FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » President Obama and the Proposal for Health Care (Page 7)

  This topic comprises 11 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11   
Author Topic: President Obama and the Proposal for Health Care
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Reconciliation passes. So now Obama should sign the senate plan into law, and reconciliation will proceed to the Senate for passage.

Woo [Smile]
Progress and some of this aforementioned change!

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sterling
Member
Member # 8096

 - posted      Profile for Sterling   Email Sterling         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Ten states are filing suits over the legislation.

Link.

"We think the way this issue has been handled is anti-democratic! And in response... We're going to move the fight to a venue that's anti-democratic."

(*sigh*)

Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
Excellent post-game commentary:

quote:
I’ve been silent here about the health care issue since this entry on January 20, primarily because I didn’t have a thing to add to it, in particular this portion:

"…contrary to apparently popular opinion, health care isn’t quite dead yet. Now the real interesting thing is to see what the Democrats do next — whether they curl up in a legislative ball, moaning softly, and let their health care initiative die, or whether they double down, locate their gonads and find a way to get it done (there are several ways this can be accomplished).

From a purely strategic point of view, I’m not sure why they don’t just ram the thing through the House as is, fiddle with it a bit during reconciliation and get to Obama to sign it. To put it bluntly, the Democrats will look better by flipping the GOP the bird and then using the ten months until the 2010 election to get voters back on their side than showing to the voters that despite a large majority in both houses, they collapse like a flan in the cupboard at the first setback. We’ll see what happens now, and I suspect what happens in the next week or so will make a significant impact on what happens in November."


quote:
That said, the Democrats were magnificently fortunate that, as incompetent as they are, they are ever-so-slightly less incompetent than the GOP, which by any realistic standard has been handed one of the largest legislative defeats in decades. The GOP was not simply opposed to health care, it was opposed to it in shrill, angry, apocalyptic terms, and saw it not as legislation, or in terms of whether or not health care reform was needed or desirable for Americans, but purely as political strategy, in terms of whether or not it could kneecap Obama and bring itself back into the majority. As such there was no real political or moral philosophy to the GOP’s action, it was all short-term tactics, i.e., take an idea a majority of people like (health care reform), lie about its particulars long enough and in a dramatic enough fashion to lower the popularity of the idea, and then bellow in angry tones about how the president and the Democrats are ignoring the will of the people.
quote:
While I think it’s likely the Democrats will lose seats this election cycle (as often happens to the party of the president — any president — in mid-term elections), I think the idea that the GOP is going to retake either the House or Senate (or both) is optimistic at best, and the idea that they would be able to retake both with the majorities needed to overcome a presidential veto is the sort of magical thinking that usually indicates either profound chemical imbalances in the brain or really excellent hashish. So Americans will have two and a half years to get used to their new-found health care rights and benefits, most of which in the real world are perfectly sensible, beneficial things, before we all get to vote on who is going to be the next president. Now, perhaps Obama will be voted out of office and perhaps he won’t, but if whomever is the GOP candidate in 2012 plans on running on repealing the health care laws, well, you know. Good luck with that. I’m sure Obama would be delighted for them to try.
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2010/03/22/health-care-passage-thoughts/
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Raymond Arnold
Member
Member # 11712

 - posted      Profile for Raymond Arnold   Email Raymond Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
Fairly intelligent commentary from a conservative

Discussion of Obama's speech

Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post 
I'd leave filibusting in, but require the politician desiring it to filibuster in person. None of this declaring a filibuster and then everyone takes it as read and goes home. If blocking a bill means that much to you you can damn well stand up and talk it to death.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
It wouldn't matter. they'd just have someone do it. the utility of the legislative obstruction would remain as potent, so legislation would just become more of a tragic circus to compensate.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dabbler
Member
Member # 6443

 - posted      Profile for dabbler   Email dabbler         Edit/Delete Post 
Are they allowed to discuss or vote on other legislation while they are filibustering?
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rollainm
Member
Member # 8318

 - posted      Profile for rollainm   Email rollainm         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
Discussion of Obama's speech

quote:
And in case you're keeping track, not a damned teleprompter in sight.

[ROFL]
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
Ok, let's do some post-op.

I devoted a pretty serious amount of my sociological study towards why the difference between socialized medical systems (which includes all other modern countries) and our actuarial model (of which ours is effectively the last in high income nations) is so stark, and why ours performs so poorly by all viable metrics despite costing about two and a half times the developed world's median per-capita spending on healthcare.

It adds up to a few billion gallons worth of sperging and graphs and whatever, but I can mill it down to two points.

1. If your concern is waste and inefficiency, then you can do no worse than what we have. The optimal situation is the gradual adoption of Wyden-Benett / single payer (which, by all accounts, is practically inevitable over the medium term), and the absolute worst situation is the maintenance of current system, which is experiencing a classic death spiral as we speak.

2. If your concern is managing debt, you again cannot do worse than what we have. The current and past CBO tabulations speak stronger to that fact than any other independent analysis I could name.

Fact of the matter: the ugly political process aside, this bill is effectively permanent. In much the same manner as medicare/medicaid became a politically untouchable juggernaut despite the apocalyptic doomsaying of Reagan et. al (who famously claimed that the project would doom america's finances and end american freedom), the changes in this bill will become political suicide to try to repeal, since the acrimonious campaign against it will have folded, the misinformation will have faded (of which there has been a prodigal amount), and the changes will stand on their own and nobody will really want to repeal them except the diehards in conservative/libertarian camps. People will remember the pre-reform era unfondly — 'there was a time where you could be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, and some people were effectively uninsurable, it was a mess, there were almost 50 million uninsured in this country ...'

The next question for me relates to how, according to what I've seen, I feel that the progression to single payer is also inevitable. The only thing I can only guess at is the timeframe. 10 years? 20? It relates mostly to our economic future. And some are surprised to hear that I think that the worse off we are economically, the sooner the change will come, as opposed to the other way around.

Another thing (and this I did not expect) was that the republicans tooled themselves by acting in terms of vehement obstruction in order to try to create a 'waterloo moment' for Obama. They put themselves on the wrong side of history AGAIN.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
Honestly, I expect the GOP is going to realize that they are not going to be able to repeal much of anything in the new health care bill and are instead going to try to sabotage it in other ways. They've invested way too much in opposing an obviously very good thing for the country to just give up, but I think most of them are going to realize that they can't directly oppose most of the things in the bill.

Instead, if they get the power, I believe they will try to cut funding, introduce onerous and cumbersome regulations and hoops for people to jump through, and do whatever else they can so that the health care system will break down.

I very much doubt that they will let the fact that this would grievously hurt the country effect their actions. I'm just hoping that they don't gain enough power to do this, because I fully expect them to try to damage the country so that they can say that they won this one.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Godric
Member
Member # 4587

 - posted      Profile for Godric   Email Godric         Edit/Delete Post 
George R.R. Martin.
Posts: 1295 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tarrsk
Member
Member # 332

 - posted      Profile for Tarrsk           Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not sure the Republican Party is that farsighted. Their strategy throughout this whole debate has, roughly, boiled down to "misdirect and demonize." In other words, avoid discussing the substance of the bill and focus instead of painting it with as broad an ideological brush as possible. Then, once you have the media in a furor over the suitably hot-button phrases you've seeded ("government takeover," "death panels," etc), use that (in)famous party discipline to hammer it home at every opportunity, using language designed to provoke fear and anger rather than rationality and discussion.

It's the same tactic the GOP employed against Obama during the campaign. And I don't necessarily see them deviating from it, even if the legislative reality of the situation is that repeal is nigh-impossible. Because ultimately the Republican Party is not terribly interested in the policy - they have made clear that their priorities are political rather than legislative. They would rather take the hardline stance in a losing battle, as long as it improves the chances of Democratic electoral losses in 2012, than make any attempt to meet their Congressian counterparts halfway and work to improve the policy under discussion. If spending the next nine months impotently screaming about repeal nets them more seats in Congress than reaching across the aisle to craft feasible alternatives or improvements to the existing policy, then they'll take the former option, thank you very much.

IOW, to today's Republican Party, health care (and immigration, and gay rights, etc) is nothing more than a convenient lever they can use to manipulate Americans into returning them to power. They could care less about the actual governance. And nobody should be more frightened by this than conservatives.

Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Tarrsk:
They could care less about the actual governance. And nobody should be more frightened by this than conservatives.

Conservatives these days got a lot of stuff they need to start wetting their pants over, that's fo sho
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tarrsk
Member
Member # 332

 - posted      Profile for Tarrsk           Edit/Delete Post 
I said conservatives, not Republicans. And I wouldn't bet on the demographic covered in that map staying so solidly Democratic over the next few decades, particularly once Obama completes his term(s). People tend to grow more conservative as they age, and a lot of the '08 youth vote went blue because of the Obama/Biden presidential ticket. That won't hold true in midterm elections like 2010's, and won't for 2016 either.

Regardless, my point was more that Republicans seem more than happy to shoot themselves in the legislative foot (by inflaming their base with empty rhetoric rather than offering any substantive contribution to the political dialogue), so long as it furthers their electoral ambitions in 2010 and 2012. And this, in its own way, is just as bad for America as the Democrats of 2003-2006 rolling over for the Bush Administration at every opportunity.

Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Godric
Member
Member # 4587

 - posted      Profile for Godric   Email Godric         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Tarrsk:
People tend to grow more conservative as they age, and a lot of the '08 youth vote went blue because of the Obama/Biden presidential ticket.

I'd say I've grown more morally conservative, but more politically liberal as I've aged through my 20s.
Posts: 1295 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
People tend to grow more conservative as they age
nope

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0560526320080306

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
I think that the Republicans have found themselves riding a tiger with their embrace of the most radical Limbaugh/Glenn Beck/Fox News/Committee for Progress section of their base. I think they consciously fostered this as the primary demographic that they would play to (although not necessarily legislate for) and are starting to realize that this isn't a decision that they can really back away from. The entertainers are becoming the most influential people in the Republican party and they care about making themselves money a lot more than they care about the power of the Republican party or the well-being of the people who consume their entertainment.

Besides them losing control over their own party, I think this is putting Republican politicians in a spot where they have to fight with the Democrats and anyone else who doesn't agree with the often crazy and/or stupid things that this base wants. When you and the talking heads have been pushing the message that other side is made up of Nazi, socialist, baby killers, you don't have much leeway to then compromise or work with them. I don't know if they've really gotten there yet, but I think that the GOP is coming to realize that that isn't a place that they want to be.

I think that as the reality of the health care reform bill disseminates to the general public, this is going to become more evident to them. Even with the inept and condescending handling of this by President Obama and the congressional Democrats, I think the Republicans treating such an obviously good thing as something that no matter what, you are going to try to defeat so as to hurt your opponents, and the vast amount of dishonesty and sheer insanity of their campaign against it is going to hurt the GOP.

And for people like myself who hold complex beliefs of which many align with conservative principles, it's very distressing to see these complex, valuable conservative ideas disappearing from not just public discourse, but also even the conception of what it means to be conservative in favor of these shallow, stupid, usually emotionally driven ones.

[ March 23, 2010, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Using Microcase, I once ran a graph to see if people in the US when divided into age groups became more conservative as they got older. Initially it looked like there might be some correlation, but when I controlled for education, i.e going to college, the relationship evaporated.

edit:

MrSquicky: At least though, that radicalization can often act as a harbinger of a return to moderation. The Democrats experienced something similar when it imploded after Johnson's administration, and over the next few decades it pieced itself together again.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
I've gotten more politically liberal as I've gotten older.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Number of states filing suit up to fourteen.

I am so disappointed (though not surprised) that Utah is up there. Time to write the attorney general.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
None of the state passed laws will do anything. The Supremacy Clause ensures that much.

As for the lawsuits challenging the bill...I really don't see those going anywhere either. Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare are on the books and weren't struck down, so I don't see this being killed either. A lot of it is probably grandstanding by Attorneys General who want to be governor some day.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
Correct pluralization!

<3 <3 <3

[Wink]

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sterling
Member
Member # 8096

 - posted      Profile for Sterling   Email Sterling         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't know, I've always liked the idea of attorneys in three-piece-suits commanding platoons and wearing medals...
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Juxtapose
Member
Member # 8837

 - posted      Profile for Juxtapose   Email Juxtapose         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm reposting rivka's healthcare implementation timeline here.

This is a summary of some of the big changes that was emailed to me. I checked it against the house of reps list, and it looks accurate to me.
quote:
WITHIN THE FIRST YEAR OF ENACTMENT

*Insurance companies will be barred from dropping people from coverage when they get sick. Lifetime coverage limits will be eliminated and annual limits are to be restricted.

*Insurers will be barred from excluding children for coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

*Young adults will be able to stay on their parents' health plans until the age of 26. Many health plans currently drop dependents from coverage when they turn 19 or finish college.

*Uninsured adults with a pre-existing conditions will be able to obtain health coverage through a new program that will expire once new insurance exchanges begin operating in 2014.

*A temporary reinsurance program is created to help companies maintain health coverage for early retirees between the ages of 55 and 64. This also expires in 2014.

*Medicare drug beneficiaries who fall into the "doughnut hole" coverage gap will get a $250 rebate. The bill eventually closes that gap which currently begins after $2,700 is spent on drugs. Coverage starts again after $6,154 is spent.

*A tax credit becomes available for some small businesses to help provide coverage for workers.

*A 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services that use ultraviolet lamps goes into effect on July 1.

WHAT HAPPENS IN 2011

*Medicare provides 10 percent bonus payments to primary care physicians and general surgeons.

*Medicare beneficiaries will be able to get a free annual wellness visit and personalized prevention plan service. New health plans will be required to cover preventive services with little or no cost to patients.

*A new program under the Medicaid plan for the poor goes into effect in October that allows states to offer home and community based care for the disabled that might otherwise require institutional care.

*Payments to insurers offering Medicare Advantage services are frozen at 2010 levels. These payments are to be gradually reduced to bring them more in line with traditional Medicare.

*Employers are required to disclose the value of health benefits on employees' W-2 tax forms.

*An annual fee is imposed on pharmaceutical companies according to market share. The fee does not apply to companies with sales of $5 million or less.

WHAT HAPPENS IN 2012

*Physician payment reforms are implemented in Medicare to enhance primary care services and encourage doctors to form "accountable care organizations" to improve quality and efficiency of care.

*An incentive program is established in Medicare for acute care hospitals to improve quality outcomes.

*The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees the government programs, begin tracking hospital readmission rates and puts in place financial incentives to reduce preventable readmissions.

WHAT HAPPENS IN 2013

*A national pilot program is established for Medicare on payment bundling to encourage doctors, hospitals and other care providers to better coordinate patient care.

*The threshold for claiming medical expenses on itemized tax returns is raised to 10 percent from 7.5 percent of income. The threshold remains at 7.5 percent for the elderly through 2016.

*The Medicare payroll tax is raised to 2.35 percent from 1.45 percent for individuals earning more than $200,000 and married couples with incomes over $250,000. The tax is imposed on some investment income for that income group.

*A 2.9 percent excise tax in imposed on the sale of medical devices. Anything generally purchased at the retail level by the public is excluded from the tax.

WHAT HAPPENS IN 2014

*State health insurance exchanges for small businesses and individuals open.

*Most people will be required to obtain health insurance coverage or pay a fine if they don't. Healthcare tax credits become available to help people with incomes up to 400 percent of poverty purchase coverage on the exchange.

*Health plans no longer can exclude people from coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

*Employers with 50 or more workers who do not offer coverage face a fine of $2,000 for each employee if any worker receives subsidized insurance on the exchange. The first 30 employees aren't counted for the fine.

*Health insurance companies begin paying a fee based on their market share.

WHAT HAPPENS IN 2015

*Medicare creates a physician payment program aimed at rewarding quality of care rather than volume of services.

WHAT HAPPENS IN 2018

*An excise tax on high cost employer-provided plans is imposed. The first $27,500 of a family plan and $10,200 for individual coverage is exempt from the tax. Higher levels are set for plans covering retirees and people in high risk professions. (Reporting by Donna Smith; Editing by David Alexander and Eric Beech)


Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
(Not mine. I just found it.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Juxtapose
Member
Member # 8837

 - posted      Profile for Juxtapose   Email Juxtapose         Edit/Delete Post 
Now now. No need to be so modest.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Where can I find a video of the speech?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rollainm
Member
Member # 8318

 - posted      Profile for rollainm   Email rollainm         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Where can I find a video of the speech?

This one?

Or this one?

Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jon Boy
Member
Member # 4284

 - posted      Profile for Jon Boy           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
None of the state passed laws will do anything. The Supremacy Clause ensures that much.

As for the lawsuits challenging the bill...I really don't see those going anywhere either. Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare are on the books and weren't struck down, so I don't see this being killed either. A lot of it is probably grandstanding by Attorneys General who want to be governor some day.

Utah's attorney general was considering challenging Senator Bob Bennett this year until a family issue took him out of the running. The crazy thing is that I've heard some people describe him as a "Republican in name only," but he sounds pretty darn Republican to me according to his Wikipedia page.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Number of states filing suit up to fourteen.

I am so disappointed (though not surprised) that Utah is up there. Time to write the attorney general.

Go ahead an write, but be forewarned. Mark Shurtleff is a psychopath. Seriously. When my father was in the legislature, he had to work with him quite a bit, I bet he scores at least 35 on the PCL-R.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sinflower
Member
Member # 12228

 - posted      Profile for sinflower           Edit/Delete Post 
Can someone explain to me what the provisions for funding this will be?
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by sinflower:
Can someone explain to me what the provisions for funding this will be?

All of the money you make in this lifetime, and your children's, and your children's children's. It says so in the legislation. [Wink]
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
You also have to sell your first-born to the Middle East and your second-born to China. Mormons get dibs on your third child.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Visiting a Chinese hospital often feels like an experiment in free-market fundamentalism. Everything is for sale.
...
Bad as it is, however, as Chinese health-care reformers looked for ways to repair their system in recent years, they glanced at the American status quo and recoiled. “The United States,” as one typically bewildered piece in the Chinese press put it, “is the strongest of the developed countries, but its record on health care is, in fact, extremely bad.” China has long peered over at the United States with a deep, if grudging, respect for American institutions. But, over the winter, as Chinese observers watched the prospects for American health-care reform begin to crumble, they seemed to regard it as another bleak measure of a superpower past its prime. It was time to look to Europe for ideas and to “give up on America as a teacher.”

On Monday, China awoke to discover that the U.S. had found the will to provide medical coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans. The U.S. and China don’t see eye-to-eye on much these days, but, for a brief moment, China seemed to glimpse the old teacher again. Zhao Haijian, a commentator in Guangzhou Daily, wrote today that, as China looks at its health-care reform plans, “paying attention to the health care reforms in the U.S. just might provide some reference and inspiration.”

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/evanosnos/2010/03/health-care-the-view-from-abroad.html
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post 
Mucus, in my experience, the fourth born is the best anyway.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Juxtapose:
*The threshold for claiming medical expenses on itemized tax returns is raised to 10 percent from 7.5 percent of income. The threshold remains at 7.5 percent for the elderly through 2016.

How does this not screw the taxpayer?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FoolishTook
Member
Member # 5358

 - posted      Profile for FoolishTook   Email FoolishTook         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, at least China likes the plan.

quote:
*Most people will be required to obtain health insurance coverage or pay a fine if they don't. Healthcare tax credits become available to help people with incomes up to 400 percent of poverty purchase coverage on the exchange.
There are people who pay out of pocket for health care. I pay cash for doctor's visits and preventative care, along with routine check ups. I would like access to catastrophic care only, not everything else. I visit the doctor rarely as it is. But I either have to swallow what Obama and the democrats think I need or pay a fine?

Really? I'm amazed that they think they know better what I need and want they I do.

quote:
*Employers with 50 or more workers who do not offer coverage face a fine of $2,000 for each employee if any worker receives subsidized insurance on the exchange. The first 30 employees aren't counted for the fine.
Where I work, the business is barely hanging on. We had health insurance initially, but so many people abused it that we had to drop the coverage. This fine is going to cost a lot of people their jobs, because my employer can't afford health coverage but nor can they pay the fine.

Someone tell me how this doesn't crush the economy?

Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, in the three and a half years between now and when those provisions go into effect should allow companies to make some changes about how they do business.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
No no no, Lisa, Took, stop it. The only conceivable reason any conservative could object to this bill is because they're all obstructionist hatemongers who want to sabotage Obama.

Duh.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
No no no, Lisa, Took, stop it. The only conceivable reason any conservative could object to this bill is because they're all obstructionist hatemongers who want to sabotage Obama.

Duh.

That's not why they object to the bill. That's just why Republicans were unable to work with the Dems to include measures in the bill that represented their interests.

The obstructionist bit, anyway. Hatemonger only applies to a minority, which unfortunately includes the most influential conservative media figures.

Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post 
Foolish Took, I am pretty sure you can choose just catastrophic coverage (though someone who knows better would have to answer that). I found it amazing when I looked over my latest ultrasound bill. The charge to me would be over $400 if I had no insurance. But my insurance paid less that $200, and I paid $15 copay. So, if I didn't have insurance, I would have to pay twice what they received for someone with insurance. That seemed pretty ridiculous to me. This is true for my pediatrician, my obgyn and my husband's dr- also dentist did that too. Just something to look into if you are paying per service.

Also as to why you have to pay a fine- you are leaching off the system. Right now, you are healthy and can afford to get away with it. Let's imagine there is something that feels minor that is wrong with you. You don't go to the dr. That minor thing becomes major. Now, it is an emergency. Society pays tens of thousands to fix you- esp since you can qualify for say medicaid because your boss fired you and you lost everything. So, everyone pays less in taxes when people are healthier. Also, you have theoretical access to the ER and other emergency sources, which does cost money to maintain. You also get the advantage of living in a healthier society, so you are less likely to get sick (I go to dr, take antibiotics and clear up say strep, I am contagious less time, don't get as many people sick). This decreased sick time as people take care of minor problems before they are major is also good for businesses, schools etc, as people take less time off.

Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Godric
Member
Member # 4587

 - posted      Profile for Godric   Email Godric         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
This decreased sick time as people take care of minor problems before they are major is also good for businesses, schools etc, as people take less time off.

I was with you right up to there. I want more time off-not less.

Darn it. Scrap the whole thing. It was a bad idea after all.

[Wink]

Posts: 1295 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by FoolishTook:
Well, at least China likes the plan.

As do all the other modernized nations in the world.

Pretty much all of europe is like "way to go, america, took you long enough"

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
WUT HAPPENS NAO

quote:
David Frum, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, the conservative research organization, said Republicans had tried to defeat the bill to undermine Mr. Obama politically, but in the process had given up a chance of influencing a huge bill. Mr. Frum said his party’s stance sowed doubts with the public about its ideas and leadership credentials, and ultimately failed in a way that expanded Mr. Obama’s power.

“The political imperative crowded out the policy imperative,” Mr. Frum said. “And the Republicans have now lost both.”

“Politically, I get the ‘let’s trip up the other side, make them fail’ strategy,” he said. “But what’s more important, to win extra seats or to shape the most important piece of social legislation since the 1960s? It was a go-for-all-the-marbles approach. Unless they produced an absolute failure for Mr. Obama, there wasn’t going to be any political benefit.”

Republicans also face the question of what happens if the health care bill does not create the cataclysm that they warned of during the many months of debate. Closing out the floor debate on Sunday night, the House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, warned that the legislation would be “the last straw for the American people.” Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, proclaimed several hours earlier, “Freedom dies a little bit today.”

Yet there are elements of the bill, particularly in regulating insurers, that could well prove broadly popular, and it could be years before anyone knows whether the legislation will have big effects on health care quality and the nation’s fiscal condition. Indeed, most Americans with insurance are unlikely to see any immediate change in their coverage, and several Republicans warned that the party could pay a price for that.

“When our core group discover that this thing is not as catastrophic as advertised, they are going to be less energized than they are right now,” Mr. Frum said.

He warned that the energy Republicans were finding now among base voters would fade.


Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
(responding to post two posts ago) No doubt, you should see the most agreed comments on CBC.ca

1028 vs. 72 "Welcome to the 21st Century America!"
901 vs. 64 "Welcome to the first world, America."
745 vs. 29 "The Americans are a funny bunch of people.They won`t hesitate to meddle in the affairs of every country on the planet.They won`t hesitate to spend billions on warships or planes and they won`t hesitate to jump into a war that may or may not impact their values.Yet fully 1/2 of them hesitate to spend a few bucks to ensure that their own people have some form of health care.Go figure.
12:11"

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/03/23/obama-health-care-bill.html

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dabbler
Member
Member # 6443

 - posted      Profile for dabbler   Email dabbler         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The president signed the bill with 20 pens, writing a small part of the letters of his name with each. He gave the pens to supporters onstage, including Pelosi and John Dingle, the longest serving member of the House of Representatives.

That is silly and probably looked silly too. [Smile]
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
That is silly and probably looked silly too.
It's also very common for major legislation.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah every time he sits down with a bucket of pens and goes 'ehh, sorry, this is gonna take a while' i am reminded that I wish that trend had never gotten started.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Bush actually killed the tradition for awhile, and it has seriously come and gone. Some presidents have only signed with one or two pens, Kennedy once used so many pens he added flourishes, and spelled out his middle name, which normally isn't done. Bush only used one pen for his whole name most of the time. He would generally then give out regular pens afterward that hadn't been used, as a thank you.

It really depends on the bill and the president. For stuff like this, with lots of players involved, lots of thank yous to send out, and so much enthusiasm, mementos aren't a bad way to curry cheap and easy political favor. Plus, it's history.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Godric
Member
Member # 4587

 - posted      Profile for Godric   Email Godric         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Bush actually killed the tradition for awhile, and it has seriously come and gone. Some presidents have only signed with one or two pens, Kennedy once used so many pens he added flourishes, and spelled out his middle name, which normally isn't done. Bush only used one pen for his whole name most of the time. He would generally then give out regular pens afterward that hadn't been used, as a thank you.

Well, there's little enough I agreed with him about, so I'll give Bush props for what I did. It's historic and all, I get that - but surely there's plenty more on a President's plate that could use the extra time saved by not stopping for the pen parade.
Posts: 1295 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 11 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2