BREAKING NEWS: House cannot pass Senate Health Care Bill

[QUOTE="MagicMan4597"]

What we have here in the U.S. is not a good private market. Its run by regulations that disallow it to perform well. Breaking down state barriers would be an excellent thing to do. It opens up the market to more competition which drives down costs.

A public option would not be an incentive for insurance companies to be more efficient. Insurance companies already have the incentive to be efficient since they have a profit motive. A public option would surely not be a competitor for insurance companies either. A business that can run deficits is not a business. Back when the public option was on the table, people scoffed at the notion that everyone would have to be on the public option and it would destroy private insurance. That is what it would do though. A business cannot compete against an entity that can go into billions or trillions of dollars in debt without dying. Insurance companies could not compete with that and would simply not exist.

theone86

One, the Dems have supported buying accross state lines, I don't know why detractors think they don't. Two, the public option can't run at a deficit, not with government oversight. What it can do is operate as an entity that is trying to be cost neutral and not-for-profit, meaning its primary goal is not to squeeze money out of its consumers in order to line the pockets of CEOs, it's incentive is simply to provide the service at the lowest cost while still covering operating costs.

I never said the Dems didn't support buying across state lines.

So, a pubic option program would be run kind of like...the post office? Same intentions at least. Not the best results.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] First off, merely stating that private insurance is better for the patient is an assumption that requires proof. But that aside... Allowing people to buy insurance in other states might do what you say... ...or it might do the same thing that allowing companies to outsource jobs does. It creates a "race to the bottom" effect where jobs are sent to the countries that have the lowest wages and least amount of legal protections for workers in terms of safety/environment. Any states that actually introduce regulations or laws would be unattractive to insurance companies. Personally, I'd rather rely on a public OPTION to ensure the same thing. It isn't mandating people buy public insurance. It is merely giving insurance companies an incentive to be both efficient and put a cap on what they intend to charge, because your average American citizen can decline to participate in a private plan if the companies involved are not efficient and inexpensive.LJS9502_basic

Agreed. What I'm thinking though is this is less inTERparty bargaining as it is inTRAparty bargaining. When you have one party who's bargaining position is basically somewhere between "Nah, I'm not interested" and "Go **** yourselves!" then the only real bargaining takes place WITHIN the Democratic party. For the last several months, all the actual bargaining and debate within the Senate wasn't between Democrats and Republicans, it was between liberal and conservative Democrats. When I say that this is likely a bargaining position, what I mean is that it is likely a bargaining position that the more liberal House members are staking out against the rest of the Dems.nocoolnamejim

I hope so... quite frankly if the House doesn't pass anything and health care reform consequently dies inches away from becoming a reality, I will likely just stop supporting any political party at all. This is getting just ridiculous, especially given that polls following Brown's election showed that, if anything, the people in Massachusetts actually wanted a health care bill that did more, rather than less, and that a full 53% of those who voted for Obama but sat out shared this opinion.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]Agreed. What I'm thinking though is this is less inTERparty bargaining as it is inTRAparty bargaining. When you have one party who's bargaining position is basically somewhere between "Nah, I'm not interested" and "Go **** yourselves!" then the only real bargaining takes place WITHIN the Democratic party. For the last several months, all the actual bargaining and debate within the Senate wasn't between Democrats and Republicans, it was between liberal and conservative Democrats. When I say that this is likely a bargaining position, what I mean is that it is likely a bargaining position that the more liberal House members are staking out against the rest of the Dems.GabuEx

I hope so... quite frankly if the House doesn't pass anything and health care reform consequently dies inches away from becoming a reality, I will likely just stop supporting any political party at all. This is getting just ridiculous, especially given that polls following Brown's election showed that, if anything, the people in Massachusetts actually wanted a health care bill that did more, rather than less, and that a full 53% of those who voted for Obama but sat out shared this opinion.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]Agreed. What I'm thinking though is this is less inTERparty bargaining as it is inTRAparty bargaining. When you have one party who's bargaining position is basically somewhere between "Nah, I'm not interested" and "Go **** yourselves!" then the only real bargaining takes place WITHIN the Democratic party. For the last several months, all the actual bargaining and debate within the Senate wasn't between Democrats and Republicans, it was between liberal and conservative Democrats. When I say that this is likely a bargaining position, what I mean is that it is likely a bargaining position that the more liberal House members are staking out against the rest of the Dems.GabuEx

I hope so... quite frankly if the House doesn't pass anything and health care reform consequently dies inches away from becoming a reality, I will likely just stop supporting any political party at all. This is getting just ridiculous, especially given that polls following Brown's election showed that, if anything, the people in Massachusetts actually wanted a health care bill that did more, rather than less, and that a full 53% of those who voted for Obama but sat out shared this opinion.

I was using a metaphor for comparison with regards to the likely effects of insurance across state lines by showing what has happened when companies have been allowed to have countries compete for where they'll send the jobs. In the same way that jobs tend to be sent to the countries that have the lowest wages and the least worker protection laws, I think the likely impact of allowing insurance trading across state lines would be a race to the bottom where each state would attempt to outdo each other to attract the insurance companies to come there by reducing health care regulations and laws.nocoolnamejim

Agreed. What I'm thinking though is this is less inTERparty bargaining as it is inTRAparty bargaining. When you have one party who's bargaining position is basically somewhere between "Nah, I'm not interested" and "Go **** yourselves!" then the only real bargaining takes place WITHIN the Democratic party. For the last several months, all the actual bargaining and debate within the Senate wasn't between Democrats and Republicans, it was between liberal and conservative Democrats. When I say that this is likely a bargaining position, what I mean is that it is likely a bargaining position that the more liberal House members are staking out against the rest of the Dems.nocoolnamejim

I hope so... quite frankly if the House doesn't pass anything and health care reform consequently dies inches away from becoming a reality, I will likely just stop supporting any political party at all. This is getting just ridiculous, especially given that polls following Brown's election showed that, if anything, the people in Massachusetts actually wanted a health care bill that did more, rather than less, and that a full 53% of those who voted for Obama but sat out shared this opinion.

also people seem to be forgetting that they cann make ammendments to the bill to work out the kinksSerraph105

That too. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, if I recall correctly, was like that: its original incarnation pretty much sucked, but then it got progressively updated over time.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I was using a metaphor for comparison with regards to the likely effects of insurance across state lines by showing what has happened when companies have been allowed to have countries compete for where they'll send the jobs. In the same way that jobs tend to be sent to the countries that have the lowest wages and the least worker protection laws, I think the likely impact of allowing insurance trading across state lines would be a race to the bottom where each state would attempt to outdo each other to attract the insurance companies to come there by reducing health care regulations and laws.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]also people seem to be forgetting that they cann make ammendments to the bill to work out the kinksGabuEx

That too. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, if I recall correctly, was like that: its original incarnation pretty much sucked, but then it got progressively updated over time.

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]also people seem to be forgetting that they cann make ammendments to the bill to work out the kinksGabuEx

That too. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, if I recall correctly, was like that: its original incarnation pretty much sucked, but then it got progressively updated over time.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I was using a metaphor for comparison with regards to the likely effects of insurance across state lines by showing what has happened when companies have been allowed to have countries compete for where they'll send the jobs. In the same way that jobs tend to be sent to the countries that have the lowest wages and the least worker protection laws, I think the likely impact of allowing insurance trading across state lines would be a race to the bottom where each state would attempt to outdo each other to attract the insurance companies to come there by reducing health care regulations and laws.nocoolnamejim

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Ah but I said the government would be able to make sure nothing untoward went on with the insurance. Much like they watch utilities.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] So do I, though I've been wrong before. But it is standard negotiating procedure to not give away your true walk away point. You have to assume, logically, that most Democrats know that the political consequences of NOT passing Health Care reform at this point are far more drastic than actually passing it. Matt Yglesias has a pretty astute write up on this one.Serraph105

That does raise a good point. Let's hope this is just a bargaining point, as you speculate.

I'm still waiting for the Repubs to create their own healthcare bill (and I know several of them have said we need reform). I have you to see one, or even ideas for one, or even the merest suggestion that they're going to even think about creating their own bill. They can't even use the "excuse" that the Dems had a filibuster-proof majority any more.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]also people seem to be forgetting that they cann make ammendments to the bill to work out the kinksnocoolnamejim

That too. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, if I recall correctly, was like that: its original incarnation pretty much sucked, but then it got progressively updated over time.

Like I said, I hope you're right... but on the other hand, I tend to find it difficult to overestimate how stupid some people can be. :P

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]also people seem to be forgetting that they cann make ammendments to the bill to work out the kinksGabuEx

That too. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, if I recall correctly, was like that: its original incarnation pretty much sucked, but then it got progressively updated over time.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

That too. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, if I recall correctly, was like that: its original incarnation pretty much sucked, but then it got progressively updated over time.

GabuEx

Like I said, I hope you're right... but on the other hand, I tend to find it difficult to overestimate how stupid some people can be. :P

I disagree. Insurance companies can charge whatever they want and people will likely pay, because they are an unregulated monopoly. There is no incentive for them to drive price down because they don't suffer for their inefficiencies. And at the end of the day, if the private companies cannot compete against the Public Option...why is that a bad thing? I've always heard that government is inefficient and all that. But if they can deliver health coverage and insurance for cheaper and to a greater number of people, and the insurance companies go out of business as a result, why is that bad? It benefits the average American taxpayer...even if it doesn't benefit the health insurance companies.nocoolnamejim

The healthcare industry is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the United States. The health insurance industry is not a monopoly either; there are thousands of small insurance companies. The problem is that now that they couldn't get in the public option, they're going for the next best thing. The bill will decide what is covered under plans. What this will do is

1) Lower choice with standardization/ less option for consumer

2) Most smaller insurance companies will be unable to compete since they have to offer what the big guys are offering. Remember bigger plans is not always better. These companies will withdraw from the pre-65 market and focus on medicare supplements. This will leave 7 or 8 big insurance companies that the government can easily regulate.

3) Premiums will rise despite subsidies due to the costs of the new required plans.

I might be able to get behind that in the long term, but ultimately, wouldn't a public option accomplish the same thing from a different direction? If, as you say, the government can't really run a boy scout meeting properly, then if the government got into the business of providing health care insurance, wouldn't that incent the private sector to get extra efficient and, at that point, eventually get to the point where the government run public option was an unappealing option? Effectively, the public option would provide a check on inefficiency from the private sector. If the private sector was very efficient and keeping prices low and quality high, then the public option would shrink and do poorly. If the private sector started trying to make unfair profits and/or got fat and complacent, they'd be punished for it by people moving to the public option?nocoolnamejim

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]also people seem to be forgetting that they cann make ammendments to the bill to work out the kinks-Sun_Tzu-

That too. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, if I recall correctly, was like that: its original incarnation pretty much sucked, but then it got progressively updated over time.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]I might be able to get behind that in the long term, but ultimately, wouldn't a public option accomplish the same thing from a different direction? If, as you say, the government can't really run a boy scout meeting properly, then if the government got into the business of providing health care insurance, wouldn't that incent the private sector to get extra efficient and, at that point, eventually get to the point where the government run public option was an unappealing option? Effectively, the public option would provide a check on inefficiency from the private sector. If the private sector was very efficient and keeping prices low and quality high, then the public option would shrink and do poorly. If the private sector started trying to make unfair profits and/or got fat and complacent, they'd be punished for it by people moving to the public option?LJS9502_basic

I would like to see some projections on how much this is going to cost individual taxpayers...as in how much it is going to cost me

Do you have some suggestions on proposed regulations that you would want the government to enforce?nocoolnamejim

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]also people seem to be forgetting that they cann make ammendments to the bill to work out the kinksGabuEx

That too. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, if I recall correctly, was like that: its original incarnation pretty much sucked, but then it got progressively updated over time.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Do you have some suggestions on proposed regulations that you would want the government to enforce?LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

That too. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, if I recall correctly, was like that: its original incarnation pretty much sucked, but then it got progressively updated over time.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"] do you or your employer pay for healthcare now?sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] I think the best example of an initially lackluster bill blossoming into a very popular piece of legislation is Social Security. The original act was ridiculously racist and sexist in its composition, due to compromises made with the Southern Democrats, but it was made better and better over time, and today it is the third rail in American politics. -Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"] do you or your employer pay for healthcare now?comp_atkins

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="rawsavon"] shared cost...i just meant how much are my taxes going to go up to pay for everyone else (not that i have a problem helping people)rawsavon

"the tax begins on family plans costing $23,000 a year, and that sum grows at the rate of inflation in the Consumer Price Index plus one percentage point (so if inflation that year was 3.3 percent, the threshold would grow by 4.3 percent)."

- Ezra Klein

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] ... when and if your taxes go up will be offset from your premiums going down.. I mean this isn't rocket science, it should be common sense.. Apparently it isn't in some people's eyes.-Sun_Tzu-

"the tax begins on family plans costing $23,000 a year, and that sum grows at the rate of inflation in the Consumer Price Index plus one percentage point (so if inflation that year was 3.3 percent, the threshold would grow by 4.3 percent)."

- Ezra Klein

I work hard for my money, I have good insurance. But I would gladly pay a little more if it meant some hard working single Mom didn't have to go bankrupt because her kid gets sick. Situations like this happen a lot in the US. Its kind of hard to make it on your own when you work two jobs to make ends meet and owe $50k to the hospital. When you force people into poverty because they get sick, you then force them even further into the welfare system. I have a feeling this will cost the state more money in the long term than paying for healthcare. Poverty also increases crime, which cost a lot money to control...etc. my point is, in the long run it will probaly cost more tax dollars to cover all the problems associated with the lack of medical coverage, than paying for healthcare coverage in the short term.

Well thats the great thing about america you have to make it on your own, the government isnt suppose to help you every step of the way. If you want that go to canada or the UK. Healthcare is an option just like it should be, it should not be mandatory for me to have healthcare if i dont want to pay for it nor should i have to pay for anybodies elses healthcare. Im sorry but i believe in getting away from government not supporting more control.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] My premiums are pretty low at my job (I have great benefits as far as health care and retirement)...I am lucky -while I have no problem helping those less fortunate (coming from poverty myself), I just want to know about how much my taxes will go up...like $10-15 a month, $50, $100rawsavon

"the tax begins on family plans costing $23,000 a year, and that sum grows at the rate of inflation in the Consumer Price Index plus one percentage point (so if inflation that year was 3.3 percent, the threshold would grow by 4.3 percent)."

- Ezra Klein

Well thats the great thing about america you have to make it on your own, the government isnt suppose to help you every step of the way.

njean777

Well thats the great thing about america you have to make it on your own, the government isnt suppose to help you every step of the way. If you want that go to canada or the UK. Healthcare is an option just like it should be, it should not be mandatory for me to have healthcare if i dont want to pay for it nor should i have to pay for anybodies elses healthcare. Im sorry but i believe in getting away from government not supporting more control.

njean777

[QUOTE="njean777"]Well thats the great thing about america you have to make it on your own, the government isnt suppose to help you every step of the way.

PannicAtack

most people have forgotten what the constitution is these days, im surprised anybody knows what it is.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

[QUOTE="njean777"]Well thats the great thing about america you have to make it on your own, the government isnt suppose to help you every step of the way.

njean777

most people have forgotten what the constitution is these days, im surprised anybody knows what it is.

[QUOTE="njean777"]

Well thats the great thing about america you have to make it on your own, the government isnt suppose to help you every step of the way. If you want that go to canada or the UK. Healthcare is an option just like it should be, it should not be mandatory for me to have healthcare if i dont want to pay for it nor should i have to pay for anybodies elses healthcare. Im sorry but i believe in getting away from government not supporting more control.

nocoolnamejim

no they should have to pay for it themselves, its their fault they do not have healthcare, no matter what you do there is always a way to get healthcare, there are many private options available if your job doesnt offer it. Also if you smoke or are obese you should have to pay extra as you are a higher liability to health insurers.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="njean777"]

Well thats the great thing about america you have to make it on your own, the government isnt suppose to help you every step of the way. If you want that go to canada or the UK. Healthcare is an option just like it should be, it should not be mandatory for me to have healthcare if i dont want to pay for it nor should i have to pay for anybodies elses healthcare. Im sorry but i believe in getting away from government not supporting more control.

njean777

no they should have to pay for it themselves, its their fault they do not have healthcare, no matter what you do there is always a way to get healthcare, there are many private options available if your job doesnt offer it. Also if you smoke or are obese you should have to pay extra as you are a higher liability to health insurers.

[QUOTE="njean777"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]I must've missed that part of the Constitution.

PannicAtack

most people have forgotten what the constitution is these days, im surprised anybody knows what it is.

Congress was granted the power to promote the general welfare of the nation by the Constitution of the United States. It means that Congress should provide laws that are in keeping with the principles of the self governed. It means that Congress may provide legislation that acts in a general best interest of a nation.

you were saying? provide general welfare by laws not providing all these social programs that drive us more in debt.

I was under the impression that Obama and Reid were unwilling to pass it through before Brown became seated.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

[QUOTE="njean777"]

most people have forgotten what the constitution is these days, im surprised anybody knows what it is.

njean777

Congress was granted the power to promote the general welfare of the nation by the Constitution of the United States. It means that Congress should provide laws that are in keeping with the principles of the self governed. It means that Congress may provide legislation that acts in a general best interest of a nation.

you were saying? provide general welfare by laws not providing all these social programs that drive us more in debt.

You could at least acknowledge when you're quoting someone.

[QUOTE="njean777"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Do you also believe that hospitals should still treat you if you get shot and wheeled into an emergency room without health care insurance? Because if you do not have insurance, it is the rest of us that foots the bill for your treatment in the form of higher premiums that are passed onto everyone else.PannicAtack

no they should have to pay for it themselves, its their fault they do not have healthcare, no matter what you do there is always a way to get healthcare, there are many private options available if your job doesnt offer it. Also if you smoke or are obese you should have to pay extra as you are a higher liability to health insurers.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

[QUOTE="njean777"]

most people have forgotten what the constitution is these days, im surprised anybody knows what it is.

njean777

Congress was granted the power to promote the general welfare of the nation by the Constitution of the United States. It means that Congress should provide laws that are in keeping with the principles of the self governed. It means that Congress may provide legislation that acts in a general best interest of a nation.

you were saying? provide general welfare by laws not providing all these social programs that drive us more in debt.

if you cant afford it then to bad, sorry im not gonna pay for it for you. You expect me to ask people to buy my food and car for me? no i dont, i expect to sacrifice things in order to get what i want. Im sorry im not a sympathizer people can get things if they want them bad enough without breaking laws.

if you cant afford it then to bad, sorry im not gonna pay for it for you. You expect me to ask people to buy my food and car for me? no i dont, i expect to sacrifice things in order to get what i want. Im sorry im not a sympathizer people can get things if they want them bad enough without breaking laws.

njean777

Congress was granted the power to promote the general welfare of the nation by the Constitution of the United States. It means that Congress should provide laws that are in keeping with the principles of the self governed. It means that Congress may provide legislation that acts in a general best interest of a nation.

you were saying? provide general welfare by laws not providing all these social programs that drive us more in debt.

umm no you tried to promote your line as a way to say its the governments job to help people. When the whole point of this nation was to get away from a overbearing government. So why would they want to impose government control on healthcare when thats what they were running away from?

[QUOTE="njean777"]

if you cant afford it then to bad, sorry im not gonna pay for it for you. You expect me to ask people to buy my food and car for me? no i dont, i expect to sacrifice things in order to get what i want. Im sorry im not a sympathizer people can get things if they want them bad enough without breaking laws.

PannicAtack

LOL you are trying to make me look like a bad person. You know damn well hospitals can have payment plans. Sorry but there is always a way somebody can pay for something.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="njean777"]

Well thats the great thing about america you have to make it on your own, the government isnt suppose to help you every step of the way. If you want that go to canada or the UK. Healthcare is an option just like it should be, it should not be mandatory for me to have healthcare if i dont want to pay for it nor should i have to pay for anybodies elses healthcare. Im sorry but i believe in getting away from government not supporting more control.

njean777

no they should have to pay for it themselves, its their fault they do not have healthcare, no matter what you do there is always a way to get healthcare, there are many private options available if your job doesnt offer it. Also if you smoke or are obese you should have to pay extra as you are a higher liability to health insurers.