Universal Health Care...

[Sal Paradise 57]

I disagree that it's about getting the right people in place. It's about getting the right structures in place. We had it once, and FDR destroyed that, and now we've reached the end game of that. The right structures are a constitution that respects privacy, rule of law, individual rights, and a Supreme Court that makes sure that congress doesn't step over those bounds. We've lost most of that.

exactly. continually trying to find these wonderful, benevolent, completely selfless individuals to fill the roles of government is a pipe dream. first, it's hard to become an upper level politician. it takes a lot of work and an ass ton of money. there are very, very few people in the world willing to go through that sort of effort for the sole purpose of philanthropy. second, and most importantly, is the point that (and I am honestly baffled as to how hard it is for some people to grasp this/accept this fact) all people, no matter how wonderfully giving they are, operate off of incentives. and while there are the few mother theresa's and ghandi's out there that have the sole aspiration of helping others, the majority of the population of the world desires incentives of money and or power (and it shouldn't be a difficult concept to grasp that the two are very much intertwined). so if the majority of the world operates off of monetary incentives, and you have all these positions to fill where the barriers to entry are great but the monetary and power rewards are what makes it worth it, how is it not surprising that we consistently get greedy, corrupt, and self interested people to fill these positions? that's exactly what our current system is encouraging, with the massive role that the federal government has taken plus the influence that the corporate lobbyists have over them and the fact that we just simply can't be bothered enough to care that our government is being bought and paid for, right out in the open.so back to henry's original point: if we understand that people operate on incentives, and those incentives are typically monetary, and that politicians are people just like anybody else, then the only real way to minimize the negative effects of this aspect of human nature is to make sure that the federal government has only the power that it absolutely has to have, that there are enough checks and balances to keep everybody as honest as possible, and to leave the rest of the decisions up to smaller, more easily manageable and policeable markets. we used to have this.

[85suited 0]

epic fail for anyone who believed Obama was a moderate or would govern to the middleBill Clinton is looking better everyday (thanks to the GOP congress)

[85suited 0]

Democrats yesterday denied GOP efforts to strike the bribes out of the nationalized health care bill.Senator Mike Johanns (R-NE) sought to to strip all the special interest deals from this bill and the democrats objected.

Senator Mike Johanns asked consent today to strike the special carve-outs from the Senate health care bill. Democrats immediately objected, thwarting the effort.“There should be no special deals, no carve-outs for anyone in this health care bill; not for states, not for insurance companies, not for individual senators.“All of the special deals should be removed. If the bill cannot pass without carve-outs, what further evidence is needed that it is bad policy? No senator should vote for the final cloture vote until all of the carve-outs and special deals are removed.“Nebraskans don’t want a special deal, they want good policy. They don’t believe the Federal Government is the answer to every problem and they don’t like backroom deals.”Below is a sample of special deals he offered to strike:

**

Eliminating or reducing the Medicaid unfunded mandate on Nebraska, Vermont, and Massachusetts (starting on page 96, line 9)

**

Exempting certain health insurance companies in Nebraska and Michigan from taxes and fees (starting on page 367, line 6)

**

Providing automatic Medicare coverage for anyone living in Libby, Montana (starting on page 194 – section 10323)

**

Earmarking $100 million for a “Health Care Facility” reportedly in Connecticut (starting on page 328)

**

Giving special treatment to Hawaii’s Disproportionate Share Hospitals (starting on page 101, line 6)

**

Boosting reimbursement rates for certain hospitals in Michigan and Connecticut (starting on page 174 – section 10317)

**

Mandating special treatment for hospitals in “Frontier” States like Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Wyoming (starting on page 208 — Sec 10324)

** For the record, here is a list of the bribes discovered so far in the Obamacare bill from a Congressional source.According to Reid, “A number of states are treated differently than other states. That’s what legislation’s all about: compromise”. Really? Rather than thoughtful policy, H.R. 3590 is the result of Democrat desperation and includes countless political handouts. In an effort to meet an artificial holiday deadline, the bill itself has come to look like a Christmas tree with goodies for all Democrat holdouts.While over 10 states receive special deals, Senators from neglected states should be appalled, as their home state constituents will wind up paying for those “sweetheart deals” in other states, resulting in higher costs for their already-strapped Medicaid programs.Below are highlights of the new special deals or earmarks bartered away to win Senate votes:Ø The bill contains unfunded mandates to states through the expansion of Medicaid but this time with new special treatment for the states of Nebraska, Vermont, and Massachusetts. These states will receive Federal Matching Assistance Percentages (FMAP) bonuses such that:1. Nebraska will receive 100% FMAP for newly eligibles indefinitely, making it the only state where the federal government will pay for all new enrollees. CBO estimated the cost to the federal government (additional funds to Nebraska) would be $100 million, which may look small compared to the other deals negotiated, yet over the long-term will cost far more, since funding continues indefinitely.2. Vermont will receive a 2.2% FMAP increase for 6 years for their entire program, thus receiving an additional $600 million over ten years.3. Massachusetts will receive a 0.5% FMAP increase for three years for the entire program, thus receiving an additional $500 million over ten years.Ø Despite $120 billion in Medicare Advantage cuts, the Manager’s Amendment found a way for Florida residents, as well as some individuals in Pennsylvania and New York, and potentially Oregon, to be grandfathered out of receiving the cuts.Ø Dorgan and Conrad’s “protections for frontier states” provision would, starting in 2011, establish a 1.0 hospital wage index and geographic practice expense floors for hospitals and physicians located in states where at least 50% of the counties in the state are “frontier”. Not surprisingly, states that qualify and benefit from the provision are Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. Of the many problems with these “sweetheart” deals, is the door it leaves wide open for more federal involvement and financing of state-based entitlement programs. Sen. Harkin said it best when he stated “In 2017, as you know, when we have to start phasing back from 100%, and going down to 98%, they are going to say, ’Wait, there is one state that stays at 100?’ And every governor in the country is going to say, ‘Why doesn’t our state stay there?’…When you look at it, I thought well, god, good, it is going to be the impetus for all the states to stay at 100%. So he [Nelson] might have done all of us a favor.”Changes for Sen. Ben Nelson (Nebraska)Ø Nelson secured more than just 100% federal funding for Nebraska’s Medicaid expansion, the list of “sweeteners” (also called the “Cornhusker kickback” by Senate Republicans) includes:o An exemption from the insurance tax for Nebraska non-profit insurers, with language written in a way that only applies to Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company and Blue Cross Blue Shield Plans (BCBS) of Nebraska (and Michigan). According to news reports, Nelson’s office states that BCBS “would pay between $15 million and $20 million less in fees under the Senate bill than it would have without a change.”o An exemption from taxes for Medicare supplemental (“Medigap”) insurance providers. Specifically, Mutual of Omaha, will not have to pay taxes on Medigap insurance, while reports also indicate that this tax break will be extended to other companies.Ø Some changes requested by Nelson would benefit people across the country, such as the inflation adjustment to the $2,500 cap on tax-exempt contributions to Flexible Savings Accounts (FSAs) and exemptions for nearly 55 physician-owned hospitals that have a provider agreement to participate in Medicare by August 1, 2010 (pushed back from February 1, 2010).Changes for Sen. Levin (Michigan)Ø According to reports, Like Nelson, Levin sought an exemption from the $6 billion annual fee for non-profits, as non-profit insurers make up 76% of industry profits, but drew opposition from liberals. Ultimately, Levin got an exemption from the insurance tax for Michigan non-profit insurers, with language written in a way that applies to Blue Cross Blue Shield Plans (BCBS) of Michigan (and Nebraska). Ø Furthermore, the amendment changes the extension of section 508 hospital provisions so that hospitals in Michigan (as well as Connecticut) have the option to benefit under them if it means higher payments. Changes for Sen. Landrieu (Louisiana):Ø Landrieu was one of the first Senators to secure a sweetheart deal, aptly nicknamed the “Louisiana Purchase”; she traded her support for bringing the bill to the floor for a $300 million increase in Medicaid funding for Louisiana. The underlying bill was cryptically written to increase federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster” during the past 7 years that have been declared a “major disaster area” — and is meant to replenish the decrease in federal money resulting from an “abnormally inflated” per capita income in Louisiana following Hurricane Katrina. This was due to an influx of insurance dollars, federal grants and increased labor wages.Changes for Sen. Sanders (Vermont):Ø In addition the Vermont FMAP increase, the amendment includes a provision pushed by Sanders to provide an additional $10 billion in funding for community health centers and the National Health Services Corps which he argues would provide primary care to 25 million more people.Changes for Sen. Bill Nelson (Florida) Ø As noted above, Nelson was able to secure a deal to keep Medicare Advantage plans enrollees in Florida grandfathered in. Notably, when McCain tried to offer an amendment to allow all enrollees to be grandfathered in, 57 Democrats voted against it.Changes for Hawaii: The Manager’s Amendment singles out Hawaii as the only state to receive a Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) extension.Changes for Sen. Lieberman (Connecticut): It amends the extension of section 508 hospital provisions so that hospitals in Connecticut (as well as Michigan) have the option to benefit under them if it means higher payments. Changes for Sen. Dodd (Connecticut): It was a mystery until just revealed that Chris Dodd’s state will benefit from a cryptically awarded $100 million for a “Health Care Facility” at a public research university that contains a state’s sole public academic medical and dental school—criteria designed to apply to the University of Connecticut.Changes for Sen. Baucus (Montana):Ø Baucus secured a pilot program in the amendment to “provide innovative approaches to furnishing comprehensive, coordinated, and cost-effective care” to certain qualified individuals. A qualified individual “is an environmental exposure affected individual…who resides in or around the geographic area subject to an emergency declaration made as of June 17, 2009.” And who might these select few individuals be? Well, according to EPA, “On June 17, 2009, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson issued a Public Health Emergency (PHE) finding at the Libby Asbestos Superfund site in northwest Montana.” This provision would help residents of Libby by allowing them to sign up for Medicare benefits.It is likely that this list of buy-offs is not exhaustive.

[Jeepster80125 0]

Cash 4 Cloture

[JoeyJoJo 18]

Nancy Pelosi.I pick....strategy to go next.

Wow, I'm surprised you have strategy so high on your kill list.He's way down on mine.What?Edit: Oh, and I agree with Sal.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

exactly. continually trying to find these wonderful, benevolent, completely selfless individuals to fill the roles of government is a pipe dream. first, it's hard to become an upper level politician. it takes a lot of work and an ass ton of money. there are very, very few people in the world willing to go through that sort of effort for the sole purpose of philanthropy. second, and most importantly, is the point that (and I am honestly baffled as to how hard it is for some people to grasp this/accept this fact) all people, no matter how wonderfully giving they are, operate off of incentives. and while there are the few mother theresa's and ghandi's out there that have the sole aspiration of helping others, the majority of the population of the world desires incentives of money and or power (and it shouldn't be a difficult concept to grasp that the two are very much intertwined). so if the majority of the world operates off of monetary incentives, and you have all these positions to fill where the barriers to entry are great but the monetary and power rewards are what makes it worth it, how is it not surprising that we consistently get greedy, corrupt, and self interested people to fill these positions? that's exactly what our current system is encouraging, with the massive role that the federal government has taken plus the influence that the corporate lobbyists have over them and the fact that we just simply can't be bothered enough to care that our government is being bought and paid for, right out in the open.so back to henry's original point: if we understand that people operate on incentives, and those incentives are typically monetary, and that politicians are people just like anybody else, then the only real way to minimize the negative effects of this aspect of human nature is to make sure that the federal government has only the power that it absolutely has to have, that there are enough checks and balances to keep everybody as honest as possible, and to leave the rest of the decisions up to smaller, more easily manageable and policeable markets. we used to have this.

I, for the life of me, don't get why this is so difficult for people to understand. I don't expect the congress to understand or care, they are simply criminals. What I don't understand is supposedly smart people, here on this site, don't seem to understand this concept. They all despise religion, yet they treat their ideology as if it is sacred, superior to all others. BTW, the republican party is not much better they have abandoned conservative ideology, (except in some social issues, and not because they believe in them, but to get and keep large voter blocks). The sad part to me is that we have no where to go now. When the democrats ruined the inner city public schools, we could move to the suburbs, but there is no place to go now, maybe Australia:)

[85suited 0]

but there is no place to go now, maybe Australia:)

Having been to Australia 4 times, I love it.. but I am afraid the Socialist have taken over there too...although it is a little easier (not much) to manage 21 million people vs 305 million

[El Guapo 8]

"This will be the most important piece of social legislation since Social Security passed in the 1930s," said Obamaunfortunately this says it all.

[85suited 0]

Can't wait to see the back room deal Nancy & Harry cut... President Obama repeatedly said on the campaign trail last year that when we got to this part of the process he’d invite the C-SPAN cameras in so the American people could see how health care reform was coming together.

[Balloon guy 158]

exactly. continually trying to find these wonderful, benevolent, completely selfless individuals to fill the roles of government is a pipe dream. first, it's hard to become an upper level politician. it takes a lot of work and an ass ton of money. there are very, very few people in the world willing to go through that sort of effort for the sole purpose of philanthropy. second, and most importantly, is the point that (and I am honestly baffled as to how hard it is for some people to grasp this/accept this fact) all people, no matter how wonderfully giving they are, operate off of incentives. and while there are the few mother theresa's and ghandi's out there that have the sole aspiration of helping others, the majority of the population of the world desires incentives of money and or power (and it shouldn't be a difficult concept to grasp that the two are very much intertwined). so if the majority of the world operates off of monetary incentives, and you have all these positions to fill where the barriers to entry are great but the monetary and power rewards are what makes it worth it, how is it not surprising that we consistently get greedy, corrupt, and self interested people to fill these positions? that's exactly what our current system is encouraging, with the massive role that the federal government has taken plus the influence that the corporate lobbyists have over them and the fact that we just simply can't be bothered enough to care that our government is being bought and paid for, right out in the open.so back to henry's original point: if we understand that people operate on incentives, and those incentives are typically monetary, and that politicians are people just like anybody else, then the only real way to minimize the negative effects of this aspect of human nature is to make sure that the federal government has only the power that it absolutely has to have, that there are enough checks and balances to keep everybody as honest as possible, and to leave the rest of the decisions up to smaller, more easily manageable and policeable markets. we used to have this.

Of course this falls apart when you look at the reality of power.The former way this country was run wouldn't work today because of technology, and scope of involvement necessary for a functioning World SUPER power to maintain it's needed protection over the entire world from the God-less communist.So the answer is my simple plan of instituting a bag limit on congressmen AND women the first week in December. We put the hunting license up for bid, have fund raising campaigns where they actually deliver, and the HOTTEST new reality show on the PLANET!

[85suited 0]

Senator DeMint objected to the appointment of the conferees - there is a small hope this wont pass

[85suited 0]

December 22, 2009 - U.S. Voters Oppose Health Care Plan By Wide Margin, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Voters Say 3-1, Plan Should Not Pay For Abortions As the Senate prepares to vote on health care reform, American voters "mostly disapprove" of the plan 53 - 36 percent and disapprove 56 - 38 percent of President Barack Obama's handling of the health care issue, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. Voters also oppose 72 - 23 percent using any public money in the health care overhaul to pay for abortions, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. American voters also disapprove 51 - 44 percent of President Obama's handling of the economy and disapprove 56 - 37 percent of the way he is creating jobs. But voters favor 52 - 42 percent his plan to use $200 billion left over from the bank bailout for a new stimulus package to create jobs rather than to reduce the budget deficit. Only 31 percent of voters say Obama's policies will help their personal financial situation, while 37 percent say his policies will hurt and 30 percent say his policies will make no difference. Among voters in households where someone has lost a job in the last year, 37 percent say Obama policies will help them personally, while 37 percent say they will hurt. Looking at the health care plan, independent voters "mostly disapprove" 58 - 30 percent, as do Republicans 83 - 10 percent. Democrats "mostly approve" 64 - 22 percent. "As President Barack Obama's numbers on health care have declined so has his margin over Republicans on whom American voters trust most on the issue," said Peter Brown, Assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "In July he enjoyed a 20-point edge on the trust question, and that margin has been narrowing, to 45 - 40 percent today." While voters oppose the health care plan, they back two options cut from the Senate bill, supporting 56 - 38 percent giving people the option of coverage by a government health insurance plan and backing 64 - 30 percent allowing younger people to buy into Medicare. On the timing of action of health care, 31 percent support the proposals "currently being considered" and want Congress and the President to take action now; 28 percent oppose those proposals but want action on the issue now, while 36 percent don't want action on the issue now. "While the Senate leadership reportedly has the votes to pass a health care overhaul plan this week, outside the Beltway there appears to be weak support, both to what voters understand as the plan, and the need to pass that plan now," said Brown. "Although a small majority favors abortion rights, allowing the use of public money for the procedure under a national health care plan, which has been a matter of some dispute in both houses of Congress, is extremely unpopular." By 73 - 18 percent, voters don't believe President Obama will be able to keep his promise to overhaul health care without increasing the federal deficit and by 56 - 37 percent they don't want the overhaul if it will increase the deficit.

[85suited 0]

my dad wants to know why he doesn't get to keep his medicare advantage, I told him it was because russ fiengold sucks, he should move to florida

[Jeepster80125 0]

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Rights vs. Goodshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nyJs-IdNz0...player_embedded

[Sal Paradise 57]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100105/ap_on_...are_overhaul_tvthank you c-span.

[LincolnK 1]

so if i'm up on everything going on, that big ugly insurance bill has passed the senate, along with whatever the house had passed before. it's now in the reconciliation process to produce a final version of the bill that the senate and house agree upon.what happens if no agreement can be reached on a final version of the bill? let's say the republican fellow running for Ted Kennedy's seat wins the special election-what effect can he have on anything? (he has vowed to "block healthcare reform" if elected)

[hblask 1]

so if i'm up on everything going on, that big ugly insurance bill has passed the senate, along with whatever the house had passed before. it's now in the reconciliation process to produce a final version of the bill that the senate and house agree upon.what happens if no agreement can be reached on a final version of the bill? let's say the republican fellow running for Ted Kennedy's seat wins the special election-what effect can he have on anything? (he has vowed to "block healthcare reform" if elected)

There will be a final version, the Axis of Evil (Obama, Pelosi, Reid) will make sure of that. They don't care how many people they have to sell out, or how bad the bill has to get. They want a check mark next to their name.As for Kennedy's seat, if the Dem's lose their 60 seat edge, they can no longer stop the filibuster, so it would be the end of this monstrosity (at least in theory). The chance of the R winning is almost zero, but normally it would be zero, so that's something. Even if Brown wins, the D's in the state have refused to certify the election until after health care passes. Yes, they are openly promising to cheat.

[Jeepster80125 0]

mm, brock hates socialized medicine. His argument is awesome!Also Not A Fan Of Socialized Medicine: Brock Lesnaredit

[hblask 1]

mm, brock hates socialized medicine. His argument is awesome!Also Not A Fan Of Socialized Medicine: Brock Lesnaredit

I've seen several other athletes say the same thing about Canadian care -- they don't know how people put up with it. One pro baseball player said it was like the Flintstones, he thought a bird was going to come out of the X-ray machine.

[All_In 0]

Why do people often vote against their own interests? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm"But it is striking that the people who most dislike the whole idea of healthcare reform - the ones who think it is socialist, godless, a step on the road to a police state - are often the ones it seems designed to help.""Why are so many American voters enraged by attempts to change a horribly inefficient system that leaves them with premiums they often cannot afford?"The pic at the beginning of the article is priceless.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

Why do people often vote against their own interests?

I don't really care about your actual point, but do you believe that people should always vote for their own interests?

[SlapStick 0]

There will be a final version, the Axis of Evil (Obama, Pelosi, Reid) will make sure of that. They don't care how many people they have to sell out, or how bad the bill has to get. They want a check mark next to their name.As for Kennedy's seat, if the Dem's lose their 60 seat edge, they can no longer stop the filibuster, so it would be the end of this monstrosity (at least in theory). The chance of the R winning is almost zero, but normally it would be zero, so that's something. Even if Brown wins, the D's in the state have refused to certify the election until after health care passes. Yes, they are openly promising to cheat.

OK I read this and the last page. I'm still not sure whats happening.I used to follow it but got a bit lost/distracted. The above quote sounds like it will pass but anyway :what % chance that universal healthcare will pass and if it does will it just be a watered down version of what was originally proposed? Or do we have no idea at the moment?

[hblask 1]

OK I read this and the last page. I'm still not sure whats happening.I used to follow it but got a bit lost/distracted. The above quote sounds like it will pass but anyway :what % chance that universal healthcare will pass and if it does will it just be a watered down version of what was originally proposed? Or do we have no idea at the moment?

Obama has pledged that they don't work on it until Brown is seated, so I have to give Obama a +lots for that. He could've insisted they shove it through right away.It looks like it will be impossible to pass a Democrat-only bill, but the Dems keep going back and forth about using reconciliation to force it through. It doesn't appear to be possible.So what we're left with is a new bill with lots of horse-trading, where the R's and D's each get a little of what they want. Whether there is anything meaningful that can pass is a huge question mark.Something that can be called "universal health care" is almost certainly dead.

[hblask 1]

Why do people often vote against their own interests? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm"But it is striking that the people who most dislike the whole idea of healthcare reform - the ones who think it is socialist, godless, a step on the road to a police state - are often the ones it seems designed to help.""Why are so many American voters enraged by attempts to change a horribly inefficient system that leaves them with premiums they often cannot afford?"The pic at the beginning of the article is priceless.

I don't really care about your actual point, but do you believe that people should always vote for their own interests?

This. Some people have morals. Also, people in the US tend to have this crazy optimism that says just because we're poor now doesn't mean we always plan on being poor, and throwing up obstacles to success looks like poor policy. For example, the Obama-care that was on the verge of being passed has policy in it that meant that, for certain people, getting a raise at their job would be very bad news. This occurred because of the combination of subsidies and taxes, so that in certain salary ranges, the marginal tax rate was over 100%. In other words, it would cost them money to get a raise.I think the major reason, though, why people don't vote in their theoretical self-interest is that those people have been on the receiving end of the government's peculiar brand of "help" at some point, and would prefer to care for themselves.

[brvheart 1,752]

I would have liked the Ewoks a hell of alot more if they were in 3d, is all i'm saying.

Obama has pledged that they don't work on it until Brown is seated, so I have to give Obama a +lots for that. He could've insisted they shove it through right away.It looks like it will be impossible to pass a Democrat-only bill, but the Dems keep going back and forth about using reconciliation to force it through. It doesn't appear to be possible.So what we're left with is a new bill with lots of horse-trading, where the R's and D's each get a little of what they want. Whether there is anything meaningful that can pass is a huge question mark.Something that can be called "universal health care" is almost certainly dead.

Obama has finally realized that he actually has to do the things he said he was going to do in just this last week. He's like a changed man. Impending departure from your job will do that sometimes, I guess.