Fingon Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul I guess he's content with raising everyone's premiums through more regulation of insurance policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul I guess he's content with raising everyone's premiums through more regulation of insurance policies. So, he does what the GOP wants and you have a problem with that? Or can we simply assume that anything passed is evil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 So, he does what the GOP wants and you have a problem with that? Or can we simply assume that anything passed is evil? He is just gloating that his "team" won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 I don't give a sh-- what the White House wants. It's what Congress can pass that's important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 The opposition is fierce, and it's lookin more and more everyday that the only way that they will get a bill passed through is with bipartisan support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted August 16, 2009 Author Share Posted August 16, 2009 So, he does what the GOP wants and you have a problem with that? Or can we simply assume that anything passed is evil? I have a problem with the E-mail Rahm Emanuel sent around, which outlined 8-9 new regulations that would almost certainly raise premiums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 So, he does what the GOP wants and you have a problem with that? Or can we simply assume that anything passed is evil? I have a hard enough time paying for my own insurance and subsidizing others already. How about dropping the idea that health insurance is a universal right, and levying a new tax on me to pay for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 He didn't drop the plan and the article didn't say he dropped the public plan. Like DC said, the White House doesn't make the bill, Congress does. Not only does Congress, but both the House and the Senate will have different plans and the House bill has the public option, as does a couple Senate plans. One of them doesn't, which is what they are talking about. That said, the White Hoouse wants to get more Republican support than the House does or the democratic leadership does right now, so they are working hard with that Senate Finance committees bill. It's possible that they will ultimately decide not to press the public plan IF if comes down to something they like and can live with (the non-profit instead of public) AND the rest of the bill is something they like. Those are two big IFs. Basically the WH wants the Finance committee to pass a bill so they can get one Senate bill and one House bill so are not going to say no to the co-op idea yet. I am for a public plan BUT if the non-profit does the same thing, I'd be fine with that instead. What I have been hearing is one kind of non-profit would be a lot like the public plan and one way wouldn't at all. So it would have to be the right kind for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 He didn't drop the plan and the article didn't say he dropped the public plan. Like DC said, the White House doesn't make the bill, Congress does. Not only does Congress, but both the House and the Senate will have different plans and the House bill has the public option, as does a couple Senate plans. One of them doesn't, which is what they are talking about. That said, the White Hoouse wants to get more Republican support than the House does or the democratic leadership does right now, so they are working hard with that Senate Finance committees bill. It's possible that they will ultimately decide not to press the public plan IF if comes down to something they like and can live with (the non-profit instead of public) AND the rest of the bill is something they like. Those are two big IFs. Basically the WH wants the Finance committee to pass a bill so they can get one Senate bill and one House bill so are not going to say no to the co-op idea yet. I am for a public plan BUT if the non-profit does the same thing, I'd be fine with that instead. What I have been hearing is one kind of non-profit would be a lot like the public plan and one way wouldn't at all. So it would have to be the right kind for me. I've been saying all along, that if a bill passes it would be a watered down version of the original intention of what the White House was envisioning. They are starting to back pedal some what, realizing that there isn't as much public support for the bill than what they were hoping. Politically speaking, the most troubling number for the WH is that over 64% of Independent voters are opposed to the Health Care Bill, as it stands, with most of them believing it will not only add to the deficit, but lessen the quality of Health Care. Another point I'd like to make is that of Sarah Palin. She gets a lot of flack, and is considered irrelevant amongst the liberal locotoads, but the fact of the matter is that she carries a lot of weight, and what she says can have an effect on politics. All it took was a Facebook entry about Health Care and the Death Panel, and the next thing you know, you have the networks like CNN, MSNBC, FOX, ABC and NBC airing it all over the news and not only that but Gibbs and Obama had to address the issue. Well, ever since she brought up the "Death Panels" the Senate Finance Committee on Thursday dropped language from its bipartisan healthcare reform package that Palin and then others had suggested would eventually lead to mandated end of life counseling sessions for seniors. My point is that if she would of never made that Facebook entry, alot of this anger in the town hall meetings would of been considerably muted, President Obama wouldn't of had to have been talking about Death Panels in his Town Hall meetings (which obviously is a distraction) and the Senate Finance Committee would of never of dropped the language regarding the end of life counseling sessions for seniors. The funny thing is #1BillsFan said it, that Sarah Palin would be a major thorn in the liberals side, and it hasn't even been a few months and she all ready has been. Score one for Palin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 I've been saying all along, that if a bill passes it would be a watered down version of the original intention of what the White House was envisioning. They are starting to back pedal some what, realizing that there isn't as much public support for the bill than what they were hoping. Politically speaking, the most troubling number for the WH is that over 64% of Independent voters are opposed to the Health Care Bill, as it stands, with most of them believing it will not only add to the deficit, but lessen the quality of Health Care. Another point I'd like to make is that of Sarah Palin. She gets a lot of flack, and is considered irrelevant amongst the liberal locotoads, but the fact of the matter is that she carries a lot of weight, and what she says can have an effect on politics. All it took was a Facebook entry about Health Care and the Death Panel, and the next thing you know, you have the networks like CNN, MSNBC, FOX, ABC and NBC airing it all over the news and not only that but Gibbs and Obama had to address the issue. Well, ever since she brought up the "Death Panels" the Senate Finance Committee on Thursday dropped language from its bipartisan healthcare reform package that Palin and then others had suggested would eventually lead to mandated end of life counseling sessions for seniors. My point is that if she would of never made that Facebook entry, alot of this anger in the town hall meetings would of been considerably muted, President Obama wouldn't of had to have been talking about Death Panels in his Town Hall meetings (which obviously is a distraction) and the Senate Finance Committee would of never of dropped the language regarding the end of life counseling sessions for seniors. The funny thing is #1BillsFan said it, that Sarah Palin would be a major thorn in the liberals side, and it hasn't even been a few months and she all ready has been. Score one for Palin I totally agree with that, unfortunately it came from a complete, blatant lie. The reason they are dropping it, IMO and other's opinions, is that it's not that important a deal, a very small part of the overall plan, and just not worth all the furor over it. It could go away and wouldnt make the health care reform much different at all. The thing that sucks about it to me is the completely disingenuous opposition to it. Opponents are using a blatant lie to scare people and if they were honest about it they would support it. It's a great idea, would ultimately save a lot of money and conservatives supported it before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted August 16, 2009 Author Share Posted August 16, 2009 I totally agree with that, unfortunately it came from a complete, blatant lie. The reason they are dropping it, IMO and other's opinions, is that it's not that important a deal, a very small part of the overall plan, and just not worth all the furor over it. It could go away and wouldnt make the health care reform much different at all. The thing that sucks about it to me is the completely disingenuous opposition to it. Opponents are using a blatant lie to scare people and if they were honest about it they would support it. It's a great idea, would ultimately save a lot of money and conservatives supported it before. Not according to anyone who is reputable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Not according to anyone who is reputable. Do you think it is a good idea for your parents or other elderly people to be able to ask their doctor if he would talk to them about living wills and power of attorney before they get sick, and the doctor to be paid for the consultation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted August 17, 2009 Author Share Posted August 17, 2009 Do you think it is a good idea for your parents or other elderly people to be able to ask their doctor if he would talk to them about living wills and power of attorney before they get sick, and the doctor to be paid for the consultation? Personally, I don't care. However, the current plans in congress will NOT save any money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Personally, I don't care. However, the current plans in congress will NOT save any money. They may and they may not. If done right they will, if done wrong they won't. I was only talking about the specific "death panel" provision. It's a great idea and it really could save a ton of money. In a CBO Meeting I watched, a Senator was talking about 70 billion dollars over 10 years could be saved by voluntary advanced care planning, and it's easy to see why when how much money is spent on the last year or two of life, and a huge amount of that is on things the patient doesn't even want or need. It also has zero to do with rationing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 My point is that if she would of never made that Facebook entry, alot of this anger in the town hall meetings would of been considerably muted, President Obama wouldn't of had to have been talking about Death Panels in his Town Hall meetings (which obviously is a distraction) and the Senate Finance Committee would of never of dropped the language regarding the end of life counseling sessions for seniors. have have have have Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Do you think it is a good idea for your parents or other elderly people to be able to ask their doctor if he would talk to them about living wills and power of attorney before they get sick, and the doctor to be paid for the consultation? That's a lawyer's field, not a doctor's. Lets have lawyers suggest the best chemo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 have have have have I will try to remember that. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 That's a lawyer's field, not a doctor's. Lets have lawyers suggest the best chemo. At Kaiser Permanente, I believe the lawers and accountants cooperate on medical decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 At Kaiser Permanente, I believe the lawers and accountants cooperate on medical decisions. The provision is for the doctors to explain the benefits and possibilites to their patients, not write the documents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 The provision is for the doctors to explain the benefits and possibilites to their patients, not write the documents. I think the lawyers know more about legal documents than doctors. Besides, where are doctors going to get the time? They don't have any as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts