Dems May Go It Alone on Healthcare

[Denny Crane]

Rasmussen just came out with a poll today showing that 57% of Americans support a health care reform with a public option. They did a separate poll showing 34% of Americans would support health care reform without it.

I don't have time to go get the link but I'm sure you guys can find it. It was released today, as opposed to the Rasmussen poll maxiep linked that was done like five days ago.

I support a public option, but no mandates on anyone. And the public option should only be funded by people opting in and buying insurance. If the govt. can subsidize it for some people without raising taxes or borrowing even more, that's fine with me, too.

I don't mind a few other regulations, like making health care portable, or allowing people to buy it from out of state (living in one state, buy it in another).

And tort reform - if you sue someone and lose, you pay their court costs and maybe a little penalty for wasting their time.

That's an actual compromise both sides should be able to live with, but it looks like there is no compromise to be had so we'll have something worse rammed down our throats and massive spending increases that go along with it.

 

[Eastoff]

I support a public option, but no mandates on anyone. And the public option should only be funded by people opting in and buying insurance. If the govt. can subsidize it for some people without raising taxes or borrowing even more, that's fine with me, too.

I don't mind a few other regulations, like making health care portable, or allowing people to buy it from out of state (living in one state, buy it in another).

And tort reform - if you sue someone and lose, you pay their court costs and maybe a little penalty for wasting their time.

That's an actual compromise both sides should be able to live with, but it looks like there is no compromise to be had so we'll have something worse rammed down our throats and massive spending increases that go along with it.

i like this side of you

 

[Denny Crane]

I think the govt. should sell fire, life, auto, malpractice and just about any other kind of insurance under the sun, too.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I think the govt. should sell fire, life, auto, malpractice and just about any other kind of insurance under the sun, too.

You never can have enough insurance . . .

 

[bluefrog]

I support a public option, but no mandates on anyone. And the public option should only be funded by people opting in and buying insurance. If the govt. can subsidize it for some people without raising taxes or borrowing even more, that's fine with me, too.

I don't mind a few other regulations, like making health care portable, or allowing people to buy it from out of state (living in one state, buy it in another).

And tort reform - if you sue someone and lose, you pay their court costs and maybe a little penalty for wasting their time.

I think the average sensible Americans could agree on these points.

 

[mook]

I think the govt. should sell fire, life, auto, malpractice and just about any other kind of insurance under the sun, too.

Yep. If that's there are only one or two providers available.

In Idaho, it seems like if you want health insurance independently, you can basically buy from Blue Cross or go fuck yourself. I'd prefer the choices of Blue Cross, go fuck yourself, or Obama.

If fire, auto, malpractice or just about any other kind of insurance gets this bad here, I certainly wouldn't mind a public option.

 

[adisodes]

I support a public option, but no mandates on anyone. And the public option should only be funded by people opting in and buying insurance. If the govt. can subsidize it for some people without raising taxes or borrowing even more, that's fine with me, too.

I don't mind a few other regulations, like making health care portable, or allowing people to buy it from out of state (living in one state, buy it in another).

And tort reform - if you sue someone and lose, you pay their court costs and maybe a little penalty for wasting their time.

That's an actual compromise both sides should be able to live with, but it looks like there is no compromise to be had so we'll have something worse rammed down our throats and massive spending increases that go along with it.

"Obamacare" doesn't put mandates on anybody. That would NEVER get passed.

Allegedly this health care plan would cost $900 billion over the next ten years and President Obama says two-thirds of that is taken care of already because of deals with the pharmaceutical companies. That leaves $30 billion a year. If the Bush tax cuts are revoked, there's the money for health care reform with a public option. Even though taxes were lower under Clinton than they were under Reagan, people are still gonna freak over the Bush tax cuts being taken away.

There really is no compromise to be had when one side wants a public option (while half of them are pussies are trying to back out) and the other side is working vehemently against a public option.

 

[Denny Crane]

Yep. If that's there are only one or two providers available.

In Idaho, it seems like if you want health insurance independently, you can basically buy from Blue Cross or go fuck yourself. I'd prefer the choices of Blue Cross, go fuck yourself, or Obama.

If fire, auto, malpractice or just about any other kind of insurance gets this bad here, I certainly wouldn't mind a public option.

My thoughts are that people want the govt. to be a safety net and not a way of life. Insurance is, by definition, a safety net. Why stop at health insurance?

If the govt. can provide quality coverage for less, let's see it. If they do, then everyone will want to buy it and it will become what the far left wing of the democratic party wants it to be. Nothing wrong with a little prudence.

He may be all over the place, but if he's truly offering this (see quote), then republicans should jump all over it. And they should assure that taxpayers aren't subsidizing it.

“If the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining -- meaning taxpayers aren’t subsidizing it, but it has to run on charging premiums and providing good services and a good network of doctors, just like any other private insurer would do -- then I think private insurers should be able to compete.”

 

[Denny Crane]

"Obamacare" doesn't put mandates on anybody. That would NEVER get passed.

Allegedly this health care plan would cost $900 billion over the next ten years and President Obama says two-thirds of that is taken care of already because of deals with the pharmaceutical companies. That leaves $30 billion a year. If the Bush tax cuts are revoked, there's the money for health care reform with a public option. Even though taxes were lower under Clinton than they were under Reagan, people are still gonna freak over the Bush tax cuts being taken away.

There really is no compromise to be had when one side wants a public option (while half of them are pussies are trying to back out) and the other side is working vehemently against a public option.

Fuzzy math.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/16/AR2009071602242.html

Lawmakers Warned About Health Costs

CBO Chief Says Democrats' Proposals Lack Necessary Controls on Spending

Congress's chief budget analyst delivered a devastating assessment yesterday of the health-care proposals drafted by congressional Democrats, fueling an insurrection among fiscal conservatives in the House and pushing negotiators in the Senate to redouble efforts to draw up a new plan that more effectively restrains federal spending.

Under questioning by members of the Senate Budget Committee, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said bills crafted by House leaders and the Senate health committee do not propose "the sort of fundamental changes" necessary to rein in the skyrocketing cost of government health programs, particularly Medicare. On the contrary, Elmendorf said, the measures would pile on an expensive new program to cover the uninsured.

 

[adisodes]

Fuzzy math.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/16/AR2009071602242.html

Lawmakers Warned About Health Costs

CBO Chief Says Democrats' Proposals Lack Necessary Controls on Spending

Congress's chief budget analyst delivered a devastating assessment yesterday of the health-care proposals drafted by congressional Democrats, fueling an insurrection among fiscal conservatives in the House and pushing negotiators in the Senate to redouble efforts to draw up a new plan that more effectively restrains federal spending.

Under questioning by members of the Senate Budget Committee, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said bills crafted by House leaders and the Senate health committee do not propose "the sort of fundamental changes" necessary to rein in the skyrocketing cost of government health programs, particularly Medicare. On the contrary, Elmendorf said, the measures would pile on an expensive new program to cover the uninsured.

That's why I used the word allegedly, my friend.

But your article is dated back mid-July. If there were deals cut with pharmaceutical companies to cover most of the incurring costs, this would have been done last week.

 

[barfo]

I think the govt. should sell fire, life, auto, malpractice and just about any other kind of insurance under the sun, too.

I'm for that.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

Rasmussen just came out with a poll today showing that 57% of Americans support a health care reform with a public option. They did a separate poll showing 34% of Americans would support health care reform without it.

I don't have time to go get the link but I'm sure you guys can find it. It was released today, as opposed to the Rasmussen poll maxiep linked that was done like five days ago.

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...e_reform_especially_among_democrats_collapses

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 57% oppose the plan if it doesn't include a government-run health insurance plan to compete with private insurers.

That's different from supporting it. It includes those who oppose any reform, which Rasmussen reported to be 54%. All it does is make Democrats and Independents less likely to support a bill while Republicans are more likely to support it.

 

[Denny Crane]

That's why I used the word allegedly, my friend.

But your article is dated back mid-July. If there were deals cut with pharmaceutical companies to cover most of the incurring costs, this would have been done last week.

The cost of the Bill I've seen are $1.6T over 10 years for 10M people.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jqi0vd508ygGwuXhWnP0tMBDigkQD9A65H8O0

"The drug makers went first in making a deal with the White House, agreeing to pick up $80 billion in additional costs over the next decade to help defray the expenses of the legislation."

That's $8B of the $160B cost per year.

"The American Hospital Association agreed to shoulder an additional $155 billion."

There's $15.5B of the $160B cost per year.

"In exchange, both won assurances the White House would protect them against attempts in Congress to seek additional cuts in their projected Medicare and Medicaid payments.
The American Medical Association's key issue was different. Doctors hope the legislation will allow them to avoid a looming 21 percent cut in payments under Medicare. The cost to the government for that would be about $230 billion over a decade."


Add back $23B and it's a wash.

 

[adisodes]

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...e_reform_especially_among_democrats_collapses



That's different from supporting it. It includes those who oppose any reform, which Rasmussen reported to be 54%. All it does is make Democrats and Independents less likely to support a bill while Republicans are more likely to support it.

Like (I thought) I said, I read it earlier in the day and did not have time to go find it. So sorry if I got the whole oppose/support thing mixed up. Point is, the poll wasn't multi-faceted. It was a yes or no on public option. Sorry I used the word support.

But supported something with a public option and opposing something without a public option sounds awfully similar. Nit-picky, no?

 

[Denny Crane]

Additionally,

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/cbo-obama-healthcare-to-cost-1-trillion

The attached table summarizes our preliminary assessment of the proposal’ s budgetary effects and its likely impact on insurance coverage. According to that assessment, enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010–2019 period. Once the proposal was fully implemented, about 39 million individuals would obtain coverage through the new insurance exchanges. At the same time, the number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million, so the net decrease in the number of people uninsured would be about 16 million.

Signed,

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director
U.S. Congress

 

[adisodes]

The cost of the Bill I've seen are $1.6T over 10 years for 10M people.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jqi0vd508ygGwuXhWnP0tMBDigkQD9A65H8O0

"The drug makers went first in making a deal with the White House, agreeing to pick up $80 billion in additional costs over the next decade to help defray the expenses of the legislation."

That's $8B of the $160B cost per year.

"The American Hospital Association agreed to shoulder an additional $155 billion."

There's $15.5B of the $160B cost per year.

"In exchange, both won assurances the White House would protect them against attempts in Congress to seek additional cuts in their projected Medicare and Medicaid payments.
The American Medical Association's key issue was different. Doctors hope the legislation will allow them to avoid a looming 21 percent cut in payments under Medicare. The cost to the government for that would be about $230 billion over a decade."


Add back $23B and it's a wash.

Again, I used the word allegedly. From my understanding, and I haven't been following this as closely as I should or would if I were taking classes, but there are multiple plans out there. The 1.6 trillion plan was the first one, right? I'm not sure which one they're playing around with right now.

I just don't see it passing without a public option. And if it did have a public option, it's going to be a blood bath to get it passed. Kinda sad that our country is so evenly and passionately divided. But what else is new, right?

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I should drink myself silly because I had to wait at the DMV while 400 illegals sat around smelling of BO and screaming their jibber jabber language. Yeah, my bad. Go Dems.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

 

[Denny Crane]

Again, I used the word allegedly. From my understanding, and I haven't been following this as closely as I should or would if I were taking classes, but there are multiple plans out there. The 1.6 trillion plan was the first one, right? I'm not sure which one they're playing around with right now.

I just don't see it passing without a public option. And if it did have a public option, it's going to be a blood bath to get it passed. Kinda sad that our country is so evenly and passionately divided. But what else is new, right?

Read the article, it talks about the special interests on both sides of the issue, as well as the costs.

They were allegedly going to cut the cost from $1.6T down to $1.1T with $500B in cuts to medicare, but I don't see that really happening, do you?

And do note I support a public option, just not one that costs $.01 in additional taxes or borrowing.

I'm not that far off from collecting on the 45 years I'll have paid into Social Security, and all the interest payments on the debt we're currently racking up will do is endanger that program and many others.

 

[adisodes]

Read the article, it talks about the special interests on both sides of the issue, as well as the costs.

They were allegedly going to cut the cost from $1.6T down to $1.1T with $500B in cuts to medicare, but I don't see that really happening, do you?

And do note I support a public option, just not one that costs $.01 in additional taxes or borrowing.

I'm not that far off from collecting on the 45 years I'll have paid into Social Security, and all the interest payments on the debt we're currently racking up will do is endanger that program and many others.

I support a public option too. I personally believe it is the most important issue in this country so I think we should work to insure everybody by any means necessary. Not single-payer though. I'm not looking to get involved in a huge argument over taxation and whatnot, I'm just letting you know.

 

[Denny Crane]

I support a public option too. I personally believe it is the most important issue in this country so I think we should work to insure everybody by any means necessary. Not single-payer though. I'm not looking to get involved in a huge argument over taxation and whatnot, I'm just letting you know.

Look at the CBO projections again. Net 16M will be insured for a huge cost. I don't see that paying $10,000 per person to cover their flu shots and hangnails makes any sense at all.

$1.6T / 16M / 10 years = $10,000

Heck, I thought my own plan was expensive at $3500/year.

 

[MARIS61]

If the Democrats force this bill through based on their own party alone, they're going to get re-elected by a landslide in 2010.

Fixed it for you.

 

[maxiep]

Like (I thought) I said, I read it earlier in the day and did not have time to go find it. So sorry if I got the whole oppose/support thing mixed up. Point is, the poll wasn't multi-faceted. It was a yes or no on public option. Sorry I used the word support.

But supported something with a public option and opposing something without a public option sounds awfully similar. Nit-picky, no?

It's not "nit-picky"; you completely mischaracterized the results.

 

[adisodes]

It's not "nit-picky"; you completely mischaracterized the results.

Two things...

1) I was in a rush and did not do it on purpose.
2) It's practically the same thing.

 

[maxiep]

Two things...

1) I was in a rush and did not do it on purpose.
2) It's practically the same thing.

I understand you didn't do it on purpose. It was a mistake; everyone makes them. I make more than others.

However, it's not close to the same thing. 54% of people would rather have the status quo than what the House is proposing. Now 57% of people would be against the bill without the public option. In a Venn Diagram, there's a massive overlap between those who would rather have the status quo and those who wouldn't want this bill without the public option.

In fact, according to Rasmussen, more Republicans would be willing to support the legislation, but fewer Democrats and Independents.

 

[adisodes]

People's opinions are too volatile.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/20/new-poll-77-percent-suppo_n_264375.html

 

[maxiep]

People's opinions are too volatile.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/20/new-poll-77-percent-suppo_n_264375.html

Especially when they're slanted. This particular line caught my eye on the web page http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5ba17aa2-f1b9-4445-a6b8-62b9d1ba8693

Sponsor:
MoveOn.org Political Action

 

[adisodes]

Rasmussen is slanted too. lol