YES THEY DID! Health Care Passed.

jank

Well in the small hours of today the House passed health care by 219-210.

More here

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1973989,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/21/health.care.main/index.html?hpt=T1


Obama is expected to sign it in the next day or two, then it goes to the Senate where it only needs 50 Dems + the VP to enact it into law. There are some usual speed bumps I think the the GOP will try but it look as if this is the end game.

What ever you say about Obama he has some stamina on him. He doesnt give up easy when he wants something done. Is the bill perfect, no way but its the best that could be got right here right now. I think people expected Obama to be an idealistic president, if anything he is one of the most pragmatic.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34783.html

Id expect his poll ratings to jump after this and the focus to go back on the economy. This is a MAJOR victory for him. A huge notch on his belt for his re-election. Mid-terms are important but at the end of the day the president is the executive branch. If the dems lose the house but keep the senate after the mid terms small price to pay if Obama wins re-election.

theg81der

Woohoo! This is great news as far as I`m concern as long as they don`t come here looking for ideas!

Manic Moran

Is the bill perfect, no way but its the best that could be got right here right now

Disagree. Their insistance on a mega-bill that tried to do everything and get enough votes to still pass (resulting in a near inability to do anything really well) screwed up an opportunity. They could have done much better, even if it meant they didn't get their grand media event at a signing ceremony. I know you can't please everybody, but is there anyone who is truly happy with the final outcome, that it was worth all the year of haggling and ignoring slightly more pressing issues like jobs and the economy?

And that's before you get to the philosophical question of if the Federal Government should even be involved in the subject. Some States have shown that you don't need Federal interference to have a reasonable healthcare system.

NTM

jank

Well this is a bill that covers a lot of things alright and there are many things that are left out like, torte reform and the issue of a single payer. The other way you can look at it MM is that small changes would take too long and there would be no guarantee that these would not be bogged down into the same issues as this bill. Like the GOP alternative wasn't even costed and they then reject some of the measures in this bill that they proposed to be included in earlier versions.

At the end of the day this is what was passed and to continue going on about the "how" rather than the "what" is a waste of time. There are many good things in this.

Zascar

This may be a silly question, but can anyone tell me why exactly so many people are opposed to this? We all know how bad the system over there is, and is is largely due to the stranglehold the insurance companies have on the US. So if you are not on the bankroll of the Pharmaceutical or insurance companies, why would you not want more people being allowed basic medical insurance?

jank

It comes down to argument that is health care is a right or a privilege.
A lot of people in America think that it is a privilege and that one has to work for it. I.E poor "lazy" people who don't want to work should not get health care.
Of course in most of the civilized work we equate health care to things like education. It should be a right in a modern society.

Zascar

OK fair enough but why not just tackle the companies who make it incredible expensive if not impossible to get health insurance. It seems to be 5 times the price of what it costs over here - can they not just bring in laws to make the medicine and insurance realistically priced? (I'm only going from what i saw in the movie "Sicko" by Michael Moore and how meds are many times the price of what the people in Canada etc pay for the same thing.)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jank

Vested interest. The health insurance companies have invested 200 million into stopping this bill alone, never mind what they shell out each year in contributions to candidates the majority of the from the GOP. Buts thats american politics for you. Anyway even if they did you would have had the crazies coming out saying you were a communist fascist pig that wanted to kill babies.

Manic Moran

jank wrote: »

It comes down to argument that is health care is a right or a privilege.
A lot of people in America think that it is a privilege and that one has to work for it. I.E poor "lazy" people who don't want to work should not get health care.
Of course in most of the civilized work we equate health care to things like education. It should be a right in a modern society.

It's not the 'lazy' people that they object to, most everyone accepts that people will occasionally fall on hard times and be out of work, for example. It's the 'stupid' people that they object to, at least if the taxpayer is funding it. Face it, if someone does something utterly stupid and idiotic like try to launch a firework placed beteeen the butt cheeks (Yes, it's on Youtube) what good argument is there that my hard-earned tax dollars should fund his hospital bills? As the phrase goes, 'stupid should be painful.' It should certainly not be taxpayer-supported. Of course, that only goes as far as the concept of using tax dollars to fund the system goes.

Other arguments are financial (An avoidable Trillion of debt) or philosophical (Feds shouldn't be involved in what should be a State issue, freedom of choice should include the choice to not have insurance, or the methods used).

NTM

BluePlanet

They should just carve up Defense Spending to pay of it.

American's have paid a sh*teload of money on war toys.

Jonny7

I used to wonder why any Americans I met/dated/whatever always seemed to take a rather large amount of pills and mentioned their therapy sessions a little tooo casually..

Forget war-profiteering, theres been too much health-profiteering going on.

Another thing I've learnt from all this, the rightwing pundits and fox news are bats**t crazy, I have no doubt they could rile up a civil war if they wanted.

jank

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's not the 'lazy' people that they object to, most everyone accepts that people will occasionally fall on hard times and be out of work, for example. It's the 'stupid' people that they object to, at least if the taxpayer is funding it. Face it, if someone does something utterly stupid and idiotic like try to launch a firework placed beteeen the butt cheeks (Yes, it's on Youtube) what good argument is there that my hard-earned tax dollars should fund his hospital bills? As the phrase goes, 'stupid should be painful.' It should certainly not be taxpayer-supported. Of course, that only goes as far as the concept of using tax dollars to fund the system goes.

Good point but how many of those stupid people you describe above are there and how many genuine hard working people out there that cant afford health care regardless of how unstupid they are. The ways things are a safety net catches everyone but I would be with you if we could design a system where there is a stupid clause somewhere.

Anyway, the banks were kinda stupid for a number of years and they got bailed out by of all people Bush so..??

The main point is that there is a work ethos in America where you work for what you get. I totally agree with that. You work hard you get more! But there is a strong undercurrent of opinion especially among the right where poor people are generally lazy and should just get off their assess and find a job. If only it were that simple.The environment you are born into is the main factor where you end up in terms of class and wealth.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Other arguments are financial (An avoidable Trillion of debt) or philosophical (Feds shouldn't be involved in what should be a State issue, freedom of choice should include the choice to not have insurance, or the methods used).

NTM

The independent CBO says that this bill will reduce the deficit. I know Karl Rove says other wise but I would rather pick hairs from my balls than take his opinion seriously on this.

Some alternative opinion.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/21/news/economy/health_care_reconciliation/index.htm?hpt=T1

Amerika

And now the Democrats own this clusterfruk completely, and will pay the price come the 2010 elections. This November will be fun!

jank

Yea, I think the depressing thing is the polarization of American Politics. This isn't Bush's fault or Obama's fault or anyone else. I think that we are seeing a dividing line clearly emerge over the two parties that will be there for generations. I think they are going to tear themselves apart before Iran or China or anyone else has a say in the decline of America.

Exile 1798

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's not the 'lazy' people that they object to, most everyone accepts that people will occasionally fall on hard times and be out of work, for example. It's the 'stupid' people that they object to, at least if the taxpayer is funding it. Face it, if someone does something utterly stupid and idiotic like try to launch a firework placed beteeen the butt cheeks (Yes, it's on Youtube) what good argument is there that my hard-earned tax dollars should fund his hospital bills? As the phrase goes, 'stupid should be painful.' It should certainly not be taxpayer-supported. Of course, that only goes as far as the concept of using tax dollars to fund the system goes.

Other arguments are financial (An avoidable Trillion of debt) or philosophical (Feds shouldn't be involved in what should be a State issue, freedom of choice should include the choice to not have insurance, or the methods used).

NTM

That's certainly a strange argument.

What kind of ratio do you imagine exists between cancer suffers and people sticking fireworks between their butt cheeks? A million to one?

Is this butt cheek thing on par with epilepsy or diabetes?

It seems you've left your dislike for people who stick fire works up their arse blind your view on this issue.

rovert

The communist fascists have won :mad:

sink

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's not the 'lazy' people that they object to, most everyone accepts that people will occasionally fall on hard times and be out of work, for example. It's the 'stupid' people that they object to, at least if the taxpayer is funding it. Face it, if someone does something utterly stupid and idiotic like try to launch a firework placed beteeen the butt cheeks (Yes, it's on Youtube) what good argument is there that my hard-earned tax dollars should fund his hospital bills? As the phrase goes, 'stupid should be painful.' It should certainly not be taxpayer-supported. Of course, that only goes as far as the concept of using tax dollars to fund the system goes.

Other arguments are financial (An avoidable Trillion of debt) or philosophical (Feds shouldn't be involved in what should be a State issue, freedom of choice should include the choice to not have insurance, or the methods used).

NTM

Not treating someone often has a higher societal cost than treating them. Poverty and crime will cost the taxpayer more in the long run and will lower everyone's quality of life to a greater extent than treating them.

Exile 1798

Manic Moran wrote: »

Disagree. Their insistance on a mega-bill that tried to do everything and get enough votes to still pass (resulting in a near inability to do anything really well) screwed up an opportunity. They could have done much better, even if it meant they didn't get their grand media event at a signing ceremony. I know you can't please everybody, but is there anyone who is truly happy with the final outcome, that it was worth all the year of haggling and ignoring slightly more pressing issues like jobs and the economy?

And that's before you get to the philosophical question of if the Federal Government should even be involved in the subject. Some States have shown that you don't need Federal interference to have a reasonable healthcare system.

NTM

Seems the philosophical question has already been answered long ago with Medicare and Medicaide.

You're right, some State's have universal care. Blue states like Massachusetts and Hawaii for example. Indeed this Federal plan is said to be quite similar to their models.

I don't see it as fair to tell people from States with poor health care coverage that they can just rot. Many times in the past the Federal government has been required to interfere in these States to uphold Human Rights. The Civil Rights act was opposed on a States rights platform. Indeed Federal troops needed to to be sent in to these states to uphold the law and ensure blacks could attend university.

When someone starts shouting about States rights, you can generally assume that they're trying to defend some form of inequality or injustice.

jank

rovert wrote: »

The communist fascists have won :mad:

Look up Oxymoron.

rovert

jank wrote: »

Look up Oxymoron.

:rolleyes:

Look up Glenn Beck first

jank

rovert wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Look up Glenn Beck first

Jesus H Christ!
Cause we all know he is the gospel of truth. Go troll somewhere else like a fox forum if you have nothing to add.

jank

rovert wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Look up Glenn Beck first

Actually this should be an oxymoron as well!:D

Amerika

Curiouser & curiouser! In this tread, political polarization is neither party’s fault, but in the other health care thread it’s the republican’s fault?

(posted in response to jank, before the post was deleted.)

jank

No, I mentioned how political society in general is much more divided in either right or left, the other thread I mentioned engagement in this specific issue of Health Care reform. None was really forth coming from the GOP

Deleted post?

Wompa1

I have to admit I haven't been too tuned into this particular issue. I don't know why really because I'm a news hound. My concern with Universal healthcare is the fact that every immigrant in the country will be entitled to healthcare now if I understand correctly?...or is it just for citizens? and if it is just for citizens than how great of an effect will it have really?

If immigrants now get it than I'd imagine that will see a huge influx of people seeking health care.

People say their health care system over there is joke but I don't mind it really. You get what you pay for. If you don't have insurance over there you can go to a free clinic but the standard of care will not be as good.

Also will this now make the American health care system be like Canada?..Which apparently is good in theory but talking to friends in Vancouver it doesn't work too well in practice as hospitals are being over run and waiting times are 20+ hours (sounds like here!!).

Mark200

Wompa1 wrote: »

Also will this now make the American health care system be like Canada?..Which apparently is good in theory but talking to friends in Vancouver it doesn't work too well in practice as hospitals are being over run and waiting times are 20+ hours (sounds like here!!).

No, Canada has a Single Payer system which basically means that there's just one health insurer - the Government. America's system will still very much be based on a private healthcare insurance system.

Amerika

The Senate Bill bars illegal immigrants from the insurance pools entirely (WINK-WINK).

Wompa1

Mark200 wrote: »

No, Canada has a Single Payer system which basically means that there's just one health insurer - the Government. America's system will still very much be based on a private healthcare insurance system.

That's probably a good thing! If you've ever gone to a post office or DMV over there you'd know why!

Overheal

rovert wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Look up Glenn Beck first

I assume by that asinine retort that the Lord Glenn Beck XIV Esquire has said a lot of things: "Theyre shoving this down the throat of america; those fascist liberal democrat communists."

Except that Communism is the Politically Polar Opposite to Fascism. And if you would actually use an oxymoron like Fascist-Communists, it really displays a lack of basic comprehension of Political Theory.

Now im sure as well paid a pundit as Beck is, he's not misinformed enough to make such a contradiction. So if you're going to wear your Glenn Beck foam Hand and wave it around at least make sure you're listening properly. I understand its difficult when he so often displays images of political dictatorship on his programme in order to scare his audience into believing the same will come true from the health care bill.

Trust me: if the Patriot Act didnt turn DC into Mussolini's playground, I think we'll be alright.

Manach

Whatever else about the bill's passage at least it stirred up a degree of debate about the type of health-care system a society deserves or wants to pay for. Whether this would transfer into an Irish environment would be interesting.

Amerika

According to the 1974 budget act, if the provisions in the bill affect Social Security revenues, it’s invalid for reconciliation.

The 1974 Budget Act established the reconciliation procedure. Among its many provisions is the statement: “It shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any concurrent resolution on the budget (or amendment, motion, or conference report on the resolution) that would decrease the excess of social security revenues over social security outlays in any of the fiscal years covered by the concurrent resolution.”

The House reconciliation bill, designed to fix shortcomings in the Senate’s healthcare reform legislation, cannot legally be considered by the Senate, because it would impact Social Security revenues and therefore is not eligible for the reconciliation procedure.

http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/comp2/F093-344.html

Anybody think Congress will follow the law? My opinion is the answer to the question is a big fat NO!

Mark200

Amerika wrote: »

According to the 1974 budget act, if the provisions in the bill affect Social Security revenues, it’s invalid for reconciliation.

The 1974 Budget Act established the reconciliation procedure. Among its many provisions is the statement: “It shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any concurrent resolution on the budget (or amendment, motion, or conference report on the resolution) that would decrease the excess of social security revenues over social security outlays in any of the fiscal years covered by the concurrent resolution.”

The House reconciliation bill, designed to fix shortcomings in the Senate’s healthcare reform legislation, cannot legally be considered by the Senate, because it would impact Social Security revenues and therefore is not eligible for the reconciliation procedure.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000632----000-.html
(bottom of the page)

Anybody think Congress will follow the law? My opinion is the answer to the question is a big fat NO!

Which part of it impacts on Social Security revenues?

rovert

Overheal wrote: »

I assume by that asinine retort that the Lord Glenn Beck XIV Esquire has said a lot of things: "Theyre shoving this down the throat of america; those fascist liberal democrat communists."

Except that Communism is the Politically Polar Opposite to Fascism. And if you would actually use an oxymoron like Fascist-Communists, it really displays a lack of basic comprehension of Political Theory.

Now im sure as well paid a pundit as Beck is, he's not misinformed enough to make such a contradiction. So if you're going to wear your Glenn Beck foam Hand and wave it around at least make sure you're listening properly. I understand its difficult when he so often displays images of political dictatorship on his programme in order to scare his audience into believing the same will come true from the health care bill.

Trust me: if the Patriot Act didnt turn DC into Mussolini's playground, I think we'll be alright.

What are you slabbering on about here? Your post is widley incoherent. How was my post asinine? I made a joke which another poster didnt get and seemingly as far as I can make out you didnt either.

Beck has made that and similar contradictions numerous times hence I made a joke about it.

Mark200

rovert wrote: »

What are you slabbering on about here? Your post is widley incoherent. How was my post asinine? I made a joke which another poster didnt get and seemingly as far as I can make out you didnt either.

Beck has made that and similar contradictions numerous times hence I made a joke about it.

Don't worry, I got the joke!

rovert

Mark200 wrote: »

Don't worry, I got the joke!

I guess my humour is too progressive. Ill use my chalk board next time.

^ References to Glenn Beck, I dont own a chalk board, guys ok thx bye.

Amerika

It is my understanding that the House reconciliation measure proposes numerous changes to the Social Security system. Also, I understand that the Republican leadership have been asking Harry Reid to meet with the parliamentarian to get a ruling on this before the House votes. Senate Democrats have so far refused to meet with the parliamentarian to get a resolution on this issue.

Overheal

Meh. You couldve cleared it up after Jank made the Oxymoron comment but you didnt really.

rovert

Overheal wrote: »

Meh. You couldve cleared it up after Jank made the Oxymoron comment but you didnt really.

I did, if you or Jank still werent clear there is this thing called the internet which you both are on which you can look up things. A function which can save you personally from making silly posts like the one above. Failing that either of you could ask me to clarify rather than to jump to rash conclusions about what I wrote. Ho hum.

GuanYin

Please stay on topic

simplistic2

Where oh where did they get the money for this bill?

Middle class meet working class, working class meet poverty!

Amerika

Where oh where did they get the money for this bill?

Ther're getting it from GuanYin. Doctors and high income earners.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Ther're getting it from GuanYin. Doctors and high income earners.

Im sure the Insurance companies will do their darndest to make that the case. What it will boil down to though is the Insurance companies will take it out on the Doctors by cutting the doctors margin.

Itll happen the same way Shaw sends us letters about increasing costs: in Every insurers letter expect to see a lot of complaining about the government decision in them.

Amerika

I didn’t know the CBO was now also an insurance company. Although our government soon will be.

“The two bills together will cost $940 billion over 10 years and cover 32 million uninsured Americans, the Congressional Budget Office estimated. That’s more than made up for with a new tax on the highest earners, fees on health-care companies and hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare savings,” which will reduce the federal deficit, the CBO said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=azXeD7bMSXPg&pos=1

GuanYin

Amerika wrote: »

Although our government soon will be.

I think our government became an insurance company the day it started bailing out failing multi-million dollar companies with tax-payer money.

I personally am far happier to see money bailing out sick people.

Black Swan

jank wrote: »

The main point is that there is a work ethos in America where you work for what you get. I totally agree with that. You work hard you get more! But there is a strong undercurrent of opinion especially among the right where poor people are generally lazy and should just get off their assess and find a job. If only it were that simple.The environment you are born into is the main factor where you end up in terms of class and wealth.

Being born into a professional/upper middle or upper class and relatively wealthy family in America provides the offspring with an environment (and the best health care that money can buy) that is superior to that of the majority blue collar working class families. Those rich families never worry about having enough food, being able to make the next month's rent, or if they can afford to pay for needed health care. Those rich families can afford to live in a safe neighborhood without gangs or high crime, and can send their children to the most expensive universities like Harvard, Yale (where many Bush children attend), Princeton, or Stanford, which almost guarantees the average graduating student a superior salary over less expensive school graduates. These rich families pass on their wealth, health benefits, and their superior social networks to their children through inheritance, which these children did not have to "work hard... to get more."

Manic Moran

Good point but how many of those stupid people you describe above are there and how many genuine hard working people out there that cant afford health care regardless of how unstupid they are. The ways things are a safety net catches everyone but I would be with you if we could design a system where there is a stupid clause somewhere.

There are a couple of different issues at play there. One is cases where people who did have health insurance suddenly find themselves by virtue of a nasty turn of life unable to have health insurance. For example, if I lose my job, then COBRA requires that my employer maintains my health insurance for the following three months, in a similar manner as I'm entitled to unemployment benefit for a few months.

For those who are labouring at minimum wage with 17 kids and are unable to afford health insurance, that's a slightly different issue. My first question is "why in God's name did they have 17 kids?" Americans often seem to have priority problems. Go to FoodMart and see how many people using food stamps to pay also have ridiculously expensive trainers. Either way, arguably the correct solution is to lower the cost of healthcare insurance, not to provide healthcare insurance for that lower income bracket. Healthcare costs are pretty steep to begin with, why not do something which benefits everyone, not just those currently uncovered? First thing which comes to mind is the paperwork. Have you ever seen the packets they send you? Ye Gods, they could cut down administrative costs at a stroke if they were mandated to simplify the process.

Anyway, the banks were kinda stupid for a number of years and they got bailed out by of all people Bush so..??

You will note that that was not a particularly popular move with conservatives, who generally wanted the banks to be left alone to fail.

Exile 1798 wrote: »

What kind of ratio do you imagine exists between cancer suffers and people sticking fireworks between their butt cheeks? A million to one?

In terms of stupidity, my observation would say it's a far lower ratio. However, again, I would submit that the correct answer is to lower the costs to the consumer so that more people can be covered, and those who are covered can be covered for less. Not coming up with some way of mandating full coverage, at taxpayer's expense if need be. Where would you stand on someone who has lung cancer, caused by their cigarette use? Not an uncommon event, but if someone feels they have the money to spare on a luxury (with known health hazards), then damnit, they should damned well be able to afford healthcare.

NTM

Black Swan

Citizens will now have to enroll in a for-profit medical insurance corporation plan or suffer penalties? This is not socialized medicine, but rather capitalized medicine.

sink

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Citizens will now have to enroll in a for-profit medical insurance corporation plan or suffer penalties? This is not socialized medicine, but rather capitalized medicine.

AFAIK there will be a government option, not sure of the details.

kev9100

This bill, although far from perfect, will improve the lives of ordinary Americans. It will prohibit dropping people from coverage when they get sick, will offer tax credits to small businesses to purchase coverage, will provide immediate access to insurance for uninsured Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition and will increase Medicaid subsidies to 15 million Americans. Whats more, according to the CBO it will reduce the deficit.


Although there are a number of aspects of it that I'm not happy with, we should'nt let the good be the enemy of the perfect.

Overheal

sink wrote: »

AFAIK there will be a government option, not sure of the details.

Tony Weiner explains it here