Healthcare reform

[NorthSideSox72]

No I don't scoff at it...I scoff at this right here, what you just did.

 

"We can be better."

 

Sure, and that's easy to say.

 

We seem to say that a lot, only it's NOT getting better, not on any front, and I'm talking all fronts ASIDE from the topic of this debate. Good jobs are harder to find because they're being shipped off for 3rd world labor. Take Textile for instance...a DEAD American industry...gone...and the people who did those jobs have no other useful skills at this age. So, what exactly can we do better in this regard?

 

How?

 

Let's see some REAL solution that companies will ACTUALLY implement.

 

Otherwise it's a bunch of nothing...talk, talk, and more talk...with very little in the way of action that will actually be taken.

I've suggested all kinds of solutions on here before. I proposed what I'd do if I had to write a health care overhaul. I've said before this country's future is not in manufacturing textiles or machinery - its in getting to the front edge of things, as we did in the 90's. So we need education, training, and R&D funding to follow that path. Trying to hold a grip on the past is just not going to work.

 

These things can be implemented, and in some cases ARE being implemented.

 

[Cknolls]

Kap, you really have gone off the deep end here. Not with being frustrated with this particular bill, which some people indeed don't want. But with this absurd idea that the Dems are somehow being less than legal or somehow worse than the GOP, when various versions of this bill have already had majority support that was knocked down by GOP Filibusters.

 

Here it is Kap. One, you are a huge supporter of the Republicans, so stop acting like you are not. Two, you are in complete denial of the fact that they TRIED to pass this health care bill "the right way", and couldn't. Three, your first post above is Rush Limbaugh territory - its THAT over the top ridiculous.

 

I don't even like this particular health care solution, as I've said before - but you have personally laid waste to any sort of reasonable discussion on the matter with these kids of posts.

 

 

So do you think the "Slaughter Solution" is constitutional? They will not have voted on the same bill as the Senate, right?

 

Tell me if I am missing something else?

[StrangeSox]

In the current world, with the value of the dollar what it is, 10-12.50$ isn't enough to live on. The world sucks...life isn't fair. Get another job.

 

I never advocate going on welfare, but if that's all the effort their willing to put fourth, then they can either deal with it, or do something to move along...either way, it sucks for them.

 

Why don't you help them out, since you seem to live in some sort of utopia?

 

Look, life is a b**** sometimes...and people making that little, for whatever reason, life won't be easy for them...but it is what it is.

 

That's life.

 

LOL.

Blaming it on "effort".

[NorthSideSox72]

So do you think the "Slaughter Solution" is constitutional? They will not have voted on the same bill as the Senate, right?

 

Tell me if I am missing something else?

Well let's break this down. Tell me what you think the Slaughter Solution actually is - because honestly, I've seen like four or more different interperetations so far, just in the press. My impression is that it is basically a back door reconciliation, sort of a reverse bill method. In which case, both chambers have voted on the same measure. How is that unconstitutional?

 

[StrangeSox]

So do you think the "Slaughter Solution" is constitutional? They will not have voted on the same bill as the Senate, right?

 

Tell me if I am missing something else?

 

I'm still trying to get an actual explanation of what it is and what may or may not be Constitutional about it. Google searches turn up conservative blogs.

[StrangeSox]

Well let's break this down. Tell me what you think the Slaughter Solution actually is - because honestly, I've seen like four or more different interperetations so far, just in the press. My impression is that it is basically a back door reconciliation, sort of a reverse bill method. In which case, both chambers have voted on the same measure. How is that unconstitutional?

The one non-foaming-at-the-mouth discussion I read seemed to indicate that the House would be passing essentially two different versions of the same bill with the same act. that means they would be passing off their legislative responsibilities to the senate/ president.

[Cknolls]

Well let's break this down. Tell me what you think the Slaughter Solution actually is - because honestly, I've seen like four or more different interperetations so far, just in the press. My impression is that it is basically a back door reconciliation, sort of a reverse bill method. In which case, both chambers have voted on the same measure. How is that unconstitutional?

 

 

Here is a take from the left:

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=...IBG1qSS-GLTGCKA

 

 

I don't know what the deal is here.

[NorthSideSox72]

Here is a take from the left:

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=...IBG1qSS-GLTGCKA

 

 

I don't know what the deal is here.

Interesting that it seems to have been done many times before.

 

I'm still unclear on the end result. Will the house and senate have both voted on the same bill at some point? Or, will they have voted on slightly different bills, but go through the generally accepted practice of Reconciliation? Or does this solution mean the House never votes on a similar bill at all?

 

[Balta1701]

Interesting that it seems to have been done many times before.

 

I'm still unclear on the end result. Will the house and senate have both voted on the same bill at some point? Or, will they have voted on slightly different bills, but go through the generally accepted practice of Reconciliation? Or does this solution mean the House never votes on a similar bill at all?

Basically, both the House and Senate will have voted on 2 bills, the Senate Health Care bill and the reconciliation bill. But because the House doesn't want to vote straight-up for the Senate Bill and have ads against them saying "Person X voted to give Nebraska a huge subsidy in exchange for Ben Nelson's vote", the House is going to combine those 2 votes into 1 and only vote once. The Senate has already voted on the Senate bill, so the Senate will then only have to pass the reconciliation bill. The procedure in the House is done entirely for political ass-covering, but there's no reason why its against any standing rule.

[Y2HH]

LOL.

Blaming it on "effort".

 

Yes, because that's "all" I blame it on.

[StrangeSox]

In that post you did, and the "you deserve whatever lot in life you have" is common conservative philosophy.

[NorthSideSox72]

Basically, both the House and Senate will have voted on 2 bills, the Senate Health Care bill and the reconciliation bill. But because the House doesn't want to vote straight-up for the Senate Bill and have ads against them saying "Person X voted to give Nebraska a huge subsidy in exchange for Ben Nelson's vote", the House is going to combine those 2 votes into 1 and only vote once. The Senate has already voted on the Senate bill, so the Senate will then only have to pass the reconciliation bill. The procedure in the House is done entirely for political ass-covering, but there's no reason why its against any standing rule.

OK, I think I have a better understanding of this now. Sneaky, but, still basically follows the rules of reconciliation, so its legal.

 

Ultimately, I'm not sure I even agree with the Reconciliation process, but that's a seperate discussion.

 

[Y2HH]

In that post you did, and the "you deserve whatever lot in life you have" is common conservative philosophy.

 

No, in that post I didn't.

 

But thank you for trying to tell me the point I was trying to make, and failing to do so.

 

From one simple thing I said that could apple in many ways, you decided to take it a specific way and apply it blanket to everything, in a simplistic fashion, thus jumping to the conclusion you jumped too.

 

But you are still wrong, that wasn't what I said, nor meant, in any way.

[Balta1701]

On a slightly different note, I'd just like to thank both parties for the incredible education in arcane government procedures that discussion of this bill has produced over the last 13 months or so.

[Cknolls]

Obama yesterday:

 

You know, the most insidious argument they're making is the idea that somehow this would hurt Medicare. I know we've got some seniors here with us today — I couldn't tell; you guys look great. (Laughter.) I wouldn't have guessed. But I want to tell you directly: This proposal adds almost a decade of solvency to Medicare

 

 

 

Quick question: How do you cut 500 billion from Medicare and extend its life by a decade without hurting benefits to seniors?

 

Seems to me the Pres is trying to bulls*** a country of bulls***ters.........

[Balta1701]

Quick question: How do you cut 500 billion from Medicare and extend its life by a decade without hurting benefits to seniors?

By cutting unnecessary expenditures, which in other circumstances would be called "government waste" if it was proposed by the other party.

[kapkomet]

Kap, you really have gone off the deep end here. Not with being frustrated with this particular bill, which some people indeed don't want. But with this absurd idea that the Dems are somehow being less than legal or somehow worse than the GOP, when various versions of this bill have already had majority support that was knocked down by GOP Filibusters.

 

Here it is Kap. One, you are a huge supporter of the Republicans, so stop acting like you are not. Two, you are in complete denial of the fact that they TRIED to pass this health care bill "the right way", and couldn't. Three, your first post above is Rush Limbaugh territory - its THAT over the top ridiculous.

 

I don't even like this particular health care solution, as I've said before - but you have personally laid waste to any sort of reasonable discussion on the matter with these kids of posts.

 

 

Stop right there. DONE. There doesn't need to be another word said, now does there?

[kapkomet]

So...here's my question, especially to Y2HH...how exactly do we accomplish this without completely blowing up the entire current insurance system? A big part of the reason why shopping around is impossible is that once you're affiliated with an insurer, especially an HMO, you're basically locked in to their network. There's never going to be a price advantage to going outside of their network once you're insured, thus, the only way to get actual competition I see would be to get insurance companies to massively expand their network, at great cost to them.

 

 

Not true. And even if it was, you still have some pretty damn big networks out there. And if not, you've got your precious medicaid/medicare.

[kapkomet]

Well, then I guess we just have to hope this transparency in pricing thing works out to drive costs down.

 

 

And there's the key, not the taking over of health insurance companies or so heavily regulating them that they go under.

 

What you said is pretty much the point. You can do this without the government taking it all over. I think I said that in the very first post of this thread.

[kapkomet]

No one is crying life is hard except you. Small businesses, the ones least likely to outsource jobs, face the challenge of spending 25% or more of their payroll on health insurance benefits for their employees or have their employees do without. Your solution is saying life sucks, work for a health insurance company that can afford higher salaries and better benefits.

 

Or they can just pay the government tax penalties, not offer it, and drive people to the "government saves" plan. Yea, that works. Right.

[kapkomet]

Interesting that it seems to have been done many times before.

 

I'm still unclear on the end result. Will the house and senate have both voted on the same bill at some point? Or, will they have voted on slightly different bills, but go through the generally accepted practice of Reconciliation? Or does this solution mean the House never votes on a similar bill at all?

 

 

Who give a s*** who did it? Article I, section 7 is pretty damn clear.

[kapkomet]

CKNOLLS, I know your avy was way before the accident, but it's pretty poor taste now, you know.

[lostfan]

OK, I think I have a better understanding of this now. Sneaky, but, still basically follows the rules of reconciliation, so its legal.

 

Ultimately, I'm not sure I even agree with the Reconciliation process, but that's a seperate discussion.

Congress makes its own rules, I mean whoever the minority party is might not like it, but they kind of can do whatever the f*** they want. The Republicans did this too, extensively, when they were in power, so they really don't have much credibility on the issue.

[kapkomet]

Congress makes its own rules, I mean whoever the minority party is might not like it, but they kind of can do whatever the f*** they want. The Republicans did this too, extensively, when they were in power, so they really don't have much credibility on the issue.

 

On a policy matter this big?

 

And I'll say it again. Just because the f***ing Republicans did it doesn't make it right, so get that s*** out of here.

[lostfan]

Who give a s*** who did it? Article I, section 7 is pretty damn clear.

About what exactly? (That's about as specific the Constitution gets on how exactly the House and Senate should do business, to my knowledge.) The entire thing is a big f***ing mess so it's hard to say.