Do you think health care reform will pass?

[SnyderShrugged]

http://cdn.rollcall.com/media/44110-1.html

Ruling Kills an Option for Moving Health Bill

March 11, 2010, 2:30 P.M.

By David M. Drucker

Roll Call Staff

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.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) moved Thursday to put Senate Republicans on the defensive over health care, sending a letter to Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in which he dared the GOP to vote against reform.

Reid also defended the Democrats’ use of reconciliation to get a final health care reform bill to the president’s desk, noting that the bulk of health care reform was approved under regular order via the package that cleared the Senate on Christmas Eve. Reid also emphasized that Republicans have used the procedure several times over the years.

However, Reid also promised in the letter that Republicans would have ample opportunity to amend the reconciliation package.

“Reconciliation is designed to deal with budget-related matters, and some have expressed doubt that it could be used for comprehensive health care reform that includes many policies with no budget implications. But the reconciliation bill now under consideration would not be the vehicle for comprehensive reform — that bill already passed outside of reconciliation with 60 votes,” Reid wrote to McConnell.

“Reconciliation will not exclude Republicans from the legislative process. You will continue to have an opportunity to offer amendments and change the shape of the legislation. In addition, at the end of the process, the bill can pass only if it wins a democratic, up-or-down majority vote. If Republicans want to vote against a bill that reduces health care costs, fills the prescription drug ‘donut hole’ for seniors and reduces the deficit, you will have every right to do so,” he said.

[TheLongshot]

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 with 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.

Those of us who want health care reform would have preferred honest debate from both sides of the aisle to craft the best bill possible. But, it has been obvious from the beginning that the Republicans had no interest at all with health care and seemingly had more interest in increasing their power base rather than serve the people of this country. The crafters of the bill have tried to accommodate conservative ideas into the bill, but it is never good enough for them to support it. It has been the Republicans who have been "all or nothing" when it comes to their ideas and health care.

[Baculus]

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?

Your question makes little sense.

This is the third or fourth time I have said this on the thread: There are TWO bills which have been passed. One was passed in the House and one was passed in the Senate. I posted links earlier to where you can download both bills.

Can you explain further what you mean?

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?

I don't get what you are trying to say. This is the typical back and forth wrangling between the various branches of office. The legislative branch makes law -- the President signs it. It is all Constitutional.

Are you suggesting this has never happened in American political history? That a President has never set a mandate that he wanted from Congress?

I wish people were this concerned when we were going to war, or when we were spending $1.3 trillion in tax cuts.

This is not relevant to the discussion.

How is the fact that costs have tripled since 1994 not relevant? It is wholly relevant -- it cuts to the core of the problems: sky-rocketing costs

It's like Toyota claiming that out-of-control acceleration is not relevant to the issue of out-of-control acceleration.

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.

OK, so what are we going to do about it?

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 you need to review your history.

Medicare is a Democratic program which came about during Pres. Johnson's "Great Society" programs. At the time, the GOP railed against it as being socialism, and that it would lead to a "dictatorship."

They were wrong about reform at that time, and they were wrong about reform fifteen years ago.

Again, it is wholly material to the discussion, because the GOP want to eliminate Medicare, but they rally to its defense when politically expedient to get the senior citizen vote.

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

Yeah, it is "white noise," if you zero sense of politically connectivity. When you believe political parties should have no consistency, where they say one thing and mean another. Where there is little rhyme or reason to what they say, but only to achieve political ends.

Sorry, but I don't agree with you at all.

When he says that it is more affordable in his plan

That is true -- rates for some people would go down under his plans.

and when he says taxes won't go up

Obama NEVER said taxes wouldn't go up for EVERYONE, and it is false accusation to suggest it. If you actually paid attention to what he said, the President said "this has to be paid for and nothing is free." He has said that more than once, that any bill he signs has to be paid for in some manner. This may include increased taxes on higher income brackets or some premium plans.

It doesn't look good if you are misrepresenting what Obama said to prove that he "lied."

....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.

Maybe some Americans need to pay more attention to this issue.

(1) The CBO has already reported that both the House and Democratic plans are deficit neutral. That doesn't mean they are free, but they are looking for some ways to pay for it.

Compare this to the Bush bills, during this last decade, which were NOT deficit neutral. If only people cared about this issue before Obama was elected -- it is amazing that NOW right-wingers are suddenly worried about "deficits" and "debts." Isn't that remarkable?

(2) Currently, most markets are only served by a two or three health insurers. The health insurance exhcange will open up the market to multiple insurers. It is a similiar system to the FEHB, to what the french and Swiss use, and to what's in place with the Massachusetts health care system.

The majority of Republicans don't believe him.

Half the republicans also think he is a non-American born socialist as well. Sorry if I don't put much stock into the opinions of people who hate President Obama.

Heck, a growing number of Democrats in his own party don't believe him. If they did, this would already be law.

You're acting as if Congress has no part in this process. Are you aware how bills are created in our Republic?

As President, Obama can only can do so much.

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.

You did say Obama was lying. Also, you have given zero to little inclination of how our system would be reformed. I mean, seriously, the GOP don't want reform, so WHO is going to provide it? The Tea Party movement? The people who hold up signs which say "your health care is not my problem"?

It is amazing how people who opposed Democratic efforts to enact something into law suddenly bristling at being called out for opposing such efforts while providing few ideas.

I mean, I am sure you have written your congressman supporting reform, right?

Naw, I doubt it.

I do not consider myself to be out of touch.

Maybe you need to reevaluate that stance.

[Baculus]

Those of us who want health care reform would have preferred honest debate from both sides of the aisle to craft the best bill possible. But, it has been obvious from the beginning that the Republicans had no interest at all with health care and seemingly had more interest in increasing their power base rather than serve the people of this country. The crafters of the bill have tried to accommodate conservative ideas into the bill, but it is never good enough for them to support it. It has been the Republicans who have been "all or nothing" when it comes to their ideas and health care.

I totally agree. (BTW, my original post was supposed to read "without ad hominems." Haha.)

Whether people realize it or not, some Republican ideas have been placed into both the House and Senate bills.

[ABQCOWBOY]

http://cdn.rollcall.com/media/44110-1.html

Ruling Kills an Option for Moving Health Bill

March 11, 2010, 2:30 P.M.

By David M. Drucker

Roll Call Staff

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.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) moved Thursday to put Senate Republicans on the defensive over health care, sending a letter to Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in which he dared the GOP to vote against reform.

Reid also defended the Democrats’ use of reconciliation to get a final health care reform bill to the president’s desk, noting that the bulk of health care reform was approved under regular order via the package that cleared the Senate on Christmas Eve. Reid also emphasized that Republicans have used the procedure several times over the years.

However, Reid also promised in the letter that Republicans would have ample opportunity to amend the reconciliation package.

“Reconciliation is designed to deal with budget-related matters, and some have expressed doubt that it could be used for comprehensive health care reform that includes many policies with no budget implications. But the reconciliation bill now under consideration would not be the vehicle for comprehensive reform — that bill already passed outside of reconciliation with 60 votes,” Reid wrote to McConnell.

“Reconciliation will not exclude Republicans from the legislative process. You will continue to have an opportunity to offer amendments and change the shape of the legislation. In addition, at the end of the process, the bill can pass only if it wins a democratic, up-or-down majority vote. If Republicans want to vote against a bill that reduces health care costs, fills the prescription drug ‘donut hole’ for seniors and reduces the deficit, you will have every right to do so,” he said.

Well, that probably means that you lose Stupak and his folks and you lose the Single Payer folks because neither is likely to happen under reconciliation. I could be mistaken but I believe that reconciliation, after the fact, is limited in scope. I am not sure that you can use reconciliation to fix either of those issues once the Bill passed by the Senate is enacted into law.

[Baculus]

http://cdn.rollcall.com/media/44110-1.html

Ruling Kills an Option for Moving Health Bill

March 11, 2010, 2:30 P.M.

By David M. Drucker

Roll Call Staff

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.

Someone posted this earlier. There is no official word on this, as of yet. I don't trust the GOP one bit, so I will wait on the official word.

Really, if it comes down to it, Obama would simply sign the bill, and then it is law. So . . . I guess the GOP would then be happy?

Otherwise, there is NO official word on this, just a GOP "verbal" announcement.

[Baculus]

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 think it is a decent piece of legislation that will help millions of Americans. I have said this several times on this thread: The last time we tried (on a national scale) this was fifteen years ago. The Democrats failed, costs have tripled, and thousands of Americans have suffered due to a lack of health care access and coverage.

We need reform, and waiting another fifteen years ain't going to cut it.

[Hubbs]

Not gonna pass. As soon as the Democrats figured they could pass it, it would get done.

I support either a full on 100% European style health care reform OR

I support either a full on 100% "free market" health care reform bill

I think both of those options would be radical changes. This bill is clearly the status quo plus now the Government can pester you. suuuuck...

I've come to the same conclusion.

[aREDSKIN]

update-

Nancy Pelosi does not have the 216 votes necessary to pass the Senate health care bill. She's planning to go ahead without the votes of the Stupak 12. Today the Senate parliamentarian ruled the Senate bill must become law before "fixes" can be made via the parliamentary tactic known as reconciliation. The GOP Senate caucus will rigorously enforce the Byrd rule, limiting the reconciliation changes to budget matters and nothing more.

What's going on? The final push for Obamacare is about to begin. It starts on Monday, when the House Budget Committee will insert reconciliation instructions into the November House health care bill. By late Monday / early Tuesday, Budget will pass this bill and send it to the House Rules Committee, where Pelosi will change the language so that it matches the Senate bill. This is the final compromise legislation that may come to a vote on the House floor within weeks. "They're creating the shell," says Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

Why move ahead when the votes aren't there? Pelosi hopes that launching the process will create enough momentum to flip Democrats her way. The clock is ticking. The speaker has two weeks before Congress breaks for Easter Recess. And the recess could kill off health care reform, since many of the wavering Democrats will get an earful from their constituents when they return home. Republicans expect Democrats to lose votes over the break.

But that won't matter if health care reform is already law. Which puts the Democrats in a funny situation. The Senate passed a bill on Christmas Eve filled with gimmickry and special deals in the hopes that the details would be ironed out in conference. Then Scott Brown came along and ruined their plans. House Democrats now have to support a bad bill that wouldn't have passed if it weren't for the Cornhusker Kickback, Lousiana Purchase, and Gator Aid. And they have to do it soon. Or the central policy initiative of the Obama administration will come to naught.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/health-care-end-game-begins-monday

In a phone interview with TAS Thursday afternoon, Ryan said that he expects Democrats to begin the complex process on Monday, under which they would have the Budget Committee approve a phantom bill by midnight, which they will then send over to the Rules Committee. At that point, the Rules Committee will strip out all of the language in the phantom bill, and insert the changes to the Senate bill that Democrats have negotiated.

"They don't have the votes right now, but they're creating the vehicle so that they can airdrop in whatever changes they want," Ryan said.

He said that Republicans are outnumbered 2-to-1 on his committee and don't have the votes to stop the bill there. Democrats will also be able to prevent Republicans from offering any amendments, but GOP members will be able to offer "motions to instruct" the Rules Committee, that Ryan said will be used highlight problems with the "unprecedented" step that Democrats are taking.

He said he expected Democrats to dust off last year's health care bills from the Education and Labor and Ways and Means Committees, to use as the vehicle for reconciliation changes.

Ryan said that the Senate parliamentarian's ruling that President Obama must sign a health care bill into law before the Senate can change it through reconciliation largely renders moot the attempt by Rep. Louise Slaughter to shield members from a direct vote on the Senate health care bill. He said the idea would also violate Obama's call for an up-or-down vote. "That's not an up-or-down vote, that's sweeping it under the rug and into law," Ryan said.

He also warned against focusing too much on the reconciliation process in the Senate. "Reconciliation is a distraction," he said. "Once the House passes the Senate bill we have the massive new entitlement."

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/03/11/ryan-dems-ramming-shell-hc-bil

[twa]

Hmm...any wonder there is confusion?

Associated Press, “White House officials suggest the president’s rhetoric shouldn’t be taken literally: What Obama really means is that government isn’t about to barge in and force people to change insurance.”

Curiously scrubbed from their site

partial available here

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/06/21/free-pass-obamas-strident-vow-ama-shouldnt-be-taken-literally-ap-yawns

Hmm

"If you look at the package that we presented, and there are some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating...we were in the process of eliminating. For example, we said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people, if you can have your--if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep You're not going to have anybody get between you and your doctor in your decision-making, and I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated the pledge, and so we were in the process of scrubbing this and making sure that it was tight.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/jan/31/videoobama-health-care-bill-some-provisions-got-sn/

[Darth Tater]

Don't they have to have some sort of actual reform plan first?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Your question makes little sense.

This is the third or fourth time I have said this on the thread: There are TWO bills which have been passed. One was passed in the House and one was passed in the Senate. I posted links earlier to where you can download both bills.

Can you explain further what you mean?

Both Bills can not be passed. Only one Bill can be passed. You can't combine the Bills and use passage by each house for each specific Bill as lawful. Either the House Bill must also be passed by the Senate, which is impossible, or the Senate Bill must be passed by the House to complete the Congressional Process so that a Bill can then be sent to the President for Signature. The only other option is to start on another Bill and junk the two previous Bills. You can't use reconciliation before a Bill has been passed by both houses. Neither House likes the other's Bill. That's a problem.

I don't get what you are trying to say. This is the typical back and forth wrangling between the various branches of office. The legislative branch makes law -- the President signs it. It is all Constitutional.

I know that it is a popular conception to say that reconciliation has been used before but it has never been used to do what is being attempted now. In the past, Reconciliation has been used to define certain budgetary aspects of Bills that have already been passed in both the House and the Senate. The fact that this Administration is trying to introduce Reconciliation before any single Bill has been passed in both houses is not Lawful and it is not business as usual.

Are you suggesting this has never happened in American political history? That a President has never set a mandate that he wanted from Congress?

No, I am suggesting that the support for this Bill is not there. If it were, this Bill would have already been put to the vote. If the votes are not there now, then I doubt many votes will be gained after the Holidays. The American people are not in favor of this. Doesn't matter what you believe about why they are not in favor of it, they are not. This is not a good sign for the President.

I wish people were this concerned when we were going to war, or when we were spending $1.3 trillion in tax cuts.

I don't know that you are correct in your assumptions here but it doesn't matter. None of the above are material to this discussion.

How is the fact that costs have tripled since 1994 not relevant? It is wholly relevant -- it cuts to the core of the problems: sky-rocketing costs

It's like Toyota claiming that out-of-control acceleration is not relevant to the issue of out-of-control acceleration.

Insurance companies are the primary reason for cost increases. If this Bill were about regulation of Insurance Companies and there practices, then I would be much more inclined to see it succeed. As it is now, all this Bill does is make it mandatory for everybody to have insurance. I don't see how this solves the problems. The underlying issues are still in place.

If you look at it from this perspective, it's more like Toyota saying that they are going to discontinue building the automobiles that are having issues only to turn around and produce the same care, in bigger numbers, with a different model name and the U.S. Government sponsering such a move.

OK, so what are we going to do about it?

I don't know. I suppose that if this Bill gets passed, there is little we can do. However, I am in favor of the President coming out and saying we are going to scrap the existing Bill and start over. I would be in favor of both sides coming together and introducing 8 to 10 options for improvement of the system that could be hammered down to maybe 4 good proposals for fixes and get those passed. Maybe you say we want to look at no pre existing conditions, 100% coverage for all Americans only. Specialized Clinics for Illegals, Introduction of selling across state lines, Health Insurance regulations and enforcement, TORT reform, Allow Small Business to pool resources, allow for Health Care Savings Plans, their are a number of things that could be looked at and tried that cost relatively little. Get a good 4 of these things and get them passed into law. Then, if they work, go get 4 more in 2012 and lets try those. Continue to improve on a good thing. It doesn't have to be like this. It doesn't have to be an all in game where the price of failure is a crippled economy and a much worse health care plan then what we have now. This is how I would like to see this thing resolved. Get some good ideas on the table and then get on with the business of actually creating jobs and fixing this economy. That is the best possible medicine for this President and our Government. The people have lost faith with our Government and this is the way, IMO, to fix it.

I think you need to review your history.

Medicare is a Democratic program which came about during Pres. Johnson's "Great Society" programs. At the time, the GOP railed against it as being socialism, and that it would lead to a "dictatorship."

They were wrong about reform at that time, and they were wrong about reform fifteen years ago.

Again, it is wholly material to the discussion, because the GOP want to eliminate Medicare, but they rally to its defense when politically expedient to get the senior citizen vote.

My apologies, I was confused. I thought we were discussing Medicaid. Medicare is going broke so it is something that needs to be addressed. However, I think it's funny that either side would complain about the stance each has taken with regards to Medicare. President Obama's Health Care plan actually borrows many of the same ideas President Bush's Medicare Reform Bill proposed. President Bush's plan was voted down and now, you say that the GOP want's to eliminate Medicare. Well, forgive me if I find this a pointless discussion. President Obama's plans are very similar to Bush's but it's all the fault of the GOP? At some point, you have to get passed this or no constructive discussion can be had. I am not here to argue over talking points. The subject matter is much too important to me.

Yeah, it is "white noise," if you zero sense of politically connectivity. When you believe political parties should have no consistency, where they say one thing and mean another. Where there is little rhyme or reason to what they say, but only to achieve political ends.

Sorry, but I don't agree with you at all.

OK. You don't have to agree but I am not going to argue about issues that are not relevant to the subject matter. Simple as that. If you want to talk about these other things, open another thread.

That is true -- rates for my people would go down under his plans.

I don't know who your people are. Be that as it may, I have not seen any evidence that proves this point. At least, not in terms of the majority of Americans.

Obama NEVER said taxes wouldn't go up for EVERYONE, and it is false accusation to suggest it. If you actually paid attention to what he said, the President said "this has to be paid for and nothing is free." He has said that more than once, that any bill he signs has to be paid for in some manner. This may include increased taxes on higher income brackets or some premium plans.

OK, Middle Class. He said that Taxes would not go up for people couples making 250K. Now, while we are on the subject of misrepresentation and paying attention. Here's one for you. I said that Americans don't believe him when he says this.

Polls show that 81% of Americans believe that Health Care Bill will cost more then the President is promising. They Don't believe the President when he says it will lower there rates.

78% of Americans believe that Health Care reform will result in increased taxes for all Americans. They don't believe the President when he says that this bill is Deficit Neutral or that their Taxes won't go up, regardless of Tax bracket.

It doesn't look good if you are misrepresenting what Obama said to prove that he "lied."

Imagine what people must think when they read what you are saying? I am not trying to miss represent anybody. I am simply telling the truth. Americans don't believe the President on Health Care. It's clear as day. If they did, they would support this bill and clearly they do not.

Maybe some Americans need to pay more attention to this issue.

(1) The CBO has already reported that both the House and Democratic plans are deficit neutral. That doesn't mean they are free, but they are looking for some ways to pay for it.

Yeah, it is we who are stupid. Look, lets not try to have this discussion. America does not believe the President on this. The CBO can report anything but if the information it's reporting on is less then accurate or half the actual data, then the information it puts out will be skewed. Simple as that. At the end of the day, Americans don't believe him. You can yell at the sky all day but it's not going to change that fact.

Compare this to the Bush bills, during this last decade, which were NOT deficit neutral. If only people cared about this issue before Obama was elected -- it is amazing that NOW right-wingers are suddenly worried about "deficits" and "debts." Isn't that remarkable?

Not relevant to this discussion. We can talk about WWII or FDR or whatever but it doesn't amount to anything where this is concerned. Clearly people didn't like President Bush. This President is going to suffer the same fate if things don't change quickly.

(2) Currently, most markets are only served by a two or three health insurers. The health insurance exhcange will open up the market to multiple insurers. It is a similiar system to the FEHB, to what the french and Swiss use, and to what's in place with the Massachusetts health care system.

The French Economy is tanking. Why would I want that? The Swiss control their population very tightly. It works for them because they know how many they will need to cover. We are not in that position. We can't point to them and say, "See, this is how you do it!" If we adopted the same model, top to bottom, then OK, that's different but we are not ever going to close our boarders. In addition, in about 2007 or so, the Swiss accepted a number of Germans into their country as residents and have continued to do so up till very recently. The Germans who were relocating were good immigrants because they shared the language and they provided a number of Doctors who helped the Swiss with their health Care program. As it turned out, the Swiss had a real shortage of Doctors. Well, in January of 2010, they stopped this policy because their economy was in recession. I think that pointing to either of those Countries as models of what we should be like is a mistake.

Half the republicans also think he is a non-American born socialist as well. Sorry if I don't put much stock into the opinions of people who hate President Obama.

You have no factual evidence to support this statement. What was it you said earlier?

"It doesn't look good if you are misrepresenting what Obama said to prove that he "lied."

OK then.......

You're acting as if Congress has no part in this process. Are you aware how bills are created in our Republic?

As President, Obama can only can do so much.

Are the number of Bills created relevant to this issue?

That's right. The President can only do so much. If his idea of Health Care is not popular with Americans, then he should accept this and work on constructing something that will work or move on to more important issues such as the Economy.

You did say Obama was lying. Also, you have given zero to little inclination of how our system would be reformed. I mean, seriously, the GOP don't want reform, so WHO is going to provide it? The Tea Party movement? The people who hold up signs which say "your health care is not my problem"?

It is amazing how people who opposed Democratic efforts to enact something into law suddenly bristling at being called out for opposing such efforts while providing few ideas.

I mean, I am sure you have written your congressman supporting reform, right?

Naw, I doubt it.

I can see that this is all getting to personal for you. All of the above has nothing to do with this discussion. It's all irrelevant.

However, yes, I have written all of my Congressman and my Governor. I have promised them that if they vote for this Health Care plan, I will vote against them. Don't know if that is the answer you are looking for.

Maybe you need to reevaluate that stance.

Anything is possible. However, I'm pretty sure I will not be changing my opinion of the current legislation.

[Mooka]

However, I am in favor of the President coming out and saying we are going to scrap the existing Bill and start over. I would be in favor of both sides coming together and introducing 8 to 10 options for improvement of the system that could be hammered down to maybe 4 good proposals for fixes and get those passed. Maybe you say we want to look at no pre existing conditions, 100% coverage for all Americans only. Specialized Clinics for Illegals, Introduction of selling across state lines, Health Insurance regulations and enforcement, TORT reform, Allow Small Business to pool resources, allow for Health Care Savings Plans, their are a number of things that could be looked at and tried that cost relatively little. Get a good 4 of these things and get them passed into law. Then, if they work, go get 4 more in 2012 and lets try those. Continue to improve on a good thing.

Health care reform, coming at you when both sides agree on the basic problems and implement small, simple step solutions.

Legislation coming in 2060.

[81artmonk]

What? That is not true at all. The details of the health care bills have been public for months.

Why do you have the opinion that the details have been "kept from us"?

Rubbish. The Press and Democrats have been talking about details for MONTHS. They talked about details at the health care summit, which you apparently did not watch.

Just because you refuse to listen doesn't mean no one is talking.

OK, so what details do you want to know?

And everyone calls out fox for lying about those details. I've heard generic details. I haven't heard much from the press either. Maybe I'm missing something. From what I know, the bill up for reading isn't quite the bill that they are working on to pass. I may be wrong on that too.

[81artmonk]

What? That is not true at all. The details of the health care bills have been public for months.

Why do you have the opinion that the details have been "kept from us"?

Rubbish. The Press and Democrats have been talking about details for MONTHS. They talked about details at the health care summit, which you apparently did not watch.

Just because you refuse to listen doesn't mean no one is talking.

OK, so what details do you want to know?

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?

What I know about this is that reconciliation has to used on budgetary issues. This isn't a budgetary issue it is a policy issue.

http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/bud_rec_proc.htm

Created in a budget resolution in 1974 as part of the congressional budget process, the reconciliation process is utilized when Congress issues directives to legislate policy changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws) to achieve the goals in spending and revenue contemplated by the budget resolution. First used in1980 this process was used at the end of a fiscal year to enact legislation to fine tune revenue and spending levels through legislation that could not be filibustered in the Senate.

[Hailskinz1991]

I think it is a decent piece of legislation that will help millions of Americans. I have said this several times on this thread: The last time we tried (on a national scale) this was fifteen years ago. The Democrats failed, costs have tripled, and thousands of Americans have suffered due to a lack of health care access and coverage.

We need reform, and waiting another fifteen years ain't going to cut it.

You define the root of the health care problems in this country as a lack of health care access and coverage.

Wouldn't the problem be solved if we could all afford to pay for health care out of our pockets? Meaning that Insurance was not even needed?

[ABQCOWBOY]

You define the root of the health care problems in this country as a lack of health care access and coverage.

Wouldn't the problem be solved if we could all afford to pay for health care out of our pockets? Meaning that Insurance was not even needed?

Would seem like a reasonable way to go about things wouldn't it? Maybe the Government's role in a situation like that would be catastrophic health care issues.

No, too reasonable, no good reason to cut deals or add pork. Would never work.

[Hailskinz1991]

Would seem like a reasonable way to go about things wouldn't it? Maybe the Government's role in a situation like that would be catastrophic health care issues.

No, too reasonable, no good reason to cut deals or add pork. Would never work.

Yeah, exactly! I think that insurance itself has caused the cost of health care to rise...I know some people that go to the Dr. if they sneeze!!! Ridiculous. You know, you can buy a Iphone for less money than getting a mole cut off!!! Apple has to compete with other companies to offer you a better product that you will want to buy. Under a 3rd party payer system, no one is competing on price! Its insane!!

[Fergasun]

Baculus,

I truly am trying to be independent. I know it is unorthodox to say I support both a single-payer system and an ultra-free-market type of system... I mean I think both of those are the optimum solution to the problem in my mind. By that I mean both of them will work to get rid of the health insurance companies: one by making them cut-throat competitors; and the other by simply co-opting their business.

Things I don't like about our healthcare system:

- You don't get charged differently when you order a hamburger from McDonald's, yet when you go to a hospital they will charge you differently.

- You should be able to choose any plan offered in your state, ie. if a plan is offered to a group in one company, it should be offered to others.

- Health care is a more important factor in many job decisions (ie. want to start a small business? Get ready to pay 70% more for health care).

But here's a complaint I have about the Democrat bill. Let's say there is a public exchange like the FEHB. Won't it simply mean that the currently cheapest health care plans will simply go into the FEHB, and then the expensive plans will be outside of the government exchange?

[chipwhich]

Things I don't like about our healthcare system:

- You don't get charged differently when you order a hamburger from McDonald's, yet when you go to a hospital they will charge you differently.

- You should be able to choose any plan offered in your state, ie. if a plan is offered to a group in one company, it should be offered to others.

- Health care is a more important factor in many job decisions (ie. want to start a small business? Get ready to pay 70% more for health care).

This post is so off I don't even know where to begin. And I am not on the Baculus bandwagon as he wants to provide health insurance to the poor with a $15,000 deductible even though the costs are minimal.

Health care costs are the same across the board for GROUP policies. It simply comes down to AVERAGE AGE of employee. A hospital charges the same price to everyone, it comes down to what the insurance companies will reimburse for everyone. Regardless...given equal policies...any age group gets the same benefit to pay to the hospital given the chosen insurance policy.

Choosing a plan. You are oversimplifying. If my company chooses a $15 deductible, and yours a $20 deductible....it means NOTHING. Health Insurance is sold cafeteria style. If my company has a cheaper deductible for SOME services, it doesn't make it a better or worse plan for companys with HIGHER deductibles. It's too complicated to explain in a paragraph.

Starting a small business doesn't mean 70% higher premiums. You are just spewing uninformed nonsense.

Of course Baculus does uninformed nonsense all the time.

[Fergasun]

Perfect example!

My wife had to take my son to the ER due to really high fever (what can you do in middle of night and you are freaked out mom?). The hospital sent us a bill as uninsured.

The bill: $288.00

They just corrected the claim and added my insurance.

The bill: $454.00

Due to my deductible and coinsurance payment I'll have to pay *more* than if I went there as uninsured.

I believe this is called "fraud", no? I've started tracking how much I pay and how much my insurance pays in order to see if I get my money back from premium payments.

[Fergasun]

A hospital charges the same price to everyone, it comes down to what the insurance companies will reimburse for everyone.

I have to strongly object. The hospital just billed me as uninsured, realized I had insurance and sent the claim through my insurance company. Going through my insurance they marked up the bill by $160+.

How do you explain that?

[twa]

I believe this is called "fraud", no? I've started tracking how much I pay and how much my insurance pays in order to see if I get my money back from premium payments.

Probably more along the lines of negotiated reimbursements,the ins negotiating different allowable charges is not fraud,just business.

I would suggest a HSA and a high ded plan to eliminate a lot of that bs,but that appears to be about to be ****ed over.

You can of course negotiate with the hospital yourself and usually lower the bills,though results vary.

Irritating as hell though ain't it?

[Hubbs]

Perfect example!

My wife had to take my son to the ER due to really high fever (what can you do in middle of night and you are freaked out mom?). The hospital sent us a bill as uninsured.

The bill: $288.00

They just corrected the claim and added my insurance.

The bill: $454.00

Due to my deductible and coinsurance payment I'll have to pay *more* than if I went there as uninsured.

I believe this is called "fraud", no? I've started tracking how much I pay and how much my insurance pays in order to see if I get my money back from premium payments.

That's just craziness.

[Baculus]

Perfect example!

My wife had to take my son to the ER due to really high fever (what can you do in middle of night and you are freaked out mom?). The hospital sent us a bill as uninsured.

The bill: $288.00

They just corrected the claim and added my insurance.

The bill: $454.00

Due to my deductible and coinsurance payment I'll have to pay *more* than if I went there as uninsured.

I believe this is called "fraud", no? I've started tracking how much I pay and how much my insurance pays in order to see if I get my money back from premium payments.

Sorry man.