Magox Posted December 4, 2009 Author Posted December 4, 2009 http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1209/Hea...Hatch_hurl.html On the length of the bill, Hatch said, " It's 2,074 pages long. It's enough to make you barf." Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse defended the bill's length, saying it's no longer than a Harry Potter novel. Hatch parried, " I like the fact that the distinguished senator from Rhode Island compares this -- this itty-bitty bill here -- to a Harry Potter novel. Perhaps pretty appropriate, because both of them are what I consider to be works of fantasy and fiction."
Adam Posted December 4, 2009 Posted December 4, 2009 You're right, they won't be cut, because they will just add it back in, on another bill like the House HR 3961. It's a shell game. Congress has never denied medical reimbursement requests, so it's a sham. However, IF they did cut the the $460 B, which they won't, but IF they did, then yes IT WOULD cut their benefits, according to this. For those of you that don't want to read the link, here are the highlights: A plan to slash more than $500 billion from future Medicare spending -- one of the biggest sources of funding for President Obama's proposed overhaul of the nation's health-care system -- would sharply reduce benefits for some senior citizens and could jeopardize access to care for millions of others, according to a government evaluation released Saturday. I found this interesting as well: The report, requested by House Republicans, found that Medicare cuts contained in the health package approved by the House on Nov. 7 are likely to prove so costly to hospitals and nursing homes that they could stop taking Medicare altogether. Congress could intervene to avoid such an outcome, but "so doing would likely result in significantly smaller actual savings" than is currently projected, according to the analysis by the chief actuary for the agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid. That would wipe out a big chunk of the financing for the health-care reform package, which is projected to cost $1.05 trillion over the next decade. More generally, the report questions whether the country's network of doctors and hospitals would be able to cope with the effects of a reform package expected to add more than 30 million people to the ranks of the insured, many of them through Medicaid, the public health program for the poor. In the face of greatly increased demand for services, providers are likely to charge higher fees or take patients with better-paying private insurance over Medicaid recipients, "exacerbating existing access problems" in that program, according to the report from Richard S. Foster of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Though the report does not attempt to quantify that impact, Foster writes: "It is reasonable to expect that a significant portion of the increased demand for Medicaid would not be realized." the one's who provided the report: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services administers the two health-care programs. Foster's office acts as an independent technical adviser, serving both the administration and Congress. In that sense, it is similar to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which also has questioned the sustainability of proposed Medicare cuts. Why do we need BOTH medicare AND universal health care- wouldn't that be redundant?
/dev/null Posted December 5, 2009 Posted December 5, 2009 Why do we need BOTH medicare AND universal health care- wouldn't that be redundant? Because no politician who wants to get re-elected would dare propose cutting Medicare
DC Tom Posted December 6, 2009 Posted December 6, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/05/opinion/...nyt&emc=rss So this is a funny development. The republican's are trying to amend the senate bill to get rid of some of the cost savings. Presumably so that later they can say "look how expensive this bill is, I can't vote for it." Have you ever, in your life, held an opinion that wasn't somebody else's first?
Doc Posted December 6, 2009 Posted December 6, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/05/opinion/...nyt&emc=rss So this is a funny development. The republican's are trying to amend the senate bill to get rid of some of the spurious cost savings. Presumably so that later they can say "look how expensive this bill is, I can't vote for it." Fixed it for you.
drnykterstein Posted December 6, 2009 Posted December 6, 2009 I doubt that any thoughts that any of us form on any sort of national issue will ever be original. There are too many people that have lived and died and posted their thoughts that no one really has anything original to say. The best we can do is learn form history, and gain from it (which I know Republican's hate doing, otherwise they would love universal healthcare, as history has shown it works). Anyways... what the F@#$, do you want me to sit and watch 8 hours of c-span a day? I have a day job. Sorry if I have to rely on the [F@#$ing sh**ty piece of sh** we call the] 4th estate for condensed information.
drnykterstein Posted December 6, 2009 Posted December 6, 2009 Also... DC if we were to ever run into each other in person, are we obligated to get into a fistfight on the spot? I kind of think we are.
DC Tom Posted December 6, 2009 Posted December 6, 2009 I doubt that any thoughts that any of us form on any sort of national issue will ever be original. There are too many people that have lived and died and posted their thoughts that no one really has anything original to say. The best we can do is learn form history, and gain from it (which I know Republican's hate doing, otherwise they would love universal healthcare, as history has shown it works). Anyways... what the F@#$, do you want me to sit and watch 8 hours of c-span a day? I have a day job. Sorry if I have to rely on the [F@#$ing sh**ty piece of sh** we call the] 4th estate for condensed information. That would be "no", then. All you had to say, "no". Also... DC if we were to ever run into each other in person, are we obligated to get into a fistfight on the spot? I kind of think we are. Wouldn't be a fair fight unless you took off your helmet. And yet...you're one of only three people to wish me a happy "birfday" here today. And the other two don't like me either. Figure that **** out...
/dev/null Posted December 6, 2009 Posted December 6, 2009 And yet...you're one of only three people to wish me a happy "birfday" here today. And the other two don't like me either. Figure that **** out... I didn't know it was your birfday Happy Birthday
RI Bills Fan Posted December 6, 2009 Posted December 6, 2009 That would be "no", then. All you had to say, "no". Wouldn't be a fair fight unless you took off your helmet. And yet...you're one of only three people to wish me a happy "birfday" here today. And the other two don't like me either. Figure that **** out... Happy B-Day, Tom. And don't take the fact that nobody likes you personally. It's just the way we roll...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 6, 2009 Posted December 6, 2009 Happy 2nd birthday Tom! Have a soda on me! Might as well go for a soda nobody hurts and nobody cries Might as well go for a soda nobody drowns and nobody dies So I'm in one of my blue moods You want to have it your way and I want it mine All this debating going 'round in a blue mood makes me thirsty for love Might as well.... Might as well go for a soda nobody hurts and nobody cries Might as well go for a soda nobody drowns and nobody dies Life seems to be a bomb inside of your head Well, the bomb in my head is love All this debating going 'round in a blue mood makes me thirsty for love Might as well.... Might as well go for a soda nobody hurts and nobody cries Might as well go for a soda nobody drowns and nobody dies Might as well go for a soda it's better than slander It's better than lies Might as well go for a soda Might as well go for a soda Oh yeah, nobody hurts nobody cries Might as well go for a soda Oh yeah, nobody drowns, and nobody dies Might as well go for a soda It's better than slander, it's better than lies Might as well go for a soda
Magox Posted December 6, 2009 Author Posted December 6, 2009 And yet...you're one of only three people to wish me a happy "birfday" here today. And the other two don't like me either. Figure that **** out... Happy Birthday Tom
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 6, 2009 Posted December 6, 2009 Happy Birthday Tom Hey! That is root beer right! We arre drinking soda don't you know!
3rdnlng Posted December 6, 2009 Posted December 6, 2009 Also... DC if we were to ever run into each other in person, are we obligated to get into a fistfight on the spot? I kind of think we are. No, but please give me the opportunity.
Magox Posted December 6, 2009 Author Posted December 6, 2009 There is an idea out there that is beginning to gain traction regarding the "public option". There appeared to be serious consideration of creating a national health plan similar to the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan. It would be administered by the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees the federal plan for members of Congress, and all of the insurance options would be not-for-profit. It holds appeal for moderates, who have opposed establishing a new government insurance plan, but might also satisfy liberal demands for more choice and competition to private insurers. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30255_Page2.html I really don't know enough about the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). I was reading up on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Emplo...enefits_Program I really don't understand how this would vary from the "public option" as proposed. If it is federally funded, then what's the difference?
Adam Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 Because no politician who wants to get re-elected would dare propose cutting Medicare I find that silly- then again, people aren't that smart to understand that one thing could replace another. Aside from the healthcare system, the horribly broken educational system has to be rebuilt- the no child left untested was completely worthless- well intentioned, but worthless
DC Tom Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 the no child left untested was completely worthless- well intentioned, but worthless But something had to be done IMMEDIATELY, so they went ahead and did something, even if it was worthless. Something to keep in mind for the health insurance debate.
/dev/null Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 But something had to be done IMMEDIATELY, so they went ahead and did something, even if it was worthless. Something to keep in mind for the health insurance debate. It was immediate but not historic Get with the program buddy
Adam Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 But something had to be done IMMEDIATELY, so they went ahead and did something, even if it was worthless. Something to keep in mind for the health insurance debate. Well said
Magox Posted December 7, 2009 Author Posted December 7, 2009 But something had to be done IMMEDIATELY, so they went ahead and did something, even if it was worthless. Something to keep in mind for the climate debate as well. couldn't of said it any better myself.
Recommended Posts