Healthcare reform

[NorthSideSox72]

 

Poster put out by the Senate Dems today showing press releases from the future Majority Leader's office.

So basically, he is saying, change nothing. Expand means disaster, cut means disaster. This is really not a surprise, considering the Congressional GOP has made a mantra out of "do nothing".

 

[Y2HH]

So basically, he is saying, change nothing. Expand means disaster, cut means disaster. This is really not a surprise, considering the Congressional GOP has made a mantra out of "do nothing".

 

As opposed to spending more money and resources we don't have...yes, in that case, then I'd rather them do nothing. However, when it comes to the republicans, if that was their actual reason for not wanting to change things, I'd agree -- but we all know why they don't want to change things, and it's because the democrats want them changed, and that's the only reason.

 

I'm so sick of the petty fighting between the two groups when the only people who end up suffering are the citizens. You'll never see any of these guys in need of medical care, money, or food.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Here's the latest fake outcry over heathcare reform:

Heathcare Reform Will Make You Want to Never Get Married!!!!!

Marriage Penalty Hidden in Health Care Reform

 

by Kim Trobee, editor

 

Higher premiums may discourage people from getting married.

 

A closer look at premium payments in both the House and Senate health care bills shows higher premiums that might discourage couples tying the knot.

 

For instance, in the House version, an unmarried couple each making $30,000 a year would pay $1,320 combined each year for private health insurance. If that couple chose to marry, their premium would jump to $12,000 a year, a difference of $10,680.

 

Allen Quist, a former Minnesota State legislator and current candidate for Congress, discovered the penalty while looking at numbers from the Committees on Ways and Means, Energy & Commerce, and Education & Labor.

 

"This extraordinary penalty people will pay, should they marry, extends all the way from a two-person combined income of $58,280 to $86,640, a spread of $28,360," he wrote in a blog post. "A large number of people fall within this spread. As premiums for private insurance escalate, as expected, the marriage penalty will become substantially larger."

 

The Senate bill includes a similar penalty.

 

"The Senate bill stipulates that two unmarried people, 52 years of age, with private insurance and a combined income of $60,000, $30,000 each, will pay a combined cost of $2,483 for medical insurance," Quist wrote. "Should they marry, however, they will pay a combined cost of $11,666 for insurance — a penalty of $9,183 for getting married."

 

The numbers are based on the government's definition of "poverty level." Those above poverty level will pay higher premiums, and the excess would be redistributed to those in lower income levels.

 

Quist explains that the government's definitions will play a critical role in whether people will choose to get married.

 

"'Household' is defined in both bills as including those who can be claimed as dependents for federal income tax purposes, thereby clarifying that adults can avoid the marriage penalty by living together unmarried," he wrote. "The new system provides a huge incentive for doing so."

 

John Helmberger, CEO of the Minnesota Family Council and Institute, said the middle class will once again take the hit financially.

 

"This hidden marriage penalty," he said, "hits hardest the very people that are most suffering from the pathologies resulting from the decline of marriage in our culture."

[Y2HH]

Here's the latest fake outcry over heathcare reform:

Heathcare Reform Will Make You Want to Never Get Married!!!!!

 

If this is true, how is that fake?!

 

I'm not sure about you, but the last thing I need is additional expense just because I'm married. Marriage is EXPENSIVE, especially if you are single income, hell, even if you aren't, depending on what you make.

 

Edit, I'm just guessing, but you must be single.

 

I've never had LESS money than since I got married.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Y2HH

[HuskyCaucasian]

If this is true, how is that fake?!

 

I'm not sure about you, but the last thing I need is additional expense just because I'm married. Marriage is EXPENSIVE, especially if you are single income, hell, even if you aren't, depending on what you make.

 

Edit, I'm just guessing, but you must be single.

 

I've never had LESS money than since I got married.

When I say it's "fake" I mean it's just another avenue the far right uses to make heath care reform look like the work of the devil. Heathcare Reform is a naughty phrase in the far right circles, trust me. Clearly those abortion loving atheist Democrats want to destroy marriage and all things religious.

 

And I am married.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Athomeboy_2000

[Y2HH]

When I say it's "fake" I mean it's just another avenue the far right uses to make heath care reform look like the work of the devil. Heathcare Reform is a naughty phrase in the far right circles, trust me. Clearly those abortion loving atheist Democrats want to destroy marriage and all things religious.

 

And I am married.

 

Well, I don't care about all that other garbage -- but if it's going to cost that much more just because you're married, something is wrong there.

[Balta1701]

Well, I don't care about all that other garbage -- but if it's going to cost that much more just because you're married, something is wrong there.

So, you're then in favor of an overhaul of the current system, as it forces people fairly regularly to get divorced so that Medicaid will pay for the treatment needed by an uninsured/underinsured family member?

[Y2HH]

So, you're then in favor of an overhaul of the current system, as it forces people fairly regularly to get divorced so that Medicaid will pay for the treatment needed by an uninsured/underinsured family member?

 

"Fairly regularly" is a load of bulls***. Not to mention it means nothing...or something. Who knows what it means, could you be more vague?

 

80% of the country currently has medical insurance.

 

5% of the 20% that don't have it, are too lazy or cheap to buy it, or just don't care because they're healthy "right now", despite having the money to do so.

 

The other 15% are who you are referring too...so let's stop talking about them like they're the "majority", when they aren't. So no, this doesn't "fairly regularly" happen at all. But thanks for playing.

 

And yes, I'm in favor of an overhaul of the system if it involves more than "health insurance reform", which so far, is all this is.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Y2HH

[Controlled Chaos]

"Fairly regularly" is a load of bulls***. Not to mention it means nothing...or something. Who knows what it means, could you be more vague?

 

80% of the country currently has medical insurance.

 

5% of the 20% that don't have it, are too lazy or cheap to buy it, or just don't care because they're healthy "right now", despite having the money to do so.

 

The other 15% are who you are referring too...so let's stop talking about them like they're the "majority", when they aren't. So no, this doesn't "fairly regularly" happen at all. But thanks for playing.

 

And yes, I'm in favor of an overhaul of the system if it involves more than "health insurance reform", which so far, is all this is.

I enjoy reading your posts more and more each day.

[Y2HH]

I enjoy reading your posts more and more each day.

 

That worries me.

[Balta1701]

Sigh

The White House, aided by Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), is working hard to crush an amendment being pushed by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) to allow for the reimportation of pharmaceutical drugs from Canada, Senate sources tell the Huffington Post.

 

As a result, the Senate health care debate has come to a standstill: Carper has placed a "hold" on Dorgan's amendment and in response, Dorgan tells HuffPost, he'll object to any other amendments being considered before he gets a vote on his.

 

...

Opponents of the amendment worry that many more Republicans may join the amendment not because they agree with it, but because they want to put the health care bill in jeopardy.

 

So the White House and the drug makers are trying to persuade as many Democrats as they can to oppose the amendment despite their previous support for it.

 

They've succeeded with Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.). "I don't think that's going to get my vote," he said when HuffPost asked about the reimportation amendment. He said that even though he is a supporter of reimportation, he is concerned that if it passes it could blow everything up.

 

"I'm not messing around with anything without 60 votes. Nothing," he said. "And I'm a co-sponsor of the amendment."

[mr_genius]

Sigh

 

why would the Democrats be against cheaper prescription drugs?

[Y2HH]

why would the Democrats be against cheaper prescription drugs?

 

Because they made a deal with the drug companies to back their health care legislation, in exchange for that backing, the drug companies agreed to cut costs over a period of years to save them X amount of dollars that would help pay for this. And I believe one of the provisions of the deals is no cheap drugs from Canada, etc.

 

Without the backing of the drug companies, it all but guarantees this fails. If you think the insurance companies lobby has power...you ain't seen nothin' yet -- if the drug lobby gets involved, you'll suddenly see a lot of new senators pop up with "issues" concerning the bill.

Edited December 12, 2009 by Y2HH

[mr_genius]

If you think the insurance companies lobby has power...you ain't seen nothin' yet -- if the drug lobby gets involved, you'll suddenly see a lot of new senators pop up with "issues" concerning the bill.

 

So you are telling me a special interest lobby is controlling the Democrats? Impossible. The Dems are a rightous and pure.

[Cknolls]

From everything I am hearing this new bill is DOA. Nelson of Fla. said it is a non-starter. Nelson of NE said he will not vote for cloture. Mikulski is apprehensive about the additional costs that will burden Medicare.

[HuskyCaucasian]

If I remember right, after the bill passes the Senate, they then have to meet with the house and go through reconciliation, correct? So, just because something is out now, doesnt mean it wont be back later.

[Y2HH]

So you are telling me a special interest lobby is controlling the Democrats? Impossible. The Dems are a rightous and pure.

 

Yea. Sure.

[DukeNukeEm]

Bill's dead, the opposition won, and we keep our broken unsustainable system indefinitely. Somehow nobody feels like celebrating.

Edited December 14, 2009 by DukeNukeEm

[BigSqwert]

Bill's dead, the opposition won, and we keep our broken unsustainable system indefinitely. Somehow nobody feels like celebrating.

We've finally defeated the terrorists.

[DukeNukeEm]

This is the worst part.

[HuskyCaucasian]

This is the worst part.

He wont get reelected.

[DukeNukeEm]

Its not that I support lowering the Medicare age to 55, that's really kind of stupid. It's more that the politicization of healthcare reform has become irreparable.

[HuskyCaucasian]

reconciliation is very possible:

John Podesta, the former White House chief of staff who ran President Obama's transition and still advises the administration on health care and other issues, today expressed confidence that a health care bill will pass despite the news that Sen. Joe Lieberman will filibuster any legislation with a public health insurance option or a Medicare buy-in for 55 year-olds.

 

"My guess is that musty folders on reconciliation got dusted off this morning," Podesta told reporters at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor. The reference was to a budget procedure that requires only 51 votes to pass and can't be filibustered.

[Y2HH]

This is not dead.

[Balta1701]

This is not dead.

If the administration is smart, they know 100% that failing to pass a health care bill destroys them in next year's elections. Eventually, they will do whatever it takes to get a bill through. It may be such a bad (aka Lieberman authored) bill so as to just make everything worse, but they'll get something passed.