Obamacare v2.0

[BanginJimmy]

Since I started the last thread about this there have been a lot of changes. So, without further ado, where do you stand on the SENATE version of Obama care? I am bringing up the Senate version right now because they have made it very clear that many changes to their bill would lose the Senate votes to pass it.

Also, what of you think of the transparency of the process? That transparency was a major staple of Obama's campaign so I think its a valid point of discussion.

How about the open bribery taking place in Congress with the purchased vote of Ben Nelson and potentially others to come?

[tony]

No offense to you but I wish people who try to push this partisan crap and sling mud would read the Declaration and the Constitution again, this whole "if you're not conservative then you're wrong" or vice versa is the reason why shit doesn't get accomplished. We bicker amongst ourselves while lobbyists are the only ones putting pressure on legislators.

True Democrats don't like the Senate Bill, Repubs don't like the senate bill. The smart thing would be to use that to your advantage rather than using labels like "Obamacare" which is putting a further divide between those with a common interest.

[BanginJimmy]

No offense to you but I wish people who try to push this partisan crap and sling mud would read the Declaration and the Constitution again,

Not sure why I need to re-read those documents again but this isnt about partisan politics. I hate the idea of govt intervention in my healthcare, but even more, I hate the way this bill is running through congress. Open bribery of Landreau and Nelson. Massachusetts lawmakers are changing their laws in an effort to circumvent the democratic process.

this whole "if you're not conservative then you're wrong" or vice versa is the reason why shit doesn't get accomplished.

Thats true. The problem is, the way campaigns are run currently, you dont get honorable people running for public office. All you get are people with an agenda that starts and ends with gaining more personal power.

We bicker amongst ourselves while lobbyists are the only ones putting pressure on legislators.

I dont know about anyone else here but I have personally spoken with staffers for Gingrey, Isakson, and Chambliss and let them know how I support their positions. I did express to one of Gingrey's people my opposition to his beliefs on the separation of church and state though.

True Democrats don't like the Senate Bill, Repubs don't like the senate bill.

So why are the dems pushing it so hard and why arent more dems putting real pressure on the elected officials of their party? GOP has had no one cross lines in favor of this bill.

The smart thing would be to use that to your advantage rather than using labels like "Obamacare" which is putting a further divide between those with a common interest.

No one is creating a greater divide than Obama himself. As of today he even gave a free pass on a 40% tax on "Cadillac" health care plans to union members until 2018. This goes on top of buying Nelson and Landreau.


What you fail to realize is that this bill is Obama's presidency. Whether this eventually passes or not, it is going to end his effectiveness in office. Whether this passes or not, the debate alone will end the dem dominance in congress. Whether this passes or not, the process has disavowed all GOP members. Not a single one will do anything to back anything Obama wants to do. He will be essentially a lame duck after only 2 years.

[zspeed24]

No one is creating a greater divide than Obama himself. As of today he even gave a free pass on a 40% tax on "Cadillac" health care plans to union members until 2018. This goes on top of buying Nelson and Landreau.

This has got to be one of the most ludicrous things i have heard. Chicago politics at its finest.

[tony]

And so the partisanship that stagnates progress continues..

[Total_Blender]

What we will be left with ultimately will be a consolidation of the House and Senate bills. I'm hoping the final product is closer to the House bill. As the process continues, we progressives are putting pressure on our congressmen to drop things we don't agree with like mandates, Cadillac taxes, etc etc.

Jimmy, what are you reading about the "buying of Nelson" etc?

As far as transparency in the process and televising the negotiations... it seems to me:

1.) It would probably be very boring and few of those who are calling for it to be televised would actually watch.

2.) The concessions made for televising the sessions (having to mic everyone up, having to speak one at a time, etc etc) would only slow the process.

3.) It seems that even though these negotiations aren't televised that news about what goes on is still getting out. You guys seem to have enough to bitch about, right?

[BanginJimmy]

What we will be left with ultimately will be a consolidation of the House and Senate bills. I'm hoping the final product is closer to the House bill. As the process continues, we progressives are putting pressure on our congressmen to drop things we don't agree with like mandates, Cadillac taxes, etc etc.

I'm proud of you, you strayed away from the party talking points for a minute.

On to your points now.

The cannot push more towards the House bill because it wouldnt have a snow ball's chance in hell of passing the Senate if it moves far from it. The problem the dems face is that it stands the same chances in the House if it strays too far from their bill.

Jimmy, what are you reading about the "buying of Nelson" etc?

The new bill has the federal government permanently paying 100 percent of the cost to expand Medicaid in Nebraska, while other states will pay 2.2 percent of the price to expand the program to millions of uninsured Americans.

Also, notice the quote from Reid at the end of the article. He says some states got preferential treatment in exchange for votes. That is called bribery in any other circumstance. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bribe

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/12...h-care-reform/

You can also search for "cornhusker kickback".


And here is an article about Mary Landrieu's deal.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...siana-purchase

As far as transparency in the process and televising the negotiations... it seems to me:

1.) It would probably be very boring and few of those who are calling for it to be televised would actually watch.

Thats not the point. Obama made the promise during the election and the CEO of C-Span is asking for access. Yet, now he is being turned down.

2.) The concessions made for televising the sessions (having to mic everyone up, having to speak one at a time, etc etc) would only slow the process.

C-Span CEO already said they had access to the equipment to make the taping completely unobtrusive.

Considering they dont plan to start benefits for 3+ years, I dont think its all that much of a hurry to get this through anyways. We can wait the extra 5 minutes a day for politicians to speak 1 at a time and act civilized.

3.) It seems that even though these negotiations aren't televised that news about what goes on is still getting out. You guys seem to have enough to bitch about, right?

Again, thats not the point. This is a campaign promise that Obama made and he is going back on that. He might as well say that he doesnt want the press in there because airing the scale of corruption in the US Congress would lead to the downfall of every politician in Washington.

[Total_Blender]

The crazy thing about Nelson is that he got medicare to pay for the expansion in ALL states until 2017. From then on its only Nebraska at 100%, the other states drop to 98, and keep falling from there over time. Perhaps by 2017 the Nebraska deal might be revoked, or might be expanded to all 50 states.

[BanginJimmy]

The crazy thing about Nelson is that he got medicare to pay for the expansion in ALL states until 2017. From then on its only Nebraska at 100%, the other states drop to 98, and keep falling from there over time. Perhaps by 2017 the Nebraska deal might be revoked, or might be expanded to all 50 states.

Nelson's deal is forever, but it isnt my biggest problem with it. The use of bribery to gain votes for an unpopular bill is my problem.

Because it hasnt happened yet I havent mentioned it, but Blender, being the hardcore liberal that you are, do you agree with delaying a democratically elected official's swearing in for the specific purpose of preventing him from voting on a bill?

[tony]

So lets just say the Repubs win this race in Mass. and shoot down any hopes of health care reform, it is off the table. Premiums continue at the current pace and you still have 40 million uninsured, possibly more on top of those who cannot get insurance due to pre-existing conditions.

Lets take our partisan caps off and analyze this scenario seriously, a valid 38% of people are against healthcare reform which leaves 62% to point the finger at Republicans for shooting down any possibility of health care reform. It looks like this thing isn't going to make it through a filibuster so essentially Repubs could be shooting their selves in the foot by blocking this legislation, much like the consequences they would have faced for blocking Supreme Court justice Sotomayor. Republicans better be careful what they wish for, they may win this battle but I think in doing so you only agitate the war.

[nreggie454]

I think that healthcare should be reformed, but Obama and the Dems are going WAAAY too far with it. I think that Universal health care would be nice, but it just isn't feasible. It will make the wait for health care much longer and will hurt doctors a lot, and make them leave the US or choose different professions.

[Total_Blender]

. and make them leave the US or choose different professions.

I think the current system has driven the doctors out. I can't remember the last time I was treated by a doctor who didn't seem to be of foreign origin.

I wouldn't become a doctor under the current system just because of having to deal with insurance companies and lawyers. If we can fix the system to where we have universal coverage and malpractice reform, doctors can focus on treating patients and not the ancillary b/s that goes with the profession under the current system.

From what I understand the AMA has endorsed the House plan and probably the Senate plan too.

[Browning151]

I think the current system has driven the doctors out. I can't remember the last time I was treated by a doctor who didn't seem to be of foreign origin.

I wouldn't become a doctor under the current system just because of having to deal with insurance companies and lawyers. If we can fix the system to where we have universal coverage and malpractice reform, doctors can focus on treating patients and not the ancillary b/s that goes with the profession under the current system.

From what I understand the AMA has endorsed the House plan and probably the Senate plan too.

The current system may have forced some doctors out, but far more will choose to leave instead of dealing with trying to get past gov't red tape in a universal system to get paid.

Three things would reform healthcare much more effeciently than a program that can easily become another entitlement program:

First, tort reform. This would be a major step in the right direction to getting healthcare costs under control. By limiting frivilous lawsuits that clog up courts, cost taxpayers money and drive up the cost of malpractice insurance you allow doctors and hospitals to operate with less overhead costs.

Second, state and federal mandates. Remove them and let consumers choose how much health insurance they want. I shouldn't have to pay for something like alcoholism treatment or morbid obesity treatment, things that don't affect me in any way shape or form yet my insurance premiums are higher due to those things.

Third, allow health insurance to be sold across state lines. This one is simple, more competition. Instead of having only a few plans or companies to choose from in my state I can shop nationwide for a plan with the lowest cost and fewer mandates. This not only forces doctors, hospitals and health insurance companies to be more competitive, but also helps eliminate some of the more frivilous mandates out there. This one, however, would work best hand in hand with proper tort reform to reduce overall operating costs.

Just my

[vinayak]

From what I understand the AMA has endorsed the House plan and probably the Senate plan too.

Is the AMA federally funded? I think the number of doctors that are members of the AMA are less than 20%.

[nreggie454]

I think the current system has driven the doctors out. I can't remember the last time I was treated by a doctor who didn't seem to be of foreign origin.

I wouldn't become a doctor under the current system just because of having to deal with insurance companies and lawyers. If we can fix the system to where we have universal coverage and malpractice reform, doctors can focus on treating patients and not the ancillary b/s that goes with the profession under the current system.

From what I understand the AMA has endorsed the House plan and probably the Senate plan too.

The current system has driven American doctors to specialize and avoid general practice. The proposed system will drive doctors out. I have had multiple doctors tell me to seriously reconsider the med-school route because there is a decent likelihood that I will never get out of debt from medical school.

According to a doctor that I observed over winter, if there is universal healthcare, doctors will have to see a lot more patients for less money, putting more strain on them and even lowering the chance of a patient having a shred of a personal relationship with a doctor. Patients will become numbers, and healthcare will consist of running patients through as fast as possible.