Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

An interesting interpretation by the Chamber of Commerce, which is spending $millions, along with the insurance industry to oppose the bill.

Bullshit. The insurance companies are about to get a windfall profit and they know it, and you know it, but you refuse to say so. As I said before millions of dollars to the insurance industry is like pissing in the Great Lakes to that industry.

But I would agree that more of the reforms are "insurance" reforms (particularly impacting small business, ie members of the Chamber of Commerce) but there are signficant provisions that focus on containing costs in the delivery system.

Neither of the Bills do much to contain the costs of Healthcare with the exception of a few very narrow areas. There are no cost containments on what the insurance companies are going to cost those who currently have insurance in the form of co-pays and premiums.

Yep it says how it will pay for the $900 billion cost...over 10 years.

To bad there is absolutely no way that you or the whores who are making deals to pass this bill can ensure that is going to happen.

[quote]....expected savings about $150 billion.[/quotet]But you can't ensure that is going to happen. Now as we get down to the wire there is a lot of discussion about how much more expensive it is going to really be. But we will never know until it comes out of the SECRET and NON-transparent talks. Another lie from the Dems and Obama.

The rest is less predicatable........iffy.

The first honest statement you have made about what this is really going to cost the Taxpayers.

Some have a problem with the top 1-2% of taxpayers bearing a large portion of the costs in new taxes. I dont have a problem with that at all.

Of course you don't. It serves the greater plan of wealth redistribution by the Socialist Demoncrats.

What is accomplishes is to enable companies that are marginal in size (to big for the small pool and to small for cheaper policies provided through big companies) to end their own employer-plan and enter a plan with a larger pool of other small businesses....a bunch of companies pooling together can offer cheaper insurance that a single small/medium company alone....simply by having a greater number of people included, spreading the risk.

There is no promise that marginal sized companies are going to be able to enter the insurance exchanges.

My Voltaire reference..."the perfect is the enemy of the good"

Who doesnt want a perfect bill that provides both comprehensive insurance reform and reform of the delivery system...all w/o costs to taxpayers?

I'll take what I think is a good bill and build on that...because the political reality is that the perfect bill aint gonna happen......or "a half of loaf is better than none."

Which is a very dangerous view of how your guys want to deal with the taxpayers money.

Will it work as envisioned? Probably not completely. No legislation this comprehensive plays out completely as planned...never has and never will.

No shit!?!?!

And, IMO, it is bullshit for others to be screaming "failed" even before it is given a chance to succeed....or claiming that the "propaganda" or talking points are all on one side of the discussion here. That is dishonest to the point of being blatantly and purposefully ignorant (not referring to you).

Oh, sort of like the millions of jobs that are have been made by the last bailout and the lies Pelosi, Obama, and Reid made to the American public?

[TheMercenary]

Well imagine this:

Payments to states emerges as major obstacle to healthcare reform

By Jared Allen and Jeffrey Young - 01/15/10 06:46 PM ET

Some House Democrats believe their states would get shortchanged in the overhaul of the nation’s healthcare system and the funding issue is fast becoming a major hurdle to getting a bill signed into law.


How much of a burden states would have to shoulder for a proposed Medicaid expansion is the latest friction point between the House and the Senate, and is threatening to blow a hole in the measure’s price tag.

“There’s a lot of angst right now from members from states like New York and California over this,” a senior Democratic aide said. “And there’s a growing concern that these states are getting the short end of the stick. And that’s particularly frustrating because it was members from these states that carried this bill to the point we’re at now.”


Lawmakers from these states and others are disgruntled because states that already offer more generous Medicaid coverage would be offered less additional assistance than states with relatively smaller programs.


While liberal House Democrats have yielded to the upper chamber on many issues, a growing number of House Democrats – liberals and centrists alike – are beginning to push back hard in opposition to a deal between Senate Majority Leader (D-Nev.) Harry Reid and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) that exempted Nebraska from shouldering any of the cost involved in expanding Medicaid services.


Notwithstanding the Nebraska provisions, the Senate bill offers less assistance to states for the Medicaid expansion than the House bill.


But now, with the clock winding down and without an indication that the deal giving Nebraska full reimbursement is off the table, a new coalition of House members is warning that they'll be compelled to stick up for their states, even at the risk of stalling momentum at the eleventh hour.


Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) called it the last potential deal breaker from the perspective of House Democrats.


“It’s not so much a problem that Nebraska got [100 percent Medicare reimbursement],” he said. “We in the House thought everyone should get something like that, that we shouldn’t just expand Medicaid and then just cost shift it to the states. It would obviate everything we’re doing on stimulus and everything else by trying to relieve the burden on the states.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/76...-health-reform

1. Will the health care plans offered to Members of Congress and Administration officials, including Cabinet officers, White House staff, and political appointees, be exempt from the proposed excise tax in the same manner as those covered under collective bargaining agreements?

2. Will the health care plans offered to federal employees, including over 382,000 employees making in excess of $100,000 a year, be exempt from the proposed excise tax in the same manner as those covered under collective bargaining agreements?

1) In the Senate bill, all Members of Congress and congressional staff are required to purchase through through the Exchange:

d) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE.

(i) REQUIREMENT. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are

(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or

(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).

(ii) DEFINITIONS. In this section:

(I) MEMBER OF CONGRESS. The term Member of Congress means any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate.

(II) CONGRESSIONAL STAFF. The term congressional staff means all full-time and part-time employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC.

2) Of all the plans available to federal employees in the FEHB program, only one reaches the level of cost at which it would be taxed as a high end plan....And, the reference to federal employees making over $100K has nothing to do with the tax.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Bullshit. The insurance companies are about to get a windfall profit and they know it, and you know it, but you refuse to say so. As I said before millions of dollars to the insurance industry is like pissing in the Great Lakes to that industry.

Neither of the Bills do much to contain the costs of Healthcare with the exception of a few very narrow areas. There are no cost containments on what the insurance companies are going to cost those who currently have insurance in the form of co-pays and premiums.


To bad there is absolutely no way that you or the whores who are making deals to pass this bill can ensure that is going to happen.

]....expected savings about $150 billion.[/quotet]But you can't ensure that is going to happen. Now as we get down to the wire there is a lot of discussion about how much more expensive it is going to really be. But we will never know until it comes out of the SECRET and NON-transparent talks. Another lie from the Dems and Obama.

The first honest statement you have made about what this is really going to cost the Taxpayers.

Of course you don't. It serves the greater plan of wealth redistribution by the Socialist Demoncrats.

There is no promise that marginal sized companies are going to be able to enter the insurance exchanges.

Which is a very dangerous view of how your guys want to deal with the taxpayers money.

No shit!?!?!

Oh, sort of like the millions of jobs that are have been made by the last bailout and the lies Pelosi, Obama, and Reid made to the American public?

Same old crap.,,,with the "whores" and "wealth redistribution by socialists Democrats" (what, no pics?) , blah blah blah

Any opinion that counters yours is not acceptable.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Same old crap.,,,with the "whores" and "wealth redistribution by socialists Democrats" (what, no pics?) , blah blah blah

Any opinion that counters yours is not acceptable.

You can't change the facts no matter how hard you Demoncrats want to spin it.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

You can't change the facts no matter how hard you Demoncrats want to spin it.

Mrerc spin....good - fair and true and factual

Dux spin....bad - biasd and partisan and bullshit

I know the rules by which you like to play.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

1) In the Senate bill...

Operative word. But since the scumbags are doing it all in secret we will never know or have the opportunity for public input until the deal is done. November is going to be painful for you guys because there are a lot of really pissed off people out there tired of your lies and backdoor deals.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Mrerc spin....good - fair and true

Dux spin....bad - biasd and partisan

No Dux represents one group. I represent myself and the views of many groups.

[TheMercenary]

Well at least this guy is honest about the Dems circumventing the normal process of Congress to pass a Bill that will effect about 20% of our economy...

Democrats are prepared to use a budgetary procedure to pass healthcare reform legislation if they lose a key Senate race on Tuesday, a House leader said this weekend.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the assistant to the Speaker and chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), said during budget reconciliation is "an option" to pass a healthcare bill.

"Even before Massachusetts and that race was on the radar screen, we prepared for the process of using reconciliation," Van Hollen said during an appearance on Bloomberg television over the weekend.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...y-lose-in-mass

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

No Dux represents one group. I represent myself and the views of many groups.

I would advise those many people you represent to stand back when you step in your own shit, like you did here:

Originally Posted by Redux

...On one hand, you claim the Exchanges are a fantasy and on the other hand, you insist they are a pay-off to the insurance industry…..

Then you post a column from a Democratic Senator from 4 months ago and claim he agreed that the Exchanges would not work, when in fact, he was complaining at the time that the early draft of the committee bill did not include Exchanges anywhere near those in the final bill.

From there, you post a CBO letter on one small component of the bill related to one level of coverage to be offered in the Exchange and claim that updated it the overall CBO earlier findings on costs and saving and invalidated them.

Followed by the typical twists and dodges with each contradiction or misrepresentation.

Facts?


Seriously, dude. The overwhelming majority of your posts are not facts, they are your opinion....or the opinions of libertarian/conservative columnists and/or industry spokespeople with an agenda

Why is it so hard for you to accept that others have equally valid opinions.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Why is it so hard for you to accept that others have opinions.

Oh I do, I just don't believe the ones posted directly from White House Talking Points or the Demoncratic party line... like 90% of yours.

[Shawnee123]

Wow, that was kind of Faux Newsish of you, leaving out the important words equally valid in your direct quote.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Oh I do, I just don't believe the ones posted directly from White House Talking Points or the Demoncratic party line... like 90% of yours.

I would say 90% of your "snips" are the opinions of libertarian/conservative columnists, industry spokespeople and/or Republican members of Congress (see below) with an agenda.

So whats the difference?

Oh...I know one difference.

I actually take the time to cite the legislation (and related facts) when I can......like in response to the latest non-partisan (?) nonsense you posted from a Republican member of Congress.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux
...On one hand, you claim the Exchanges are a fantasy and on the other hand, you insist they are a pay-off to the insurance industry…..

They are both a fantasy because they do not exist and no one knows if they are going to work, and they whole Bill in both parts of the Congress are a big assed compromised pay off to the insurance industry. Why would you continually avoid discussing this issue? Why do you continue to cover up for the Insurance insiders who helped craft the Bills?

Then you post a column from a Democratic Senator from 4 months ago and claim he agreed that the Exchanges would not work, when in fact, he was complaining at the time that the early draft of the committee bill did not include Exchanges anywhere near those in the final bill.

It does not invalidate the fact that know one knows if the exchanges are going to work since they don't exist, either at a state (esp) or a national level. Why do you continue to ignore the obvious?

From there, you post a CBO letter on one small component of the bill related to one level of coverage to be offered in the Exchange and claim that updated it the overall CBO earlier findings on costs and saving and invalidated them.

The Bronze level is going to be the largest level of coverage. It is not a small part of the CBO estimates, which you love to quote. You are misrepresenting and attempting to downplay the obvious.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

I would say 90% of your "snips" are the opinions of libertarian/conservative columnists and/or industry spokespeople with an agenda.

So whats the difference?

1 narrow view vs. Many.