The Hill on the cusp of healthcare

[donheff]

Please don't be so patronizing. The Dems had a super-majority. The R's could do nothing. The reason nothing passed earlier was they could not get enough support from the within that super-majority.

-ERD50

Nonsense. In a very real way, the Republicans were responsible for the "Corn Husker Provision," "the Louisiana Purchase," etc. They filibustered everything the Dems tried to do. DeMint called it in early summer -- just say no and force a Warterloo on Obama. The result was that the worst of the dems (Nelson) took advantage of the roadbloacks to wrangle reprehensible personal benefits into the bill.

Loosing the super majority was the best thing that could happen to the Dems. Then they could dump the blue dogs that ruined the Senate effort and jettison the junk they appended to the bill.

 

[Eagle43]

So, naturally, I look at this through the prism of my own circumstances.

Does this bill affect Tricare For Life or Medicare? If so, how? Anybody know? When I google it I get conflicting stories.

 

[Gone4Good]

Please don't be so patronizing.

Not so much patronizing as "bluff calling". People have the opportunity to fix some of the things that they thought were desperately bad about this bill, and do it with 51 votes in the Senate. So I think it will be telling to see which Senators sponsor amendments and put their votes were their mouths have been.

 

[donheff]

I think there are two lines of reasoning on this.
1) The Republicans should get in there and help fix the major things wrong with this law.
2) The Republicans should allow Democrats to make any needed fixes.

I agree that the Republicans should do a mixture of both. I haven't seen anything to indicate that they will do either. More likely they will do everything in their power to block any Dem effort to reform the reforms.

The way this legislation was passed was destructive and dishonest. When you go to a party and break all the windows out of the pace and smash all the stemware, you shouldn't expect to get a lot of help in cleaning up the place.

+1. Unfortunately we see different people breaking the windows and smashing the stemware. I see Jim DeMint, and the right wing pundits (Rush, Beck, Hannity) frothing at the mouth and crashing the party with death panels, granny killers, and images of nazi concentration camps.

 

[Gone4Good]

+1. Unfortunately we see different people breaking the windows and smashing the stemware. I see Jim DeMint, and the right wing pundits (Rush, Beck, Hannity) frothing at the mouth and crashing the party with death panels, granny killers, and images of nazi concentration camps.

Yup, and if both parties had a hand in causing a mess, and both have an equal ownership in the house, then the only grown up thing to do is to work together to fix what needs to be fixed. I'm not holding my breath.

 

[donheff]

Not so much patronizing as "bluff calling". People have the opportunity to fix some of the things that they thought were desperately bad about this bill, and do it with 51 votes in the Senate. So I think it will be telling to see which Senators sponsor amendments and put their votes were their mouths have been.

Not sure what you meant about amendments but if you want "honest" Republicans to submit amendments to fix the fixes in the reconciliation bill that won't work. For reconciliation to work, the proposal must go through with NO changes. Then it becomes law. If even one clause is changed it does not -- it goes back to the House for more wrangling and GOP efforts to obstruct. This week will be ugly in the Senate as Republicans offer amendments they don't believe in and would never vote for just so they can claim that the Democrats don't believe in true reform. If the Dems are successful, they will fight back each and every proposal. After the reconciliation bill is passed there is time for other changes to be proposed in separate pieces of legislation.

 

[Walt34]

... and the crazy math and extremely unlikely assumptions behind the CBO numbers indicating the bill will reduce the deficit.

What crazy math? Perhaps they're just using Kentucky Math

Calculating this way, it all works out:

YouTube - Kentucky Math Explained "Mom and Pop Skit'

 

[Zathras]

The way this legislation was passed was destructive and dishonest. When you go to a party and break all the windows out of the pace and smash all the stemware, you shouldn't expect to get a lot of help in cleaning up the place.

I agree. I also feel the way the filibuster has been used more and more in the past decade is also dishonest and destructive.
I also feel the method used to pass this bill was destructive when the republicans used in many times in the past decade.
I also feel it is destructive to allow coorporations so much influence in our government.
And, I am very happy that something got passed and hope that both sides will work together to continue to improve it

 

[Gone4Good]

Not sure what you meant about amendments but if you want "honest" Republicans to submit amendments to fix the fixes in the reconciliation bill that won't work. For reconciliation to work, the proposal must go through with NO changes. Then it becomes law. If even one clause is changed it does not -- it goes back to the House for more wrangling and GOP efforts to obstruct.

So what? "Universal" health insurance is the law of the land regardless of what happens in reconciliation. Let the "control cost first" crowd show their true colors by voting for tough cost control measures. I'm desperately anxious to see all of the tough amendments. I'm keeping a score card.

 

[ERD50]

Nonsense. In a very real way, the Republicans were responsible for the "Corn Husker Provision," "the Louisiana Purchase," etc.

They made me do it? Wow, just not buying that, but I'm going to drop it. It will only escalate, and I'd like to keep this thread open. At this point, I am far less interested in playing the 'blame game' with some people than I am interested in learning how we adapt our lives going forward. What's done is done.

So for me, back to "how does this bill affect us and the people in our lives?".


-ERD50

 

[Westernskies]

...something got passed...

ya got that right.

 

[donheff]

So what? "Universal" health insurance is the law of the land regardless of what happens in reconciliation. Let the "control cost first" crowd show their true colors by voting for tough cost control measures. I'm desperately anxious to see all of the tough amendments. I'm keeping a score card.

Yeah, one side of me agrees. Word is there are 51 senators who would agree to a public option so how about amending the bill to include a robust public option? But a deal is a deal. The House passed tyhe Senate bill on a good faith promise to pass reconciliation as is. They shuold deliver on that promise and separately introduce other changes.

 

[donheff]

They made me do it? Wow, just not buying that...

Yeah, put that way it does sound pretty lame. But, moving on the Republicans can either cooperate to make positive changes or choose to oppose, oppose.

 

[Gone4Good]

They shuold deliver on that promise and separately introduce other changes.

If everyone agrees that the legislation needs improvement, there is no time like the present. The House reconciliation bill is an effort to improve the legislation, why stop there.

Surely there are 41 Republican senators and 10 moderate Democrats who could come together on a serious package of cost control measures . . . lets have at it.

 

[W2R]

The Moderation Team would like to remind members of the rules pertaining to political discussion on the Early-Retirement Forum. Only political discussion that is directly related to early retirement is welcome.

Please watch your posts to ensure that this and other threads do not veer into purely political discussion, which is better suited to websites devoted to topics other than early retirement. Thank you.

 

[DallasGuy]

I'm very happy that this has passed. In the past I've been denied individual health insurance coverage because of a pre-existing condition...and had a rider slapped on an insurance policy not allowing coverage of certain condition(s). I've also avoided seeing a doctor for aches and pains because I feared they might result in a new pre-existing condition. If you've ever been in this situation, hopefully you can understand the benefits of this and be glad that this was passed and that needed change is starting. Is this reform perfect? No, it's not, but you have to start somewhere. It will be changed as time goes on. So what you see today is not what you'll see 10 years from now. If the public dislikes it so much, they can vote the Republicans back into power and then they can change or dismantle it all.

 

[FIRE'd@51]

Word is there are 51 senators who would agree to a public option so how about amending the bill to include a robust public option?

As I understand the reconciliation process, they can't do this. The reconciliation process is only to fix budgetary items in the original Senate bill. Introducing a public option would go beyond this and require a point-of-order ruling by the Senate parliamentarian, and likely be disallowed. Such an amendment would then require 60 votes in the Senate, which it couldn't get even prior to the Republicans picking up the Massachusetts Senate seat.

 

[donheff]

As I understand the reconciliation process, they can't do this. The reconciliation process is only to fix budgetary items in the original Senate bill. Introducing a public option would go beyond this and require a point-of-order ruling by the Senate parliamentarian, and likely be disallowed. Such an amendment would then require 60 votes in the Senate, which it couldn't get even prior to the Republicans picking up the Massachusetts Senate seat.

The whole purpose of the Public Option is to introduce more competition driving down cost. The Parliamentarian would smile on that amendment. Be careful of what you wish for. Opening the bill to amendments at this point opens Pandora's Box.

 

[Gone4Good]

As I understand the reconciliation process, they can't do this. The reconciliation process is only to fix budgetary items in the original Senate bill. Introducing a public option would go beyond this and require a point-of-order ruling by the Senate parliamentarian, and likely be disallowed. Such an amendment would then require 60 votes in the Senate, which it couldn't get even prior to the Republicans picking up the Massachusetts Senate seat.

That is my understanding too. Which is why it is a perfect forum for all of the deficit hawks to strut their stuff.

 

[FIRE'd@51]

The whole purpose of the Public Option is to introduce more competition driving down cost. The Parliamentarian would smile on that amendment.

Well, go for it then. As you know, the original House bill passed last August had a public option in it, so there's probably a decent chance that it could pass the House again. And polls seem to show that the public supports a public option. My opinion is that it is a stretch of the reconciliation process, and the parliamentarian (who is supposed to be impartial) would not allow it. But that's only my opinion, and I could well be wrong. In any case, it woulld be interesting to watch.

 

[Gone4Good]

So for me, back to "how does this bill affect us and the people in our lives?".

In the short-term, I'm going to sleep easier knowing that my individual health insurance policy is more stable and secure.

In the medium-term, I'm going to sleep easier knowing that I can move to a different state and not have to worry about qualifying for new insurance.

In the long-term, I'm going to sleep easier knowing that run-away medical costs have risen to the level of national importance rather than simply being ignored as an individual problem.

 

[FIRE'd@51]

In the short-term, I'm going to sleep easier knowing that my individual health insurance policy is more stable and secure.
.

While it may be marginally more secure, it is still subject to adverse selection if the healthy folks in your pool leave for a cheaper alternative, and you can't switch until 2014 because you have developed a "pre-existing condition".

What about those less fortunate folks who currently can't pass underwriting and can't afford the currently available high-risk pools or guaranteed-issue insurance. It appears that they will have to wait until 2014.

 

[FinanceDude]

Abortions are not funded under the health care bill.

Due to a last minute executive order, which only has a shelf life as long as fresh produce........

 

[Gone4Good]

While it may be marginally more secure, it is still subject to adverse selection if the healthy folks in your pool leave for a cheaper alternative, and you can't switch until 2014 because you have developed a "pre-existing condition".

What about those less fortunate folks who currently can't pass underwriting and can't afford the currently available high-risk pools or guaranteed-issue insurance. It appears that they will have to wait until 2014.

I can wait until 2014. And while not perfect, 2014 is better than never, which was the alternative.

And remind me what the opposition's solution to these problems were?

 

[FinanceDude]

If everyone agrees that the legislation needs improvement, there is no time like the present. The House reconciliation bill is an effort to improve the legislation, why stop there.

Surely there are 41 Republican senators and 10 moderate Democrats who could come together on a serious package of cost control measures . . . lets have at it.

Not gonna happen with Pelosi treatening everyone........