Supporters of Obamacare

[BanginJimmy]

That is the rationale, it is why Kucinich held out till this point. They're divided because they are lifelong politicians and wont touch anything that threatens their position as such. This bill is a kamikaze bill for many Democrats, yeah the mission will get done but they wont be around to see it because they will get voted out, or maybe not but they don't want to risk it. Those who support it feel it is a step toward comprehensive health reform, ultimately it will pass but by a slim margin. I'm not a Democrat btw.

Probably a stupid question, but arent the people in Congress there to represent their states or districts? If this bill is the political death you are saying it is, then it is such because they are voting against the wishes of their constituency. That is NOT their job. Their job is to represent, not ignore, their constituency. Instead we have a bunch of career politicians who vow their complete support to their party first, their job second, themselves third, and somewhere further down the list, the people they are supposed to be representing.

[BanginJimmy]

I have partisan views? Obviously on some level we all do but I go out of my way to minimize that influence. I form my own opinions on issues like healthcare, and on that issue I don't feel it should be a for profit industry. I feel there is a great conflict of interest when you mix in the interest of shareholders and profits when you are dealing with factors that determines whether an individual lives or dies. Did I get that view from Obama or Pelosi? No.. believe it or not some of us are able to form an opinion based on our own research and experiences.

So what should be a for profit business? People need a place to live, so I guess anyone in the housing market should be a non-profit. The same can be said of anyone that sells food. The argument could also be made of the auto industry. If you cant get to work, you cant make money to buy the other necessities. Maybe the govt can provide all of those to us to. Hell, before long, we will be required to attend party meetings to make sure we have access to all the wonderful benefits of socialism.

[tony]

So what should be a for profit business? People need a place to live, so I guess anyone in the housing market should be a non-profit. The same can be said of anyone that sells food. The argument could also be made of the auto industry. If you cant get to work, you cant make money to buy the other necessities. Maybe the govt can provide all of those to us to. Hell, before long, we will be required to attend party meetings to make sure we have access to all the wonderful benefits of socialism.

People could theoretically fight their own fires or enforce their own laws too, want to make that a for profit industry? How about education? I mean the resources are there for people to educate their selves now. What you've posted is nothing more than a Red Herring, the housing market, food or the auto industry has nothing to do with healthcare. People aren't doing their own double bypass surgeries at home, it goes much deeper.

[BanginJimmy]

People do hire their own law enforcement, their own fire protection, and provide for their own education. Those are all for-profit industries and all of them out-perform govt run entities when you can compare apple to apples.

It has nothing to do with just health care, it has to do with your statement about which industries our govt should allow to make a profit.

You bring up bypass surgery, yet how many people do you know that are building their own cars?

[tony]

People do hire their own law enforcement, their own fire protection, and provide for their own education. Those are all for-profit industries and all of them out-perform govt run entities when you can compare apple to apples.

It has nothing to do with just health care, it has to do with your statement about which industries our govt should allow to make a profit.

You bring up bypass surgery, yet how many people do you know that are building their own cars?

For individuals yes, for an entire country especially one as populated as the U.S I could safely assume well over 96% of individuals rely on their local government for fire protection and law enforcement. And do you really want to compare building a car to bypass surgery? Thats really stretching an analogy.

[Vteckidd]

Ok let's abolish reconcilliation and "slaughter rule" altogether. If it can't pass let it die. Right now I see congress doing everything in their power to pass legislation 1) their constituents do not want (all national polls put public support under 50% 2) their own party doesn't want (if they did it would have passed by now

For Obama to say "I don't really care for the procedures" was shocking. Why have a constitution, why have a legislature, why do anything? This was the change he promised? What happened to changing washington? Doing away with politics as usual?

I'm in favor of kicking everyone out right now

[tony]

Without Reconcilliation you have much more of a deadlocked legislative process, if you choose to be the obstructionist party then all you'd have to do is block everything that would require 2/3rds of the vote.

And about the constituency, I typed up a full reply then lost it. Unless someone does some extensive research and can show that the people in the districts of those congressmen who will vote toward passing this bill do not want health care reform, I can't buy into that. Everyone references the polls but remember, the people who are voting for this bill are liberal Democrats alone. So if you're going to reference the polls and say the Congressmen are not voting in the interest of their constituents, you need to remove those areas represented by people who will not vote for the bill. That means Republican districts and blue dog democrats cannot be accounted for.

[David88vert]

If the smaller drug companies can come up with generics at a much lower cost than the big boys, why not allow them to compete? If the goal is to make the system more efficient, why are we allowing the big drug companies to hold back the companies that are actually efficient?



The legislation that proposed including advanced directives said that they are not mandatory. All it says is that you can bill your insurance for time you spend discussing end-of life options with your doctor and other healthcare professionals. Is an optional fucking consultation, you choose whether to have one or not. FUCKING FUCK, when will you rightwingers understand this?!!!!

Anyway, said directives will help hospitals and doctors from legal battles, and it will make the end-of-life care process more efficient.

As far as premiums go, your premiums are currently inflated because you're paying for those uninsured who go to the emergency rooms and have their services billed to indigent care. So having something outside of private insurance and the hospitals themselves to pay for this care will lower premiums. Granted, that money will still be coming out of somebody's pocket in some way or another, but it won't be an added cost.

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDefault/8ef5...a9ef5f12d43979

[article]
The budget office concluded that premiums for people buying their own coverage would go up by an average of 10 percent to 13 percent, compared with the levels they'd reach without the legislation. That's mainly because policies in the individual insurance market would provide more comprehensive benefits than they do today.
For most households, those added costs would be more than offset by the tax credits provided under the bill, and they would pay significantly less than they have to now.
The premium reduction of 14 percent to 20 percent that Obama cites would apply only to a portion of the people buying coverage on their own — those who decide they want to keep the skimpier kinds of policies available today.
Their costs would go down because more young people would be joining the risk pool and because insurance company overhead costs would be lower in the more efficient system Obama wants to create.[/article]

It appears that you do not understand patents, R&D costs, or that insurance is actually risk management, not a debit card that you are entitled to.

A discussion with your doctor should be paid out of pocket, if you want reduced premiums.

Major medical costs is all that should be paid for by insurance. The sooner that ignorant people learn that, the sooner all will have affordable premiums - just like auto/home/life insurance. Insurance should only be used to cover major, unexpected costs, not simple office visits. It is this entitlement mentality that has sent medical insurance premiums skyward. Now, you and Obama think that spreading this thinking to the entire country will drive them down? A logical and rational thought process could not, and would not, come to a conclusion that this healthcare entitlement plan could work effectively and efficiently.

[David88vert]

Did the founders of our country use reconciliation to pass legislation? No, it was introduced in 1974. Amazingly, our country existed almost 200 years without it just fine.

On the other point - evidently enough Democrats believe that their constituents do not want it that they are not willing to vote for it. That right there should stop this bill.

[tony]

Did the founders of our country use reconciliation to pass legislation? No, it was introduced in 1974. Amazingly, our country existed almost 200 years without it just fine.

On the other point - evidently enough Democrats believe that their constituents do not want it that they are not willing to vote for it. That right there should stop this bill.

And how much has the two party system evolved in those 200 years, and so goes the process. If there are enough votes to pass the legislation then apparently there were enough Democrats that wanted it.

[Total_Blender]

Some of the Dems who aren't voting for it are holding out because they want single payer (Dennis Kucinich, et. al) Also, there are some who may not be happy with the current plan but do support healthcare reform. I'm not 100% satisfied with the current plan (I would rather have single payer as well). So just because someone is dissatisfied with the current proposals, does not necessarily mean that they are opposed to the concept of healthcare reform.

[Browning151]

The CBO just released new numbers today on the healthcare bill. The report says it will reduce the deficit by $138 billion yet the total cost is up to $940 billion, up from $875 billion. This thing just continues to grow and grow.

[David88vert]

And how much has the two party system evolved in those 200 years, and so goes the process. If there are enough votes to pass the legislation then apparently there were enough Democrats that wanted it.

Let's see, they changed from a 2 party system (Whigs & Tories), to different groups, without removing the voting process. Now they need to avoid being accountable to their constituents, who had to vote to elect them in?

The Democrats do NOT have enough votes to pass healthcare through a vote. That is fact. Only 11 votes more are needed to kill it entirely - if they allow it to be brought to a vote. Any other method or process is trying to circumvent the very system put in place to protect the people.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2010/...tes/index.html

[David88vert]

Some of the Dems who aren't voting for it are holding out because they want single payer (Dennis Kucinich, et. al) Also, there are some who may not be happy with the current plan but do support healthcare reform. I'm not 100% satisfied with the current plan (I would rather have single payer as well). So just because someone is dissatisfied with the current proposals, does not necessarily mean that they are opposed to the concept of healthcare reform.

Kucinich is voting FOR it. He already switched his vote.

[BanginJimmy]

Stupak and some of his gang are going to vote for it also. Obama is pushing on them hard and offering people administration jobs in exchange for their vote.


Has anyone ever seen more corruption in DC than we are right now? We have at least 3 cases of obvious bribery in the Senate Bill in the cases of Ben Nelson, Mary Landreau , and Bill Nelson.

In the House, we have sort of pay to play deals with at least 4 dems retiring at the end of their term, just to walk right into an administration job that will be waiting for them. The cost to the appointee? Their 'yes' vote on health care. Bart Gordon has been promised NASA. John Tanner, US Ambassador to NATO.
Both of these are now 'yes' votes that voted agaisnt it in Nov.

[BanginJimmy]

It seems that those of us that said this bill would raise costs, lead to rationing, drive people out of their current coverage, and ruin doctor's practices, therefore limiting access, were right after all.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...de-new-report/

[tony]

Fox news clearly has no agenda in their reporting and therefor can be trusted to report the news in an unbiased fashion..

[Vteckidd]

Fox news clearly has no agenda in their reporting and therefor can be trusted to report the news in an unbiased fashion..

it seems this report is coming from the OBAMA administration bean counters, Fox is just reporting it. I have not looked at it just pointing this out

The Obama administration on Friday defended the new health insurance law after a report from its own Medicare services agency showed the provisions will increase the nation's health care tab over the next 10 years instead of bringing costs down.

[BanginJimmy]

Fox news clearly has no agenda in their reporting and therefor can be trusted to report the news in an unbiased fashion..

Considering FOX is the only news organization that does not wait for approval from the white house before running a story you might not find it unusual that FOX was the first to report this. I havent checked, has MSNBC or CNN reported this at all?

[tony]

I know of a number of news outlets that act independently of a political agenda, they're just not as popular because they believe their listeners are intelligent enough to form their own opinion without it being given to them. And no I dont watch MSNBC or CNN either, both fall in the same line as Fox, although MSNBC does more than CNN.

[Total_Blender]

CNN has some new conservative goober on in Glenn Beck's old timeslot during Prime Time now. And MSNBC has a conservative host for their morning show. I have yet to see a liberal employed by Fox News other than Alan Colmes (who isn't much of a liberal really, since he spent most of his time at Fox nodding his head and agreeing with everything) and he's not even on the show with Hannitard anymore, so...

[Vteckidd]

FOX news doesnt EMPLOY any liberals except Colmes but they do have liberals on as regulars as contributors

Bob Beckel is on Hannity almost 3 times a week
Oreilley has the professor from HArvard IIRC almost on all the time (the young black guy)

They almost ALWAYS have a liberal rebuttal to ANYTHING they report on.

[BanginJimmy]

CNN has some new conservative goober on in Glenn Beck's old timeslot during Prime Time now. And MSNBC has a conservative host for their morning show. I have yet to see a liberal employed by Fox News other than Alan Colmes (who isn't much of a liberal really, since he spent most of his time at Fox nodding his head and agreeing with everything) and he's not even on the show with Hannitard anymore, so...

Which ratings and advertising cost leading show would you like to see cancelled to make room for a show that will flop? The simple fact is that even if FOX's only ambition was profit, they still wouldnt have a liberal on because hurt their pocket book. At 3am you can find better ratings on FOX than you can at prime time on MSNBC.