Hey...I admit that Boehner waving the 1900+ bill makes great political theater!

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20091029/ca...ul_dchh115.jpg

When the version is double-spaced, with oversized fonts and only printed across half the page!

Members get a detailed section-by-section summary w/o all the legal references to existing US Code....as well as detailed briefings by the majority (or minority) staff.

And, in addition to the fact sheets, the public has access to easy-to-read four or ten page summaries which come right from the bill and are not opinion.

And those, "detailed briefings" and "easy-to-read four or ten page summaries", are created by non-partisan, no axe to grind, no agenda, never saw a lobbyist, Capitol Fairies. :rolleyes:

The summarized intent of a bill, is rarely the full consequences of a law that gets passed. Sure keeps the lawyers and courts busy, though.

There is also the non-partisan CRS summary and the non-partisan CBO cost analysis (granted, its only a "best" estimate). ;)

And of course, the health insurance companies love this bill so much, they are spending $millions in lobbying and public media campaigns against it.

There are winners and losers in every major piece of legislation and there is no such thing as a perfect bill...there are always trade-offs and there always have been.

IMO, the big winners are:

the 30-40 million currently uninsured, most of whom are hard working, productive citizens who just happened to work for small businesses that dont provide insurance and who personally cannot afford insurance on the current open market.

the 200+ million who are now covered by employer-based plans who wont see their contributions continue to increase at a rate more than double their salary every year, whose out-of-pocket annual expenses will now be capped so that no one faces bankruptcy as a result of an unforeseen medical crisis, who wont have to make co-pays for basic preventive care, and whose insurance will now be more portable if/when they change jobs.

and those with pre-exisiting conditions who will no longer be denied coverage at affordable rates.

There are no guarantees in life and even fewer in federal legislation.

You go with your best shot and proceed towards achieving the goals set in the legislation...and if necessary, once implemented, make corrections along the way.

The Republicans had their shot for eight years and chose to do nothing.

Or we could just continue to let the problem fester.

Redux, dude, that ain't no Boehner.

There's no cigarette or Old-fashioned sitting next to him.

He's my congressman, my district. I waited on him as the wanna-be's in town courted him at the Country Club (years ago!)

My older brother works in such a position that he has a lot of time at the state house, and became fairly buddies with the Boehner.

My brother and I decline to discuss politics. ;)

Four degrees of separation!

Shawnee --> waitress at Boehner country club
Boehner --> opposing party leader to Pelosi
Pelosi --> daughter of former Baltimore mayor Tommy D'Alesadro
Redux --> lifeguard at D'Alesandro country club (years ago!)

:notworthy

Wonderful! :)

Oh, but I was a bartender. ;)

Of course they are, this would cut into the obscene profits they're reaping.
True, but I think it's the elected rep's job to find out, as honestly as possible, just what they are before voting them into law.
Communicating them to his/her constituants would be nice, but that's probably a bit polyanna. :blush:
Just for tonight, (Halloween), then uncle fester goes back in the ground.

That bitch Pelosi is Queen of that game! :lol2:

I'm curious who you think the losers are.

The biggest losers:

the private insurance companies providing Medicare Advantage coverage that have ripping off Medicare for years. Payments to those companies above the standard Medicare fee-for-service rate will be phased out.....an estimated $10-15 billion/year...and those seniors currently with MA will get the same services through standard Medicare.

the top 1/2 of one percent of wage earners in the country. Those with income above $500K (single) and $1 million (couple) will be hit with a 5.4% income tax surcharge.

Employers with payrolls over $750K (those not currently offering employer-based plans) might say they are losers since they will have to either offer basic minimum coverage to employees (paying approx 3/4 of the cost, but receiving tax credits in return) or pay into the Insurance Exchange. This is the primary reason that the Chamber of Commerce is spending $millions opposing the bill.

And of course, the private insurance companies that have denied coverage, dropped beneficiaries for no reason, practiced rated discrimination and operated in a non-competitive environment (in many states) for years. They can become winners by choosing to participate in the Insurance Exchange and have access to millions of new customers if they offer a range of competitive, affordable coverage options.

Thats just my opinion and we know what "real" Americans think of my opinion. :D

So apparently you think this is a slam-dunk great deal. Interesting. I haven't really heard that position from anyone else, including those who support it. Everyone seems to think this is some type of compromise or a great first step.

shrug.

I was happily surprised to find out that my congressional rep is none other than Alan Grayson of the "The Republican Health Care Plan: Don't Get Sick! And if you do get sick, die quickly!" fame.

I know the Republicans are pissed and want to go after him. I think I'll volunteer to help him get re-elected.

It's nice to have people in Congress who aren't lying and don't pull any punches.

Where did I say it was a great deal?

I said there are always winners and losers and I identfied who I thought those winners and losers are.

And I said there are always trade-offs (compromises).

I am a political pragmatist. You take what you realistically can expect to get...a half (or in this case, three quarters) of a loaf is better than none.

added:
IMO, a better bill would have had a much stronger public option. I also dont think it is great that some Americans (far fewer than ever) will still slip through the cracks, but the will to add the cost of that (at taxpayer expense) was not there. I would have supported generating more revenue to pay for it by lowering the threshold for the income tax surcharge from $500k/$1 million to $250k/$500K (or 300/600).

Those were some of the trade-offs (compromises) that were made to make passage of the bill possible.

But none of the above are reasons for me NOT to support this bill.

Even with those trade-offs, there are some great provisions that potentially benefit all of us, most notably, the elimination of excluding coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, prohibiting rate discrimination (mostly to the benefit of women) and capping annual out-of-pocket expenses so that no one faces bankruptcy as a result of a long-term illness or medical crisis....and for those millions of hard-working Americans currently w/o employer-based coverage, the plan will offer a range of coverage options that will be much more affordable than presently available.

Based upon that. Perhaps I'm reading between the lines a bit, but your opinion appears pretty clear.

Who would have thunk it?

Report: 237 millionaires in Congress


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29235.html