yay for destroying our healthcare system and eventually our nation

11/7/2009 11:20:22 PM

of course this won't be the bill that passes the Senate. This bill will not make it through the Senate. Of course my bet is a majority of the Congress Mena and Women did not even read the bill.

11/7/2009 11:36:44 PM

how many pages was this one? was it up for at least 72 hours before it was voted upon?

11/7/2009 11:41:31 PM

I believe this was Skeletor's 2000 page one, that was not made available to the public.

[Edited on November 7, 2009 at 11:45 PM. Reason : e]

11/7/2009 11:45:06 PM

Boom?

Yep. BOOM!

Btw, if you want some entertainment, check out
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2381286/posts?q=1&;page=351

Quote :

""Time to put their heads on a stick." Also "way past time to start burning down their houses" http://bit.ly/1FGLDA"

Quote :

""Pull these traitors out of office, physically, and turn the government back over to the people." http://bit.ly/3EhUcb"

Coup threats?

Quote :

"http://bit.ly/bGSFq - ha! - "and the socialists cheer. it was sickening to watch.""

11/7/2009 11:52:50 PM

I'm sure they are doing great over there

11/7/2009 11:59:10 PM

gg democrats.... lets see if it gets through the senate.

11/8/2009 12:44:59 AM

I pray it doesn't

11/8/2009 12:58:01 AM

something will get through the Senate, it is now or never, GOP will gain seats in the House and the Senate might stay the same (each side loose a seat). All the GOP can hope for is that the Dems dont have 60 votes to cut off the fillibuster threat, if they do, it is over....Dems have a 10 vote cushion and it would pass. Maybe the dems can bring up the "nuclear option"?

Just like when W was prez, they ramed shit through without much dem support, it is the dems turn....you can thank W for all the super majority in the House that the dems have and the 10 seat cushion in the Senate.



[Edited on November 8, 2009 at 1:25 AM. Reason : w]

11/8/2009 1:23:25 AM

Why is "freedom" such a popular word with republicans in their rhetoric against healthcare reform? What about freedom from massive health insurance corporations controlling our lives? Why is it that freedom only seems to be important when it applies to the government?

11/8/2009 2:44:22 AM

I'm all for health care reform, but after all the political bullshit was done what we have is like passing a law that the fat guy who runs the diner has to feed everyone in town, and not worrying about how he's supposed to do it just because he apparently has food. The insurance companies are middle men, giving them competition, pushing them around or restricting them can't make more health care providers and resources magically appear.

11/8/2009 2:49:20 AM

Quote :

"Why is "freedom" such a popular word with republicans in their rhetoric against healthcare reform? What about freedom from massive health insurance corporations controlling our lives? Why is it that freedom only seems to be important when it applies to the government?"

Insurance companies can't send you to war, government can.
Insurance companies can't raise my taxes, government can.
More insurance companies = competition, more government is the worst thing ever.
I can choose not to buy health insurance. I can choose to switch providers. I can choose to use alternatives like HSAs. I cannot choose a new federal government if this one isn't doing what I like.

The list goes on.

The kicker is that once the government starts paying for healthcare they can regulate what treatments I can get based on my needs and the needs of others.

Also, in other countries they've had to raise taxes out the wazoo pay for the damn thing and we're already over a trillion dollars in debt. It's not an economical thing to do.

11/8/2009 8:14:49 AM

Yes healthcare insurance needs reforming. Everybody knows it but where people differ is how much government should control healthcare. This bill the house passed will not hurt big corporations, but it will cripple small businesses which is what Dem's really want. They want more people to be dependant on the government because thats who votes for them. This bill requires any business with 50 or more employees to have to provide insurance for employees and more than likely the business won't qualify for the public option so they will have to go private. The private insurance companies are going to pass their losses to the customers as any business typically follows this model.

This bill has no Tort Reform which is really needed, it does nothing to stop frivolous lawsuits like my dad had a stroke they tried this it didn't work he died I am going to sue and win a big settlement.

The people that want this passed are people that don't pay much in the way of taxes if any. Medical insurance is not a right. You have the right to medical care you just have to pay for it. I am worried that now I am going to lose take home pay because taxes are going to skyrocket. What happened to the politcal messiah promising not to tax the middle class?

11/8/2009 8:24:09 AM

I wonder what the morons in washington think Drs will do. You have a 2000 page bill that doesnt have 1 page of tort reform. So those high costs will continue to grow. However, you are going to cut dr reimbursements by 40%. Now Drs offices cant operate like govt and print thier own money, so either they will have to reduce costs, meaing firing employees, NOT buying newer equipments, testing machines, etc or just drop the govt insurance. Now the majority of older docs will just retire, coupled with the amount of offices that wont take the medicare, youll have a HUGE waiting line. Of course this will be met with idiots, both in politics and seniors wanting something for nothing, calling on the govt to FORCE drs to take it. And I fear, they will.

11/8/2009 9:43:21 AM

Quote :

"What about freedom from massive health insurance corporations controlling our lives?"

Wait a minute. So you're proposing that a legislative requirement to purchase health care from said insurance corporations is going to provide us with more freedom from them?

11/8/2009 9:54:29 AM

Remember that with this bill..Americans will get to enjoy the tax increases and medicare cuts for a few years before any yummies come through. Add that with a slow-growth recovery and you're gonna end up with a lot less support for gov't-run health care.

Pelosi threw a lot of democrats under the bus last night. 2010 will reap a whirlwind of anger and reprisal at the ballot box.

11/8/2009 10:23:47 AM

Quote :

"Wait a minute. So you're proposing that a legislative requirement to purchase health care from said insurance corporations is going to provide us with more freedom from them? "

This.

11/8/2009 12:05:39 PM

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAa

11/8/2009 1:06:08 PM

STFU about tort reform ... It isn't going to help that much:

[quote]... recently, BusinessWeek reports that "The evidence suggests a much smaller effect [than people expect from tort reform]. Study after study shows that costs associated with malpractice lawsuits make up 1% to 2% of the nation's $2.5 trillion annual health-care bill and that tort reform would barely make a dent in the total."

Though one hospital official said as much as 5 percent of their costs are attributable to malpractice premiums and awards, the Congressional Budget Office finds the number to be closer to 2 percent and noted, "So-called defensive medicine may be motivated less by liability concerns than by the income it generates for physicians."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/164406.php

(There are a ton of articles out there that say the same thing. Everyone except the Rupublicans in fact - 'cause that all they got.)

11/8/2009 1:45:43 PM

Quote :

"So you're proposing... "

I don't propose anything with that question, other than to think about it.

11/8/2009 2:02:13 PM

Quote :

"Insurance companies can't raise my taxes, government can."

They can raise your premiums.

Quote :

"More insurance companies = competition"

That is the antithesis of their corporate philosophy.

Quote :

"I can choose not to buy health insurance."

Choosing not to have insurance is choosing to put your life and your finances at great risk, and to pass that cost to others. You choose not to have insurance and you may be forced to give up many freedoms.

11/8/2009 2:40:02 PM

Quote :

"They can raise your premiums."

and if we did it right, then you could just switch insurers.

Quote :

"Choosing not to have insurance is choosing to put your life and your finances at great risk, and to pass that cost to others. You choose not to have insurance and you may be forced to give up many freedoms."

So? Even if it's an obvious choice, it's still a choice.

Freedom, practically by definition, is the absence of GOVERNMENT intrusion into your life. That is why Republicans are latching on to that term in this case.

11/8/2009 3:16:02 PM

Quote :

"That is the antithesis of their corporate philosophy."

So? It took the state through a Supreme Court decision to confer upon corporations the right of person-hood while simultaneously exculpating the members of that corporation from collective liability for it's failings.

I don't care about the interests of corporations, I care about the freedom of the individual American Citizen to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.


Think about this bill, the Health Care industry gets a guaranteed consumer base, the congress consolidates it's power through regulation, and we're left with less choice and higher costs. Who do you really think this bill is written for?

11/8/2009 3:59:41 PM

Quote :

"I care about the freedom of the individual American Citizen to pursue life, liberty, and happiness."

Then what about the people who cannot afford insurance? What about the people who choose to do without it? What about the people who are denied coverage? Their freedom to pursue these is severly limited. Insurances companies have no interest in helping them towards these pursuits if it isn't profitable.

Quote :

"Think about this bill"

I don't know enough about the bill that was just passed to debate specifics, but from what I've read it won't be what comes across Obama's desk, so it would be academic anyway.

11/8/2009 5:19:53 PM

Quote :

"Then what about the people who cannot afford insurance? What about the people who choose to do without it? What about the people who are denied coverage? Their freedom to pursue these is severly limited. Insurances companies have no interest in helping them towards these pursuits if it isn't profitable."

Then maybe we should try to move towards a system where insurance isn't necessary to get basic care. The notion that we must have insurance is part of what is broken about the system

11/8/2009 6:22:06 PM

Quote :

"The notion that we must have insurance is part of what is broken about the system."

I think the cost of healthcare chicken came before the insurance egg. People's finances can not handle the cost of a catastrophic illness - medical bills are the #1 reason for bankrupcies.

Paying for day-to-day stuff is one thing, catastrophic illness is another. I do think healthcare providers provide discount programs for people paying cash, and there are medical savings accounts, but I don't think insurance in and of itself is the problem.

11/8/2009 8:41:20 PM

let's just hand out fake Canadian health insurance cards to everyone and be done with this issue.

11/8/2009 9:12:10 PM

Quote :

"I think the cost of healthcare chicken came before the insurance egg. People's finances can not handle the cost of a catastrophic illness - medical bills are the #1 reason for bankrupcies. Paying for day-to-day stuff is one thing, catastrophic illness is another. I do think healthcare providers provide discount programs for people paying cash, and there are medical savings accounts, but I don't think insurance in and of itself is the problem."

The point of insurance should be catastrophic illness. It shouldn't be for things like broken fingers or the common cold; those things used to be paid out of pocket. By having a lot of people pay an insurance company a premium, it spreads out the risk and ensures that someone that does have a huge expense will be able to cover it without going bankrupt.

By having insurance cover everything health related, it drives the price of all health expenses up, and insurance premiums as well. Health providers, if they want to be in the health "network," have to agree to "reasonable and customary charges" for basic care. Those are prices of specific health expenses that providers (by contract) are required to charge, usually resulting in providers charging less than they would in a free market. The health providers eat the loss because of that, but they pass down the cost to the consumer in the end; we get rising healthcare costs.

[Edited on November 9, 2009 at 10:35 AM. Reason : ]

11/9/2009 10:34:19 AM

Seems like a tragic cycle. Market forces demand expanding coverage while that very expansion drives up basic costs beyond the access of the lower class. Legislation demands access for the lower class, driving up costs for those who can afford it.

11/9/2009 10:53:22 AM

Quote :

"Market forces demand expanding coverage"

lol. Are you aware that most of the expanded coverage has been mandated by government regulation??

11/9/2009 1:13:03 PM

What's really annoying me is the effect of opposition to the public option.

Given: A healthcare bill with a some sort of public option will pass. Or at least it seems to be the case thus far, even if it requires reconciliation.

Given that, you'd think opposition would do their best to increase efficiency and control costs. Instead, they're just trying to neuter the the public option down to a a point where it's almost certain it will suck. They're effectively sabotaging a multi-billion dollar plan out of pure ideological spite.

Arg.

11/9/2009 1:32:23 PM

why don't the democrats throw the GOP a bone and put in some tort reform....

[Edited on November 9, 2009 at 1:36 PM. Reason : s]

11/9/2009 1:36:08 PM

They just passed the anti-abortion measures.

11/9/2009 1:37:10 PM

Graham: House Bill "D.O.A." in the Senate
Would Filibuster Health Care Reform with Public Option, Declaring "Liberal" House Bill Would Mean "Disaster"
Nov. 8, 2009

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/08/ftn/main5576519.shtml

11/9/2009 2:24:36 PM

Quote :

"Given: A healthcare bill with a some sort of public option will pass. Or at least it seems to be the case thus far, even if it requires reconciliation."

I wouldn't say that's a given. If the Senate Republicans have any backbone, they'll resist the public option in any form. There seems to be this attitude of "well, everyone knows we need some kind of public option, it's just a matter of what form it will take." Well, I reject that. I don't think we need any kind of option that involves a government-run (and government paid for) insurance program. Just like Social Security seemed like a decent idea in its inception, these programs become impossible to get rid of over time. The "public option" would become bloated in the same way.

Quote :

"Given that, you'd think opposition would do their best to increase efficiency and control costs. Instead, they're just trying to neuter the the public option down to a a point where it's almost certain it will suck. They're effectively sabotaging a multi-billion dollar plan out of pure ideological spite."

I don't know if it's purely out of ideological spite. Sure, there may be some people that oppose the public option simply because they want to oppose democrats. Many people are genuinely concerned that this is not the proper role of government. Many other people acknowledge that there's no way that this plan would "pay for itself," so it's going to become yet another liability that we don't have the money to pay for.

As far as increasing efficiency and controlling costs, a good way to do that is to reduce government involvement. Efficiency couldn't possibly increase under a government plan. There's no profit motive in a government-run agency. The program could lose money every year for 10 years, and it doesn't matter, because it's government funded. In a free market, insurance companies (and all businesses) require efficiency in order to make a profit. If they aren't efficient enough, and as a result don't make enough of a profit, they have to downsize or trim the fat. Nothing like that happens under a government plan. It just keeps growing.

[Edited on November 9, 2009 at 3:36 PM. Reason : ]

11/9/2009 3:35:00 PM

Dutch health minister observations of the U.S. healthcare system:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/health/10conv.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

11/9/2009 6:09:33 PM

wait... an article about healthcare reform printed in the NYT... I wonder which side of the issue they are promoting?

thank goodness for unbiased msm!

11/9/2009 6:11:42 PM

I thought you were above partisan games. If you're as smart as you think you are, you should be able to sift through any bias in that article, absorb the information of value, and research anything that makes you skeptical.

11/9/2009 6:27:45 PM

I did, did, and did.

trust me... I listen to NPR 3-6 hrs a day. I have plenty of practice sifting through liberal bias!


[Edited on November 9, 2009 at 6:33 PM. Reason : s]

11/9/2009 6:32:15 PM

Quote :

"BRIAN BEUTLER of Talking Points Memo has a helpful look at the six Democratic senators who are likely to decide the fate of health-care reform. Most of the six seem to be motivated by the bill's overall effect on the deficit. For example, Evan Bayh says he won't support provisions "that would explode the deficit." Joe Lieberman echoes Mr Bayh, saying, "If the public option plan is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote because I believe debt can break America and send us into a recession that's worse than the one we're fighting our way out of today." A sceptical Ezra Klein asks, "What's the mechanism by which the public option increases the national deficit?" It's a good question—the CBO believes a strong public plan will save the government money. But at what point did the CBO become the main arbiter of reform? CBO scoring is a squishy numbers game, and this single-minded focus on the deficit obscures the true goal of reform."

http://ow.ly/160Jcl

The six senators: http://tinyurl.com/yaxbdop]

Quote :

"The New York Times' health-care blog has a long post going over the fuzzy numbers House Democrats have used to make their recently released, 1,990-page health-care bill more palatable. The post covers a lot of the same territory as I did last Friday: It's only $900 billion if you look at the net rather than the gross; the score doesn't account for the doctors' Medicare "fix"; the bill increases Medicaid costs for states by $34 billion (which isn't counted in the score). And, the post adds, it's not clear that the bill "bends the cost curve," in other words, that it reduces the rate of rise in health-care spending."

http://reason.com/blog/2009/11/02/cutting-the-deficit-is-not-the

11/10/2009 11:08:42 AM

The senate will push through a watered down version, no public option, abortions, jail time, etc.

Then they will add all those things, maybe not abortions, on the final bill and push it on reconciliation. Thus giving cover for most dems.

11/10/2009 12:02:26 PM

im going to end up paying someone.

so none of this really matters to me.

11/10/2009 2:52:52 PM

i just highly doubt that a government run option of health insurance will do ANYTHING to actually reduce the amount of money coming out of my pocket either in premiums, co-pays, out of pocket costs, or taxes

in the end my wallet is going to get lighter which i don't like and will never vote for.

as for the abortion bits that are in the current iteration of the bill... well I'm not pro abortion or much of what it "stands" for, i think there are many other options in the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases. i'm very much against my tax money being used for abortions, at all. so i very much like the current set up of not funding abortions with 1 fucking dollar of tax money. (i am very much for tax money to be used for contraceptives/birth control and even the morning after pill and proper education about it)

all in all, i very much doubt anyone in politics (both sides across the board) are capable of coming up with a valid healthcare plan that will increase coverage, decrease costs and not increase taxes.

we spend a lot of money on stupid shit..... (no i don't mean the war, or the military you numbskulls) i think there should be a reworking of the tax code from top to bottom, far too many loop holes. (one off topic thing would be a tax incentive for domestic jobs (to reduce outsourcing))

but anyways, carry on

11/10/2009 9:32:31 PM

Govt: Medicare paid $47 billion in suspect claims (AP)
6 hours ago

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — The government paid more than $47 billion in questionable Medicare claims including medical treatment showing little relation to a patient's condition, wasting taxpayer dollars at a rate nearly three times the previous year. Excerpts of a new federal report, obtained by The Associated Press, show a dramatic increase in improper payments in the $440 billion Medicare program that has been cited by government auditors as a high risk for fraud and waste for 20 years."

http://tinyurl.com/yle8loj

GG! Can't wait until they run the rest of it--into the fucking ground.

11/14/2009 7:05:13 PM

I'm alarmed by the Stupak Amendment. It's projected to make abortions harder to pay for overall, violating the claim that the bill won't make things worse for anyone.

11/16/2009 10:05:40 AM

the government runs everything into the ground cost wise eventually....

Quote :

"I'm alarmed by the Stupak Amendment. It's projected to make abortions harder to pay for overall, violating the claim that the bill won't make things worse for anyone."

so you're pro-government endorsed genocide eh?

i don't see how it's gonna make them "cost more" or "harder to pay for overall" seeing as medicare doesn't pay for abortions unless:

Quote :

"Description of Service/Assessment/Background Information: Abortion is the expulsion or extraction of all (complete) or any part (incomplete) of the placenta or membranes, without an identifiable fetus or with a liveborn infant or a stillborn infant. Policy and Rationale: Abortions are not covered by us or Medicare except when: * The pregnancy is a result of an act of rape or incest; or * The woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place a woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed."

and you bet your fucking ass they check this shit too, the % of abortions that fall in this category are pretty fucking small.

11/16/2009 1:09:52 PM

Uninsured more likely to die after trauma:

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/11/16/uninsured.more.likely.die.after.trauma

11/16/2009 5:35:36 PM

Getting to know the idiot who used a baby as a political prop, Rep. John Shadegg:

11/16/2009 5:42:11 PM

Quote :

"so you're pro-government endorsed genocide eh?"

Well, I hold a sign to that effect every Sunday. Should I work on my propaganda skills?

Quote :

"i don't see how it's gonna make them "cost more" or "harder to pay for overall" seeing as medicare doesn't pay for abortions unless:"

Various private insurance plans currently cover abortions. If enacted, this new bill would pressure them to drop coverage if they want to participate in the exchange. That's the biggest fear, that all companies involved in the exchange would drop coverage. Going beyond this issue, I don't see why should abortion be treated so differently from other medical procedures.

11/16/2009 5:59:15 PM

set em up

11/16/2009 11:55:09 PM