alright, since you are gonna pay for it, I'm just gonna start eating bonbons and refusing to exercise. I'm just gonna really fuck you over something good, lol

3/20/2010 6:04:29 PM

somehow i don't think that's much of a stretch from your current lifestyle

3/20/2010 6:05:17 PM

you'd be surprised

3/20/2010 6:05:46 PM

so, let me get this straight. you are incredibly fit, but yet so enraged with this change in policy, that you're willing to sacrifice your general well-being to prove a point?

you may be the first martyr in the history of mankind to go on a food-binge.

3/20/2010 6:08:03 PM

http://budget.house.gov/doc-library/FY2010/03.15.2010_reconciliation2010.PDF

I'm still curious about the relevance of the House reconciliation bill at this point in time.

It includes the public option, starting at page 1167, line 16.

If the Slaughter rule has been abandoned, will the Senate then vote on this House reconciliation bill? Or will it go straight to the president's desk? Or neither?

3/20/2010 6:08:05 PM

the senate will have to vote on the reconciliation portion as well. and no, the public option will NOT pass muster for reconciliation. unless the Democrats want an all-out civil war on their hands

3/20/2010 6:10:52 PM

^^it will go to senate and if they dont like it then we keep the current senate bill. thats whats funny about the whole process.

3/20/2010 6:18:09 PM

Quote :

"none of this has anything to do with healthcare. if people hated healthcare and hated bush they wouldve elected one of the MANY candidates that wasn't named bush, didn't support bush and didn't support healthcare overhaul."

Your understanding of elections in our two party system, displayed in this and other posts ITT, is sorely lacking. In America we elect candidates to offices. For the most part, we do not hold referenda. One cannot associate a vote for a candidate with the approval or disapproval of one specific policy item, health care included. Regarding the last presidential election, Obama ran a perfect campaign. To the average voter, the choice was Obama or Bush 2.0. That may not have been reality, but it was the perception. Proposing that choice to voters was Obama's aim, and he executed very well. Furthermore, our system is firmly two party. Period. Libertarians and the like are often great candidates, but the polarization between Democrats and Republicans forces any third party into lost cause territory. Democratic voters, for example, are voting as much, if not more, TO PREVENT the enactment of Republican policies, than they are voting TO PROMOTE the enactment of Democrat policies.

3/20/2010 6:23:47 PM

This is totally legit since people called Bush a stupid war criminal. Tit for tat. You call someone a war criminal, we'll threaten to fucking shoot him.



That was from a rally featuring actual GOP congresspersons today. Someone want to justify how this is "the average angry American"?

3/20/2010 6:28:00 PM

considering just how angry the populace is about this bill, it's not surprising. And when you factor in the illegal processes they are using, you have situation that could very well be a powderkeg.

3/20/2010 7:33:38 PM

what illegal processes exactly?

3/20/2010 7:41:54 PM

^don't you know? its in the constitution that only republicans can use reconciliation.

3/20/2010 7:59:27 PM

The quickest way to tell if Obama is lying to the American people, is to watch his mouth, if it's moving, he's lying

3/20/2010 8:11:40 PM

that's a clever new joke you've made!

3/20/2010 8:13:13 PM

or if he says "let me be clear" or "make no mistake." Generally, when he says that, he's about to spout some bullshit.

as to the illegalities, the Slaughter rule would be one of them, if they used it. Another would be using reconciliation to implement the public option.

3/20/2010 8:53:16 PM

seriously though...anyone notice that when he speaks, especially on TV...the stock market takes a dive, and when he shuts his pie hole...it recovers...??

3/20/2010 9:15:52 PM

^^
Would the public option not be sufficiently budget-related?

3/20/2010 9:33:39 PM

Tea party protesters call Georgia's John Lewis 'nigger'

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — Demonstrators outside the U.S. Capitol , angry over the proposed health care bill, shouted "nigger" Saturday at U.S. Rep. John Lewis , a Georgia congressman and civil rights icon who was nearly beaten to death during an Alabama march in the 1960s. The protesters also shouted obscenities at other members of the Congressional Black Caucus , lawmakers said. "They were shouting, sort of harassing," Lewis said. "But, it's okay, I've faced this before. It reminded me of the 60s. It was a lot of downright hate and anger and people being downright mean." Lewis said he was leaving the Cannon office building across from the Capitol when protesters shouted "Kill the bill, kill the bill," Lewis said. "I said 'I'm for the bill, I support the bill, I'm voting for the bill'," Lewis said. A colleague who was accompanying Lewis said people in the crowd responded by saying "Kill the bill, then the n-word." "It surprised me that people are so mean and we can't engage in a civil dialogue and debate," Lewis said. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver , D- Mo. , said he was a few yards behind Lewis and distinctly heard "nigger." "It was a chorus," Cleaver said. "In a way, I feel sorry for those people who are doing this nasty stuff - they're being whipped up. I decided I wouldn't be angry with any of them." Protestors also used a slur as they confronted Rep. Barney Frank , D- Mass. , an openly gay member of Congress . A writer for Huffington Post said the crowd called Frank a "faggot." Frank told the Boston Globe that the incident happened as he was walking from the Longworth office building to the Rayburn office building, both a short distance from the Capitol. Frank said the crowd consisted of a couple of hundred of people and that they referred to him as 'homo.' "I'm disappointed with the unwillingness to be civil," Frank told the Globe. "I was, I guess, surprised by the rancor. What it means is obviously the health care bill is proxy for a lot of other sentiments, some of which are perfectly reasonable, but some of which are not." "People out there today, on the whole, were really hateful," Frank said. "The leaders of this movement have a responsibility to speak out more." Thousands of demonstrators gathered outside the Capitol on Saturday as the House Democratic leadership worked to gather enough votes to enact a health care overhaul proposal that has become the centerpiece of President Barack Obama's domestic agenda. Most were affiliated with so-called tea party organizations that originally sprang up during last summer's protests of the health care proposals. Heated debate has surrounded what role race plays in the motivations of the tea party demonstrators. During protests last summer, demonstrators displayed a poster depicting Obama as an African witch doctor complete with headdress, above the words "OBAMACARE coming to a clinic near you." Former President Jimmy Carter asserted in September that racism was a major factor behind the hostility that Obama's proposals had faced. The claim brought angry rebuttals from Republicans. On Saturday, Frank, however, said he was sorry Republican leaders didn't do more to disown the protesters. Some Republicans "think they are benefiting from this rancor," he said. House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D- S.C. , said Saturday's ugliness underscored for him that the health care overhaul isn't the only motivation for many protesters. "I heard people saying things today I've not heard since March 15th, 1960 , when I was marching to try and get off the back of the bus," Clyburn said. "This is incredible, shocking to me." He added, "A lot of us have said for a long time that none of this is about healthcare at all. It's about extending a basic fundamental right to people who are less powerful.""

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/3457015

Way to stay classy til the end Tea Baggers! *thumbs up*

3/20/2010 10:41:17 PM

In before "We're not racists, we just don't like Obama/Healthcare/Democrats!"

3/20/2010 11:09:25 PM

Quote :

"seriously though...anyone notice that when he speaks, especially on TV...the stock market takes a dive, and when he shuts his pie hole...it recovers...??"

no i didn't. do you have any proof?

3/20/2010 11:42:09 PM

"Health care should pass tomorrow: now I can finally start smoking!" - Michael Ian Black

3/20/2010 11:53:42 PM

Quote :

"Would the public option not be sufficiently budget-related?"

nope, not even close. How do you figure that the gov't running a new insurance company is directly and only budget related

3/21/2010 12:19:00 AM

Does anyone know at what time this bill will be brought to the floor?

Also, dems just lost a Yes vote...

Quote :

"For the first time since Wednesday, Democrats lost a vote. Rep. Zack Space, a second-term lawmaker from a swing district in eastern Ohio, said he would vote "no" Sunday, a switch from his vote for health care in November. "

Does this flip mean that democrats have managed to get enough votes to give Zack Space a reprieve?

[Edited on March 21, 2010 at 9:23 AM. Reason : s]

3/21/2010 9:22:13 AM

I will be glad to see this thing pass - if for nothing else than to watch aaronburro get frothed up into a lather.

Our national healthcare system is a disgrace. It's nice to see that there are people out there with the courage to do something about it.

3/21/2010 9:55:40 AM

^^ yes. the margin is apparently at least a handful. the key words there are "swing district"

^ don't confuse courage with political necessity.

3/21/2010 10:41:42 AM

Quote :

"I will be glad to see this thing pass - if for nothing else than to watch aaronburro get frothed up into a lather."

Go check out the forums on hannity.com

Quote :

"Mm, your tears are so yummy and sweet! "

3/21/2010 11:24:19 AM

It's sad when issues like this become nothing more than a partisan game of "gotcha!" There's no concern about reasonable objections to the bill, because the assumption is that any legislation Democrats come out with is going to be "better than nothing."

3/21/2010 11:35:52 AM

hasn't any reasonable objection been responded to?

3/21/2010 11:44:31 AM

Not adequately.

3/21/2010 11:46:34 AM

Ok, which ones?

3/21/2010 11:47:22 AM

The bill doesn't address health care costs, which is the problem. All it does it try to regulate the problem away, which won't work.

The bill doesn't address problems with the tax code, which connects employment to insurance. The bill makes it so people with pre-existing conditions can't be denied, which is stupid. It levies a fee on any business that chooses not provide benefits, which is going to hurt businesses. There's about a dozen other things I could mention on this bill, but there's no point in rehashing everything that has been said in this thread. I've made many of the same points over and over again, and so have other people.

3/21/2010 11:56:56 AM

Quote :

"The bill doesn't address health care costs, which is the problem."

The CBO analysis is an adequate response to that concern.

3/21/2010 12:00:16 PM

^ to which the rebuttal is compare current medicare costs to previous projections.

... and it is apples to oranges anyway. so no, the cbo analysis is not an adequate response to that concern. the cbo estimates the cost of the bill and estimates the bill's deficit implications. the cbo has estimated a net deficit reduction. this does not mean that the cbo has estimated a reduction in health care spending, which inevitably rises. the cbo merely estimates that the cost of the bill will be made up for, plus $x, via tax increases, "cadillac" taxes, fraud reduction, etc.

3/21/2010 12:16:45 PM

^^Yeah wtf the CBO analysis has no bearing on the cost of healthcare. It just looks at the cost of the bill to the government. Also, the CBO is not credible.

3/21/2010 12:29:04 PM

does anyone have a link to a good, unbiased summary of the bill?

3/21/2010 12:31:05 PM

http://www.kansas.com/2010/03/19/1232064/democrats-release-health-bill.html

That's recent.

3/21/2010 12:32:13 PM

The bill is a guarantee for costs of health care to continue to rise at the current rate. The rate of increase in costs was obviously not sustainable and that's why we needed the government to come in and mandate insurance coverage.

If they were interested in helping the situation... at all... they would have focused on the physical nonsensical-ness of the way we provide health care and build a system that encourages people to take care of themselves.

There is serious innovation nipping at the heals of the monopoly of hospitals. In half a year the market could provide near zero-cost diagnostics from the internet that would beat the pants off any regular checkup.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ew0bn8mGAA

But no body cares about such approaches that reduce cost because no one is interested in reducing costs. With the structure of the system the only innovation of interest is a development that justifies mandating a higher cost. Prescription drug makers know this and insurance companies know this.

With the way things were going, we could have seen the evolution of a direct-pay market for health care where destitute Americans could get themselves reasonable care through innovative and cheap methods. That was the problem this bill fixes. Now we all get the same care. Delivered by a certified MD, at a certified hospital, audited such that it can receive payment from insurers. Regardless of how much it costs or whether or not we have enough MDs to do this.

Because otherwise people might die or something. And it's better to have people die with universal coverage than without it. Or something like that.

[Edited on March 21, 2010 at 12:53 PM. Reason : ]

3/21/2010 12:53:05 PM

and we will lose a lot of doctors because not as many slimeballs will be going into it for the money

3/21/2010 12:56:23 PM

do not feed the troll

3/21/2010 1:43:54 PM

The claim that 1/3rd of doctors will quit if the legislation is passed is fairly bogus.

However, the fact remains that we don't have enough doctors as things stand to treat hardly the current people receiving health care and adding 35 million individuals will almost certainly cause there to be a major imbalance. And they've done SQUAT to ramp up the number coming out of med school and there's no sign of the situation turning around.

Does this mean people will be denied treatment, etc. etc.? Maybe, and maybe not. But you can write whatever you want in a bill - it doesn't change the physical reality of the situation. If there are not enough X people to do Y number of Z procedure, and you mandate Y of Z, then you will not get it.

3/21/2010 2:22:35 PM

^theres student loan legislature built into this bill. They are a step ahead.

3/21/2010 2:34:23 PM

Quote :

"to which the rebuttal is compare current medicare costs to previous projections"

Can you post that rebuttal?

Quote :

"the cbo merely estimates that the cost of the bill will be made up for, plus $x, via tax increases, "cadillac" taxes, fraud reduction, etc."

Ok, so what's the problem?

3/21/2010 2:57:14 PM

google will reveal that failure of an estimation. three words: orders of magnitude.

3/21/2010 3:04:38 PM

you can tell an argument is sound when the person doesn't even make it.

3/21/2010 3:30:13 PM

Quote :

"google will reveal that failure of an estimation."

Google didn't make that claim, so google doesn't have to back it up.

3/21/2010 3:56:15 PM

^x4 - http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/checking-the-math-on-health-care/

This is a decent break down of the myriad ways in which the CBO estimations have the potential to be flawed. This boils down to the fact that the CBO makes an estimation, based on assumptions - some of which are probable, some of which are not so probable, for reasons political and otherwise. The article also details how the bottom line of this bill has been altered by the conscious decisions to include or not include certain related or unrelated policies. For example, the expensive "doc fix" was left out, while the money saving student loan reform was included. It doesn't matter that student loans have nothing to do with health care, what matters is they are used as one way to pay for the spending in the bill. Whether doing so is ethical is a wholly different topic.

Quote :

"Ok, so what's the problem?"

You wrote, in response to a previous post, that the CBO analysis is an adequate response to the concern that the bill does not address rising health care spending. Wrong. Finding a way to pay for rising health care costs is not the same as addressing the underlying causes for rising health care costs. If you are unable or unwilling to understand this than I don't think I can help you.

A perfect example of Medicare spending outpacing projections AND the dubious nature of projections based on politically accessible regulations is the "doc fix". Medicare payments to physicians were "reformed" in the 90s to be tied to GDP growth. Medicare spending, in this regard, has greatly outpaced projections, because there has not been the political will to enforce reimbursement cuts in recent years.

[Edited on March 21, 2010 at 4:38 PM. Reason : ]

3/21/2010 4:19:41 PM

Quote :

"The cost of Medicare is a good place to begin. At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost only about $ 12 billion by 1990 (a figure that included an allowance for inflation). This was a supposedly "conservative" estimate. But in 1990 Medicare actually cost $107 billion. ... This plan ran into trouble by the insurance suggests early 1970s, again because the cost of medical care rose faster than income. Elderly enrollees, many of whom lived on fixed incomes, were paying an increasing share of their income for supplemental-insurance premiums. In the 1972 amendments, Congress stipulated that these premiums could rise no faster than Social Security benefits, regardless of program costs. Since 1972, the supplemental program has required ever larger subsidies from the general fund. The result: The Treasury now coughs up $3 for every $1 paid in premiums. In typical Orwellian doublespeak, Congress continues to describe the program as "self-supporting." It seems never to have occurred to anyone during the debates about Medicare that increasing the demand for health services would generate huge pressures on hospital costs. The planners seem to have overlooked the fact that if you shift the demand curve sharply outward without moving the supply curve, prices will go up. The original 1965 cost projections allowed for a 10-percent increase in hospital-admission rates among the elderly, but in fact hospital-admission rates among the Medicare-eligible rose immediately by 25 percent, the rates for surgical procedure by 40 percent, and the number of hospital days by 50 percent. "

http://reason.com/archives/1993/01/01/the-medicare-monster/

And here we are almost 20 years later having the same discussion all over again.

3/21/2010 5:15:53 PM

you're trying to help him?

this entire debate has nothing to do with healthcare, which is why making sound arguments about costs and rationing falls on deaf ears.

This is all about consolidating power. Good luck convincing a liberal that it is a bad idea for their side to consolidate power for generations to come.

[Edited on March 21, 2010 at 5:18 PM. Reason : s]

3/21/2010 5:16:47 PM

they made a deal to take federal funding of abortions. I'm all for this bill now 100% and so are a good amount of pro-life democrats.

3/21/2010 5:50:21 PM

Quote :

"We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat. There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother? I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds. So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours."

--David Frum.


Pretty much.

3/21/2010 7:14:36 PM