posted
I would really like to see a private insurance company to take on a medicare type policy.
(1) No one under the age of 65 would be allowed to buy a policy.
(2) And everybody excepted irregardless of past conditions.
Now when I see a private insurer do that I may listen to there whining. But the way the private industry thinks, that is a segment of the insurance market that they give the tax payers because nobody can make any money in that market. Wake up people you are being taken apart and made over like a cheap watch. Get private insurance out of health care your bodies are not a commodity.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Once again, if you're Union (in the tank for Obama) you're in!!
Deal Reached on Taxing 'Cadillac' Plans
The White House has reached a deal with health care negotiators, including labor unions, on taxing the high-level "Cadillac" plans that workers with high-risk jobs often purchase.
The excise tax on high-cost insurance plans has been one of the biggest sticking points in the negotiations, as President Obama has favored the Senate plan which calls for the tax, while House Democrats preferred raising taxes on high-income earners.
A senior Democratic official speaking on background told Fox News that the threshold for exemption would be raised from $23,000 to $24,000 per family but would remain the same at $8,500 for singles with high-value plans. Dental and vision plans would be removed from that calculation, however.
State and local workers and union members are exempted until 2017. A Democratic source with close union contacts said labor leaders are not particularly happy with the tentative deal, but are much less angry than they were at the previous plan.
The new plan was not accompanied by an explanation to how much revenue would be generated by the new figures.
The value of the plans that are taxed would be indexed to the consumer price index plus 1 percent, meaning over time more and more people would be affected by the threshold than would be if the tax had been indexed to health care inflation. Health care spending in 2008, the last year for which the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has data, rose at a historically low rate of 4.4. percent. Inflation was at 6 percent in 2007.
The White House did not comment on the deal on Thursday, with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs saying only that on Wednesday the president and Democratic members of Congress "made a tremendous amount of progress in bridging the differences that existed between the two pieces of legislation that have passed the House and the Senate."
"We may have more later in the day," Gibbs said.
The deal must be vetted with rank-and-file members but the agreement would appear to be a major win for Senate Democrats.
posted
e White House has agreed to exempt collective bargaining agreements from the Cadillac tax until January 1, 2018 and increase the threshold of the plans affected by the tax.
Beginning on January 1, 2013, a family plan that costs more than $24,000 and an individual policy valued at $8,900 will now be subject to the 40% excise tax, labor leaders said during a conference call outlining the new compromise. The new provisions would reduce the estimated revenue from the excise tax by $60 billion, forcing lawmakers to make-up for the lost revenue by increasing the payroll tax (which would still hit union members) or applying it to investment income.
AFL-CIO President Richard Tumka laid out the other compromise provisions:
- The threshold can also be adjusted further in three ways: if between 2010-2013, inflation increases higher than expected, if plans have a high number of older workers, women, high risk individuals and qualified retirees.
- Beginning in 2015, dental and vision benefits will be excluded from the cost of the plan.
- Collective bargaining agreements would be able to go into the exchange beginning in 2017.
Critics will interpret the temporary exemption as a special interest carve out for a vital political constituency, but it makes perfect policy sense. Unlike non-union labor negotiations which can be re-negotiated annually, collective bargaining agreements tie unions down for multiple years. The temporary exemption allows them to get out of the way of a moving train. After all, collective bargaining agreements are not the same as raise negotiations for non-union employees. While the latter operates under the implicit assumption that a certain percentage of compensation is dedicated for health benefits and is exempt from taxation, a union collective bargaining agreement enters into an explicit trade off between taxable and nontaxable compensation.
Typically, a union negotiates a certain dollar agreement from the employer for total compensation as well as how that will be divided between wages and benefits. The employer could agree to compensate its workers $30 per hour and the union would decide to allocate $20 to wages and $10 to health care. Or, it may choose to spend $15 on wages and $15 on health care. Whatever the case, the unions weighs the benefits of receiving tax deductible health benefits with the immediacy of higher wages and agrees to abide by the agreement for several years.
Without an exemption period, the excise tax would change the rules midstream. Non-union workers with expensive health care benefits could change their compensation package in anticipation of the new tax, but unions with health policies of above $24,000 would pay higher taxes until their contract expires. The temporary exemption still accomplishes the goals of the excise tax — pushing people into lower cost health care plans — but gives unions more time to change their behavior and switch to cheaper policies.
Still, some progressives are not amused. Over at FireDogLake, Michael Whitney argues that “if unions take this ‘deal,’ if the labor movement decides to fold and exempt themselves from the excise tax, they fulfill one of the worst of stereotypes of labor unions: blind self interest. By abandoning the nonunion middle class and protecting only their own, the labor movement is throwing any hope of future relevancy out the window.” On the call, Trumka argued that “we were able to do something that will help everyone out there.” “We’ve increased the threshold for everybody. The age and the gender adjusts for everybody taking out vision and dental out of threshold is for everybody,” he argued.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will Brown Give Back The Federal Money That Subsidized Health Reform In Massachusetts?
Senator-elect Scott Brown (R-MA) supports Massachusetts’ 2006 health care reform but opposes the near-identical Senate health care bill. During the campaign, Brown promised to provide the 41st vote for any national reform effort that required states like Massachusetts to finance reform elsewhere:
Thank you for the question, the health care plan is not good for Bay State Health Center here in Springfield, I worked on that health care bill, the problem with it is that we have 98% of our people insured and we have to look at pricing it’s getting out of control – but the Federal plan, taking a half trillion from Medicare, why would we go and subsidize the failure of other states – not only would we be paying for our plan, we’d be paying for everyone else – and look at the back door deals – I think people have lost confidence – and I think that we need to go back – I’d work on it – why do we need a one size fits all government approach we already did But if Brown believes that Americans should not have to finance other states’ reform efforts, he should return the federal dollars that subsidize Massachusetts’ Medicaid expansion. After all, the state’s 2006 health care reform legislation included an expansion of Medicaid for children up to 300% of the federal poverty level and increased enrollment caps on existing Medicaid programs for adults. Massachusetts relied “very heavily on federal Medicaid funds to finance the plan, including $385 million in annual federal Medicaid payments that would have been lost in the absence of a plan to reduce the number of uninsured.”
Massachusetts used federal funds because, like all states, it lacked the economic capacity to invest in something as big as health care reform. Only the federal government can fix the systematic problems plaguing the health care system and improve the system in an equitable manner. Brown’s insistence that states can do reform on their own, is just a back door way for preserving the status quo that denies millions of Americans the kind of reforms that they’re financing in Massachusetts.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pelosi: Not Enough Votes to Pass Senate Health Bill in House
WASHINGTON -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday she does not have the votes to pass the Senate's version of a health insurance bill that is now in severe jeopardy of being scrapped.
Just days ago, that was the most viable option for keeping alive President Obama's top domestic priority, but with the election of Republican Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts, the fragile coalition of Democrats has broken apart as lawmakers bicker over which portions of the $900 billion, 10-year Senate bill they will and won't accept.
Emerging from a closed-door meeting with her caucus, the House speaker vented frustration with the massive version of the legislation.
"In its present form without any changes I don't think it's possible to pass the Senate bill in the House," said Pelosi, D-Calif. "I don't see the votes for it at this time."
Among the issues that House lawmakers are unwilling to accept is the 40 percent excise tax on high-value insurance plans that unions earned an exemption from until 2018 after major backlash toward the Democratic-led Congress.
Lawmakers are now looking at options that were left on the drawing board as the party looks to pursue a more modest bill. Senior House Democratic aides say they are evaluating the potential of taking parts of the existing bill and passing it in a piecemeal fashion. But they say privately there is no roadmap and they don't expect to have a decision for a couple of weeks.
Pelosi didn't present a blueprint for how Democrats might proceed on health care, except to say that "everything is on the table."
"We're not in a big rush. We'll pause," Pelosi said. "We have to know what our possibilities are."
posted
Brown In ‘09: Admits Massachusetts Took Federal Dollars To Fund Health Reform, Sees Need For Public Option
While Senator-elect Scott Brown (R-MA) now says that Massachusetts shouldn’t subsidize federal health care reform, in October of 2009 the then-mostly unknown candidate Brown bragged that his state “took money that was coming from the federal government” rather than raise taxes to pay for its 2006 health care overhaul. During the radio interview with WRKO, Brown also defended the individual and employer health care mandates and admitted that the public option “may be good for other parts of the country“:
BROWN: It’s not good for Massachusetts because any time government is trying to put a government option there with directly competing with what we’ve done already here, it may be good for other parts of the country, but for us where we have 98% of the people insured already, government should not be in the business of running health care…We took actually money that was coming from the Federal government and also from the uncompensated health care pool, things we were giving hospitals were in fact to pay for this. And obviously there’s an employer contribution and a purchaser contribution. We gave through the Connector and various types of plans, Commonwealth Care, we provided pretty good plans for a lot of folks that wanted that type of care. Brown implied that the federal government needs to play a role in reforming the health care system and stressed that the federal dollars have helped insure residents who “don’t have any care whatsoever.” “Until they change the federal rules regarding health care and health care coverage for all, and we have to continue to support the folks hare in Massachusetts to keep them healthy,” he said.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brown had stated repeated during the campaign that he is for health care reform, Ray. Just not this monstrosity that the Dems are trying to push through right now.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
what have the republicans done but obstruct when asked they want it to stay the same they are the monsters in this county. The dems made it the way it was to keep the insurance companies in the loop and maybe get a few republicans to go along but the bought off crooks won't do that they want there masters to keep the 31% and not a dime less.
The problem with Obama is he is to nice and he should have stayed here and fought instead of going to China and other places, his country was facing a crisis and he should of been here at the helm. Most of the country wanted Bush's hide and he did not hang him, like I would have. Obama will pay the price for this in the end he will be another Jimmy Carter unless he can pull a Regan.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: The problem with Obama is he is to nice and he should have stayed here and fought instead of going to China and other places, his country was facing a crisis and he should of been here at the helm. Most of the country wanted Bush's hide and he did not hang him, like I would have. Obama will pay the price for this in the end he will be another Jimmy Carter unless he can pull a Regan.
posted
yes I did not for the same reasons you would and I will never be conservative in heart I have seen there cruelness first hand also there lies. I would never change camps. But I will admit when we are wrong and hopefully a correction can be made.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by raybond: [QB] what have the republicans done but obstruct when asked they want it to stay the same they are the monsters in this county. The dems made it the way it was to keep the insurance companies in the loop and maybe get a few republicans to go along but the bought off crooks won't do that they want there masters to keep the 31% and not a dime less.
What choice did the republicans have but to just let the Dem's self destruct. If your not given a real chance to have your voice heard what would you do? The Democrat congress had the ability to pass any legislation they wanted, but once the moderates realized they where going to have to answer for this lunacy, they ran for cover. Our congress works best with split power so real debate and compromise can take place. Usually a congress that does nothing is better than what we've seen here.
-------------------- Let's Go METS!!! Posts: 3317 | From: CT | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Question: What exactly is wrong with our presnt Health care system? and how is this legislation being pushed thru congress gonna fix what's wrong?
I think maybe we should identfy the problems with what's in place and then work to repair those, creating an entirely new untested system doesn't seem to be the best way to go.
-------------------- Let's Go METS!!! Posts: 3317 | From: CT | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lockman: Question: What exactly is wrong with our presnt Health care system? and how is this legislation being pushed thru congress gonna fix what's wrong?
I think maybe we should identfy the problems with what's in place and then work to repair those, creating an entirely new untested system doesn't seem to be the best way to go.
IMO? a public option with a garantee of no deficit spending is all they needed to do.
people say it will be anti-competitive, but i totally disagree with that.
co's that switch to it will lose their best employees.
the insurance co's are already heavily subsidized because the govt takes all the worst cases anyway. the govt also takes everybody on medicare which tends to be a major cost savings for insurance co's.
this bill got all screwed up in part because the public option was the original goal and it got sidetracked by fear mongers in the insurance industry who ended up getting EXACTLY what they wanted which is a requirement for everybody to get health insurance.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree 100% with that glass. Insurance companies only insure good risks in this country the tax payer picks up the bill for the sick and elderly.The fear mongers or republicans got the bill side tract by fear and obstruction. They never brought one thing to the table for debate they just said no and were well paid for it.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by raybond: I agree 100% with that glass. Insurance companies only insure good risks in this country the tax payer picks up the bill for the sick and elderly.The fear mongers or republicans got the bill side tract by fear and obstruction. They never brought one thing to the table for debate they just said no and were well paid for it.
I don't believe there was any room in the closed door meetings for Republicans to bring their ideas. Maybe that will change now, but I doubt it at least until after the november elections.
-------------------- Let's Go METS!!! Posts: 3317 | From: CT | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Republicans has,have,had,nothing to offer...doors were open for their help but ,as is widely known , they condemned and critisized with nothing helpful offered. give one example of an idea to help reform out current health care travesty.
-------------------- jordan Posts: 5812 | From: st paul,mn | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Tort reform...
Cross State Boundry Competition...
Oh, wait, you only asked for one. Sorry, Jordan.
Tort reform?
read the constitution carefully:
Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
it's one of the Bills of Rights.
it's funny how people want to go back" tot eh Constitution but only when it suits their desires.
Tort reform will only clean up 1% of the costs anyway.
Crossing State Lines to sell insurance?
that's how we ended up with 30% interest credit cards and the banking collapse.
Corporate entitites hide behind state lines to avoid regualtion.
we don't even a have Federal Insurance Commission now, we'd have to create whole new Bureacracy to manage interstate trading in insurance, so be careful what you ask for. especially if you want LESS government.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Open Letter to President Obama on Health Care Reform
By Margaret Flowers, M.D. Op-Ed News January 28, 2010
President Barack Obama| 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear President Obama,
I was overjoyed to hear you say in your State of the Union address last night:
"But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know."
My colleagues, fellow health advocates and I have been trying to meet with you for over a year now because we have an approach which will meet all of your goals and more.
I am a pediatrician who, like many of my primary care colleagues, left practice because it is nearly impossible to deliver high quality health care in this environment. I have been volunteering for Physicians for a National Health Program ever since. For over a year now, I have been working with the Leadership Conference for Guaranteed Health Care/ National Single Payer Alliance. This alliance represents over 20 million people nationwide from doctors to nurses to labor, faith and community groups who advocate on behalf of the majority of Americans, including doctors, who favor a national Medicare-for-All health system.
I felt very optimistic when Congress took up health care reform last January because I remember when you spoke to the Illinois AFL-CIO in June, 2003 and said:
"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program." (applause) "I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House."
And that is why I was so surprised when the voices of those who support a national single-payer plan/Medicare for All were excluded in place of the voices of the very health insurance and pharmaceutical industries which profit off the current health care situation.
There was an opportunity this past year to create universal and financially sustainable health care reform rather than expensive health insurance reform. As you well know, the United States spends the most per capita on health care in the world yet leaves millions of people out and receives poor return on those health care dollars in terms of health outcomes and efficiency. This poor value for our health care dollar is due to the waste of having so many insurance companies. At least a third of our health care dollars go towards activities that have nothing to do with health care such as marketing, administration and high executive salaries and bonuses. This represents over $400 billion per year which could be used to pay for health care for all of those Americans who are suffering and dying from preventable causes.
The good news is that it doesn't have to be this way. You said that you wanted to "keep what works" and that would be Medicare. Medicare is an American legacy of which we can feel proud. It has guaranteed health security to all who have it. Medicare has lifted senior citizens out of poverty. Health disparities, which are rising in this nation, begin to disappear as soon as patients reach 65 years of age. And patients and doctors prefer Medicare to private insurance. Why, our Medicare has even been used as a model by other nations which have developed and implemented universal health systems.
Mr. President, we wanted to meet with you because we have the solution to health care reform. The United States has enough money already and we have the resources, including esteemed experts in public health, health policy and health financing. Our very own Dr. William Hsiao at Harvard has designed health systems in five other countries.
I am asking you to meet with me because the solution is simple. Remove all of the industries who profit off of the American health care catastrophe from the table. Replace them with those who are knowledgeable in designing health systems and who are without ties to the for-profit medical industries. And then allow them to design an improved Medicare-for-All national health system. We can implement it within a year of designing such a system.
What are the benefits of doing this?
* It will save tens of thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of American lives each year, not to mention the prevention of unnecessary suffering.
* It will relieve families of medical debt, which is the number one cause of bankruptcy and foreclosure despite the fact that most of those who experienced bankruptcy had health insurance.
* It will relieve businesses of the growing burden of skyrocketing health insurance premiums so that they can invest in innovation, hiring, increased wages and other benefits and so they can compete in the global market.
* It will control health care costs in a rational way through global budgeting and negotiation for fair prices for pharmaceuticals and services.
* It will allow patients the freedom to choose wherever they want to go for health care and will allow patients and their caregivers to determine which care is best without denials by insurance administrators.
* It will restore the physician-patient relationship and bring satisfaction back to the practice of medicine so that more doctors will stay in or return to practice.
* It will allow our people in our nation to be healthy and productive and able to support themselves and their families.
* It will create a legacy for your administration that may someday elevate you to the same hero status as Tommy Douglas has in Canada.
Mr. President, there are more benefits, but I believe you get the point. I look forward to meeting with you and am so pleased that you are open to our ideas. The Medicare-for-All campaign is growing rapidly and is ready to support you as we move forward on health care reform that will provide America with one of the best health systems in the world. And that is something of which all Americans can be proud.
With great anticipation and deep respect,
Margaret Flowers, M.D. Maryland chapter, Physicians for a National Health Program
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes Jordan you are right the Republicans have brought nothing to the table and the door is open to them Obama himself has said many times over that he wants there input.
There response has been as it is now they want to make this Obamas first failing his high water mark. This an immoral and criminal mind set since it being done at the expense of sick people and poor that are in need of help. In other words they are waging class warfare.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree..except with the poor there is healthcare available,,I, for one, am on medical assistance and take full advantage of the program...however..it needs to be expanded...the lower middle class, cant afford there own premiums and deductibles...and this pre=existing conditions clause..another problem is when they assess your income, it is based on gross income rather than net..which for the self- employed is a killer.
-------------------- jordan Posts: 5812 | From: st paul,mn | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
December 15, 2009 Dear Diary: Documenting Daily Republican Health Care Obstruction
Since the debate began two weeks ago on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Democratic Senators have been committed to passing a bill that saves lives, makes health insurance more affordable and ends insurance company abuses.
In contrast, Senate Republicans have approached this debate with the shared goal of killing health reform. Senate Republicans have cast votes against transparency, protecting Social Security and Medicare, expanding women’s preventive care access and fiscal responsibility. They have even used precious time to create and publish an obstruction manual.
In case you've missed the first several weeks of the debate, here’s a brief recap of Senate Republicans’ attempts to undercut reform:
MONDAY – November 30
Democrats Asked to Hold Votes on Protecting Women’s Health and Protecting America’s Seniors... Republicans refuse to say yes to anything, including simple vote scheduling. Majority Leader Reid asked for consent to hold votes today and said, “I think it would be very good that we could move this bill along, have some votes tomorrow afternoon. We’d have four votes. We have two amendments pending. This, in fact, would dispose of those amendments.” [Senate Floor, 12/1/09]
…And Republicans Objected. Republican Leader McConnell said, “I have to object.” [Senate Floor, 12/1/09]
TUESDAY - December 1
Coburn Continues Fear and Smear, Says Seniors Will “Die Sooner” if Reform Passes. On the Senate floor, Senator Coburn continued to spread fear in the senior community and said, “…seniors, I have a message for you: you’re going to die sooner.” [Senate Floor, 12/1/09]
WEDNESDAY - December 2
Gregg’s Guide to Obstruction Becomes Public. Senator Gregg authored a memo for the Republican caucus outlining all the procedural games at the minority’s disposal during the health care debate. As TPM noted, “Most of the steps Gregg suggests his colleagues take don't serve any substantive purpose at all, but simply cause the debate proceedings to grind to a halt.” [TPM,12/2/09]
First GOP Action on the Bill – a Motion to Start Over. Instead of beginning to legislate, the Republicans offered a motion to commit the bill back to the Finance Committee to continue overpayments to insurance companies in Medicare Advantage and continue to let waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare occur. [McCain Motion, introduced 12/2/09, S.V. 358]
Real Republican Agenda Revealed: Use “Esoteric” Procedural Tactics to Delay Needed Health Reform. Roll Call reported on just what the Republicans are up to and wrote, “But instead of offering a conventional amendment, they decided to use an esoteric procedural tactic that would send the bill back to committee with instructions to eliminate the cuts. If successful, the GOP’s gambit would force Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to use time-consuming procedures and hold another filibuster-killing vote on whether to restart debate on the bill.” [Roll Call, 12/2/09]
THURSDAY - December 3
Hatch Motion Yet Another Delay Tactic: Senator Hatch, who introduced the second measure to delay the bill, attempted to send the legislation back to the Finance Committee with instructions to keep overpayments for private insurance companies in Medicare Advantage. [Hatch Motion, introduced 12/3/09]
Majority of Republicans Voted Against Protecting Women’s Access to Mammograms, Preventive Services. The Mikulski Amendment protected women’s right to preventive services, including mammograms. The vast majority of republicans voting did not support the amendment. [Mikulski Amendment, 12/3/09]
Majority of Republicans Voted to Support McCain Motion to Delay Health Reform Legislation. The McCain motion to commit the bill back to the Finance Committee would protect insurance companies by continuing the overpayments they receive in Medicare Advantage. It would also let waste, fraud and abuse in the Medicare system continue to occur. [McCain Motion, 12/3/09, S.V. 358]
FRIDAY - December 4
All Republicans Voting Supported the Hatch Amendment to Delay the Bill. 39 Republicans – all the Republicans voting that day – voted in support of this motion to delay real legislation on the bill. [Hatch Motion, 12/4/09, S.V. 362]
Johanns Motion Falls in Line With the Republicans Strategy on the Bill. Senator Johanns offered yet another Republican motion to commit the bill back to the Finance Committee. [Johanns Motion, introduced 12/4/09]
SATURDAY - December 5
All Republicans Voting Supported the Johanns Amendment to Delay the Bill. 37 Republicans – all the Republicans voting that day – voted in support of this motion to delay real legislation on the bill. [Johanns Motion, 12/5/09, S.V. 364]
SUNDAY – December 6 / MONDAY – December 7
Senate Republican Leader Sticks Finger in Air to Decide Medicare Position…
Sunday: McConnell Says “Cutting Medicare is Not What Americans Want.” On Monday, Republican Leader Mitch McConnell lauded Medicare and put out a press release titled: “Cutting Medicare is not what Americans want.” [McConnell press release, 12/6/09]
Monday: Umm Scratch That…McConnell Says “Expanding Medicare ‘a Plan for Financial Ruin.’” On Tuesday, Republican Leader Mitch McConnell put out a press release titled: “Expanding Medicare ‘a plan for financial ruin.’” [McConnell press release, 12/7/09]
TUESDAY – December 8
Limbaugh Calls Out McConnell – Not Enough Obstruction. “They are up there adding amendments. There’s no question they’re adding amendments to it. McConnell’s office did call here and say that they are opposing this, so I don’t know if adding amendments is a strategery [sic] to bollix it up and slow it down. But I — I disagree. They just need to say no; there’s nothing wrong with saying no to this!’ Limbaugh said Tuesday. Limbaugh took another shot at Senate Republicans on his show Wednesday. ‘The Senate Republican leadership strategy here was flawed because it allowed the Democrats to take the offensive, buy time to work out a deal,’ Limbaugh said. ‘I know a disaster when I see it. And I know that it’s gotta be stopped, and whatever parliamentary steps are available to people ... should have been taken.’” [The Hill, 12/10/09]
WEDNESDAY – December 9
DeMint: Health Care Debate Not About Health Care. In an opinion piece for FOXNews.com, Senator DeMint wrote, “But this debate is about much more than health care. It is a battle for the heart and soul of America. It is a struggle between freedom and socialism, between free markets and a centrally planned economy, and between ‘We the People’ and an entrenched class of elite politicians.” [FOXNews.com, 12/9/09]
Conservative Organizations Demand Continued Obstruction. In a letter to Republican Leaders McConnell and Kyl, conservative organizations – including Tea Party activists – demanded the GOP leaders use all procedural hurdles available to them to delay, derail and deny the health insurance reform. “Now that the majority has put together a one-party "compromise" it is critical that Republicans make it clear that you will use every prerogative of the minority to prevent them from jamming this new bill through. Please use every procedural tool available to you to ensure there is a full debate, including full debate on each amendment, and to ensure ample time for the American people to communicate their opposition to their elected representatives.” [12/9/09]
THURSDAY – December 10
Steele: Yup, Republicans are Definitely NOT Interested in Health Reform. “Steele encouraged the party leaders to ‘spend every bit of capital and energy you have to stop this health care reform’ and said Democrats are absolutely correct in charging that GOP of doing everything it can to slow down the bill. ‘The Democrats have accused us of trying to delay, stall, slow down, and stop this bill,’ he wrote. ‘They are right. We do want to delay, stall, slow down, and ultimately stop them from experimenting on our nation’s health care. And guess what, so do a majority of Americans.’” [Politico, 12/10/09]
DeMint Needs More Real Republicans to “Challenge the Republican Party and Our Leadership...” In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, Senator DeMint lamented the lack of Republican Senators willing to challenge the leadership and promised to go “out across the country recruiting new Republicans” who will “be willing to even challenge the Republican Party and our leadership if they feel like we’re going in the wrong direction.” “Senator Jim DeMint: ‘I need some new Republicans, people who believe in constitutional government, a balanced budget and liberty and so I’m out across the country recruiting new Republicans who I think if they get here will not only challenge the institutions of government but be willing to even challenge the Republican Party and our leadership if they feel like we’re going in the wrong direction. I think just a handful of new Republicans in the Senate could help change the direction.’” [CBN, 12/10/09, video here]
DeMint: GOP Leadership has “Gone Left.” “Conservative Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) on Wednesday called out the leadership of the Republican Party for straying too far from conservative principles. DeMint, in an interview with the Christian Broadcast Network, also said that he is trying to recruit a new crop of GOP lawmakers to challenge the party establishment. ‘The problem in the Republican Party is that the leadership has gone to the left,’ he said. ‘I need some new Republicans.’” [Blog Briefing Room, The Hill, 12/10/09]
The Republican Leader Wants Votes on Health Reform So Bad…That He Objects to a Vote on Health Reform. Earlier in the day on Thursday, Senator McConnell said, “We have been anxious to have health care votes since Tuesday and we’ve had the Crapo amendment pending since Tuesday. … We would like to vote on amendments. … All we’re asking is the opportunity to offer amendments and get votes. … I think it is pretty hard to argue with a straight face that we’re not trying to proceed to amend and have votes on this bill. That’s what we desire to do.” Later that day, Senator Reid proposed a unanimous request and Senator McConnell objected. [Senate Floor, 12/10/09]
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait.....I know the answer!Get rid of the Republican party altogether! Problem solved!
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious. Posts: 3311 | From: St. Louis | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pagan: Wait.....I know the answer!Get rid of the Republican party altogether! Problem solved!
Well the Democrat party has had an overwhelming majority and done nothing. Why is it that the Democrat controlled congress and white house have not voted thru their programs?
Their was nothing the Republican party could have done except to complain.
Is it because the Democrat party has no backbone and don't want to own a failed policy?
All of the Democrat bills could have been passed, but it looks like the members where more interested in shaking down the American people and protecting their own skin.
This administrations failure to pass their legislation has nothing to do with wheather the Republicans contributed anything, but more to do with their realization that these socialist policies preached by the White House and congressional leadership are not good for the American people.
-------------------- Let's Go METS!!! Posts: 3317 | From: CT | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since when is it socialism to give the insurance companies 30 million new customers
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Flashback: In 2009, Scott Brown Said The Senate Health Bill ‘Mirrors’ The Massachusetts Plan He Supports
Later this afternoon, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) will expedite the process and seat Scott Brown (R-MA) as the next Senator from Massachusetts. In the last three months of his campaign, Brown attacked health reform efforts by largely misrepresenting the bills in Congress. Brown, who supports the Massachusetts universal health system, caustically sneered at national efforts to replicate their success. “Why would we go and subsidize the failure of other states?” Of course, Brown never mentioned that the Massachusetts system, which he voted for, is funded by $385 million in annual payments through the federal government.
Now, Brown is coming to the Senate promising to kill health reform. He reiterated this promise last Sunday, telling ABC’s This Week that legislators should scrap current legislation and “go back to the drawing board.”
But late last summer, before it was politically advantageous to capitalize on health reform misinformation, Brown actually endorsed the Senate bill he now wants to kill. In an interview with MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan, Brown stated that the Senate health bill was “really mirroring” the “really great” Massachusetts health plan:
BROWN: Well it’s been interesting looking at the Senate and the US Senate is doing. They’re really mirroring what we did a couple of years ago through Governor Romney’s leadership. We had a bipartisan plan that was carefully crafted to make sure that everybody’s interests were taken into consideration: business, providers, individuals and obviously the Commonwealth. And as I said we have a plan that is somewhat similar to what the Federal plan [...] Without the Federal stimulus dollars and the waiver money filling our plan, it would fail. And you have a really great plan, we’ve gone from 10% uninsured to really 2.6 million people uninsured, er, 2.6% people uninsured. So it’s worked, but it also has its failures. In the clip, Brown admits that the Massachusetts plan is buoyed by federal money. As the Wonk Room has reported, before the campaign heated up, Brown frequently bragged about relying on federal money and even floated support for the public option for other states. The health bill passed by the Senate would not penalize Massachusetts’ special funds. In fact, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) has ensured that the Brown-backed Massachusetts system would become truly sustainable through “roughly $500 million” in expanded Medicaid funds for the Bay State.
The House-requested changes to the Senate bill, which can be passed at any point right now through reconciliation, would take out the subsidies to Nebraska that Brown has complained loudly about. Of course, for political reasons, Brown will still probably try to vote against reform. But he is doing so out of loyalty to his party, and certainly not by his own convictions that he spelled out so clearly last year. If the Senate bill is signed into law, Brown and his GOP allies fear that the country will act like Massachusetts — where an astounding 79% of people support the healthcare system and millions of previously uninsured people now have health care.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama Sends Congress Mixed Message On How To Move Forward With Health Reform President Obama sent Democrats mixed signals about how to move forward on ahead health care reform during a question and answer session organized by Democracy for America. While he argued that the “key [is] to not let the moment slip away,” Obama did not pressure the House to accept the Senate health care bill or echo House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) call for the Senate to pass a package of ‘fixes’ through reconciliation:
The next step, is what I announced at the State of the Union, which is to call on our Republican friends to present their ideas. What I’d like to do is to have a meeting where I’m sitting with the Republicans, sitting with the Democrats, sitting with health care experts and let’s just go through these bills. Their ideas, our ideas. Let’s just walk through them in a methodical way…and then we’ve got to move forward on a vote. We’ve got to move forward on a vote…We should be very deliberate, take our time. We’re going to be moving a job package forward over the next several weeks. That’s the thing that’s most urgent right now in the minds of Americans all across the country…That’s why I think it’s very important for us to have a methodical open process over the next several weeks, and then let’s go ahead and make a decision. And it may be that, you know, if Congress decides, if Congress decides we are not going to do it even after all the facts are laid out and all of the options are clear, then the American people can make a judgment as to whether this Congress has done the right thing for them or not. Roll Call reported this morning that Democrats still can’t agree on how to proceed with health care reform. “Reid appears to be trying to get Senate Democrats to move forward with a health reconciliation package to accommodate the House, but Members want him to move more quickly.” Pelosi is asking the Senate to pass a package of fixes through the reconciliation process that would scale down the “Cadillac” tax on high cost plans, “add as much as $50 billion to increase subsidies to buy health insurance and even more money to close gaps in Medicare prescription drug coverage” before the House passes the Senate legislation.
Meanwhile, POLITICO has identified “at least 10 senators who have said they are opposed to reconciliation or have expressed strong reservations. Reid can only afford to lose nine senators and still pass a bill.”
Update POLITICO is reporting that following Obama's question and answer session with Democrats on Wednesday, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) criticized David Axelrod for not doing more "to chart a course for getting a health care bill to the president’s desk." “There was a lot of frustration in there,” said a Democratic senator who declined to be identified. “People were hot,” another Democratic senator said.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
February 9, 2010 On Health Bill, G.O.P.’s Road Is a New Map By ROBERT PEAR and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN WASHINGTON — When Republicans take President Obama up on his invitation to hash out their differences over health care this month, they will carry with them a fairly well-developed set of ideas intended to make health insurance more widely available and affordable, by emphasizing tax incentives and state innovations, with no new federal mandates and only a modest expansion of the federal safety net.
It is not clear that Republicans and the White House are willing to negotiate seriously with each other, and Mr. Obama has rejected Republican demands that he start from scratch in developing health care legislation.
But Congressional Republicans have laid out principles and alternatives that provide a road map to what a Republican health care bill would look like if they had the power to decide the outcome.
The different approaches will be on display Feb. 25, when lawmakers from both parties are scheduled to go to Blair House, across the street from the White House, for a televised clash of health policy ideas.
The Republicans rely more on the market and less on government. They would not require employers to provide insurance. They oppose the Democrats’ call for a big expansion of Medicaid, which Republicans say would burden states with huge long-term liabilities.
While the Congressional Budget Office has not analyzed all the Republican proposals, it is clear that they would not provide coverage to anything like the number of people — more than 30 million — who would gain insurance under the Democrats’ proposals.
But Republicans say they can make incremental progress without the economic costs they contend the Democratic plans pose to the nation. As one way to encourage competition and drive down costs, Republican members of Congress want to make it easier for insurance companies to sell their policies across state lines, an idea included in a limited form in the Democratic bills.
Republicans would offer federal money as a reward to states that achieve specified reductions in premiums or in the number of people without insurance.
Republicans would provide federal money to states to establish and expand high-risk pools, for people with chronic illnesses who cannot find private insurance at an affordable price.
Republicans also contend that changes in state medical malpractice laws could lower costs and slow the growth of premiums. However, some of these proposals — like federal limits on damages for pain and suffering and punitive damages — are potentially in conflict with the Republicans’ emphasis on federalism and state autonomy.
In contrast to the bills passed by the House and the Senate, which would remake the health care system, Republican leaders favor a more modest approach.
Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, the No. 3 Republican in the Senate, said he and his colleagues were skeptical of “grand legislative policy schemes” and favored “a step-by-step approach” focused on lowering health costs for families and businesses.
“It is arrogant to imagine that 100 senators are wise enough to reform comprehensively a health care system that constitutes 17 percent of the world’s largest economy and affects 300 million Americans of disparate backgrounds and circumstances,” Mr. Alexander said.
The Republican health care agenda can be inferred from bills they have offered in the last few years and from their criticism of Mr. Obama’s proposals and of Democratic bills passed by both houses of Congress last year.
Republicans want to expand the use of health savings accounts, to cover routine expenses for people who enroll in high-deductible health plans. Democrats denounce such accounts as a tax shelter for higher-income people.
Many Republicans want to expand the role of private insurance companies in Medicare. Insurers already manage Medicare’s prescription drug benefit, and Republicans see that as a model.
Republicans agree on the need to slow the explosive growth of Medicare, but say the savings should be used to shore up Medicare, not to help finance a new entitlement program.
Democrats said the Republican proposals would do little to solve the crisis in health care. The proposals are “as skimpy as a hospital gown,” said Representative Lloyd Doggett, Democrat of Texas.
Representative George Miller, Democrat of California, said, “If the Republicans’ health care plan was a plan for a fire department, they would rush into a burning building, and they would rush out and leave everybody behind.”
Like Democrats, Republicans are divided on some questions, including the taxation of employer-provided health benefits.
Some Republicans, like Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, would replace the tax-free treatment of health benefits with a refundable tax credit for the purchase of insurance — an idea similar to one advanced in the 2008 presidential campaign by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona.
Other Republicans say that eliminating the current tax break for employer-provided insurance would amount to a tax increase and should be opposed.
Some Republicans, like Mr. Coburn and Mr. Ryan, would encourage but not require states to set up health insurance exchanges, or marketplaces, where consumers could compare and buy coverage. The exchanges would require insurers to offer coverage to all applicants, regardless of their age or medical history. Insurers participating in the exchange would have to offer at least the same benefits made available to members of Congress.
While Republicans generally oppose any new entitlement or tax increase, they do have some areas of potential agreement with Democrats. They agree, for example, on the need to emphasize wellness and preventive health programs; to provide more transparency for price and quality data on doctors and hospitals; and to speed the approval of lower-cost generic versions of high-cost biotechnology medicines.
Many Republicans would also join Democrats in requiring insurers to let dependent children stay on their parents’ policies through age 25 or 26.
Democrats and Republicans share another goal: making it easier for small businesses to buy insurance. The House and Senate bills would offer tax credits for two years to businesses with 25 or fewer employees to help them buy coverage.
Republicans would help small businesses band together and buy insurance through trade associations and professional societies.
But Democratic lawmakers, like consumer advocates and many state officials, oppose Republican suggestions that such small-business health plans should be exempt from state regulation, including requirements for the coverage of specific services.
In a letter to the White House on Monday, the top two House Republicans, Representatives John A. Boehner of Ohio and Eric Cantor of Virginia, said members of their party would be “reluctant to participate” in the meeting with Mr. Obama if the bills passed by the House and the Senate were the starting point. The American people have “soundly rejected” those bills, they said.
Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, welcomed Mr. Obama’s invitation. But like many in his party, he expressed concern that the session would be used as “an arena for political theater.”
Home World U.S. N.Y. / Region Business Technology Science Health Sports Opinion Arts Style Travel Jobs Real Estate Automobiles Back to Top
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:In a letter to the White House on Monday, the top two House Republicans, Representatives John A. Boehner of Ohio and Eric Cantor of Virginia, said members of their party would be “reluctant to participate” in the meeting with Mr. Obama if the bills passed by the House and the Senate were the starting point. The American people have “soundly rejected” those bills, they said.
Seeing as how Brown just ran on a 'elect me and I will kill the bill' platform and won, I would have to say that Boehner's assessment of the the public's opinion of the current bill as accurate.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Weiner Offends The GOP On House Floor: You’re All ‘Owned’ By The ‘Insurance Industry’! Today, the House of Representatives debated the Health Insurance Industry Fair Competition Act, legislation that would repeal the 65 year exemption health insurance companies have from anti-trust regulations.
Speaking on the House floor this afternoon, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) lambasted Republicans for being “a wholly owned subsidiary of an insurance industry,” prompting an offended Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) to lodge a complaint:
WEINER: You guys have chutzpah. The Republican Party is the wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry. They say this isn’t going to do enough, but when we propose an alternative to provide competition, they’re against it. They say we want to strengthen state insurance commissioners and they’ll do the job. But when we did that in our national health care bill, they said we’re against it. They said we want to have competition but when we proposed requiring competition they’re against it. They’re a wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry. That’s the fact!
LUNGREN: Mr. Speaker I ask that the gentleman’s words be taken down.
WEINER: You really don’t want to go there, Mr. Lungren.
A minute later, Weiner returned to the floor and withdrew his words, and then substituted them by clarifying, “Make no mistake about it, every single Republican I have ever met in my entire life is a wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry!”
Lungren once again immediately demanded that Weiner’s words be taken down. Weiner once more finally returned to the floor to withdraw his words, and ended his statement by saying that he has had “enough of the phoniness. We are gonna solve this problem because for years our Republican friends have been unable to and unwilling to. Deal with it!” His colleagues applauded his remarks. At the end of the debate, the House voted 406-19 to repeal the insurers’ long-held exemption from anti-trust laws.
Transcript: WEINER: You guys have chutzpah. The Republican Party is the wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry. They say this isn’t going to do enough, but when we propose an alternative to provide competition, they’re against it. They say we want to strengthen state insurance commissioners and they’ll do the job. But when we did that in our national health care bill, they said we’re against it. They said we want to have competition but when we proposed requiring competition they’re against it. They’re a wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry. That’s the fact!
LUNGREN: Mr. Speaker I ask that the gentleman’s words be taken down.
WEINER: You really don’t want to go there, Mr. Lungren. [...] Make no mistake about it. Every single Republican I have ever met in my entire life is wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry. That is why —
LUNGREN: Mr. Speaker I ask that the gentleman’s words be taken down once more.
WEINER: Look, the point is very simple, there are inequities in the present way we distribute insurance. There are winners and there are losers. The winners are the insurance industry. [...] There is not bipartisanship on this particular issue. The people who sit on this side, at the risk of offending anyone, generally support the idea of standing up for the American people in their battle against big insurance. And the people generally speaking who sit on this side of the chamber and specifically speaking as well in a lot of cases, simply won’t permit that to happen and haven’t for a generation. Well, that is going to end now. [...] Enough of the phonyness. We are gonna solve this problem because for years our Republican friends have been unable to and unwilling to. Deal with it!” (applause)
Update The roll call of the vote is now up. GOP Reps. Akin (MO), Boehner (OH), Brady (TX), Broun (GA), Buyer (IN), Franks (AZ), Garrett (NJ), Jenkins, Jordan (OH), King (IA), Lamborn (CO), Linder (GA), Moran (KS), Paul (TX), Price (GA), Ryan (WI), Sensenbrenner (WI), Tiahrt (KS), and Westmoreland (GA) voted against.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rockefeller: ‘The health insurance industry is the shark that sits right below the water.’ Today, the White House has been hosting the Bipartisan Health Care Summit, where “the one topic that Democrats keep hammering on over and over is the problem of insurance companies refusing to cover people with preexisting conditions.” For example, during the summit today, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) ripped into the abusive behavior of insurance corporations, saying that the industry “is the shark that sits right below the water”:
ROCKEFELLER: The health insurance industry is the shark that swims just below the water and you don’t see that shark until you feel the teeth of that shark. … This is the way they operate. Nobody has any oversight over them. They’re not under any anti-trust rules. They can do what they want. … This is a rapacious industry that does what it wants. The “rapacious” behavior that Rockefeller condemns includes raising premiums to increase their profits, denying coverage to women who have had Caesarean section pregnancies, and rescinding coverage of customers for frivolous reasons. Kevin Drum notes that Republican “have been relentlessly trying to talk about everything but this. They’ve barely acknowledged the preexisting conditions problem at all.”
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
