Do you think health care reform will pass?

[Baculus]

We can get to the details of health care at any time.

if we can, then how come we haven't? How come the opposition to the Democratic bills have not provided ANY details thus far?

I have provided some -- the ball is in their court.

Use those as your argument responding to anything someone says. Its not hard.

This makes no sense. Why?

(1) Those arguing against health care reform have not provided any details to support their position.

(2) It has been like this for the whole debate cycle. It has been like this when the GOP have argued against the Democratic bill.

(3) This has continued in this thread.

(4) I point out this fact.

So how does your reply make any sense, when I have justification for my statements? Otherwise, show me WHERE I am wrong and WHERE details have been debated?

they mean jam it down Americas throat since they are trying to pass the bill in the face of overwhelming American opposition.

Many Americans do not understand the bill. They say the same things: "government take over," "rationing," etc. They also worry abotu cost, which is a valid concern as well. But this goes to show that the Democrats have not sold their bill well enough, and the GOP propaganda effort to defeat reform has been working.

Case in point, again, the opposition opinions on this board, right down to the "jam the bill" language which you just repeated.

You know is REALLY being jammed down the American publics throat? The idea that we don't want reform, and that we support the "do nothing" GOP approach. The Republicans didn't win the last two elections, but they presuming to speak for the rest of US who WANT reform.

I agree that we need to reform healthcare.

For being someone that supports reform, you sure seem against it.

I do not agree this is the way to do it.

What is "this way"?

Considering the last time we tried reform was in 1994, when the GDP costs of health care in the US was around $4,500, and when now, 15 years later, costs are as high as $12,000 per GDP, what do you think will happen if the Democrats don't pass reform?

I really don't know what some of you expect. The GOP are against reform. If the Democrats aren't successful, then the efforts are dead.

The problem with healthcare is rising cost and lack of coverage. I do not think this addresses either of these problems adequately in my opinion.

Please explain further.

I am in favor of reform but I think this bill should be scrapped and they should start over.

Oh no! Literally, another GOP talking point.

"Scrap and start over."

"Jam it through."

If the Democrats "scrap and start over," reform is dead and the GOP have achieved their objective: to defeat reform and to hand Obama his Waterloo.

You are supporting their political objective.

Honestly, I would be in favor of percentage caps on markups. Something costs you x $ to produce, you can only make say a 20% profit on it.

Actually, that is one of the cost control mechanisms Democrats would support. But the right-wing calls that "a government takeover."

I also think we should modify the timeline on patents for drug development. Drugs are so expensive because by the time they get out of clinical trials, companies only have a few years to make back all the money they spent developing the drugs. Give them a cap on profit and a longer period of time where they have exclusive rights to the drug and you will lower the cost.

Doesn't sound like bad ideas to me.

Put more money into health education programs.

I agree.

The spending stimulus invested around $500 million in health care and medical education. Also, the Democrats support programs, such as the three Maryland programs, which forgives loans for primary care physicians and specialists working in areas where health care personnel are understaffed.

Make them affordable options for people. I could have been a doctor easily but I could not afford to go to medical school. You need more healthcare professionals to sustain more people having access to health care.

I agree.

There are just much better ways to handle this than whats being done.

How so? And who are providing these alternatives?

As a note, I don't agree with every facet of either the House or Senate bill. But here is the problem: We don't have anything better which would pass.

Not to mention they need to get rid of all the little add ons that people throw in there to get votes. This needs to happen in all bills not just this one.

That is the nature of Congress. It is unfortunate, but it is how the beast operates.

[ABQCOWBOY]

A consistent majority of Americans don't want this Health Care Bill to pass. That can not be disputed.

Among those who are not in favor of this Bill, the President's own Cousin, Dr. Milton Wolfe. Dr. Wolfe, apparently, is against the President's proposal for Health Care.

It will be interesting to see how this goes. If this vote had to happen today, it would not pass. If Pelosi feels as if she can get the votes, she will put it to the vote. The question is, will it happen by the President's deadline of the end of March? The Democrats say they will do it when they are ready. They don't have the votes. At least, not at this moment.

[twa]

Beep. Wrong. Otherwise, prove your point.

There is no mechanism in either bill which would "take away" someone's insurance.

The CBO has stated that health care costs for most citizens will go down under the Democratic plans:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009

/12/to_repeat_the_cbo_found_that_p.html

Please provide examples.

Please provide some minutia -- otherwise this is more spin.

Interesting choice of words which I did not use;)

There is even a clip of Obama admitting it out there,you calling him wrong?

http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/health_care_reform_obama.fortune/

4. Freedom to keep your existing plan

This is the freedom that the President keeps emphasizing. Yet the bills appear to say otherwise. It's worth diving into the weeds -- the territory where most pundits and politicians don't seem to have ventured.

The legislation divides the insured into two main groups, and those two groups are treated differently with respect to their current plans. The first are employees covered by the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974. ERISA regulates companies that are self-insured, meaning they pay claims out of their cash flow, and don't have real insurance. Those are the GEs (GE, Fortune 500) and Time Warners (TWX, Fortune 500) and most other big companies.

The House bill states that employees covered by ERISA plans are "grandfathered." Under ERISA, the plans can do pretty much what they want -- they're exempt from standard packages and community rating and can reward employees for healthy lifestyles even in restrictive states.

But read on.

The bill gives ERISA employers a five-year grace period when they can keep offering plans free from the restrictions of the "qualified" policies offered on the exchanges. But after five years, they would have to offer only approved plans, with the myriad rules we've already discussed. So for Americans in large corporations, "keeping your own plan" has a strict deadline. In five years, like it or not, you'll get dumped into the exchange. As we'll see, it could happen a lot earlier.

The outlook is worse for the second group. It encompasses employees who aren't under ERISA but get actual insurance either on their own or through small businesses. After the legislation passes, all insurers that offer a wide range of plans to these employees will be forced to offer only "qualified" plans to new customers, via the exchanges.

The employees who got their coverage before the law goes into effect can keep their plans, but once again, there's a catch. If the plan changes in any way -- by altering co-pays, deductibles, or even switching coverage for this or that drug -- the employee must drop out and shop through the exchange. Since these plans generally change their policies every year, it's likely that millions of employees will lose their plans in 12 months.

I'm not "most citizens

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/69763-cbo-report-predicts-increases-in-insurance-premiums

The impact of the Senate bill on the individual market, which comprises a diverse array of people from the self-employed to those not offered coverage by their employers, is more complex to measure.

The direst finding for Democrats — and the figure highlighted by Republicans — is health insurance premiums would be 10 percent to 13 percent higher for the 13.3 million people required to buy insurance under the bill, compared to what they would pay absent the legislation.

Premiums would actually increase by the same factor for all 31 million people who would buy insurance on the bill’s new exchanges but 17.7 million of those people — or 57 percent — would be eligible for federal subsidies. Those would be offered on sliding scale for individuals and families earning up to 400 percent of poverty. The bill does allow people to retain the policies they already have without change, however.

“Average premiums per policy in the nongroup market in 2016 would be roughly $5,800 for single policies and $15,200 for family policies under the proposal, compared with roughly $5,500 for single policies and $13,100 for family policies under current law,” the report says.

[Thiebear]

The House doesn't like the Senates bill so they want to change it a bit.

They can't change it before its passed.

The House doesn't believe we will FIX it after its passed.

The Rules person says no problem, we'll just "SAY" the Senate is passed. And then vote on the rule changes... This way everyone can say:

Congressman:

I didn't vote FOR the Healthcare bill, Thats f'in crazy! that bill was CRAP!

I just voted for the bill to FIX it.

Reporter:

Who voted for the bill Congressman.

Congressman:

Not me! I only voted to Fix a bill that is Good for the Country and my Constituents!

Is there anyone here that thinks this is a good idea?

[Baculus]

One accusation that appears to have some legs (maybe short legs, but nonetheless) is about double-counting of medicare savings as being used for both new spending and for future Medicare benefits.

I don't fully understand the issue, but there appears some valid concern there:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/29/health/policy/29health.html

I can see how that is viewed as "double booking." But, all in all, the CBO still estimated cost savings, it would appear.

"After issuing its clarification, the budget office reaffirmed its earlier estimate that the Senate bill would reduce the deficit by $132 billion in the next 10 years, compared with the deficits expected under current law."

I guess it comes down to this: Whether the estimated savings will be accurate, in the end, or just a shell game shifting money back and forth. We need to have real savings, not bogus numbers.

Basically it sounds like funds are being shifted from one place to another, e.g., from Medicare some other programs. Also, it must be added that the estimated savings from fraud has been including in the Medicare "cuts."

It also must be noted that Medicare Part-D is probably going to have a reduction in funds, which is part of the "cuts." The issue is, we have to make sure seniors can buy supplemental Medicare issuance through the exchange as well.

I am a supporter of Medicare -- I believe our senior citizens need it -- and I don't want the program to be adversely affected. It were up to me, we would simply expand Medicare to all U.S. citizens. (BTW, the Canadian health system is called "Medicare" as well.)

[Baculus]

The House doesn't like the Senates bill so they want to change it a bit.

They can't change it before its passed.

The Senate bill has already passed. It passed in December of last year with sixty votes.

Both bills have passed.

Is there anyone here that thinks this is a good idea?

Well, this is the posturing we have had for a year, and it continues as we speak. Case in point, the Stupak position on federally provided abortion funds (which really isn't in the bill).

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't honestly know how anybody can argue the points of the Presidents Health Care Bill. It has not been released to the public as yet. According to Pelosi,that is why the Bill must be passed.

"“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, speaking at the 2010 Legislative Conference for National Association of Counties, 3/9/10

Obviously, this is a crazy line of reason but this is what the Speaker said about the Bill.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I can see how that is viewed as "double booking." But, all in all, the CBO still estimated cost savings, it would appear.

"After issuing its clarification, the budget office reaffirmed its earlier estimate that the Senate bill would reduce the deficit by $132 billion in the next 10 years, compared with the deficits expected under current law."

I guess it comes down to this: Whether the estimated savings will be accurate, in the end, or just a shell game shifting money back and forth. We need to have real savings, not bogus numbers.

Basically it sounds like funds are being shifted from one place to another, e.g., from Medicare some other programs. Also, it must be added that the estimated savings from fraud has been including in the Medicare "cuts."

It also must be noted that Medicare Part-D is probably going to have a reduction in funds, which is part of the "cuts." The issue is, we have to make sure seniors can buy supplemental Medicare issuance through the exchange as well.

I am a supporter of Medicare -- I believe our senior citizens need it -- and I don't want the program to be adversely affected. It were up to me, we would simply expand Medicare to all U.S. citizens. (BTW, the Canadian health system is called "Medicare" as well.)

In fact, the CBO said that their is no real way to confirm cost savings beyond 5 years. If nothing changes and all is as projected, over 10 years, it could save money but we live in a moving parts society. The chances that nothing changes in 10 years are next to impossible. The CBO reported on something that is not factual in it's application. Another words, BS in, BS out.

[ABQCOWBOY]

The Senate bill has already passed. It passed in December of last year with sixty votes.

Both bills have passed.

Well, this is the posturing we have had for a year, and it continues as we speak. Case in point, the Stupak position on federally provided abortion funds (which really isn't in the bill).

Neither Bill has passed in both houses. If it had, it would already be law.

[Thiebear]

The Senate bill has already passed. It passed in December of last year with sixty votes.

Both bills have passed.

Well, this is the posturing we have had for a year, and it continues as we speak. Case in point, the Stupak position on federally provided abortion funds (which really isn't in the bill).

Way to Partially quote me!

I'm guessing it was intentional with the wording you threw in the to debate it.

[twa]

In fact, the CBO said that their is no real way to confirm cost savings beyond 5 years. If nothing changes and all is as projected, over 10 years, it could save money but we live in a moving parts society. The chances that nothing changes in 10 years are next to impossible. The CBO reported on something that is not factual in it's application. Another words, BS in, BS out.

And even beyond that is the delay in providing ins while already collecting taxes for it.

Bac you want to tell me it is deficit neutral over the first 10 yrs it is implemented in FULL?

[ABQCOWBOY]

And even beyond that is the delay in providing ins while already collecting taxes for it.

Bac you want to tell me it is deficit neutral over the first 10 yrs it is implemented in FULL?

The manipulation involved in this entire process is really the thing that I believe Americans are going to take away from this. If this passes, I don't believe Americans will ever forgive this administration for it. I just think that instead of being remembered as the President who accomplished great things, he will be remembered as a President who lied to America. Right or wrong, I believe that this will be his legacy if this thing passes the way it's set up.

[helptheSKINS]

And even beyond that is the delay in providing ins while already collecting taxes for it.

Bac you want to tell me it is deficit neutral over the first 10 yrs it is implemented in FULL?

he 10 year estimates include the first half of the program essentially collecting taxes without any costs. Consider the real first 10 year costs, which is when it's up and running. You can multiply the estimated costs by 2 or 3 at minimum. There is no arguing that fact, though some here will try.

[Baculus]

Interesting choice of words which I did not use;)

There is even a clip of Obama admitting it out there,you calling him wrong?

A rainbow of colors!

Please show me the clip.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/health_care_reform_obama.fortune/

If you noticed, this article is from mid-2009 -- some changes have been made to the bills which have passed. For example, provisions to protect Health Savings Accounts have already been added into the House bill (HR 3200)

Unfortunately most of the articles dealing with this issue are from last year, but I will continue to look for more articles dealing with this issue.

It is possible HSA's will be adversely affected. This program seems to have a mixed bag of success, with some touting the program as a success while others claim HSA's have done nothing to keep costs low (with people still having to pay high out-of-pocket expenses).

The bill gives ERISA employers a five-year grace period when they can keep offering plans free from the restrictions of the "qualified" policies offered on the exchanges. But after five years, they would have to offer only approved plans, with the myriad rules we've already discussed. So for Americans in large corporations, "keeping your own plan" has a strict deadline. In five years, like it or not, you'll get dumped into the exchange. As we'll see, it could happen a lot earlier.

Here is what they don't mention: Some of these details only apply to exchange-participating companies. If your "large corporation" does not participate in the exchange, then this entire point is moot.

The outlook is worse for the second group. It encompasses employees who aren't under ERISA but get actual insurance either on their own or through small businesses. After the legislation passes, all insurers that offer a wide range of plans to these employees will be forced to offer only "qualified" plans to new customers, via the exchanges.[/color]

ONLY via exchanges. A company does NOT have to participate in the exchange if they choose not to do so.

We have to remember that certain mechanisms in the exchange are there for a reason: To lower health costs by ensuring insurance plans provide for at least some basic benefits. Otherwise we are right back to square one.

The employees who got their coverage before the law goes into effect can keep their plans, but once again, there's a catch. If the plan changes in any way -- by altering co-pays, deductibles, or even switching coverage for this or that drug -- the employee must drop out and shop through the exchange. Since these plans generally change their policies every year, it's likely that millions of employees will lose their plans in 12 months.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/69763-cbo-report-predicts-increases-in-insurance-premiums

As this article mentioned, it is a mixed bag, at least for the senate bill at one time. Some folks will have higher premiums, while most lower and middle class Americans will have a drop.

Here is an article which also discusses it, with the CBO PDF available at the end of it.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/cbo-health-care-reform-will-lower-out-of-pocket-burden-for-most-consumers.php

As the article mentions, some individuals will also have a "10 to 13%" increase in costs, mainly due to the fact that the insurance plans will cover more procedures. There is a reason for this: To keep people from using emergency rooms for basic procedures that should be part of an effective health care plan.

Now, a "10 to 13%" for some people isn't ideal -- I would hope that EVERYONE has a reduction in costs due to the Democratic reform -- but seeing how insurers want to raise rates by 39% in California, it could be worse.

Now, it must be noted that the CBO will be releasing further details in the near future on these projections.

[aREDSKIN]

The Senate bill has already passed. It passed in December of last year with sixty votes.

Both bills have passed.

Well, this is the posturing we have had for a year, and it continues as we speak. Case in point, the Stupak position on federally provided abortion funds (which really isn't in the bill).

Reconciliation means reconcile the DIFFERENCE between the two bills. There's is NOTHING now (Bill or even proposed bill)on the table for ANYONE to sign.

Here's some minutia the dems were/are trying to finagle. Again it's all in the minutia.

This is big, big news (if true):

The Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that President Barack Obama must sign Congress’ original health care reform bill before the Senate can act on a companion reconciliation package, senior GOP sources said Thursday.

The Senate Parliamentarian’s Office was responding to questions posed by the Republican leadership. The answers were provided verbally, sources said.

House Democratic leaders have been searching for a way to ensure that any move they make to approve the Senate-passed $871 billion health care reform bill is followed by Senate action on a reconciliation package of adjustments to the original bill. One idea is to have the House and Senate act on reconciliation prior to House action on the Senate’s original health care bill.

Information Republicans say they have received from the Senate Parliamentarian’s Office eliminates that option. House Democratic leaders last week began looking at crafting a legislative rule that would allow the House to approve the Senate health care bill, but not forward it to Obama for his signature until the Senate clears the reconciliation package.

House Democrats do not trust the Senate; they do not want to pass the Senate bill--with all the special deals in it--and hope the Senate will fix these problems and others later. Even Democrat Michael Capuano of Massachusetts is expressing very grave concerns about passing the Senate bill unamended.

If this report is true, the parliamentarian's ruling seems to nix the "Slaughter Solution," whereby the House would deem the Senate bill passed only after the reconciliation bill is passed by both the House and the Senate.

So where do Democrats go from here? One possibility is that Harry Reid will fire the Senate parliamentarian.

If Democrats really think they can get away with such a heavy-handed move in the first place, they might as well replace the parliamentarian with Rahm Emanuel and kill two birds with one stone.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/did-senate-parliamentarian-just-kill-obamacare

[Baculus]

The manipulation involved in this entire process is really the thing that I believe Americans are going to take away from this.

Manipulation in the process? Explain further.

The most common manipulation I have seen are from the "death panel." "jam it through" Republicans. To the degree that we have people spouting off their talking points.

If this passes, I don't believe Americans will ever forgive this administration for it.

Oh really?

Health care costs have tripled since the last time we tried this fifteen years ago. So I guess we should be saying, "gee, thanks Republicans, for saving us from reform! You were so right!"

Just like the GOP wanted to save us from the "communist" Medicare program?

I think millions of Americans won't forgive the Democrats for doing nothing. I surely have not forgiven the GOP for blocking health care reform since the 30s, that is for sure.

I just think that instead of being remembered as the President who accomplished great things, he will be remembered as a President who lied to America. Right or wrong, I believe that this will be his legacy if this thing passes the way it's set up.

If anyone has repeatedly lied to America, it is the GOP.

"Medicare will lead to communism."

Yeah, we have to remember that little bit of GOP honest, right?

Most of their repeated points of attack is a lie, a distortion, or a falsification. Even when they have agreed with something in the past, such as exchanges, they have attacked in their zeal for a political victory, to hand Obama his "Waterloo," in their words.

When Pres. Obama says costs are "soaring" for the average American, he is not lying. When he says millions of Americans are without health care, he is not lying. When he says it is time for insurance companies to quit rejecting people for preexisting conditions, he is not lying. When he says the US system needs to shift more resources to electronic records and to harness technology, he is not lying.

Of course, if you think the US system is dandy, then yeah, you probably think he is lying. And you are probably out of touch with the US health care system as well.

So, are you out of touch with the problems inherit in our system?

[Renegade7]

Yes. From what I've been reading, hearing, and seeing, a lot of the people going out of there way to hold this up are starting to get called out for it. That's a start.

Even if, God forbid, they start over from scratch and take longer, the health care prices will continue to rise to the point that people will start screaming for it like they're screaming against it. We'd risk the US economy breaking it's leg again like the housing bubble if we do nothing, so we're going to do something.

[Kilmer17]

Reconciliation, if used by the Democrats on the health care reform, is not "circumventing the rules." Another totally false, rubbishy GOP line of attack.

The GOP have supported reconciliation in the 17 out of 22 times it has been used.

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0210/GOP_backed_17_of_22_reconciliation_bills_passed_since_80.htm

Is there a single GOP talking point that is not a distortion and misrepresentation?

Again, you need to read up on why it was used in the past and the votes that occured when it was used.. And then realize what the Dems are attempting to use it for.

There are certainly legitimate times to use reconcilliation. This isnt one of them.

That wont stop them from using it, but once the door is open, dont ***** when the GOP rams through everything they want going forward using it as well.

[Special K]

Of course, if you think the US system is dandy, then yeah, you probably think he is lying. And you are probably out of touch with the US health care system as well.

So, are you out of touch with the problems inherit in our system?

Baculus, I don't know how many times this has been explained to you or if you will ever get this, but NOT ALL OF US WHO OPPOSE THE CURRENT HEALTHCARE BILL THINK OUR SYSTEM IS PERFECT. In fact, I'd be comfortable in saying the VAST MAJORITY of people who oppose this bill understand that changes need to be made to our system, they simply do not like the proposals Obama and the Dems are making.

Please stop continually falsely accusing those who don't support the bill as people who think the system is "fine and dandy."

It makes you look ridiculously partisan...almost as bad as people calling those who were against the Iraq war "unpatriotic."

[Baculus]

Reconciliation means reconcile the DIFFERENCE between the two bills. There's is NOTHING now (Bill or even proposed bill)on the table for ANYONE to sign.

There are two bills, HR 3200 and the Patient Protection Affordable acts which were passed in the House and Senate, respectively. Perhaps you are referring to the following links . . .

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/did-senate-parliamentarian-just-kill-obamacare

Another article says something else entirely:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/11/senate-parliamentarian-ho_n_495522.html

"The House must pass the Senate health care bill into law before fixes can be made to it through reconciliation, the Senate Parliamentarian told Republican leaders."

I am not sure if this is good for the GOP. It probably depends on how many Democrats (mostly progressives) who are happy with the Senate's bill.

But the title to that link is hyperbole. How does it "kill" so-called "ObamaCare"? The Democrats were moving forward to the process, so it really doesn't change anything, if you ask me.

[NOLASKINSFAN]

Nope, if Dems had the support/abilty to pass it they would have.

[NOLASKINSFAN]

There are two bills, HR 3200 and the Patient Protection Affordable acts which were passed in the House and Senate, respectively.

I was under the understanding reconciliation can only be used to adjust revenue/spending is this correct?

I think this is way to huge a bill to be passed via reconciliation but I'm just trying to make sure I understand this right.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Manipulation in the process? Explain further.

The most common manipulation I have seen are from the "death panel." "jam it through" Republicans. To the degree that we have people spouting off their talking points.

How can you complain about anybody on the GOP side manipulating anything when no Bill is present to confirm what is or is not fact? The process by which this is being done is the piece that is being manipulated. The President of the United States, a Democrat, has said that he wants a vote now and he wants this done by the end of March. The Democratic House said we will pass it when we are ready to pass it. Why?

Oh really?

Health care costs have tripled since the last time we tried this fifteen years ago. So I guess we should be saying, "gee, thanks Republicans, for saving us from reform! You were so right!"

This is not relevant to the discussion. Are Health Care Costs going up? Yes. Is insurance the prime reason for this? Yes. Is regulation of insurance practice being changed? I don't know because there is no bill to look at but if it's like the last one, no.

If it would make you feel better to say thank you to the GOP, that is of course up to you. It is none of my concern.

Just like the GOP wanted to save us from the "communist" Medicare program?

I thought that Medicare was a GOP proposed program. I don't know, I suppose you can characterize it any way you like. It's immaterial to the discussion.

I think millions of Americans won't forgive the Democrats for doing nothing. I surely have not forgiven the GOP for blocking health care reform since the 30s, that is for sure.

I guess we'll know the answer to this in the next election.

I

f anyone has repeatedly lied to America, it is the GOP.

"Medicare will lead to communism."

Yeah, we have to remember that little bit of GOP honest, right?

Most of their repeated points of attack is a lie, a distortion, or a falsification. Even when they have agreed with something in the past, such as exchanges, they have attacked in their zeal for a political victory, to hand Obama his "Waterloo," in their words.

All this is white noise. It has nothing at all to do with the subject matter.

When Pres. Obama says costs are "soaring" for the average American, he is not lying. When he says millions of Americans are without health care, he is not lying. When he says it is time for insurance companies to quit rejecting people for preexisting conditions, he is not lying. When he says the US system needs to shift more resources to electronic records and to harness technology, he is not lying.

When he says that it is more affordable in his plan and when he says taxes won't go up and when he says it's deficit neutral and when he says Americans will have more choices for health care providers, the majority of American's don't believe him. The majority of Republicans don't believe him. Heck, a growing number of Democrats in his own party don't believe him. If they did, this would already be law.

Of course, if you think the US system is dandy, then yeah, you probably think he is lying. And you are probably out of touch with the US health care system as well.

I never said anything like this. This is your own perception. This is what people do when they would rather change the question then discuss merits. It's fine. I won't do it with you but I'm certain that there are those who would if that is your desire.

So, are you out of touch with the problems inherit in our system?

I do not consider myself to be out of touch.

[ABQCOWBOY]

An honest question. Do the majority of you, on this board, believe that the Bill that is currently being discussed on the House floor a good piece of legislature? I know that we have not seen the finished product but based on what you do know, do you believe that this is good for America?

I'm just interested in having productive discussion. I don't want to argue silly talking points. We are all in this together. If this Bill is passed, for better or worse, we are all boots on the line for it. Do you believe that what the President is proposing is good for our Country? Not asking if you believe in Health Care reform. I would never insult any of you that way. I believe that any American sees the need to reform Health Care. Just asking if you believe, based on what you know, in this plan?

[Baculus]

Baculus, I don't know how many times this has been explained to you or if you will ever get this, but NOT ALL OF US WHO OPPOSE THE CURRENT HEALTHCARE BILL THINK OUR SYSTEM IS PERFECT.

Maybe I will "get it" when I see people from the Right, who oppose the Democratic reform bills, make a long-term commitment to health care reform. I just don't see it. That is why I am so skeptical: Contrary to that, you are acting as if I have no basis for such skepticism.

Where are the right-wingers protesting in the street for reform? Where are the members of the GOP making a high-profile issue out of reform? The GOP have said it over and over again: There is no reason for reform because we have the best health care system in the world.

I am not jerking my knee without due cause; it's as if you haven't paid attention to the last year's worth of debates.

Even within the Democratic ranks you have people who aren't happy with the current bills. Either they wanted a single-payer system or they believe it is too much of a give-away to the private insurance industry. But, no matter their position, they are still making health care as part of their platform, as Democrats or Independent.

I don't see this with the GOP at all, nor with many of the people on this board who I've debated with over this past year.

In fact, I'd be comfortable in saying the VAST MAJORITY of people who oppose this bill understand that changes need to be made to our system, they simply do not like the proposals Obama and the Dems are making.

If you ask me, contrary to that, they don't understand or know the proposals have come from the Democrats. All they have heard is "killing grandma" and "jam it through." People are panicked. This is, after all, a deep and complex issue, which is why it's probably the most dissected argument in recent history (probably since the civil rights movement during the 60s).

Please stop continually falsely accusing those who don't support the bill as people who think the system is "fine and dandy."

I don't accuse everyone who is against the Democratic bills as believing the system is "fine and dandy." But I do come down hard against the GOP, and with reason.

As far as the GOP is concerned, through, when the they honestly admit there are problems in our health care system, then I will change my tune. After all, the health care summit was the FIRST TIME I have heard them admit this after an entire year's worth of debates.

The GOP have done nothing to help with this issue, and you now asking me to stop making assumptions when I am going by seventy years of GOP opposition?

It's like Medicare: the GOP are making an issue out of any cuts to that program, when they actually want to completely eliminate both Medicare and Medicaid. I don't thinking I am asking too much when I expect a little bit of honesty from the opposition.

It makes you look ridiculously partisan...almost as bad as people calling those who were against the Iraq war "unpatriotic."

I have no problems with contrarian positions if they are based on honest, valid questions. Concerned about costs? That is a reasonable issue. Concerned about HCAs? That is reasonable one, too. Concerned about losing your health insurance due to mandates? Another reasonable concern, worthy of discussion.

There are a host of such issues which can be argued without ad hominems.

The problem is that, by and large, these have not been most of the issues loudly argued. Instead, we have heard the same old "death panels" "government take over" crap, over and over again, drowning out any of the above points of debate.

I mean, really, Glenn Beck and others would accuse me of being a Communist Nazi for supporting reform. I don't think nothing I have said is even close to that level.

I have said this before -- I am not totally happy with either the House or Senate bills. I wanted a single-payer, public option, or a health cooperative model. Neither of the Congressional bills have these. But, considering the last time we have a national reform effort was 15 years ago, I am not sure if we can stand for another 15 years of without such reform.