Senate approves health care reform bill

[twa]

For the people that get stuck in the government option: Take it or, take it.

Well to be fair many federal employees are exempt from the healthcare reforms.

Why is that?

added...another question why are unions excluded from the tax the rest of us are being assessed?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aDvu77pZr7k4

The exception, which could make the proposal more politically palatable to Democrats from heavily unionized states such as Michigan, is adding controversy to an already contentious debate. It would shield the 12.4 percent of American workers who belong to unions from being taxed while exposing some other middle-income workers to the levy.

“I can’t think of any other aspect of the individual income tax that treats benefits of different people differently because of who they work for,” said Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, a Washington research group that often criticizes Democrats’ economic proposals. Edwards said the carve-out “smacks of political favoritism.”

[Baculus]

Ins providers you can change to suit you....even those in company plans.

Often, you only have so many options available, so switching isn't always that easy, especially if you are denied due to a preexisting condition.

You might also look at the higher rate of denial of claims by Medicare,and that is BEFORE 'reform' and it's new cuts and new committees.

Actually, with Medicare, a lot of its denied claims are for, "Claim/service lacks information which is needed for adjudication. At least one Remark Code must be provided (may be comprised of either the Remittance Advice Remark Code or NCPDP Reject Reason Code)." In short, its for bad paper work. This is much different then a denial of payment for treatment.

Medicare ain't perfect, but it sure beats having no care. (As I have said before, I would prefer a single-payer, comprehensive system which provides more coverage than even Medicare.) Also, we really don't know if Medicare will be cut, and in what services. But considering the Right wants to eliminate Medicare all together, it is strange they are making an issue of this. It really shows their inability to maintain a consistent stance on these issues. I would have to first see what is being cut before I can real pass judgment on the financial element of the bill.

As far as the medical advisory board for Medicare is concerned, it does not deal with individual cases, and the bill specifically says that "rationing" will NOT be allowed.

We already have real death panels -- "committees" -- in the current system with private insurers. That is a current reality, not merely a possibility. That is why I don't understand you and others who are talking about "death panels": You ignore the ones already in place. You ignore the reality of thousands of Americans dying from a lack of health care. And you would rather make hay of the possibility of people dying from some fictional committee instead of looking at the people who suffer from real ones.

Why is that? When tea partiers want to have a "die in" against government health care, why don't they have a "die in" for those people in need, or who die from a lack of treatment?

Oh, I forgot: "Your health care is not my problem!"

These committees are also in store for 'approved' public plans

To which "public" plans are you referring?

[Baculus]

They ran on many things

Of course. There were many problems in this country when Obama ran.

With only 36% approving of this bill they are gonna get a lesson in democracy soon.:evilg:

Well, more than 36% of the public want reform, too -- in fact, pro-reform Americans make up more than 50% in polling. That is why the anti-reform Republicans better be careful.

Any perceived low approval rating of Congressional health bills is due to a few factors:

1. In spite of the claims and tactics from the GOP (we need even MORE debate . . . to defeat it!), the health care debate has been going on for a while. As a result, a lot of Americans are sick of the debate. Legislation in action isn't always the prettiest nor the most exciting event to behold.

2. GOP scare mongering: "death panels," "communism-Nazism-ism-isms!," "they are going to kill grandma!" The Republican party and right-wing anti-reformers has been loathsome in their tactics and their lies.

This is all about the politics with the Right: Reform and helping the public is irrelevant.

3. A lot of people do not know what's in the bill, and unfortunately, too many people listen to the loudest voices, which are sometimes the anti-reformers and people such as Frank Luntz (who helped to defeat health care reform fifteen years ago).

4. The Democrats, being a "big tent" party, have had trouble finding a consistent point of agreement on reform. As a result, the public don't know what to expect from reform, unless they made an effort to research the bills on their own. Thus, clear communication to the American public has been one of the Democrat's flaws.

[twa]

Cut for length

Often, you only have so many options available, so switching isn't always that easy, especially if you are denied due to a preexisting condition.

Medicare ain't perfect, but it sure beats having no care.

As far as the medical advisory board for Medicare is concerned, it does not deal with individual cases, and the bill specifically says that "rationing" will NOT be allowed.

We already have real death panels -- "committees" -- in the current system with private insurers.

To which "public" plans are you referring?

Any plan under the new exchange

Indeed we do have death panels and the right to shop around or simply do w/o...until now

The advisory board does not need to deal with individual cases to both cut short lives and quality of life...call it whatever you wish

Medicare is already a mandatory program that there is no escaping,NOW they wish to screw with supplemental ins options???

Choice and increased options as well as cutting costs should be the focus of reform,NOT this BS

At least it will keep the friggin lawyers employed:chair:

http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m12d25-HCR-battle-shifts-to-three-new-fronts

Legal challenges are already under discussion on three separate issues. As previously reported, the attorneys general of nine States (and the attorney-general-elect of Virginia) have already agreed to consider options for challenging the bill on Constitutional grounds arising from the Nebraska exemption. (Requests for comment by New Jersey Governor-elect Chris Christie are now pending.)

WorldNetDaily.com reports that Matthew Staver of the advocacy group Liberty Counsel has already announced plans to sue on the ground that requiring any person to purchase any product or service as a condition of citizenship or lawful residence far exceeds the scope of the powers of Congress under the Constitution. Staver also charged that the measure "exempts certain religions but not others." Liberty University, where Staver serves as dean of the law school, will be the first of many anticipated plaintiffs in any such lawsuit.

Separately, Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch USA has already filed his own lawsuit against the White House, complaining that President Barack Obama has met in secret with representatives of Planned Parenthood and other abortion-rights advocacy groups, in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires that any such meetings must be publicly disclosed and publicly accessible.

[Thiebear]

Meetings in Secret?

By the most Transparent WH in History?

no way...

[alexey]

Meetings in Secret?

By the most Transparent WH in History?

no way...

Equating end-of-life counseling to death panels is like pooping in somebody's front yard. They just may stop inviting you over for dinner after that.

[Thiebear]

Meetings in Secret?

By the most Transparent WH in History?

no way...

Equating end-of-life counseling to death panels is like pooping in somebody's front yard. They just may stop inviting you over for dinner after that.

WTH are you talking about...

Separately, Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch USA has already filed his own lawsuit against the White House, complaining that President Barack Obama has met in secret with representatives of Planned Parenthood and other abortion-rights advocacy groups, in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires that any such meetings must be publicly disclosed and publicly accessible.

It is not Optional, no matter how nicely you try and portray it.

No matter how much you dislike a certain group, doesn't allow you to break the law in whatever you feel warm and fuzzy on.

[twa]

Well, more than 36% of the public want reform, too -- in fact, pro-reform Americans make up more than 50% in polling. That is why the anti-reform Republicans better be careful.

..

4. The Democrats, being a "big tent" party, have had trouble finding a consistent point of agreement on reform. As a result, the public don't know what to expect from reform, unless they made an effort to research the bills on their own. Thus, clear communication to the American public has been one of the Democrat's flaws.

Well gee,I'm among the majority that want reform

Funny that about half those those support reform do not see this bill being reform.

Perhaps some clear leadership might help?

I certainly agree with ya the Dems are clueless on what course is best though.

Perhaps if they spent more time extolling what is in the bill,rather than castigating those of different views,and blaming them for any shortcomings, the benefits of it might be clearer?

Hell ....they might not even have to bribe more people:evilg:

Imagine a world where a good plan sold itself on it's merits.

[81artmonk]

Well gee,I'm among the majority that want reform

Funny that about half those those support reform do not see this bill being reform.

Perhaps some clear leadership might help?

I certainly agree with ya the Dems are clueless on what course is best though.

Perhaps if they spent more time extolling what is in the bill,rather than castigating those of different views,and blaming them for any shortcomings, the benefits of it might be clearer?

Hell ....they might not even have to bribe more people:evilg:

Imagine a world where a good plan sold itself on it's merits.

I couldn't agree more. I know the repubs wanted to read the plan on the floor as a stall tactic, but IMO isn't that a good thing? Up until know, the dems haven't been transparant, nothing has been forthcoming to the american people. They have been secrective and hurried in trying to force this piece of crap through.

Isn't it a good idea for the american people to know exactly what our reps are forcing us to live with as they choose for us??

[Larry]

Looking up "Federal Advisory Committee Act":

Do you folks really expect me to believe that y'all believe that there's a federal law that requires the President to obtain Congressional permission before meeting anybody who might give the President advice?

I bet y'all are really steamed about W not releasing the minutes of all of the meetings of every lobbyist who advised him on his "energy task force".

[JMS]

Well to be fair many federal employees are exempt from the healthcare reforms.

Why is that?

Likely because some of the reforms are based upon healthcare options federal employees already enjoy. Like pre-existing conditions, no cap on lifetime or yearly expenses, healthcare exchanges etc..

[JMS]

Imagine a world where a good plan sold itself on it's merits.

Many Republicans don't believe there ever has been a good plan passed by the federal government. Which is an incrediblely stupid argument on their point seeing as how they controled all three branches of government for 12 out of 14 years just 18 months ago. Still die hard republican supports see no logic in that argument.

When you point out their own history of passing bills which history has called bad, they say those republicans weren't "REAL REPUBLICANS"...

In the world we live in, both parties pass bills; and both parties use incentives to convince people on the edge of the merits of their position.

[twa]

In the world we live in, both parties pass bills; and both parties use incentives to convince people on the edge of the merits of their position.

The asking price too high for a Rep on the Senate bill...or the merit that lacking?:evilg:

[Hubbs]

Anyone else have any comment on that union exemption?