PDA

View Full Version : The Public Option Is Dead


Boreas
12-14-2009, 10:14 PM
It's coming out of the bill. So is the Medicare at 55 provision. Basically what's left is the individual mandate requiring everyone to purchase health insurance or pay a fine. This drops an estimated 31,000,000 new customers into the insurance industry's lap.

Merry Christmas, Cigna!

John

noonereal
12-14-2009, 10:32 PM
this is absolutely stunning

are there any words for this?

legislating an increase in corporate healthcare profits.

BlueStreak
12-14-2009, 10:37 PM
And wasn't the "individual mandate" a Mitt Romney brainchild? Of course, it won't be spun that way. Oh no, not that way, for certain. When all of those people start getting forced to go buy insurance they will all think it was "Obama" that made this happen and they will run out and vote Republican.

If the President is smart, and that's a "BIG IF"----he won't sign the damn thing, he'll send it back to them, but.........We shall see.

Dave

merrylander
12-15-2009, 06:57 AM
Churchill was right.

Grumpy
12-15-2009, 07:21 AM
this is absolutely stunning

are there any words for this?

legislating an increase in corporate healthcare profits.

Yes Pathetic, idiotic, asinine. I have many more if you like.

BlueStreak
12-15-2009, 08:47 AM
Churchill was right.


Probably, but how so, Rob?

Fast_Eddie
12-15-2009, 09:19 AM
I'm really dissapointed in Joe Liberman. Here he is suggesting that buying into Medicare at, say, 55 might be a great idea:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIb13mYoy0Q&feature=player_embedded

Having said that, this has worked out okay. It's still a step forward.

merrylander
12-15-2009, 10:19 AM
Probably, but how so, Rob?

To paraphrase Winnie "The admirable thing about the Americans is that you can always trust them to do the right thing - after they have tried every possible alternative first." :rolleyes:

merrylander
12-15-2009, 10:22 AM
Eddie I don't know what else you expected from Joe Pharma Lieberman. Now he is claiming that if we allowed in drugs from Canada they would probably be fakes. This from the same industry that used poisonous Chinese ingredients in Heparin. Anything for the almighty $$$$$.

Boreas
12-15-2009, 10:36 AM
I'm really dissapointed in Joe Liberman. Here he is suggesting that buying into Medicare at, say, 55 might be a great idea:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIb13mYoy0Q&feature=player_embedded

Having said that, this has worked out okay. It's still a step forward.

I can't say I'm disappointed in Lieberman since this is what I expected from him. I am angry at him, however.

The only hope I see now is for the Dems to draft separate legislation for Medicare at 50 or 55 and pass it under budget reconciliation. They'll only need 51 votes for that.

John

Fast_Eddie
12-15-2009, 10:43 AM
The only hope I see now is for the Dems to draft separate legislation for Medicare at 50 or 55 and pass it under budget reconciliation. They'll only need 51 votes for that.

That's a good idea. This is the kind of thing I keep thinking about. Just get it done. Fix it later. You have to get a law signed. Once you clear that hurdle, it's a lot easier to fuck with it later.

I was really hoping for the Medicare at 55 thing, just personally. I hope to be in a position to retire at about that point.

Boreas
12-15-2009, 12:10 PM
That's a good idea. This is the kind of thing I keep thinking about. Just get it done. Fix it later. You have to get a law signed. Once you clear that hurdle, it's a lot easier to fuck with it later.

We'll have to see what happens in Conference. As I recall, the House bill didn't have a Public Option in it either so we probably won't see that in the final bill. I hope, though, they'll be able to do something about the Personal Mandate to make it less onerous.

As it stands now in the Senate bill the government will render assistance, on a means-tested basis, up to 80% of the premium cost. That leaves at least 20%, plus co-pays, on the backs of the insured. There will be a significant number of people out there who won't be able to afford even that. If they can't qualify for Medicaid either, what then?

I was really hoping for the Medicare at 55 thing, just personally. I hope to be in a position to retire at about that point.

Me too, but not for personal reasons. I'll be eligible for Medicare in 4 months. I see Medicare at 55 as the "camel's nose". You start at 55 and then incrementally work it back to date of birth. Eventually, you've "evolved" a national single payer health plan which is where we have to end up.

John

Boreas
12-15-2009, 12:17 PM
Originally Posted by Boreas:
The only hope I see now is for the Dems to draft separate legislation for Medicare at 50 or 55 and pass it under budget reconciliation. They'll only need 51 votes for that.

That's a good idea.

The best thing about using budget reconciliation is that it'll drive the Repubs nuts. It's how they got the Bush Welfare for Billionaires Tax cuts pushed through.

John

piece-itpete
12-15-2009, 01:16 PM
And wasn't the "individual mandate" a Mitt Romney brainchild? Of course, it won't be spun that way. Oh no, not that way, for certain. When all of those people start getting forced to go buy insurance they will all think it was "Obama" that made this happen and they will run out and vote Republican.


Don't Democrats control Congress :confused:

Pete

Boreas
12-15-2009, 01:32 PM
Don't Democrats control Congress :confused:

Pete

No, they don't - at least not in any real or practical sense. You could argue that they control the House but not the Senate.

Of course, I think you know that and are just being provocative.

With 58 Democrats and 2 Independents in their caucus, the Dems have the bare minimum numbers to resist the record number of Republican filibusters. If one member of their caucus breaks ranks (Lieberman) they lose so, in reality, the filibuster gives the Republicans the ability to block any and every piece of legislation the Democrats propose.

That, of course, is the Republican plan. They will bring government to a standstill so as to allow the Democrats no successes at all, regardless of the costs to the nation. They're banking on the voters blaming the Democrats.

Remember "The Nuclear Option"? That was the Republican threat, when they had control, to change the rules of the Senate and "blow up" the filibuster. That way they wouldn't need 60 votes to win a cloture vote.

John

Grumpy
12-15-2009, 01:38 PM
That's a good idea. This is the kind of thing I keep thinking about. Just get it done. Fix it later. You have to get a law signed. Once you clear that hurdle, it's a lot easier to fuck with it later.

I was really hoping for the Medicare at 55 thing, just personally. I hope to be in a position to retire at about that point.


I view it as a cop out. There was plenty of time to get this right if politicians would stop being politicians. Right like thats gonna happen !

Fast_Eddie
12-15-2009, 02:16 PM
I view it as a cop out. There was plenty of time to get this right if politicians would stop being politicians. Right like thats gonna happen !

Plenty of time!? You mean the "health care fast-sale"? Pft.

Okay, may be a cop out, but that's how it works. No good sticking to your guns if you can't get anything done.

Boreas
12-15-2009, 02:28 PM
Plenty of time!? You mean the "health care fast-sale"? Pft.

Okay, may be a cop out, but that's how it works. No good sticking to your guns if you can't get anything done.

President Obama just held a press conference following a meeting at the White House with the entire Democratic caucus. The speech was far from specific about where the bill stood and he took no questions but one thing was clear. He's pissed off.

John

Fast_Eddie
12-15-2009, 02:35 PM
I've never seen him that pissed off.

piece-itpete
12-15-2009, 03:02 PM
No, they don't - at least not in any real or practical sense. You could argue that they control the House but not the Senate.

Of course, I think you know that and are just being provocative.

With 58 Democrats and 2 Independents in their caucus, the Dems have the bare minimum numbers to resist the record number of Republican filibusters. If one member of their caucus breaks ranks (Lieberman) they lose so, in reality, the filibuster gives the Republicans the ability to block any and every piece of legislation the Democrats propose.

That, of course, is the Republican plan. They will bring government to a standstill so as to allow the Democrats no successes at all, regardless of the costs to the nation. They're banking on the voters blaming the Democrats.

Remember "The Nuclear Option"? That was the Republican threat, when they had control, to change the rules of the Senate and "blow up" the filibuster. That way they wouldn't need 60 votes to win a cloture vote.

John

So, the legislation passed or not passed during Republican years is the Dems fault? :p

Pete

Grumpy
12-15-2009, 03:13 PM
President Obama just held a press conference following a meeting at the White House with the entire Democratic caucus. The speech was far from specific about where the bill stood and he took no questions but one thing was clear. He's pissed off.

John


I honestly don't care whose pissed off. Single payer should have been a priority.

Boreas
12-15-2009, 03:21 PM
I honestly don't care whose pissed off. Single payer should have been a priority.

That's why I actually like the Medicare buy-in better than the pubic option. It's not means tested like the public option, it can be passed under budget reconciliation with 51 votes, and the age requirement can be lowered to day one the same way.

Voila! Single payer universal health care!

Now, will this still happen? There's no reason it can't.... other than our bought-and-paid-for politicians.

John

merrylander
12-15-2009, 03:29 PM
Don't Democrats control Congress :confused:

Pete

No because there are those Republicans in drag who call themmselves Democratic Blue Dogs. Now that a**hole Ben Nelson wants stronger language in the bill about abortion.

Boreas
12-15-2009, 03:40 PM
No because there are those Republicans in drag who call themmselves Democratic Blue Dogs. Now that a**hole Ben Nelson wants stronger language in the bill about abortion.

The Blue Dogs are both a blessing and a curse. If the Dems hadn't put up conservative candidates in those districts/states most of those seats would be in Republican hands. That would have reduced the majority in the House and pretty much wiped it out in the Senate. If that had happened we wouldn't even be talking about health insurance reform, among other things.

The blue Dogs may not vote with their caucus as often as I'd like but they do sometimes. Republicans would never vote with the Democrats on anything.

John

Fast_Eddie
12-15-2009, 04:18 PM
I honestly don't care whose pissed off. Single payer should have been a priority.

I agree. it's unfortunate that "Socialism" was branded as evil before the debate even began. The right wing saw it as a political opportunity with no regard to what was best for Americans.

Grumpy
12-15-2009, 07:28 PM
I agree. it's unfortunate that "Socialism" was branded as evil before the debate even began. The right wing saw it as a political opportunity with no regard to what was best for Americans.


From what I hear it was lieberman, a liberal, who single handedly killed the single payer part of the bill, if were looking to blame someone.

Boreas
12-15-2009, 07:46 PM
From what I hear it was lieberman, a liberal, who single handedly killed the single payer part of the bill, if were looking to blame someone.

Pretty much. Ben Nelson is looking for stronger anti-abortion language but, until Lieberman said he'd filibuster anything with a public option or Medicare buy in, it looked like he was going to go along.

A lot of people think this is a personal vendetta on Lieberman's part. They believe he's getting even with the progressives who didn't support him against Ned Lamont in the CT primary. I think they could be right. Lieberman is an incredible egomaniac.

Emotionally, I'd like to see Lieberman punished. The Democratic caucus could strip him of both of his committee chairmanships but I'm afraid of the consequences.

If that were to happen Lieberman would almost certainly start to caucus with the Republicans and maybe even change parties. That would make the split 59 D and 41 R. If it's reasonable to hope that Lieberman will vote with the Democrats on anything facing significant Republican opposition, then losing him would be bad news. It's a tough one.

Harry Reid must be ready to kill him. After the election, during which Lieberman supported McCain, Reid justified including Lieberman in the Democratic Caucus and giving him chairmanship of two important committees by saying, "Joe's with us on everything except the war."

John

Fast_Eddie
12-15-2009, 08:22 PM
From what I hear it was lieberman, a liberal, who single handedly killed the single payer part of the bill, if were looking to blame someone.

That's not my understanding. Single payer never made it as far as being debated. Never a part of any bill. It was dead before arrival. Shoot, dead before it left the station.

Lieberman 1. ISN'T a "liberal". Don't know how anyone could say that- especially now. Liberal and Democrat are not interchangeable terms. In fact, most people not from the U.S. would call our most "liberal" Democrats pretty conservative. But hell, Lieberman isn't even a Democrat.

Lieberman 2. pretty much single handedly killed the so-called "public option" which was not even close to single payer. He also killed the expansion of Medicare which would have put more people under a single payer plan, but was far, far from single payer health care reform.

noonereal
12-15-2009, 08:27 PM
That's not my understanding. Single payer never made it as far as being debated. Never a part of any bill. It was dead before arrival. Shoot, dead before it left the station.

.

That is correct.The overwhelmingly successful and popular Medicare template was never even discussed. This was crushed even before the first conference on healthcare was convened.

Now we even have the robber baron dupes tea bagging in Washington today.
There is nothing worse than ignorance.These folks must be all excited because Santa is coming.

Boreas
12-15-2009, 08:30 PM
That's not my understanding. Single payer never made it as far as being debated. Never a part of any bill. It was dead before arrival. Shoot, dead before it left the station.

Yes, sorry! When I read Grumpy's post "single payer" registered in my brain as "public option".

John

Grumpy
12-16-2009, 02:45 AM
That's not my understanding. Single payer never made it as far as being debated. Never a part of any bill. It was dead before arrival. Shoot, dead before it left the station.

Lieberman 1. ISN'T a "liberal". Don't know how anyone could say that- especially now. Liberal and Democrat are not interchangeable terms. In fact, most people not from the U.S. would call our most "liberal" Democrats pretty conservative. But hell, Lieberman isn't even a Democrat.

Lieberman 2. pretty much single handedly killed the so-called "public option" which was not even close to single payer. He also killed the expansion of Medicare which would have put more people under a single payer plan, but was far, far from single payer health care reform.


I was quoting what I heard on NPR yesterday. They were the ones who named him as a liberal.

merrylander
12-16-2009, 02:12 PM
Now even the White House is in cahoots with the drug companies, the head of the FDA made a statement that re-importing drugs from Canada would open the door to fakes. I would trust the Canadians a damn site sooner than the FDA. It is hypocritical since the FDA lets Pharma import the raw materials for drugs from China and India - that was how they nearly killed a bunch of people withHeparin that had some Chinese crap in it.

piece-itpete
12-16-2009, 02:28 PM
"We'll tell the pharmaceutical companies 'thanks, but no, thanks' for the overpriced drugs -- drugs that cost twice as much here as they do in Europe and Canada"

Obama, campaigning.

Pete

Boreas
12-16-2009, 02:45 PM
I was quoting what I heard on NPR yesterday. They were the ones who named him as a liberal.

NPR ain't what it used to be. I was a daily listener to All Things Considered since the '70s. Now I almost never listen.

When Gingrich tried to actually do away with it, the Corporation For Public Broadcasting began drifting way to the right in order to survive. Add to that the fact that 8 of the 9 current Board members were appointed by Bush..............

Obama gets to make 3 appointments next year.

John

Boreas
12-16-2009, 02:46 PM
"We'll tell the pharmaceutical companies 'thanks, but no, thanks' for the overpriced drugs -- drugs that cost twice as much here as they do in Europe and Canada"

Obama, campaigning.

Pete

I'm so mad I'm gonna scrape the Obama sticker off my truck! ;)

John

Charles
12-16-2009, 03:03 PM
Now even the White House is in cahoots with the drug companies, the head of the FDA made a statement that re-importing drugs from Canada would open the door to fakes. I would trust the Canadians a damn site sooner than the FDA. It is hypocritical since the FDA lets Pharma import the raw materials for drugs from China and India - that was how they nearly killed a bunch of people withHeparin that had some Chinese crap in it.

I used to import Zyrtec from Canada all of the time. AT app. 20% the price and no prescription it was a no brainer.

To tell the truth, I could have bought it about as cheap with my health insurance, but I did it out of spite. Managed to screw the Doc, the pharmacutical companies...if only I could figure out a way to screw the insurance companies.

Chas

Grumpy
12-16-2009, 03:15 PM
NPR ain't what it used to be. I was a daily listener to All Things Considered since the '70s. Now I almost never listen.

When Gingrich tried to actually do away with it, the Corporation For Public Broadcasting began drifting way to the right in order to survive. Add to that the fact that 8 of the 9 current Board members were appointed by Bush..............

Obama gets to make 3 appointments next year.

John


Off subject but Terry Gross from fresh air has got to be the worse interviewer I have every heard. That women is just plain horrible.

Boreas
12-16-2009, 03:26 PM
Off subject but Terry Gross from fresh air has got to be the worse interviewer I have every heard. That women is just plain horrible.

I lived in New Jersey, close to Philadelphia, when her show was local on WHYY so I've been listening to her since the '80s. I think she's great.

Just goes to show ya.........

John

piece-itpete
12-16-2009, 03:31 PM
I'm so mad I'm gonna scrape the Obama sticker off my truck! ;)

John

Lmao!!

Pete

noonereal
12-16-2009, 07:09 PM
I have about had it with Obie.

Dean speaks the truth and they attack him instead of the republicans and the healthcare industry?

I think this is a major blunder.

Grumpy
12-17-2009, 06:12 AM
I have about had it with Obie.

Dean speaks the truth and they attack him instead of the republicans and the healthcare industry?

I think this is a major blunder.


Thats how politics works. Not only in the US but everywhere. Blame others for everything. It really should be on our front door.

merrylander
12-17-2009, 07:10 AM
Now Ben Nelson is getting his knickers in a twist over abortion, hell I disapprove of the two wars, can I have my money back? The Dems are circling the waggons and firing inward and the party of No is laughing its head off.

Fast_Eddie
12-17-2009, 09:13 AM
I have about had it with Obie.

Dean speaks the truth and they attack him instead of the republicans and the healthcare industry?

I think this is a major blunder.

Not me. I think he's navagating the mine field as well as can be expected. Trying to get something done. The Republicans killed the Democrats for years just by keeping everyone in line. Shoot, they're still at it even if it costs them elections. They may not be in power, but they're in lock step. Democrats need to rally around their legislation and quit this bickering. Pass the bill, warts and all. It's something. More than anyone else has been able to do.

Democrats campaigned on issues like health care reform. God love them for doing what can be done. Remember all the wedge issues Republicans ran on through the last few cycles? Well, gays are getting married, abortion is still legal and we haven't put all the so-called "illegals" on a bus and "sent them back to Mexico". This is tough sleading for the Democrats, no doubt, but something is getting done. I think at the end of the day that will count for something and come election day people will see that the country didn't go bankrupt, more people are able to get health care and the wars are at least looking like they may end one day.

But I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. 2010 is going to be a tough one. But by 2012 I think things will be looking pretty good again for Democrats.

piece-itpete
12-17-2009, 09:47 AM
Now Ben Nelson is getting his knickers in a twist over abortion, hell I disapprove of the two wars, can I have my money back? The Dems are circling the waggons and firing inward and the party of No is laughing its head off.

Indeed. You'll see the far left joining with the far right in attacking Obama. (for the record I disagree with both of them)(Eleanor and Buchanan dancing cheek to cheek :D )

It's his own fault though, he promised all things to everybody and the chickens are coming home to roost. It's excellent political theatre though.

Pete

Fast_Eddie
12-17-2009, 09:57 AM
This article pretty well says what I think - that last graph is the key.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/health-care-elevator-pitch.html

Kennedy killed Nixon's health care reform effort hoping for a better deal. He later said it was the biggest mistake he ever made. Passing on this would be similar. No more "do nothing". Take what we can get here- which is historic.

Fast_Eddie
12-17-2009, 10:01 AM
Indeed. You'll see the far left joining with the far right in attacking Obama. (for the record I disagree with both of them)(Eleanor and Buchanan dancing cheek to cheek :D )

It's his own fault though, he promised all things to everybody and the chickens are coming home to roost. It's excellent political theatre though.

Pete

Man, both extreems against him sounds great! Makes him look like he's in the middle, which should appeal to most people.

But I think he is delivering what he promised. Maybe not as fast as some wanted, but he's getting things done. Like I said before, maybe not enough to help in 2010 (which is why it's critical to get health care done NOW) but by 2012 people will be seeing the results.

noonereal
12-17-2009, 10:21 AM
This article pretty well says what I think - that last graph is the key.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/health-care-elevator-pitch.html

Kennedy killed Nixon's health care reform effort hoping for a better deal. He later said it was the biggest mistake he ever made. Passing on this would be similar. No more "do nothing". Take what we can get here- which is historic.

Obama has no healthcare deal to kill. It is simply an inscription for increased healthcare profits.

Fast_Eddie
12-17-2009, 12:29 PM
It is simply an inscription for increased healthcare profits.

You know, I get that people aren't getting all they want with this, but that's simply wrong. There's much good in there.

merrylander
12-17-2009, 12:59 PM
I am afraid much of the good is for the industry, health insurance get 31 million new subscribers and Pharma gets to keep their obscene profits.

Yes indeed we have the finest government money can buy, and they were bought.

Boreas
12-17-2009, 01:19 PM
You know, I get that people aren't getting all they want with this, but that's simply wrong. There's much good in there.

We'll see. It ain't over yet.

John

noonereal
12-17-2009, 01:46 PM
You know, I get that people aren't getting all they want with this, but that's simply wrong. There's much good in there.

Sorry, I TOTALLY disagree with your post. Seriously, other than the health care industry who is gaining with this bill and how?

Grumpy
12-17-2009, 03:09 PM
We'll see. It ain't over yet.

John


It was over before it started.

Boreas
12-17-2009, 03:14 PM
It was over before it started.

What I meant was, once the Senate bill actually exists, the House and Senate still have to draft the final bill.

Also, I don't agree that it was a non-starter. There will be a bill and it will pass. That's more than anyone has accomplished before.

John

Fast_Eddie
12-17-2009, 03:18 PM
Sorry, I TOTALLY disagree with your post. Seriously, other than the health care industry who is gaining with this bill and how?

People with pre-existing conditions gain. I have a good friend who owns her own business. She can't buy insurance because of a minor health issue years ago. This should fix that.

People with conditions who have reached their "lifetime limit" on coverage will benefit.

Poor people who get subsidies for insurance will benefit.

Young people who don't think they needed insurance who have a car accident and end up in ICU for a month will benefit.

Plus, in a few years this bill will make it impossible not to address the cost situation. I wish it were better addressed now, but it's not. And having shown that health care can indeed be effectively regulated, it will show that they can actually address that issue when the time comes. One step at a time. I'm fine with that. One step is better than "do nothing".

Grumpy
12-17-2009, 03:21 PM
People with pre-existing conditions gain. I have a good friend who owns her own business. She can't buy insurance because of a minor health issue years ago. This should fix that.

People with conditions who have reached their "lifetime limit" on coverage will benefit.

Poor people who get subsidies for insurance will benefit.

Young people who don't think they needed insurance who have a car accident and end up in ICU for a month will benefit.

Plus, in a few years this bill will make it impossible not to address the cost situation. I wish it were better addressed now, but it's not. And having shown that health care can indeed be effectively regulated, it will show that they can actually address that issue when the time comes. One step at a time. I'm fine with that. One step is better than "do nothing".


Which people gain ? Who is the gooberment to choose one class of people to protect while throwing the rest of us to the wolves..

Fast_Eddie
12-17-2009, 03:30 PM
Which people gain ? Who is the gooberment to choose one class of people to protect while throwing the rest of us to the wolves..

We'll just have to disagree. I still think doing something and helping a good many people is better than doing nothing. But that's me.

Grumpy
12-17-2009, 03:40 PM
We are all in the same boat. Choosing who to help and who not to is just plain wrong. Sorry but thats the way I see it.

Grumpy
12-17-2009, 03:43 PM
Tell me who will be the biggest recipients of this bill will be ? It sure as hell will not be middle class.

We get screwed on everything. Why ? because we get up and go to work every day !

Boreas
12-17-2009, 04:10 PM
Deleted, double-posted

Boreas
12-17-2009, 04:25 PM
People with pre-existing conditions gain. I have a good friend who owns her own business. She can't buy insurance because of a minor health issue years ago. This should fix that.

Apparently it won't. True, they won't be able to deny her but they can rate her premium up to 50% higher because of certain "health factors" like pre-existing conditions.

People with conditions who have reached their "lifetime limit" on coverage will benefit.

Again, they'll just jack your premium. In fact, they'll now be able to increase premiums for the youngest adults to the older category 400%, solely on the basis of age.

Poor people who get subsidies for insurance will benefit.

But in many cases they still won't be able to afford it - or the fine they'll have to pay for not buying it. Under the plan middle income families will be paying anywhere from 17% to 22% in premiums, plus co-pays.

Young people who don't think they needed insurance who have a car accident and end up in ICU for a month will benefit.

Because they've been forced to buy insurance? They probably won't need to worry too much about car accidents since they won't be able to afford a car. ;)

Plus, in a few years this bill will make it impossible not to address the cost situation. I wish it were better addressed now, but it's not.

How so?

And having shown that health care can indeed be effectively regulated, it will show that they can actually address that issue when the time comes. One step at a time. I'm fine with that. One step is better than "do nothing".

In the light of the provision to sell across state lines, we're actually going to see all these companies writing their policies under the laws of states with the laxest standards and regulations. The quality of insurance coverage, irrespective of premiums, will decline dramatically.

John

Fast_Eddie
12-17-2009, 04:30 PM
We are all in the same boat. Choosing who to help and who not to is just plain wrong. Sorry but thats the way I see it.

I understand that part of your position. But I do not understand taking that and saying "So help no one". Sorry, just don't understand that. If you were on a sinking ship and there weren't enough life boats would you just say "sorry, everyone should jsut stay on the ship and die".

Grumpy
12-17-2009, 09:10 PM
I understand that part of your position. But I do not understand taking that and saying "So help no one". Sorry, just don't understand that. If you were on a sinking ship and there weren't enough life boats would you just say "sorry, everyone should jsut stay on the ship and die".


I am saying they should not have copped out and made sure everyone got off the boat instead of letting the 4th class off while the rest sink slowly.

noonereal
12-17-2009, 09:16 PM
People with pre-existing conditions gain. I have a good friend who owns her own business. She can't buy insurance because of a minor health issue years ago. This should fix that.

this is only true for the few who can afford it. Estimates are $25,000 a year for such beign and common conditions such as high blood pressure.

People with conditions who have reached their "lifetime limit" on coverage will benefit.

Not true either. This has alos been left with enough loop holes to drive a truck through.

Poor people who get subsidies for insurance will benefit.

How?


Young people who don't think they needed insurance who have a car accident and end up in ICU for a month will benefit.

How?

Plus, in a few years this bill will make it impossible not to address the cost situation. I wish it were better addressed now, but it's not. And having shown that health care can indeed be effectively regulated, it will show that they can actually address that issue when the time comes. One step at a time. I'm fine with that. One step is better than "do nothing".

You sound like a pitch mAN.

noonereal
12-17-2009, 09:18 PM
We'll just have to disagree. I still think doing something and helping a good many people is better than doing nothing. But that's me.

who is it helping???????

seems to me it will hurt more than it accidentally helps.

Fast_Eddie
12-17-2009, 10:05 PM
who is it helping???????

seems to me it will hurt more than it accidentally helps.

Wow, feel like I've been here before...

People with pre-existing conditions gain. I have a good friend who owns her own business. She can't buy insurance because of a minor health issue years ago. This should fix that.

People with conditions who have reached their "lifetime limit" on coverage will benefit.

Poor people who get subsidies for insurance will benefit.

Young people who don't think they needed insurance who have a car accident and end up in ICU for a month will benefit.

Plus, in a few years this bill will make it impossible not to address the cost situation. I wish it were better addressed now, but it's not. And having shown that health care can indeed be effectively regulated, it will show that they can actually address that issue when the time comes. One step at a time. I'm fine with that. One step is better than "do nothing".

Boreas
12-17-2009, 10:09 PM
Wow, feel like I've been here before...

People with pre-existing conditions gain. I have a good friend who owns her own business. She can't buy insurance because of a minor health issue years ago. This should fix that.

People with conditions who have reached their "lifetime limit" on coverage will benefit.

Poor people who get subsidies for insurance will benefit.

Young people who don't think they needed insurance who have a car accident and end up in ICU for a month will benefit.

Plus, in a few years this bill will make it impossible not to address the cost situation. I wish it were better addressed now, but it's not. And having shown that health care can indeed be effectively regulated, it will show that they can actually address that issue when the time comes. One step at a time. I'm fine with that. One step is better than "do nothing".

Groundhog Day. :)

John

noonereal
12-17-2009, 10:16 PM
Wow, feel like I've been here before...

People with pre-existing conditions gain. I have a good friend who owns her own business. She can't buy insurance because of a minor health issue years ago. This should fix that.

People with conditions who have reached their "lifetime limit" on coverage will benefit.

Poor people who get subsidies for insurance will benefit.

Young people who don't think they needed insurance who have a car accident and end up in ICU for a month will benefit.

Plus, in a few years this bill will make it impossible not to address the cost situation. I wish it were better addressed now, but it's not. And having shown that health care can indeed be effectively regulated, it will show that they can actually address that issue when the time comes. One step at a time. I'm fine with that. One step is better than "do nothing".

:( Not the case see my other reply above.

Fast_Eddie
12-17-2009, 10:41 PM
People with pre-existing conditions gain. I have a good friend who owns her own business. She can't buy insurance because of a minor health issue years ago. This should fix that.

People with conditions who have reached their "lifetime limit" on coverage will benefit.

Poor people who get subsidies for insurance will benefit.

Young people who don't think they needed insurance who have a car accident and end up in ICU for a month will benefit.

Plus, in a few years this bill will make it impossible not to address the cost situation. I wish it were better addressed now, but it's not. And having shown that health care can indeed be effectively regulated, it will show that they can actually address that issue when the time comes. One step at a time. I'm fine with that. One step is better than "do nothing".

Boreas
12-17-2009, 11:06 PM
People with pre-existing conditions gain. I have a good friend who owns her own business. She can't buy insurance because of a minor health issue years ago. This should fix that.

People with conditions who have reached their "lifetime limit" on coverage will benefit.

Poor people who get subsidies for insurance will benefit.

Young people who don't think they needed insurance who have a car accident and end up in ICU for a month will benefit.

Plus, in a few years this bill will make it impossible not to address the cost situation. I wish it were better addressed now, but it's not. And having shown that health care can indeed be effectively regulated, it will show that they can actually address that issue when the time comes. One step at a time. I'm fine with that. One step is better than "do nothing".

Groundhog Day. :)

John

Fast_Eddie
12-17-2009, 11:25 PM
People with pre-existing conditions gain. I have a good friend who owns her own business. She can't buy insurance because of a minor health issue years ago. This should fix that.

People with conditions who have reached their "lifetime limit" on coverage will benefit.

Poor people who get subsidies for insurance will benefit.

Young people who don't think they needed insurance who have a car accident and end up in ICU for a month will benefit.

Plus, in a few years this bill will make it impossible not to address the cost situation. I wish it were better addressed now, but it's not. And having shown that health care can indeed be effectively regulated, it will show that they can actually address that issue when the time comes. One step at a time. I'm fine with that. One step is better than "do nothing".

Boreas
12-17-2009, 11:30 PM
People with pre-existing conditions gain. I have a good friend who owns her own business. She can't buy insurance because of a minor health issue years ago. This should fix that.

People with conditions who have reached their "lifetime limit" on coverage will benefit.

Poor people who get subsidies for insurance will benefit.

Young people who don't think they needed insurance who have a car accident and end up in ICU for a month will benefit.

Plus, in a few years this bill will make it impossible not to address the cost situation. I wish it were better addressed now, but it's not. And having shown that health care can indeed be effectively regulated, it will show that they can actually address that issue when the time comes. One step at a time. I'm fine with that. One step is better than "do nothing".

Now, cut that out! ;)

John

noonereal
12-18-2009, 05:46 AM
People with pre-existing conditions gain. I have a good friend who owns her own business. She can't buy insurance because of a minor health issue years ago. This should fix that.

People with conditions who have reached their "lifetime limit" on coverage will benefit.

Poor people who get subsidies for insurance will benefit.

Young people who don't think they needed insurance who have a car accident and end up in ICU for a month will benefit.

Plus, in a few years this bill will make it impossible not to address the cost situation. I wish it were better addressed now, but it's not. And having shown that health care can indeed be effectively regulated, it will show that they can actually address that issue when the time comes. One step at a time. I'm fine with that. One step is better than "do nothing".

this is not accurate

noonereal
12-18-2009, 05:48 AM
People with pre-existing conditions gain. I have a good friend who owns her own business. She can't buy insurance because of a minor health issue years ago. This should fix that.

People with conditions who have reached their "lifetime limit" on coverage will benefit.

Poor people who get subsidies for insurance will benefit.

Young people who don't think they needed insurance who have a car accident and end up in ICU for a month will benefit.

Plus, in a few years this bill will make it impossible not to address the cost situation. I wish it were better addressed now, but it's not. And having shown that health care can indeed be effectively regulated, it will show that they can actually address that issue when the time comes. One step at a time. I'm fine with that. One step is better than "do nothing".


Saying this over and over again does not make it true.

What this bill does is increase profits for healthcare providers.

That is it.

merrylander
12-18-2009, 07:06 AM
regarding your sig noon they stole it, how else did they get it all.

piece-itpete
12-18-2009, 07:23 AM
Rotflmao!! You guys are killing me!

Pete

noonereal
12-18-2009, 08:31 AM
Rotflmao!! You guys are killing me!

Pete

Tell me how they earned it

piece-itpete
12-18-2009, 10:11 AM
I was talking about the groundhog day, but some rich guys worked very hard to be where they are. Some didn't, they inherited it perhaps, but it was their fathers money to give.

My dad spent time in the workers paradise of Yugoslavia in 1952 (iirc the year right). It was held up as a communist success at the time. The workers voted for their bosses. Guess what kind of boss they voted for?

In the end the workers end up screwed even worse, there is no job to go to. And there is no arguing with your employer, when your employer is the government.

I'm not saying all rich guys earned it, and I'm not saying all rich guys are crooks. Crooks should go to jail.

Sidenote: he wandered around Belgrade for hours on foot and got lost. Over 6 hours after he left his hotel, a lady walked up to him and said, Mr XXXXX, follow me please. They had been following him the whole time!

Pete

noonereal
12-18-2009, 12:00 PM
I'm not saying all rich guys earned it, and I'm not saying all rich guys are crooks. Crooks should go to jail.



I fail to see how someone "earns" millions of dollars a year working (in rare case 60 hours a week) and another "earns" $30,000 a year while working the same hours.

It seems to me that the one earning millions has an obligation to give back to sociaty substantially more than the one earning $30,000. He would never have "earned" it if it were not for the millions of guys earning $30,000 a year.

Grumpy
12-18-2009, 02:43 PM
It seems to me that the one earning millions has an obligation to give back to sociaty substantially more than the one earning $30,000. He would never have "earned" it if it were not for the millions of guys earning $30,000 a year.


How much of an obligation ?

Writewing
01-05-2010, 11:16 PM
I fail to see how someone "earns" millions of dollars a year working (in rare case 60 hours a week) and another "earns" $30,000 a year while working the same hours.

It seems to me that the one earning millions has an obligation to give back to sociaty substantially more than the one earning $30,000. He would never have "earned" it if it were not for the millions of guys earning $30,000 a year.

And millions of guys who makes $30k per year wouldnt have a job if it were not for the million dollar guys at the top providing those jobs and that is why they dont owe anymore than the next guy.

doucanoe
01-05-2010, 11:33 PM
The guys I know that make the most money live their jobs. 60 hours a week would be slacking off.

RC

Boreas
01-06-2010, 12:10 AM
And millions of guys who makes $30k per year wouldnt have a job if it were not for the million dollar guys at the top providing those jobs and that is why they dont owe anymore than the next guy.

Labor precedes capital.

John

noonereal
01-06-2010, 06:32 AM
And millions of guys who makes $30k per year wouldnt have a job if it were not for the million dollar guys at the top providing those jobs and that is why they dont owe anymore than the next guy.

Welcome writewing. :)

This is the first post I read from you and my internal response was just sad.
Million dollar guys at the top provide no jobs. They provide profits for the investor class. You are simply repeating a lie that any reasoning and experienced person knows is false. It's one thing to have a political belief that is based on Ray-guns principles, it is quite another to mindlessly repeat the propaganda of the wealth.
Anyway good to have you.
no one

noonereal
01-06-2010, 06:37 AM
How much of an obligation ?

I would think it should be in proportion to the number they affect.
Let's say you are head of Bank of America and you are realizing profits from hundreds of millions of Americans. You then should have a very great obligation to give back, don't you think?

(maybe a bad example because you should probably be in jail in your are head of BOA, but I think you get my point)

noonereal
01-06-2010, 06:44 AM
The guys I know that make the most money live their jobs. 60 hours a week would be slacking off.

RC

See, now I have experienced pretty much the opposite.
The poorest folks I know are exempt from most labor laws and minimum wage rules.

I know what you mean however because the last 15 years or so I have been blessed with an occupation that caused me to work as you describe above and yes it is by far the most money I ever made. The thing is, it's just not "work". It was way way harder working 40 hours for the man than 70 hours for myself. I don't even consider it work after decades of making profits for the investor class.

piece-itpete
01-06-2010, 07:32 AM
How much of an obligation ?

Depends - how much does he have, and can the government get at it? :)

And millions of guys who makes $30k per year wouldnt have a job if it were not for the million dollar guys at the top providing those jobs and that is why they dont owe anymore than the next guy.

The guys I know that make the most money live their jobs. 60 hours a week would be slacking off.

RC

:applause:

Pete

noonereal
01-06-2010, 07:42 AM
Depends - how much does he have, and can the government get at it? :)





:applause:

Pete

:(

iT just ain't true.

piece-itpete
01-06-2010, 07:45 AM
How many people does the Bank of America employ? I wonder what their average pay is.

Pete

noonereal
01-06-2010, 07:53 AM
How many people does the Bank of America employ? I wonder what their average pay is.

Pete

I wonder what there mean pay is.

merrylander
01-06-2010, 07:54 AM
And millions of guys who makes $30k per year wouldnt have a job if it were not for the million dollar guys at the top providing those jobs and that is why they dont owe anymore than the next guy.

So you honestly believe that some CEO is worth $30 million a year in salary and bonuses? Then give hin a multi-million golden parachute as well?
While the allegedly most powerful man in the world POTUS gets $400,000 plus free rent.

There is not a man or woman on God's green earth worth more than $500,000 a year and there are bloody few of them.

During my years as a consultant I had occasion to interact with a lot of Mahogany Row types and believe me, intellect was not their strong suit.

merrylander
01-06-2010, 07:56 AM
How many people does the Bank of America employ? I wonder what their average pay is.

Pete

Not as great as you might think, in any case Lewis is out on his ass.

piece-itpete
01-06-2010, 08:01 AM
I just used that as an example.

And what defines 'rich'? 100K a year (a LOT of my friends would think so). 200?

And how is it acceptable to become rich? Striking oil, inventing something, busting your butt for years, inheritance, or figuring out how to create an investment vehicle?

Pete

rickr15
01-06-2010, 08:21 AM
I am afraid much of the good is for the industry, health insurance get 31 million new subscribers and Pharma gets to keep their obscene profits.

Yes indeed we have the finest government money can buy, and they were bought.

Gotta agree on this one. Obama stated that capping the insurance fees would be meddling in private industry. What the hell does he call creating a forced customer base?
Health reform for the good of the PEOPLE is not going to happen as long as govt. is allowed to accept legal bribes from lobbyists.

merrylander
01-06-2010, 08:29 AM
I just used that as an example.

And what defines 'rich'? 100K a year (a LOT of my friends would think so). 200?

And how is it acceptable to become rich? Striking oil, inventing something, busting your butt for years, inheritance, or figuring out how to create an investment vehicle?

Pete

creating an investment vehicle, you mean like derivatives.:rolleyes:

You know I have finally figured out where the problem really lies, we are a nation of middlemen.

You want a mortgage - see a mortgage broker

You want shares in GE - see a stock broker

You want to petition the government - see a lobbyist

You want . . .

Everything seems to be done through some middleman and of course there is a fee. It is like living in the middle ages.:rolleyes:

rickr15
01-06-2010, 08:32 AM
Welcome writewing. :)

This is the first post I read from you and my internal response was just sad.
Million dollar guys at the top provide no jobs. They provide profits for the investor class. You are simply repeating a lie that any reasoning and experienced person knows is false. It's one thing to have a political belief that is based on Ray-guns principles, it is quite another to mindlessly repeat the propaganda of the wealth.
Anyway good to have you.
no one

Interesting opinion. The million dollar gentleman at the top of the company I work for started his company with an 11K mortgage on his house. He now provides about 130 jobs for my community.He also pays considerable city,state, and federal taxes on his business. Sure he makes a profit. But he also provides health care, retirement and bennys for all his tenured workers.
How does increasingly taxing him until he sells out or offshores the money help the US in any form.
I consider myself a "reasoning and experienced" person but I'm still going to have to call BS on your blanket statement above.

Boreas
01-06-2010, 09:30 AM
I wonder what there mean pay is.

On average CEO to worker pay is about 250 to 1.

John

noonereal
01-06-2010, 09:37 AM
Interesting opinion. The million dollar gentleman at the top of the company I work for started his company with an 11K mortgage on his house. He now provides about 130 jobs for my community.He also pays considerable city,state, and federal taxes on his business. Sure he makes a profit. But he also provides health care, retirement and bennys for all his tenured workers.
How does increasingly taxing him until he sells out or offshores the money help the US in any form.
I consider myself a "reasoning and experienced" person but I'm still going to have to call BS on your blanket statement above.

All blanket statements including mine are inherently wrong. See we already agree. ;)

I'll bet I know 10 folks who work just as hard as your "million dollar gentleman" who struggle from day to day. Point is they need each other and are mutually dependent. It is one sociaty. To my way of thinking the progressive tax structure addresses this well, it simply has to many loop holes and has been rolled back far to much.

Let me break down my belief in very simple terms.
He can drive a Mercedes while I drive a Ford.
He cannot eat aged veal when my child is hungry.

Now wrestling this into law is tough.

Another thing I have noticed in my years on the planet is that hard work is the third and least effective means to wealth. My experience has been that the biggest determiner of luck is who you know, followed by luck with hard work a very distant 3rd.


He provides health care and retirement? Are you sure his employees don't earn healthcare and retirement?
He earns his millions and the working stiff is given stuff?
See my point?

noonereal
01-06-2010, 09:38 AM
On average CEO to worker pay is about 250 to 1.

John

Well that seems fair.

I mean we all know they tend to work 250 times harder.

Grumpy
01-06-2010, 09:41 AM
I have to admit I gave up following this cluster fuck. Are they still planning to force the people who actually have jobs and no insurance to get insurance ?

noonereal
01-06-2010, 09:44 AM
I have to admit I gave up following this cluster fuck. Are they still planning to force the people who actually have jobs and no insurance to get insurance ?

Yes. Inscribed profits for the healthcre industry is all that is being discussed now.

I may never vote for a Democrat again if this goes through.

Grumpy
01-06-2010, 09:48 AM
Thats fucked up.

noonereal
01-06-2010, 09:50 AM
It sure is.


And no talking head is gonna make me think it's OK, it's a start.

merrylander
01-06-2010, 09:58 AM
Well gee guys, the health care industry was spending a million dollars a day while Congress debated the bill, surely they should get something for their money.:rolleyes:

Grumpy
01-06-2010, 09:59 AM
Well gee guys, the health care industry was spending a million dollars a day while Congress debated the bill, surely they should get something for their money.:rolleyes:


Yeah like more of our hard earned money.

merrylander
01-06-2010, 10:03 AM
That's what happens when Chuckie ethanol Grassley and the Bishop Hatch stand up and keep yelling socialism, socialism.

rickr15
01-06-2010, 10:11 AM
I have to admit I gave up following this cluster fuck. Are they still planning to force the people who actually have jobs and no insurance to get insurance ?

Interesting fact. Many employed persons with health insurance are going to lose it because of this. My company for example is self insured. It costs my boss over 1.4 million a year for this. The fine for not providing insurance is 800K.
This of course would be a very tempting 600K cost cutting move for many struggling enterprises.

Even unemployed persons by law will be required to get health insurance at "market rate" which is due to spiral up at a huge amount now that they got you. A life tax if you will.

As a 16 year old driver my car insurance was 32 dollars a month. The insurance lobby in Colorado managed to get a mandatory insurance law passed and my rates rose to 75 a month the very next pay period. Expect more of the same.

noonereal
01-06-2010, 10:17 AM
Interesting fact. Many employed persons with health insurance are going to lose it because of this. My company for example is self insured. It costs my boss over 1.4 million a year for this. The fine for not providing insurance is 800K.
This of course would be a very tempting 600K cost cutting move for many struggling enterprises.

.

Wait a minute.
This is ridculous.
You come here carring the torch of unbridled corporatism and then sugget that corporations can't be trusted so we can't change the laws.

HELLO

Man, sit back and think. This parrot stuff is making you a dolt.