Do you think health care reform will pass?

[ABQCOWBOY]

You just reposted the same article from yesterday. Where is this being reported as fact today?

You folks have to do better than this.

I don't have to do better for you at all. I simply posted a link that could be posted as neutral instead of the rhetoric associated with the Huffington Link you posted. Read it or don't. It doesn't matter to me.

[aREDSKIN]

No media source, after yesterday, has reported the GOP claims.

As I said yesterday, I don't trust the GOP, and with good reason. They will say anything in this debate to defeat reform.

Once again I point you to post #146 in which Lawrence O'Donnell, who is a well known democratic activist and MSNBC contributor, hardly a GOP boogieman type you keep harping on, specifically refers to the parliamentarian ruling. Your frequent absolutest assertions demonstrates your biased perception. But that's clear in this thread.

[Baculus]

Baculus, I keep reading your name as Baucus and I'm like no freaking way man

Aha!

At least you are not reading it as "Bacillus."

[SkinsHokieFan]

As a side note, there is a debate to be had whether it's better to have a government-run health care or corporation-run health care.

How about neither?

And in particular, how about not having government give funds for corporate run health care.

I am with Fergusan on this one, which is get rid of the middle man. Having the government funnel billions to insurance companies (have you been watching the stocks of major health insurers?) is not reform in my book, its as terrible as Medicare Part D, and only growing the corporate-government evil axis which has grown substantially the past decade.

That is going in the exact opposite direction we should be going in

[Baculus]

Once again I point you to post #146 in which Lawrence O'Donnell, who is a well known democratic activist and MSNBC contributor, hardly a GOP boogieman type you keep harping on, specifically refers to the parliamentarian ruling. Your frequent absolutest assertions demonstrates your biased perception. But that's clear in this thread.

Absolutist? Ho-ho, that is funny, coming from you.

Also, why don't you post the contents of his text? Sorry, but I don't feel like trawling through the comments section to prove your point.

You know what is absolutist? The frequent attacks by the GOP, over the last seventy years, of health care reform as "communist." Or any of the other GOP bogeymen they have been throwing out for decades.

[Baculus]

I don't have to do better for you at all. I simply posted a link that could be posted as neutral instead of the rhetoric associated with the Huffington Link you posted. Read it or don't. It doesn't matter to me.

Oh, the snark is strong with this one!

Color me unconvinced.

[Baculus]

BTW, no one is taking me up on my questions?

(1) Members of Congress have government health care. How come it's adequate for them, and not for us? Are we going to ask Eric Cantor, John Boehner, and Michelle Bachmann to drop their coverage, seeing how they are participating in an "evil" system?

Is that a bit hypocritical? Especially when they enjoy the benefits of a truly socialized health care system, the military's TriCare system, when they visit military hospitals?

(2) How come the GOP were not concerned about deficits and debts when they support trillions in spending, via tax cuts and wars? Where were the fiscal hawks at that time?

[Baculus]

How about neither?

And in particular, how about not having government give funds for corporate run health care.

I am with Fergusan on this one, which is get rid of the middle man. Having the government funnel billions to insurance companies (have you been watching the stocks of major health insurers?) is not reform in my book, its as terrible as Medicare Part D, and only growing the corporate-government evil axis which has grown substantially the past decade.

That is going in the exact opposite direction we should be going in

Any other reform mechanism has been shot down -- it is sad.

Personally, I was very interested in the idea of health cooperatives, I idea that I thought the Republicans would support. But what did the GOP call this proposal when it was thrown out?

"More socialism."

[ABQCOWBOY]

Oh, the snark is strong with this one!

Color me unconvinced.

As you wish.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/23/jon-kyl/polls-show-public-dubious-current-health-care-prop/

[TheLongshot]

As you wish.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/23/jon-kyl/polls-show-public-dubious-current-health-care-prop/

I think a lot of people don't like watching sausage get made. I also tend to agree with one premise in that article:

Democratic analysts have claimed that some of the opposition to health care found in the poll numbers comes from Democrats who believe the current proposals don't go far enough. That may be so, but we're not ruling on that here.

There are plenty of progressives who are frustrated that we are only getting half a loaf here. Then again, that is the process of sausage getting made in that compromises get made.

[Baculus]

As you wish.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/23/jon-kyl/polls-show-public-dubious-current-health-care-prop/

What does that have to do with the parliamentary verbal statement?

Regarding that poll, I believe there is a gap between what the public knows and what they support. In the manner the GOP have presented this bill, as a "government takeover," yes, the public has waned on their support. This is partially the fault of the Democrats, and a lack of communication on their part. But part of the problem are the millions spent by the anti-reform movement, including Fox News, on a misinformation blitz to scare the dickens out of Main Street.

It has worked, to a large degree.

I was trying to find a recent poll which shows that the public supports reform, period, but all the polls, from the last month, are concerning the Democratic bill(s). It is hard to fight against the corporate world, whose concern is most certainly not the American public. Personally, that isn't the side with whom I want to share, but that is just me.

Americans are confused, scared, especially in these economic times, and it is rather shameful how the anti-reformers have exploited that. They have exploited the public to work against their own interests.

It is sad.

[Baculus]

BTW, no one is taking me up on my questions?

(1) Members of Congress have government health care. How come it's adequate for them, and not for us? Are we going to ask Eric Cantor, John Boehner, and Michelle Bachmann to drop their coverage, seeing how they are participating in an "evil" system?

Is that a bit hypocritical? Especially when they enjoy the benefits of a truly socialized health care system, the military's TriCare system, when they visit military hospitals?

(2) How come the GOP were not concerned about deficits and debts when they support trillions in spending, via tax cuts and wars? Where were the fiscal hawks at that time?

I didn't think I would get any answers on this. It is a bit awkward for the anti-reformers to answer.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think a lot of people don't like watching sausage get made. I also tend to agree with one premise in that article:

There are plenty of progressives who are frustrated that we are only getting half a loaf here. Then again, that is the process of sausage getting made in that compromises get made.

Perhaps, but the fact of the matter is that the large majority of people in this Country don't want this Bill. You can say that it's Far Left, or whatever, the fact remains that they don't want it. If this were single payer, I'd imagine that the numbers would probably be about the same but instead of progressives being pissed, it would be those who are against single payer.

The people don't want this. At the end of the day, that's where we are at.

[aREDSKIN]

Absolutist? Ho-ho, that is funny, coming from you.

Also, why don't you post the contents of his text? Sorry, but I don't feel like trawling through the comments section to prove your point.

You know what is absolutist? The frequent attacks by the GOP, over the last seventy years, of health care reform as "communist." Or any of the other GOP bogeymen they have been throwing out for decades.

LOL, it's a video, you know, with pictures and sound. You should try it sometimes it's really kool. As I and many suspected your interested in only your partisan point of view. Sobeit.

[shk75]

Perhaps, but the fact of the matter is that the large majority of people in this Country don't want this Bill. You can say that it's Far Left, or whatever, the fact remains that they don't want it. If this were single payer, I'd imagine that the numbers would probably be about the same but instead of progressives being pissed, it would be those who are against single payer.

The people don't want this. At the end of the day, that's where we are at.

I think the real issue is that a vast majority of the public have no idea what the bill really entails and therefore i find it crazy that they can hate or lile it. Maybe they agree or disagree with the talking points on each side but lets not pretend they know what is going on

[ABQCOWBOY]

I didn't think I would get any answers on this. It is a bit awkward for the anti-reformers to answer.

Are you saying that under this plan, every American will have the same kind of coverage Congressman and women have?

I mean, it would be nice I suppose but I don't think that's the case. No matter, it's not question of what coverage is. It's a question of how you can sustain it and afford to pay it over the long term. Americans don't believe that it's sustainable. That's the real problem IMO. If we could afford to provide caddy health care for everybody on this planet, I would be OK with that because why would you not want to help people when you can? The fact is that we can't afford to do that so it's not something that I can support.

Now, maybe you can answer the CBO thing where we collect 10 years of taxes and provide 3 years of partial benefits and 3 years of full benefits and call it deficit neutral? I mean, we are still paying for Health Care for the 4 years this plan doesn't kick in. Why are those numbers not included?

[SkinsHokieFan]

I didn't think I would get any answers on this. It is a bit awkward for the anti-reformers to answer.

I can answer for number 2. There were plenty around, which is why conservatives had to be bribed to sign onto NCLB and Medicare Part D.

That doughnut hole in Medicare Part D, all to "contain costs and the deficit," because it is the dumbest damn idea I have heard in my life.

And to be quite frank, up until 2008, record deficits were 430 billion in a fiscal year. We hit 200 some odd billion in February alone. The numbers do not even compare at this time.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think the real issue is that a vast majority of the public have no idea what the bill really entails and therefore i find it crazy that they can hate or lile it. Maybe they agree or disagree with the talking points on each side but lets not pretend they know what is going on

Well, I would say that I agree with you on this. I find it unbelievable that anybody would be in support of a Bill that has yet to be presented to the American public. However, if the Bill that is being submitted is, in fact, the Senate Bill, then we do know what's in it and that Bill is not popular.

The real question, in my mind, is why the House would not just take a vote on it? I mean, why not just vote? It's either going to pass or it's not. If you have no regard for American popular opinion, then this thing should just be passed if the House is able and let the chips fall where they may.

Stop blaming the GOP, stop trying to backdoor the process by substituting a vote on a RULE instead of standing up and being counted on the actual vote for the Bill.

The economy is in dire need of attention and this Bill only takes away focus from that very important issue.

The Dems have a 75 seat advantage over the GOP. Take a vote and deal with the consequences of that action, for better or worse.

[shk75]

I can answer for number 2. There were plenty around, which is why conservatives had to be bribed to sign onto NCLB and Medicare Part D.

That doughnut hole in Medicare Part D, all to "contain costs and the deficit," because it is the dumbest damn idea I have heard in my life.

And to be quite frank, up until 2008, record deficits were 430 billion in a fiscal year. We hit 200 some odd billion in February alone. The numbers do not even compare at this time.

Actually is was liberals who did not like medicare part D and conservatives who pushed it specifically President Bush

[SnyderShrugged]

Actually is was liberals who did not like medicare part D and conservatives who pushed it specifically President Bush

not real conservatives, only the neo-con sort

[TheLongshot]

Well, I would say that I agree with you on this. I find it unbelievable that anybody would be in support of a Bill that has yet to be presented to the American public. However, if the Bill that is being submitted is, in fact, the Senate Bill, then we do know what's in it and that Bill is not popular.

The real question, in my mind, is why the House would not just take a vote on it? I mean, why not just vote? It's either going to pass or it's not. If you have no regard for American popular opinion, then this thing should just be passed if the House is able and let the chips fall where they may.

Stop blaming the GOP, stop trying to backdoor the process by substituting a vote on a RULE instead of standing up and being counted on the actual vote for the Bill.

The economy is in dire need of attention and this Bill only takes away focus from that very important issue.

The Dems have a 75 seat advantage over the GOP. Take a vote and deal with the consequences of that action, for better or worse.

And I posted above that they are preparing to do that next week. BTW, the President also wants a vote on it soon.

[SnyderShrugged]

And I posted above that they are preparing to do that next week. BTW, the President also wants a vote on it soon.

Not before the house votes to change reconciliation rules so they dont break their own law.

[shk75]

not real conservatives, only the neo-con sort

Maybe so but the real reason the liberals hated it was the doughnut hole however they feared losing the senior vote and if they rejected drug benefits they thought the right would destroy them so they passed the bill with hopes of amending coverage im the future with such policies as medigap

[ABQCOWBOY]

And I posted above that they are preparing to do that next week. BTW, the President also wants a vote on it soon.

I have not seen any time table confirmed on this. I've only heard Pelosi say that they would move on it when they were ready to do so.

[Baculus]

Are you saying that under this plan, every American will have the same kind of coverage Congressman and women have?

Probably not the same level of care, but they will participate in a similiar system, using an exchange (which is something I discussed yesterday).

But you are totally deviating from the point, and probably with reason. I will ask again: Is it hypocritical for members of Congress to attack government regulated or managed health care as "socialistic" when they themselves use such a system? Because, over and over again, the GOP have told us that such a system is communism, but they themselves use it.

Why? Isn't that hypocritical?

Are you going to spin another answer away from this rather straight-forward question?

I mean, it would be nice I suppose but I don't think that's the case. No matter, it's not question of what coverage is. It's a question of how you can sustain it and afford to pay it over the long term. Americans don't believe that it's sustainable. That's the real problem IMO. If we could afford to provide caddy health care for everybody on this planet, I would be OK with that because why would you not want to help people when you can? The fact is that we can't afford to do that so it's not something that I can support.

No one ever suggested the notion of providing Cadillac-level care for everyone. This is distorting the argument at hand.

Here is one of the issues: Many people use emergency room resources for general care. This is expensive. Terribly expensive. It would be much more cost effective if these people could visit a primary care physician for lesser ailments instead of a hospital ER visit.

Of course, this issue is never addressed by anti-reformers.

Now, maybe you can answer the CBO thing where we collect 10 years of taxes and provide 3 years of partial benefits and 3 years of full benefits and call it deficit neutral? I mean, we are still paying for Health Care for the 4 years this plan doesn't kick in. Why are those numbers not included?

Ask the CBO.

If you come up with the answer, I will take a look at it.

BTW, aren't we glad the GOP were as fiscally concerned about spending as the Democrats are on this bill? Oh wait. They weren't.