Health Care, the next battle

Manic Moran

I don't think even point #2 is all that important.

#1 is pretty likely going to happen. It may or may not be because of his policies, but it won't matter, as it happened under his watch and he will be able to claim credit for it. About the only possible liabilities on the economy side will be if the direction the deficit is going in is up or down in 2011-2012, and the view of the unions on his presidency after having let a couple of pretty prominent union companies go bankrupt.

NTM

Ping Chow Chi

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/investors-business-daily-walks-back-implication-that-hawking-not-from-uk.php

did anyone else see this?

Basically some newspaper claiming that where Stephen Hawkings born in the UK he would have been left to die by the NHS ... talk about not bothering to do any research and just making stuff out of thin air! ... crazy stuff.

RedPlanet

According to a thread at DemocraticUnderground, they have 45 Senators onside.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8611375&mesg_id=8611375
That may not include this guy named Warner which recently indicated his support.
http://www.bluevirginia.us/2009/08/mark-warner-will-not-vote-against.html

How many do they need to pass it?

LostinKildare

A simple majority (51) for passage; 50 would do it because the vice president breaks a tie. 60 for cloture.

If Kennedy's seat remains unfilled, then 50 for passage, 59 for cloture.

irish_bob

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't think even point #2 is all that important.

#1 is pretty likely going to happen. It may or may not be because of his policies, but it won't matter, as it happened under his watch and he will be able to claim credit for it. About the only possible liabilities on the economy side will be if the direction the deficit is going in is up or down in 2011-2012, and the view of the unions on his presidency after having let a couple of pretty prominent union companies go bankrupt.

NTM

let me ask you a question if i may , how much would the average health care package cost in america , i myself have health insurance and i pay 700 euro per year , with this i get 50% of all GP costs covered and i get a private room in a public hospital , since we have a mish mash or public - private in this country , the benefits of health insurance are not as clearly defined as in the states so i cant go into any further detail but i want to make it clear i am not against a private health system so long as it is not prohibitive , if a decent healthcare package for a family in ireland cost around 2500 euro a year then i believe thier is no one in ireland who could complain about not being able to afford health insurance as our level of wellfare is very generous and many smokers would spend that kind of money each year on ciggarettes , we in ireland are led to believe that health insurance in america costs around a thousand dollars a month , if this is indeed true , the system is seriously screwed up

anyway , what does insurance cost in the states for someone on an average wage of say 40,000 dollars

Manic Moran

Not sure. I pay about $300-$400 a year through my employer, but it's just me on the policy.

I'm not sure I understand why it is that American healthcare insurance tends to be pricey, whilst American car insurance tends to be dirt cheap. (I pay $1500 a year for two sports cars (One with a 3.8l, one with a 4.2l) and an SUV.. can you imagine what I'd be paying in Ireland?). If we can figure out how to synch whatever's happening in the one into the other, I'm sure private health insurance can become a lot cheaper.

NTM

imokyrok

Insurance cost seems to be difficult pin down for some starnge reason. Employers pay most of it from what I can see.

"In 1960, U.S. firms spent 1.2% of their payroll on health insurance. In 2006, they spent 9.9%. Costs rising at this rate are unsustainable and put U.S. firms at a competitive disadvantage to foreign companies that almost universally have lighter health-care burdens. It also destroys U.S. jobs."

9.9% seems very high indeed. Presumably on your example of a person on 40,000 the employer would then be paying about 4000 extra on top of it. Thats about twice what I pay for a family of five.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574376450845822712.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Elsewhere in that article it says: "Absent reform, the price of an average family's insurance will nearly double over the next decade—to $25,000 from $13,000." Surely that doesn't mean 13000 per annum?! I have heard very large numbers like that bandied around before but without a timescale. I've also read many articles which document that the government in the US pays far more per capita for healthcare than most other western countries but for far less coverage. It's hard to make sense of their system.

imokyrok

Heres another article

"The cost of health insurance in the United States climbed nearly twice as fast as wages in the first half of 2007, with family coverage costing employers around 1,000 dollars (714 euros) a month, a poll showed Wednesday."

http://www.rawstory.com/news/afp/US_health_insurance_costs_rise_near_09122007.html
:eek: So that 13000 is per annum!

RedPlanet

It's pretty outrageous alright.
I've read stories of hospitals turning people away due to lack of insurance.
Do Republicans have Health Care reform on their own agenda?
I don't remember hearing much about it during the last 8 years.
The impression I get is that anytime the Dems try to overhaul the system, the Republicans defend the status-quo.

imokyrok

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/investors-business-daily-walks-back-implication-that-hawking-not-from-uk.php

did anyone else see this?

Basically some newspaper claiming that where Stephen Hawkings born in the UK he would have been left to die by the NHS ... talk about not bothering to do any research and just making stuff out of thin air! ... crazy stuff.

Yeah I saw that at the time. Talk about an own goal!

"We say his life is far from worthless, as they do at Addenbrooke's hospital, Cambridge, where Professor Hawking, who has motor neurone disease, was treated for chest problems in April. As indeed does he. "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," he told us. "I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/12/birthers-stephen-hawking-paul-rowen

is_that_so

Ted Kennedy's death reduces the number of Dem Senators to 59 , under that 60 filibuster-proof number. There are moves afoot, at present , to get a "temporary" candidate by changing MA law.

In today's Irish Times (from FT)
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0829/1224253467466.html

...
The row over the alleged politicisation of Mr Kennedy’s passing is likely to continue after the funeral as Democrats step up plans to amend state law in Massachusetts so Mr Kennedy’s seat can be filled by a temporary appointee, and the party can keep its potentially critical 60-seat majority in the Senate during the key autumn session.

Under existing Massachusetts law, an election should be held 145-160 days after the seat is vacated. That would leave the seat vacant until January – too late for a vote in the Senate to shut off an opposition filibuster, which needs a majority of 60.
...

irish_bob

RedPlanet wrote: »

It's pretty outrageous alright.
I've read stories of hospitals turning people away due to lack of insurance.
Do Republicans have Health Care reform on their own agenda?
I don't remember hearing much about it during the last 8 years.
The impression I get is that anytime the Dems try to overhaul the system, the Republicans defend the status-quo.

insurance companies are major funders of republican campaigns , they fund the democrats too but not to the same degree

Manic Moran

The impression I get is that anytime the Dems try to overhaul the system, the Republicans defend the status-quo.

No, they just object to the Democratic leadership's version of the plan (One has to distinguish, because a number of Democrats have their own ideas), because of the public health option.
The current Republican solution is similar to the one McCain proposed in his campaign.

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2009/05/20/100709.htm

They claim it will cut costs, and expand coverage to those not currently covered under the employer-focused system we currently enjoy.

NTM

JohnMc1

irish_bob wrote: »

they fund the democrats too but not to the same degree

Yeah because ACORN, SEIU, ACLU and other assorted radical groups don't give enough to the Dems.:rolleyes:

irish_bob

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Yeah because ACORN, SEIU, ACLU and other assorted radical groups don't give enough to the Dems.:rolleyes:

what have any of those orginisations got to do with health care

Scofflaw

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Yeah because ACORN, SEIU, ACLU and other assorted radical groups don't give enough to the Dems.:rolleyes:

Relevance?

moderately,
Scofflaw

jank

A video on health care you will NOT see on tv, because its much too calm and reasonable