Quote :

" The entire point of the Senate is to act as a check on the mercurial whims of the American electorate."

imho neither sides care about the mercurial whims of the american electorate and care more about playing partisan politics while finding new ways to abuse their power of office.

12/21/2009 8:42:37 PM

^^^AHAHAHA, so you regularly insist the whole two-party system is fucked.

But when the Senate botches the public option, you claim it worked beautifully as a check on the mercurial whims of the American public.

You're a fucking douche bag.

[Edited on December 21, 2009 at 8:46 PM. Reason : ]

12/21/2009 8:42:43 PM

Quote :

"Yesterday I caught a clerk reading an amendment on C-span. Are actual members required to filibuster or can they force it off on some poor clerk?"

It's merely one more tactic for delaying these days. In the Senate created by the founding fathers, I'm sure it had a meaningful place. With modern legislation frequently in the hundreds of pages, clerk read-throughs are a relic from more collegial days.

That said, don't forget Byrd reading from the telephone book. Some members still do their filibusters in a more theatric fashion.

12/21/2009 8:45:32 PM

You didn't answer my question. Does a senator himself have to do the filibustering or can he commit a bevy of clerks to do his biding?

12/21/2009 9:42:10 PM

having the clerk read the bill isn't a filibuster. like i said, one amongst many stall tactics.

12/21/2009 9:49:27 PM

Quote :

"There's still a couple good things in there that Obama can trumpet as a great victory for Americans..."

And what would those be? I'd like to know before we create a whole new gigantic federal bureaucracy.

12/21/2009 11:53:50 PM

.

[Edited on December 22, 2009 at 11:57 AM. Reason : double post]

12/22/2009 11:39:04 AM

One thing I heard some legislator talking about on NPR was a part about letting people stay on their parents health insurance a little longer. Between college & getting that full time first job & waiting out a probationary period at said job can create a lapse of time when a lot of young adults go uninsured and just have to hope that nothing goes too wrong. I'd think preventative medical practices then are better than holding out & hiding a problem until you can get insured. When I worked at the vet clinic, several techs and receptionists, mostly college educated, had that as their first job, and several of them ignored health problems and ended up in the ER... like 5 people in my few years there which was some what striking because this wasn't an issue of getting more poor people insured & practicing better preventative health, it was people with a middle class background relying on ERs.

Not that this necessarily has anything to do with the health care reform bill, but another annoying thing from my experiences with insurance was the rates skyrocketing at the vet clinic every year, so they would switch insurers on an annual basis. For the last 4 years or so I've never been to the doctor with the same insurance twice. The frequent switches on behalf of my employer kept prices down a little, but depending on insurers I switched back and forth from being considered a young & health male, to being one in a group of largely middle aged women with health problems. Some kind of stability year to year would have made budgetary planning a little easier.

12/22/2009 11:57:41 AM

^^^Preventing insurers from denying to coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

It's a resounding success for the Democrats in their uphill battle to righteously reform healthcare!

WOOT WOOT!

12/22/2009 12:01:29 PM

That's an absolutely awful idea, though. The whole point of insurance is that you get it before something happens. If insurance companies can't deny someone that has a pre-existing condition, then why pay premiums? Just wait until you get sick, then get a plan. Get treatment, then drop it again. Who ends up footing the bill for all the premiums that the person didn't pay throughout the year? Oh, that's right...the rest of the people on the insurance plan. So now, not only are healthcare costs going to go up, but insurance premiums are going to go up. Resounding success indeed.

Pre-existing conditions wouldn't even be such a huge problem if the government wasn't providing an incentive (through subsidies) for employers to pay employees with health insurance in lieu of actual wages. Health insurance does not need to be connected to your job, because you can lose your job. If these people got insurance through private plans, it wouldn't even be an issue.

This is what happens when people that don't understand insurance try their hand at "reform." We get these terrible bills that only make the problem worse, and anyone who calls a spade a spade is demonized by the left as a shill for the insurance companies.

12/22/2009 12:37:35 PM

Forgive me if I keep hammering on the fact that the Republicans had a chance to do any damn thing they wanted ... The problem was the thing they wanted to do was nothing.

12/22/2009 12:43:16 PM

Quote :

"If insurance companies can't deny someone that has a pre-existing condition, then why pay premiums?"

Maybe if the insurance companies didn't have a free hand to deny coverage to people for stupid or inhuman reasons, maybe this wouldn't be an issue. But when you get to the point where you deny coverage to a newborn because he's too "fat," it's time for things to change.

Quote :

"Just wait until you get sick, then get a plan. Get treatment, then drop it again. Who ends up footing the bill for all the premiums that the person didn't pay throughout the year?"

That's the reason why you have some sort of enforcement component to the bill. No one liked the idea of fining people that don't have health insurance, but that's basically what you're talking about here. If more people are put in healthcare insurance plans, and it's made to be affordable for them, then you have nothing to complain about here.

12/22/2009 12:45:16 PM

Quote :

"Maybe if the insurance companies didn't have a free hand to deny coverage to people for stupid or inhuman reasons, maybe this wouldn't be an issue. But when you get to the point where you deny coverage to a newborn because he's too "fat," it's time for things to change."

Why shouldn't they be able to deny coverage to anyone for any reason they want? It's (supposed to be) a free country. Just think about it for a minute. If someone comes to the insurance company and says "yeah, I have cancer...gonna need around a million dollars in treatment over the next couple months. if I just start paying you a monthly premium, will you be able to cover all of that?" It's absurd. Insurance companies are a business like anything else. In a free market, different insurance companies will have different policies as far as who they're willing to cover. If one insurance company refuses to cover fat babies, then some other insurance company is going to cover fat babies and profit from it. And this is America, so the fat baby market is probably booming.

Quote :

"That's the reason why you have some sort of enforcement component to the bill. No one liked the idea of fining people that don't have health insurance, but that's basically what you're talking about here. If more people are put in healthcare insurance plans, and it's made to be affordable for them, then you have nothing to complain about here."

Yeah, I understand that. They didn't want people gaming the system, so they tacked on a fine. Last time I checked, though, the fine was less than actual insurance premiums, so there's still no reason to pay premiums. Now, that very well could have changed in one of the more recent versions of the bill, and they increased the fine in order to make paying premiums worth it again. That would work. I don't really see how any of this solves the problem of people not being able to afford insurance/healthcare, though...it just forces them to buy it. If they were poor and sick, now they're going to be even more poor, especially when premiums continue to go up.

12/22/2009 1:14:35 PM

The Senate is already structured to overrepresent less populated states, which tend to lean conservative. A threshold of 60 obviously goes significantly further. I think much of the "statesmanship" and more national focus of senators is in many ways a thing of the past.

12/22/2009 1:37:31 PM

^ Unless you're Joe Lieberman, in which case it's "all about me."

12/22/2009 1:39:06 PM

He's no statesman, he's a Leiberman.

12/22/2009 2:52:18 PM

Quote :

"Why shouldn't they be able to deny coverage to anyone for any reason they want? It's (supposed to be) a free country. Just think about it for a minute. If someone comes to the insurance company and says "yeah, I have cancer...gonna need around a million dollars in treatment over the next couple months. if I just start paying you a monthly premium, will you be able to cover all of that?" It's absurd. Insurance companies are a business like anything else. In a free market, different insurance companies will have different policies as far as who they're willing to cover. If one insurance company refuses to cover fat babies, then some other insurance company is going to cover fat babies and profit from it. And this is America, so the fat baby market is probably booming."

But that's just the problem.

Going to the person with cancer that you used as an example. If the person with cancer didn't have coverage before getting cancer, what the hell are they supposed to do after getting cancer? Go into debt until a bank won't lend them any more money to cover the treatment? Rely on charitable organizations, who "might" be able to contribute a little bit of cash? Until they either get better or they die. If they get better, they'll be left with an unsurmountable amount of debt. They'll be forced into bankruptcy, which will only hurt their creditors (banks, credit card companies).

Don't forget that health insurance doesn't cover everything. Most plans have a limit on what can be spent in a year. After that's through, you're boned.

There's a reason why health costs account for such a high percentage of bankruptcy.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2009/db2009064_666715.htm

62% of people who filed for bankruptcy claimed that it was due to health costs. 78% of that 62% had health insurance. Something doesn't seem right to me. It seems to me that the current system doesn't do what it is supposed to do. Sure, health insurance works great for minor things, like doctor visits, flu shots, prescription medication, even hospital care and your common types of surgery and treatment.

But the system starts to break down on expensive and rare medical procedures. And this isn't like saying to poor people, "well you should get a job," because you can't say to a sick person, "well, you should have never gotten sick," because it's not their fault.

Healthcare shouldn't be a free market, because, as we've already seen, when that happens, the well-being of the people is put behind the well-being of companies, in a system and idea that is based on putting people first. In other words, healthcare is supposed to be about putting the patient first and getting them better. But this current system has the insurance companies first. As long as they're able to make money off of you, they're happy. Who gives a shit if you die? The insurance company doesn't. In their mind, if you die, it's either because a doctor fucked up or the procedure that would have had a higher chance of saving your life would have lost them too much, so they opted to go for a procedure that had a lower success rate, but it was half the cost.

*MADE UP STATISTIC ALERT* 90% of the time, the system works OK. But if you're in that 10%, you're fucked. And in a country of 305+ million people, that 10% is a lot of people. And I think that a lot of people who are for the current system have either never been in that 10% or they don't like thinking about the possibility of ever getting that sick that they might die, because if you're in that 10%, more than likely, you have a rare disease or condition that is expensive as hell to cover, which carries a high chance of dieing. There's a lot of people in this world who don't like to think about their own mortality. And having to think that they could ever be in that 10% scares the shit out of them. So they would rather go on with their lives thinking that the system is perfect and that they'll never be in that 10%. These are the same people who put off having a will made until they're 50 years old, when they have 2 kids and they both smoke(d) for years. Why would you put off getting a will made for that many years, unless you're scared of the thought of dieing.

In regards to the chubby baby. What are the people who have a fat baby supposed to do in the meantime, until a company does come around who will cover them? What if it never happens? That too is the problem with a free market in the healthcare system. If you're either too high a risk for any company to cover you, or you have a rare condition that no company will ever see a viable market in providing coverage to, what the hell are you supposed to do? Is it your fault that you're not covered? Perhaps if you have obesity. But what if you have Huntington's Disease? As they get sicker, the coverage to keep them alive will just keep getting more and more expensive, until they will inevitably die. Granted, most people who have Huntington's finds out when they still have coverage. But at birth now, they can check for genetic markers to see if you have Huntington's. And if it turns out you are at risk at birth, how in the hell are you ever going to be able to get coverage? Sure, you might be able to get coverage under the parent's health insurance. But what about when you're an adult and you have to get your own? What do you do if you have this pre-existing condition? The number of people with Huntington's disease who have coverage will be relatively large, and the number of people without it small. Additionally, they ARE going to die and they ARE going to cost A LOT of money to keep alive as they get worse.

Additionally, lets say that a company does choose to offer coverage. Why should they pay higher premiums than anyone else? Sure, if they have something that they can fix through diet and exercise, that's understandable. But what if they have a condition that isn't their fault. Like the family with the fat baby. Are they supposed to starve it so that it loses weight? Why are they having to pay higher premiums than anyone else. That is BULLSHIT. But it's so easy to say, "Life isn't fair," when you aren't in their position. It never amazes me that ability that people have to flip-flop their ideology in a heart beat. Generally, if someone is vehemently against something, like healthcare reform, because the current system works fine for them. It's funny to watch them flip-flop to the opposite side when the system doesn't work out so well for them...

[Edited on December 22, 2009 at 4:09 PM. Reason : ]

12/22/2009 4:08:22 PM

Quote :

"...the Republicans had a chance to do any damn thing they wanted ... The problem was the thing they wanted to do was nothing."

True...But at least they weren't trying to do the wrong thing.

12/22/2009 10:19:19 PM

Quote :

"If the person with cancer didn't have coverage before getting cancer, what the hell are they supposed to do after getting cancer? Go into debt until a bank won't lend them any more money to cover the treatment? Rely on charitable organizations, who "might" be able to contribute a little bit of cash? Until they either get better or they die. If they get better, they'll be left with an unsurmountable amount of debt. They'll be forced into bankruptcy, which will only hurt their creditors (banks, credit card companies)."

they are supposed to have coverage before they get sick. if more people had insurance when they didnt 'need' it we wouldnt have the problems we have today.

[Edited on December 22, 2009 at 10:24 PM. Reason : .]

12/22/2009 10:24:00 PM

^What do they do if they can't afford health insurance on their own, they don't qualify for medicaid/medicare and their employer doesn't offer medical insurance, IE, someone who's unemployed, their severance ran out, yet they earned too much money for the year to qualify for Medicaid.

Or how about someone who just got a new job and it takes 30 days for them to be eligible to get health insurance? Are they to wait as their cancer spreads, putting their chance of survival at a lower chance with each passing day, all because of the fucked up way the system works?

No matter how you cut it, there are people who fit both of those areas. Not everyone who doesn't have health insurance is in that position because they want to. There are many people who are in a position without health insurance because they have to.

And as much as you'd like to ignore the elephant in the room, there is always a chance that you yourself may find yourself in such a position one day.

Health insurance and the ability to get treatment for a condition that isn't your fault isn't something that you should have to work for to get. While I'm not a big fan of welfare checks going out to people who work the system, this is one "entitlement" that I think is justified. Because whether you like it or not, the uninsured DO impact you.

12/23/2009 12:29:26 AM

Here is an e-mail from Organizing for America. I mentioned before "One thing I heard some legislator talking about on NPR was a part about letting people stay on their parents health insurance a little longer. Between college & getting that full time first job & waiting out a probationary period at said job can create a lapse of time when a lot of young adults go uninsured and just have to hope that nothing goes too wrong." But I didn't know the details beyond what I heard on NPR, this had the cut off year.

Quote :

"The Senate health reform bill will: -- Extend coverage to 31 million Americans, the largest expansion of coverage since the creation of Medicare. -- Ensure that you can choose your own doctor. -- Finally stop insurance companies from denying coverage due to a pre-existing condition. -- Make sure you will never be charged exorbitant premiums on the basis of your age, health, or gender. -- Guarantee you will never lose your coverage just because you get sick or injured. -- Protect you from outrageous out-of-pocket expenditures by establishing lifetime and annual limits. -- Allow young people to stay on their parents' coverage until they're 26 years old. -- Create health insurance exchanges, or "one-stop shops" for individuals purchasing insurance, where insurance companies are forced to compete for new customers. -- Lower premiums for families, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office -- especially for struggling folks who will receive subsidies. -- Help small businesses provide health care coverage to their employees with tax credits and by allowing them to purchase coverage through the exchanges. -- Improve and strengthen Medicare by eliminating waste and fraud (without cutting basic benefits), beginning to close the Medicare Part D donut hole, and extending the life of the Medicare trust fund. -- Create jobs by reining in costs -- fostering competition, reducing waste and inefficiency, and starting to reward doctors and hospitals for quality, not quantity, of care."

12/23/2009 4:01:36 AM

Quote :

"^What do they do if they can't afford health insurance on their own, they don't qualify for medicaid/medicare and their employer doesn't offer medical insurance, IE, someone who's unemployed, their severance ran out, yet they earned too much money for the year to qualify for Medicaid. Or how about someone who just got a new job and it takes 30 days for them to be eligible to get health insurance? Are they to wait as their cancer spreads, putting their chance of survival at a lower chance with each passing day, all because of the fucked up way the system works? No matter how you cut it, there are people who fit both of those areas. Not everyone who doesn't have health insurance is in that position because they want to. There are many people who are in a position without health insurance because they have to. And as much as you'd like to ignore the elephant in the room, there is always a chance that you yourself may find yourself in such a position one day. "

the problem is, people dont make buying health insurance a priority. they routinely spend $100/month on cell phone plans, TV packages and whatever else....but that 'cant afford' to buy health insurance. if the masses did make it a priority, the insured pool would be much larger and 'viola' rates would be lower.

thats why I think the government has been going about this all wrong. IMO, we should have some subsidized health care...however make it for all children under the age of 18. that would encourage good habits early in life...visiting the doctor for checkups, maintaining coverage, etc...then once, they hit 18 make it their responsibility to take care of themselves. hell, even make a law that any pre-existing conditions from their childhood be covered...but dont make a law that they, or anyone has HAS to buy coverage.

you cant make people take care of themselves. there will always be circumstances that some people face that are beyond their control...I understand that. however, if they made it a priority to AT LEAST carry catastrophic coverage, they would be ok if they got cancer or whatever example you gave.

noboby should be in charge of your well being, except you

also, I have been in the situations you mentioned...new job, severance ran out, etc....these are not impossible obstacles. in fact, they are very minor. many insurance companies sell temporary policies with high deductibles so you can have something in place in case something major happens, but doesnt cost you a fortune. the fact is, there are options out there, people just choose not to explore them.

[Edited on December 23, 2009 at 8:31 AM. Reason : .]

12/23/2009 8:27:49 AM

Quote :

"many insurance companies sell temporary policies with high deductibles so you can have something in place in case something major happens, but doesnt cost you a fortune."

But from whom do you buy insurance against recision?

12/23/2009 8:33:21 AM

is recision the problem or is increasing rates more of the problem?

I would be all for regulation against insurance companies of all types, not just health, concerning the practice of recision. its fucked up on several levels. Nationwide yanked my parent's coverage after one claim! there is something wrong with that.

Insurance needs reform, I definitely agree with that. we are just going about it the wrong way.

I say make them compete against each other. then you will find what the bottom line pricing is for their services.

12/23/2009 8:41:23 AM

So far I've seen two answers:

"Yes, it's being abused, because it's not currently conducive to my ends"

"No, it's not being abused, because it is currently conducive to my ends"



Any opinions regarding the filibuster that go beyond that?

12/23/2009 8:45:26 AM

It's a legitimate tactic. I don't know enough about it to know how they could reform it to make it less fucking obnoxious.

I also think threatening a filibuster is exceptionally annoying...

12/23/2009 8:58:56 AM

Quote :

"I say make them compete against each other. then you will find what the bottom line pricing is for their services."

Whoa there, let's not go overboard. Wouldn't it be better to make a couple big insurance companies filthy rich by passing this legislation, squeezing out smaller insurance companies and effectively creating a monopoly? That's sure to bring down costs.

Quote :

"Any opinions regarding the filibuster that go beyond that?"

Yeah, I think it's legitimate regardless of the situation. I might not agree with the senator's reason for doing it, but that's another issue.

[Edited on December 23, 2009 at 9:04 AM. Reason : ]

12/23/2009 9:02:51 AM

Sure it's legitimate. Is it ideal?

I'm not so sure, anymore. Look at how it's been used in the past. There aren't any real-life Mr. Smiths.

Then there's the issue of giving the filibuster to the Senate. The body that is inherently less-representative of the will of the people. Ideally, I'd give it to the House.

12/23/2009 10:31:27 AM

What would be ideal is if we actually followed the constitution and the 10th amendment. The senate would be taking on a lot less responsibility and there wouldn't be as much of a need for filibusters. If we had filibusters in the House, that would be epic. Nothing would ever get passed, with the exception of salary increases, maybe. It's supposed to be harder for things to pass in the Senate. Cloture serves as a balance for filibusters, and I think it's better to err on the side of legislation being too hard to pass, rather than too easy.

12/23/2009 10:45:04 AM

Quote :

"If we had filibusters in the House, that would be epic. Nothing would ever get passed"

I don't see it that way, at all.

First of all, just look at the House's bill v. the Senate's. The House's is much more radical.

Second, the resolution is finer with 435 than it is with 100. The chances of there being be -a- Lieberman or -a- Nelson to placate would be much less.

12/23/2009 11:20:14 AM

Quote :

"the problem is, people dont make buying health insurance a priority. they routinely spend $100/month on cell phone plans, TV packages and whatever else....but that 'cant afford' to buy health insurance. if the masses did make it a priority, the insured pool would be much larger and 'viola' rates would be lower."

Exactly.

I think the first step even beyond jsut the health care debate is to take away incentive for people having kids they can not afford.

12/23/2009 1:24:36 PM

^ No. Not exactly. You're over-generalizing just as much as he is. There is no way that he can backup what he had said with concrete facts. I will concede that there are people who don't prioritize health insurance. But his generalization is one based on belief, not facts.

Just as there are people who spend their money on 100 dolllar/month cell phone plans, big screen TVs and expensive cable/Internet packages, there are families of four making just enough money to pay for their car to get to work, and for rent and food to put on the table, and clothes to put on their children's, as well as their own. However, they aren't eligible medicaid, and there's very little financial aid to help them out. Sure, maybe they can actually purchase health insurance, but it's one thing to actually be able to buy something, and another to afford it.

I had a friend who I worked with who was diabetic (Type I). He was 21 at the time, moved to Greenville, SC and had just gotten a job at a plant that I was at. He had just rented an apartment with a friend (I think split between them, he was paying something like 150 bucks a month). He was making 8 bucks an hour at the plant, wasn't eligible for Medicaid OR for the group health care, in which the wait period was 60 days. In case you don't know, insulin is VERY expensive, especially if you're making 8 bucks an hour.

I recall one day at work his insulin pump stopped working properly. He had to leave work early (a 12 hour shift), go home and be on the phone all day. This kid wasn't some person trying to live beyond his means. He drove a 1994 Honda Civic, lived in a reasonable apartment, and yes, he had a cell phone as his only means of communication (I think he had something like a 40 dollar/month plan, not one of those over-exaggerated 100 dollar/month plan that you used). Fortunately, he was able to get on the phone with his doctor, who helped him override the pump settings, after figuring out that the tube had a little clog in it. He was VERY lucky he didn't have to go to an emergency room, which would have cost him 3,000 dollars of money he simply didn't have. It was ridiculous for him to have had to risk his life, all because he didn't want to be hammered by health cost and end up financially bitch slapped.

So please, my friends, tell me how the system is working for people in similar situations as him? Because to me, it's pretty God damn shitty. It's pretty shitty that he has to make a 1 month supply of insulin last 2 months, and it's pretty shitty that he has to risk diabetic coma, all for reasons that aren't really his fault... After all, he didn't ask for Diabetes.

We can get into gross over-generalizations, or we can get into specific examples, that are either fictional and plausible, or real examples. But I think this summary in a Wikipedia article bests describes the current situation, as it encompasses many aspects of why people are uninsured:

Quote :

"The causes of this rate of uninsurance remain a matter of political debate. Rising insurance costs have contributed to a trend in which fewer employers are offering health insurance, and many employers are managing costs by requiring higher employee contributions. Many of the uninsured are the working poor or are unemployed. Others are healthy and choose to go without it. Some have been rejected by insurance companies and are considered "uninsurable". Some are without health insurance only temporarily. Some choose faith-based alternatives to health insurance."

I bolded 3 examples of why people are uninsured, out of the 5 listed. You know why I chose those 3? Because those are 3 examples of why people are uninsured, and their reason for doing so, isn't due to a fault of their own (for the most part). Please, tell me what they're to do? Because so far I've seen nothing from opponents of health care reform that goes beyond allowing the purchasing of health insurance across state lines that addresses how to help parts of that 46.3 million people.

As to forcing people to get health insurance, here is why I'm for it:

It affects me, for two reasons. I could find myself in a similar situation in the future, as we ALL can (whether you want to admit it or not), and because it does raise costs.

Quote :

"The costs of treating the uninsured must often be absorbed by providers as charity care, passed on to the insured via cost-shifting and higher health insurance premiums, or paid by taxpayers through higher taxes."

And in the end, people without health insurance are still burdened with high costs, which often leads to foreclosure, bankruptcy and debt that they may never be able to get out of. This all has a negative impact on the economy. A foreclosed home just leads to another house on the market and another bank who lost money. That does affect the economy. So not only are you paying higher premiums to cover the uninsured, but you're also not getting a damn thing out of it.

Seems pretty stupid to me.

12/23/2009 4:29:47 PM

Tbill doesn't change any of that, and no bill will change any of that. The government cannot legislate lower costs, period. All it can do is move money around, and that's what it's doing. If you want to take money from one person and give it to another, then just come out and say it. Trying to force people to buy insurance isn't going to solve the problem, though.

[Edited on December 23, 2009 at 4:40 PM. Reason : ]

12/23/2009 4:40:09 PM

Quote :

"Because so far I've seen nothing from opponents of health care reform that goes beyond allowing the purchasing of health insurance across state lines that addresses how to help parts of that 46.3 million people."

I suggest you start by reading the 47 page health care thread, because there's been a lot more than that.

12/23/2009 4:42:36 PM

Bridget put in another thread that she has many medical issues, they will not deny you coverage but you will be paying through the nose for it.....so it will be too expensive for you to have.

12/23/2009 4:42:52 PM

^^ Yeah, I know that there's more, but that's been "The Big One" as far as making coverage more affordable, as well as allowing people to "pool together" and buy insurance together, much like how group plans for large companies work.

I don't need to read 47 pages of arguments, when I can just read a 1 page summary off the GOP website:
http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare

to find out about their ideas. While some of their ideas I agree with, like allowing people to buy across state lines and tort reform, I'm just wary about the actual effectiveness it has for people who cannot afford health insurance. I just feel that it will do little to address the problem that uninsured people have on premium rates. It can make things better for people who already have health insurance, and help ensure that they keep the coverage they have now. So if their ideas were to end up in the bill, I would be definitely for it. But I don't see that happening. Not with the way the GOP have been hell bent on stopping this bill. They seem to be more focussed on trying to stop this bill than trying to see their own ideas on lowering health insurance costs included in the bill. I suppose that it is because they want to break all associations with the bill. Instead of taking what might end up to be a mediocre bill (don't fret, the senate version isn't what will go to the President's desk, the House and Senate still have to meet to iron out the differences between both of their bills) and making it a better bill, by having stuff that can potentially lower insurance costs as well as having stuff that can potentially bring in more insured people (which can also help lower insurance costs), they just want to do what's in the interest of their own party, not in the interest of what's best for the nation.

Of course, part of this is speculation, as I don't know of what was said behind closed doors.

12/23/2009 5:19:51 PM

^ Two things:

1) the GOP != everyone opposed to the proposed reform

2) Putting measures to reduce insurance costs in a bill that will increase insurance costs is rather pointless. At best you're doing nothing, at worst you're making it more difficult to get the costs reduced.

However this conversation is better suited for the health care thread.

12/23/2009 5:45:24 PM

^ You're right about where this discussion should be.

I will just say this. While you're right that if you put in cost savings measure in a bill that may increase health costs might mean that the total change in costs will stay the same now. But it's not pointless, because if you can get more people onto health insurance while keeping the costs the same, that, too me, is having your cake an eating it too. Even if it means that health costs might go up a bit, it's still a win win, because it's not going up as much.

There's no way to make everyone happy. In my opinion, if you go the GOP route, you save people who have health insurance now, while not really fixing the crux of the issue. But if you go strictly the Democrat route, you get to the crux of the issue (to some extent), but costs potentially increase, which pisses off people who have insurance now. With both sides bickering the way that they are, I prefer it to be an all Democrat bill than an all GOP bill, but I would MUCH rather have an equal contribution on the bill in which both sides are taken in account for. I think that would yield the best bill.

As it stands now, we, the citizens have to just sit by and watch this childish bickering between parties as one party cries "They're not letting us participate, so we'll filibuster," and the other cries, "STFU, you had your chance." All we get are bills that fix certain issues, while creating or exacerbating others.

12/23/2009 5:59:36 PM

Quote :

"but I would MUCH rather have an equal contribution on the bill in which both sides are taken in account for. I think that would yield the best bill."

I agree.
The way to create this scenerio is to stop this bill now and break the democrat majority next November. Increasing more republicans will even out the congress more. Now if they want to re-visit health care, they will be forced to compromise.

But ramming the democrat-only version (or a GOP-only version) through, especially when the majority of the country doesn't support it, is not the way to reform anything.

Health-care is a very personal issue for all of us. Any changes of this huge of a magnitude should be created with much more bi-partisian input. This is simply not going to happen when one side wields all the power.

12/23/2009 10:11:31 PM

Quote :

"There's no way to make everyone happy. In my opinion, if you go the GOP route, you save people who have health insurance now, while not really fixing the crux of the issue. But if you go strictly the Democrat route, you get to the crux of the issue (to some extent), but costs potentially increase, which pisses off people who have insurance now."

you don't seem to understand the crux of the issue. the crux is that you need insurance to get health care.

12/23/2009 10:26:09 PM

Re: original post

The filibuster isn't being abused half as much as the United States Constitution. As long as it's being employed to fight legislation that is directly contrary to the law of the land, and/or a bad idea, I'm all for it.

12/23/2009 10:28:52 PM

Well put

12/23/2009 10:51:11 PM

maybe they should make the microphone get increasingly hotter the longer someone speaks into it. yeah, you can filibuster, but you've got to be willing to burn a few fingers over it.


and dems should call lieberman's bluff. seriously. i doubt he has the stamina to talk that long. he'll need a nap at some point. he might even talk long enough to where he switches his position mid-filibuster

[Edited on December 25, 2009 at 3:53 AM. Reason : ]

12/25/2009 3:42:52 AM

I do not see why there is such political stigma in altering one's political position or "flip-flopping" as politicians say it as a prejorative. This being directed at the lieberman comment above.

You would think flip-flopping at least over the long term would be a positive trait in a politician. This means that you are not stubbornly constrained within party lines and are willing to be flexible with our opinion as new evidence or ideas arise regarding a given topic.

12/25/2009 3:27:37 PM

please. the comment is referring to lieberman's history of swaying with the polls. not to mention that republican scorn toward the democratic party almost always is on the basis of "flip-flopping."

a politician changing his/her opinion in light of new evidence/results is one thing, but grand-standing and threatening to filibuster is quite another.

12/26/2009 3:02:47 PM

^^he directly advocated for a medicare buy-in because it was in opposition to the public option being put forth by the democrats at the time. and then when the dems switched to basically exactly what he had advocated for for YEARS he all of the sudden can't vote for it in good conscience now that the dems supported it. sounds pretty fishy to me. and i'm not usually one to care about flip-flopping. if he gave some adequate explanation as to what changed his mind then maybe i'd be okay with it. but he didn't.

12/26/2009 3:36:57 PM

Quote :

"roddy: Bridget put in another thread that she has many medical issues, they will not deny you coverage but you will be paying through the nose for it.....so it will be too expensive for you to have."

?

Is there another Bridget posting?

[Edited on December 27, 2009 at 2:49 PM. Reason : ?]

12/27/2009 2:28:40 PM

Alright, the mystery of my medical issues has been solved. Somebody sarcastically suggested that I should join the military, and I lamely joked that I would get so many STDs that they'd have to kick me out.

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: AHA, I'd get so many STDs they'd have to discharge me to keep from running out of antibiotics."

http://brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=551880&page=26

Just wanted to keep you guys updated since I know how much you care.

12/28/2009 2:40:38 PM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/04/biden-ponders-filibuster-reform/?fbid=_uZnLbrB2TV

Quote :

"February 4, 2010 Biden ponders filibuster reform Posted: February 4th, 2010 07:04 PM ET From CNN Congressional Producer Ted Barrett Washington (CNN) - Moments after swearing in Sen. Scott Brown, R-Massachusetts, whose presence in the Senate means Democrats no longer have their 60-vote filibuster-proof supermajority, Vice President Joe Biden told reporters he thinks filibusters have been abused in recent years and that the Senate should consider reforms. "It's a useful tool, it is legitimate. But from my perspective, having served here, elected to the Senate seven times, I've never seen a time when it's become standard operating procedure," Biden said. "You want to get anything done, you have to have a supermajority. Biden noted that filibusters are not called for in the Constitution and the threshold was changed once before – from 67 votes to 60 votes – when it was "recognized as increasingly difficult" to get bills passed. Biden, who spoke to reporters as he was leaving the Capitol, insisted his desire for reform is not because he and President Obama occupy the White House and are struggling to pass their legislative agenda. "Any President in the future, having to move through anything he or she wants, requiring a supermajority, it's not a good way to do business," he said. Biden said he asked his staff to "scrub" the issue, but said he doesn't have a view as to what a new supermajority should be. "

I don't think anything will come of this at all, I mean if they try an honest effort to change the rules on filibustering, they're going to get filibustered.

But for other policy making, I think the GOP has a responsibility to stop the gridlock now that no super-majority exists.

2/4/2010 11:39:39 PM

Quote :

"This argument occurs every time the Houses of Congress or the White House changes parties."

And Bridge....?

We don't care.

2/9/2010 6:40:55 PM