Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[Happy Monkey]

Any attempt to fix that will be called "rationing" and "death panels".

[SamIam]

President Barack Obama signaled to House Democratic leaders Wednesday that they'll have to drop their opposition to taxing high-end health insurance plans to pay for health coverage for millions of uninsured Americans.

YAY, Classicman! The person speaking up for the rights of those in gated communities. I'm sure they're opening offshore accounts even as we speak. How DARE they give back even a little to their own nation which has helped make their success possible.

And as far as party gravey trains and kickbacks, are you expecting us to be shocked somehow? Republicans get New York strip steaks and the Dems get lobster. This has been happening since the first Congressional Congress and will continue. So, for heaven's sake let's stop playing Henny Penny.

[TheMercenary]

[quote=SamIam;624482]

President Barack Obama signaled to House Democratic leaders Wednesday that they'll have to drop their opposition to taxing high-end health insurance plans to pay for health coverage for millions of uninsured Americans.[/QUOTE=]

YAY, Classicman! The person speaking up for the rights of those in gated communities. I'm sure they're opening offshore accounts even as we speak. How DARE they give back even a little to their own nation which has helped make their success possible.

And as farm as party gravey trains and kickbacks, are you expecting us to be shocked somehow? Republicans get New York strip steaks and the Dems get lobster. This has been haooening since the first Congressional Congress and wil continue. So, for heaven's sake let's stop playing Henny Penny.

You are attacking the wrong people here.... It is the blue collar unions who are demanding the Dems get it out of the bill...

[TheMercenary]

Obama tells em, "Fuck Some Transparency boys and girls, get one done for The Man and get a bill on my desk no matter how shitty!"

The White House was put on the defensive Wednesday after President Barack Obama pushed congressional leaders to fast-track health care legislation behind closed doors despite his campaign promises of an open process.

"The president wants to get a bill to his desk as quickly as possible," Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said as reporters questioned him repeatedly about Obama's decision to go along with House and Senate leaders in bypassing the usual negotiations between the two chambers in the interest of speed.

The decision was made in an Oval Office meeting Tuesday evening with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his No. 2, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., joined in by phone.

They agreed that rather than setting up a formal conference committee to resolve differences between health bills passed last year by the House and Senate, the House will work off the Senate's version, amend it and send it back to the Senate for final passage, according to a House leadership aide, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss the private meeting.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/new...alth_care.html

Originally Posted by classicman

Wait what?

The House and Senate bills differ on the funding sources...the House has a surcharge on personal income over $500K and the Senate has a tax on high end health plans.

I expect it will end with a little of both. The level of income for the surcharge and the type of high end policies that will be taxed with both be modified as compromise. There are other differences to be resolved as well.

Personally, I prefer the House bill (taxing the rich, including a public option, stronger anti-trust provisions) but the Senate usually gets its way and the final bill will probably look pretty much like the Senate bill...and might even attract a few more Democrats in the House who voted against it the first time around because of the cost..the Senate version is about $150 billion cheaper.

Hey Redux, Is this just the normal course of business in Washington or is this something special?

The process is normally to have a conference committee made up of a small number of members from both the House and Senate to work out the differences and normally from both parties.

But there are numerous examples over the years, with either party in the majority, where that process has been expedited...for various reasons.

The conference committee does not look for new amendments or new proposals to dramatically change either bill, but to find the way to address the differences that those who voted FOR the bills can accept.

In this case, since NO Republicans voted for the bill in either the House or Senate AND.they have made it clear that they will not vote for either bill, the only role they would play on the conference committee would be to further obstruct and delay the process.

And to answer your question...normal? No, but hardly unprecedented either. And more often than the critics would lead you to believe.

Originally Posted by classicman

Link

I think it is great that the private sector is looking for ways to cut costs. It is long over-due.

But that still wont address the needs of the uninsured to have access to affordable health insurance and to the security to those with insurance that they wont face exlusions for pre existing conditions or potential bankruptcy from excessive out of pocket costs.

And the bills include incentives and tax breaks for the private sector when it does demonstrate cost containment.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by SamIam

So, for heaven's sake let's stop playing Henny Penny.

Whats that? I'm not familiar with that expression.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

The process is normally to have a conference committee made up of a small number of members from both the House and Senate to work out the differences and normally from both parties.

But there are numerous examples over the years, with either party in the majority, where that process has been expedited...for various reasons.

The conference committee does not look for new amendments or new proposals to dramatically change either bill, but to find the way to address the differences that those who voted FOR the bills can accept.

In this case, since NO Republicans voted for the bill in either the House or Senate AND.they have made it clear that they will not vote for either bill, the only role they would play on the conference committee would be to further obstruct and delay the process.

And to answer your question...normal? No, but hardly unprecedented either. And more often than the critics would lead you to believe.

Is that the latest Democratic Talking Point? Pretty weak attempt to sweep the gravity of the process for this Bill under the rugs. Man the Dems and Obama are really taking a chance of getting screwed come Nov when they lose the super majority in the Senate and we have 2 years of gridlock.

And the bills include incentives and tax breaks for the private sector when it does demonstrate cost containment.

To bad it does little to control costs on the supply side or prevent insurance companies from charging whatever they want for co-pays and deductables. That alone makes this Bill and epic failure. Not to mention all the people who will not get health insurance like the Dems and Obama promised them...

[SamIam]

[quote=TheMercenary;624483]

Originally Posted by SamIam

You are attacking the wrong people here.... It is the blue collar unions who are demanding the Dems get it out of the bill...

Yes the unions want it out, but so does big business. Unions worry that as currently structured, the bill would take a considerable chunk out of their pocketbooks. Big business doesn't want to spend anything except on CEO salaries and golden parachutes.

The Senate health bill would impose an excise tax on health insurance plans with premiums of at least $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families. Proponents say the measure, which would raise $149 billion by 2019, would not only raise money to insure the uninsured but would help control costs by discouraging employers and insurance companies from offering overly generous plans.

But both labor and business oppose it. Business groups say it would shift the burden to employers, while organized labor says it would shift the burden to workers. Both agree that the end result would be lower wages and benefits.

The A.F.L.-C.I.O. prefers the House health care bill, which would not tax benefits but instead would raise money by taxing the wealthy.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.c...insurance-tax/

[classicman]

The A.F.L.-C.I.O. prefers the House health care bill, which would not tax benefits but instead would raise money by taxing the wealthy.

Not saying its right or wrong, but who wouldn't want something
that someone else is paying for?

[SamIam]

Something does not have value because someone else paid for them. I can go get a nice free dose of radiation from the uranium pilings just north of here. I can go get a nice lungful of toxic air in either Mexico City or Beijing. Doesn't cost me a thing. And on and on. You're so in to freebies, you should go research them for the rest of us. Hint: don't take along your common sense.

[classicman]

What the hell are you talking about?

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by classicman

What the hell are you talking about?

Originally Posted by classicman

Not saying its right or wrong, but who wouldn't want something that someone else is paying for?

What I was trying to convey is that there are many things out there that we are not paying for, but who would want them?

[classicman]

I agree, but don't see where thats applicable in this case.
Which would you rather have FREE insurance or insurance that someone else is paying for?

[SamIam]

There's no such thing as "free" insurance. Most people pay thru a plan with their employer, or they pay the insurance provider directly or they pay through taxes, fines, penalties and other accrued monies.

You seem to be making the point if people get insurance, they will use it (gasp!). And worst of all your taxes will pay for the crowd of rabble getting health care. Redux and Merc and I argued this point a few zillion posts back, and I'm not going to re-argue it.

I will say that people don't know what they're talking about when they speak of rationing insurance or "death panels." Insurance is already rationed in a very real way today. Those who lack coverage do not get adequate medical care - sometimes they get none.

When I became seriously ill, I had no one to advocate for me and I had lost my health insurance due to my inability to work. I was quite literally hours from dying when someone interceded for me at the last minute.

Now go count your money and set it against the value of a human being.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by SamIam

There's no such thing as "free" insurance.

Twisting my words a bit or I am not being clear - probably the latter.
I agree there is no such thing as free insurance, but I do believe that there are many people who would rather have someone else "foot the bill" for whatever services. This is not limited to Health insurance. It is more an opinion of the ever increasing entitlement mentality of our society.
Nothing is free and some do not realize the associated costs and abstract ramifications to some of these things.

You seem to be making the point if people get insurance, they will use it (gasp!).

Absolutely not! I am a very large proponent for healthcare reform, I absolutely want to insure as many people as possible, if not all.

And worst of all your taxes will pay for the crowd of rabble getting health care. Redux and Merc and I argued this point a few zillion posts back, and I'm not going to re-argue it.

Uh ok?!?!? Please feel free to argue that point with whomever disagrees with you, however I am not the one of them.

When I became seriously ill, I had no one to advocate for me and I had lost my health insurance due to my inability to work. I was quite literally hours from dying when someone interceded for me at the last minute.

See PM