Virginia Senator Jim Webb on Mass and the Health Care Bill

[erynthered]

Well now, Pelosi is saying she doesn't have enough votes to push the Senate bill through the House. Looks like it's officially dead.

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100121/ap_on_...h_care_overhaul

 

We're not in a big rush," Pelosi said. "Pause, reflect."

 

 

Really? I thought the the world was going to end if this bill didnt get done before the summer break??

 

Pelosi= sack of shiit

[Magox]

Which is still a vast improvement over the "one big pile of ****" bill, even if I don't agree with all the little piles of ****.

It is and I'm thinking the Repubs are going to continue to their "No" crusade, which happens to be working, but only because the Libs are overreaching.

 

If the Libs go this route, and the Repubs just stick with the "No" crusade, then this could backfire. If they were smart, which they are probably not, they would know that they have "won" the argument with the American Public and take control of this situation and look to Publicly make a strong Bipartisan effort and try to craft this bill with elements from both sides of the aisle and paint as "their" bill.

 

That would be the right approach.

[erynthered]

It is and I'm thinking the Repubs are going to continue to their "No" crusade, which happens to be working, but only because the Libs are overreaching.

 

If the Libs go this route, and the Repubs just stick with the "No" crusade, then this could backfire. If they were smart, which they are probably not, they would know that they have "won" the argument with the American Public and take control of this situation and look to Publicly make a strong Bipartisan effort and try to craft this bill with elements from both sides of the aisle and paint as "their" bill.

 

That would be the right approach.

 

Only, and let me say that again,ONLY if there isnt any pork in the bill. No hand outs. Put that **** in other legislation. Let a new smaller HC bill stand on its own merits.

[VABills]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100121/ap_on_...h_care_overhaul

 

We're not in a big rush," Pelosi said. "Pause, reflect."

 

 

Really? I thought the the world was going to end if this bill didnt get done before the summer break??

 

Pelosi= sack of shiit

I thought it had to pass before Labor day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, New years, Easter, when did they push it to summer break?

[Chef Jim]

I thought it had to pass before Labor day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, New years, Easter, when did they push it to summer break?

 

I think he meant summer break.......2009.

[IDBillzFan]

I thought it had to pass before Labor day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, New years, Easter, when did they push it to summer break?

I think that happened while Obama was flying back from campaigning for Coakley.

[Magox]

This is what they should be doing.

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/...si.html?showall

 

Newt Gingrich thinks exultant Republicans might meander into a post-Brown partisan trap if they aren't careful.

 

I spoke with Gingrich for a my story today about the huge burden on Nancy Pelosi in ramming through a health care bill. He said he doubted she could pull it off -- but believes she could divide the House GOP by rushing through a goodies-only, scaled back measure with none of the downsides of the bigger bills.

 

Gingrich sees the Massachusetts as a boost for his party, but also as a renunciation of go-it-alone by either party, and thinks Republicans would be "clever" to pass a series of relatively non-controversial measures with "huge bipartisan majorities."

 

That said, he thinks many Republicans disdain Pelosi so much they simply won't go along with anything with the speaker's name on it, even if it serves the party's larger interests.

 

"If you are a House member in the [GOP] caucus, I suspect we are about to have a huge argument. We could get clever and work with her...And I think people should work with her... But at that point it becomes a huge problem because nobody trusts her, they distrust her ideology and distrust her because she has run over them so hard...

 

"A lot of Republicans would work with [House Majority Leader Steny] Hoyer, but they won't work with her," added Gingrich, who is said to be exploring a 2012 run.

[IDBillzFan]

This is what they should be doing.

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/...si.html?showall

I agree. In fact, it would be a great time for Hoyer to reach out to Pelosi...hold a press conference to explain they're ready to work together on a bill. Really make a public effort to get this going.

 

If nothing else, when Pelosi tells him to !@#$ off, everyone can watch.

[Magox]

I agree. In fact, it would be a great time for Hoyer to reach out to Pelosi...hold a press conference to explain they're ready to work together on a bill. Really make a public effort to get this going.

 

If nothing else, when Pelosi tells him to !@#$ off, everyone can watch.

Actually, Boehner and Mcconnel should be getting out in front of the Libs, in a very public manner to all the "news" networks, with details outlining some of their proposals and that they are ready to work together to craft Real Bipartisan Health Insurance reform.

[Doc]

Actually, Boehner and Mcconnel should be getting out in front of the Libs, in a very public manner to all the "news" networks, with details outlining some of their proposals and that they are ready to work together to craft Real Bipartisan Health Insurance reform.

Yep. Not to mention trying to eliminate waste and fraud in Medicare and Medicaid, to the tune of the $500B they were going to cut from those programs, would be a great start.

[Doc]

Watch this video:

[Booster4324]

Watch this video:

 

Where is that dead horse smiley?

 

To preempt Dev... Link

[Doc]

Where is that dead horse smiley?

My apologies if it, or something like it, has been posted before. I think it's worth revealing/revisiting what the Dems wanted to foist on the American people, because they had their super majority. All the while jobs (which along with the economy should have been the SOLE focus) are still scarce and unemployment is still in the double digits.

[Booster4324]

My apologies if it, or something like it, has been posted before. I think it's worth revealing/revisiting what the Dems wanted to foist on the American people, because they had their super majority. All the while jobs (which along with the economy should have been the SOLE focus) are still scarce and unemployment is still in the double digits.

 

Just busting chops and not sure that link is valid as Tom debunked some of that stuff in the video. Mind you, he could easily be wrong, been known to happen. I was against the health care bill for the simple fact it added layers of bureaucracy to what may be essentially an insolvable problem. It addressed very little (other than the BS previous existing condition) excuse. Oh and the bill is DOA.

[Doc]

Just busting chops and not sure that link is valid as Tom debunked some of that stuff in the video. Mind you, he could easily be wrong, been known to happen. I was against the health care bill for the simple fact it added layers of bureaucracy to what may be essentially an insolvable problem. It addressed very little (other than the BS previous existing condition) excuse. Oh and the bill is DOA.

If they were to remove the pre-existing condition exclusion ("guaranteed issue"), people could simply buy insurance only when they need it and drop it when they don't. That would be just as disastrous for insurance companies and obviously is not how insurance was meant to work. So the next logical step is mandating that everyone buy health insurance. Which leads to a lot of the other stuff in the bill.

[Booster4324]

If they were to remove the pre-existing condition exclusion ("guaranteed issue"), people could simply buy insurance only when they need it and drop it when they don't. That would be just as disastrous for insurance companies and obviously is not how insurance was meant to work. So the next logical step is mandating that everyone buy health insurance. Which leads to a lot of the other stuff in the bill.

 

My solution would be to make it so the company that fires you has to cover you for say two months at the same rate (as they did in the past). If a previous company covered you, then the new insurance company has to cover you. If you never had health insurance, then !@#$ you.

 

Further edit - Companies shouldn't hire temps so they don't get benefits (some temp agencies provide insurance, but not all). A period in which the person doesn't get benefits should be disallowed as well. You aren't sure you want the person and willing to give them benefits, don't hire them. If you decide to fire them, suck it up.

[Magox]

If they were to remove the pre-existing condition exclusion ("guaranteed issue"), people could simply buy insurance only when they need it and drop it when they don't. That would be just as disastrous for insurance companies and obviously is not how insurance was meant to work. So the next logical step is mandating that everyone buy health insurance. Which leads to a lot of the other stuff in the bill.

You're right, regarding the unintended consequences of forcing insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions. It would jack up premiums, big time. What I believe they should do is create an exchange that would solely cover people with pre-existing conditions, and they could subsidize the cost with the Excise tax. The Excise tax hits people that pay $24,000 a year and would supposedly generate over $100 Billion.

 

This would do a few things, one it would take out the high risk customers from the private insurance pools, therefore lowering premiums for just about everyone. Two, the exchange would cover all people with pre-existing conditions, which is a popular initiative, and it would be payed for by the Excise tax. The Excise tax would also encourage people to switch away from the higher "Cadillac" premium plans and shift them to lower paying plans therefore lowering the overall spending on Insurance.

 

These are the concessions the Repubs should make with the Libs, but only if they allow Tort reform and intrastate competition.

 

Two problems though, one I don't believe that republican leadership has any interest in working with the Libs, which would be very unfortunate and two no way the Libs accept a deal with the Excise tax, solely because of the unions.

[IDBillzFan]

You're right, regarding the unintended consequences of forcing insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions. It would jack up premiums, big time. What I believe they should do is create an exchange that would solely cover people with pre-existing conditions, and they could subsidize the cost with the Excise tax. The Excise tax hits people that pay $24,000 a year and would supposedly generate over $100 Billion.

 

This would do a few things, one it would take out the high risk customers from the private insurance pools, therefore lowering premiums for just about everyone. Two, the exchange would cover all people with pre-existing conditions, which is a popular initiative, and it would be payed for by the Excise tax. The Excise tax would also encourage people to switch away from the higher "Cadillac" premium plans and shift them to lower paying plans therefore lowering the overall spending on Insurance.

 

These are the concessions the Repubs should make with the Libs, but only if they allow Tort reform and intrastate competition.

 

Two problems though, one I don't believe that republican leadership has any interest in working with the Libs, which would be very unfortunate and two no way the Libs accept a deal with the Excise tax, solely because of the unions.

All good points. Unfortunately, the key is for both sides to get over themselves and break through. I would suggest maybe getting people other than Boehner, Pelosi, Reid, etc. at the helm. I'm not talking about them losing their positions, but putting calmer minds together. Pelosi and Reid alienated their party by pushing through without the GOP, and the GOP has done nothing of real value to bring forth their ideas. They're pissed at each other at the top, so in order for any of this to move forward, they need different people running it. Not likely, but it's hard to move forward when everyone hates each other.

[Magox]

All good points. Unfortunately, the key is for both sides to get over themselves and break through. I would suggest maybe getting people other than Boehner, Pelosi, Reid, etc. at the helm. I'm not talking about them losing their positions, but putting calmer minds together. Pelosi and Reid alienated their party by pushing through without the GOP, and the GOP has done nothing of real value to bring forth their ideas. They're pissed at each other at the top, so in order for any of this to move forward, they need different people running it. Not likely, but it's hard to move forward when everyone hates each other.

You're right, Boehner, Pelosi, Mcconnel and Reid I believe are incapable of working in a bipartisan way. A guy like Brown might have the clout to make things happen. The guy right now is incredibly popular, all eyes are on him, and what he says I believe would carry alot of weight.

 

This "No" shtick is working right now, simply because the majority of AMericans reject BO's overreaching policies, but "No" at some point will get really old and they will have to come up with solutions.

 

The solutions they come up with simply can't be "their own" solutions, because we know there is no way the Libs would accept it. The Repubs should come out Publicly to all the "News" networks and not just offer up their ideas but say that they would be willing to try to craft a bill that has elements from both sides of the aisle.

 

They have already won the Public debate, now they need to step up and show bipartisanship with ideas and willingness to work. There isn't in my view too much more political upside in just saying "No", of course there are the hard core right wingers who want nothing to do with it, but it's time now to redefine the debate.

 

I'm going to write a few of the congressman and urge them to do this. Hopefully someone listens.

[keepthefaith]

My solution would be to make it so the company that fires you has to cover you for say two months at the same rate (as they did in the past). If a previous company covered you, then the new insurance company has to cover you. If you never had health insurance, then !@#$ you.

 

Further edit - Companies shouldn't hire temps so they don't get benefits (some temp agencies provide insurance, but not all). A period in which the person doesn't get benefits should be disallowed as well. You aren't sure you want the person and willing to give them benefits, don't hire them. If you decide to fire them, suck it up.

 

I don't think you can get through a logical discussion of about health insurance without concluding that it should not be tied to employment whatsoever. The system as it is setup currently is just dumb with changing or losing a job forcing somebody's hand in terms of the coverage they can and can't get. If health insurance were sold like homeowners or car insurance, people would be able to choose exactly the coverage they want. Many, would choose higher deductible plans which are much more affordable and will save money for most.

 

Our society has become accustomed to having "someone else" pay for health insurance or health care servces. Like most things that are "free" they get abused or are not appreciated I guarantee you that if families and individuals were paying for their own plans, they would make smart choices in coverage which in turn would cause providers to offer different insurance products.

Yes, this is a big change to how coverage is delivered now, but through tax code and some regulatory changes, this to me is by far the best answer. As an employer, I would gladly pay a tax (if reasonible) for each employee which could in turn be used to fund tax incentives for individuals.

 

Going to the doctor for a routine checkup and having an insurance claim processed for this = dumb

Paying for "dollar one" coverage in the event you need an inexpensive procedure performed= dumb

Being limitied to whatever choices your employer offers = dumb

Losing coverage and having to go through COBRA while unemployed = dumb

Not being able now to easly buy an individual policy outside of an employer group = dumb

Funding small potatoes dental coverage = dumb

Not being able to change carriers if you're not happy with their service = dumb

Having to find emploment to get coverage = dumb

Dragging people to the doctor for every little thing because it's "free" = dumb

Having doctor choices limited based on the carrier = dumb

Allowing employer to choose coverage and set rates for employees = dumb

Not making individuals financially responsble for maintaining their own health = dumb