Bad Lieutenant Posted November 8, 2009 Posted November 8, 2009 Kinda tough for them to vote on the bill this weekend when they won't take office until January.... Ever hear of Google? http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/ny-de...house-1.1570751 http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2009/...use-member.html
GG Posted November 9, 2009 Posted November 9, 2009 Ever hear of Google? http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/ny-de...house-1.1570751 http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2009/...use-member.html That's a very dangerous game they're playing in not seeking bipartisan consensus and then accelerating the swearing in of freshman Congressmen to ram such transforming legislation. Keep prodding that slowly waking bear.
Magox Posted November 9, 2009 Posted November 9, 2009 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...3159447566.html A very good article
Magox Posted November 9, 2009 Posted November 9, 2009 Ooops. Passed the House. :thumbsup: And Lieberman said he would not block it in the senate “If the public option plan is in there,” Mr. Lieberman said on “Fox News Sunday,” “as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/health/p...lthcare.html?hp
IDBillzFan Posted November 9, 2009 Posted November 9, 2009 That's a very dangerous game they're playing in not seeking bipartisan consensus and then accelerating the swearing in of freshman Congressmen to ram such transforming legislation. Keep prodding that slowly waking bear. I expect they'll start explainng that this was a bipartisan bill after they tell everyone that Republican Cao from Lousiana voted for it. Of course, Cao voted for it after getting assurances from Obama that he would forgive millions in regional disaster loans. So those few who are paying attention, please note that in an effort to save his job, Cao went with a program that may forgive millions in disaster loans in exchange for higher taxes on a newly packaged disaster loan for the next four years. Nice.
Magox Posted November 9, 2009 Posted November 9, 2009 I don't have a problem with Cao breaking party lines, he did what he thought was best for his constituents, which consist of alot of poor people that would be receiving heavily subsidized health care.
IDBillzFan Posted November 9, 2009 Posted November 9, 2009 I don't have a problem with Cao breaking party lines, he did what he thought was best for his constituents, which consist of alot of poor people that would be receiving heavily subsidized health care. If that were the reason he broke party lines, I'd have no problem with it either. He sold himself to forgive one large amount of debt in exchange for another large amount of debt in hopes of keeping his job. Period. The bill he approved will increase taxes and strain small businesses, to say nothing of adding layers of bureaucracy to health care. He may provide his constituents a new entitlement, but what he has really done is help ensure that an already deeply depressed district stays that way. More dependency on the government. It's embarrassing.
PastaJoe Posted November 9, 2009 Posted November 9, 2009 I don't have a problem with Cao breaking party lines, he did what he thought was best for his constituents, which consist of alot of poor people that would be receiving heavily subsidized health care. You make it sound like these people are all currently paying for private insurance, and now they're all going to just drop it to go to a public option. The reality is that if they have private healthcare, they're going to keep it. For those that don't have it, we're already subsidizing their care through the most expensive process of not receiving primary preventative care, and waiting for them to use the emergency rooms for all their care. We subsidize in either scenario, so why not do it in the least expensive way, by offering preventative care that reduces and/or eliminates their need to use emergency rooms, and treats them in the early stages of a medical condition before it escalates into more expensive procedures and medicines.
DC Tom Posted November 9, 2009 Posted November 9, 2009 You make it sound like these people are all currently paying for private insurance, and now they're all going to just drop it to go to a public option. The reality is that if they have private healthcare, they're going to keep it. For those that don't have it, we're already subsidizing their care through the most expensive process of not receiving primary preventative care, and waiting for them to use the emergency rooms for all their care. We subsidize in either scenario, so why not do it in the least expensive way, by offering preventative care that reduces and/or eliminates their need to use emergency rooms, and treats them in the early stages of a medical condition before it escalates into more expensive procedures and medicines. That is truly an excellent idea, and one that I would support. Too bad it does not appear in any place, in any form, in the recently passed bill.
GG Posted November 9, 2009 Posted November 9, 2009 That is truly an excellent idea, and one that I would support. Too bad it does not appear in any place, in any form, in the recently passed bill. Well, there is that...
Doc Posted November 9, 2009 Posted November 9, 2009 You make it sound like these people are all currently paying for private insurance, and now they're all going to just drop it to go to a public option. The reality is that if they have private healthcare, they're going to keep it. For those that don't have it, we're already subsidizing their care through the most expensive process of not receiving primary preventative care, and waiting for them to use the emergency rooms for all their care. We subsidize in either scenario, so why not do it in the least expensive way, by offering preventative care that reduces and/or eliminates their need to use emergency rooms, and treats them in the early stages of a medical condition before it escalates into more expensive procedures and medicines. Most of the people who use ER's as their primary care physician are eligible for Medicaid but choose not to enroll in it. And then when they have clinic appointments scheduled, most fail to show up. Or they're poorly compliant with their medications or health plans. That's the reality of the situation, and one I've dealt witih firsthand. It's not like now that they have "free" healthcare, they're suddenly going to start actually taking care of themselves.
Magox Posted November 9, 2009 Posted November 9, 2009 You make it sound like these people are all currently paying for private insurance, and now they're all going to just drop it to go to a public option. The reality is that if they have private healthcare, they're going to keep it. For those that don't have it, we're already subsidizing their care through the most expensive process of not receiving primary preventative care, and waiting for them to use the emergency rooms for all their care. We subsidize in either scenario, so why not do it in the least expensive way, by offering preventative care that reduces and/or eliminates their need to use emergency rooms, and treats them in the early stages of a medical condition before it escalates into more expensive procedures and medicines. my point is that 70% of the registered voters are democrats, and alot of them are poor. So he did what he thought that his constituents wanted, which was vote for the "public option". However, he didn't cast that vote until after the Liberals had their 219 votes, so there is a decent chance that if they wouldn't of had enough votes, that he may of cast his vote in the Nay column.
Recommended Posts