Healthcare reform

[HuskyCaucasian]

The far left is pissed, the right is pissed. Yea, this a good bill. You know it's good when both sides hate it. That means it's right in the middle.

[BigSqwert]

The far left is pissed, the right is pissed. Yea, this a good bill. You know it's good when both sides hate it. That means it's right in the middle.

That's a pretty generic statement. Can you actually point out some positives of the Senate bill?

[HuskyCaucasian]

That's a pretty generic statement. Can you actually point out some positives of the Senate bill?

I dont have the time at the moment, but I promise to get back to you on that.

[southsider2k5]

I'd rather have a big tent.

 

That's what she said...

[Balta1701]

That's a pretty generic statement. Can you actually point out some positives of the Senate bill?

Expands coverage by 30+ million people, bans insurance companies from rejecting people for pre-existing conditions, establishes some cost-control measures (Although the most effective cost control options were stripped out), possibly sets the stage for better cost control measures in the future.

[Balta1701]

So, either yesterday or a couple days ago (I've lost track of time) Senator Ben Nelson gave an interview railing against all the key points of the health care bill, like every bit of it. Today he's voting for it.

Page 98 of the managers amendment specifically identifies Nebraska for higher federal matching funds, fully funding its expansion for an additional year:

 

"(3) Notwithstanding subsection (B) and paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, the Federal medical assistance percentage otherwise determined under subsection (B) with respect to all or any portion of a fiscal year that begins on or after January 1, 2017, for the State of Nebraska, with respect to amounts expended for newly eligible individuals described in subclause (VIII) of section 1902(a)(10)(A)(i), shall be determined as provided for under subsection (y)(1) (A) (notwithstanding the period provided for in such paragraph)

[BigSqwert]

Expands coverage by 30+ million people

I guess forcing people to buy private insurance is covering more people. But what about those that can't afford it?

[Balta1701]

I guess forcing people to buy private insurance is covering more people. But what about those that can't afford it?

Many of the subsidies still legitimately exist. For now at least.

[HuskyCaucasian]

One of my bosses is EXTREMELY Pro-Life/Anti-abortion and for MONTHS he has been on a one man crusade to show that this heathcare reform is bad because it's going to promote abortion. But today, as Nelson takes a stand and gets the anti-abortion parts to stay in place, naturally he moves on to anther reason reform is evil... Nelson's getting extra money for Nebraska.

 

From Yahoo news: "Nelson, D-Neb., said he made his decision after winning fresh concessions to limit the availability of abortions in insurance sold in newly created exchanges, as well as tens of million in federal Medicaid funds for his home state." TENS OF MILLION(S)... who says you can't buy good healthcare!

 

On a side note: Now that the Public Option is gone an Medicare expansion is gone... what are the key GOP arguments against reform?

[lostfan]

The last part is spot on. They only have the 60 votes if there is no public option (there are co-ops though) and no medicare buy-in.

 

The public option will be back, just not this round of heathcare reform. baby steps.

In another 60 years maybe.

[Balta1701]

In another 60 years maybe.

If the Dems can somehow get this package through...then the next logical step is to start allowing other groups to buy into Medicare in future reform efforts. The Public Option was a one time, put everyone else into this batch shot. It makes no sense to set up a public option gradually from this point on, just expand Medicare eligibility.

[bmags]

besides the cost saving measures that do a lot and survived, the most important part of this bill is the major stride it took for making insurance on the individual market more affordable. This is a very big deal. If people are able to afford packages on the individual market more easily, it makes work mobility more possible and the time after Cobra ends less scary. This wasn't possible without mandates, and further, pre-existing conditions really wasn't possible without mandates. You can't usher in a bunch of expensive sick people into the market without everyone feeling the burden, unless you add a whole bunch of healthy people. This is a good bill, it's not a great bill, but it's just the beginning. The fights will not be as hard in the future, this was the most comprehensive it will be. And things like expanding medicare could move in 4 years if Dems stop being whiney crybabies that just appeal to their government through the media to get things done.

 

If you want to know why elitism works for liberals, it's because you just scream that what your doing is right for them without ever going and showing them. Where were the liberals going and working up the people, millions of people, that this would help and showing them instead of letting it get derailed by a bunch of old cranks remembering the non-existent american right-wing utopia.

 

All the s*** we were doing for the election, door to door, phone calls, should have never stopped. But being a progressive is also about enlightening people. They already KNOW what they have right now, they don't know what you offer, and it's easy to taint that with stuff like death panels. This is the devil they don't know.

 

but instead just cry and cry and beat your fists into your keyboards and cry about how you didn't get what clearly wasn't possible and now you are going to sit it out just to show how ANGRY and let the possibility of a more liberal caucus boil away.

 

Yeah, they'll see how angry you are when they lose a bunch of seats, and then have to get them back by promoting conservative members again, and then in 12 or so years when it says 56 dems again you'll be oh yay now get our progress done and then you'll realize you pissed away the chance when you had 55 liberal senators to build upon that.

 

 

[mr_genius]

If the Dems can somehow get this package through...then the next logical step is to start allowing other groups to buy into Medicare in future reform efforts. The Public Option was a one time, put everyone else into this batch shot. It makes no sense to set up a public option gradually from this point on, just expand Medicare eligibility.

 

well, I hope an Illinois senator threatens to fillibuster so he/she can get a deal like Nebraska got. LOL.

[Balta1701]

well, I hope an Illinois senator threatens to fillibuster so he/she can get a deal like Nebraska got. LOL.

i have no idea why only 1 or 2 Senators have been willing to play that game.

[Cknolls]

If the Dems can somehow get this package through...then the next logical step is to start allowing other groups to buy into Medicare in future reform efforts. The Public Option was a one time, put everyone else into this batch shot. It makes no sense to set up a public option gradually from this point on, just expand Medicare eligibility.

 

 

And our debt with it. This bill is fiscally retarded, but then so too are the people who will vote for it.

[Cknolls]

And this bill does the opposite of what Nelson was hoping. Hopefully the House, i.e. Stupak et al will vote against it.

[Cknolls]

And our debt with it. This bill is fiscally retarded, but then so too are the people who will vote for it.

 

 

But then again, this country is used to unfunded entitlement programs.

[bmags]

how is this unfunded? Where were you for the 2003 ACTUALLY unfunded medicaid bill passed by Republicans?

[kapkomet]

how is this unfunded? Where were you for the 2003 ACTUALLY unfunded medicaid bill passed by Republicans?

How is it funded, besides lies and BS number twisting?

[bmags]

While we don't know what specifically will pass:

1) The senate bill is funded by a tax of "cadillac" health care plans

2) The house bill is a tax on high income brackets.

 

 

[lostfan]

how is this unfunded? Where were you for the 2003 ACTUALLY unfunded medicaid bill passed by Republicans?

There are actually people out there who think the Republican deficit problems were an anomaly and only happened from 2006-2008 because of Democrat earmarks. They believe the same for deficits in the 80s too. I was talking to this guy the other day, I reached an impasse when I realized this, I couldn't say much else. It's not hard to tell people who only get their information from talk radio. Truth was then, the "conservative principles" the GOP thinks it believes now are totally consistent with the ones they had from 2000-2006 when they supposedly got away from them. But it's much easier to pretend the deficit is someone else's fault and that it appeared out of nowhere.

 

Not that I just typed all of that to suggest that all of our fiscal problems are Republicans' fault,that's kind of retarded and I've already written about that, it's America's collective fault for thinking there is no end to what we can have for so many years. However, they deserve to be mocked for pretending they have nothing to do with it, and in the last 30 years they've probably been the worst at exacerbating it (this is the land of the free, take as much as you want, there is no limit to any resource and it's just the liberal kooks who think there is, anyone who says otherwise is un-American).

Edited December 20, 2009 by lostfan

[kapkomet]

While we don't know what specifically will pass:

1) The senate bill is funded by a tax of "cadillac" health care plans

2) The house bill is a tax on high income brackets.

Then you don't have a clue what they have done to cook the numbers. But it's ok. Utopia and $1.5 to $2.5 trillion later, we're home free, baby!

 

Medicare is "cut" - uh huh. That's a $500 billion lie.

 

"Cadillac" health care plans? LMAO. You think people are going to keep that s*** if they get taxed 40%?

 

MORE taxes on the "high income brackets"? That helps small business. Wait - there's "small business tax cuts" - seriously? They're going to tax the high brackets and then turn around and subsidize many of these same people? Right.

 

And since when does a medicare program that's $36 Trillion (TTTTT) in unfunded obligations help ANYONE with a fraction of a brain trust that the government will make this "budget neutral"? Pass me the bong, because there's no way in hell.

[Balta1701]

"Cadillac" health care plans? LMAO. You think people are going to keep that s*** if they get taxed 40%?

(Raises hand)...Um...really...that's EXACTLY the point.

 

You know what strikes me as impressive? Kap et al. keep screaming "They've cooked the books" and I haven't seen a single detailed analysis that says anything close to that. The "There's unfunded mandates" things wind up focusing on small points, like "small changes in nursing education" which get funded in the future, which is such an incredibly weak argument We get strong arguments like "The bill is 2000 pages!" as a detailed response to the CBO saying it cuts the deficit by $150 billion over 10 years. Or assertions that the CBO is always wrong that aren't justified, especially since the CBO tends to be exceptionally conservative in its spending estimates. It's really amazing the difference in quality of the 2 arguing sides here. "This bill saves x amount of dollars and would save $50 billion more with a strong public option!" "Youre a Nazi!" "The CBO says that malpractice reform saves at most $50 billion dollars" "Malpractice reform does everything, LALALALALALALALA I can't hear you!"

 

And if you guys cared one bit, any little bit at all, about the actual deficit...there's an easy way to deal with that, a strong public option, or just allowing everyone to buy into Medicare. But no, we like the current system, and the 20k per year that it kills...yeah, poor bastards.

[Balta1701]

And to repeat one more point...you argue that the cuts in Medicare aren't real and won't actually happen. This is tantamount to arguing that in 20 years the country will be completely bankrupt and there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it. You argue this explicitly when you cite the $36 billion figure.

 

So, if the country is 100% guaranteed to go bankrupt, at least with some measure fo reform, 30 million more people have health coverage.

[kapkomet]

And to repeat one more point...you argue that the cuts in Medicare aren't real and won't actually happen. This is tantamount to arguing that in 20 years the country will be completely bankrupt and there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it. You argue this explicitly when you cite the $36 billion figure.

 

So, if the country is 100% guaranteed to go bankrupt, at least with some measure fo reform, 30 million more people have health coverage.

Hooray for government entitlements. This is essentially the Democrat playbook for the last 80 years. The Democrats just orgasmed today (you saw the snow in Washington) over finally getting control of YOUR body. That's the motherload of all entitlements right there.