Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='UncleBob']Yes, yes, the Democrats have majority control in the House, Senate and the Executive Branch... and it's the evil Republican's fault that they still managed to do virtually nothing.

I swear, the Democrats could have 100% of Congress and the Presidency, still not get anything done and it'd still be Bush's fault.[/QUOTE]
They didn't get shit done because they were naively trying to get bi-partisan support. That was Obama's mistake as i said, trying to reach out to the republicans. He should have told them to fuck off.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']They didn't get shit done because they were naively trying to get bi-partisan support. That was Obama's mistake as i said, trying to reach out to the republicans. He should have told them to fuck off.[/QUOTE]

Are you kidding? The Republicans were completely excluded in the process. In the end, Democratic senators shook down their own party to grab whatever goodies they could get for their own state, like Nelson did.

The funny thing is that the bill looks a lot like what we have in Massachusetts which was implemented by none other than Mitt Romney, a Republican governor before he left office.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Conservatives hate it because of who proposed it.

I hate it because it's toothless as fuck. No public option = no fucking point.

In ten years, we'll slap our heads when we realize people still don't have good coverage, health care is still expensive as all fuck, and the fat cats in the health care and insurance industries are laughing all the way to the bank.

And I'll blame Republicans who put party ahead of country, and the Democrats who are too weak-willed to do anything on their own. They'll bend over backwards for Republican bills in the name of bipartisanship, and never learn that they simply will never get the same thing in return.

Piece of shit bill. Thanks, assholes on the right and wimps on the left.

EDIT: Oh, it looks like they just voted to end the Republican filibuster. The actual bill hasn't been voted on yet. Not that it changes any of the above as gospel truth. They'll vote on the bill on Christmas Eve. How fucking quaint.[/QUOTE]


Agreed. As I've said before in this thread, without a public option I don't see how this really helps. Not allowing denials for pre-existing conditions etc. is great. But without a non-profit public option out there, I don't see how that won't lead to rate increases as those extra costs get passed onto consumers so insurance execs can keep lining their pockets.
 
[quote name='dopa345']Are you kidding? The Republicans were completely excluded in the process.[/quote]

If your perspective is that the quality, affordability, and availability of health insurance and health care in the United States is grade-A and something that doesn't need to be changed at all, then there's not a whole lot of need for inclusion, is there?

The entire Republican platform on health care has been that the health care system is flawless, available to everyone, and easily within anyone's financial reach. It's a wholeheartedly naive perspective, one refuted by their medicare reform of 2006, and exposes them, unless you're wearing blinders, to their concern with only protecting the wealthy in the US at the expense of everyone else.

In the end, Democratic senators shook down their own party to grab whatever goodies they could get for their own state, like Nelson did.
Click to expand...

Troof, shamefully. And they did so while stripping the reform of the most essential provisions, like a public option that would provide affordable health care to folks while slowly draining the lifeblood from the vampires in the health insurance industry.
 
[quote name='dopa345']The Republicans were completely excluded in the process.[/quote]

That isn't anywhere near true.

In the end they shut themselves out of the process but a lot of effort was made to include them, they acted in complete bad faith whenever they were however.
 
[quote name='dopa345']Are you kidding? The Republicans were completely excluded in the process. In the end, Democratic senators shook down their own party to grab whatever goodies they could get for their own state, like Nelson did.

The funny thing is that the bill looks a lot like what we have in Massachusetts which was implemented by none other than Mitt Romney, a Republican governor before he left office.[/QUOTE]
Obama has been preaching bi-partisanship since he took office, on everything. The republiacns excluded themselves by completely refusing to accept anything proposed by the democrats.

This is basically what happened, i'll use a school yard example since it seems fitting.

Dems: We're playing dodge ball.
Reps: We don't want to play dodge ball.
Dems: Tough, thats what we're playing.
Reps: Then we won't play.
Dems: Fine, we'll play without you.
 
Yeah, it's funny... I remember Bush talking about how he was going to be all bi-partisan when he took office as well.

Isn't it odd how political candidates say one thing, then do another?

As for the idea that Republicans don't think the current system needs reformed, that's bull shit and you know it when you say it. Myke - find me one Republican congressman/woman who has said that "the health care system is flawless, available to everyone, and easily within anyone's financial reach" and I'll buy you a Coke.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Obama has been preaching bi-partisanship since he took office, on everything. The republiacns excluded themselves by completely refusing to accept anything proposed by the democrats.

This is basically what happened, i'll use a school yard example since it seems fitting.

Dems: We're playing dodge ball.
Reps: We don't want to play dodge ball.
Dems: Tough, thats what we're playing.
Reps: Then we won't play.
Dems: Fine, we'll play without you.[/QUOTE]

no, see bipartisan ship isn't republicans rolling over and supporting what the democrats propose. it's two groups working together on a bill, not one group shutting the other one out of closed door meetings that the jist of the bill is being written in. there is a difference between bipartisan ship and doing whatever the democrats decide to do.
 
Yes, the Rs don't want to be blamed for anything going wrong and Ds want to be able to blame the Rs if something goes wrong. That happened with Bush I's tax increase.

In the meantime, more people will die from having no healthcare and everybody will forget the two wars going on.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']no, see bipartisan ship isn't republicans rolling over and supporting what the democrats propose. it's two groups working together on a bill, not one group shutting the other one out of closed door meetings that the jist of the bill is being written in. there is a difference between bipartisan ship and doing whatever the democrats decide to do.[/QUOTE]

Right. It's more like one side refusing to concede certain issues, and the other side refusing to participate until those issues are compromised. It's a stalemate, and since the Dems have the majority, they just decided to exclude the Rs.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Right. It's more like one side refusing to concede certain issues, and the other side refusing to participate until those issues are compromised. It's a stalemate, and since the Dems have the majority, they just decided to exclude the Rs.[/QUOTE]

i think the bill is getting changed more by the blue dogs than it is republicans. though certainly the repubicans are getting some influence in there. this bill is turning into exactly what i said i didnt want to happen. about 60 pages or so ago i said that i want them to go full out on reform (whether its something i agree with or not) or dont bother. and sure enough its gotted raped over and over with earmarks and favors to win votes that this health care "reform" is more like a health care slight adjustment for a little while.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Right. It's more like one side refusing to concede certain issues, and the other side refusing to participate until those issues are compromised. It's a stalemate, and since the Dems have the majority, they just decided to exclude the Rs.[/QUOTE]

That's absurd.

Abortion's out.
Public option's out.
Individual mandate's out.

Yet not a single Republican would even entertain the idea of voting to end the filibuster, let alone the final bill itself. You act like the original version of the bill hasn't changed at all throughout the process, and I don't know what kinda fuckin' Candy Land you live in if you think that this is the case.

Given how many fatal concessions to the bill happened between its proposal and this week, what the fuck else would you want taken from it before you would find it crossed the threshold of "bipartisan"?

The Republicans legislatively get what they want (a neutered, toothless bill) and they get politically what they want (to stay true blue to their dipshit conservative base, since they get what they want and don't have to vote for it).

I mean, seriously. Your entire argument is premised on the Democrats unwillingness to make concessions on the bill. Which is contradicted by the real fucking world. Sometimes I don't know why I bother with you.
 
States can elect to opt out.

State's rights (in this aspect) are championed by the Democrat bill. Doesn't that give you a raging conservative boner right now?
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I live in Tennessee, and i have been turned down by Blue Cross.

Btw, for anyone who is paranoid about people having info on you, these insurance companies have about as much dirt on you as the police/government. When i applied to Humana, the woman was able to see my medical history all the way back to 1999, shit that i couldn't even remember. The info they can get from whatever medical info service they use is amazing.[/QUOTe]

Probably an APS ordered by them attached to your SS#. They can pull up RX info as well. Think of it as a drivers license # but this one is health related.

I mean a small comment like your back hurt that day, or your depressed due to the crappy weather, those can stick with you if the doctor notes them and puts them into your file.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']i think the bill is getting changed more by the blue dogs than it is republicans. though certainly the repubicans are getting some influence in there.
[/quote]

It's both. Blue dogs kept them for having 60 votes with a public option, more liberal abortion policy, etc.

But the "party of no" kept them from even picking up a vote or two from the other party to offset a Nelson etc.

this bill is turning into exactly what i said i didnt want to happen. about 60 pages or so ago i said that i want them to go full out on reform (whether its something i agree with or not) or dont bother. and sure enough its gotted raped over and over with earmarks and favors to win votes that this health care "reform" is more like a health care slight adjustment for a little while.
Click to expand...

Agreed. As I said a couple posts above, I just don't see how these changes won't raise premiums with the lack of a non-profit public option to force prices down.

But at least it's some slight change that should expand coverage a bit I suppose, and I don't mind paying a bit more in premiums if a few million more have coverage.

Hopefully it will be a starting point for a bigger change down the road--though it will probably be a long ways off as I imagine the Democrats will lose seats in 2010 and 2012.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']States can elect to opt out.

State's rights (in this aspect) are championed by the Democrat bill. Doesn't that give you a raging conservative boner right now?[/QUOTE]

ya, you figured it out. i have a raging conservative boner :roll:
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']no, see bipartisan ship isn't republicans rolling over and supporting what the democrats propose. it's two groups working together on a bill, not one group shutting the other one out of closed door meetings that the jist of the bill is being written in. there is a difference between bipartisan ship and doing whatever the democrats decide to do.[/QUOTE]

Did you read the article I linked to?

What you said is just completely at odds with reality.

Do you even care anymore?

I mean seriously this isn't a matter of opinion, it is a difference between bizarro world and the real one.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Do we get the option to buy insurance from other states? Because that's what I'd really like to see.[/QUOTE]

Nope, because that would make too much sense.
 
Perhaps, as a doc, you can explain to me how that would change anything.

Doesn't Humana exist in Mass? BC/BS?

Such an argument about "interstate commerce" overlooks that the major players in health insurance are large, wealthy corporations that do business in virtually every state. They have no incentive to change how they compete.

This "market will resolve itself" argument seems so full of helplessly naive optimism, in my view. The market doesn't resolve itself against monopolies without government intervention. Do you think Ma Bell wouldn't still be in business if they weren't busted up by the federal government?
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']no, see bipartisan ship isn't republicans rolling over and supporting what the democrats propose. it's two groups working together on a bill, not one group shutting the other one out of closed door meetings that the jist of the bill is being written in. there is a difference between bipartisan ship and doing whatever the democrats decide to do.[/QUOTE]
The damn thing has already been de-fanged to the point that insurance companies actually like it, what else could the republicans want?
 
[quote name='Snake2715']Probably an APS ordered by them attached to your SS#. They can pull up RX info as well. Think of it as a drivers license # but this one is health related.

I mean a small comment like your back hurt that day, or your depressed due to the crappy weather, those can stick with you if the doctor notes them and puts them into your file.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, something small turns into something huge when insurance companies see it. You're right about the prescriptions, stuff that i didn't even remember. They shouldn't have access to that stuff. What if you piss off someone who just happens to work at an insurance company, what stops them from checking out your medical history?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Myke: Can you come up with any good reason to prohibit individuals from purchasing insurance from another state?[/QUOTE]

Don't try to dodge my question and ask another one. Aristotle you ain't. What do you feel is so self-evident about allowing interstate purchase of health care that will cause it to reduce health insurance premiums and/or assist those with pre-existing conditions?

How will such a change create a more desirable health care system? It's substantially less intuitive and crystal clear than you seem to give it credit for.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Yes, the Rs don't want to be blamed for anything going wrong and Ds want to be able to blame the Rs if something goes wrong. That happened with Bush I's tax increase.

In the meantime, more people will die from having no healthcare and everybody will forget the two wars going on.[/QUOTE]

100% correct. Republicans are happy that they can all vote against the bill, and do so with strong public support for their position on the issue. Of course they are. They want no part of the cesspool created by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi behind closed doors with their lobbyist friends, and more power to them. It was really made easy for them since the Democrats never really tried to work with them at all in the House, and only Max Baucus tried (and mostly failed) in the Senate.

[quote name='mykevermin']That's absurd.

Abortion's out.
Public option's out.
Individual mandate's out.

Yet not a single Republican would even entertain the idea of voting to end the filibuster, let alone the final bill itself. You act like the original version of the bill hasn't changed at all throughout the process, and I don't know what kinda fuckin' Candy Land you live in if you think that this is the case.

Given how many fatal concessions to the bill happened between its proposal and this week, what the fuck else would you want taken from it before you would find it crossed the threshold of "bipartisan"?

The Republicans legislatively get what they want (a neutered, toothless bill) and they get politically what they want (to stay true blue to their dipshit conservative base, since they get what they want and don't have to vote for it).

I mean, seriously. Your entire argument is premised on the Democrats unwillingness to make concessions on the bill. Which is contradicted by the real fucking world. Sometimes I don't know why I bother with you.[/QUOTE]

Myke, the concessions were made to moderate Democrats, not Republicans.

1. Abortion = Bart Stupak and Ben Nelson (among numerous others) didn't want federal funding for abortion.

2. Public option = Joe Lieberman and some moderate Democrats refused to vote for a bill including it.

Sure, Republicans are just about unanimously opposed to those things, but Democrats could easily pass the bill without them (they do have a large majority in the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, plus the presidency, remember?). The reason they made the changes was to get reluctant members on their own side of the aisle to vote for the bill.

The real trick will be to get a bill out of conference that satisfies both the Senate Democratic Caucus and the House Democratic Caucus. That is very tricky as there are a lot of differences between the Senate and House bills. And there's always the chance that enough members will get cold feet (it would only take a few in either body; the House passed its bill by only 5 votes, and one of those was a Republican) with public opinion ever more strongly against what is being done.

On a related note, I found this most interesting (and unbelievably unconstitutional):

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/12/reid_bill_declares_future_cong_1.asp

[quote name='Reid health-care bill']it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.[/quote]
 
Prince et al are for lack of a better term, a pack of liars right now.

There is no way anyone displaying any hint of honesty can say that Democrats did not try in good faith and with a counter productive amount of energy to include Republicans in reform.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Myke - I'm not asking if you think it would be beneficial - I'm asking what reason you have to be against it. It's a fair question.[/QUOTE]

I'm not at your beck and call, and if you aren't compelled to answer a question I pose in response to what I consider to be a naively-thought-through solution to a massive national-level social problem, then don't you dare expect me to answer your tripe.

elprincipe, the concessions they made were to Democrats, but they were concessions many Republicans want. Yet they still chose to filibuster, and they still choose to not vote for the bill. They're getting what they wanted, therefore in the purpose of biparitsanship, should vote for it. Yet they put party symbolism ahead of country. Like the 30 Republican senators who voted against Franken's rape amendment several weeks back. They don't give a fig about the well-being of the country unless you're among the power elite. Gang rape deserves less protection than Halliburton. Likewise, a health care bill that reflects concessions they demanded should be something they vote for.

And the presidency is largely irrelevant in these stages of the legislative process, as he doesn't get to vote. And god knows Republicans have more to gain politically by standing up to anything he says. They'd get more votes for denying that the sky is blue, provided Obama made such a proclamation, than they would in agreeing with Obama. They'd be labeled a "Terrorist sympathizer" by Rush Limbaugh and a "closet socialist" by Glenn Beck.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm not at your beck and call, and if you aren't compelled to answer a question I pose in response to what I consider to be a naively-thought-through solution to a massive national-level social problem, then don't you dare expect me to answer your tripe.[/QUOTE]

Myke - I hope you aren't simple enough to think that any "one" action would be a solution to fix, in your words, a "massive national-level social problem".

I don't think simply opening up the Health Insurance market, in and of itself, will fix everything. It needs to be enacted as a part of a total solution.

All I keep hearing from you is "No, no, no, that won't work, No!" (it's like you're a Republican or something...). I'm interested in hearing why, in your opinion, this action, either alone (not intended to fix everything, but fix some things) or as part of a major overhaul (either the current bills going though or something else) would be something you're against.

You don't have to answer my question. No one is forcing you. You can stay silent, post rants, post links, whatever you want to do.

But to answer your question - and again, I emphasize that I don't believe this one simple act will fix everything - but I do believe opening up the market to more competition would only be a good thing, as you, yourself pointed out with your "Ma Bell" reference. If I don't like the carriers that do business in my state, I should be free to choose from other businesses. This would give me a larger selection of providers to choose from and allow me to find a carrier that suits my own needs. For example, if I live in a state that requires my health insurance to cover drug rehabilitation, there is no need for me to pay for such coverage - so I should be able to shop for coverage elsewhere that doesn't force me to pay for it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Perhaps, as a doc, you can explain to me how that would change anything.

Doesn't Humana exist in Mass? BC/BS?

Such an argument about "interstate commerce" overlooks that the major players in health insurance are large, wealthy corporations that do business in virtually every state. They have no incentive to change how they compete.

This "market will resolve itself" argument seems so full of helplessly naive optimism, in my view. The market doesn't resolve itself against monopolies without government intervention. Do you think Ma Bell wouldn't still be in business if they weren't busted up by the federal government?[/QUOTE]

BC/BS is run completely differently in each state, they are not one or the same. They just co-opt the brand name, so to speak. In effect, they are separate insurance companies. Even if they weren't, why deny choice? For example, why shut out the East coast from access to a large, well run insurance coverage from Kaiser for example?

So it makes perfect sense to me that in order to generate market competition, you want to allow people to have as much choice as possible. That's why I don't understand why there would be any opposition to this. Perhaps as someone against this, you could explain why this would be objectionable. You last statement would seem to support opening up access to other insurance companies across state lines, in effect you would be "breaking the monopoly." If the federal government is going force people to buy insurance and will provide subsidies to do so, it would be in everyone's best interest to keep premiums as low as possible.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Myke - I'm not asking if you think it would be beneficial - I'm asking what reason you have to be against it. It's a fair question.[/QUOTE]

I'll help with this deadlock.

You answered your own question. If a course of action isn't going to improve the situation, then it can be deferred until the courses of action that will improve the situation have been exhausted.

For example, a public option versus buying insurance across state lines (BIASL). In a public option, the uninsurables such as Joliet Jake simply get some measure of coverage. In BIASL, they get to apply for insurance (and probably denied) to hundreds of companies instead of tens of companies. BIASL helps people like Joliet Jake realize he can't receive insurance anywhere and receive more paper for starting fires, but it doesn't cause anymore coverage.

I'm sure somebody has pointed this out, but BIASL will simply allow all insurance companies to relocate to state with laws more in their favor much in the same way that most credit card companies relocated to Delaware.
 
[quote name='dopa345']BC/BS is run completely differently in each state, they are not one or the same. [/QUOTE]

Does BC/BS have claims processing centers in 50 states?

[quote name='dopa345']If the federal government is going force people to buy insurance and will provide subsidies to do so, it would be in everyone's best interest to keep premiums as low as possible.[/QUOTE]

That would be a public option.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Does BC/BS have claims processing centers in 50 states?
[/QUOTE]

From a quick google, it looks like they have multiple claim processing centers in some states, and several states came up. So I'm guessing that the answer is that they do probably have at least one in each state.

It would be too hard to have one for the whole country (or a few in each region), given how policies vary from state to state. Too difficult to train employees to know a bunch of different policies for various states.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']From a quick google, it looks like they have multiple claim processing centers in some states, and several states came up. So I'm guessing that the answer is that they do probably have at least one in each state.

It would be too hard to have one for the whole country (or a few in each region), given how policies vary from state to state. Too difficult to train employees to know a bunch of different policies for various states.[/QUOTE]

My wife handles people enrolling in Medicare for every state without traveling outside of Louisville.

EDIT: I'm going to lean towards BC/BS being completely different in different states as how McDonald's "restaurants" are completely different in different states.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm not at your beck and call, and if you aren't compelled to answer a question I pose in response to what I consider to be a naively-thought-through solution to a massive national-level social problem, then don't you dare expect me to answer your tripe.

elprincipe, the concessions they made were to Democrats, but they were concessions many Republicans want. Yet they still chose to filibuster, and they still choose to not vote for the bill. They're getting what they wanted, therefore in the purpose of biparitsanship, should vote for it. Yet they put party symbolism ahead of country. Like the 30 Republican senators who voted against Franken's rape amendment several weeks back. They don't give a fig about the well-being of the country unless you're among the power elite. Gang rape deserves less protection than Halliburton. Likewise, a health care bill that reflects concessions they demanded should be something they vote for.

And the presidency is largely irrelevant in these stages of the legislative process, as he doesn't get to vote. And god knows Republicans have more to gain politically by standing up to anything he says. They'd get more votes for denying that the sky is blue, provided Obama made such a proclamation, than they would in agreeing with Obama. They'd be labeled a "Terrorist sympathizer" by Rush Limbaugh and a "closet socialist" by Glenn Beck.[/QUOTE]

Myke, from your past few posts you seem to really enjoy charging your high-horse right into the Blame-the-other-party battlefield. Does public opinion not matter to you? Or are you so far past the Democratic party's sphincter that you truly believe, like the Dem leadership, that Washington elite know what's best for us, even if the country is against it?
 
Public opinion doesn't matter to me because I believe the public to be largely (1) opinionated and (2) when tested, wholly uninformed about the things they have opinions on.

I'm what you might call anti-Machiavellian. As opposed to you, who seem to be all about Machiavellianism - support what the public desires no matter the absurdity or cost.
 
I hope the House wipes their ass with the Senate bill and just sends back the original bill. fuck those worthless fucking Democrat pussies in the Senate. They can basically get anything they want done, but they're too fucking scared to actually do anything.
 
Well then why don't we just do away with our government, and just vote on a king every four years?

While we are at it, let's make sure they pass all the academic and political tests we can come up with before they can be voted on - to ensure they truly know what's best for us more than "the average citizen" does.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Well then why don't we just do away with our government, and just vote on a king every four years?

While we are at it, let's make sure they pass all the academic and political tests we can come up with before they can be voted on - to ensure they truly know what's best for us more than "the average citizen" does.[/QUOTE]

Don't we already do that?

EDIT: My mistake. Most pols take an acid test such sleeping with a young boy before they are allowed ascendancy.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I'll help with this deadlock.

You answered your own question. If a course of action isn't going to improve the situation, then it can be deferred until the courses of action that will improve the situation have been exhausted.[/QUOTE]

Here's the thing though - just because Myke doesn't feel it will help improve the situation doesn't mean it won't. Myke *thinks* it won't help - which is fine, he's allowed to think whatever he wants. I'm simply asking why it would hurt.

I wonder if Myke would support legislation that would prohibit individuals from one state buying *anything* from another state. I mean, surely being allowed to buy something from out of state doesn't help anyone, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top