STORY HIGHLIGHTS "We're not going to start over," top Senate Democrat says GOP: "It's nearly impossible to imagine a scenario under which we can reach agreement" White House holding bipartisan summit on reform Thursday House speaker says she has "great optimism"
Washington (CNN) -- The day before the White House's bipartisan summit on health care reform, there didn't appear to be much mood for compromise on Capitol Hill.
Sen. Chris Dodd, a key author of the Senate health care bill, said flatly Wednesday that if Republicans continue to demand that Democrats scrap their health care proposals and start over, "then there's nothing to talk about."
"If you expect me to start all over on this, there's really not much point in this, 'cause we're not going to start over," Dodd said.
But Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell argued that's exactly what Republicans want.
"Unless they're willing to do that, I think it's nearly impossible to imagine a scenario under which we can reach agreement, because we don't think we ought to pass a 2,700-page bill that seeks to restructure one-sixth of our economy," McConnell said.
Dodd said Democrats and Republicans could find some common ground in some areas, such as the Republican push to allow insurers to sell insurance across state lines. Dodd called the GOP proposal "a legitimate issue" but added that Democrats have a version of that proposal in their legislation.
House and Senate Democrats participating in Thursday's summit met in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office to game out their approach for the meeting. Republicans held their own strategy session in McConnell's office later Wednesday afternoon.
Pelosi said she had "great optimism" about the meeting. But she declined to give any specifics about how Democrats will proceed on health care reform. She also sidestepped questions about Democrats' plans to use a controversial parliamentary shortcut to bypass GOP opposition and pass a health care bill.
"We're talking about substance. I'm going there to talk about substance. We agree that we should have universal access to coverage, with affordability for the middle class and accountability for the insurance companies. That, to me, is what the subject is about tomorrow," Pelosi said.
But Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-North Dakota, admitted that Democrats did talk Wednesday morning about using "reconciliation" to move health care legislation. He said they anticipate that the issue will come up at Thursday's summit.
Reconciliation is a process, limited to budget-related bills, that bypasses the Senate rule on 60 votes being needed to end debate. When it is used, only a majority vote would be needed to advance a bill.
Dodd said Democrats don't want to go that route but added, "we've been forced to consider that as an option, and I believe you must consider it. The issue of health insurance and health reform is so important that we can't afford to get lost in the process debate around here over how you get it done."
McConnell warned that the political consequences would be severe if Democrats moved forward without GOP support.
Pointing to the backlash over the special deal in the Senate bill for Nebraska's Democratic senator, Ben Nelson, to cover his state's Medicaid costs, McConnell said, "If they think the American people are mad at them now, they haven't seen anything yet."
The No. 2 House Republican, Eric Cantor of Virginia, released a memo to reporters slamming Democrats for discussing the idea of using reconciliation.
On Democratic strategy, Cantor said, "Their endgame is clear: Demand support for their approach, or go it alone using reconciliation. This partisan tactic -- once soundly rejected by Democrats -- now appears to be a foregone conclusion. That's a sad statement for bipartisanship and for America."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pointed out this week that reconciliation has been used more than 20 times since 1981 by both parties.
Conrad said he expected the president to make opening remarks at the summit, followed by opening statements from Republican and Democratic leaders from the House and Senate. He also said Democrats plan to divide who will take the lead in the four subject areas the White House outlined: controlling costs, insurance reforms, reducing the deficit and expanding coverage.
Conrad said he has been asked to take the lead on debt and deficit issues.
Democrats react to possibility of Republican's possible use of reconciliation maneuver to get a vote on a Bush District Court nominee (Priscilla Barnes):
Off the top of my head, reconciliation has been used in the past decade to pass the Tax Cut Act of 2001(EGTRRA), Tax Cut Act of 2003(JGTRRA or the "Bush Tax Cuts") and the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005(where Cheney had to cast the tie breaking vote) so as the article pointed out it's a fairly normal process, especially when the two sides can't come to a compromise on some of the more major pieces of legislation.
So they are going to use reconciliation after failing to put a passable bill together when all they had to do is convince one Republican to vote their way. The people have shown they don't want this bill passed. Nothing like government forcing something upon the people because we are stupid and don't know what's good for our own good
Thanks for the link. So under Bush it was used 5 times, and with Clinton it was used 6 times(3 of them vetoed by Clinton). I haven't heard some of these bills, I'll have to check out what some of them are. Thanks for sharing.
I'm in the same boat with most others and am not pleased with either side. If there isn't a 3rd party choice to vote for this fall I can see myself abstaining from this year's congressional election.
This has political disaster written all over it for the Democrats.
Can you imagine a Senator who made derogatory comments about the Republicans using reconciliation doing this in a state where people are largely against this Health Care debacle?
It wuld be a series of hard hitting ads ... and probably extremely effective.
37 Senate seats and the entire House up for election ...... You could hear "Let the bodies hit the floor" played in a great number of states ....... especially since the expense part of the bill starts rolling before the actual coverage begins.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: What's most interesting is the dems are saying, and basically O also - agree with us on this and show your bipartisanship, or we'll do it anyway.
Well the bad part is that this whole ordeal is just political wrangling.. The democrats want to put something notable through, but the republicans dont.. irregardless if the bill is bad or not..
There is no real good solution to check and balance this problem without a viable third party... or even just better choices put through by dems and repubs, though I see the latter less likely because the two parties love group think where if you don't think like us on every single thing, you are not part of the party.
I really think our ballots should not list independent organizations on them... just the politician's name.. Forget the fact whether there is a D or a R beside their name.. May not be that big of a help.. but it'll be a step in a good direction.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
Can you imagine a Senator who made derogatory comments about the Republicans using reconciliation doing this in a state where people are largely against this Health Care debacle?
I honestly don't understand how that's different than a republican shouting against it after they used it for the tax cuts 6 years back?
Quote: I'm in the same boat with most others and am not pleased with either side. If there isn't a 3rd party choice to vote for this fall I can see myself abstaining from this year's congressional election.
The problem with 3rd party is he or she usually pulls votes from one of the other candidates more than the other which usually just hands the election to someone.
Third party voters usually tend to be more educated and middle class....people who typically care and try to stay abreast of the issues.
For me, I try to figure out who the uneducated and unemployed by choice are going to vote for and vote for the other person if possible.
Oh....don't sit out a election. Abstaining doesn't do anything to help you.
Personally, I would like to see voting laws changed to where there are a few requirements people had to meet before they were allowed to vote.
If you can have the requirement a person must be 18 years old to vote, you can have a few more.....like a record of paying taxes, employment, some minimum level of education. We could probably find a few others that aren't hard to attain by most people.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
Quote: Democrats react to possibility of Republican's possible use of reconciliation maneuver to get a vote on a Bush District Court nominee (Priscilla Barnes):
dave...so Dems didn't like it when Bush used reconciliation to pass his tax cuts for the rich....all the Dem crying didn't stop Bush and the GOP from using reconciliation when they felt it was necessary, did it?
Republicans should stop crying about the possibility of Obama and the Dems doing the same thing the GOP themselves did, to pass tax cuts.
Quote: This has political disaster written all over it for the Democrats.
Can you imagine a Senator who made derogatory comments about the Republicans using reconciliation doing this in a state where people are largely against this Health Care debacle?
It wuld be a series of hard hitting ads ... and probably extremely effective.
37 Senate seats and the entire House up for election ...... You could hear "Let the bodies hit the floor" played in a great number of states ....... especially since the expense part of the bill starts rolling before the actual coverage begins.
Poll shows less fear on health care overhaul
Tues., Feb. 23, 2010
WASHINGTON - With President Barack Obama's health care overhaul in limbo, Americans' fears about its effect on them eased in January, according to a poll released as the president tries to revive sweeping Democratic legislation.
The monthly poll from the nonpartisan Robert Wood Johnson Foundation also found that three-fourths of Americans still think it's important that Obama include health care reform in addressing the nation's economic crisis — even if many have misgivings.
"Job numbers continue to lag and nearly a quarter of Americans are still concerned they might lose coverage," said Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, president of the foundation, a philanthropic and research organization that supports health care reform.
The poll found that the proportion of Americans who said they feared their access to doctors and hospitals would get worse under the Democratic plans dropped to 29 percent, from 33 percent who had expressed such concerns in December. In the January poll fewer than 12 percent said that they thought their access would improve.
Obama's plan — and the Democratic health care bills — would extend coverage to around 95 percent of Americans — up from about 84 percent today. They would require most Americans to carry health insurance, with government help to make premiums more affordable. Insurance companies would be barred from denying coverage to people with health problems. New insurance markets would be created for small businesses and people who buy their own coverage, but Americans covered through large employers would not see major changes.
That plan — or something very close to it — appeared to be only a step away from Obama's desk until Jan. 19, when Massachusetts voters elected Republican Scott Brown to replace the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. Democrats lost their 60-vote Senate majority, and the ability to override Republican objections to the bill. Health care overhaul slipped into congressional limbo, and has been stuck there ever since.
The Dems that did the crying about how bad of a thing it is could be respectable, responsible and mature and hold to their beliefs that it is still the bad thing they crowed about just a handful of years ago. You know, that Ethics thing.
You, Mac, have this completely screwed up notion in your head that it is somehow Ok to do screwed up things just because another group already did it.
All this is going to do is result in ...-poor legislation getting rammed down the throats of Americans that do not want it.... and PURELY in the name of partisan politics. The Dems want to be able to say to the people in the election cycle "We gave you Health Care Reform" -- and they don't appear to care one bit about how they go about obtaining it.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
Quote: Well the bad part is that this whole ordeal is just political wrangling.. The democrats want to put something notable through, but the republicans dont.. irregardless if the bill is bad or not..
Are you kidding me with this statement???? First of all it is regardless not irregardless...but lets forget that...I truly don't care about that...But you would rather shove a BAD Bill through(that no one outside of the democratic politicians want) just because it is "notable"???? Really???? Your serious???? You honestly think a bad bill is better than no bill at all???You think a bill that could CRUSH this economy should just be run through because it is notable???
WOW????
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
Quote: Off the top of my head, reconciliation has been used in the past decade to pass the Tax Cut Act of 2001(EGTRRA), Tax Cut Act of 2003(JGTRRA or the "Bush Tax Cuts") and the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005(where Cheney had to cast the tie breaking vote) so as the article pointed out it's a fairly normal process, especially when the two sides can't come to a compromise on some of the more major pieces of legislation.
Here is the list... Reconciliation bills have included:
Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980, Pub.L. 96-499 (1980) Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, Pub.L. 97-35 (1981) Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1982, Pub.L. 97-253 (1982) Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub.L. 97-248 (1982) Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1983, Pub.L. 98-270 (1984) Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (DEFRA), Pub.L. 98-369 (1984) Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), Pub.L. 99-272 (1986) Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, Pub.L. 99-509 (1986) Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, Pub.L. 100-203 (1987) Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, Pub.L. 101-239 (1989) Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Pub.L. 101-508 (1990). Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub.L. 103-66 (1990). Balanced Budget Act of 1995, H.R. 2491 (vetoed December 6, 1995) Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, Pub.L. 104-193 (1996) Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub.L. 105-33 (1997) Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, Pub.L. 105-34 (1997) Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999, H.R. 2488 (vetoed September 23, 1999) Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000, H.R. 4810 (vetoed August 5, 2000) Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), Pub.L. 107-16 (2001) Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, Pub.L. 108-27 (2003) Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub.L. 109-171 (2006) Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (TIPRA), Pub.L. 109-222 (2006) College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-84 (2007)
The thing that jumps out at me is this... it looks like all (or darn near all) of those are budget issues.... which the reconciliation rule is in place to handle... budget issues. THIS IS NOT A "BUDGET ISSUE"... this is, as was stated, a total restructuring of 1/6th of our economy...
But now people can understand WHY the democrats linked this 2700 page monstrosity to a budget bill... just for this purpose.
Quote: You, Mac, have this completely screwed up notion in your head that it is somehow Ok to do screwed up things just because another group already did it.
prpl...so if the Dems do what the GOP did to pass the Bush tax cuts for the rich...you think that is screwed up?
Just a guess, but I seriously doubt that you said one word about the tactics the GOP and Bush used to pass the tax cuts you favored?...but now you think I'm screwed up if I feel the Dems should use the same tactic Bush used???
That smacks of "hypocrisy" on your part, don't you think?
I see nothing wrong with the Dems using a majority vote to pass legislation to address an issue facing most American people...affording your health care or no healthcare coverage at all.
Quote: If you can have the requirement a person must be 18 years old to vote, you can have a few more.....like a record of paying taxes, employment, some minimum level of education. We could probably find a few others that aren't hard to attain by most people.
'Peen, honestly man, I think that would hurt the GOP more than it would help it. Granted, there are people on the left that vote for a candidate based on gender or race, but, there are people who on the right who vote for the same reasons. - There are a lot more people on the right who vote for those reasons. Mind you, What I'm saying is that the political left and the political right both have their share of qualified voters (qualified under your conditions above) however, proportionally, your conditions would hurt the right side side more in my opinion.
Reconciliations are meant to get budget bills through so the government doesn't come to a screeching halt because the players can't decide on who should get the most pork... Reconciliations are NOT meant to pass through sweeping legislations with such a huge impact on our lives and our economy... it's two completely different animals regardless of who uses it.
Quote: prpl...so if the Dems do what the GOP did to pass the Bush tax cuts for the rich...you think that is screwed up?
It isn't that they are doing what the GOP did, it is that they are doing what the GOP did after they raised Holy Hell about how underhanded it is, against - in their own words - what the framers of our Constitution wanted, etc.. and YES, I think it is incredibly arrogant and incredibly screwed up.
Quote:
Just a guess, but I seriously doubt that you said one word about the tactics the GOP and Bush used to pass the tax cuts you favored?...but now you think I'm screwed up if I feel the Dems should use the same tactic Bush used???
No, I didn't say anything because I wasn't even paying attention to politics on the level I am now when that stuff occurred. And Yes, I think you're massively screwed up if you feel that it is Ok for the Dems to do this. For starters, I cannot comprehend how someone who proclaims himself to care about this country could support this sort of circumvention of the checks and balances put in place by our Constitution, but I *really* don't understand how you could condemn one side for doing it and then turn around after the fact and support others doing it without being screwed up.
Quote: That smacks of "hypocrisy" on your part, don't you think?
If I had followed things and supported the choice back then, yes it most certainly would be.
Quote:
I see nothing wrong with the Dems using a majority vote to pass legislation to address an issue facing most American people...affording your health care or no healthcare coverage at all.
Except for the one little side issue that this is NOT a budget issue, and they have attached their bastardized Health Care to a budget issue to ram rod it through. That is some of the most corrupt and unscrupulous handling of things that I've ever come across.
Last edited by PrplPplEater; 02/25/1011:27 AM.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
By "rich", I assume that you mean anyone paying taxes .......
You should go back and compare the tax savings for a married couple with 3 kids making $50,000, (as a percentage of tax paid) and compare it to the same couple making $300,000.
You use sound bytes and mantras to try and make a point, but wind up sounding ... well .. like you.
Do you know what the Democrat Health Insurance Debacle actually includes? Do you realize that it forces people to buy insurance, or pay a penalty? Do you realize that there are exemptions for union workers, so they will not have to abide by the same rules as most of the rest of Americans?
Quote: Employers who don't provide coverage would be hit with a penalty equal to 8% of workers' wages with an exemption for small businesses. Individuals who decline an offer of affordable coverage would pay 2.5% of their incomes as a penalty, up to the average cost of a health insurance plan.
What does this do to a struggling economy that has been bleeding jobs? Here's a hint ... it won't improve the jobs picture.
Quote: The liberal-leaning plan lacked figures on total costs, but a House Democratic aide said the total bill would add up to about $1.5 trillion over 10 years.
So ..... $1.5 trillion .... how do we pay for it?
Quote: The wealthiest 4% of small business owners would be among them. The tax would start at 1% for couples making $350,000 and individuals earning $280,000, ramp up to 1.5% above $500,000 of income, and jump to 5.4% for those earning above $1 million.
Quote: The tax would raise an estimated $544 billion over 10 years.
Umm .... is there a shortfall here ........?
Here's a few other goodies in the various versions of the bill .....
Quote: Nebraska, Louisiana, Vermont and Massachusetts. These states are getting more federal help with Medicaid than other states. In the case of Nebraska — represented by Sen. Ben Nelson, who's providing the critical 60th vote for the legislation to pass — the federal government is picking up 100 percent of the tab of a planned expansion of the program, in perpetuity. Vermont and Massachusetts get temporary increases in the federal share of their Medicaid tabs. In Louisiana, moderate Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu negotiated $100 million for 2011 before announcing her support for the legislation.
In perpetuity, for those who don't know .... means forever unless later amended. So we have 3 states, so far, who get to play by different rules, and one of those plays for free, forever.
Quote: handful of physician-owned hospitals being built around the country — including one in Bellevue, Neb. — which would be permitted to get referrals from the doctors who own them, avoiding a new ban in the Senate bill that will apply to hospitals built in the future. Without mentioning Nebraska or other states by name, the Senate bill pushes back some legal deadlines by several months, in effect making a few hospitals that are near completion eligible to continue receiving referrals from the doctors who own them. The provision was described by a pair of health industry lobbyists who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to speak freely. Chalk up another win for Nelson.
Nelson is making out like a bandit, while screwing over the rest of America.
Quote: Doctors and hospitals in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming, who will get paid more than providers elsewhere under formulas in the bill.
Quote: With cost estimates already as high as $1.6 trillion, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., has proposed paying for the bill in part by taxing health care benefits for workers who earn more than $100,000, or $200,000 for married couples, according to those familiar with the discussions.
Baucus is also weighing a tax based on the value of health care benefits that exceed a yet-to-be determined cap. A tax on benefits that exceed the cap by a mere $3,000 could amount to $750 in taxes annually for a worker who earns as little as $34,000, say experts.
But those union members serving under collective bargaining agreements would not be subjected to the tax, according to proposals under discussion.
Congratulations those of you making $34,000 .. you're now rich. You must be ... because there was going to be no taxes levied upon the middle class to pay for this bill ......
There have been some good ideas floated around ... such as allowing all insurance companies to compete without regard to state lines, limiting the ability of an insurance company to cancel a person for making claims, and similar ideas. What is not a good idea is to have a bloated and inefficient bureaucracy such as the ones perpetuated by the federal government taking charge of something this important.
If the plan is so great, and is good for America, then why does it not apply equally to all Americans? Why add in special provisions that benefit some states at the expense of others? Why put forth a bill lacking in basic fairness in favor of this bill, which is filled with payoffs and buyoffs?
prpl...The American people realize the GOP's goal in the healthcare debate is to kill it and pretend there is no problem when it comes to healthcare costs and affordable healthcare coverage. web page
While Republicans choose to play "politics" with the healthcare issue, American people are hurting because they don't have healthcare or can no longer afford their healthcare premiums. Every day this issue is not addressed, the number of Americans who can no longer afford their HC premiums grows...the problem does not go away...it grows larger and larger.
I could give a damn about the GOP's politics but I care deeply about those American people caught up in this growing problem of exploding healthcare costs and unaffordable premiums.
You think it's ok if the GOP plays their political games at the expense of some Americans who are truly hurting due to the current trend that shows no sign of easing and will only grow worse the longer our Gov fails to address the issue.
One way to stop the political games the GOP is using to kill any healthcare reform, is reconciliation. If that is what it takes to address this real problem facing the American people, so be it.
Quote: prpl...The American people realize the GOP's goal in the healthcare debate is to kill it and pretend there is no problem when it comes to healthcare costs and affordable healthcare coverage.
just because they don't agree with the Dem's solution, does NOT mean they don't recognize there is a problem (for the 10,000th time)
Quote: prpl...The American people realize the GOP's goal in the healthcare debate is to kill it and pretend there is no problem when it comes to healthcare costs and affordable healthcare coverage.
just because they don't agree with the Dem's solution, does NOT mean they don't recognize there is a problem (for the 10,000th time)
nolog...did you click the link and read the Specter story?
Also, let's not pretend we don't know what was going on...OK?...read the Spector story
Washington Examiner falsely claims Obama included a "sweetheart deal" for unions Washington Examiner: Proposal "protect[s] unions' expensive health care plans from taxation imposed on nonunion health plans." In a February 23 editorial, The Washington Examiner claimed that President Obama's health care proposal "includes a sweetheart deal to protect unions' expensive health care plans from taxation imposed on nonunion health plans."
Fact: Obama health care plan delays excise tax for all high-cost plans, not just union plans According to the White House summary, Obama's health care plan delays the excise tax for all high-cost plans, "to provide additional transition time for high-cost plans to become more efficient." From the White House's summary of Obama's health care proposal:
The President's Proposal changes the effective date of the Senate policy from 2013 to 2018 to provide additional transition time for high-cost plans to become more efficient. It also raises the amount of premiums that are exempt from the assessment from $8,500 for singles to $10,200 and from $23,000 for families to $27,500 and indexes these amounts for subsequent years at general inflation plus 1 percent. To the degree that health costs rise unexpectedly quickly between now and 2018, the initial threshold would be adjusted upwards automatically. To ensure that the tax affects firms equitably, the President's Proposal reforms it by including an adjustment for firms whose health costs are higher due to the age or gender of their workers, and by no longer counting dental and vision benefits as potentially taxable benefits.
The Senate health care plan would have exempted high-cost union health care plans from the excise tax until 2018, reportedly to give union members more time to renegotiate their contracts, while nonunion high-cost health care plans would have been subject to the excise tax starting in 2013.
Quote: I could give a damn about the GOP's politics but I care deeply about those American people caught up in this growing problem of exploding healthcare costs and unaffordable premiums.
You think it's ok if the GOP plays their political games at the expense of some Americans who are truly hurting due to the current trend that shows no sign of easing and will only grow worse the longer our Gov fails to address the issue.
We get it mac and most of us have for a long time, so spare us all the "we care and you don't" crap..... you view running off a cliff as more productive than sitting still because, at least you're moving. We get it.
Quote: prpl...The American people realize the GOP's goal in the healthcare debate is to kill it and pretend there is no problem when it comes to healthcare costs and affordable healthcare coverage.
just because they don't agree with the Dem's solution, does NOT mean they don't recognize there is a problem (for the 10,000th time)
nolog...did you click the link and read the Specter story?
Also, let's not pretend we don't know what was going on...OK?...read the Spector story
no, you are not changing the story here....you have been saying that only the Dem's realize that there is a problem with healthcare, which is NOT true.
and sorry, I don't think that Spectre saying that the Republican's are figuring out ways to beat Obama in 2012 is surprising....our political landscape is tainted and this is one of the reasons why (from both sides caring more about control than the betterment of our country).
the Dem's only have to get 1 Republican senator to side with them in order to pass things through the Senate. If they make truly bi-partisan efforts and shey don't pass through, then they will have a ton of ammunition come election time.
this was the first bill that I have seen that seems bi-partisan....and it passed. so, sorry if I don't believe in the conspiracy theories just yet.
So the President has now proposed somethng different than what the Senate had already put together ... and eliminated a shady piece of back room dealing. That's wonderful.
Now I have to question the effectiveness of the "Cadillac" provision at all though.
For a family, the plan threshod is now $27,500. Wow .... that's a lot of money. So a family using a "cadillac" plan doesn't have to worry about additional taxes until their plan's cost exceeds $27500. According to the NY Times, the average family plan is $13,375. Link
So the threshold is now double the national average.
Quote: To the degree that health costs rise unexpectedly quickly between now and 2018
But why would health care costs increase unexpectedly? I thought that the whole point was to control costs? I thought that we would bring down costs? Why are we now qualifying this with a rider against increased costs?
Government should stay out of areas is does not belong in. This is one.
Our govenrment was created to manage interstate commerce, maintain national defense, and other limited powers. There has been such a rush to usurp new powers day after day after day after day .... and there's no end in sight.
What happens if (when) costs are miscalculated, and the "savior" plan woinds up costing us (the taxpayers) double .. or triple ... or quadruple ...... or more than estimates? The Bush Medicare Prescription plan was supposed to cost $534 billion over 10 years (and this estimate was after a "missing" $134 billion was "found") ... but recent estimates are over $1.2 trillion.
What happens if this happens to this medical insurance fiasco? (as is likely given government estimates of cost versus reality) Now we're struggling with an even larger budget deficit every year...... rising costs that were supposed to be contained ..... and hitting employers who do not offer insurance to every employee with an 8% payroll tax ... which not only will limit hiring increases ... but will cost jobs.
Sounds like a great idea to me. We're heding towards national bankrupcy as it is ... so let's really put the peddle to the metal .......
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Well, we'll all be out of work - which is good because those that need to go to a doctor will have to wait, and wait, and wait, and wait - at least they won't miss any work time.
And, this country is not headed towards bankruptcy - we are there, it's just that people don't accept it. That's fine for now.......and what does congress do? Tries to throw in another unfunded, unthought out, idiotic bill. It will only accelerate the decline.
That's when we will get tough on immigration... as soon as Americans are fighting over those jobs that nobody wants to do now, like picking tomatoes, cleaning offices at 4 am, and working construction in the blistering heat... in the not too distant future, we will be fighting amongst ourselves just to have those jobs, then we will get serious about illegals taking them.
no, you are not changing the story here....you have been saying that only the Dem's realize that there is a problem with healthcare, which is NOT true.
and sorry, I don't think that Spectre saying that the Republican's are figuring out ways to beat Obama in 2012 is surprising....our political landscape is tainted and this is one of the reasons why (from both sides caring more about control than the betterment of our country).
the Dem's only have to get 1 Republican senator to side with them in order to pass things through the Senate. If they make truly bi-partisan efforts and they don't pass through, then they will have a ton of ammunition come election time.
this was the first bill that I have seen that seems bi-partisan....and it passed. so, sorry if I don't believe in the conspiracy theories just yet.
nolog...if you don't read, you will not understand.
The GOP has one goal...protect the profits of the big healthcare companies such as WelPoint, CIGNA that pay for their re-election campaigns.
The GOP does not give a damn about the average blue collar working/middle class American (or the families of) who is faced with the reality of today's healthcare issues...affordable healthcare.
The GOP has had but one goal from the beginning of the healthcare debate...kill the healthcare bill for their rich campaign donors. If you had read the story provided in the link, you might understand that...though I doubt you would ever admit it.
Your right about one thing MAC, the politicians in the GOP don't give a rats behind about the average joe, but neither do the Dem politicians. See a common theme there? Politicians..... Fancy word for illusionists. Make you think you see something that you really don't.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
What world do you live on????? I mean really....WHAT WORLD DO YOU LIVE ON???? Reality to mac....hello....have we met????
You know what......of course the insurance companies don't want this legislation to go through.....because it is going to PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS.....COMPLETELY
And guess what buddy...that is NOT a good thing.
So if you have a company...and the Dems are trying to put you out of business....WHO ARE YOU GOING TO SEND MONEY TO?????? It doesn't take a genius to figure this out mac....
But that does NOT mean that the GOP's only impetus for stopping this legislation is so that they can try to make these insurance companies (I am sorry...their rich buddies) richer.
We have a car racing towards the edge of a cliff. The Dems have their foot pressed so hard on the gas that they are about to shove it through the floor. And its like, you are complaining about the Republicans trying to stomp on the brake because you think they wanted a candy apple red paint job instead of the stock silver... You completely miss the fact that maybe they don't want to go over the cliff!!!!!!!!
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
We have a car racing towards the edge of a cliff. The Dems have their foot pressed so hard on the gas that they are about to shove it through the floor.
You sure it's not a Toyota with a faulty accelerator pedal?
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Quote: prpl...The American people realize the GOP's goal in the healthcare debate is to kill it and pretend there is no problem when it comes to healthcare costs and affordable healthcare coverage.
just because they don't agree with the Dem's solution, does NOT mean they don't recognize there is a problem (for the 10,000th time)
nolog...did you click the link and read the Specter story?
Also, let's not pretend we don't know what was going on...OK?...read the Spector story
I read it. The question is, did YOU read it?
You cite a guy that changes party affiliation simply so he can get re-elected - and then you assume that now he speaks the truth?
I have a hunch that if specter thought being a member of the party of martians would help him get re-elected, he'd be wearing green.
You cite a guy that changes party affiliation simply so he can get re-elected - and then you assume that now he speaks the truth?
I have a hunch that if specter thought being a member of the party of martians would help him get re-elected, he'd be wearing green.
arch...come on now...you knew it and so did I, long before Specter confirmed it...the GOP had no intention of passing any healthcare legislation.
Specter, who was in the GOP at the beginning of the process simply confirms what most politically educated Americans already realized...the GOP was and is only playing politics while hoping to gain more power in the mid-term elections.
![[Linked Image from i190.photobucket.com]](http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z33/booger52/phpGGRdhwAM.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
We're heding towards national bankrupcy as it is ... so let's really put the peddle to the metal ....... 