Healthcare reform

[lostfan]

Comprehensive health care reform is unpopular with the American people? I say damn, that first sentence didn't even come with a qualifier.

[kapkomet]

Comprehensive health care reform is unpopular with the American people? I say damn, that first sentence didn't even come with a qualifier.

Which is definitely poorly worded. Which was my whole damn argument earlier today.

[bmags]

I'll read that when the writer gets an understanding of what the hell he's talking about.

[kapkomet]

I'll read that when the writer gets an understanding of what the hell he's talking about.

 

 

I'll summarize for you. They are using procedural hocus pocus to attach the public option to another bill that's completely unrelated. Now you're informed. Or something.

 

Snob.

 

I know this is your field and all but it's sort of funny how you dismiss things summarily when it doesn't fit your view yet when it does, you're apt to not say stuff like you just posted.

 

And I really am kidding about the snob comment. You write well - a lot better then most of these so called professionals.

 

 

 

[Balta1701]

So basically it's a scandal that 2 Senate committees passed alternate versions of the 2 bills, the Dems can only bring 1 bill to the floor, so they're going to have to go through some shenanigans either way to bring about a single bill to vote on instead of letting the bill die because the 2 bills don't match.

 

Basically, it's a scandal that the Senate votes on a health care bill.

 

Why do I get the feeling that you have a problem with the Dems using a procedural technique to try to move towards a majority vote on a health care bill, but you'll have no problem with the Republicans using a procedural technique to prevent a majority vote on a health care bill?

[kapkomet]

So basically it's a scandal that 2 Senate committees passed alternate versions of the 2 bills, the Dems can only bring 1 bill to the floor, so they're going to have to go through some shenanigans either way to bring about a single bill to vote on instead of letting the bill die because the 2 bills don't match.

 

Basically, it's a scandal that the Senate votes on a health care bill.

 

Why do I get the feeling that you have a problem with the Dems using a procedural technique to try to move towards a majority vote on a health care bill, but you'll have no problem with the Republicans using a procedural technique to prevent a majority vote on a health care bill?

If you're talking about cloture (filibuster) then I have no issues with it because both parties have done it ad naseum for the last 20 years.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Comprehensive health care reform is unpopular with the American people? I say damn, that first sentence didn't even come with a qualifier.

Yeah, its not often I get one sentence into an article I intended to read, and already realize the author is clueless.

 

I don't even favor a public option, at least not one run by the government, but I can't deny the simple fact that the American people obviously want one.

 

[bmags]

I'll summarize for you. They are using procedural hocus pocus to attach the public option to another bill that's completely unrelated. Now you're informed. Or something.

 

Snob.

 

I know this is your field and all but it's sort of funny how you dismiss things summarily when it doesn't fit your view yet when it does, you're apt to not say stuff like you just posted.

 

And I really am kidding about the snob comment. You write well - a lot better then most of these so called professionals.

 

sorry, my sentence was incorrect, I actually read the article. It must be the guys first time learning how congress works.

 

besides that, Pelosi would be furious if they didn't reconcile the bill with the house resolution. It always kind of astounds me that republicans don't realize that Reid is such weak sauce, completely moderate and actually their best friend.

Edited October 1, 2009 by bmags

[Rex Kickass]

If you're talking about cloture (filibuster) then I have no issues with it because both parties have done it ad naseum for the last 20 years.

 

Reconciliation is how the Bush tax cuts were passed.

[StrangeSox]

Sure, but that was to get around the unPatriotic obstructionist Democrats, not to ram legislation down our throats!

[Balta1701]

Reconciliation is how the Bush tax cuts were passed.

Actually, as far as I can tell that article is not talking about reconciliation either, it's talking about another classic Senate tactic, taking a bill that's already come to the floor, completely swapping out the text and using that hulk as a way to bring a different bill to the floor. It's just another of those arcane rules that has been used for decades but which is suddenly controversial because, you know, health care = evil.

 

Reconciliation IIRC is actually more of a new tactic than that one, but it's also new in the same sense that the new 60 vote standard to pass everything is new since you don't have to stay conscious to filibuster and delay.

[Cknolls]

Sen. Thomas Carper (D.-Del.), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, told CNSNews.com that he does not “expect” to read the actual legislative language of the committee’s health care bill because it is “confusing” and that anyone who claims they are going to read it and understand it is fooling people.

 

“I don’t expect to actually read the legislative language because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I’ve ever read in my life,” Carper told CNSNews.com.

 

Carper described the type of language the actual text of the bill would finally be drafted in as “arcane,” “confusing,” “hard stuff to understand,” and “incomprehensible.” He likened it to the “gibberish” used in credit card disclosure forms.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54930

Edited October 2, 2009 by Cknolls

[lostfan]

He's just being honest. Anyone who is not a lawyer who can read that bone-dry legalese and actually comprehend it on their own is lying. There's a reason they have staffers.

[Balta1701]

The Guardian pegs the amount spent by the health care industry so far lobbying against Health Care Reform as $380 million.

[HuskyCaucasian]

The Guardian pegs the amount spent by the health care industry so far lobbying against Health Care Reform as $380 million.

That would pay for a few cancer patients.

[NorthSideSox72]

The Guardian pegs the amount spent by the health care industry so far lobbying against Health Care Reform as $380 million.

And its sort of funny, because its really only one part of the health care industry they are actually lobbying for - insurance companies. All the actual health professionals favor reform, and a public option.

 

[bmags]

He's just being honest. Anyone who is not a lawyer who can read that bone-dry legalese and actually comprehend it on their own is lying. There's a reason they have staffers.

 

The problem with this "create a bill that a 6th grader can read and understand" is it could/WOULD be overly vague and that would lead to unconstitutional rulings, likely. The more leeway you leave in unspecific language, the more chance it has of being abused. Which i guess is the irony of people saying they are using CRAZY language to push things through people don't understand.

[vandy125]

And its sort of funny, because its really only one part of the health care industry they are actually lobbying for - insurance companies. All the actual health professionals favor reform, and a public option.

 

Insurance companies favor reform as well, just not the type that will end their business. What would you spend for the survival of your industry or on something that heavily involves you? Would you just sit on the sidelines and watch?

[NorthSideSox72]

Insurance companies favor reform as well, just not the type that will end their business. What would you spend for the survival of your industry or on something that heavily involves you? Would you just sit on the sidelines and watch?

End their business? Not a chance. That is pure B.S., and it isn't even the reason they are lobbying.

 

But obviously, they'd rather that any public or base insurance option go through them instead of the government. Makes perfect sense, and THAT is why they are lobbying.

 

[bmags]

Insurance companies favor reform as well, just not the type that will end their business. What would you spend for the survival of your industry or on something that heavily involves you? Would you just sit on the sidelines and watch?

Well, no s***. The reform so far is forcing millions to enter their business as customers.

[vandy125]

End their business? Not a chance. That is pure B.S., and it isn't even the reason they are lobbying.

 

But obviously, they'd rather that any public or base insurance option go through them instead of the government. Makes perfect sense, and THAT is why they are lobbying.

 

The main point I'm saying is that if something significantly was going to affect the way that you do something, you would and should be heavily involved in the solution. Why wouldn't they be spending money?

 

Edit: Removed thought about PO.

Edited October 2, 2009 by vandy125

[Rex Kickass]

Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist ® hearts a public option. Makes you almost forgive the kitten torturing.

 

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/10/02...id-vote-for-it/

 

Bill Frist on Health Bill: I'd Vote For It

 

Or so the former Senate Republican Leader, a surgeon who has written a new book on health care, told me a few minutes ago in an interview.

 

Were he still in the Senate, "I would end up voting for it," he said. "As leader, I would take heat for it. ... That's what leadership is all about."

 

This is not to say that Frist is entirely happy with everything that is in the bill.

 

For one thing, he doesn't think it does nearly enough to bring costs under control. In his view, it does not fundamentally change the incentives that providers now have to provide more care, rather than better care. "There is really nothing to bend the cost curve," he says.

 

And Frist also predicts it will extend coverage to only 20 million or so additional Americans--far short of true universal coverage. Given the fiscal constraints, he says, he says a better approach would be to provide a more bare-bones package of benefits known as "catastrophic coverage" that would insure more people.

 

However, he strongly supports other aspects of the bill--most notably, its requirement that individuals be required to purchase coverage, if they do not receive health insurance through their employers or under government programs. And he also lauds the provisions that would eliminate practices that allow insurance companies to discriminate against people based on their health history, including pre-existing conditions.

[Balta1701]

WTF? Now I have to oppose the damn thing. Kap, you were right all along.

[Balta1701]

There's a new interesting "Compromise" thought out there today on the public option idea, that might have a legit chance of persuading some of the waffling Dem Senators to not filibuster the thing.

Senate Democrats have begun discussions on a compromise approach to health care reform that would establish a robust, national public option for insurance coverage but give individual states the right to opt out of the program.

 

The proposal is envisioned as a means of getting the necessary support from progressive members of the Democratic Caucus -- who have insisted that a government-run insurance option remain in the bill -- and conservative Democrats who are worried about what a public plan would mean for insurers in their states.

 

"What folks are looking for is what gets 60 votes," said a senior Democratic Hill aide. "The opt-out idea is very appealing to people. It has come up in conversations. I know personally that a handful of members have discussed it amongst themselves."

 

In conversations with the Huffington Post, sources have said that while the opt-out approach to the public plan is in its nascent stages it has been discussed with leadership in the Senate. It was pulled out of an alternative idea, put forth by Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and, prior to him, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, to give states the power to determine whether they want to implement a public insurance option.

[HuskyCaucasian]

OOPS!

Accounting Firm Admits Cost Savings Left Out Of Report Prepared For AHIP Report

Accounting giant PricewaterhouseCoopers has issued a statement about the audit it performed for America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) that we have been following closely.

 

Most notable about the statement, issued late last night, is an acknowledgment the cost savings from the bill weren't included.

America'

s

Health In

s

urance Plan

s

engaged Pricewaterhou

s

eCooper

s

to prepare a report that focu

s

ed on four component

s

of the

S

enate Finance Committee propo

s

al:

*In

s

urance mar

k

et reform

s

and con

s

umer protection

s

that would rai

s

e health in

s

urance premium

s

for individual

s

and familie

s

if the reform

s

are not coupled with an effective coverage requirement.

*An exci

s

e tax on employer-

s

pon

s

ored high value health plan

s

.

*Cut

s

in payment rate

s

in public program

s

that could increa

s

e co

s

t

s

hifting to private

s

ector bu

s

ine

s

s

e

s

and con

s

umer

s

.

*New taxe

s

on health

s

ector entitie

s

.

 

The analy

s

i

s

concluded that collectively the four provi

s

ion

s

would rai

s

e premium

s

for private health in

s

urance coverage. A

s

the report it

s

elf ac

k

nowledge

s

, other provi

s

ion

s

that are part of health reform propo

s

al

s

were not included in the PwC analy

s

i

s

. The report

s

tated on page 1:

 

"The reform pac

k

age

s

under con

s

ideration have other provi

s

ion

s

that we have not included in thi

s

analy

s

i

s

. We have not e

s

timated the impact of the new

s

ub

s

idie

s

on the net in

s

urance co

s

t to hou

s

ehold

s

. Al

s

o, if other provi

s

ion

s

in health care reform are

s

ucce

s

s

ful in lowering co

s

t

s

over the long term, tho

s

e improvement

s

would off

s

et

s

ome of the impact

s

we have e

s

timated."

 

So, the report being waved around by the GOP and featured prominently on their icky new website failed to include some major parts.