live on a island how long you think till the commissary has the best selection.

perldog007
12-21-2009, 12:54 AM
Well, that's the thing: The insurance companies are indeed free to raise their rates to compensate for loss of income due to people flocking to the National Health. Which will cause more people to take on the more-affordable option, which will cause the insurance companies to "adjust" their rates yet again. Whatever, and tough toe-nails to them; freedom to succeed also includes freedom to starve. There is no case law anywhere which says that government is responsible for continuation of profits to either the individual or the corporation.


Ten years, and market forces will impel the insurance companies to rein themselves in, or face going under because of a taxpayer-funded system. I won't shed any tears.




My understanding is that the current Senate Bill has no public option and at the moment a public option will trigger a filibuster.

Lacking a public option all I can see is higher rates. That might not be good until the employment numbers get stronger. Maybe not even then.

From my admittedly limited comprehension of the problem something like the U.K. system with a single payer system and private insurance optional is the only viable solution to meet our entitlement options.

Captain Blight
12-21-2009, 12:59 AM
Bah. Screw a filibuster. Whomever starts it will have to use the bathroom eventually. There's only maybe a dozen who have the will to do it anyway; they can be waited out.

What I'm worried about is the Republican opposition to the bill in conjunction with the PR machine. The timing is horrendous, with the Republicans clearly trying to delay a vote until Christmas Eve or Day. Buncha tchotchbags.

I, Rowboat
12-21-2009, 08:14 AM
Bah. Screw a filibuster. Whomever starts it will have to use the bathroom eventually. There's only maybe a dozen who have the will to do it anyway; they can be waited out.

What I'm worried about is the Republican opposition to the bill in conjunction with the PR machine. The timing is horrendous, with the Republicans clearly trying to delay a vote until Christmas Eve or Day. Buncha tchotchbags.

Yep. They've adjusted their dials for maximum douche.

John Smith
12-21-2009, 08:58 AM
I've already copped to being illiterate when it comes to legalize. I try, but fall short. What I understand is that the latest Senate version places limits on what Insurance companies can do as far as restricting coverage and payouts. limits, pre-existing conditions, etcetera.

What I can't find in the legislation, and so far nobody can point it out for me, is what keeps the insurance companies from simply raising rates to meet their obligations to their shareholders for lost profits caused by the mandates.

On paper we get more people covered but not everybody, we don't get a single payer system with optional private coverage. Higher rates and a mandate to pay them might not help the recovery.

It may very well be better than nothing. It will interesting to see what comes out of committee in the final version. When Howard Dean and McConnell both say kill the bill, I have to wonder.

It is bipartisan though, the far right and the far left both hate it, that's one indication we may be moving in the right direction. Still, 20 million left uninsured is a lot. At least this version gets it into the process to hammer out a final bill.

I won't be dull. That's a given.


I blame the media. We don't HAVE A BILL yet. We won't ever have a bill if 60 votes for cloture can't be found in the senate.

We'll have an actual bill AFTER the conference, where pretty much anything is possible.

John Smith
12-21-2009, 09:11 AM
Well, that's the thing: The insurance companies are indeed free to raise their rates to compensate for loss of income due to people flocking to the National Health. Which will cause more people to take on the more-affordable option, which will cause the insurance companies to "adjust" their rates yet again. Whatever, and tough toe-nails to them; freedom to succeed also includes freedom to starve. There is no case law anywhere which says that government is responsible for continuation of profits to either the individual or the corporation.


Ten years, and market forces will impel the insurance companies to rein themselves in, or face going under because of a taxpayer-funded system. I won't shed any tears.

Too soon to draw such conclusions, as we don't really know what will come out of committee/conference.

There is language, presently, that dictates 90% of their premiums go to benefits. Will it be in the bill that comes out of conference? Will the percentage change?

One thing I've observed in politics is that things are frequently not what they appear to be. Lieberman may be doing exactly what he is being asked to do, in an organized effort to get 60 votes for cloture.

If this bill fails in the senate, health care reform is dead: instantly.

If a bill passes the senate, that bill and the house bill go to conference, which, judging by recent history, isn't bound by what's in either bill.

While the tea baggers and town hall disruption had momentum during the summer, there is a lot of pressure and momentum building from the left as we approach conference.

A really good bill coming out of conference has a better chance of mustering 60 votes in the senate than a bad bill will have of mustering a majority in the house.

All this wall to wall discussion in the media seems to have people thinking this is the bill. It is not. We won't have THE bill to debate until one comes out of conference.

John Smith
12-21-2009, 09:13 AM
My understanding is that the current Senate Bill has no public option and at the moment a public option will trigger a filibuster.

Lacking a public option all I can see is higher rates. That might not be good until the employment numbers get stronger. Maybe not even then.

From my admittedly limited comprehension of the problem something like the U.K. system with a single payer system and private insurance optional is the only viable solution to meet our entitlement options.
Patience, please. See my above post.

John Smith
12-21-2009, 09:14 AM
Yep. They've adjusted their dials for maximum douche.
In a nutshell, this is what's wrong with our nation. Party loyalty is all too often put above country loyalty.

perldog007
12-21-2009, 09:21 AM
We don't have a final bill for sure. We do have house and senate versions that don't seem to take us where we need to be.

I understand those who want to let the free market provide services, unfortunately the market isn't exactly free. If you go through the licensing process to sell health insurance you get just a glimpse of how far from free the market is.

Then you have medicaid and medicare which some folks in the business tell me will bankrupt our system. There is a huge amount of fraud in those, some say owing to the low overhead. They are check issuing programs and folks find all kinds of ways to get the checks.

The whole re-importation thing really bothers me. We need to fix our system so it' not more affordable to re-import. That's just silly.

We will indeed have a final version of the bill after conference. It's shaping up to be a shock and awe type of legislation. Now that we know how tight the margins are all anyone in the Senate has to do is hold out for pork.

It will be interesting to see what comes out of the sausage factory this time. It would be even more valuable to have those CSPAN cameras in the conferences, but the members would just find a way around that transparency.

perldog007
12-21-2009, 09:43 AM
In a nutshell, this is what's wrong with our nation. Party loyalty is all too often put above country loyalty.


I think a large part of the problem is the partisan ship as well, but it cuts both ways. Our freedoms seem to require the ability to disagree without being disagreeable. That's becoming more and more scarce.

There is a difference between McCain and McConnell but it's easier to call them all douchebags.

Right now it looks like Democrats determined to pass something, even if it doesn't solve the problem.

If that's what's really going on, and some democratic senators admitted as much on the talk show circuit yesterday, then somebody had better be dialing up. Hopefully some of them will be democrats hoping for something other than a payoff.

Fact is we have a filibuster proof majority, if there's a bill that doesn't fix healthcare or it doesn't get passed it can't be blamed completely on the republicans.

Hell the GOP can streak the mall and it won't stop anything but the news cycle for a few tasteless moments.

Keith has supplied some pretty good documentation to show that we pay more for healthcare than any other nation but receive less than 36 other nations. So why does reform mean increased costs?

If we can get everybody covered and have a choice of plans including some privately run plans I am all for it. But if we already pay more than everybody else how come fixing our system does not reduce costs to the consumer?

TomF
12-21-2009, 10:15 AM
One of the most productive ways to reduce costs to the consumer is to create a single-payer system ... an inordinate amount of physicians' office staff time is spent filling out different forms for different insurers, who pay different rates for the same procedure, or cover different bits of it. Yet the bill in question won't introduce a single-payer model, so this source of efficiency is closed to you.

The other sources of efficiency are more difficult to capitalize on quickly - they're things that all health systems, however funded, wrestle with. Removing obsolete or redundant procedures, for instance, or streamlining some test protocols ... these things have to do with CYA in many cases, simply established practice in others. But they're not amenable to quick change by the system administrators, because the professionals who provide services are typically self-regulating.

Reform will reduce costs, particularly if the reforms move towards better chronic disease management, and preventive care. But these things are slower to bring results, as they'll show (durable) outcomes from reduced hospitalizations and demand reduction, rather than administrative cost savings.

JimD
12-21-2009, 10:53 AM
Real change typically encounters enormous resistance as evidenced by the GOP mantra 'Resistance is Futile'. Real change that does not involve bloodshed is even rarer.

perldog007
12-21-2009, 11:43 AM
One of the most productive ways to reduce costs to the consumer is to create a single-payer system ... an inordinate amount of physicians' office staff time is spent filling out different forms for different insurers, who pay different rates for the same procedure, or cover different bits of it. Yet the bill in question won't introduce a single-payer model, so this source of efficiency is closed to you.

The other sources of efficiency are more difficult to capitalize on quickly - they're things that all health systems, however funded, wrestle with. Removing obsolete or redundant procedures, for instance, or streamlining some test protocols ... these things have to do with CYA in many cases, simply established practice in others. But they're not amenable to quick change by the system administrators, because the professionals who provide services are typically self-regulating.

Reform will reduce costs, particularly if the reforms move towards better chronic disease management, and preventive care. But these things are slower to bring results, as they'll show (durable) outcomes from reduced hospitalizations and demand reduction, rather than administrative cost savings.


I know that tort reform gets roundly abused here as insignificant, but my sister is a bit to the left of Ian, and getting ready to become a nurse practitioner. She swears up and down that "defensive" medicine due to fear of malpractice suits drives costs up.

She has also managed to convince me that a single payer system will become reality sooner or later due to entitlements.

I think John Smith's idea to get folks on record with a vote on a single payer system has merit.

Many of us who have been in the military have some reservations on how the government would handle administering health care. Try being aboard a government run ship for any length of time ;)

There has to be a way for setting up administration of a single payer system with competition from private insurance that will work.

Right now we seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time on something that won't work strictly for political posturing. I can't support that. We'll have to see what comes out of committee next year.

Kaa
12-21-2009, 11:52 AM
I'd like to remind people about a large elephant in the room that everyone's doing their best to ignore.

Compare the pay of doctors and other medical professionals in the USA to the pay of similarly competent people in Europe and Canada...

Kaa

Pugwash
12-21-2009, 11:55 AM
I'd like to remind people about a large elephant in the room that everyone's doing their best to ignore.

Compare the pay of doctors and other medical professionals in the USA to the pay of similarly competent people in Europe and Canada...

Kaa

As far as I'm aware, neither Canadian or European doctors are exactly poor.

And of course you can always augment your income, by doing a couple of boob jobs at the weekend. If you want to.

Kaa
12-21-2009, 12:00 PM
As far as I'm aware, neither Canadian or European doctors are exactly poor.

Imagine health care as a business and think in terms of labor costs. Do you think your labor costs in the USA are going to be the same as in Europe or Canada?


And of course you can always augment your income, by doing a couple of boob jobs at the weekend. If you want to.

That's more of a photographer's sideline rather than a doctor's :D

Kaa

TomF
12-21-2009, 12:00 PM
Absolutely there are ways of having combinations of public and private insurance - they exist in the UK, France, and Australia, for starters. Most industrialized countries have mixed systems.

FWIW, unless a private provider strictly limits the types of services they offer to support process standardization (e.g. hernia, knee or hip replacement), usually private providers don't compete well with publics on cost. The product being sold through private insurance is typically swifter access, perhaps upgraded accommodations, and sometimes upgrades to procedures (e.g. "better" joint implants) which aren't thought to be "medically necessary" for all.

Keith Wilson
12-21-2009, 12:34 PM
Compare the pay of doctors and other medical professionals in the USA to the pay of similarly competent people in Europe and Canada...Good point. So in the US we pay roughtly 1.8X what they pay in other developed countries. How much of that is due to the pay of doctors? Other medical professionals?

A couple of data points: For the US:

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/People_with_Doctor_of_Medicine_(MD)_Degrees/Salary/by_Job.jpg

RNs in the US:

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Registered_Nurse_(RN)/Hourly_Rate/by_Years_Experience.jpg

Canada:

http://www.payscale.com/research/CA/People_with_Jobs_as_Physicians_%2f_Doctors/Salary/by_Job.jpg

RNs in Canada:

http://www.payscale.com/research/CA/Job=Registered_Nurse_(RN)/Hourly_Rate/by_Years_Experience.jpg

johnw
12-21-2009, 05:59 PM
Classy, j.

Okay, has anyone compared the bill now going though congress to the one Obama promised in the campaign?

Here's somebody who did:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/remembering_barack_obamas_camp.html

Keith Wilson
12-21-2009, 06:13 PM
Now that's an interesting article. The conclusion:
But whether you love the Senate bill or loathe it, whether you're impressed by Obama's effort or disappointed, it is very hard to argue that the bill Congress looks likely to pass is fundamentally different from the approach Obama initially advocated.

2MeterTroll
12-21-2009, 06:54 PM
the bill is a free pass for the IC's they are gonna make out like bandits. what the bills currently are is simply pandering to the IC's. Obama should use his executive power and just draft what he wants and put it in. bypass the whole issue. Or they need to have a popular vote instead of those morons in congress. this has become sick, time for the people to lance the puss pocket.

either way its going to be a civil war. sorry folks but that whats going to have to happen if we really want things to change.

johnw
12-21-2009, 06:54 PM
Good point. So in the US we pay roughtly 1.8X what they pay in other developed countries. How much of that is due to the pay of doctors? Other medical professionals?

A couple of data points: For the US:

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/People_with_Doctor_of_Medicine_%28MD%29_Degrees/Salary/by_Job.jpg

RNs in the US:

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Registered_Nurse_%28RN%29/Hourly_Rate/by_Years_Experience.jpg

Canada:

http://www.payscale.com/research/CA/People_with_Jobs_as_Physicians_%2f_Doctors/Salary/by_Job.jpg

RNs in Canada:

http://www.payscale.com/research/CA/Job=Registered_Nurse_%28RN%29/Hourly_Rate/by_Years_Experience.jpg
A bit awkward having it in two different currencies, but it looks like our doctors get paid better and our nurses about the same.

johnw
12-21-2009, 06:59 PM
Bah. Screw a filibuster. Whomever starts it will have to use the bathroom eventually. There's only maybe a dozen who have the will to do it anyway; they can be waited out.

What I'm worried about is the Republican opposition to the bill in conjunction with the PR machine. The timing is horrendous, with the Republicans clearly trying to delay a vote until Christmas Eve or Day. Buncha tchotchbags.
Not the way it works. The side voting for cloture has to have all its people there, the side filibustering only has to have one of their guys there.

johnw
12-21-2009, 07:01 PM
the bill is a free pass for the IC's they are gonna make out like bandits. what the bills currently are is simply pandering to the IC's. Obama should use his executive power and just draft what he wants and put it in. bypass the whole issue. Or they need to have a popular vote instead of those morons in congress. this has become sick, time for the people to lance the puss pocket.

either way its going to be a civil war. sorry folks but that whats going to have to happen if we really want things to change.
If he could do that, he'd have done it. A bunch of laws had to be changed.

2MeterTroll
12-21-2009, 07:56 PM
the laws could be changed after the fact. As i understand it he still has the emergency powers granted to the former occupant since they are granted to the office and not the person of. however you are right in the laws thing IIRC this game is just getting tiring and the country is already deeply divided.
somethings got to give, I commend obama for what he has done so far. however i am more than sick of the pandering and peddling he is doing in response to the far right.

the knee jerk reactions to anything proposed by democrats needs to be utilized to crush them. Frankly at this juncture i have little pity to spare. after reading the latest bill i am deeply angry at our congress and personally think they should all be taken out and shot, every last one. nether side is working for the general population and it is sickening.

johnw
12-21-2009, 08:00 PM
One of the changes Obama has brought is respect for the constitution. I think he's right, there. How you do things is as important as what you do.