We Got Coal For Christmas Thanks To Democrats

[tyr_13]

Go ahead; and while you're at it be sure to show your readers what the implications of Baucus's savings are:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...eficits_in_baucus_health_care_plan_98410.html

I've seen it. They primarily point to Medicare and Medicaid, the two programs already mismanaged, as being the reason the Federal budget is on an unsustainable path. Solution? Oh I know! Give them another program to mismanage!

I'm tired of the answer that doing the wrong thing is better than doing nothing.


I guess you have forgotten that Bush did propose a Medicare reform? Maybe it wasn't the best solution, but your philosophy is that doing anything is better than doing nothing, right?

Still looking for something that hasn't already been addressed in countless threads and find it lacking.

-------------------------------------------------------------

For the record, I don't think this bill does enough. The fact that people are still claiming it does too much is mind boggling.

 

[Skeptic]

What worries me is that a bill passed like this is SURE to have some INCREDIBLE loopholes lawyers for patients, medicare, medicaid, hospitals, insurance companies, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, medical malpractice legal firms, and the makers of the machine that goes 'ping' will all pore over to maximize their own interests, with the result that this thing will cost the taxpayers a pretty 10^15 or so pennies.

 

[Skeptic]

Now, they have offered nothing positive and have explicitly admitted all they are trying to do is cause failure.

Yes, that's what the opposition is SUPPOSED to do. To oppose bills it dislikes.

When they have something to bring to the table, fine. Till then, kwitcherbitchen.

That doesn't follow. Suppose the Republicans demanded a bill that all homosexuals must be killed at the age of 30 to combat the spread of AIDS.

Would the democrats have to suggest some other age to kill all homosexuals, or suggest some other method to fight AIDS, or else be considered "obstructionists" for not voting for the bill? Of course not.

 

[SezMe]

I'm tired of the answer that doing the wrong thing is better than doing nothing.

Your fatigue has little relevance to the issue at hand.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I'm tired of the answer that doing the wrong thing is better than doing nothing.

If you are genuinely weary of struggling against your own straw men, you do of course have the option of ceasing to lie to yourself.

If, on the other hand, you prefer the lifestyle that you have chosen, then what can one say? You have made your bed, and apparently you must lie in it.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Yes, that's what the opposition is SUPPOSED to do. To oppose bills it dislikes.

Well, yes and no.

As a moderate, I share your concerns. The bill is over 2000 pages long, so surely it must contain some errors. And since the right is out of power, the one useful thing they could do for their country is to identify those errors. That's what the opposition is for.

But they didn't. Instead, even before the bill was drafted, they explained to me that any measure of health care reform meant that imaginary liberal "death panels" would kill my grandmother.

I guess that's one way of opposing a bill. But it isn't the reason why I am willing to let my taxes pay the wages of conservative senators. I was hoping that they could provide meaningful opposition.

 

[BeAChooser]

As a moderate, I

 

[SezMe]

Yes, that's what the opposition is SUPPOSED to do. To oppose bills it dislikes.

No. The opposition is supposed to work with the majority to get the best of their ideas incorporated in bills that the majority is pursuing. See Tip O'Neil during the Reagan Administration. As the Reps like to say, "Elections have consequences."

Works the same way when the Reps are in the majority. Did you ever see the Dems vote en masse to reject Bush legislation for no other reason than to obstruct and cause failure?

That doesn't follow. Suppose the Republicans demanded a bill that all homosexuals must be killed at the age of 30 to combat the spread of AIDS.

Would the democrats have to suggest some other age to kill all homosexuals, or suggest some other method to fight AIDS, or else be considered "obstructionists" for not voting for the bill? Of course not.

Suppose the Republicans built a strawman that fell over and destroyed the White House? Jesus, Skeptic, really? Can we have a reasonable discussion here?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm tired of the answer that doing the wrong thing is better than doing nothing.


I guess you have forgotten that Bush did propose a Medicare reform? Maybe it wasn't the best solution, but your philosophy is that doing anything is better than doing nothing, right?

Doing something is better than doing nothing. In the Navy the policy used to be "doing something, even if its wrong." That didn't work very well (or at all in most cases) so they did a lot of work and developed procedures that work. It would have been impossible if the "opposition" had managed to block every proposed fix because it wasn't perfect.

If we don't do something, we end up doing nothing.

And saying something is "wrong" just because you don't like it is a really bad idea. For anybody.

 

[Dr Adequate]

That may well be the most cogent thing that you've ever posted. And it was a cartoon of a smiley face.

Now, try again. Judging by your previous forn, you wish to tell such a stupid and ridiculous lie that Satan himself would blush to hear you tell it. Please have the courage to do so.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

What worries me is that a bill passed like this is SURE to have some INCREDIBLE loopholes lawyers for patients, medicare, medicaid, hospitals, insurance companies, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, medical malpractice legal firms, and the makers of the machine that goes 'ping' will all pore over to maximize their own interests, with the result that this thing will cost the taxpayers a pretty 10^15 or so pennies.

Right now it's all loophole and no law.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Your fatigue has little relevance to the issue at hand.

In my program of study, if you do a project purely for the sake of finishing it the critiques at the end are unforgiving. I may not agree with the idea of a government run health care plan for example, but it worries me more that they so easily abandoned it just to get the senate version through. It leaves me kind of curious how they intend to slap the house and senate versions together.

IMHO the democrats in congress passed up a rather golden opportunity to demonstrate they could hammer out this legislation with significant integrity; particularly with a republican "stranglehold, or whatever way you'd prefer to coin it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

First, I think the bill the Senate passed is better than doing nothing because it will end the practice of rescission, require coverage for pre-existing conditions, end benefit caps, and extend decent access to healthcare to some 30 million people.

And, since we know Republicans will oppose any reform that's as comprehensive or even better than this one, and we're not likely to see another Congress that can overcome a Republican filibuster for a long long time, our choice pretty much something very similar to this bill or the status quo.

(I've already pointed out that you can't really get any of these reforms by piecemeal legislation. That is, you can't get the bans on rescission, caps and pre-existing coverage without the individual insurance mandate. You can't get that without providing subsidies for people who can't afford insurance, and so on.)

 

[Alt+F4]

First, I think the bill the Senate passed is better than doing nothing because it will end the practice of rescission, require coverage for pre-existing conditions, end benefit caps, and extend decent access to healthcare to some 30 million people.

But who will treat these extra 30 million people? There is already a severe lack of primary care doctors in many parts of the United States. The money is being a specialist.

What good is health "insurance" if you can't see a doctor?

I put insurance in quotes because if plans will be forced to cover pre-existing conditions then it's not insurance anymore. It's like trying to get car insurance after you have already had the accident. We should just call it a "health plan".

 

[BeAChooser]

I put insurance in quotes because if plans will be forced to cover pre-existing conditions then it's not insurance anymore.

This is a truth that folks like DA and the rest of the leftists promoting this socialist piece of legislation don't have the *courage* to admit. We should just call it another "welfare plan". And look how well those types of plans have historically turned out when it comes to achieving their goals and cost control.

 

[Alt+F4]

We should just call it another "welfare plan".

It's not a welfare plan, it's trying to change how insurance works by no longer making in voluntary. The idea is if the government can somehow force everyone to get health insurance the companies will pull in more premimums, which will cover their costs for treating those with pre-existing conditions.

First I can't see how the goverment is going to force everyone to get health insurance. Second, while the insurance companies won't be able to reject you I don't believe there is anything in the bill preventing them from charging very high premimums based on age and say tobacco use.

 

[BeAChooser]

It's not a welfare plan

It is when you are giving *insurance* to people who don't pay for it. The express purpose of this plan is to do exactly that for millions and millions of people. In fact, many of those people won't even be US citizens so I suppose we should call it a "foreign aid" plan too.

 

[jdp]

I put insurance in quotes because if plans will be forced to cover pre-existing conditions then it's not insurance anymore. It's like trying to get car insurance after you have already had the accident. We should just call it a "health plan".

I wouldn't have called what we have now "insurance" either since most current plans cover doctor's visits and similar known regularly occurring costs. The only current plans that I would consider health insurance would be catastrophic plans. So in that sense nothing has changed.

I don't believe there is anything in the bill preventing them from charging very high premimums based on age and say tobacco use.

That is not correct. Section 2701 restricts the amount a premium can vary by age (up to 3 to 1) or tobacco use (up to 1.5 to 1).

 

[SezMe]

But who will treat these extra 30 million people? There is already a severe lack of primary care doctors in many parts of the United States. The money is being a specialist.

A valid concern. IIRC, Sanders got provisions in the bill to increase funding for medical education and that medical school debts will be forgiven for primary care physicians. We'll see if those aspects survive conference.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Second, while the insurance companies won't be able to reject you I don't believe there is anything in the bill preventing them from charging very high premimums based on age and say tobacco use.

There's also something in the Senate plan that requires disclosure of how much money insurers are taking in as premiums and paying out as benefits. If they take in more than a certain percentage over what they pay out, they're required to refund that money.

Basically that would regulate the industry more like the way we regulate utility companies.