PDA

View Full Version : APP - Woopsie! Health bill recalculation



tinfoil
10-06-2009, 08:52 PM
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gnysT9_pxMwvpDM2YjJZCyRe4EYQD9B5ROL00

Bwhahahaha Exactly what i said when I compared the health bill to the cluckers program. Poor estimates lead to drastic underfunding and eventually tax increases to clean up the mess. At least they pointed it out now before the idiots pass the bill

apple0154
10-06-2009, 09:45 PM
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gnysT9_pxMwvpDM2YjJZCyRe4EYQD9B5ROL00

Bwhahahaha Exactly what i said when I compared the health bill to the cluckers program. Poor estimates lead to drastic underfunding and eventually tax increases to clean up the mess. At least they pointed it out now before the idiots pass the bill

Excerpt: "The Joint Committee on Taxation says drug companies, medical device manufacturers and insurers would pay $121 billion over 10 years as a result of taxes in the Senate Finance Committee bill." (END)

If I recall Obama said no new taxes for those earning under $250,000/yr. I don't think those entities mentioned fall in that earning bracket.

tinfoil
10-06-2009, 09:59 PM
LOL I see your logic now. You folks impose a tax that you know will be passed onto consumers but since you're taxing business, it makes it OK.
Got it. I finally understand how you justify it.

belme1201
10-06-2009, 11:11 PM
LOL I see your logic now. You folks impose a tax that you know will be passed onto consumers but since you're taxing business, it makes it OK.
Got it. I finally understand how you justify it.

Something is missing from the link. Which "fees" won't they be able to deduct from their income taxes? Has something been suggested that brings them into line with other industries?
How are taxes on earnings(income taxes) collected from consumers? Earnings(profits) are earnings(profits), it's a myth.

apple0154
10-07-2009, 06:02 AM
LOL I see your logic now. You folks impose a tax that you know will be passed onto consumers but since you're taxing business, it makes it OK.
Got it. I finally understand how you justify it.

If we go by your logic then we shouldn't tax anyone.

Let's say we tax a TV actor. When negotiating their next contract they'll ask for more money to cover the additional taxes. The TV company will have to pay the actor more money so the company will charge the advertisers more. Then the advertisers will have to charge the consumer more. Do you suggest we not tax the earnings of TV actors?

The same goes down the line. If we don't tax all the "Joe the Plumbers" we could argue plumbing services would be cheaper.

Under our capitalist system people/companies charge as much as they can or, as the saying goes, as much as the market will bear. They will charge as much as they can whether or not they are paying taxes. I doubt CEOs think along the lines of "We could charge more for our product but because the government hasn't raised our taxes we'll pass the savings along to the consumer."

I always recall an article I read concerning the price of high octane gas. The reporter asked a petroleum company executive why "super" was 7 cents a liter more than "regular" when the cost to produce the high octane gas was only 3 cents more per liter. The executive replied, "What does cost have to do with the selling price?

Companies will charge as much as they can, regardless, and this is what's at the base of the utter failure of the "cut-taxes-on-the-wealthy-and-they'll-spend-more-money-and-create-more-jobs" philosophy.

People are greedy. Companies are greedy. The only way the government can help those in need is to collect the taxes and then help the individuals.

Companies will not give away money just because they saved money meaning companies will not keep prices low just because they don't get a tax increase. They will always, always, always charge as much as they can because the cost to produce something has little bearing on the selling price.

tinfoil
10-07-2009, 07:54 AM
this just in
companies don't pay taxes...people pay taxes
companies pass tax costs onto consumers through the price of their products.
If you think companies pay income taxes, you need some schooling.

Now let's get to topic.

The estimate was off by over 20%
That was the point of the thread

belme1201
10-07-2009, 09:09 AM
this just in
companies don't pay taxes...people pay taxes
companies pass tax costs onto consumers through the price of their products.
If you think companies pay income taxes, you need some schooling.

Now let's get to topic.

The estimate was off by over 20%
That was the point of the thread

What are the "fees" they can't deduct? Is there now a special ruling affecting healthcare companies only?
If your theory regarding charges to the consumer is correct, why didn't healthcare costs to the Public go down after healthcare companies' profits went up 420% in 9 years? Could it be those profits merely went into the pockets of the healthcare company executives and their boards?
Income taxes are a result of profit, that's a good thing, meanwhile most corporations pay far less proportionately than their individual citizen counterparts. Little or none of government largesse to corporations is passed to the consumer, while, at the same time, their executives are taking home hundreds of $millions or even $billions of company funds in their overblown compensation packages.

apple0154
10-07-2009, 10:41 AM
If your theory regarding charges to the consumer is correct, why didn't healthcare costs to the Public go down after healthcare companies' profits went up 420% in 9 years?

Exactly!

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


What are the "fees" they can't deduct? Is there now a special ruling affecting healthcare companies only?
If your theory regarding charges to the consumer is correct, why didn't healthcare costs to the Public go down after healthcare companies' profits went up 420% in 9 years? Could it be those profits merely went into the pockets of the healthcare company executives and their boards?
Income taxes are a result of profit, that's a good thing, meanwhile most corporations pay far less proportionately than their individual citizen counterparts. Little or none of government largesse to corporations is passed to the consumer, while, at the same time, their executives are taking home hundreds of $millions or even $billions of company funds in their overblown compensation packages.

apple0154
10-07-2009, 11:07 AM
this just in
companies don't pay taxes...people pay taxes
companies pass tax costs onto consumers through the price of their products.
If you think companies pay income taxes, you need some schooling.

Now let's get to topic.

The estimate was off by over 20%
That was the point of the thread

What a silly post. If you are going to say companies don't pay taxes then it's not companies that pass along tax costs.It's the people running the companies.

As for being off by only 20%, not bad considering no one could even figure out how to improve health care for the last fifty years.

tinfoil
10-07-2009, 12:04 PM
If you are going to say companies don't pay taxes then it's not companies that pass along tax costs.It's the people running the companies.

Duhhhh. yes moron, people run and own companies. They pay income taxes on profits. But taxes on services and products built into prices by government are --here's the important part-- BUILT INTO THE COSTS OF THE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.

Income taxes are not the same thing. This is where your puny brain keeps getting lost.

tinfoil
10-07-2009, 12:07 PM
What are the "fees" they can't deduct? Is there now a special ruling affecting healthcare companies only?
If your theory regarding charges to the consumer is correct, why didn't healthcare costs to the Public go down after healthcare companies' profits went up 420% in 9 years? Could it be those profits merely went into the pockets of the healthcare company executives and their boards?
Income taxes are a result of profit, that's a good thing, meanwhile most corporations pay far less proportionately than their individual citizen counterparts. Little or none of government largesse to corporations is passed to the consumer, while, at the same time, their executives are taking home hundreds of $millions or even $billions of company funds in their overblown compensation packages.

if their CEOs are taking home millions, they pay income tax on those millions.

You fail
go take an introductory tax course so you have some clues abouit how taxes are levied.

apple0154
10-07-2009, 04:13 PM
If you are going to say companies don't pay taxes then it's not companies that pass along tax costs.It's the people running the companies.

Duhhhh. yes moron, people run and own companies. They pay income taxes on profits. But taxes on services and products built into prices by government are --here's the important part-- BUILT INTO THE COSTS OF THE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.

Income taxes are not the same thing. This is where your puny brain keeps getting lost.

Of course the cost in built in.

Where you get lost is the government needs tax dollars for programs. The government has to get money. Plain and simple. Following me so far?

So, the government (yes, people) look at companies/products and see an outrageous markup. They see that consumers (again, people) are paying X-dollars for a certain product(s) and the company (yes, again, people) are making a huge profit.

Let's use an analogy. I'll keep it simple for you. ABC is selling widgets for $10.00. The actual cost to produce those widgets is $2.00. The government decides to tax some process involved in making those widgets so the cost rises to $3.00/widget.

The company has two choices. It can raise prices to cover the increased cost or it can absorb the cost. We know by the profit margin that the company can absorb that cost and still be viable. What will the company (yes, people) do?

Here comes the punch line. The $10.00 the company is currently charging is the most consumers will pay for widgets. How do we know? We know because companies always, always, always charge the most they can. So, they have a choice. Do they keep prices the same and absorb the costs which they are capable of doing or do they try to pass the costs along and find out people have stopped buying their product because it's too expensive?

If the world worked according to your illogical reasoning no company (people) would complain about costs being built in because they'd simply pass the cost along to the consumer (a different group of people). Why would they care? :chesh:

TuTu Monroe
10-07-2009, 04:20 PM
LOL I see your logic now. You folks impose a tax that you know will be passed onto consumers but since you're taxing business, it makes it OK.
Got it. I finally understand how you justify it.

The left are living in fantasyland in their desperation to find money for their healthcare plan.

According to Politico, it’s not just companies that make big-ticket items like MRIs and pacemakers that will get hit with the fee, but any company that makes a medical product regulated by the Food and Drug Administration.

So everything in an emergency room, from the defibrillator to the bandages, and many of the things you’d find in a drugstore home pregnancy tests to toothbrushes are medical products that could come under the fee.

A medical products tax will only increase the costs and will be passed on to the consumer.

It's insane.

belme1201
10-07-2009, 04:50 PM
if their CEOs are taking home millions, they pay income tax on those millions.

You fail, idiot.
go take an introductory tax course so you have some clues abouit how taxes are levied.


That's all you could add was a 'DUH' reply regarding outrageous executive salaries while others can't afford their product and some are dying as a result?

Thank you, any ill word from the likes of you is a compliment. I've asked you before to tell about the extent of your oft self proclaimed education.....if you have one.

apple0154
10-07-2009, 06:25 PM
total fucking idiots can't even understand the argument.

Because your argument is nonsensical.

Governments tax things that make money. Goods. Companies. People. Just like certain places have a hotel room sur-tax. We still see specials on hotel rooms. Why? Why isn't every hotel room 10% or 15% higher? Why, because people won't stay there so the hotels put certain rooms on special to bring the customers. The government knows hotel companies make money. Lots of money.

While every customer pays the tax the base price is lowered meaning the hotel company absorbs the tax. If the regular price of the room is $100/night with a 15% sur-tax and the hotel drops the regular price to $87/night plus 15% the customer still pays $100/night. Well, plus 5 cents if you want to get picky.

If businesses/companies/people based their selling price on the cost to produce an item/provide a service your argument would have credence but that's not the way it works.

Last two points. As for suggesting others require schooling I submit it is you who requires additional education. Second, the reason people can't understand your argument is because your argument doesn't make any sense.

tinfoil
10-07-2009, 07:12 PM
If businesses/companies/people based their selling price on the cost to produce an item/provide a service your argument would have credence but that's not the way it works.

apple0154
10-07-2009, 07:17 PM
If businesses/companies/people based their selling price on the cost to produce an item/provide a service your argument would have credence but that's not the way it works.




That was quite a rebuttal.

Be sure to remain seated on the short bus till you get home.

belme1201
10-08-2009, 12:27 PM
Another "re-calculation".
CBO calculation of the Senate Healthcare bill:
Cost over ten years? More than 20% less than the Iraq War.
Effect on US deficit? A reduction of $81 billion! (More than any GOP bill of any kind ever.)
Total coverage? Increased to 94% of the US population.
Is there anybody out there willing to say Iraq was worth more than a healthcare bill?

TuTu Monroe
10-08-2009, 12:48 PM
Another "re-calculation".
CBO calculation of the Senate Healthcare bill:
Cost over ten years? More than 20% less than the Iraq War.
Effect on US deficit? A reduction of $81 billion! (More than any GOP bill ever.)
Total coverage? Increased to 94% of the US population.
Is there anybody out there willing to say Iraq was worth more than a healthcare bill?

This bill is a fantasy as presented. It ain't gonna happen.

belme1201
10-08-2009, 01:01 PM
This bill is a fantasy as presented. It ain't gonna happen.

Now answer the question.......please.

Damocles
10-08-2009, 01:15 PM
Another "re-calculation".
CBO calculation of the Senate Healthcare bill:
Cost over ten years? More than 20% less than the Iraq War.
Effect on US deficit? A reduction of $81 billion! (More than any GOP bill of any kind ever.)
Total coverage? Increased to 94% of the US population.
Is there anybody out there willing to say Iraq was worth more than a healthcare bill?
To cover just 4% more of the US? Yes, Iraq was a waste of cash, but that doesn't change that this is even more of a waste of cash.

ZappasGuitar
10-08-2009, 01:15 PM
That was quite a rebuttal.

Be sure to remain seated on the short bus till you get home.

I gotta say your points had me sold until I read all the names ol tinpants called you and after that I just had to give the debate to him. When you get right down to it, his namecalling proved he's put much more thought into his arguments than you had.

belme1201
10-08-2009, 01:46 PM
To cover just 4% more of the US? Yes, Iraq was a waste of cash, but that doesn't change that this is even more of a waste of cash.

CBO says 30 million more Americans, or 94%, will be covered, 9-11% more than now.
The cost is far less than the cost of Iraq($10 billion less in 10 years than Iraq in 6) but you still consider that "more of a waste of cash", even when contributing to a deficit reduction.

I'm going to have the laugh of a lifetime when corporations start exporting jobs or dropping out of healthcare plans(more than now) because they're too expensive and those opposed today will be wondering what the hell happened.

"Just say no."



Let me add, this is not the bill I would have wanted but it's better than nothing and certainly better than the GOP plan which is as follows:
.

tinfoil
10-08-2009, 02:43 PM
CBO says 30 million more Americans, or 94%, will be covered, 9-11% more than now.
The cost is far less than the cost of Iraq($10 billion less in 10 years than Iraq in 6) but you still consider that "more of a waste of cash", even when contributing to a deficit reduction.

I'm going to have the laugh of a lifetime when corporations start exporting jobs or dropping out of healthcare plans(more than now) because they're too expensive and those opposed today will be wondering what the hell happened.

"Just say no."



Let me add, this is not the bill I would have wanted but it's better than nothing and certainly better than the GOP plan which is as follows:
.

I'm going to laugh when corps start paying the 8% on employees and lets the employees deal with getting their own insurance. You guys are forgetting once you make it mandatory, business will stop providing it. The burden will have been shifted. Right now they give it to you because it reduces tax liabilities and because it's become a part of the pay scale. Once they realize you have to get it for yourself, they may just put you in check and force you to make the first move.

Laugh all you want. I bet you'll be reading all about how the mandate didn't work out like expected.

TuTu Monroe
10-08-2009, 04:03 PM
I'm going to laugh when corps start paying the 8% on employees and lets the employees deal with getting their own insurance. You guys are forgetting once you make it mandatory, business will stop providing it. The burden will have been shifted. Right now they give it to you because it reduces tax liabilities and because it's become a part of the pay scale. Once they realize you have to get it for yourself, they may just put you in check and force you to make the first move.

Laugh all you want. I bet you'll be reading all about how the mandate didn't work out like expected.

I had lunch with a small businessman earlier and he told me Obama's plan scares the hell out of him.

TuTu Monroe
10-08-2009, 04:10 PM
Now answer the question.......please.

I love how you demand we answer your questions, yet you rarely answer ours.

Since the Iraq war wasn't well planned, yes, I would say most of it was a waste. The Obamacare plan is an even bigger waste.

apple0154
10-08-2009, 05:03 PM
I gotta say your points had me sold until I read all the names ol tinpants called you and after that I just had to give the debate to him. When you get right down to it, his namecalling proved he's put much more thought into his arguments than you had.

I think we all recognize he is "special". :rolleyes:

apple0154
10-08-2009, 05:06 PM
I had lunch with a small businessman earlier and he told me Obama's plan scares the hell out of him.

Don't fall for it! It's the old "I need to be consoled" pick-up line. ;)

belme1201
10-08-2009, 05:08 PM
I'm going to laugh when corps start paying the 8% on employees and lets the employees deal with getting their own insurance. You guys are forgetting once you make it mandatory, business will stop providing it. The burden will have been shifted. Right now they give it to you because it reduces tax liabilities and because it's become a part of the pay scale. Once they realize you have to get it for yourself, they may just put you in check and force you to make the first move.

Laugh all you want. I bet you'll be reading all about how the mandate didn't work out like expected.

US jobs are being exported every day because corporations can save not only on employee salaries but also on their healthcare. 8% is a saving on the cost they pay now and with the current runaway healthcare inflation it will only get worse. We are already paying, by one means or another, more for healthcare than any coountry on earth. You talk about costs being added into the price of a product, isn't healthcare included? If it is, how can GM or Ford compete with Honda, Hyundai, or VW, etc. who don't have that cost built into their cars? It has to come from either an inferior product or a higher price, thus eliminating the ability to compete.
Yes. I will laugh at the irony of a healthcare calamity because change won't come until the naysayers feel it in their pocketbooks and lost elections.

belme1201
10-08-2009, 05:17 PM
I love how you demand we answer your questions, yet you rarely answer ours.

Since the Iraq war wasn't well planned, yes, I would say most of it was a waste. The Obamacare plan is an even bigger waste.

But the Senate plan reduces the deficit, increases coverage to citizens and costs far less than Iraq. Your reason for opposing it?
We already pay far more for healthcare than any country in the world, it's time to get it under control.

belme1201
10-08-2009, 05:19 PM
Don't fall for it! It's the old "I need to be consoled" pick-up line. ;)


It's the old horizontal sympathy ploy.
I had lunch with the Dalai Lama, he supports it fully and fears nothing.

TuTu Monroe
10-08-2009, 05:39 PM
I love how you demand we answer your questions, yet you rarely answer ours.

Since the Iraq war wasn't well planned, yes, I would say most of it was a waste. The Obamacare plan is an even bigger waste.[/QUOTE

But the Senate plan reduces the deficit, increases coverage to citizens and costs far less than Iraq. Your reason for opposing it?
We already pay far more for healthcare than any country in the world, it's time to get it under control.

The CBO said this was just a preliminary and he would have to study it more thoroughly. What do you propose we do with the 25 -27 million, not including the illegals, who will have no coverage?

belme1201
10-08-2009, 08:24 PM
The CBO said this was just a preliminary and he would have to study it more thoroughly. What do you propose we do with the 25 -27 million, not including the illegals, who will have no coverage?


I don't believe the 6% remaining uncovered amounts to that many, all I do know is that the 94% CBO says will be covered is the highest of any plan yet. What is the % covered in the Republican plan?

FUCK THE POLICE
10-08-2009, 08:50 PM
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gnysT9_pxMwvpDM2YjJZCyRe4EYQD9B5ROL00

Bwhahahaha Exactly what i said when I compared the health bill to the cluckers program. Poor estimates lead to drastic underfunding and eventually tax increases to clean up the mess. At least they pointed it out now before the idiots pass the bill

Drastic underfunding? Did you read the article you posted? It says that the taxes take more than what was estimated.

FUCK THE POLICE
10-08-2009, 08:52 PM
LOL I see your logic now. You folks impose a tax that you know will be passed onto consumers but since you're taxing business, it makes it OK.
Got it. I finally understand how you justify it.

A tax on those making more than 250k means they spend less in business; which means business gets less revenue and has to raise prices on other consumers in response. I guess if you define your bad thing as "tax raise or has any effect whatsoever on those making below 250k" your logic would work, and all tax raises would be prohibited. But that's not what Obama promised.

TuTu Monroe
10-08-2009, 09:00 PM
I don't believe the 6% remaining uncovered amounts to that many, all I do know is that the 94% CBO says will be covered is the highest of any plan yet. What is the % covered in the Republican plan?

Yeah, there are 5 different plans, so maybe next year or so we will find out.

I can see why the CBO said it would be deficit neutral. The VAT, which is just a national sales tax and added on to sales taxes, will bring in the money, but it's going to be a disaster for the middle class and the poor.

Looks like Joe Wilson was right when he called Obama a liar. The Constitution says that if the government gives benefits to some, it must give to all and that means anyone who is here, including illegals. Good job Democrats.

Damocles
10-08-2009, 09:12 PM
CBO says 30 million more Americans, or 94%, will be covered, 9-11% more than now.
The cost is far less than the cost of Iraq($10 billion less in 10 years than Iraq in 6) but you still consider that "more of a waste of cash", even when contributing to a deficit reduction.

I'm going to have the laugh of a lifetime when corporations start exporting jobs or dropping out of healthcare plans(more than now) because they're too expensive and those opposed today will be wondering what the hell happened.

"Just say no."



Let me add, this is not the bill I would have wanted but it's better than nothing and certainly better than the GOP plan which is as follows:
.
Currently about 90% of Americans are covered when you remove the numbers that were "uncovered" but are now covered, CBO says 94% will be covered. That's a massive 4% increase for nearly a trillion dollars. We can and should do better than that, by a long shot. This is absolutely unsatisfactory.

belme1201
10-08-2009, 09:17 PM
Yeah, there are 5 different plans, so maybe next year or so we will find out.

I can see why the CBO said it would be deficit neutral. The VAT, which is just a national sales tax and added on to sales taxes, will bring in the money, but it's going to be a disaster for the middle class and the poor.

Looks like Joe Wilson was right when he called Obama a liar. The Constitution says that if the government gives benefits to some, it must give to all and that means anyone who is here, including illegals. Good job Democrats.

The plan we are talking about is the Senate Finance Committee plan scored by the CBO yesterday. VAT has nothing to do with it and the plan is budget POSITIVE by $81 billion. You queried regarding the 6% of the population still uncovered and I replied. Since you don't favor this plan, I was wondering the % of citizens uncovered in the GOP plan. Call me inquisitive because if so much is scored positive about this bill and you and yours still oppose it, I might be inclined to support the GOP bill you and yours do support. Has it been scored yet by the CBO? What are the details. Does it cover even more than the % covered in the Senate bill which you are so concerned about?

belme1201
10-08-2009, 09:23 PM
Yeah, there are 5 different plans, so maybe next year or so we will find out.

I can see why the CBO said it would be deficit neutral. The VAT, which is just a national sales tax and added on to sales taxes, will bring in the money, but it's going to be a disaster for the middle class and the poor.

Looks like Joe Wilson was right when he called Obama a liar. The Constitution says that if the government gives benefits to some, it must give to all and that means anyone who is here, including illegals. Good job Democrats.

The plan we are talking about is the Senate Finance Committee plan scored by the CBO yesterday. VAT has nothing to do with it and the plan is budget POSITIVE by $81 billion. You queried regarding the 6% of the population still uncovered and I replied. Since you don't favor this plan, I was wondering the % of citizens uncovered in the GOP plan. Call me inquisitive because if so much is scored positive about this bill and you and yours still oppose it, I might be inclined to support the GOP bill you and yours do support. Has it been scored yet by the CBO? What are the details? Certainly it must cover even more than the % covered in the Senate bill about which you are so concerned? I'm truly inquisitive.

FUCK THE POLICE
10-09-2009, 12:12 AM
Yeah, there are 5 different plans, so maybe next year or so we will find out.

Hopefully it gets passed as soon as possible.


I can see why the CBO said it would be deficit neutral. The VAT, which is just a national sales tax

Sort of.


and added on to sales taxes, will bring in the money, but it's going to be a disaster for the middle class and the poor.

The VAT wasn't a part of the proposal.




Looks like Joe Wilson was right when he called Obama a liar. The Constitution says that if the government gives benefits to some, it must give to all and that means anyone who is here, including illegals.

That's a creative interpretation if there is one. It isn't how the current federal government operates though.


Good job Democrats.

You're welcome. Hopefully one day their will be a cure for your conservatism (besides the rather blunt solutions I've been known to advocate in the past), but until then you'll have to live under constant delusion.

belme1201
10-10-2009, 12:13 PM
The plan we are talking about is the Senate Finance Committee plan scored by the CBO yesterday. VAT has nothing to do with it and the plan is budget POSITIVE by $81 billion. You queried regarding the 6% of the population still uncovered and I replied. Since you don't favor this plan, I was wondering the % of citizens uncovered in the GOP plan. Call me inquisitive because if so much is scored positive about this bill and you and yours still oppose it, I might be inclined to support the GOP bill you and yours do support. Has it been scored yet by the CBO? What are the details? Certainly it must cover even more than the % covered in the Senate bill about which you are so concerned? I'm truly inquisitive.



No reply?
Still waiting to hear from anybody about the % of uncovered Americans and other important details in the GOP Healthcare Plan.

belme1201
10-10-2009, 12:35 PM
Currently about 90% of Americans are covered when you remove the numbers that were "uncovered" but are now covered, CBO says 94% will be covered. That's a massive 4% increase for nearly a trillion dollars. We can and should do better than that, by a long shot. This is absolutely unsatisfactory.

CBO has scored coverage as 83-87% now, going to 94% in the Senate bill. Would you like to discuss the difference in terms of 20-30 million American human beings?
That said, the $830 billion costs 20%+ less than bush and the Republicans found for Iraq and yet they were able to cut taxes on top of it, however the criticism from that side only comes now that we're talking about something for human beings and not corporations or war. In addition, the bill reflects an $81 billion deficit reduction and triple that in the following 10 years. I don't see much to criticise there unless the "concern" from the other side is purely BS.
Supposedly all parties "say" the healthcare system needs change, if that is the case, please present the cost figures and coverage percentages of the GOP Healthcare Plan, as well as its effect on the deficit. If it betters the numbers presented above, I presume many Americans would support it, myself included.

Damocles
10-13-2009, 06:57 PM
CBO has scored coverage as 83-87% now, going to 94% in the Senate bill. Would you like to discuss the difference in terms of 20-30 million American human beings?
That said, the $830 billion costs 20%+ less than bush and the Republicans found for Iraq and yet they were able to cut taxes on top of it, however the criticism from that side only comes now that we're talking about something for human beings and not corporations or war. In addition, the bill reflects an $81 billion deficit reduction and triple that in the following 10 years. I don't see much to criticise there unless the "concern" from the other side is purely BS.
Supposedly all parties "say" the healthcare system needs change, if that is the case, please present the cost figures and coverage percentages of the GOP Healthcare Plan, as well as its effect on the deficit. If it betters the numbers presented above, I presume many Americans would support it, myself included.
What you just posted doesn't make it "better"...

It's like saying it's better now because we've only spent $699 per pack of gum rather than $700...

We can do better than this. $900 billion is too much to cover only 4% to 7% of the population, it is too much even to cover 15%. It is preposterous to attempt to get us to swallow this as a good deal for the taxpayer. Let alone stuff like only a $400 fine for not getting insurance for an employee... talk about directly attempting to force people into the "co-op" (read: public option). They don't even try to hide it.

The Baucus bill is even worse than HR 3200, and that one was bad enough to cause fits.

belme1201
10-13-2009, 09:24 PM
What you just posted doesn't make it "better"...

It's like saying it's better now because we've only spent $699 per pack of gum rather than $700...

We can do better than this. $900 billion is too much to cover only 4% to 7% of the population, it is too much even to cover 15%. It is preposterous to attempt to get us to swallow this as a good deal for the taxpayer. Let alone stuff like only a $400 fine for not getting insurance for an employee... talk about directly attempting to force people into the "co-op" (read: public option). They don't even try to hide it.

The Baucus bill is even worse than HR 3200, and that one was bad enough to cause fits.

Sounds like the same tune the GOP/Healthcare industry was playing 15 years ago, only now it's worse. "We can do better" but the truth is they'd rather do nothing. Screw people when profits are so much more important. I prefer talking in terms of people, percentages are too easy on one's conscience.
We shouldn't have trusted either of them years ago, why should we trust them now?
Yes, anything is better than waiting for naysayer reactionaries to take action, just like everything else in their past. We learn by our mistakes, not by doing nothing.
Isn't it interesting that the same souls never complained about or had difficulty finding the money spent in Iraq yet scream loudly and have trouble finding virtually the same or less on something for the people?
By the way BCBS just tacked on 20+% this month on my wife's policy for the coming year. Social Security says there's no inflation. Which one is right?

belme1201
10-13-2009, 09:48 PM
What you just posted doesn't make it "better"...

It's like saying it's better now because we've only spent $699 per pack of gum rather than $700...

We can do better than this. $900 billion is too much to cover only 4% to 7% of the population, it is too much even to cover 15%. It is preposterous to attempt to get us to swallow this as a good deal for the taxpayer. Let alone stuff like only a $400 fine for not getting insurance for an employee... talk about directly attempting to force people into the "co-op" (read: public option). They don't even try to hide it.

The Baucus bill is even worse than HR 3200, and that one was bad enough to cause fits.

Oh yes, can you give me the details in the alternative GOP plan?

Damocles
10-13-2009, 10:18 PM
Oh yes, can you give me the details in the alternative GOP plan?
There were several offered, but none allowed to hit the schedule for debate in committee so that you and I would have those details. Can you tell me why your party leaders are so afraid to even debate them?

The number one idea that needs to happen in order to create actual competition is to allow people to cross state lines in their purchase of health insurance. People need to be able to decide what level of insurance they are comfortable with. It needs to be decoupled from employers, instead the employee needs to get the extra money in their paycheck to pay for the insurance that they finally decide on. Let unions argue how much extra they get rather than argue that they be chained further to the employer with the chains of insurance that they "won" for us so long ago. All of what you spend on health care should be tax deductible, not just portions of it once you reach an incredibly high number.

That's just a start of the stuff that was in most of the bills presented by the Rs.

One thing that I know, I can point out the craptacular job the Ds did in writing legislation that would cover "everybody" and actually understanding what would make it worth it. Trillion dollar bills to cover 4 to 7 percent is absolutely horrendous.

belme1201
10-13-2009, 11:00 PM
There were several offered, but none allowed to hit the schedule for debate in committee so that you and I would have those details. Can you tell me why your party leaders are so afraid to even debate them?

The number one idea that needs to happen in order to create actual competition is to allow people to cross state lines in their purchase of health insurance. People need to be able to decide what level of insurance they are comfortable with. It needs to be decoupled from employers, instead the employee needs to get the extra money in their paycheck to pay for the insurance that they finally decide on. Let unions argue how much extra they get rather than argue that they be chained further to the employer with the chains of insurance that they "won" for us so long ago. All of what you spend on health care should be tax deductible, not just portions of it once you reach an incredibly high number.

That's just a start of the stuff that was in most of the bills presented by the Rs.

One thing that I know, I can point out the craptacular job the Ds did in writing legislation that would cover "everybody" and actually understanding what would make it worth it. Trillion dollar bills to cover 4 to 7 percent is absolutely horrendous.

I believe you're talking about amendments, not bills. At the Finance Comittee meeting today the GOP Senators had no complaints about their amendments not being heard, in fact it is my understanding several are included in the bill. Not a one mentioned any alternatives supplemental or total to the bill, merely rejection.
Since they have a bill, where can I go to find it? It must be on the RNC website no? How about Fox archives?
If the Dem bill is as bad as evidenced by your numbers above, what is the cost, effect on the deficit and how many additional people will be covered in the GOP "bill"?

belme1201
10-13-2009, 11:06 PM
Sounds like the same tune the GOP/Healthcare industry was playing 15 years ago, only now it's worse. "We can do better" but the truth is they'd rather do nothing. Screw people when profits are so much more important. I prefer talking in terms of people, percentages are too easy on one's conscience.
We shouldn't have trusted either of them years ago, why should we trust them now?
Yes, anything is better than waiting for naysayer reactionaries to take action, just like everything else in their past. We learn by our mistakes, not by doing nothing.
Isn't it interesting that the same souls never complained about or had difficulty finding the money spent in Iraq yet scream loudly and have trouble finding virtually the same or less on something for the people?
By the way BCBS just tacked on 20+% this month on my wife's policy for the coming year. Social Security says there's no inflation. Which one is right?
.

Damocles
10-14-2009, 11:36 AM
I believe you're talking about amendments, not bills. At the Finance Comittee meeting today the GOP Senators had no complaints about their amendments not being heard, in fact it is my understanding several are included in the bill. Not a one mentioned any alternatives supplemental or total to the bill, merely rejection.
Since they have a bill, where can I go to find it? It must be on the RNC website no? How about Fox archives?
If the Dem bill is as bad as evidenced by your numbers above, what is the cost, effect on the deficit and how many additional people will be covered in the GOP "bill"?
No, I'm talking about bills, the Committee chair has the ability to put bills on the schedule, he refuses to put anything offered by Rs.

Again, why are the Ds so afraid to actually debate competing bills?

Bonestorm
10-14-2009, 12:00 PM
No, I'm talking about bills, the Committee chair has the ability to put bills on the schedule, he refuses to put anything offered by Rs.

Again, why are the Ds so afraid to actually debate competing bills?


Nonsense. Name one Republcan-sponsored bill that the GOP leadership in either house of Congress actually supports. Sure, a smattering of Republicans have introduced various bills (as have a smattering of Democrats) but the Republicans have not produced an actual bill that they as a group support.

And, of course, as part of the amendment process in committee any Republican is more than free to introduce any bill as an amendment in the nature of a substitute and debate whatever the hell they want to debate. They aren't doing that. I wonder why. Perhaps it is because the reality is that they have no plan that has support of Republicans generally. Maybe?

TuTu Monroe
10-14-2009, 12:46 PM
No reply?
Still waiting to hear from anybody about the % of uncovered Americans and other important details in the GOP Healthcare Plan.

Obviously, it would be budget positive because the spending won't kick in for 5 or 6 years. Clever ploy by the Democrats to deceive the voters.

belme1201
10-14-2009, 03:31 PM
Obviously, it would be budget positive because the spending won't kick in for 5 or 6 years. Clever ploy by the Democrats to deceive the voters.

"Obviously", you have no answer to the question. What are the details of the Health Plan offered by the GOP? When does it kick in, how much does it cost, how many are covered, how many are uncovered?
Simple questions for those who claim to also be onboard to improve the system. In their case it's no ploy at all clever or otherwise, apparently just noise since there appears to be no plan which the "Party of No" has to offer as an alternative to any plan, good or, in their eyes, bad.

belme1201
10-14-2009, 03:40 PM
No, I'm talking about bills, the Committee chair has the ability to put bills on the schedule, he refuses to put anything offered by Rs.

Again, why are the Ds so afraid to actually debate competing bills?


"Again", where can I go to read these bills "offered by Rs"? If they were offered, certainly they must be on paper somewhere. All I ask is where can I go in order to evaluate them in comparison to the horrible Dem plan? I presume you made your judgement of the Dem plan based on what you found positive in the GOP alternative, I would like to have the same opportunity.
Could the problem be it's difficult to debate a competing bill that doesn't exist????

TuTu Monroe
10-14-2009, 05:24 PM
"Again", where can I go to read these bills "offered by Rs"? If they were offered, certainly they must be on paper somewhere. All I ask is where can I go in order to evaluate them in comparison to the horrible Dem plan? I presume you made your judgement of the Dem plan based on what you found positive in the GOP alternative, I would like to have the same opportunity.
Could the problem be it's difficult to debate a competing bill that doesn't exist????

You love to try to trip people up don't you?

belme1201
10-14-2009, 07:33 PM
You love to try to trip people up don't you?



If you have a truthful answer, how can I trip you up? I'm only trying to point out the hypocrisy of the Republican "Party of No". If you want to defend them based on dogma but without evidence, that's your choice.

Damocles
10-15-2009, 12:30 AM
"Again", where can I go to read these bills "offered by Rs"? If they were offered, certainly they must be on paper somewhere. All I ask is where can I go in order to evaluate them in comparison to the horrible Dem plan? I presume you made your judgement of the Dem plan based on what you found positive in the GOP alternative, I would like to have the same opportunity.
Could the problem be it's difficult to debate a competing bill that doesn't exist????
Again, you can read them when they are placed on the docket for debate in committee, as I asked, why do you think that not even one of them has been added to that docket? Nor are amendments seriously considered before they are voted down if they are offered by an R.

I placed a portion of those ideas that were offered both in legislation as well as amendments in a previous post, they weren't hidden or "secretly" placed there later or anything...

Damocles
10-15-2009, 12:33 AM
Nonsense. Name one Republcan-sponsored bill that the GOP leadership in either house of Congress actually supports. Sure, a smattering of Republicans have introduced various bills (as have a smattering of Democrats) but the Republicans have not produced an actual bill that they as a group support.

And, of course, as part of the amendment process in committee any Republican is more than free to introduce any bill as an amendment in the nature of a substitute and debate whatever the hell they want to debate. They aren't doing that. I wonder why. Perhaps it is because the reality is that they have no plan that has support of Republicans generally. Maybe?
Rubbish. You seek a "single" piece of legislation, when a large part of what the republicans say about it is it doesn't need this dinosaur sized mess of an "overhaul" that costs so hugely to cover so little.

The Rs have offered many amendments, and they have been summarily rejected.

belme1201
10-15-2009, 02:38 AM
Again, you can read them when they are placed on the docket for debate in committee, as I asked, why do you think that not even one of them has been added to that docket? Nor are amendments seriously considered before they are voted down if they are offered by an R.

I placed a portion of those ideas that were offered both in legislation as well as amendments in a previous post, they weren't hidden or "secretly" placed there later or anything...

They are not on the docket because they don't exist. Do you really want us to believe that there are GOP bills out there that, having gone through normal channels, for some strange reason, still are not available anywhere to view? Please, even the Do Nothing Republicans aren't dumb enough to miss a PR ploy like that.

The GOP Senators, while they didn't support the bill, complimented Baucus for hard work and fairness with nary a word about the phanthom GOP Healthcare Plan or mistreatment. Oddly, their complaints weren't about the Baucus Bill, but what it might become in Conference which, of course, is totally disingenuous. As anybody who watched the committee hearings will attest, amendments WERE heard from both sides and some "R" amendments were adopted.

As for the imaginary Republican plan, I will wait patiently for someone to come up with a credible reply. How much does it cost, how is it paid for, how many are covered, how many are not covered, what is its effect on the budget? These are the questions being thrown out regarding the Dem plan, I am asking the same questions, for fairness, about the Republican "Plan".

Bonestorm
10-15-2009, 07:29 AM
Rubbish. You seek a "single" piece of legislation, when a large part of what the republicans say about it is it doesn't need this dinosaur sized mess of an "overhaul" that costs so hugely to cover so little.

The Rs have offered many amendments, and they have been summarily rejected.


1) You say the Republicans have a plan. That plan should be represented in a bill. Where is it? And, as I said, if they have this bill they can offer it up in the amendment process as an amendment in the nature of a substitute and can debate the hell out of it if they wish. They've not done that because there is no such bill.

2) Now we're back to amendments? Yes, the Rs have offered amendments and yes, many have been rejected. There have also been lots of Republican amendments that were accepted. That's how the system works. What seems to be the problem? That not all Republican amendments were accepted? Well, elections have consequences, remember?

And really, when the obvious reality is that no Republicans (save maybe one or two in the Senate) will vote for the final bill, why should their amendments be taken seriously?

Bonestorm
10-15-2009, 07:40 AM
Again, you can read them when they are placed on the docket for debate in committee, as I asked, why do you think that not even one of them has been added to that docket? Nor are amendments seriously considered before they are voted down if they are offered by an R.

I placed a portion of those ideas that were offered both in legislation as well as amendments in a previous post, they weren't hidden or "secretly" placed there later or anything...


You're just making shit up as you go along. First of all, the only bill being considered by the Finance Committee was the Baucus bill, a bill that Baucus drafted in the hopes of pleasing Chuck Grassley and other Republcians on the committee. They aren't considereing HR 3200. They aren't considering the bill approved by the Senate HELP Committee. They aren't considering the bill sponsored by Senator Sanders. They aren't considering the bill sponsored by Senator Coburn. They are considering one bill, the bill drafted by the chairman.

Of course, that does not mean that any senator on the committee cannot offer up one of the other bills as an amendment in the nature of a substitute as I have mentioned several times now. But, that would require an actual member of the finance committee offering up such an amendment. No one has done that because no one really supports any of those other bills.

It isn't some nefarious plot by the Democrats to prevent the Republicans from offering up an alternative. There just is no alternative that has anything more that a scintilla of support.

With respect to amendments, the Finance Committee members have submitted 564 amendments to the Baucus bill. Of those 564 amendments, many are Republican amendments. Many of the Republican amendments were rejected. Many Democratic amendments were rejected. That's the way the process works. What's the problem?

Damocles
10-15-2009, 02:36 PM
You're just making shit up as you go along. First of all, the only bill being considered by the Finance Committee was the Baucus bill, a bill that Baucus drafted in the hopes of pleasing Chuck Grassley and other Republcians on the committee. They aren't considereing HR 3200. They aren't considering the bill approved by the Senate HELP Committee. They aren't considering the bill sponsored by Senator Sanders. They aren't considering the bill sponsored by Senator Coburn. They are considering one bill, the bill drafted by the chairman.

Of course, that does not mean that any senator on the committee cannot offer up one of the other bills as an amendment in the nature of a substitute as I have mentioned several times now. But, that would require an actual member of the finance committee offering up such an amendment. No one has done that because no one really supports any of those other bills.

It isn't some nefarious plot by the Democrats to prevent the Republicans from offering up an alternative. There just is no alternative that has anything more that a scintilla of support.

With respect to amendments, the Finance Committee members have submitted 564 amendments to the Baucus bill. Of those 564 amendments, many are Republican amendments. Many of the Republican amendments were rejected. Many Democratic amendments were rejected. That's the way the process works. What's the problem?
:rolleyes:

You are saying whatever you think will cause people on your side to reject what I have stated regardless of however much distraction or dissembling you may have to use.

The Senate is not the Congress where the bills were presented and never scheduled, yet many of them contained ideas I summarized earlier in the thread.

And as I have mentioned several times, Amendments were offered that followed along those lines and were rejected along partisan lines in the Congress. Of course ignoring the Congress this way only helps in your dissembling and attempts at distraction.

You also never consider the position that offering Amendments to what is one of the hugest messes ever to be considered by the Senate when portions of your argument is that such huge measures are not what is necessary may be contrary to your beliefs and your position. You just pretend the only option is to either jump on board this wagon, however creaky and weak it is, even if you think it is going to fall apart. They may think it is best to build a few better constructed wagons, in order to get that done first they have to get you to pay attention and notice that this one is about to fall apart.

Your argument is based in the first assumption that the only way that the Rs can show they don't like the bill is by offering up amendments to it, even if they think such a monstrosity shouldn't exist to begin with.

Damocles
10-15-2009, 02:41 PM
In short, defeating this thing is just the first step in getting the Senate and Congress to start actually working on reform rather than simply trying to force partisan solutions on people without regard to what they say or think.

This, of course, can be stopped by the fact that they (the R Congresspeople and Senators) are in the minority. However, there are some who believe that the first step in working towards a measure that is palatable is to defeat this mess rather than pretending that a few amendments can make it less of a pile of inedible rubbish.

Bonestorm
10-15-2009, 02:57 PM
In short, defeating this thing is just the first step in getting the Senate and Congress to start actually working on reform rather than simply trying to force partisan solutions on people without regard to what they say or think.

This, of course, can be stopped by the fact that they (the R Congresspeople and Senators) are in the minority. However, there are some who believe that the first step in working towards a measure that is palatable is to defeat this mess rather than pretending that a few amendments can make it less of a pile of inedible rubbish.


Oh, I see. Step one is to defeat this plan, in which case why offer amendments?

Once they do that the Republicans will then offer up their plan. Is that it?

Maybe the Republicans should have thought about doing their version of reform (assuming it exits) sometime between 2002 and 2006 when they controlled the whole shebang. There's a thought.

Bonestorm
10-15-2009, 03:00 PM
:rolleyes:

You are saying whatever you think will cause people on your side to reject what I have stated regardless of however much distraction or dissembling you may have to use.

The Senate is not the Congress where the bills were presented and never scheduled, yet many of them contained ideas I summarized earlier in the thread.

And as I have mentioned several times, Amendments were offered that followed along those lines and were rejected along partisan lines in the Congress. Of course ignoring the Congress this way only helps in your dissembling and attempts at distraction.

You also never consider the position that offering Amendments to what is one of the hugest messes ever to be considered by the Senate when portions of your argument is that such huge measures are not what is necessary may be contrary to your beliefs and your position. You just pretend the only option is to either jump on board this wagon, however creaky and weak it is, even if you think it is going to fall apart. They may think it is best to build a few better constructed wagons, in order to get that done first they have to get you to pay attention and notice that this one is about to fall apart.

Your argument is based in the first assumption that the only way that the Rs can show they don't like the bill is by offering up amendments to it, even if they think such a monstrosity shouldn't exist to begin with.


I'm merely discussing the actual procedure in the Senate whereas you are just making shit up as you go along because it comports with what somebody told you is happening.

As I have said now three or four times, if the Republicans in the Senate hate the monstrosity that is the Baucus bill and have an alternative plan, they are more than free to offer their plan as an amendment in the nature of a substitute which would replace the entirety of the Baucus bill with the entirety of the Republican plan. The Republicans haven't done that and they haven't because they have no plan at all. Same thing on the House side with HR 3200.

Everyone knows what the Republican strategy is on this, water the bill down as much as possible through the amendment process to make it as bad a bill as possible and then vote against it. Pretending otherwise is lunacy. Or hackery. Take your pick.

Damocles
10-15-2009, 07:36 PM
Oh, I see. Step one is to defeat this plan, in which case why offer amendments?

Once they do that the Republicans will then offer up their plan. Is that it?

Maybe the Republicans should have thought about doing their version of reform (assuming it exits) sometime between 2002 and 2006 when they controlled the whole shebang. There's a thought.
Because there are others who think they can make the bill suck less. Your pretense is that either of the parties are some sort of creature of its own with no people who may have a different opinion of things in them.

And yes, I've made that point earlier, I wish they had paid more attention to domestic issues when they had control of Congress and worked to create fiscally responsible plans rather than later having to fight trillion dollar behemoths that cover about 1/3 of those who currently don't have insurance...

Damocles
10-15-2009, 07:38 PM
I'm merely discussing the actual procedure in the Senate whereas you are just making shit up as you go along because it comports with what somebody told you is happening.

As I have said now three or four times, if the Republicans in the Senate hate the monstrosity that is the Baucus bill and have an alternative plan, they are more than free to offer their plan as an amendment in the nature of a substitute which would replace the entirety of the Baucus bill with the entirety of the Republican plan. The Republicans haven't done that and they haven't because they have no plan at all. Same thing on the House side with HR 3200.

Everyone knows what the Republican strategy is on this, water the bill down as much as possible through the amendment process to make it as bad a bill as possible and then vote against it. Pretending otherwise is lunacy. Or hackery. Take your pick.
Yet I'm not, even you admitted that there are a "smattering of R bills" that were presented, yet I was able to point out that none have even reached the debate table in committee. And I am speaking of Congress while you continue to talk about the Senate. You are deliberately misleading the conversation into where you think it should be to "support" your position rather than actually listening to what was said. Then asking rhetorical questions based on your own position that working within the parameters of this bill is the only way the Rs should be working to make a difference. Personally I think that defeating this pile of crap is the only reasonable way towards a future. Amazingly bills can be offered in more place than one, and there are better ways of doing something about a bill that are more effective than just offering amendments that will be summarily rejected and would be ineffective to make this bill any more palatable.

There is no way it is worth nearly a trillion collected over 10 years and spent only over 5 to cover 4 to 7 percent more of the population. It isn't a good deal in any way it can be looked at. This is almost directly $1000 hammers right in front of our face.

belme1201
10-15-2009, 08:14 PM
:rolleyes:

You are saying whatever you think will cause people on your side to reject what I have stated regardless of however much distraction or dissembling you may have to use.

The Senate is not the Congress where the bills were presented and never scheduled, yet many of them contained ideas I summarized earlier in the thread.

And as I have mentioned several times, Amendments were offered that followed along those lines and were rejected along partisan lines in the Congress. Of course ignoring the Congress this way only helps in your dissembling and attempts at distraction.

You also never consider the position that offering Amendments to what is one of the hugest messes ever to be considered by the Senate when portions of your argument is that such huge measures are not what is necessary may be contrary to your beliefs and your position. You just pretend the only option is to either jump on board this wagon, however creaky and weak it is, even if you think it is going to fall apart. They may think it is best to build a few better constructed wagons, in order to get that done first they have to get you to pay attention and notice that this one is about to fall apart.

Your argument is based in the first assumption that the only way that the Rs can show they don't like the bill is by offering up amendments to it, even if they think such a monstrosity shouldn't exist to begin with.

......and since this bill is so bad, where is an alternative Republican bill? The truth is they are being paid off to prevent any bill from coming into being. In other words, the status quo and a repeat of their position 15 years ago.
It's so obvious, why can't you admit it, that or find the alternative bill supported by the Republicans?

apple0154
10-15-2009, 08:16 PM
The number one idea that needs to happen in order to create actual competition is to allow people to cross state lines in their purchase of health insurance. People need to be able to decide what level of insurance they are comfortable with.

Level of insurance? That's the basic problem right there. What level of insurance does one take to insure their home? If their house is worth $250,000 do they insure it for $100,000? Is their $30,000 auto insured for $15,000?

Does one choose which diseases they want covered by insurance? How many people would choose prosthesis coverage? How many individuals who lost an arm or leg thought about that?

How many people know what is involved with certain illnesses? How can the average individual choose a level of coverage? It's like asking one to decide what contents of their home they want to insure. The thief will probably take the TV and recorder but not the dining room table so does the home owner not insure the dining room set? The thief probably won't take the bedroom bureau but they may bust it up ransacking through it.

A decent insurance policy includes "replacement value". Anything damaged or stolen is replaced. Simple as that. Is there a "replacement value" clause in health insurance or something similar?

In other words if a person loses a kidney is the cost of a transplant automatically included (assuming there is a kidney available)? If one has an eye disease are the operations and glasses and everything necessary to deal with the illness included or is each thing specified? And if specified how does the average person know what will be required?

Unless one is aware of all the possible illnesses they may contract and all the possible cures/therapies how can they make an informed decision? The answer is they can't. That's why we hear about people requiring prior approval from insurance companies and insurance companies stopping treatment part way through.

There is no solution to the health care crisis short of a universal plan. Then everyone is equally insured. Everyone is entitled to all the treatments/operations/etc that anyone else would be entitled to. There is no "prior approval" necessary. No guessing or gambling on what misfortune may strike.

Level of insurance? What diseases and treatments should be covered? It's like deciding which rooms in a house one should insure.


///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


There were several offered, but none allowed to hit the schedule for debate in committee so that you and I would have those details. Can you tell me why your party leaders are so afraid to even debate them?

The number one idea that needs to happen in order to create actual competition is to allow people to cross state lines in their purchase of health insurance. People need to be able to decide what level of insurance they are comfortable with. It needs to be decoupled from employers, instead the employee needs to get the extra money in their paycheck to pay for the insurance that they finally decide on. Let unions argue how much extra they get rather than argue that they be chained further to the employer with the chains of insurance that they "won" for us so long ago. All of what you spend on health care should be tax deductible, not just portions of it once you reach an incredibly high number.

That's just a start of the stuff that was in most of the bills presented by the Rs.

One thing that I know, I can point out the craptacular job the Ds did in writing legislation that would cover "everybody" and actually understanding what would make it worth it. Trillion dollar bills to cover 4 to 7 percent is absolutely horrendous.

Damocles
10-15-2009, 08:21 PM
Level of insurance? That's the basic problem right there. What level of insurance does one take to insure their home? If their house is worth $250,000 do they insure it for $100,000? Is their $30,000 auto insured for $15,000?

Does one choose which diseases they want covered by insurance? How many people would choose prosthesis coverage? How many individuals who lost an arm or leg thought about that?

How many people know what is involved with certain illnesses? How can the average individual choose a level of coverage? It's like asking one to decide what contents of their home they want to insure. The thief will probably take the TV and recorder but not the dining room table so does the home owner not insure the dining room set? The thief probably won't take the bedroom bureau but they may bust it up ransacking through it.

A decent insurance policy includes "replacement value". Anything damaged or stolen is replaced. Simple as that. Is there a "replacement value" clause in health insurance or something similar?

In other words if a person loses a kidney is the cost of a transplant automatically included (assuming there is a kidney available)? If one has an eye disease are the operations and glasses and everything necessary to deal with the illness included or is each thing specified? And if specified how does the average person know what will be required?

Unless one is aware of all the possible illnesses they may contract and all the possible cures/therapies how can they make an informed decision? The answer is they can't. That's why we hear about people requiring prior approval from insurance companies and insurance companies stopping treatment part way through.

There is no solution to the health care crisis short of a universal plan. Then everyone is equally insured. Everyone is entitled to all the treatments/operations/etc that anyone else would be entitled to. There is no "prior approval" necessary. No guessing or gambling on what misfortune may strike.

Level of insurance? What diseases and treatments should be covered? It's like deciding which rooms in a house one should insure.


///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Yes, level of insurance. There are many ways it can fit better for different people in different ways, forcing people to accept only a crappy one-size fits all program simply increases the cost for many people who are happily well-covered with a different level of coverage than you.

I would seriously prefer a safety net to this debacle that only increases costs.

Damocles
10-15-2009, 08:23 PM
......and since this bill is so bad, where is an alternative Republican bill? The truth is they are being paid off to prevent any bill from coming into being. In other words, the status quo and a repeat of their position 15 years ago.
It's so obvious, why can't you admit it, that or find the alternative bill supported by the Republicans?
Again, bills have been offered, even your pal Turd understands that a "smattering of bills" have been proposed by Rs that simply remain in perpetual darkness. The bills are where I said they are, waiting (in perpetuity) to be scheduled.

Bonestorm
10-15-2009, 08:36 PM
Again, bills have been offered, even your pal Turd understands that a "smattering of bills" have been proposed by Rs that simply remain in perpetual darkness. The bills are where I said they are, waiting (in perpetuity) to be scheduled.


I understand that a smattering of bills have been offered by both Ds and Rs and that only the Baucus bill is being discussed in the Senate Finance Committee. What you fail to admit is that the R bills have zero support as evidenced by the fact that no one has offered any of them as an amendment in the nature of a substitute as could easily have be done.

There is not need to wait for them to be scheduled. Offer them as amendments. Of course, that would require someone to actually support the proposals. The trouble is that no one does. Just like the bill Bernie Sanders sponsored.

Damocles
10-15-2009, 08:41 PM
I understand that a smattering of bills have been offered by both Ds and Rs and that only the Baucus bill is being discussed in the Senate Finance Committee. What you fail to admit is that the R bills have zero support as evidenced by the fact that no one has offered any of them as an amendment in the nature of a substitute as could easily have be done.

There is not need to wait for them to be scheduled. Offer them as amendments. Of course, that would require someone to actually support the proposals. The trouble is that no one does. Just like the bill Bernie Sanders sponsored.
And again, some have offered those same amendments to HR 3200 (those people who are on the side that thinks they can make this thing stink less). You continue to keep repeating things that are simply untrue. While (I'll say almost here although I can't think of one R Amendment that has passed the partisan wall) almost every Amendment is rejected summarily by the majority party.

Bonestorm
10-15-2009, 09:02 PM
And again, some have offered those same amendments to HR 3200 (those people who are on the side that thinks they can make this thing stink less). You continue to keep repeating things that are simply untrue. While (I'll say almost here although I can't think of one R Amendment that has passed the partisan wall) almost every Amendment is rejected summarily by the majority party.


If you can't think of one Republican amendment that has passed either in the House or Senate you just plain aren't looking. At all. Particularly in the Senate. You've got to be out of your fucking mind with that garbage.

Oh, and please state what I keep repeating that is untrue.

Damocles
10-15-2009, 09:41 PM
If you can't think of one Republican amendment that has passed either in the House or Senate you just plain aren't looking. At all. Particularly in the Senate. You've got to be out of your fucking mind with that garbage.

Oh, and please state what I keep repeating that is untrue.
That they have not put forward any of the ideas in the bills as amendments. It is flatly untrue. And I don't have to be "out of my mind" I simply listen to the Rs that were on the original panel who made it clear that it was created without acceptance of republican input. Even among that gang of six.

belme1201
10-16-2009, 08:08 AM
Again, bills have been offered, even your pal Turd understands that a "smattering of bills" have been proposed by Rs that simply remain in perpetual darkness. The bills are where I said they are, waiting (in perpetuity) to be scheduled.

......and those "bills" proposed by Republicans are unavailable for public view and were not published previously by the Republican sponsoring Congress person? I find it amazing that you buy that folly. A Republican supported bill simply does not exist and you are dancing a semantic jig to avoid that fact. If
it did exist, you would post in in a flash, and that's all the evidence needed to prove it is a GOP PR myth.

Damocles
10-16-2009, 05:47 PM
......and those "bills" proposed by Republicans are unavailable for public view and were not published previously by the Republican sponsoring Congress person? I find it amazing that you buy that folly. A Republican supported bill simply does not exist and you are dancing a semantic jig to avoid that fact. If
it did exist, you would post in in a flash, and that's all the evidence needed to prove it is a GOP PR myth.
A singular bill does not exist because the Rs do not support the juggernaut approach. You are playing the "semantic hypocrisy" game.

FUCK THE POLICE
10-16-2009, 06:34 PM
I doubt Republicans offered any constructive amendment.

belme1201
10-16-2009, 08:33 PM
A singular bill does not exist because the Rs do not support the juggernaut approach. You are playing the "semantic hypocrisy" game.

Thank you. As well as not supporting the "juggernaut approach", they support no healthcare bill at all, Democratic or Republican. It's obvious to anyone honest with himself.

Damocles
10-16-2009, 08:49 PM
Thank you. As well as not supporting the "juggernaut approach", they support no healthcare bill at all, Democratic or Republican. It's obvious to anyone honest with himself.
Again, what you say is just rubbish. They support a different approach to reform, using regulation and actual competition, they do not support this mess that is so very costly for so little return.

TuTu Monroe
10-16-2009, 09:30 PM
......and those "bills" proposed by Republicans are unavailable for public view and were not published previously by the Republican sponsoring Congress person? I find it amazing that you buy that folly. A Republican supported bill simply does not exist and you are dancing a semantic jig to avoid that fact. If
it did exist, you would post in in a flash, and that's all the evidence needed to prove it is a GOP PR myth.

I'd like to know why the Democrats rejected every amendment the Republicans proposed in the Baucus bill. Bi-Partisan? Hell no.

belme1201
10-16-2009, 10:22 PM
I'd like to know why the Democrats rejected every amendment the Republicans proposed in the Baucus bill. Bi-Partisan? Hell no.

More GOP BS.
At last count, 161 Republican amendments were accepted out of 437 heard. After their passage, the GOP gang still voted againt the bill.
Bi-partisanship? More GOP BS.

"The truth shall set you free."

belme1201
10-16-2009, 10:39 PM
Again, what you say is just rubbish. They support a different approach to reform, using regulation and actual competition, they do not support this mess that is so very costly for so little return.


Round and round we go where we stop nobody knows, where's an alternative bill they support?

Annie
10-16-2009, 10:51 PM
......and those "bills" proposed by Republicans are unavailable for public view and were not published previously by the Republican sponsoring Congress person? I find it amazing that you buy that folly. A Republican supported bill simply does not exist and you are dancing a semantic jig to avoid that fact. If
it did exist, you would post in in a flash, and that's all the evidence needed to prove it is a GOP PR myth.

Where do you get your info from?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-2520

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-1324

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3400:

The texts are easily found, they are sitting in committees.

belme1201
10-16-2009, 11:33 PM
Where do you get your info from?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-2520

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-1324

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3400:

The texts are easily found, they are sitting in committees.

I know about the Ryan "bill", it doesn't address the problems of the system but, in fact, ignores them which is the reason it has been ignored even by the GOP and not submitted for evaluation or consideration. Which is why you hear the 'NOs' and not the positives of ideas in their own "bills", even by Ryan, Shaddegg, Price etc. I don't know if you have had any experience with the healthcare system, but an annual $5000 tax credit won't cover anywhere close to two days in the OR and ICU, that plus paying insurance premiums and other costs.
All Congressmen can obtain bill numbers, that doesn't necessarily mean they will present them or they're not a sham. Read them youself and tell me how they relate to the numbers uninsured, underinsured, rising insurance costs, the cost of the bill and how to pay for it, the budget, donut holes, medical bankruptcies, pharmaceutical costs, etc. All do address tax credits and tax cuts which have little to do with people who don't have enough money to buy insurance. Yesterday on C-Span, Sen. Roberts was taking credit for a bi-partisan HEALTH bill, it turns out it deals only with hospice care, truly comical.
When you hear a GOP Congressperson say he/she doesn't like something about the Dem bill and then offers what he propses as an alternative in the same situation, let me know.

Annie
10-16-2009, 11:47 PM
No gotcha. The House bill isn't what we were discussing. tutu brought up the Senate Finance Committee Bill, sometimes called the Baucus Bill. The sources confirming the numbers were the NY Times, Washington Post and a third source which I've forgotten. All confirmed the 161 accepted number, the total heard varied at the point of the publication so I used the lowest number, 437 for fairness, although the total of GOP amendments went, eventually, into the 700s.
I see no references at all to amendments by either party in your links.

The Senate one begins with the S. I believe it's in the middle.

belme1201
10-17-2009, 01:37 AM
The Senate one begins with the S. I believe it's in the middle.

I amended my reply to go further in answer to you.

Annie
10-17-2009, 01:54 AM
I amended my reply to go further in answer to you.

Yet, the "Republican bills" were published, so they existed though allowed to die in committee, which most bills do. No one was asking you to agree, just admit they were there.

Damocles
10-17-2009, 09:57 AM
Round and round we go where we stop nobody knows, where's an alternative bill they support?
Again, disingenuous. They support more than one bill because they do not believe that the juggernaut is the appropriate response.

Damocles
10-17-2009, 09:58 AM
Yet, the "Republican bills" were published, so they existed though allowed to die in committee, which most bills do. No one was asking you to agree, just admit they were there.
He likes to pretend that he has some point, even though he knows that what he is saying is simply an untruth.

christiefan915
10-17-2009, 12:37 PM
I love how you demand we answer your questions, yet you rarely answer ours.

Since the Iraq war wasn't well planned, yes, I would say most of it was a waste. The Obamacare plan is an even bigger waste.

The Obama plan is still a plan, not a done deal, so how can it be a waste?

belme1201
10-17-2009, 12:50 PM
He likes to pretend that he has some point, even though he knows that what he is saying is simply an untruth.

In other words the Republicans have a bill they SUPPORT? It is the subect I first broached in post #38.
Any Congressman can request bills to be scored by the CBO, these aren't. Amidst grand bruhaha in May and then again in June, the GOP Reps introduced the "bills" seen above. Even you forgot the 4 page "bill" they were waving around, that's because no-one took it seriously from either side. They have received no active support from their own members or even from the folks with their names on them because they were more PR than serious legislation. Aside from their titles such as "The Patient's Bill of Rights", they don't deal with the problems in the system, instead, using a tax credit as the solution to all problems.(A big surprise.)
So, I'll ask again; since the Dem bill is so bad and the Republicans are so vehemently and loudly against it, where (and which) bills do they support as an alternative?
It has been said here several times that GOP amendments have not been heard even though 161 of them were accepted, but Republican Senators, aside from Snowe, still rejected the bill to a man. If they want an alternative, it certainly wasn't mentioned at the time of their negative vote. Why keep it a mystery?
A $5000 tax credit(irrelevant to a Walmart employee e.g.) doesn't cover anywhere close to major out-of-pocket expenses plus premiums, nor are the problems of healthcare inflation, medical bankruptcy, Donut Holes, prescription costs and abuses, etc., addressed. In other words, they are merely words to cover a sham which neither side takes seriously. It remains, they are being paid to come away with the status quo, being, to them, a success. They want no bill, that will keep profits safe.

belme1201
10-17-2009, 12:52 PM
He likes to pretend that he has some point, even though he knows that what he is saying is simply an untruth.

For example?

Annie
10-17-2009, 02:15 PM
For example?

They are already here, just read. Hell, you posted them.

tinfoil
10-17-2009, 04:20 PM
In other words the Republicans have a bill they SUPPORT? It is the subect I first broached in post #38.
Any Congressman can request bills to be scored by the CBO, these aren't. Amidst grand bruhaha in May and then again in June, the GOP Reps introduced the "bills" seen above. Even you forgot the 4 page "bill" they were waving around, that's because no-one took it seriously from either side. They have received no active support from their own members or even from the folks with their names on them because they were more PR than serious legislation. Aside from their titles such as "The Patient's Bill of Rights", they don't deal with the problems in the system, instead, using a tax credit as the solution to all problems.(A big surprise.)
So, I'll ask again; since the Dem bill is so bad and the Republicans are so vehemently and loudly against it, where (and which) bills do they support as an alternative?
It has been said here several times that GOP amendments have not been heard even though 161 of them were accepted, but Republican Senators, aside from Snowe, still rejected the bill to a man. If they want an alternative, it certainly wasn't mentioned at the time of their negative vote. Why keep it a mystery?
A $5000 tax credit(irrelevant to a Walmart employee e.g.) doesn't cover anywhere close to major out-of-pocket expenses plus premiums, nor are the problems of healthcare inflation, medical bankruptcy, Donut Holes, prescription costs and abuses, etc., addressed. In other words, they are merely words to cover a sham which neither side takes seriously. It remains, they are being paid to come away with the status quo, being, to them, a success. They want no bill, that will keep profits safe.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3400/show
Democrats stifle Republican health care plans
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Democrats-stifle-Republican-health-care-plans-8224780-58644807.html

belme1201
10-17-2009, 06:42 PM
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3400/show
Democrats stifle Republican health care plans
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Democrats-stifle-Republican-health-care-plans-8224780-58644807.html

30 "plans"? The poor Dems only had time for how many?
Which are supported by the GOP members of the Senate Finace Committee? Or for that matter, by the rest of the GOP Congressional Members? Which has been endorsed by the Wash.Times, WSJ, Fox, the Weekly Standard or any other in that camp. Who has signed on to these "plans"? They complain about the silence of the press, but what explains their silence? That is, if they were serious, which I hold, theyare not.

TuTu Monroe
10-17-2009, 07:30 PM
I know about the Ryan "bill", it doesn't address the problems of the system but, in fact, ignores them which is the reason it has been ignored even by the GOP and not submitted for evaluation or consideration. Which is why you hear the 'NOs' and not the positives of ideas in their own "bills", even by Ryan, Shaddegg, Price etc. I don't know if you have had any experience with the healthcare system, but an annual $5000 tax credit won't cover anywhere close to two days in the OR and ICU, that plus paying insurance premiums and other costs.
All Congressmen can obtain bill numbers, that doesn't necessarily mean they will present them or they're not a sham. Read them youself and tell me how they relate to the numbers uninsured, underinsured, rising insurance costs, the cost of the bill and how to pay for it, the budget, donut holes, medical bankruptcies, pharmaceutical costs, etc. All do address tax credits and tax cuts which have little to do with people who don't have enough money to buy insurance. Yesterday on C-Span, Sen. Roberts was taking credit for a bi-partisan HEALTH bill, it turns out it deals only with hospice care, truly comical.
When you hear a GOP Congressperson say he/she doesn't like something about the Dem bill and then offers what he propses as an alternative in the same situation, let me know.

The Democrats just wanted a bill, any bill would do and they don't even know what's in it. No wonder they rejected the Republican amendment to put the bill on the internet.

Damocles
10-17-2009, 07:53 PM
The Democrats just wanted a bill, any bill would do and they don't even know what's in it. No wonder they rejected the Republican amendment to put the bill on the internet.
That's because when they were forced to slow down enough for people to understand their first humongospendnotgetmuch bill it was rejected by their constituency. They know that this one would too, and would prefer to pass it without that kind of oversight.

belme1201
10-17-2009, 09:36 PM
The Democrats just wanted a bill, any bill would do and they don't even know what's in it. No wonder they rejected the Republican amendment to put the bill on the internet.

Isn't the bill on the internet?

Damocles
10-17-2009, 09:38 PM
Isn't the bill on the internet?
Where have you seen the actual legislation written online? So far all we get was the mark, and even the CBO says that costs change as well as intent in the actual legislation.

tinfoil
10-18-2009, 01:51 AM
Isn't the bill on the internet?
Good lord, it's like talking to a wall.

The democrats rejected and ammedment to ...Wait for it...


MAKE THE BILL AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC 72 HRS BEFORE THE VOTE ON THE BILL

TuTu Monroe
10-18-2009, 10:25 AM
Isn't the bill on the internet?

:rolleyes:

belme1201
10-18-2009, 07:03 PM
:rolleyes:

You're right, I was thinking of the House bill. Let's see how long it takes to post the Senate bill, it was just approved Wednesday.

TuTu Monroe
10-19-2009, 03:05 AM
You're right, I was thinking of the House bill. Let's see how long it takes to post the Senate bill, it was just approved Wednesday.

Baucus said it would take 2 weeks to put the bill on the internet and he wouldn't do it. Flimsy excuse.

A copy of the House bill was put on the internet by a Texas Republican because no Dem would do it.

christiefan915
10-19-2009, 08:34 AM
Thank you. As well as not supporting the "juggernaut approach", they support no healthcare bill at all, Democratic or Republican. It's obvious to anyone honest with himself.

A viable Republican health care bill is as elusive as the missing WMD. If they had something, anything worth talking about, you can be sure they'd be pushing it all over the media, along with endless criticism of the evil Dems.

Bonestorm
10-21-2009, 11:49 AM
Baucus said it would take 2 weeks to put the bill on the internet and he wouldn't do it. Flimsy excuse.

A copy of the House bill was put on the internet by a Texas Republican because no Dem would do it.


Hey, what's this? Oh, the Senate Finance Committee bill:

http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/leg/LEG%202009/101909%20America%27s%20Healthy%20Furture%20Act%202 009%20Leg.pdf

Douchebag.

And care to source the allegation that the House bill was put on the internet by a Texas Republican because no Democrat would do it? As far as I recall it's been available through the Library of Congress website since July.

TuTu Monroe
10-21-2009, 01:03 PM
Hey, what's this? Oh, the Senate Finance Committee bill:

http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/leg/LEG%202009/101909%20America%27s%20Healthy%20Furture%20Act%202 009%20Leg.pdf

Douchebag.

And care to source the allegation that the House bill was put on the internet by a Texas Republican because no Democrat would do it? As far as I recall it's been available through the Library of Congress website since July.

Ummm, that is not the final bill. The Baucus bill is still in conceptual language and the finished bill at this time does not really exist.:pke:

Bonestorm
10-21-2009, 01:07 PM
Ummm, that is not the final bill. The Baucus bill is still in conceptual language and the finished bill at this time does not really exist.:pke:


That's the Baucus bill, jackass. Note that the link is to the Senate Finance Committee website. Note that the title of the bill is the same as the title of the Chairman's Mark. Note that the sponsor of the bill is Max Baucus.

That's the finished bill, with amendments. It was released two days ago.

apple0154
10-21-2009, 04:49 PM
Hey, what's this? Oh, the Senate Finance Committee bill:

http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/leg/LEG%202009/101909%20America%27s%20Healthy%20Furture%20Act%202 009%20Leg.pdf

Douchebag.

And care to source the allegation that the House bill was put on the internet by a Texas Republican because no Democrat would do it? As far as I recall it's been available through the Library of Congress website since July.

Page 342, line 3 reads: "facility for the mentally retarded....."

I thought the politically correct term was "mentally challenged".

I'm surprised some opponent hasn't jumped on that and demanded the bill be sent back for another re-write! :lol: