Senate Clears Way for Vote on Healthcare before Christmas

[Gawain 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

...and here we go...

I blame one person. Sen. Snowe (RINO-ME). While I appreciate he vote in committee to allow debate on this issue, I really don't see how she could not have known this would come down to party line votes, and ram-rodding the whole issue down our throats.

60-40.

When this thing shits the bed, there won't be any need to point fingers across the aisle.

This is $1Tr to be spent with a host of tax increases.

I understand your support for such notions. However, let's look at some realities:

-- If you're in a union, and your CBA has secured you a host of very good benefits, you're going to lose them or you're going to pay more for them, why? Because the taxes on "Cadillac" plans go up.
-- If you insure your family, you're going to have to decrease your coverage or pay more for it, why? Because the tax on "Cadillac" plans is based on cost, not coverage.
-- If you own/run a small business, you're going to have to decrease your coverage (possibly against the law of the new bill), pay more for the coverage you have, or decrease your headcount to cover the cost of the coverage through your provider or through the government co-op.
-- If you're old and on medicare, you're in for a whole bunch of surprises
-- If you're on medicare plus, start shopping for coverages because medicare plus is decimated under these provisions.

Of course these bills are loaded with pork as well, to help cushion the blow to those that would lose their seat next November.

So, my company will be bringing on quite a few employees next year. Of the critical components are medical benefits. Do I take the Dave Ramsey approach and offer nothing, or do I adopt a plan that I "hope" makes the grade on these train-wreck laws that are about to be reconciled and voted on.

I've still to find any real answers to how this affects my coverages through the VA. Sen. Reid's bill is 300 pages fatter now and the references to VA all point to HHS, and HHS points back to VA.

It's a shell game folks.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[riddler 0]

Quote

When this thing shits the bed, there won't be any need to point fingers across the aisle.

This is $1Tr to be spent with a host of tax increases.

I understand your support for such notions. However, let's look at some realities:

-- If you're in a union, you're screwed.
-- If you insure your family, you're screwed.
-- If you own/run a small business, you're screwed.
-- If you're old and on medicare, you're screwed.
-- If you're on medicare plus, you're screwed.

Prophecies of Doom. Both parties hold responsibility for a party-line vote. In any case, where were the prophecies of doom when the Republicans passed Graham-Leach-Bliley, the act that deregulated banking, and caused the huge financial mess we have now?

I own a small business, and I'm not afraid. For the last eight years, my coverage has gone up while my benefits have gone down, and I don't expect any different if the government reforms health care. It's true to say that the cost of healthcare will increase, because the cost of everything increases. It's not necessarily true to say that benefits will decrease, if an additional 30 million uninsured people get healthcare they never had.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[Amazon 7]

Quote

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

...and here we go...

I blame one person. Sen. Snowe (RINO-ME). While I appreciate he vote in committee to allow debate on this issue, I really don't see how she could not have known this would come down to party line votes, and ram-rodding the whole issue down our throats.

60-40.

When this thing shits the bed, there won't be any need to point fingers across the aisle.

This is $1Tr to be spent with a host of tax increases.

I understand your support for such notions. However, let's look at some realities:

-- If you're in a union, and your CBA has secured you a host of very good benefits, you're going to lose them or you're going to pay more for them, why? Because the taxes on "Cadillac" plans go up.
-- If you insure your family, you're going to have to decrease your coverage or pay more for it, why? Because the tax on "Cadillac" plans is based on cost, not coverage.
-- If you own/run a small business, you're going to have to decrease your coverage (possibly against the law of the new bill), pay more for the coverage you have, or decrease your headcount to cover the cost of the coverage through your provider or through the government co-op.
-- If you're old and on medicare, you're in for a whole bunch of surprises
-- If you're on medicare plus, start shopping for coverages because medicare plus is decimated under these provisions.

Of course these bills are loaded with pork as well, to help cushion the blow to those that would lose their seat next November.

So, my company will be bringing on quite a few employees next year. Of the critical components are medical benefits. Do I take the Dave Ramsey approach and offer nothing, or do I adopt a plan that I "hope" makes the grade on these train-wreck laws that are about to be reconciled and voted on.

I've still to find any real answers to how this affects my coverages through the VA. Sen. Reid's bill is 300 pages fatter now and the references to VA all point to HHS, and HHS points back to VA.

It's a shell game folks.

Oh yes.. the party line vote is FAR more important than actually helping all the people who do not have the coverage that the PEOPLE have provided you. Get over it Max... people deserve to have a better system than the current cluster fuck that does nothing but rip people off on a daily basis.

[normiss 917]

But this "reform" is nothing more than requiring people by law to purchase something they cannot currently afford in the first place!
Small businesses will reduce headcount to be able to provide coverage if they aren't already providing it.

"Reform"...bullshit.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

But this "reform" is nothing more than requiring people by law to purchase something they cannot currently afford in the first place!
Small businesses will reduce headcount to be able to provide coverage if they aren't already providing it.

"Reform"...bullshit.

I did it for a couple companies I started.. it was called BUSINESS EXPENSE and was a tax write off. PLUS it was the right thing to do for the people working for me

[billvon 3,176]

>But this "reform" is nothing more than requiring people by law to purchase
>something they cannot currently afford in the first place!

So first it did too much. And then it was cut back and cut back to appease republican (and democratic) moderates - and now it does too little and people are bitching about it. Why am I not surprised?

[normiss 917]

Were it a complete write off, you might get business behind it. Apercentage is still an impact to the bottom line.

Bill, I agree...but simply passing a law requiring people to purchase insurance is not reform.
Or maybe I misunderstand the term....

Either way...do you really think this is a fix?

[billvon 3,176]

>Either way...do you really think this is a fix?

Nope. It solves a few of the current problems with healthcare but introduces others, and does not solve a very basic problem of caring for the people who are determined not to get healthcare coverage. (Or to be more accurate, nothing will change for such people.)

On the plus side, more people will have coverage and people will not be denied based on pre-existing conditions. That solves at least one problem with the current system.

It's unfortunate that republicans in general absolutely refused to compromise on anything. (Indeed, the ones who were willing to reach across the aisle were crucified.) Their obstinacy resulted in a weak bill that doesn't do much. It's also unfortunate that democrats spent so much effort appeasing them, instead of getting a more effective bill through.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

In any case, where were the prophecies of doom when the Republicans passed Graham-Leach-Bliley, the act that deregulated banking, and caused the huge financial mess we have now?

Actually, GBL had strong bipartisan support, despite being sponsored by Republicans. However, it was not without its "prophecies of doom."

Well, I mean, it does precious little to say I told you so, but this was 10 years ago on the floor of the U.S. Senate. At the time, I said I thought it was a huge mistake and, you know, I was critical of the Clinton administration and critical of the Republicans in Congress who were pushing it.

But what I said is I think within a decade we're going to see massive taxpayer bailouts. I didn't necessarily know that for sure but it turns out my prognostication was a pretty expensive lesson. Because it made no sense that we should repeal Glass-Steagall and the protections that were put in place after the Great Depression.

And the result of that, in my judgment, was to steer this economy into the ditch and cause a significant economic wreck that's going to take us some time to get out of.
…
Well, but let me just say to you that the legislation that was passed by the Congress was called Gramm-Leach-Bliley - all three Republicans. Phil Gramm - those three Republicans led the approach. It was Republican legislation but warmly embraced by President Clinton, Secretary of Treasury Rubin and so on.

But I was one of eight U.S. senators that went to the floor of the Senate repeatedly in opposition to what they were doing. And, you know, as I said, I made some prognostications and say if we do this we're going to see massive taxpayer bailouts in the future.

And unfortunately, that has been the case.

W/r/t health care reform, it is badly needed. I wish there had not been so much resistance to more substantive reform.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[normiss 917]

I'll say BOTH sides are at fault.


The ones refusing to purchase healthcare have a real issue with trying to justify the cost when they CAN get free care. Albeit at the expense of other's money as well as their own credit rating.

[kallend 2,230]

Quote

I'll say BOTH sides are at fault.


The ones refusing to purchase healthcare have a real issue with trying to justify the cost when they CAN get free care. Albeit at the expense of other's money as well as their own credit rating.

Since we pay for freeloaders anyway, I'd suggest that doing it in an organized way is likely to be more efficient and fair than the ad-hoc and chaotic way that we do it right now.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Since we pay for freeloaders anyway, I'd suggest that doing it in an organized way is likely to be more efficient and fair than the ad-hoc and chaotic way that we do it right now.

The question then becomes is this new legislation actually a more efficient and organized manner? Given how it was contentiously debated and recrafted each hour to try to get past a fillibuster, I'm not terribly confident in the quality of the bill. In addition to the direct debt increase this bill represents, how much vote buying costs do we get along with it?

[normiss 917]

So locking people up for non-compliance is acceptible?
I don't see FORCING poor people to comply with something they simply cannot afford as being in any way efficient nor fair.
Agreed it IS fucked up now though.

Until we can remove some of the liability costs, we'll never get the costs down overall. Humans make mistakes, get used to it. Making lawyers rich is no way to settle that.

[billvon 3,176]

>So locking people up for non-compliance is acceptible?

Yes. I don't like paying for the war, but if I don't, they'll lock me up. Welcome to the US.

>I don't see FORCING poor people to comply with something they
>simply cannot afford as being in any way efficient nor fair.

Yes, the public option would have been a better choice there.

[kallend 2,230]

Quote

So locking people up for non-compliance is acceptible?
I don't see FORCING poor people to comply with something they simply cannot afford as being in any way efficient nor fair.
Agreed it IS fucked up now though.

Blame the GOP for gutting that part of the bill, then.

Quote

Until we can remove some of the liability costs, we'll never get the costs down overall. Humans make mistakes, get used to it. Making lawyers rich is no way to settle that.

The DATA show that liability adds about 0.5% to the cost of health care. Liability cost is a big Republican red herring.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 917]

Depends on how that data is massaged.
The doctors I've talked to in Florida, not including the ones that left due to the inability to afford liability insurance, all say it is their single biggest expense.

I'd love to see us all stop pointing fingers. I could care less who precisely is the "bad guy". It will take a concerted effort to get this resolved. WTF do we have to make everything a damn battle?

[billvon 3,176]

>I'd love to see us all stop pointing fingers. I could care less who
>precisely is the "bad guy". It will take a concerted effort to get this
>resolved.

Absolutely. Unfortunately, the republicans have been trying to make it all about the "bad guy" ("socialist" "Obama's death panels" etc) for months now. I would love to see a republican leader say something positive about the efforts to create this bill.

[normiss 917]

Well hello Mr. Kettle.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Were it a complete write off, you might get business behind it. Apercentage is still an impact to the bottom line.

Bill, I agree...but simply passing a law requiring people to purchase insurance is not reform.
Or maybe I misunderstand the term....

Either way...do you really think this is a fix?

It seemed to work for getting and keeping more qualified people.. and the fact that they did not abuse the system helped. There was less absenteeism... since overall they seemed to miraculously get healthier since there was preventative medicine at work.

[riddler 0]

Quote

So locking people up for non-compliance is acceptible?

Technically, people can be locked up for driving without car insurance. Not very often that it actually happens. I think it'll be a lot less likely that it will happen if people refuse to purchase healthcare. But it's good that everyone is forced to do the right thing, because given the choice, many people will choose to do the wrong thing.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[normiss 917]

Makes me salivate at the next government decision of what's best for me.


Forcing someone to buy something they cannot afford prior to the law, will not change when it is law. Any guesses to how under-employed we are as a nation right now?

[billvon 3,176]

>Forcing someone to buy something they cannot afford prior to the law, will not
>change when it is law.

We've been "forcing" people to buy houses for decades now. Generally has worked OK.

[normiss 917]

Odd, I've missed that one.
I know plenty of folks that live in rentals, campers, tents, I also see a sizable portion that live in projects of even under overpasses.
Looks like we need to incarcerate more of our population.

[billvon 3,176]

>I know plenty of folks that live in rentals, campers, tents, I also see a
>sizable portion that live in projects of even under overpasses.
>Looks like we need to incarcerate more of our population.

Not at all! As long as they pay the tax penalty incurred with not having a home to deduct, no jail required. But if they refuse to pay the penalty, they will indeed end up in jail. (Try it yourself!)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Forcing someone to buy something they cannot afford prior to the law, will not
>change when it is law.

We've been "forcing" people to buy houses for decades now. Generally has worked OK.

Really, I am pretty sure that is what started the crap we are in now.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln