Read A Bill On The Senate Floor

[Magox]

When was the last time EITHER party tackled that issue? The only difference is which interests the money is wasted on.

 

 

I missed where Bush and the Republican Congress reduced the deficit and debt, and didn't contribute to the problem. The CBO scored the latest Senate health plan, and The CBO estimates the proposal would reduce the federal deficit by about $130 billion over the next 10 years. But Republicans only point out the initial cost, not the fact that overall we end up saving money.

 

 

A talking point fallacy regarding the current Senate proposal, unless you want to eliminate Medicare and Medicaid. A public option is not a mandate, if you don't want gov't run health care, then don't choose that OPTION.

 

 

You have the freedom to vote for whoever you prefer. Just because you can't get a majority of people to agree with you doesn't mean you've lost your freedom. You've just lost your argument.

 

 

 

 

The Republicans are not serious about health insurance reform, which is what this really is. If they were, they would have taken action when they had the White House and the Congress. What they offer now are some last minute plans so they can say they have something to cover their arses. They have no credibility on offering reform, because they never do it when they are in the majority.

That's all you do is point your finger to the Republicans and say "Well they did the same thing"

 

That is a bankrupt argument.

 

You never answer any questions, just answer me this.

 

Why would you want to support a bill that will cost trillions of dollars over the next 15 years that won't bring down health insurance premiums and reduce the overall cost of spending in health care?

[KD in CA]

You don't actually think that is a bad idea do you?

 

I don't think it's a bad idea. I think it's an embarrasment that it's not done already.

 

Maybe if that happened, CongressCriminals wouldn't propose all sorts of crap that is designed to do nothing but line the pockets of their contributors and friends.

 

While we're at it, how about a maximum of one term in office for ALL elected officials and a 90% reduction in pay (and no pension) and size of staff. You want to 'serve your country'? Fine, take 2-4 years off of your choosen career and work your ass off doing so at your own expense. Then you can go back to having a real job like the rest of us and let someone else have a turn.

[IDBillzFan]

We all know why it was requested, but whatever I suppose the sick and uninsured can wait a little longer.

So in conclusion: you don't like the idea of actually reading the bill for a few days to ensure that there is no federal three-card monty going on with taxes because we need to hurry and help the sick and uninsured, but you're perfectly okay with passing an unread bill right now -- a bill which not only mandates that all American MUST BUY A PRODUCT simply because they are an American , but also does absolutely NOTHING to help the sick and uninsured for another four years?

 

I think we should start testing people before we give them a ballot.

[IDBillzFan]

While we're at it, how about a maximum of one term in office for ALL elected officials and a 90% reduction in pay (and no pension) and size of staff.

And no bennies for life. I can't imagine how much money we could save by taking elected officials who lost elections off the government dole. Probably more than we save by photocopying on both sides of a piece of paper.

[3rdnlng]

Come on guys, lets be realistic. A Senator has a nice sized staff to do these things. This is their job to write and vote on this bill. They know what's in it, and someone in their staff has read the whole thing and keeps up with it as it changes.

 

It's be pathetic if a Senator (or his staff) was not able to know everything that is in the bill.

 

 

LA, Ya... guess I can't really complain about this being read then. Like you said, any bill can be requested. We all know why it was requested, but whatever I suppose the sick and uninsured can wait a little longer.

 

 

So you are for this bill? Which one? When are benefits due to start? When will taxes begin to pay for this? Will Medicare Advantage be decimated by any of the bills? What was promised the AMA? How did they get AARP on their side? Is there going to be tort reform? If not, why not? Will it call for portability? I would suggest to anyone in favor of this government control of a large part of our economy to research the above questions and find out the real answers. I could give them to you but you won't be convinced of the folly of what they are attempting to do on just my say so. You have a chance of being convinced if you actually do some research rather than just digging in your heels for the liberal position.

[drnykterstein]

So in conclusion: you don't like the idea of actually reading the bill for a few days to ensure that there is no federal three-card monty going on with taxes because we need to hurry and help the sick and uninsured, but you're perfectly okay with passing an unread bill right now -- a bill which not only mandates that all American MUST BUY A PRODUCT simply because they are an American , but also does absolutely NOTHING to help the sick and uninsured for another four years?

 

I think we should start testing people before we give them a ballot.

 

It's not an unread bill. I 100% disagree with the statement that the bill is unread. It has been read by anyone who wanted to read it, and it's contents are known to any Senator who wants to know whats in it.

[KD in CA]

It's not an unread bill. I 100% disagree with the statement that the bill is unread. It has been read by anyone who wanted to read it, and it's contents are known to any Senator who wants to know whats in it.

 

Have you read it?

[IDBillzFan]

Have you read it?

Of course he hasn't, but I've copy/pasted some for his perusal.

 

3 ‘‘(b) REQUIREMENTS.—The standards for the summary of benefits and coverage developed under subsection (a) shall provide for the following:(1) APPEARANCE.—The standards shall ensure that the summary of benefits and coverage is presented in a uniform format that does not exceed 4 pages in length and does not include print smaller than 12-point font. (2) LANGUAGE.—The standards shall ensure that the summary is presented in a culturally and linguistically appropriate manner and utilizes terminology understandable by the average plan enrollee. (3) CONTENTS.—The standards shall ensure that the summary of benefits and coverage includes—‘‘(A) uniform definitions of standard insurance terms and medical terms (consistent with 20 subsection (g)) so that consumers may compare health insurance coverage and understand the terms of coverage (or exception to such coverage); ‘‘(B) a description of the coverage, including cost sharing for—1 ‘‘(i) each of the categories of the essential health benefits described in subparagraphs (A) through (J) of section 1302(b)(1) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; and (ii) other benefits, as identified by the Secretary; © the exceptions, reductions, and limitations on coverage; (D) the cost-sharing provisions, including deductible, coinsurance, and co-payment obligations;‘‘(E) the renewability and continuation of coverage provisions; (F) a coverage facts label that includes examples to illustrate common benefits scenarios, including pregnancy and serious or chronic medical conditions and related cost sharing, such scenarios to be based on recognized clinical practice guidelines; (G) a statement of whether the plan or coverage—(i) provides minimum essential coverage (as defined under section 5000A(f) of the Internal Revenue Code 1986); and ‘‘(ii) ensures that the plan or coverage share of the total allowed costs of benefits provided under the plan or coverage is not less than 60 percent of such costs; (H) a statement that the outline is a summary of the policy or certificate and that the coverage document itself should be consulted to determine the governing contractual provisions; and (I) a contact number for the consumer to call with additional questions and an Internet web address where a copy of the actual individual coverage policy or group certificate of coverage can be reviewed and obtained.

 

And that's just the standards for the summary of benefits so people can understand what they're reading.

[Magox]

So now that it is established that it will in fact add to the deficit with the "Doc Fix" provisions that aren't included in the Bill, and all of the accounting trickery that is being implemented. Here is the latest from the CBO regarding the Health Bill

 

Republicans have charged that creating a government-run insurance program would amount to a federal takeover of the health-care system. But a new Congressional Budget Office analysis of the dramatically scaled-down public plan that Reid (D-Nev.) included in his $848 billion measure said it would have relatively little impact on the current system, would charge "somewhat higher" premiums than its private competitors and would draw only about 4 million subscribers.

 

"This is an example of a weak version of the public option, and it raises the question: Why are we doing this at all?" said John Holahan, director of the Health Policy Research Center at the liberal Urban Institute. "If your goal is cost-containment and lower government subsidy costs, this isn't working, and the CBO is telling them that."

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews

 

Can some one in here that supports this Bill please tell me why we should pass a law that spends Trillions of dollars, will add to the deficit, raise taxes that doesn't bring down health insurance premiums and that actually WILL MAKE THEM !@#$ING RISE?

 

There isn't a single liberal in this message board that can logically answer that question.

[DC Tom]

Of course he hasn't, but I've copy/pasted some for his perusal.

 

 

 

And that's just the standards for the summary of benefits so people can understand what they're reading.

 

I like that they specifically page format and font size...but not the actual font face.

 

So 11-point Times New Roman is illegal because it might hide information...but 12-point Wingdings? Perfectly fine.

[John Adams]

You have the freedom to vote for whoever you prefer. Just because you can't get a majority of people to agree with you doesn't mean you've lost your freedom. You've just lost your argument.

 

Subjugating the minority's rights to the majority's will is not freedom and that is precisely why we do not have a purely democratic nation.

 

Not that it matters, since the have-nots long ago decided that they could take from the haves without apology.

[John Adams]

I missed where Bush and the Republican Congress reduced the deficit and debt, and didn't contribute to the problem. The CBO scored the latest Senate health plan, and The CBO estimates the proposal would reduce the federal deficit by about $130 billion over the next 10 years. But Republicans only point out the initial cost, not the fact that overall we end up saving money.

 

The bill reduces the deficit (can you really type that with a straight face...even you Pasta must laugh when you say this)--but at what cost? Slugging more taxes on businesses and those who earn? As if they aren't doing enough to support the have-nots and do-nothings already. Oh, and it dumps more costs on states, which means more taxes are coming beyond those in the bill. Deficit nuetral my ass.

 

This bill does nothing to combat underlying issues and merely takes more from the productive to give to those who don't produce. It's a disgrace that the Republicans don't call this what it is, and even more of a disgracve that they can't propose their own bill (although I udnerstand that the Dems have oppose each competitive proposal on health care reform so they can ram this down the 60% of Americans who oppse this bill's throat).

 

This bill is one of the most disgusting pieces of crap we've ever seen. And if you're a Dem senator opposed, guess what your state gets: 100 million to help off-set its costs. See Louisiana provision.

[PastaJoe]

That's all you do is point your finger to the Republicans and say "Well they did the same thing"

 

That is a bankrupt argument.

 

You never answer any questions, just answer me this.

 

Why would you want to support a bill that will cost trillions of dollars over the next 15 years that won't bring down health insurance premiums and reduce the overall cost of spending in health care?

 

No, the Republicans didn't do the same thing, they didn't legislate for a comprehensive reform of health insurance that would increase coverage for the majority of the uninsured while reducing long-term costs.

 

I don't support a bill like the one you describe, since that isn't what's being proposed. Both the House and Senate bills were scored by the CBO as reducing the deficit by different amounts, and they don't even include the less tangible savings that will result from improved efficiencies. The CBO is the most non-partisan assessment that is available.

[DC Tom]

No, the Republicans didn't do the same thing, they didn't legislate for a comprehensive reform of health insurance that would increase coverage for the majority of the uninsured while reducing long-term costs.

 

I don't support a bill like the one you describe, since that isn't what's being proposed. Both the House and Senate bills were scored by the CBO as reducing the deficit by different amounts, and they don't even include the less tangible savings that will result from improved efficiencies.

 

How on earth is it that you still believe this?

 

You do understand that "reducing long-term costs" isn't even the same concept as "reducing the deficit", right?

[PastaJoe]

How on earth is it that you still believe this?

 

You do understand that "reducing long-term costs" isn't even the same concept as "reducing the deficit", right?

 

Of course, and I believe it will do both. Some of you don't. We're not going to change each other's minds, so it is what it is.

[Magox]

No, the Republicans didn't do the same thing, they didn't legislate for a comprehensive reform of health insurance that would increase coverage for the majority of the uninsured while reducing long-term costs.

 

I don't support a bill like the one you describe, since that isn't what's being proposed. Both the House and Senate bills were scored by the CBO as reducing the deficit by different amounts, and they don't even include the less tangible savings that will result from improved efficiencies. The CBO is the most non-partisan assessment that is available.

ok, you asked for it

 

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10732/HR3961_HonRyan.pdf

The Budgetary Impact of Enacting Both H.R. 3961 and H.R. 3962

 

Under current law, including the new rule, Medicare’s payment rates for physicians’

services will be reduced by about 21 percent in January 2010, and CBO estimates those

payment rates will be reduced by about 2 percent annually for several subsequent years.

H.R. 3961 would increase those payment rates by 1.2 percent in 2010 and restructure the

SGR beginning in 2011. Those changes would result in significantly higher payment

rates for physicians than those that would result under current law. CBO estimates that

enacting H.R. 3961, by itself, would cost $210 billion over the 2010–2019 period.

 

CBO estimates that enacting both H.R. 3961 and H.R. 3962 would add $89 billion to

budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period

 

 

BAM!!! Now the CBO scores it as not being DEFICIT NEUTRAL.

 

 

Republicans have charged that creating a government-run insurance program would amount to a federal takeover of the health-care system. But a new Congressional Budget Office analysis of the dramatically scaled-down public plan that Reid (D-Nev.) included in his $848 billion measure said it would have relatively little impact on the current system, would charge "somewhat higher" premiums than its private competitors and would draw only about 4 million subscribers.

 

"This is an example of a weak version of the public option, and it raises the question: Why are we doing this at all?" said John Holahan, director of the Health Policy Research Center at the liberal Urban Institute. "If your goal is cost-containment and lower government subsidy costs, this isn't working, and the CBO is telling them that."

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews

 

BAM!!! Now the CBO says it doesn't bring down premiums, but instead says the public options premiums will be even higher than private insurance.

 

 

Now what was that you said?

 

You lose

[3rdnlng]

Of course, and I believe it will do both. Some of you don't. We're not going to change each other's minds, so it is what it is.

 

So, there is nothing that can be said to you, shown to you or proven to you, that would change your mind?

[IDBillzFan]

So, there is nothing that can be said to you, shown to you or proven to you, that would change your mind?

One thing: if Obama says he's against it, then Pasta Joe would change his mind.

[keepthefaith]

It's not an unread bill. I 100% disagree with the statement that the bill is unread. It has been read by anyone who wanted to read it, and it's contents are known to any Senator who wants to know whats in it.

 

How many times would somehave to read it in order to understand 2000 pages of tangled and twisted legal mumbo jumbo. Then, after reading it several times and finally understanding it, how much time would be needed to discuss the contents in order to consider what the bill does and does not provide? How much time to consider what changes should be made? How much time to hear and address the questions, comments and suggestions from all 100 Senators? How much time then to determine what changes should be incorporated? How much time for all of the revisons to reviewed?

 

Points are these:

 

Reading it is nowhwere near enough and just reading and understanding it is a very large task.

If ample time to do what is described above (which is months at least) is not provided then rest assured that proper review and revisions aren't taking place.

 

Biggest problem of all of course is the bill itself and what it contains.

[3rdnlng]

How many times would somehave to read it in order to understand 2000 pages of tangled and twisted legal mumbo jumbo. Then, after reading it several times and finally understanding it, how much time would be needed to discuss the contents in order to consider what the bill does and does not provide? How much time to consider what changes should be made? How much time to hear and address the questions, comments and suggestions from all 100 Senators? How much time then to determine what changes should be incorporated? How much time for all of the revisons to reviewed?

 

Points are these:

 

Reading it is nowhwere near enough and just reading and understanding it is a very large task.

If ample time to do what is described above (which is months at least) is not provided then rest assured that proper review and revisions aren't taking place.

 

Biggest problem of all of course is the bill itself and what it contains.

 

But, but, but it's a good bill, I know it and there is nothing that you can say to change my mind.