Health care Bill- ? How do we pay for this?

[bane]

You're right. It wasn't a major issue for them. It isn't a major concern for most of their constituents either. Most conservatives are happy with what they have now and aren't thrilled about giving even more of their paychecks to Uncle Sam, so yeah, the repubs are doing exactly what they were elected to do. That said, McCain and the rest of the GOP know that we have to get health care spending under control before the baby boomers hit their golden years, so, the issue needed to be addressed eventually. Unfortunately, the dems didn't address it. They made it worse.

[Ugmo]

You're right. It wasn't a major issue for them. It isn't a major concern for most of their constituents either. Most conservatives are happy with what they have now and aren't thrilled about giving even more of their paychecks to Uncle Sam, so yeah, the repubs are doing exactly what they were elected to do. That said, McCain and the rest of the GOP know that we have to get health care spending under control before the baby boomers hit their golden years, so, the issue needed to be addressed eventually. Unfortunately, the dems didn't address it. They made it worse.

Again, first of all the bill hasn't even been finalized yet, so I don't see how you can make that claim, and second, it's ridiculous to assert that the Democrats made things worse when the number one reason the Senate bill is so impotent is because the Republicans did their best to sabotage it.

In a perfect world the electorate would realize what a bunch of assholes the GOP lawmakers are and vote their asses the hell out of office in November. But the ultimate irony is that the Democrats will probably get punished for the Republicans' obstructionism.

I also don't really get the "it's not a major issue for them." It's one thing to not pursue a solution yourself, but it's quite another thing to do everything in your power to keep the other party from coming up with a solution. That goes beyond a lack of interest in the issue.

[JakeYonkel]

For the billionth time... the Republicans can't sabotage ANYTHING. They don't have the numbers to. It's the incompetency of the Democratic party. Don't blame the Repubs for that.

[Ugmo]

For the billionth time... the Republicans can't sabotage ANYTHING. They don't have the numbers to. It's the incompetency of the Democratic party. Don't blame the Repubs for that.

For the billion-and-first time, sure they did. Without the Republican fillibuster threat, the Senate bill is a lot stronger - FACT. Has absolutely nothing to do with incompetence. 40 obstructionist Republicans plus Joe Liebermann and a couple of other assholes = weak bill.

[bane]

For the billionth time... the Republicans can't sabotage ANYTHING. They don't have the numbers to. It's the incompetency of the Democratic party. Don't blame the Repubs for that.

For the billion-and-first time, sure they did. Without the Republican fillibuster threat, the Senate bill is a lot stronger - FACT. Has absolutely nothing to do with incompetence. 40 obstructionist Republicans plus Joe Liebermann and a couple of other assholes = weak bill.

"Without the filibuster"? That's hilarious. If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. The dems couldn't get it together. Period. This weak bill is the fault of the majority party. Period, end of story.

[Ugmo]

"Without the filibuster"? What the fuck ever dude. If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. The dems couldn't get it together. Period. This weak bill is the fault of the majority party. Period.

We are in bizarro world when you give the Republicans a pass for trying to fuck everything up for the Democrats and then blame the Democrats for fucking things up. I mean goddamn! This isn't some kind of game, or at least it shouldn't be. The end result is that we ended up with a weak Senate bill, and that is 80 percent due to the Republicans' selfishness and 20 percent due to Liebermann and a couple of assholes in the Democratic Party.

The bottom line is that if the Republicans don't threaten a fillibuster, the bill only needs a simple majority to pass, and nobody has to bribe Ben Nelson or kiss Joe Liebermann's ass. But your attitude for some reason is "Eh, just wasn't important to the Republicans." Oh, that's fine then, since it wasn't important to them it was okay for them to do everything in their power to prevent a solution that would have made a whole lot of people's lives better. What a bunch of fucking assholes. I thought in November 2008 that it wouldn't be possible for me to despise the Republican Party more than I already do, but apparently I was wrong.

[JakeYonkel]

Dude, in sports terms, you're blaming the bench players for blowing the game.

[Ugmo]

Dude, in sports terms, you're blaming the bench players for blowing the game.

You'll have to explain this analogy to me, because I don't understand what the fuck you're talking about dude!

[JakeYonkel]

People that have no effect on the outcome of the event! The Repubs CAN'T block anything! They're in the absolute minority in both Houses of Congress. Therefore if something fails how is it NOT the fault of the majority party?

All the Republicans can do is grandstand and piss and moan but ultimately they can do NOTHING to stop the Democrats from passing whatever the hell they choose.

[bane]

"Without the filibuster"? What the fuck ever dude. If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. The dems couldn't get it together. Period. This weak bill is the fault of the majority party. Period.

We are in bizarro world when you give the Republicans a pass for trying to fuck everything up for the Democrats and then blame the Democrats for fucking things up. I mean goddamn! This isn't some kind of game, or at least it shouldn't be. The end result is that we ended up with a weak Senate bill, and that is 80 percent due to the Republicans' selfishness and 20 percent due to Liebermann and a couple of assholes in the Democratic Party.

The bottom line is that if the Republicans don't threaten a fillibuster, the bill only needs a simple majority to pass, and nobody has to bribe Ben Nelson or kiss Joe Liebermann's ass. But your attitude for some reason is "Eh, just wasn't important to the Republicans." Oh, that's fine then, since it wasn't important to them it was okay for them to do everything in their power to prevent a solution that would have made a whole lot of people's lives better. What a bunch of fucking assholes. I thought in November 2008 that it wouldn't be possible for me to despise the Republican Party more than I already do, but apparently I was wrong.

With or without the filibuster threat, you'd still have to get the votes. The republicans weren't going to vote for that bill dude. Sorry. No fucking way. YOU think that bill will improve everyone's lives, but you're a liberal. The republicans were elected by people that don't feel the same way you do. They did exactly what they were elected to do. How is it their fault that the dems, the party with an absolute majority, the party with the numbers and the power to DO ANYTHING THEY FUCKING WANT TO DO WITH OR WITHOUT REPUBLICAN INPUT couldn't get on the same page? Your premise borders on the crazy Ugmo.

[Ugmo]

With or without the filibuster threat, you'd still have to get the votes. The republicans weren't going to vote for that bill dude. Sorry. No fucking way. YOU think that bill will improve everyone's lives, but you're a liberal. The republicans were elected by people that don't feel the same way you do. They did exactly what they were elected to do. How is it their fault that the dems, the party with an absolute majority, the party with the numbers and the power to DO ANYTHING THEY FUCKING WANT TO DO WITH OR WITHOUT REPUBLICAN INPUT couldn't get on the same page? Your premise borders on the crazy Ugmo.

Am I speaking Chinese or something? How is it difficult to understand the premise that if you only need 51 votes to pass a bill, the end result is going to be much different than if you need 60 votes to pass it?

Again, simple majority means you can tell Liebermann to fuck off, you can tell Ben Nelson to fuck off, you can with all likelihood include a public option, you can include a clause preventing insurers from barring patients with pre-existing conditions.

Look at the House bill: no fillibuster option, needed only a simple majority to pass, and it's a great bill. The Republicans are so goddamned spiteful that not only did they not contribute to health care reform, they actively sabotaged it by threatening the fillibuster.

And people keep going on about how "the Dems have the power do anything they want." That is ludicrous. No they don't, because to get anything through over a block of 40 obstructionist Republicans they have to get Liebermann to sign on. Liebermann. A guy who campaigned for McCain and Palin and is in the pocket of the insurance industry. In a fantasy world the Dems have the power to do anything they want. In reality they do not, and it is retarded to blame the Democratic Party in general and Harry Reid specifically for that.

[VinnieKulick]

Okay, answer me this.
The government wants to REQUIRE people to get insurance.
Joe Lieberman is "in the insurance company's pocket".
The Insurance companies will MAKE MONEY IF THEY HAVE 40 MILLION NEW Customers.

How is Lieberman fighting AGAINST somebody who supposedly controls him?

Just like "cash for clunkers" was all about giving the UAW more cash.

A few pages back, it was "there's no reform bill without Pharmacy" yet there CAN be reform without the insurance companies?



I don't think the government should have the ability to require me to PURCHASE goods and/or services. Period.


And, all this "the system is broken" talk is retarded as well. The majority of people in this country have health care, and are happy with what they have. And, you cannot be turned away at an ER because of inability to pay. So, nobody can really say that they can't get healthcare.

There is specific language in the bill that requires all policies to either mirror the government run public option (if it is included) OR meet guidelines set by the HHS. Now, IF there is no public option and the HHS is setting common sense regulation, then this is a GOOD idea. If the public option exists though, this limits insurers ability to run their business effectively, and causes a cost increase.

Not to mention, when you call for an appointment, how long is the wait to get in to get seen? Now, add thirty million new customers trying to get "free" services.
Don't think they will clog up the system? Ask any military member what the wait is at the Military Hospital's ER usually is, and what "emergencies" are bringing people to the ER. (a 99.2 'fever', a bruise on their leg, a cold making them have a runny nose).

And, if you think that the government limiting a doctors earning potential won't effect the their decision to stay in business, you're kidding yourself. How many doctors left Canada?

Plus, the government already controls how much doctors can charge already. They set the Medicare reimbursement rates, insurers set what they will pay relative to the Medicare rates.

And, I don't see the logic with cutting medicare spending, and then ADDING people to the program.
That's like barely being able to afford your daily needs, then going out and adopting two kids. It just makes no sense.


The solutions are simple, but won't result in a payday for insurers, or third party interests, AND won't get sweetheart deals for politicians.

Require companies to cover people regardless of preexisting conditions.
Require companies to provide insurance to people without, on a one policy for free per six policies written.
Offer tax incentives to the companies if they provide discount options to the under insured or the uninsured.
Let those who do not WANT to purchase insurance live their life without government intrusion.

That's the only real way to 'fix' this problem.






If you want reform, it's simple. Eliminate the insurance companies refusing to cover those with preexisting conditions by passing laws that specifically address this practice.

[VinnieKulick]

And people keep going on about how "the Dems have the power do anything they want." That is ludicrous. No they don't, because to get anything through over a block of 40 obstructionist Republicans they have to get Liebermann to sign on. Liebermann. A guy who campaigned for McCain and Palin and is in the pocket of the insurance industry. In a fantasy world the Dems have the power to do anything they want. In reality they do not, and it is retarded to blame the Democratic Party in general and Harry Reid specifically for that.

I guess you are unfamiliar with the Super Majority concept.
It's why Ben Nelson held out so long and got such a sweet deal for his state.
If you have 60% of the votes, you can end a filibuster with a call for cloture.

Which is why it's so funny to see the Dems flailing around like they are, because the DO have the 'power' to do as they please, but are hesitant to because their constituents are telling them that they will vote them out of office if they put this into law. It's not the evil republicans, or fox news, its the individuals in the states who are putting the politicians on notice that they work FOR us, not the other way around.

[JakeYonkel]

I don't think the government should have the ability to require me to PURCHASE goods and/or services. Period.

What are your thoughts on auto insurance?

[VinnieKulick]

I don't think the government should have the ability to require me to PURCHASE goods and/or services. Period.

What are your thoughts on auto insurance?

Apples and oranges.

If I CHOOSE to own a motor vehicle, and I CHOOSE to operate it, I can be required to buy insurance that PROTECTS OTHER PEOPLE if I happen to run them down while driving. Driving is a NOT a right. You must be granted the ability to drive a vehicle by the state.

Totally different than "you are alive, thus you must buy health care insurance".

[Ugmo]

And people keep going on about how "the Dems have the power do anything they want." That is ludicrous. No they don't, because to get anything through over a block of 40 obstructionist Republicans they have to get Liebermann to sign on. Liebermann. A guy who campaigned for McCain and Palin and is in the pocket of the insurance industry. In a fantasy world the Dems have the power to do anything they want. In reality they do not, and it is retarded to blame the Democratic Party in general and Harry Reid specifically for that.

I guess you are unfamiliar with the Super Majority concept.
It's why Ben Nelson held out so long and got such a sweet deal for his state.
If you have 60% of the votes, you can end a filibuster with a call for cloture.

Which is why it's so funny to see the Dems flailing around like they are, because the DO have the 'power' to do as they please, but are hesitant to because their constituents are telling them that they will vote them out of office if they put this into law. It's not the evil republicans, or fox news, its the individuals in the states who are putting the politicians on notice that they work FOR us, not the other way around.

LOL - no I'm not familiar with the super majority concept. Are you retarded Vinnie? Of course I'm familiar with the concept, but it only exists on paper. So the Dems have the power to "do as they please" - how is Harry Reid going to get Joe Liebermann to accept a public option when Liebermann doesn't want to? The way the super majority concept works is that if the minority party is hell bent on preventing anything from happening (as is currently the case), the majority party has to make all kinds of concessions to various factions in order to avert the threat of fillibuster. That's what's happening here. The Republicans are the small-tent party - 38 old white men and two old white women. They are very homogeneous, so it isn't that hard to get them to agree on something. It is much harder for the Democrats, especially considering that they only have a "super majority" because they caucus with guys like Joe Liebermann, who is against them much of the time.

Here is the part you are wrong about: the public was overwhelmingly in favor of the public option. Joe Liebermann's constituency is overwhelmingly in favor of it, but he scuttled it and is now incredibly unpopular in Connecticut. Thanks to the Republicans threatening the fillibuster and forcing the Democrats to make all kinds of concessions to people like Joe Liebermann to avert the fillibuster threat, the Senate has come up with a bill that is as unpopular with progressives as it is with conservatives.

Again, if the Republicans adopt a "we're not intersted in health care reform, but do as you please" attitude, the Democrats don't need to take Liebermann's and Ben Nelson's shit and they can come up with a plan that is popular among the public (as the House version is), because all they need is a simple majority to pass the bill. But when the Republicans take a "not only are we not interested in health care reform, we are also prepared to do everything in our power to either sabotage it or force you to water it down so that we can score points in the next election" attitude, everybody loses, because the Dems can only get 60 votes by caving in to assholes like Liebermann.

Why is this so hard to understand?

[Nevermind]

I don't think the government should have the ability to require me to PURCHASE goods and/or services. Period.

What are your thoughts on auto insurance?

You are not required to buy auto insurance. You can own and operate your own vehicle on you own property without having to buy insurance. You are certainly not threatened with fines and jail time if you don't purchase insurance.
As Vinnie said, even if you do choose to operate your vehicle on a public road, you are still only required to purchase insurance to cover someone else's car or their person, if you get in an accident. You are still not required by law to buy insurance to cover yourself.

[VinnieKulick]

LOL - no I'm not familiar with the super majority concept. Are you retarded Vinnie? Of course I'm familiar with the concept, but it only exists on paper.

So, having 60 senators, who can IF THEY WANT, push the bill through, is only on paper?
Stop blaming the GOP for the DEMS lack of unity.
It's not the GOP who are getting pro life Dems to vote against something if it pays for abortions.
It's not GOP who are getting dems to vote against something if it DOESN'T include a public option. Plain and simple.

So the Dems have the power to "do as they please" - how is Harry Reid going to get Joe Liebermann to accept a public option when Liebermann doesn't want to?

Joe Lieberman, the INDEPENDENT Senator? Perhaps bribing the shit out of him like he did the Louisiana senator, or the nebraska senator?
Why do you insist that it's Joe Lieberman's fault? I mean, you're blaming ONE GUY on 60 other people not being able to come to a consensus.

The way the super majority concept works is that if the minority party is hell bent on preventing anything from happening (as is currently the case), the majority party has to make all kinds of concessions to various factions in order to avert the threat of fillibuster.

Okay, who's retarded now?
In the United States Senate, a three-fifths majority is required to bring out a vote of cloture, to end a filibuster. It doesn't matter if all 40 dissenting voices will threaten a filibuster, if you have 60% of the vote, you can end a filibuster. Once you realize this, you can see how pathetic the "its the gop's fault" argument is.

That's what's happening here. The Republicans are the small-tent party - 38 old white men and two old white women. They are very homogeneous, so it isn't that hard to get them to agree on something. It is much harder for the Democrats, especially considering that they only have a "super majority" because they caucus with guys like Joe Liebermann, who is against them much of the time.

So, it's only old white people in the GOP? Michael Steele will be surprised to hear it.
Again, its funny how the minority has marginalized the majority. Blame Lieberman all you want, but if the plan was solid, he'd back it.

Here is the part you are wrong about: the public was overwhelmingly in favor of the public option. Joe Liebermann's constituency is overwhelmingly in favor of it, but he scuttled it and is now incredibly unpopular in Connecticut.

The 'majority' of Americans who support a public option includes an overwhelming number of senior citizens who already get federally funded healthcare.
Among those who would have to actually PAY for the system, the support isn't so grand.
Not to mention, supporting an OPTION to purchase a federally funded program, and actually setting up a Federally funded program are two different things.

Thanks to the Republicans threatening the fillibuster and forcing the Democrats to make all kinds of concessions to people like Joe Liebermann to avert the fillibuster threat, the Senate has come up with a bill that is as unpopular with progressives as it is with conservatives.

what was given up to secure Lieberman's vote?

Again, if the Republicans adopt a "we're not intersted in health care reform, but do as you please" attitude, the Democrats don't need to take Liebermann's and Ben Nelson's shit and they can come up with a plan that is popular among the public (as the House version is), because all they need is a simple majority to pass the bill. But when the Republicans take a "not only are we not interested in health care reform, we are also prepared to do everything in our power to either sabotage it or force you to water it down so that we can score points in the next election" attitude, everybody loses, because the Dems can only get 60 votes by caving in to assholes like Liebermann.

Just curious, which Republican Senators were invited to participate in the drafting of the bill..... Before you accuse them of NOT SUPPORTING SOMETHING and being obstructionists, maybe the fact that they were never consulted to begin with just MIGHT have something to do with it.

Also, some facts might be nice.
The GOP did offer something
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/05 ... ealth-gop5

AND, their proposal actually let people decide where/how to spend their money on health care.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/2 ... 05840.html


Why is this so hard to understand?[/quote]

[Ugmo]

Alright Vinnie, since you appear to be either illiterate or just plain retarded, I'm going to ask you a simple question:

Do you disagree that the Senate bill would have been stronger if the Republicans hadn't threatened to fillibuster?

[VinnieKulick]

Ugmo. Follow me on this.

The GOP cannot filibuster when you have 60 votes.

If Liberman was the only one who held up the process, you go to him and say "what will it take" and then craft the best bill you can while giving him what it will take to get HIS vote.
Then you present it, and pass it, with no regard to the GOP at all.

And "would it be as strong without GOP opposition" is ignoring half the population. Is that what our system is supposed to do?

[Ugmo]

Ugmo. Follow me on this.

The GOP cannot filibuster when you have 60 votes.

If Liberman was the only one who held up the process, you go to him and say "what will it take" and then craft the best bill you can while giving him what it will take to get HIS vote.
Then you present it, and pass it, with no regard to the GOP at all.

And "would it be as strong without GOP opposition" is ignoring half the population. Is that what our system is supposed to do?

You're looking at this like some kind of a game. "The Republicans had a good strategy and the Democrats were unable to overcome it." Fuck that. This is serious shit, not some goddamn game. The reality is that out of 40 Republican senators, not a single one of them was willing to do the right thing and help come up with a good bill. They obstructed progress every step of the way, for purely political reasons. And yes, a handful of Democrats also obstructed progress for political reasons, but 40 assholes on one side of the aisle trumps a handful of assholes on the other when it comes to assigning blame.

[VinnieKulick]

You're looking at this like some kind of a game. "The Republicans had a good strategy and the Democrats were unable to overcome it." Fuck that. This is serious shit, not some goddamn game. The reality is that out of 40 Republican senators, not a single one of them was willing to do the right thing and help come up with a good bill. They obstructed progress every step of the way, for purely political reasons. And yes, a handful of Democrats also obstructed progress for political reasons, but 40 assholes on one side of the aisle trumps a handful of assholes on the other when it comes to assigning blame.

And, you're looking at this like the GOP were included in the process, and just argued against everything, when it was Harry Reid meeting at the White House with Democratic "Leaders" trying to hammer this thing out.

You want them to play, but only by your rules. You don't allow them ANY input but think they should just go along with it anyway.

And, Lieberman wasn't the last holdout, was he? The lady from Louisiana and Ben Nelson from Nebraska were. What party are they? Why are you excusing THEM from the solidarity that would have overcome the GOP?
Even with Lieberman on board, you still couldn't get the rest of the DEMS on the same page, or at least to play along and work to get it 'right'.

[Ugmo]

And, you're looking at this like the GOP were included in the process, and just argued against everything, when it was Harry Reid meeting at the White House with Democratic "Leaders" trying to hammer this thing out.

You want them to play, but only by your rules. You don't allow them ANY input but think they should just go along with it anyway.

And, Lieberman wasn't the last holdout, was he? The lady from Louisiana and Ben Nelson from Nebraska were. What party are they? Why are you excusing THEM from the solidarity that would have overcome the GOP?
Even with Lieberman on board, you still couldn't get the rest of the DEMS on the same page, or at least to play along and work to get it 'right'.

When did this meeting take place? If you're talking about the September meeting, that was after the Republicans spent the entire summer trying to sabotage health care reform. Seriously, how much longer should the Dems have spent trying to get the Republicans to agree to something? Look, I've already stated that I don't for a second believe the Republicans were interested in cooperating on this. They looked at this thing as an opportunity to deal a blow to Obama. Let's call this like it is.

We're discussing this in a couple of different threads, but I gave Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieau plenty of shit in the other thread. And Liebermann wasn't the last hold out because he had already gotten what he wanted prior to that. And like I said, sure it pisses me off that a handful of Democrats acted like assholes for their own selfish purposes. But it pisses me off even more that an entire party acted like assholes for purely political reasons.

[bane]

And "would it be as strong without GOP opposition" is ignoring half the population. Is that what our system is supposed to do?

I think that statement does a very good job of summing up the one thing you keep ignoring Ugmo.

[Ugmo]

And "would it be as strong without GOP opposition" is ignoring half the population. Is that what our system is supposed to do?

I think that statement does a very good job of summing up the one thing you keep ignoring Ugmo.

I don't understand the statement. Half the population... what?

Fact is the GOP chose not to contribute to anything because they wanted to score a political victory against Obama.

[bane]

The fact that about half the population doesn't want the type of reform the dems are touting.

[VinnieKulick]

When did this meeting take place? If you're talking about the September meeting, that was after the Republicans spent the entire summer trying to sabotage health care reform.

December. http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleid=529993
Another one scheduled for this week, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama- ... _news_stmp

We're discussing this in a couple of different threads, but I gave Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieau plenty of shit in the other thread. And Liebermann wasn't the last hold out because he had already gotten what he wanted prior to that.

But, you still come in and point fingers at Lieberman, even though he's on board, and it was two DEMS who were dragging their feet, making a filibuster possible.

[Ugmo]

the type of reform the dems are touting.

What exactly do you mean by that? The public solidly supports a public option, universal health care, prohibiting ensurers from turning down patients with pre-existing conditions and even a mandate in conjunction with a public option.

Are you talking about the current Senate bill? If so, yeah, pretty much everyone hates it. We've been over that. That doesn't qualify as what the Democrats are touting because it was a horrible compromise necessitated by Republican obstruction and selfishness on the part of some Democrats.

[bane]

No, they don't. Check your numbers dude. There is a majority, yes, the last poll I read was something like 60/40. It runs pretty close to party lines.

[lerxstcat]

No, they don't. Check your numbers dude. There is a majority, yes, the last poll I read was something like 60/40. It runs pretty close to party lines.

Right, and this republic is designed to operate on majority rule. 60/40 means that 50% MORE people want this reform than are against it.

So at what pont should the minority dictate terms to the majority? 10%?