Health Care Debate: No Filibuster 60-39
Posted by Joe Rivett on 11.22.2009
This just in: there will be a debate on health care reform...
The senate decided to give the Democrats health care vote a chance to be debated and eventually receive an up or down vote. Since Reid was able to muster up 60 votes, I'm sure he'll have no problem finding 50 to vote for the bill. I found a good summary of the bill on electoralvote.com. My thoughts are in bold…
• Insurance exchanges will be set up in 2014 to help the uninsured get coverage.
• A public option will be available on these exchanges. I like options
• Anyone below 133% of the federal poverty line will be eligible for Medicaid. I actually know people that quit a job to get Medicaid so hopefully this will steer people away from doing this. I'd rather see the number not as high as states have to deal with a Medicaid burden along with the Feds.
• Anyone between 133% and 300% of the poverty line will get subsidies to buy insurance. This is reasonable given that most families that make 60,000 live paycheck to paycheck
• Insurance companies will be required to accept all new customers, even with preexisting conditions. If I get sick and change jobs, I like this.
• Annual and lifetime limits on coverage will be prohibited. I hate that I am limited to how many visits I can see a medical specialist so I dig this
• Insurance companies will be forbidden from canceling policies when a person got sick. The whole point of insurance is to protect you in case you do get sick.
• Insurance companies will not be allowed to charge sick people more than healthy people. I disagree with this. I see nothing wrong in charging a fat person or smoker more just as GEICO charges you more if you get speeding tickets and DWIs.
• Employers with more than 50 employees will be fined for not providing health insurance. If you are fortunate to have a business with more than 50 people, you can afford to OFFER insurance.
• Small businesses will receive tax credits to help them buy insurance for their employees. That is nice of the government
• Uninsured individuals will be fined $750 per year. This will actually increase the profits of the insurance companies as people who decline are theoretically healthy.
• Children will be allowed to stay on their parents' policies until age 26. That would have been nice when I graduated college and had a job that didn't provide insurance, oh well better late than never.
The Republicans are going to fire back with it being too costly despite the fact it extends the life of Medicare (by raising the Medicare tax on top earners), doesn't do anything against junk lawsuits (which I'm sure if were added, Republicans would still vote Nay), and will lead to a government takeover of medicine (which I agree with).
I get annoyed when Republicans complain about the costs. Bruce Bartlett (a conservative) wrote a piece for Forbes about how he was dismayed that the Republicans passed Medicare Part D with no plan to pay for the 80-90 billion dollar a year cost. That's right, Republicans expanded Socialized medicine and didn't even have the guts to pay for it. Keep in mind that in 2003 the Bush Administration was projecting 2004 to be the worst deficit in the history of the US. Barlett writes:
Even with a deceptively low estimate of the drug benefit's cost, there were still a few Republicans in the House of Representatives who wouldn't roll over and play dead just to buy re-election. Consequently, when the legislation came up for its final vote on Nov. 22, 2003, it was failing by 216 to 218 when the standard 15-minute time allowed for voting came to an end.
What followed was one of the most extraordinary events in congressional history. The vote was kept open for almost three hours while the House Republican leadership brought massive pressure to bear on the handful of principled Republicans who had the nerve to put country ahead of party. The leadership even froze the C-SPAN cameras so that no one outside the House chamber could see what was going on.
Among those congressmen strenuously pressed to change their vote was Nick Smith, R-Mich., who later charged that several members of Congress attempted to virtually bribe him, by promising to ensure that his son got his seat when he retired if he voted for the drug bill. One of those members, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, was later admonished by the House Ethics Committee for going over the line in his efforts regarding Smith.
Eventually, the arm-twisting got three Republicans to switch their votes from nay to yea: Ernest Istook of Oklahoma, Butch Otter of Idaho and Trent Franks of Arizona. Three Democrats also switched from nay to yea and two Republicans switched from yea to nay, for a final vote of 220 to 215. In the end, only 25 Republicans voted against the budget-busting drug bill. (All but 16 Democrats voted no.)
I saw Trent Franks on C-Span recently and much to no one's surprise he is against this health bills because *gasp* it costs too much. Bartlett also points out that there are 24 Republican Senators right now that voted for this Socialist medicine giveaway. John McCain did not support Medicare Part D and has always been a deficit hawk so he has every right to complain but the majority of Republicans do not.
I expect the Republicans to make gains in 2010. If they want to make more gains, they better have an alternative health plan to campaign for and begin to purge the people that have been in Congress who never cared about the deficit until some black guy took over. The Democrats are by no means perfect, but I don't see them on TV proclaiming to reduce the size and scope of government.
"If they want to make more gains, they better have an alternative health plan to campaign for and begin to purge the people that have been in Congress who never cared about the deficit until some black guy took over."
Really?? I thought you were better than that. You make all these points in a salient argument (which is a good starting point for a debate), and you close with a nonsensical, racial blast that has zero basis in this discussion. Nice credibility you had once.
Posted By: Duke (Guest) on November 22, 2009 at 02:10 PM
"Children will be allowed to stay on their parents' policies until age 26."
Ridiculous, I went out and bought my own insurance. Personal responsibility?
"If you are fortunate to have a business with more than 50 people, you can afford to OFFER insurance"
Maybe, it depends on the margins.
"Uninsured individuals will be fined $750 per year. This will actually increase the profits of the insurance companies as people who decline are theoretically healthy."
Actually more than that, it will be treated as a crime, the first time in history refusing to purchase a service or choosing the level of the service will be a crime.
How would this increase profits, these theoretically healty people would put money in, but take less money out. Now that would build profits.
"Anyone between 133% and 300% of the poverty line will get subsidies to buy insurance. This is reasonable given that most families that make 60,000 live paycheck to paycheck"
Right, maybe its because they aren't responsible enough to keep their personal finances in order. Guess other people should have to pay for that.
Where is the tax on these "Cadillac" plans at? I'm am fortunate to have good insurane or a union job that offers good insurance, and now I have to pay for someone else's on top of that?
I'm ok with some reforms,
Posted By: peepshow26 (Guest) on November 22, 2009 at 02:41 PM
Nice to see how you forgot to mention that there are still plenty of loopholes, which allow full tax-payer-paid insurance for ILLEGALS, 10's of millions STILL uninsured, higher taxes, you still can't get your prescriptions from across state or country lines, it does nothing to regulate the cost of prescription drugs or medical supplies, and China has already said they're not going to help us pay for this. The Fed, Pelosi, Reid, Obama and the rest of these idiots are purposefully trying to collapse the economy!
True health reform comes with ZERO extra costs!
It should consist of:
Regulations on the prices of medications and medical supplies (brings down overall cost and cuts price gouging which has gone on far too long).
The ability to cross state/country borders for medications, etc. (This will force the "pharms" to be more competitive -- Competition is what drives a free market and lower prices).
Provide tax CREDITS, not tax INCREASES to employers.
And finally, it would not, would not, WOULD NOT provide one single cent to the illegals who care so much about our country, that they can't even follow or respect our laws. If you want things to get better, march down your own damn streets to your own damn capitol, and bitch out your own damn leaders!
Simple, cheap, and effective. Debate over.
Posted By: Spyke (Guest) on November 22, 2009 at 03:27 PM
I love how the USA rips on France.
Except one country is a lot better.
I'll give you a hint. It's France. They actually give a crap about the people that live in their country.
Posted By: Kent Baker (Guest) on November 22, 2009 at 04:11 PM
still need 60 to end debate and force the vote. And THAT is the tough one, because 3-4 senators are wary of the GOVERNMENT option.
Posted By: Eric (Guest) on November 22, 2009 at 04:23 PM
"• Employers with more than 50 employees will be fined for not providing health insurance. If you are fortunate to have a business with more than 50 people, you can afford to OFFER insurance.
• Small businesses will receive tax credits to help them buy insurance for their employees. That is nice of the government"
I don't get this does Small Business still have to provide insurance or no? And if they don't will they get fined to?
"and will lead to a government takeover of medicine (which I agree with). "
and what is this about? The guv is in charge of medicine pricing? Don't they charge as much as they do to help fund R&D for new medicine?
And why did they guy get 300million gajillon dollars to vote yes last night?
Posted By: Guest#4631 (Guest) on November 22, 2009 at 04:45 PM
The prescription Drug bill is one of the shining examples of why the republicans got slaughtered in 06 and 08. They completely lost their way, and thus we have it worse now.
Posted By: gwpbrian (Guest) on November 22, 2009 at 04:58 PM
Joe,
Find anything in that bill were is says how we are going to pay for all of this. Or something that requires the government to maybe end this practice as soon as it runs into the red.
Do you really want the Government involved with health care, Beyond the fact they have proven time and time again they can't manage anything without churning up a massive defecit. Just think of this as soon as the government gets they're hands in something it's not about financial anymore. It's political and were all see just how corrupt and bad politics are in this country.
However I wouldn't this so much if all these elected officals were actually fighting for the same health care they were getting, but they are not. Just passing rules for the rest of us to live buy.
This is a 2000 page mess waiting to happen. When people need to be pretty much bribed to get your political agenda across it's time we start voting you out.
For anyone happy about this result, just look at this website
http://www.usdebtclock.org
Somebody want to explain to me how bills like this will ever get us out of this deep hole?
Posted By: Guest (Guest) on November 22, 2009 at 05:52 PM
"Children will be allowed to stay on their parents' policies until age 26"
I'm sorry but at what point will they finally decide I'm no longer a child. Wonder why they call it a Nanny State now?
"Uninsured individuals will be fined $750 per year"
I'm sorry, but what if I can't afford health insurance, your further going to punish me with a fine. or for being young and healthy? to avoid this should I could just sign up for whatever the Government offers me right, but this isn't forcing people into a system is it?
Posted By: SStrout (Guest) on November 22, 2009 at 05:58 PM
Joe,
I agree with you on how not charging people based on health conditions, or health related behaviors, is a bad move. How are we going to make this country healthy if we allow people to remain gluttonous masses of lard? Seriously, that needs to be removed in that present form. They should allow a limit to how much they charge people the obese, but there should be an incentive for being a healthy individual.
That is the only part I see wrong with the Senate's version of the bill. Everything else is just pure gold. :-D
Posted By: David (Guest) on November 22, 2009 at 06:25 PM
This is a good overview of the health care bill without getting sidetracked by all of the random inclusions and controversial footnotes. You're also absolutely right about the Republican opposition, and this points out the main problem with American politics. If a Democrat stands up and says something is good, a Republican will almost always stand up and say it is bad, and vice versa. It does not matter what the issue is. If a Republican Senator were to put up a bill against rape or something, you can be guaranteed some Democrats will oppose it simply because it wasn't their idea first.
I'm exaggerating, but this is essentially the deal. The Republicans didn't care for 8 years when Bush ran record deficits, pushed unfunded mandates, or wasted money on laser planes, and the Democrats denounced the waste of money. Now, the Democrats are spending and all of a sudden the Republicans are fiscally concerned. At least the Democrats can claim its because we're in a recession and government revenue will be down, but it doesn't really matter. Neither party cares about the deficit, and they both get spend-happy when in power.
Ideally, though, we should be running deficits in down times and surpluses in boom times, so I don't fault Obama too much for his budget. If the economy turns around and it doesn't get any better, then that's a different story. And to me health care is WELL worth them money. At least its something everyone will benefit from since you're guaranteed to use it sooner or later. You pay taxes on lots of things you may possibly never use but benefit you peripherally, like the police, fire department, and free education. Sooner or later in the course of your life you will go to a hospital or deal with your insurance company.
The only parts that bother me about this bill are the fines for not having insurance (I'm 27 and do, but I know a lot of 20-somethings that don't because they probably won't use it anytime soon) and not charging unhealthy people more, at least the ones with control over their health problems, like smokers and the obese. Joe was right in the comparison to the car insurance. For instance, smokers on average will cost MUCH more to treat over their lifetimes than others, and they should at least put in a slightly bigger share. A woman with breast cancer or heart murmurs, though, shouldn't have to pay more as it is entirely out of her control.
For the record, though, this seems much more like insurance reform than health care reform.
Posted By: General Sandoval (Guest) on November 22, 2009 at 06:53 PM
"If they want to make more gains, they better have an alternative health plan to campaign for and begin to purge the people that have been in Congress who never cared about the deficit until some black guy took over."
Joe an absoulute racist comment. This will be the last article of yours I read, you just lost all credibility. Although Republicans could offer thier plan, but I believe Dems said it didn't do enough to take over health care Also it's hard to offer a plan when you are literally locked out of the meetings
Posted By: SStrout (Guest) on November 22, 2009 at 07:10 PM
I love how the USA rips on France.
Except one country is a lot better.
I'll give you a hint. It's France. They actually give a crap about the people that live in their country.
Yeah, that's unless it's hot in the summer. Then France doesn't mind letting them cook in nursing homes, Yeah France.
Posted By: Guest (Guest) on November 22, 2009 at 07:15 PM
"If you are fortunate to have a business with more than 50 people, you can afford to OFFER insurance"
===> Fortunate? Typical leftist loser mentality. Person busts their tail to build a 50 person business, and they're "fortunate"
Posted By: Eric (Guest) on November 22, 2009 at 07:20 PM
"Employers with more than 50 employees will be fined for not providing health insurance."
Here's another brillant move by people who have no thought on how to run an economy. With unemployment at over 10% we now have something that punishes a business for being successful.
Let me get this correct, if I have less then 50 employess I'm going to take on the huge burden on having to offer all these people insurance Question does it matter if I can afford it or not to these people? This is practically a cam on small business success
On the flip side if I have over 50 employees and don't offer insurance I'm going to quickly fire enough people to get under this limit so I can save a huge amount of money.
It doesn't matter what incentives the government offers me, either way. I'm still the little guy getting screwed
Posted By: Guest (Guest) on November 22, 2009 at 08:04 PM
I work for a company with around 50 employees and I know I am getting dropped. 750 dollar fine is a pittance compared to the cost my employer currently occurs. We have already been told to start getting aquainted with Medicare.
Thanks lib. Now are you and your stormtroopers coming to lock me up and send my to prison for 5 years for not going along with your plan?
You have no idea how this is going to backfire in 2010.
Posted By: Guest#1703 (Guest) on November 22, 2009 at 08:21 PM
Great so premiums, taxes, debt, and unemployment will go up as a result of this shitburger. Hope and Change.
Posted By: Guest#9676 (Guest) on November 22, 2009 at 08:24 PM
Senator Landry of Louisiana (D) was bribed $100,000,000 for her vote. Is that the transparency we voted for?
Posted By: Scott Levy (Guest) on November 22, 2009 at 08:28 PM
Dems will seal their fate in 2010 if they pass this crap...
Posted By: Right78 (Guest) on November 22, 2009 at 08:52 PM
I have a simple question for Spyke and like-minded people: how much do you think we should pay in taxes? I've always wondered what righties thought would be fair. Because all I hear from Republicans and conservatives is "cut taxes and shrink government!" - yet when in office they only cut taxes for the rich and make the government bigger. Any business owner will tell you it takes money to make money, so there's no way health care reform could be done without any cost at all.
But I'm wondering - how much should we CUT taxes to make it happen, like conservatives want? And where will the money to make any of this happen come from? The National Endowment for the Arts only gets so much money. Can't cut spending to zero.
Oh - wait - maybe that's the ultimate conservative Utopia! Nobody pays any taxes, and the government doesn't spend money on anything...except the military. But wait - we have to pay some taxes for the military. How much is fair? Oh wait - how about border security? Gotta pay for that too. And education is important. Taking care of old people too. Hmm - seems like it's going to cost a lot. And gee - if we turn all of this stuff over to private companies - you know, like health care - and don't regulate them, they can gouge us as much as they want. So much that we'll have to buy insurance just to afford the care. Gonna suck having to buy police insurance to pay for the next time the cops have to come out and take care of that burglar, since the private police force won't do it for free and they can charge whatever they want. Really gonna suck to have to pay a thousand bucks a month for fire department insurance on top of that, especially since I'll have to pay that much for my house insurance, which won't cover the fire department since that's privatized too. But at least I'm not paying so much in taxes!
I just wish conservatives would learn that we don't live in a one horse town in the Old West where anybody can stop by Doc's house if they're feeling sick. Your theories and views on government are great in a classroom talking about the basics of a small economy. But a world economy and we're a country of over 300 million? They simply don't work. And sadly, the people who have Obama's ear on the economy and have Reid's ear on health care don't care and listen to whatever's best for the private companies that care more about profits than people.
Posted By: correction (Guest) on November 22, 2009 at 09:22 PM
Right off the bat you're wrong Joe. Reid still has to get 60 in order to end debate.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Guest) on November 22, 2009 at 09:24 PM
Oh thank christ, one less thing I have to take responsibility for.
Posted By: Ophrah watcher (Guest) on November 22, 2009 at 10:45 PM
Goverment should take over everything. That way I do not have to pay my mortgage or my car payment anymore.
Just make rich people take care of everything.
Posted By: LIB BOY (Guest) on November 22, 2009 at 11:13 PM
for the record, landrieu came out and said today, it wasn't a 100,000,000 she was bribed uh i mean offered for her state, it was 300,000,000, so lets see with the doctor fix and now the bribe to landreiu, this bill has already added 200.3 billion to its cost, putting it well over a trillion, and this bill will be deficit netural, yeah, and does anyone really think the 400 billion in medicare cuts will come, yeah very unlikely, as somehow dems will add that back into the bill, this bill will not pass, as it just adds to the debt, and oh yeah for all these libs talking about it, they don't mention that the bill wouldn't even effect health care until 2013, but it would add the new taxes right away
Posted By: coby preiemsberger (Guest) on November 23, 2009 at 01:27 AM
Actually, we really can't afford this. You can talk all you want about who spent what and when and how and who supported who. None of that changes the fact that this is too expensive. It's a monstrosity, and god only knows what else is buried in those 2000 + pages that we'll find out about later.
Posted By: Omni (Guest) on November 23, 2009 at 05:35 AM
The bill does not just need a simple majority vote at this point. the only thing that was voted on was the opening of debate. Another 60 votes will now be needed to close debate of the bill and about 4 senators who voted yes to open debate are dead set against the current bill on the floor. It can still be filibustered.
Posted By: rog (Guest) on November 23, 2009 at 06:44 AM
"Regulations on the prices of medications and medical supplies (brings down overall cost and cuts price gouging which has gone on far too long)."
But then what incentive do drug manufacturers have to produce? *This* is where rationing would come in.
Posted By: J.D. Dunn (Registered) on November 23, 2009 at 09:38 AM
"Somebody want to explain to me how bills like this will ever get us out of this deep hole?"
"At $894 billion, the bill's 10 year cost comes in a hair under President Obama's $900 billion red line. But, more politically and substantively important, the bill is projected to reduce the deficit in both the first 10 years and the second 10 years after enactment..."
---
"Over the second 10 years, CBO projects even greater cost savings--up to $650 billion..."
Posted By: J.D. Dunn (Registered) on November 23, 2009 at 09:46 AM
"they don't mention that the bill wouldn't even effect health care until 2013, but it would add the new taxes right away"
That's only one fiscal year of difference, though, and the program runs significantly in the black.
Posted By: J.D. Dunn (Registered) on November 23, 2009 at 09:58 AM
"Actually more than that, it will be treated as a crime, the first time in history refusing to purchase a service or choosing the level of the service will be a crime."
Maybe you know of a provision I don't, but I've been through both bills, and it's not in either.
It will continue to be a crime, just as it has been for over a hundred years, not to pay your taxes.
The healthcare bill does nothing to change that.
Posted By: J.D. Dunn (Registered) on November 23, 2009 at 10:01 AM
In 1994 Hilarycare went to floor with no filibuster. Are Repubs saying that was a much better bill? Did any Dems filibuster the Medicare Part D plan they disagreed with? The partisan divide is getting much worse now.
Repubs won't even vote to bring to the floor now. Maybe they could try to ammend to make the bill better instead of saying "no, no, no la-la-la I can't hear you"
"purge the people that have been in Congress who never cared about the deficit until some black guy took over"
This is factually true, but no one can be sure his race is relevant. Some percentage of the anti-Obama feeling is racist, but I don't know how significant it is. The level of opposition he has faced from some corners since DAY ONE is startling.
Posted By: Gozer33 (Guest) on November 23, 2009 at 10:59 AM
"I love how the USA rips on France.
Except one country is a lot better.
I'll give you a hint. It's France. They actually give a crap about the people that live in their country.
Yeah, that's unless it's hot in the summer. Then France doesn't mind letting them cook in nursing homes, Yeah France. "
If you pay attention to the news you will see that happens in this country too. It's happens in private homes instead of government homes, so I guess that's OK to let happen? Yeah USA.
Bottom line- no health care system is perfect, but they pay LESS and get BETTER results on the whole in Europe.
I'm not saying we have to copy Europe exactly, but what we got now isn't cutting it. At least one party is trying to fix it.
Posted By: Gozer33 (Guest) on November 23, 2009 at 11:10 AM
"Bruce Bartlett (a conservative)" Funny Stuff.
"If you are fortunate to have a business with more than 50 people, you can afford to OFFER insurance. "
Classic. You know what an employer can afford. Gratitude is in such short supply these days.
"I disagree with this. I see nothing wrong in charging a fat person or smoker more just as GEICO charges you more if you get speeding tickets and DWIs."
Or if you do anything that increases your likelihood of using medical care such as, riding a motorcycle, riding an ATV, snowboarding, using personal watercraft, bungee jumping, water skiing, sunbathing/tanning, playing any sport or physical activity, alcohol consumption, feeling entitled to sponge off your parents until near middle age, longing for OPM and especially, working.
I am used to your partisan "hackery" but why are you such a racist Rivett?
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on November 23, 2009 at 12:28 PM
"This is factually true, but no one can be sure his race is relevant. Some percentage of the anti-Obama feeling is racist, but I don't know how significant it is. The level of opposition he has faced from some corners since DAY ONE is startling."
If anyone ever thought Obama getting elected would improve race relations it sure is not. It seems now if you disagree with him, your a racist, it can have anything to do with his policies or lack of leadership. or the fact he simply didn't keep any of the promises he ran on. I also find his close ties to SEIU and Unions to be eyebrow raising
At $894 billion, the bill's 10 year cost comes in a hair under President Obama's $900 billion red line. But, more politically and substantively important, the bill is projected to reduce the deficit in both the first 10 years and the second 10 years after enactment..."
---
"Over the second 10 years, CBO projects even greater cost savings--up to $650 billion..."
I'm sorry J.D. but even if you can trust these number over the course of ten years at the rate we're in the whole your talking pennies. and that's assuming this won't be completly mismanaged and turned into a money pit like every other governement program.
Can you do alittle research and tell me is there any criminal penality for these politicians for when they run this into the red, and they will. Say what you want about the private sector, but at least there when you are criminal in the way you runs things you either A go out of business or B, potentially goto prison. In Washington, you MIGHT not get re-elected, your friends on the ethic commities will find you innocent, or as most often you lack of finacial leadership will simply be passed onto the tax payers AGAIN, after all this bill will be ONE more then that's TOO BIG TO FAIL
Posted By: Guest (Guest) on November 23, 2009 at 12:56 PM
This Just In: There HAS been a debate on health care reform going on now for five months. Town hall meetings, internet message boards, talk radio have been prevalent in this. Unfortunately, our senators are not listening to these dabates and plowing ahead with a train wreck of a bill.
JD, if the government said we were going to tax you to provide mandatory religous counseling to pregnant mothers, would it make you feel any better that not paying taxes has been a crime for 100 years???
Posted By: Da Man (Guest) on November 23, 2009 at 03:52 PM
Dunn,
You can't find in either bill were not having health care is a crime?
I have posted this on more than one occasion. From the house bill
H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.”
“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]
“Criminal penalties
Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:
• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years
Dude, I found that in less than one minute.
That is almost as bad as Jam denying that Obama said electricity rates would "neccesarily skyrocket"
Pick your game up.
Posted By: John (Guest) on November 23, 2009 at 04:08 PM
Rasmussen poll has support of the health care bill at 38%
Posted By: John (Guest) on November 23, 2009 at 04:46 PM
If you are fortunate to have a business with more than 50 people, you can afford to OFFER insurance. "
Who decided that? You? Thats typical left wing bullshit.
Now go bow and pray to the pay czar.
Posted By: Guest#1893 (Guest) on November 23, 2009 at 05:51 PM
Your wrong about the filibuster rules, If you are going to write headlines, at least make them accurate. I would suggest people call their senators and congressman and share their concerns, but that would make me a nazi, astro turf, racist.
Posted By: Billy Goat (Guest) on November 23, 2009 at 05:55 PM
Over the second 10 years, CBO projects even greater cost savings--up to $650 billion..."
I would bet my house, car, and life savings against that happening.
Posted By: Guest#3463 (Guest) on November 23, 2009 at 05:58 PM
Children will be allowed to stay on their parents' policies until age 26."
26 year olds without health care are usually still children, living in mommies basement and watching Ophrah. Add the fact that they can go on welfare for 5 years and it would be till 31 until these losers had to take any responsibility in their life. What a great direction this country is headed in.
Posted By: Guest#9584 (Guest) on November 23, 2009 at 06:05 PM
So let me get this straight, if the goverment thinks my plan is not good enough, I could be taxed or prosecuted.
If my plan is to good , I have to pay a higher tax.
God, this bill sucks.
Posted By: Sammy (Guest) on November 23, 2009 at 06:55 PM
"A public option will be available on these exchanges. I like options"
There are over 1,000 insurance companies which are barred from competing for new customers across state lines...if the government comes in and says it will cover people for less money through tax payer funding and basically prohibits insurance companies from bringing on new customers, tell me, how is that an "option"? Rigging the system so that the government is the only provider of insurance is a good thing to you?
Posted By: SteveC (Guest) on November 23, 2009 at 08:30 PM
A public option will be available on these exchanges. I like options"
There are over 1,000 insurance companies which are barred from competing for new customers across state lines...if the government comes in and says it will cover people for less money through tax payer funding and basically prohibits insurance companies from bringing on new customers, tell me, how is that an "option"? Rigging the system so that the government is the only provider of insurance is a good thing to you?
Posted By: SteveC (Guest) on November 23, 2009 at 08:30 PM
The answer to your question Steve is yes. People like Rivett want goverment to have the ultimate say in every aspect of your life. They want a single payer system ultimatly. You know, hope and change.
Posted By: John (Guest) on November 23, 2009 at 11:01 PM
I have now decided that every time John brings up the cap and trade thing I will remind him that (a) /I/ said it raised taxes and (b) I also said I couldn't find it AT THAT TIME. Everything after that was me ignoring the subject.
Next, racism involves the usage of power in reference to race. Calling Barack Black is not racist. Hitting him with a brick because he is Black is.
Each side will create numbers it likes. As such, we need a neutral party with numbers that aren't skewed either way... like the CBO, who has said this bill helps our deficit. If you ignore this then you are simply ACTIVELY choosing to ignore reality.
Joe - should the underweight and overweight babies that have been hitting the news have to pay more? The problem with saying "I don't want to pay for fat people and cigarette smokers" is that there is no way to differentiate them from people who have conditions they have no control over.
Finally, Rasmussen should ALWAYS be taken with a grain of salt, as they tend to over-poll the elderly from my understanding... and that group trends conservative.
Posted By: J. Alexander Mitchell (Guest) on November 24, 2009 at 07:48 AM
Dear correction,
You did nothing to debate what I actually said. All you did was spout off about Republicans. I'm an Independent, first of all. I just use simple common sense, which is what our founding fathers used. Spending our way to oblivion is NOT going to help us. Did you even read about what the Chinese said to Obama while he was in Asia last week? They asked him, "How do you expect to pay for this?"
I'm willing to debate, but instead of criticizing what the Republicans do, debate my statements.
Personally, I think that the Reps and the Dems need to go take a long walk off a short pier!
Posted By: Spyke (Guest) on November 24, 2009 at 09:51 AM
@John - Re: the criminal code.
That's not in the bill, which I've pointed out several times. You didn't 'find it' because it ain't there.
Here's the actual bill.
http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf
People are free to search for themselves. Don't take *my* word for it.
"Can you do alittle research and tell me is there any criminal penality for these politicians for when they run this into the red, and they will. Say what you want about the private sector, but at least there when you are criminal in the way you runs things you either A go out of business or B, potentially goto prison."
First, you don't go to prison for failing at business unless you intentionally defrauded someone... and even then. Is Vince McMahon in jail because the XFL failed? Donald Trump went bankrupt several times. No jail time. It's not criminal to lose money.
Second, the public option is financed over the first few years by federal dollars and then becomes self-sustaining on state-to-state premiums.
Third, your challenge of finding a criminal penalty for running in the red is absurd on the face of it. Most businesses run in the red for a significant amount of time.
"I would bet my house, car, and life savings against that happening."
But you're not. You're betting OTHER PEOPLE'S cars, houses, and lives. What you don't take into account is the money you're already spending on healthcare.
"JD, if the government said we were going to tax you to provide mandatory religous counseling to pregnant mothers, would it make you feel any better that not paying taxes has been a crime for 100 years???"
Three question marks make you *really* curious.
First, your question is also absurd because it's not about whether or not I "feel good" about what government is doing with my money. The original statement was that this bill would make it a federal crime not to have health insurance. That's not true. That's all my statement entailed.
Second, I personally have no problem with my money going to religious counseling. I tithe, and that money goes for counseling. Mandated religion by the government is unconstitutional, so the choice is fallacious. The reason is because someone might find the religious values abhorrent. Are you saying you find it morally abhorrent that a poor person is treated for a disease?
"There are over 1,000 insurance companies which are barred from competing for new customers across state lines"
This is because of LACK of federal oversight, not because the feds bar them from selling across state lines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran-Ferguson
Posted By: J.D. Dunn (Registered) on November 24, 2009 at 12:33 PM
"They asked him, "How do you expect to pay for this?"
That's a dishonest spin on the conversation. That makes it sound like "oooh, even the Commies marvel at Obama's government takeover."
Given that they are the biggest financiers of our debt, they wanted to know how the bill affects our debt, not "how we're going to pay for this."
Posted By: J.D. Dunn (Registered) on November 24, 2009 at 12:38 PM
"Maybe you know of a provision I don't, but I've been through both bills, and it's not in either.
It will continue to be a crime, just as it has been for over a hundred years, not to pay your taxes.
The healthcare bill does nothing to change that."
A classic example of semantics in politics.
If it's a "fine" then it sounds wrong, but if we call it a "tax" then it's better. Just pay your taxes.
Usually one pays taxes on things one owns, buy, or services one gets. Sales tax, property tax, even have an income tax and capital gains, etc. When have your really heard of paying a tax on something you DIDN'T buy? Does that make any sense?!
It's a penalty by definition, no matter what they call it.
Posted By: Omni (Guest) on November 27, 2009 at 04:26 AM
STAY CURRENT