Help - Search - Member List - Calendar
Full Version: Health Bill WILL Come to Senate Floor
Collector Zone > Water Cooler > Politics
stlbaseball15
There is much to be exited about this week. The previous months have been full of gloom and doom about health reform. "The public option is dead," and "This bill will never see debate on the Floor," have been repeated to the point of monotony. Regardless, the Senate of the United States will debate and vote on a health reform bill that contains a public option, despite the best efforts of the insurance monopolies and tycoons and their corrupt cronies in the legislature. Blanch Lincoln and Mary Landrieu, the two conservative Southern Democrats, both have said they will not block debate of this monumental legislation by supporting a Republican filibuster. They were the last remaining holdouts.


QUOTE
November 22, 2009

Democrats Clinch Vote on Health Debate
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN and ROBERT PEAR
The New York Times

WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats said they had clinched the votes needed on Saturday to propel major health care legislation to the floor for weeks of full debate, as the majority party’s two last holdouts said that they would not block consideration of President Obama’s top domestic initiative.

Both senators, Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, cautioned that their support on what was expected to be a party-line vote on Saturday evening did not guarantee that they would ultimately vote for the bill itself. And their comments signaled that more horse-trading lies ahead when the vigorous debate and amendment attempts begin after Thanksgiving. Big changes might be required if the bill is to be approved.

Still, the decision by the two senators set the stage for a crucial preliminary victory and an important psychological boost for the Democrats, who spent Saturday laying out their arguments for the bill, condemning the practices of insurers and decrying the plight of the uninsured in a parade of floor speeches aimed at cementing party unity.

“I have decided there are enough significant reforms and safeguards in this bill to move forward, but much more work needs to be done,” Ms. Landrieu said.

Mrs. Lincoln, who faces a tough re-election campaign next year, said that her decision was not driven by political considerations.

“Although I don’t agree with everything in this bill, I believe it is more important that we begin debate on how to improve the health care system for all Americans,” she said, adding, “The vote tonight will mark the beginning of consideration of this bill by the full U.S. Senate not the end.”

Mrs. Lincoln said flatly that she would continue to oppose a government-run program like the public option that is now part of the legislation — signalling that more parliamentary maneuvering lies ahead.

Senate Republicans, powerless to keep the bill from reaching the floor unless they could break the ranks of the Democrat majority, countered with an impassioned denunciation of the measure as an ill-conceived, budget-busting expansion of government and a threat to the health and economic security of all Americans, especially the elderly.

With the Democrats nominally controlling 60 votes — the precise number needed to overcome the Republican attempt to stop the bill in its tracks — the procedural vote on Saturday evening loomed as the biggest test yet of the Democrat’s resolve and of the ability of the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, to unite his fragile caucus.

“Last year 750,000 Americans filed bankruptcy,” Mr. Reid said in a speech opening the debate. “Over half of those bankruptcies were because of medical expenses.

Over half of the people who filed bankruptcy because of medical expenses had health insurance. Don’t we need to do something on health insurance reform? Of course we do.”

Mr. Reid accused Republicans who oppose the legislation of “living in a different world,” and accused them of cowering from the debate.

“The health insurance industry has an insatiable appetite for more profit,” he said.

For their part, the Republicans sought to turn the test vote, technically a vote to end the preliminary debate on a motion to bring up the health bill for full debate, into a proxy for the bill itself and to shake the confidence of Democrats who have wavered in recent days.

“We know that Americans oppose this bill,” said the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, citing poll results. “They are not buying the claim that this legislation would do anything whatsoever to lower our nation’s staggering costs.”

Calling the bill a “monstrosity,” he added, “The experts agree with the public opinion polls that this 2,074-page bill is a budget buster.”

Mr. McConnell warned of the political consequences for senators who vote to move ahead.

“Senators who support this bill have a lot of explaining to do,” he said. “Americans know that a vote to proceed on this bill, to get on this bill, is a vote for higher premiums, higher taxes and massive cuts to Medicare.”

Republicans also said the test vote was a proxy for a larger dispute over abortion, because they said the bill did not sufficiently restrict the use of federal funds for insurance covering abortions.

Senator Mike Johanns, Republican of Nebraska, said, “The motion to proceed is the key vote on abortion in the health care debate — the most important vote a pro-life senator will cast.”

Saturday night’s procedural vote was required because Senate rules and precedent have long granted a right of virtually unlimited debate, or filibuster, to the minority. Because all 40 Republicans are expected to oppose the procedural motion to begin debate, Mr. Reid needs the unanimous support of all 60 members of his caucus — 58 Democrats and two independents who align with them.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, on Saturday morning assailed the Republicans as obstructionists.

“I will vote today to end the filibuster so the Senate can begin the historic debate to improve and reform our nation’s health insurance system,” he said. “Let’s not duck the debate, let the debate begin. Let’s not hide from the votes, let’s have the courage to stand up and vote.”

The health care bill, unveiled by Mr. Reid on Wednesday evening, seeks to extend health benefits to roughly 31 million Americans who are now uninsured, at a cost of $848 billion over 10 years.

It would do so by broadly expanding Medicaid, the state-federal insurance program for the poor, and by providing subsidies to help moderate-income people buy either private insurance or coverage under a new government-run plan, known as the public option.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the cost of the legislation would be more than offset by new taxes and fees and reductions in government spending, so that the bill would reduce future federal budget deficits by $130 billion through 2019.

In her floor speech, Ms. Landrieu highlighted a number of issues she wanted addressed in the weeks ahead, methodically cataloging provisions of the bill that she liked and those that she said needed improvement.

Under the bill, she said, owners of small businesses would no longer face "volatile costs" for health insurance. In addition, she said, the bill would "encourage employers to move away from high-cost benefit plans” and shift some compensation to wages, so workers might get more take-home pay.

Because of federal subsidies that would be provided for the purchase of insurance, Ms. Landrieu said, most families in Louisiana "would pay no more than 10 percent of their income on health care.”

But she said, "A great deal more work needs to be done.”

The bill, which would affect virtually every American, would reshape the health care industry, which accounts for nearly one-sixth of the nation’s economy. It also seeks to slow substantially the growth in government spending on Medicare, which covers Americans 65 and older.

Republicans have accused the Democrats of using an array of financing gimmicks to create the appearance that the bill would reduce federal deficits, including a delay in the implementation of most of the legislation’s major provisions until Jan. 1, 2014.

Mr. McConnell, in his opening speech, asserted that the bill would actually cost the nation $2.5 trillion — a claim that Democrats dismiss as wildly overstated and a political attack intended to distort the debate.

In making their calculation, the Republicans note that major provisions of the bill, like the expansion of Medicaid and subsidies to help people buy insurance, do not take effect until 2014.

Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, said: “Many revenue components in the bill begin to kick in next year, on Jan. 1, 2010. But much of the spending in the bill would be deferred until much later, not taking effect until Jan. 1, 2014. That distorts the true picture of what this legislation would cost.”

The $2.5 trillion figure reflects the cost from 2014 to 2023, Republicans said, while the $848 billion figure is for 2010 to 2019

Democrats said that the bill would actually save more money than the Congressional Budget Office has predicted, because the office does not calculate the potential savings from prevention and wellness programs that cannot be directly attributed to the legislation and to federal spending.

“We get no credit for all the wellness things we do in this bill,” Mr. Reid said. “In spite of that, everything in this bill is fully paid for, it reduces short- and long-term debt, it expands coverage.”

Carl Hulse contributed reporting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/health/p...agewanted=print
RGBII
Yes, it is overdue but the Landrieu vote
cost us $100 million.

This was ugly and I foresee it getting worse
when it goes to conference.

Collect Hard!,
RGBII
cdoyal
QUOTE(RGBII @ Nov 21 2009, 04:06 PM)
Yes, it is overdue but the Landrieu vote
cost us $100 million.

This was ugly and I foresee it getting worse
when it goes to conference.

Collect Hard!,
RGBII

*



It cost us much more $100 million. We have corruption out in the open like we're some kind of third world dictatorship and no one does anything about it. This country got pretty soiled today. Seems to get dirtier every day.
stlbaseball15
The insurance industry is the only industry in the United States that has a written exemption from congress of the Sherman AntiTrust Act. You can't get any more corrupt than govt approved monopolies.
cdoyal
QUOTE(stlbaseball15 @ Nov 21 2009, 07:05 PM)
The insurance industry is the only industry in the United States that has a written exemption from congress of the Sherman AntiTrust Act. You can't get any more corrupt than govt approved monopolies.
*



Didn't the Supreme Court rule that insurance wasn't commerce therefore it was exempt from the Sherman federal regulation but not from the states? How do insurance companies have a monopoly? No more than oil companies, phone companies, cable companies, etc. etc. etc.
stlbaseball15
QUOTE(cdoyal @ Nov 21 2009, 06:16 PM)
Didn't the Supreme Court rule that insurance wasn't commerce therefore it was exempt from the Sherman federal regulation but not from the states? How do insurance companies have a monopoly? No more than oil companies, phone companies, cable companies, etc. etc. etc.
*

They set prices and create coverage networks. Price fixing and collusion are the prime indicators monopolistic activity. And I have mo idea what supreme court ruling you're reffering to.
cdoyal
QUOTE(stlbaseball15 @ Nov 21 2009, 08:59 PM)
They set prices and create coverage networks. Price fixing and collusion are the prime indicators monopolistic activity. And I have mo idea what supreme court ruling you're reffering to.
*



The ruling was in 1969 I believe.
Price fixing? Are you saying all insurance companies charge the same prices? They don't. That's why we have choices about which companies to buy our insurance from. If the government passes a law with a public option and they gear it so that people are driven towards the government plan, that's your monopoly.
aceecards
do you REALLY think that anything POSITIVE will come from Health Insurance being taken out of our hands and into Government hands?

Dont we have Canada, UK and numerous other european allies that we can see the problems this creates?

Are we so blinded by Obama's agenda that we are not examining the history we are condemned to repeat!

As we travel down this road of Government sponsored health care we will never be able to turn back!

All that glitters my friends is not gold!
stlbaseball15
QUOTE(aceecards @ Nov 21 2009, 08:31 PM)
do you REALLY think that anything POSITIVE will come from Health Insurance being taken out of our hands and into Government hands?

Dont we have Canada, UK and numerous other european allies that we can see the problems this creates?

Are we so blinded by Obama's agenda that we are not examining the history we are condemned to repeat!

As we travel down this road of Government sponsored health care we will never be able to turn back!

All that glitters my friends is not gold!
*


Perhaps you could elaborate on how insurance is being taken out of our hands. The public option will only cover a small amount of people and nobody will be forced into it. And what makes you think insurance was ever in your hands to begin with?
cdoyal
QUOTE(aceecards @ Nov 21 2009, 09:31 PM)
do you REALLY think that anything POSITIVE will come from Health Insurance being taken out of our hands and into Government hands?

Dont we have Canada, UK and numerous other european allies that we can see the problems this creates?

Are we so blinded by Obama's agenda that we are not examining the history we are condemned to repeat!

As we travel down this road of Government sponsored health care we will never be able to turn back!

All that glitters my friends is not gold!
*



The sheeple will support it because of ideology - nothing more. If George Bush had pushed something like this, there would have been riots in the streets and cries of "big brother".
cdoyal
QUOTE(stlbaseball15 @ Nov 21 2009, 09:37 PM)
Perhaps you could elaborate on how insurance is being taken out of our hands. The public option will only cover a small amount of people and nobody will be forced into it. And what makes you think insurance was ever in your hands to begin with?
*



Because companies who buy insurance will look for cheaper options like the government plan. The government doesn't have to make a profit so they can charge whatever they want. Insurance is in my hands because I buy it myself with my own money. I have for 20 years.
aceecards
QUOTE(stlbaseball15 @ Nov 21 2009, 09:37 PM)
Perhaps you could elaborate on how insurance is being taken out of our hands. The public option will only cover a small amount of people and nobody will be forced into it. And what makes you think insurance was ever in your hands to begin with?
*



Its Not???

I handle the benefits for our corporation believe me you do not want to know what I know!!

cdoyal
QUOTE(aceecards @ Nov 21 2009, 09:53 PM)
Its Not???

I handle the benefits for our corporation believe me you do not want to know what I know!!
*



You work for an evil corporation. You know nothing!
stlbaseball15
In addition, I would certainly say that extending coverage to 31 million people is a definite positive.
stlbaseball15
QUOTE(aceecards @ Nov 21 2009, 08:53 PM)
Its Not???

I handle the benefits for our corporation believe me you do not want to know what I know!!
*


Insurance companies control who is covered and for what. Please share your knowledge with me and let me decide what I want to know.
stlbaseball15
QUOTE(cdoyal @ Nov 21 2009, 08:41 PM)
Because companies who buy insurance will look for cheaper options like the government plan. The government doesn't have to make a profit so they can charge whatever they want. Insurance is in my hands because I buy it myself with my own money. I have for 20 years.
*


The public option is (unfortunately) available only to those who currently have no insurance. Employers have nothing to do with it.
cdoyal
QUOTE(stlbaseball15 @ Nov 21 2009, 10:01 PM)
The public option is (unfortunately) available only to those who currently have no insurance.  Employers have nothing to do with it.
*



Why would an employer "opt out" if they can buy Obama Care cheaper than anywhere else?

And it's 12-15 million - not 31. You have to be honest or no one will want to engage you in debate.
stlbaseball15
QUOTE(cdoyal @ Nov 21 2009, 09:27 PM)
Why would an employer "opt out" if they can buy Obama Care cheaper than anywhere else?

And it's 12-15 million - not 31. You have to be honest or no one will want to engage you in debate.
*


31 according to the article. Again, emoyers have nothing to do with it. The option is strictly for individuals who are uninsured.
cdoyal
QUOTE(stlbaseball15 @ Nov 21 2009, 11:02 PM)
31 according to the article. Again, emoyers have nothing to do with it. The option is strictly for individuals who are uninsured.
*


What about wealthy people who choose to buy their own medical care. They're "uninsured", have the money to pay for their own care, yet face fines and jail time if they don't buy it. Sound fair to you?

You're buying a lie if you think this is only about uninsured people. If that were the case, they'd just sxpand Medicaid. Instead, they write a 2000 page bill. Dude, use your head.
stlbaseball15
QUOTE(cdoyal @ Nov 22 2009, 06:53 AM)
What about wealthy people who choose to buy their own medical care. They're "uninsured", have the money to pay for their own care, yet face fines and jail time if they don't buy it. Sound fair to you?

You're buying a lie if you think this is only about uninsured people. If that were the case, they'd just sxpand Medicaid. Instead, they write a 2000 page bill. Dude, use your head.
*


When did I say it was only about expanding coverage? I was simply naming an obvious positive in response to ace's stupid assertion that there was nothing positive whatsoever.

Just because we have a differing opinion on health insurance of all things doesnt mean I'm not using my head. Oh, and they are expanding medicaid. That is the biggest portion of the bill.

Since you are using your head, what is this bill about? What is the hidden, sinister purpose that we're not aware of?

In addition, who cares how many pages it is? I wonder how many pages are in the Patriot Act, NCLB, the Bush taxcuts, or any other doozy of a federal bill.
stlbaseball15
The vote is in, 60-39. Let the debate begin! Those who wanted to stifle the discussion and not allow a majority vote have failed miserably!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/health/p...th.html?_r=1&hp
cdoyal
QUOTE(stlbaseball15 @ Nov 22 2009, 01:57 PM)
Since you are using your head, what is this bill about? What is the hidden, sinister purpose that we're not aware of?
*


Making as many people dependent on government as possible thus ensuring Democrat control until the end of time.
stlbaseball15
QUOTE(cdoyal @ Nov 22 2009, 04:17 PM)
Making as many people dependent on government as possible thus ensuring Democrat control until the end of time.
*


Oh ok, I see where you're going with this. I'll start using my head in similar fashion. No Child Left Behind was actually a sinister plan to dumb down kids with standardized tests (and cut funding accordingly based on results) so that future generations are ignorant, uneducated, and close-minded ensuring republican control until the end of time. Or perhaps it was just a policy mistake based on differing idealologies.
cdoyal
Now the good senator from Louisiana is bragging that it's 300 million for her state - not 100.
cdoyal
Looks like there are enough votes to pass this abomination and it makes me sick to my stomach. I've never felt so helpless in my political life. Most people in the country don't want it. They are literally buying senate votes to get enough on board with it. Even Howard Dean says it's a mess and they should stop and start over.

The amount of spending this congress and president are engaged in is staggering. Just today, China said there isn't enough money in the world to buy up all our dept.
Bravesfan10
QUOTE(stlbaseball15 @ Nov 22 2009, 01:57 PM)
Since you are using your head, what is this bill about? What is the hidden, sinister purpose that we're not aware of?

*



If they would release a copy of the bill to the public maybe we would know rolleyes.gif
cdoyal
QUOTE(Bravesfan10 @ Dec 21 2009, 02:23 PM)
If they would release a copy of the bill to the public maybe we would know rolleyes.gif
*



Yet another one of Barry's campaign lies. He said, among other things, that the bills would be debated on C-SPAN. These bribes to the senators make the "no earmarks in bills" lie seem like a joke now.
racedraper
And now they are doing the same to Ben Nelson, and the proposal in the bill that would exempt his state of Nebraska from having to pay any extra costs for Medicaid expansion after 2016, unlike the rest of the nation.
cdoyal
QUOTE(racedraper @ Dec 21 2009, 08:50 PM)
And now they are doing the same to Ben Nelson, and the proposal in the bill that would exempt his state of Nebraska from having to pay any extra costs for Medicaid expansion after 2016, unlike the rest of the nation.
*



The scary thing is what I just heard from my lib brother-in-law (a journalist): "At least they passed SOMETHING!" Sigh...
stlbaseball15
This senate bill is a sham. Through a process of "compromise," the best possible elements of health reform have been whittled away to appease a few old codgers who are bought and sold by the health insurance cartel. Medicare for all was out from the start for no reason whatsoever. If compromise is necessary, then why start bargaining with anything less than the stated optimum goal? (Obama has said that medicare for all would be best if "starting from scratch.") Then the modestly small, limited public insurance option plan was stricken. After that, a medicare buy-in for people over 55 (screw everybody younger, I guess) was skuttled by the very man who used to be that particular idea's biggest supporter, Joe Lieberman.

Yet these senators who have stripped the originally meak reform bill of its best parts have somehow forgotten to remove the part you think would be very against their "Centrist" philosophy. That, of course, is the mandatory coverage clause. Surprisingly, now that those of us who will be forced to buy insurance no longer have the option of getting it from the state and instead will be herded into the outstretched arms of the Insurance Robber Barons, these senators have no problem.

No public health care, no publicly required coverage.

I sincerely hope that the more progressive and reform-minded House will insist upon this if an overall package is to be sent to the President. You might remember that back when the House was debating their own bill, many Representatives wrote a letter to the President pledging that they would not vote for a bill that did not contain some sort of public plan. It's up to them now to protect the American people from the insurance cartel.
cdoyal
QUOTE(stlbaseball15 @ Dec 22 2009, 03:53 PM)
It's up to them now to protect the American people from the insurance cartel.
*



If you don't like insurance companies, don't buy their product. Pay for your medical care yourself. Oh wait, under Obamacare, you won't be able to. How do you like losing your freedoms? Is this the hope and change you voted for?
sahetu
See, there is a difference between Obama the Candidate and Obama the President.

One was worth voting for, the other is a train wreck.
sahetu
QUOTE(sahetu @ Dec 23 2009, 11:39 AM)
See, there is a difference between Obama the Candidate and Obama the President.

One was worth voting for, the other is a train wreck.
*




Oh, and that said, you can't blame all of the failures of this bill on him. Indeed, you cannot even call it Obamacare. You could call it Pelosikindacaresforherself.
Tromni
Just to note, the following exist in Cartel or Oligopoly form in America

Hospitals
Doctors

That's why healthcare costs rise like crazy.

You can't build a new hospital without government approval, which is almost never granted. So there is no competition!

Why is approval never granted? Because hospitals in individual markets negotiate as a cartel and can force concessions from government.

Why do hospitals form cartels? Because they derive so much business from the government and they have to band together to successfully lobby the government.

Why do hospitals need to lobby the government? Because the government uses crazy formulae to decide how to pay the hospitals. The formulae are arbitrary, highly technical, and require massive investments of time and money to research and understand. Small changes by the government in these formulae can have multi-billion dollar affects on different sectors of the economy.

It's a mess, but it's a mess directly caused by government intervention in the healthcare marketplace.
cdoyal
QUOTE(Tromni @ Dec 23 2009, 11:00 AM)
Just to note, the following exist in Cartel or Oligopoly form in America

Hospitals
Doctors

That's why healthcare costs rise like crazy.

You can't build a new hospital without government approval, which is almost never granted. So there is no competition!

Why is approval never granted? Because hospitals in individual markets negotiate as a cartel and can force concessions from government.

Why do hospitals form cartels? Because they derive so much business from the government and they have to band together to successfully lobby the government.

Why do hospitals need to lobby the government? Because the government uses crazy formulae to decide how to pay the hospitals. The formulae are arbitrary, highly technical, and require massive investments of time and money to research and understand. Small changes by the government in these formulae can have multi-billion dollar affects on different sectors of the economy.

It's a mess, but it's a mess directly caused by government intervention in the healthcare marketplace.
*



It's just easier to blame the insurance companies for the high costs.
That's easier for the average Obama supporter to get behind.
That class envy/blame-big-corporations stuff frosts my !@# to no end.
Tromni
QUOTE(cdoyal @ Dec 23 2009, 11:03 AM)
It's just easier to blame the insurance companies for the high costs.
That's easier for the average Obama supporter to get behind.
That class envy/blame-big-corporations stuff frosts my !@# to no end.
*



It amuses me that the one time the insurance companies attempted to control costs and make things cheaper for everyone, the HMO days, everyone freaked out and screamed bloody murder about having their choices taken away.

Now, the democratic party is basically proposing exactly that as its bill. Only now it's federal government bureaucrats making the cost-cutting decisions. This will end in tears for someone for sure
stlbaseball15
QUOTE(cdoyal @ Dec 23 2009, 08:50 AM)
If you don't like insurance companies, don't buy their product. Pay for your medical care yourself. Oh wait, under Obamacare, you won't be able to. How do you like losing your freedoms? Is this the hope and change you voted for?
*


This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2013 Invision Power Services, Inc.