Healthcare reform bill clears U.S. Senate filibuster

[MattusMaximus]

Does this mean we are officially a socialist country? Or do we have to wait until it passes first?

You fool! We became a socialist country the moment we elected Barack Hussein Obama!!!11!1

Didn't you get the memo?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You fool! We became a socialist country the moment we elected Barack Hussein Obama!!!11!1

Didn't you get the memo?

I thought it was when FDR started the New Deal. . or when Johnson declared the War on Poverty.

Heck, it may have been when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

Dern ol' socialist guvmint tryin' to tell us what we can and can't do!

 

[MattusMaximus]

Yes, that is my understanding. As Newtons Bit said, the 60 vote hurdle is to end debate. The bill itself only requires a majority. And, yes, this might be the wiggle room the Blues need.

I'm quite pessimistic. Hell, they only got 60 votes to even OPEN debate. Some Blues say they will not allow a bill with a public option and some libs say they won't allow a bill without one. To split the middle with triggers or optin/out language will so weaken the bill that it just might as well be thrown on the trash heap.

And the public option is not the only hurdle. Abortion funding is another land mine.

What a mess.

Don't be so pessimistic. The Dems know how important it is to pass some kind of health care reform this year, both politically and for the good of the country. They haven't come to within sight of the finish line to stop now.

And, by now, they understand (both the liberals and the Blue Dogs) that in order to get this thing to go through, everyone is going to have to play the give-and-take game.

And, at the end of the day, the GOP will be left out in the cold, looking like they never wanted any real reform in the first place. Good, it's what they deserve after all the crap they've been pulling on this thing. Though, for the record, I think there's still a chance that a couple of moderate Republicans (that endangered species) like Snowe & Collins could go for the final bill.

 

[Brainster]

No, it's not absurd. Sure, all those nice things you cite are good things but they don't speak to the core issue that left and right agree upon, namely, that the USA has to do something to bring down the cost of health care. Without something like a competitive alternative to private insurance, costs will continue to escalate as in the past. In fact, even faster because those nice things have to be paid for.

Not to mention all the distortions the bill would add to insurance underwriting. Nobody likes that pre-existing medical conditions aren't covered currently, but requiring that they be covered at no additional cost means that people who aren't sick have little incentive to get insured, since the moment they do get sick they can get covered. It's quite a bit like buying fire insurance for your house after it burns down and expecting the company to pay off your claim.

Or the requirement that health insurance for women be priced the same as health insurance for men. Or the requirement that health insurance for the older non-retirees (50-65 year-olds) be priced at no more than twice the cost for young workers.

In effect, this means that young, healthy men will be heavily subsidizing other people with their health insurance premiums.

 

[quadraginta]

I thought it was when FDR started the New Deal. . or when Johnson declared the War on Poverty.

Heck, it may have been when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

Dern ol' socialist guvmint tryin' to tell us what we can and can't do!

Nah. It was that pesky "Constitution" thingy.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1]
promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Recipe for trouble right there.

'Course, this didn't help matters any ...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

​

Put those two together and you're just begging for a bunch of commies to try stirring things up.

Bad idea from the get go. Can't imagine what the heck they were thinking.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Not to mention all the distortions the bill would add to insurance underwriting. Nobody likes that pre-existing medical conditions aren't covered currently, but requiring that they be covered at no additional cost means that people who aren't sick have little incentive to get insured, since the moment they do get sick they can get covered. It's quite a bit like buying fire insurance for your house after it burns down and expecting the company to pay off your claim.

Or the requirement that health insurance for women be priced the same as health insurance for men. Or the requirement that health insurance for the older non-retirees (50-65 year-olds) be priced at no more than twice the cost for young workers.

In effect, this means that young, healthy men will be heavily subsidizing other people with their health insurance premiums.

It means many young healthy men (like me!) will drop our current plans when our health insurance premiums double. Sure, my parents bills will go down somewhat, but I'm 'd.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Nah. It was that pesky "Constitution" thingy.

For the record, though, that second quote isn't part of the Constitution. I'm sure you knew that. . but far be it from me to let that slide!

 

[quadraginta]

For the record, though, that second quote isn't part of the Constitution. I'm sure you knew that. . but far be it from me to let that slide!

Yes. Of course I did. That's why I didn't cite it as such. I admit to leaving a certain amount of ambiguity there, but I felt confident that vigilant historians would note the digression, as you did.

Those who were unaware of the multiple sources probably wouldn't benefit much from the enlightenment.

 

[rwguinn]

It means many young healthy men (like me!) will drop our current plans when our health insurance premiums double. Sure, my parents bills will go down somewhat, but I'm 'd.

That's Ok. They are willing to tax me an extra 3500 bucks on my "Cadillac" health plan, that costs me (and my company) about 16K a year, and still has out-of-pocket costs of about 3000 per year...
(And exempt themselves and their staff from the same tax.)

 

[Newtons Bit]

That's Ok. They are willing to tax me an extra 3500 bucks on my "Cadillac" health plan, that costs me (and my company) about 16K a year, and still has out-of-pocket costs of about 3000 per year...
(And exempt themselves and their staff from the same tax.)

It's a win-win!

 

[Dr Adequate]

Not to mention all the distortions the bill would add to insurance underwriting. Nobody likes that pre-existing medical conditions aren't covered currently, but requiring that they be covered at no additional cost means that people who aren't sick have little incentive to get insured ...

One of us has missed something.