Healthcare Bill

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members do not see this ad.
oaklandguy said:
But insurance isn't covering everything under the sun anymore. That's where they get you. And doctors will be getting sued more. More patients, less pay, less staff, less time with patients = more mistakes!!!! Nurses are gonna lose jobs too apparently if hospitals aren't making as much money. We'll see though. Hopefully they can fix this system if it's as bad as they are making it out to be. We can switch from free market to government restricted, I'm sure we would be able to switch back to free market, hopefully.
Click to expand...


I don't think that will happen. We are here now, it will not go away. Social Security, Welfare, blah, blah, blah ... they are all entitlement programs and no one would risk their election on taking that away. Once people have it they will smite you for making them work for it.

The only thing that the population has more control over compared to the top 1% in the US is their voting power. You don't take something from the majority without losing an election. We will get handed one bad bill after the next and one side will say fear the bill and other will say the bill is better than heaven itself. That's all political tactics to appear looking like there is a difference when there really isn't any. The politicians have ties to the rich and are rich and represent all that is best for the rich. We get to vote which bad guy we would like to run our government and now we have Wall Street execs. running the show and taking money from whatever group they see that they can make look bad. This time it happens to be healthcare workers. They worte themselves out of this bill... that was on purpose. Also, the bill states many times over that "full time" employees are the ones that count and are covered. If that dosen't scare people I don't know what will. It's already well known that companies hire people "part time" because it's cheaper to hire two people without benifits than one with.
 
JaggerPlate said:
Of course I disagree with her politics, but our depictions of how she gets things done 'efficiently,' differ greatly, and frankly, aren't worth discussing. I think what just makes me loathe her is that 1. She's just the standard politician - her dad was a Congressmen and Mayor, she was raised in that bullsh*t, sheltered bubble her whole life, and because of it ... 2. She has no concept of the real world. Her family is worth millions, her husband is some real estate mogul and made millions off apple, and I'm pretty sure she's rated as the richest person in Congress.

So, you now have someone who has never actually made a dime in the private sector in her life. She's grown up with private jets, kickbacks, etc ... BUT 3. She's super, duper liberal and 'fights for the lives of the repressed, rejected, minorities.' Repressed, rejected minorities??? She's a multimillionaire from Maryland who's probably never lived with 50 miles of a minority. HUH??? Where the hell does she get off? How does she know what we need? What it's like to be repressed, beaten down, a minority??? Really? She's completely immune to EVERYTHING she puts forward, so she presses such an idealistic, naive point of view. It's asinine.

Now, I get it ... this is politics. They're all pretty much like this ... but she's the richest, the most disconnected, and yet the one telling us what poor, neglected, beaten down Americans are experiencing, through her 20k facelift, from the seat of her private jet, while shes traveling to her multi-million dollar family estate in Maryland. Frankly, I don't give a crap if she's efficient at that point ... she has no ****ing clue what it's like to live a real life, and I don't want her projecting some distorted ideal on US, OR purposely pushing a liberal agenda because of some sort of guilt or penance for where she comes from.

Honestly, just my .02 and part of the reason why I despise her so badly.
Click to expand...

Most politicians are born into rich families. That's just part of what you almost need to get elected. Bill Clinton, Obama, etc. are exceptions.

I don't look at how much they're personally worth, I judge their politics and their ability on their own. I don't see why people should villify someone for their political beliefs, there are plenty of poor people with the same politics as her. If she came from a poor family and behaved exactly as she did, somehow it'd be all different and she'd be a champion? Doesn't what she does remain the same? That's like me vilifying Bush because he was rich by saying he only wanted to help out his kind, ignoring that plenty of poor people also have his politics. Both Kerry and Bush came from insanely rich families, both with crazy political connections. Judge them on what they do, not where they're from. When you call someone evil, or Hitler, or Stalin, you no longer have to listen to them and address their argument. You can just call them names and turn away, which is both disturbing and sad as far as the political discourse goes. I hated when people called Bush that, and the same thing is happening here. The only person who should be compared to Hitler and Stalin are...Hitler and Stalin. You cheapen both what they actually did, and our political discourse by just throwing out names like that (not that you called anyone Hitler on this thread). If you disagree with her policy, or how she does her job, lay out those points and attack them, not her. And as a side point, if only the poor members of congress fougt for people who were poor, nothing would get done for the poor or the minorities. If no white members of Congress voted for the Civil Rights act.....you get the point, right? You don't have to be member of a particular group to believe in that cause....Pelosi and her family never has to worry about not havign health care...that doesn't mean she shouldn't care about those people who do.

I personally just don't understand the type of argument you're making. I don't see the point.
 
Last edited:
Drad18 said:
Tutmos are you serious? Here is a real quote!

"Hmmm, uhh, hah -- ummm -- I, the answer is -- I haven't really thought of it that way, heh, heh. Heh. Here's how I think of it. Ummm -- heh heh. First I've heard of that, by the way, I, ah -- uhh -- the, uhh -- I, I guess I'm more of a practical fella. Uhh. I vowed after September the 11th that I would do everything I could to protect the American people. And, uhh -- my attitude, of course, was affected by the attacks.ha ha ...ummm Let me see... I knew we were at a war. I knew that the enemy, obviously, had to be sophisticated, and lethal, to fly hijacked airplanes, uhh, into -- facilities that would, we would, killing thousands of people, innocent people, doin' nothing, just sittin' there goin' to work." -- President George W Bush, after being asked if the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism are signs of the apocalypse
Click to expand...

I see that u think u know everything about health care bill right ? Let me ask u this have u read health care latest reform bill ?

Or Did u just watch and read news ?
 
Bernoull said:
My friend, to make your point, u are putting words in my mouth.
Click to expand...
Mea maxima culpa. I didn't mean to place words in your mouth, just wanted to make sure that point was brought to the surface. Others have argued that issue and I wanted to nip in in the bud, if you will.

Bernoull said:
Again this isn't my point. Obviously, death penalty and malpractice cases are different, this goes without saying. The qualification/competence of the judge/jury to decide malpractice cases doesn't derive from their experience with death penalty cases, but rather from the judge's education, training, experience and the jury's instructions/training etc.. For all we know, the particular judge/jury may have never heard a death penalty case but this by no means makes that unqualified to hear malpractice cases. I wasn't conflating the two case types.

I was basically pointing out parallels with other complex cases that are decided routinely. However, this parallel doesn't constitute any qualification whatsoever to judge malpractice cases.

I hope I've clarified my point.
Click to expand...

You have. I do however disagree that the judges training, or jurors instructions are enough to determine complex medical cases. If this were the case expert medical witnesses would not be needed. I think there still should be some sort of impartial medical (read😛hysician level) experts there to help with the cases. Just my opinions though.
 
JaggerPlate said:
LOL wow ... something just hit me



People have been saying it for pages now, but it's super true ... this thread is pointless. It's just those who lean right arguing in circles with those who lean left. No one here is going to change anybody's mind, and any meaningful conversation about the bill itself is pretty much over. It's completely pointless.
Click to expand...

WOW, the republicans sure do come out of their caves during the night.

Why do you think that is? There is much psychological research on this. And you know what the overall conclusion is?

Once people identify with a group, say democrats or republican they go out of their way to justify to themselves that they are right. How they go out of their way is unique to each person. People do not want to switch for the sole basis of their past views on the stance/party they abide by. A change would mean they are wrong. And people don't like to admit to themselves that they were/are wrong? So the conclusion: people tend to be selfish and immature.
 
Last edited:
JaggerPlate said:
Some would argue ... why???
Click to expand...



Why??? You can't be serious.



I am just ITCHING to find out an example of who jagger believes has a real connection with the american people? Because Pelosi sure does not in his eyes.


PS: I heard somewhere Jagger was an intern at FOXNEWS?
 
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnuQV8Od1Ns[/YOUTUBE]

Part of the reason I still consider myself libertarian is the fact that I really see no flaw with Schiff's predictions -- he's been right a lot lately. (See: the coming economic collapse book from 4? years ago)
 
Last edited:
The alternative to giving insurance companies money is Single Payer, and we know how that ties people's panties into knots...
 
Lokhtar said:
Most politicians are born into rich families. That's just part of what you almost need to get elected. Bill Clinton, Obama, etc. are exceptions.

I don't look at how much they're personally worth, I judge their politics and their ability on their own. I don't see why people should villify someone for their political beliefs, there are plenty of poor people with the same politics as her. If she came from a poor family and behaved exactly as she did, somehow it'd be all different and she'd be a champion? Doesn't what she does remain the same? That's like me vilifying Bush because he was rich by saying he only wanted to help out his kind, ignoring that plenty of poor people also have his politics. Both Kerry and Bush came from insanely rich families, both with crazy political connections. Judge them on what they do, not where they're from. When you call someone evil, or Hitler, or Stalin, you no longer have to listen to them and address their argument. You can just call them names and turn away, which is both disturbing and sad as far as the political discourse goes. I hated when people called Bush that, and the same thing is happening here. The only person who should be compared to Hitler and Stalin are...Hitler and Stalin. You cheapen both what they actually did, and our political discourse by just throwing out names like that (not that you called anyone Hitler on this thread). If you disagree with her policy, or how she does her job, lay out those points and attack them, not her. And as a side point, if only the poor members of congress fougt for people who were poor, nothing would get done for the poor or the minorities. If no white members of Congress voted for the Civil Rights act.....you get the point, right? You don't have to be member of a particular group to believe in that cause....Pelosi and her family never has to worry about not havign health care...that doesn't mean she shouldn't care about those people who do.

I personally just don't understand the type of argument you're making. I don't see the point.
Click to expand...


You continue to show your solid grip of american politics. I don't think that goofball you are responding to can take any more abuse from you.:laugh:

What is this KO #3? 4?
 
Drad18 said:
You continue to show your solid grip of american politics. I don't think that goofball you are responding to can take any more abuse from you.:laugh:

What is this KO #3? 4?
Click to expand...

That's your what? 10th ad hominem? And down the rabbit hole of fallacies of logic we go.
 
Instead of trying to calm down the angry mob crowd, who spit on dems, yelled racial and homophobic slurs, made threats of violence, etc etc etc, what do all honorable republican representatives do?



WAIVE THE GADSDEN FLAG BACK AT THE ANGRY MOB.




For those of you who are unaware, this flag represents the revolution of americans splitting their ways from Britain. This is only egging these crazies on to continue what they are doing. There has been no true attempt to stop this angry violence accept a few pathetic attempts by a Rep from Ohio.


Why don't more republicans denounce this crazy atmosphere?

Why is FOXNEWS all of a sudden ignoring more and more the actual laws in the health reform when more americans are starting to like what they hear in its language?

Why did Republicans try to purposely put amendments on the reform that they know Dems would look bad turning down so the reform would not be killed? Ie - saying that viagra should not be given to sex offenders and pedophiles (which is obviously true). Ohhh so Republicans in election season can say "don't vote for this democrat, he wants to give viagra to rapists!" Ahhhhhh politics!




What ever happened to believing in democracy. Just because you did not get your way through democracy they feel the need to rebel? You have to love america!
 
Last edited:
oaklandguy said:
Now, when they come for that second visit after we warned them about the cheeseburgers, the insurance isn't going to cover anything we do because we were supposed to apply preventative care and even though we did they didn't listen. It's a lose lose for everyone"
Click to expand...


That quote makes me think that she may not really understand the bill or it's consequences.
 
UnlonelyRoad said:
That quote makes me think that she may not really understand the bill or it's consequences.
Click to expand...



Just another ignorant person........don't waste your time......it's clear these people are not intellectual in any form.
 
Lokhtar said:
Most politicians are born into rich families. That's just part of what you almost need to get elected. Bill Clinton, Obama, etc. are exceptions.

I don't look at how much they're personally worth, I judge their politics and their ability on their own. I don't see why people should villify someone for their political beliefs, there are plenty of poor people with the same politics as her. If she came from a poor family and behaved exactly as she did, somehow it'd be all different and she'd be a champion? Doesn't what she does remain the same? That's like me vilifying Bush because he was rich by saying he only wanted to help out his kind, ignoring that plenty of poor people also have his politics. Both Kerry and Bush came from insanely rich families, both with crazy political connections. Judge them on what they do, not where they're from. When you call someone evil, or Hitler, or Stalin, you no longer have to listen to them and address their argument. You can just call them names and turn away, which is both disturbing and sad as far as the political discourse goes. I hated when people called Bush that, and the same thing is happening here. The only person who should be compared to Hitler and Stalin are...Hitler and Stalin. You cheapen both what they actually did, and our political discourse by just throwing out names like that (not that you called anyone Hitler on this thread). If you disagree with her policy, or how she does her job, lay out those points and attack them, not her. And as a side point, if only the poor members of congress fougt for people who were poor, nothing would get done for the poor or the minorities. If no white members of Congress voted for the Civil Rights act.....you get the point, right? You don't have to be member of a particular group to believe in that cause....Pelosi and her family never has to worry about not havign health care...that doesn't mean she shouldn't care about those people who do.

I personally just don't understand the type of argument you're making. I don't see the point.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but this paragraph is complete hyperbole. I never referred to anyone as Hitler and Stalin, and frankly, I've ignored hundreds of comments in this thread that likened Republicans to the same. Saying this cheapens discussion ... don't do that.

1. The initial comment was literally a joke. Response on this level is getting absurd

2. My point is not 'unbelievable' - she's hypocritical. She's the richest member of congress, the most disconnected from any sort of reality, and yet she propagates, in my opinion, a very liberal, social-welfare, oriented agenda. Is this a coincidence? It's the same reason uber rich Hollywood is extremely liberal. The problem with this isn't that she's helping people, or even that she's a Democrat, the problem is that she has absolutely no grasp on what it's like to live as a human being in America, and so the ideals she presses are, again in my opinion, extreme, and something that a. will never affect her (because she doesn't live like the rest of us) b. her distorted opinion of social justice, equality, etc, which has absolutely no basis in reality and probably doesn't appeal to as many people as she'd like to believe.

3. I was very fair in my argument and stated that these people coming from rich families was part of the game, and also stated why I felt it was more exaggerated and a bigger issue with Pelosi.


This whole discussion sprung from a one line joke. I've made my point and will not discuss it any further.
 
vandyfootball said:
The bill hit some snags, minor ones, but it will still cause a revote in the house. However, experts expect the bill to pass quickly anyway.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/25/health.care.main/index.html?hpt=T1

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100325/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul


http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/18803215
Click to expand...

Confused - I didn't click your links, but read something on a different news site this morning ... since the senate bill passed in both pieces of congress and was signed into law, is it just the reconciliation package that was sent back to the House? I think that even if these were scrapped, which I really doubt, I don't think it would alter the language already in the Senate bill??
 
oaklandguy said:
I know you guys have fun and all with your debates, but I was at the hospital volunteering today and everyone there was extremely pissssssssssssssssssssssssed about this bill. The most liberal lesbian nurse I have ever met was cursing Obama. She said he's tickled pink about this whole thing, but he'll be tickling himself after she votes republican. Honestly, I was in utter shock. Everyone is on edge thinking they will lose their job. It's really a frantic situation.
Click to expand...
Different hospital different feelings. At a recent med school interview the Dean of Admissions (a cardiologist) raved about the healthcare bill. He told us of a patients he just lost this week because of a lack of preventive care, because they were uninsured, yet they hospital would absorb over $100,000 on each patient. And this is in a state that is sueing over this law, so far from super-liberal. So I don't feel there is universal dismay amongst healthcare providers.
 
JaggerPlate said:
2. My point is not 'unbelievable' - she's hypocritical. She's the richest member of congress, the most disconnected from any sort of reality, and yet she propagates, in my opinion, a very liberal, social-welfare, oriented agenda. Is this a coincidence?
Click to expand...
If I am poor and I want the same healthcare that she is suggesting, what does that make me?

If Bush is rich and he wants tax cuts for the high income earners, what does that make him?

If I am poor, but I like tax cuts for the wealthy, what does that make me?

And why does it matter? You can't say that the rich shouldn't go to bat for the dienfranchised because they don't know what its like. White rich senators from Massachusets may not have any idea what it's like to be a disenfranchised black youth in 1960, but they voted for the Civil Rights Act. And so did plenty of Republicans (it was the Southern Democrats who held it up). I don't know why the point of how rich they are even has to be mentioned?

And as for Hollywood, while plenty are rich now, quite a few of them started waiting tables so to say they've never been poor is laughable. Not that I listen to them for political advice, but Kennedy and Bush 'old money' is hardly the same as Matt Damon money.
 
KoopaT89 said:
That's your what? 10th ad hominem? And down the rabbit hole of fallacies of logic we go.
Click to expand...

Have you ever seen the Wes Craven classic, A Nightmare on Elm Street? The villain in the movie, Freddy, goes on a murderous rampage, but is only able to kill people in their dreams. By the end of the movie, our protagonist realizes the only way to kill this crass, symbolic, baddie, is to ignore him. By refusing to acknowledge him ... she strips him of his power, and he simply goes away. I suggest doing the same.
 
God dammit ... I said I wasn't going to respond, so don't bother, so here is, no joke, my last reply to this and then I won't comment again. This whole argument is springing forth from in depth analysis of a joke. You realize how asinine this is, right???

Lokhtar said:
And as for Hollywood, while plenty are rich now, quite a few of them started waiting tables so to say they've never been poor is laughable. Not that I listen to them for political advice, but Kennedy and Bush 'old money' is hardly the same as Matt Damon money.
Click to expand...

Still a disconnect from reality. These guys never tried to earn a dime in the real, adult world. They waited tables and partied in Hollywood or NY for a few years before making it. They didn't have a family to support, they weren't working 60 hour work weeks for a corporation, they were dicking around. Plus, if you want to get technical, Matt Damon started acting before he even went to college, wrote Good Willing Hunting when he was very young and struck it big quickly. If you think this represents someone who knows what it's really like to work hard, and try to do well for yourself, but still ends up in poverty and really needs some of these plans, then I'm surprised. This is still a complete disconnect from society. Matt Damon wasn't a 35 year old guy, working in a cube, making just enough to need help, and paying for a house, car, and braces. He was a young guy who bar tended for a little bit between acting gigs. He's now worth hundreds of millions and is just as disconnected, but in a different way. I honestly don't want anyone with this kind of distorted sense of reality pushing their ideals on me. Don't get me wrong, it's just as stupid as when Bush tries to call himself a cowboy or act like an average Joe ... but hopefully, you get my point. Again, seriously this time, I'm done. You MUST understand how dumb this feels ... I wanted to leave this thread 10 pages ago, we're arguing something that sprung from a one line joke, and we're using Jason Bourne as ammunition in our arguments. If that doesn't indicate that we've jumped the shark ... I don't know what does.
 
Last edited:
JaggerPlate said:
Confused - I didn't click your links, but read something on a different news site this morning ... since the senate bill passed in both pieces of congress and was signed into law, is it just the reconciliation package that was sent back to the House? I think that even if these were scrapped, which I really doubt, I don't think it would alter the language already in the Senate bill??
Click to expand...


  1. Senate bill is law, nothing will affect that (short of a repeal).
  2. The reconciliation package is the one that will be now sent back to the house, absent the two lines.
  3. If the bill fails to pass, the Senate bill will still be law (which both parties want fixing, eg the Cornhusker Kickback, etc).
  4. You know how I said the Public Option might be put in, but it's unlikely? It became slightly more likely because now that the House will have to vote on it again anyway, the Progressive Bloc might argue that we might as well put in the Public Option and vote on it, since they got 220 votes for it last time, and there seems to be 50 votes in the Senate for the option. I still would put the chance at less than 30%, but it's a realistic possibility now.
 
JaggerPlate said:
Dude, like I said, I made my peace ... and I simply cannot continue to argue something - with absolutely no end - that sprung from a one line joke.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
 
So in essence, the Republicans with their forcing of a revote might have just enabled the addition of the public option....

However, if the House bill doesn't pass, Republicans will have a political victory as they'll be able to attack house members who voted for the bill and also voted against taking away the cornhusker kickback, etc. So they are obviously hoping the House bill doesn't pass again.
 
JaggerPlate said:
Have you ever seen the Wes Craven classic, A Nightmare on Elm Street? The villain in the movie, Freddy, goes on a murderous rampage, but is only able to kill people in their dreams. By the end of the movie, our protagonist realizes the only way to kill this crass, symbolic, baddie, is to ignore him. By refusing to acknowledge him ... she strips him of his power, and he simply goes away. I suggest doing the same.
Click to expand...



Yes, but you fail to realize in your pitiful attempt to try to ignore me you are achknowledging me :laugh::laugh:


I know I am getting to you, just promise to me you won't curl up into a ball and cry. If so I will continue.


Your lack of responses to me is a BONUS. But I should keep that on the down-low so maybe you won't catch on.


And I just looooooove your comparison of me as Freddy, the murderer. Cute
 
Lokhtar said:
So in essence, the Republicans with their forcing of a revote might have just enabled the addition of the public option....

However, if the House bill doesn't pass, Republicans will have a political victory as they'll be able to attack house members who voted for the bill and also voted against taking away the cornhusker kickback, etc. So they are obviously hoping the House bill doesn't pass again.
Click to expand...

I personally think this makes the addition of the public option less likely. The fact that anything was sent back, even to just be passed again, should tell the dems they aren't untouchable. It's too shaky, and I don't think they'd risk it.
 
JaggerPlate said:
God dammit ... I said I wasn't going to respond, so don't bother, so here is, no joke, my last reply to this and then I won't comment again. This whole argument is springing forth from in depth analysis of a joke. You realize how asinine this is, right???



Still a disconnect from reality. These guys never tried to earn a dime in the real, adult world. They waited tables and partied in Hollywood or NY for a few years before making it. They didn't have a family to support, they weren't working 60 hour work weeks for a corporation, they were dicking around. Plus, if you want to get technical, Matt Damon started acting before he even went to college, wrote Good Willing Hunting when he was very young and struck it big quickly. If you think this represents someone who knows what it's really like to work hard, and try to do well for yourself, but still ends up in poverty and really needs some of these plans, then I'm surprised. This is still a complete disconnect from society. Matt Damon wasn't a 35 year old guy, working in a cube, making just enough to need help, and paying for a house, car, and braces. He was a young guy who bar tended for a little bit between acting gigs. He's now worth hundreds of millions and is just as disconnected, but in a different way. I honestly don't want anyone with this kind of distorted sense of reality pushing their ideals on me. Don't get me wrong, it's just as stupid as when Bush tries to call himself a cowboy or act like an average Joe ... but hopefully, you get my point. Again, seriously this time, I'm done. You MUST understand how dumb this feels ... I wanted to leave this thread 10 pages ago, we're arguing something that sprung from a one line joke, and we're using Jason Bourne as ammunition in our arguments. If that doesn't indicate that we've jumped the shark ... I don't know what does.
Click to expand...


You base your argument on a fallacy. You state the super rich cannot connect with the poor when you are a republican; that is hypocrisy at its finest!


Anyways I think some neurons in your brain are misfiring. And that I can forgive you for.


The argument isn't about Matt Damon like you like to fabricate it is. It is the about the super rich being able to be compassionate towards the less fortunate. Sure you are right that many if not the majority do not realize exactly what it is like to be poor. But you cannot assume that all of the super rich are this way just because you have a few examples stating otherwise. That is simply naive. There is something called education.....you might want to look into it. If you have been declined it you can always look into special needs education.
 
JaggerPlate said:
I personally think this makes the addition of the public option less likely. The fact that anything was sent back, even to just be passed again, should tell the dems they aren't untouchable. It's too shaky, and I don't think they'd risk it.
Click to expand...

No, remember that it was sent back not because a Republican amendment was successful or there weren't enough votes for it, but because the Senate parliamentarian ruled that one part of the bill didn't fit into the budget requirement, so it can't be passed via reconciliation. It was an administrative mistake the democrats made when crafting the reconciliation bill, two lines that are now removed from the bill.

The public option has clear and direct bearing on budget and deficits, and therefore would be able to be passed by reconciliation. I am not a huge betting person, but if there was a pool going and it was offering me 5-1 odds on the public option being in the bill right now, I'd take it. Still an unlikely thing, because right now the votes are guaranteed, and with the public option, Pelosi would have to do a quick recount to make sure she still has the votes, but it's a tantalizing possibility since they have to vote on it anyway - and this time they are not constrained by needing 60 votes.

Remember that Public option was not included primarily because of Lieberman's objections (and of course all the Republicans). Now, with only 50 Senate votes needed (and Biden to tie break if necessary), not only is the public option in play, but a strong public option at that. Recall that there were two version of the public option floating around - one that tied reimbursement rates to Medicare (thus stronger and cheaper), and another which would have to negotiate rates just like insurance companies (the more expensive but weaker). You could conceivably pass the stronger version now - which would not be good news for the doctors (though it would mean health-care costs would be lower for the patients).

Again, just to reiterate, it is still unlikely that the public option will be in the bill. But I bet you'll hear a lot about massive pressure being put on to introduce a public option amendment (which may be defeated because Dems don't want to take the chance), but I bet the pressure will be huge from the liberal bloc.
 
Lokhtar said:
No, remember that it was sent back not because a Republican amendment was successful or there weren't enough votes for it, but because the Senate parliamentarian ruled that one part of the bill didn't fit into the budget requirement, so it can't be passed via reconciliation. It was an administrative mistake the democrats made when crafting the reconciliation bill, two lines that are now removed from the bill.

The public option has clear and direct bearing on budget and deficits, and therefore would be able to be passed by reconciliation. I am not a huge betting person, but if there was a pool going and it was offering me 5-1 odds on the public option being in the bill right now, I'd take it. Still an unlikely thing, because right now the votes are guaranteed, and with the public option, Pelosi would have to do a quick recount to make sure she still has the votes, but it's a tantalizing possibility since they have to vote on it anyway - and this time they are not constrained by needing 60 votes.

Remember that Public option was not included primarily because of Lieberman's objections (and of course all the Republicans). Now, with only 50 Senate votes needed (and Biden to tie break if necessary), not only is the public option in play, but a strong public option at that. Recall that there were two version of the public option floating around - one that tied reimbursement rates to Medicare (thus stronger and cheaper), and another which would have to negotiate rates just like insurance companies (the more expensive but weaker). You could conceivably pass the stronger version now - which would not be good news for the doctors (though it would mean health-care costs would be lower for the patients).

Again, just to reiterate, it is still unlikely that the public option will be in the bill. But I bet you'll hear a lot about massive pressure being put on to introduce a public option amendment (which may be defeated because Dems don't want to take the chance), but I bet the pressure will be huge from the liberal bloc.
Click to expand...

Whatever the budgetary reasons for sending it back ... Fox is touting it as the Republicans still fightin!!! lol. Anyway, I'm not concerned.
 
JaggerPlate said:
Whatever the budgetary reasons for sending it back ... Fox is touting it as the Republicans still fightin!!! lol. Anyway, I'm not concerned.
Click to expand...

Well, regardless of how Fox spins it:


  1. Republicans are definitely still fighting this thing - introducing amendments that are politically hard to defend, like no Viagra for sex-crime convicts.
  2. Democrats are solid in their resistance, not a single amendment has gotten through.
  3. It was not sent back due to a lack of votes. Remember you just need 50 votes now to defeat any motion.
  4. I bet the Senate Parliamentarian will be fired in the few months for agreeing with the Republicans. Remember that he serves at the behest of the majority party, and they can fire him if they don't like his advice. It happens often enough, Republicans fired the last one because they didn't like his ruling on tax breaks during the last reconciliation.
 
Wow, how many times has the public option come and gone? This IS the last-ditch effort... though I read somewhere that the senate was planning on bringing it up again in a few months, but this might be their push.

And if they DO bring it up, will there be a buncha waiting around for CBO scores and committees and what not discussing it, or will be it a quick "here it is, let's vote!" kinda' deal.
 
XxNemesis29xX said:
Wow, how many times has the public option come and gone? This IS the last-ditch effort... though I read somewhere that the senate was planning on bringing it up again in a few months, but this might be their push.

And if they DO bring it up, will there be a buncha waiting around for CBO scores and committees and what not discussing it, or will be it a quick "here it is, let's vote!" kinda' deal.
Click to expand...

That is up to the democrats. The CBO scored the public option last time, and if that is the public option that is included and it's unchanged, there'd be no need to go to the CBO again. However, if the public option that is included is the strong one (e.g tied to medicare), that might require another score, but democrats are under no obligation to wait for the CBO score. With that said, many moderate democrats may require the CBO to score such an option again. So that's to be determined - not having to wait for the CBO might get the democrat to include the same option that passed the House earlier so they can go right to the votes. This is all dynamic though, and I don't think it'll be part of this bill. The three most powerful people in Washington, Pelosi, Obama, and Reid (probably in that order 😛) all support the public option, but all oppose changing the reconciliation bill to include the public option.
 
mechanictodr said:
That's how it is here as well. Everyone knows that 20% cuts in medicare don't mean only to doctors. The nurses I work with got no COLA this year and are looking at losing some benifits next year and with this bill no one is too pleased. Plus no one wants to take on more of the patients that this bill covers becasue those are the ones with rough backgrounds that have a higher tendancy towards violence, hiding their dinner forks and applying them to your arm like what nearly happened to me last month, and all that great stuff from the poor, I don't work, I do meth, watch out cause I'm going to freak out and try to stab you and rip out my central line crowd. Fun.

Our CEO told the local paper that he was pleased that the bill passed because we will get more funding to cover those that can't pay. So... I'm not sure what to think as far as this one hospital is concerned it could be a good thing.
Click to expand...


Are you kidding with this jazz? Not the Medicare cuts AGAIN.

The Medicare cuts are a separate issue. Republicans circa 1997 are responsible for them, NOT Obama/Pelosi/Congressional dems in the year 2010.
 
Just a thought I had. Sort of related.

If we begin to define health care as a basic human right. One all humans by existence should be endowed with. How will we say no to a liver transplant for a raging alcoholic? How could we then ignore of abuse his right to healthcare?

I'm not trying to make any point, just a thought I had and would like to hear others (honest and serious) thoughts about it.
 
7starmantis said:
Just a thought I had. Sort of related.

If we begin to define health care as a basic human right. One all humans by existence should be endowed with. How will we say no to a liver transplant for a raging alcoholic? How could we then ignore of abuse his right to healthcare?

I'm not trying to make any point, just a thought I had and would like to hear others (honest and serious) thoughts about it.
Click to expand...

And does this mean that patients can force medical practitioners (human beings) to care for them?
 
7starmantis said:
Just a thought I had. Sort of related.

If we begin to define health care as a basic human right. One all humans by existence should be endowed with. How will we say no to a liver transplant for a raging alcoholic? How could we then ignore of abuse his right to healthcare?

I'm not trying to make any point, just a thought I had and would like to hear others (honest and serious) thoughts about it.
Click to expand...

Assuming we have infinite hearts, yes, we would be obligated to give one to him.

Even if you call health care a human right, it's still reasonable to have priorities lists if you have limited resources.

It's like how in the declaration of independence we mention a right to life. A boat sinks and there is one life preserver, you give it to one person. You don't make two people share. But, if you have two life preservers, you can't withhold one from a dude because he's a dick.
 
7starmantis said:
Just a thought I had. Sort of related.

If we begin to define health care as a basic human right. One all humans by existence should be endowed with. How will we say no to a liver transplant for a raging alcoholic? How could we then ignore of abuse his right to healthcare?

I'm not trying to make any point, just a thought I had and would like to hear others (honest and serious) thoughts about it.
Click to expand...

Didn't you say you were done this thread like, two days ago?

I think if you're going to be a physician you should probably have a working understanding of how the donor system works. My sister is a kidney transplant candidate and they wouldn't even let her on the list until she was at a certain level of physical fitness for the transplant (she is not obese, she was severely injured in an auto accident and went septic multiple times.) It's this way even in countries with soshulized medicine.
 
morning said:
Didn't you say you were done this thread like, two days ago?

I think if you're going to be a physician you should probably have a working understanding of how the donor system works. My sister is a kidney transplant candidate and they wouldn't even let her on the list until she was at a certain level of physical fitness for the transplant (she is not obese, she was severely injured in an auto accident and went septic multiple times.) It's this way even in countries with soshulized medicine.
Click to expand...

I think you totally misunderstand and misrepresent 7star's point.
 
Does anyone else find it funny that this health reform bill (now law) is almost IDENTICAL to the one NIXON tried to pass?



And mandating health reform is evil? Tell that to Bob Dole and Mitt Romney and the rest of these fools that attempted this already and are now saying it is bad to mandate reform.



These people will do anything to push their agenda.



And did anyone hear that Rush is now trying to say that the new tax on tanning is some how racist against white people! LMFAO
 
7starmantis said:
Just a thought I had. Sort of related.

If we begin to define health care as a basic human right. One all humans by existence should be endowed with. How will we say no to a liver transplant for a raging alcoholic? How could we then ignore of abuse his right to healthcare?

I'm not trying to make any point, just a thought I had and would like to hear others (honest and serious) thoughts about it.
Click to expand...

Because there are not an infinite number of livers and so we ration (*gasp* that word) them based on who needs it more and who we think has the best chance with it.

In the hypothetical situation where we had an infinite organ supply, yes we would most likely provide a liver transplant to an alcoholic. Like we keep resuscitating people who try to commit suicide.
 
And the famous "Baby Killer" line? Guess what group Randy Neugebauer is a leader of? The Birthers.

The Birthers are the group that doesn't believe Obama was born in the USA.
 
Drad18 said:
And the famous "Baby Killer" line? Guess what group Randy Neugebauer is a leader of? The Birthers.

The Birthers are the group that doesn't believe Obama was born in the USA.
Click to expand...


no matter what side of the issue you are on, i think everyone should agree that was a totally inappropriate thing to say. am i surprised, though? NO. why? politicians in this country are worse than kindergartners. how many times did they have to be asked to STFU and sit down, to stop having side conversations, to respect the time limit, to FOLLOW THE F-ING RULES and simply BE POLITE? and this is who runs our country. we are conditioned to obey and follow the rules for at least 12 yrs of our lives (school) only to follow rules made by people who can't even respect each other enough to have the decency to shut the hell up when someone is speaking.


SERIOUSLY.




sorry. end of the rant.
 
curbye said:
no matter what side of the issue you are on, i think everyone should agree that was a totally inappropriate thing to say. am i surprised, though? NO. why? politicians in this country are worse than kindergartners. how many times did they have to be asked to STFU and sit down, to stop having side conversations, to respect the time limit, to FOLLOW THE F-ING RULES and simply BE POLITE? and this is who runs our country. we are conditioned to obey and follow the rules for at least 12 yrs of our lives (school) only to follow rules made by people who can't even respect each other enough to have the decency to shut the hell up when someone is speaking.


SERIOUSLY.




sorry. end of the rant.
Click to expand...


That is how I feel.


To add to this.


John McCain (who could be president right now) has recently said that "There will be no more cooperation by republicans the rest of the year!"
 
John McCain (who could be president right now) has recently said that "There will be no more cooperation by republicans the rest of the year!"
Click to expand...
In other words, not a single thing will change from last year? Cool, and what's that? The world is still round? Keep pointing the obvious out, please.
 
Parts Unknown said:
Every vapid talking point that has been regurgiposted onto the interwebs has been pulverized by this point in the game. Watching the public, and even premeds, debate health policy is like watching third graders discuss sex after watching hardcore pornography. There are a multitude of intelligent points that could be raised and debated, but they aren't being made here. As there is literally nothing left to say in a morass such as this, we should all just sit back and enjoy the show.


Well, okay, I have one thing left to say. If anyone really wants to become educated on these matters, read Understanding Health Policy once or twice, read The Health Care Blog about every other day, and read Health Affairs for about an hour a week.

God help you all.
Click to expand...
Very well said...refreshing to see someone make a point without the barbing of trite talking points. You must be a mature and cogitative individual...the kind we badly need directing the traffic of the 'third graders' you quoted above...lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
SDN Article: The “One Big Beautiful Bill”: How New Budget Legislation May Reshape Medical Training and Healthcare Access
Replies
2
Views
1K
ksudee
K
D
  • Locked
lol healthcare
Replies
13
Views
1K
GoSpursGo
GoSpursGo
M
Project Healthcare at Bellevue Interview
Replies
3
Views
1K
idk_what_im_doing
I
H
Getting a job outside of healthcare so I don't wind up homeless
Replies
9
Views
1K
sardinetoast
S
spongebobdoc
Controversial Healthcare Topics
Replies
13
Views
3K
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
Top