Obama cant close the deal on healthcare
- Thread starter Chapdog
- Start date
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
Obama can't do that. Clinton tried writing his own healthcare bill in the 90s and congress revolted against him for doing it. Obama's letting the house and senate draft the legislation this time, which is turning out to take forever.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
***cough***
next I suppose you'll be telling us it's the Republican's plan.....
C
Cancel4
Guest
You are absolutely right about being entitled to know what is in any plan the Congress is working on before the president signs it.
Try http://thomas.loc.gov/ and get started.
Read the stuff before you decide, at least.
C
Cancel4
Guest
No. But progressives aren't in favor of any bill without a public option.
lol surprised? Have you ever met a politician? They are like the bosses who don't do shit but take credit for everything.. talking heads. Chances are the language will be almost completely written by outside interests.
And yes I do remember the Hillarycare. it was a total sham.
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
It was the legislation compromised on by Republicans with the Democrats in the HEALTH committee. It was the most honest bipartisan effort we've seen for about a generation, by my guess. You're a fool if you think it's some partisan bill drafted by the ultra-left to try to force upon Republicans. They had a hand in making it as shitty as it is, and I haven't heard one commentator come out in support of the Baucus compromise from the left or the right.
Compromise blows chunks. They need to force the public option through reconciliation.
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
So what's your point? Obama is supposed to write legislation now? Or that you're unhappy that you don't understand civics and want to attack every bill as though it's the final version and call it Obama's when it clearly isn't?
Don't be a fucking retard. Democrats hate the Baucus bill. Republicans hate the Baucus bill. Obama wants a public option. To say this is Obama's bill is completely false.
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
I will say, however, that the most useful thing about the Baucus bill is the fact that it proves that no matter what concessions you make to Republicans they'll never support healthcare reform in any degree while Obama is president. If they hate the public option, they'll suggest coops. As soon as you concede and decide to go with coops, they tell you coops are socialism. If you get rid of them all together, they say it's partisan legislation and you need to start all over.
If nothing else, it shows that Republicans need to be excluded from the conversation.
If nothing else, it shows that Republicans need to be excluded from the conversation.
well obama needs to show some leadership and at least list out the things the bill HAS to have in it.. Such as:
1) No penalties for companies who choose to provide there talent with a sweet plan.
2) No increases to premiums or taxes for those making less then 250K or whatever his promise was.
3) Pre-existing conditions dont effect ability to get plan.
4) and so on....
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
Politics is the art of the possible. Making demands from congress like that is a recipe for disaster.
I think he needed to come out and demand a public option. He's said he will not sign a bill that doesn't increase choice or competition or some other vaguery, but he hasn't laid it out explicitly.
C
Cancel4
Guest
So you say. pardon me for disbelieving you.
in MY OPINION.. I would never buy into a public option without some conditions because im not stupid enough to actually believe it wouldn't lead to national healthcare and I would have conditions on agreement to national healthcare.
AKA public option is first step to national healthcare long term goal.
My conditions are not real well formulated but at a minimum:
a) Congress's healthcare needs to be the same as mine. No limousine liberals projecting some public option on me at the same time they have superior health care. This way whatever is pushed would effect those who push it.
b) Somehow there needs to be assurance that this wouldn't be a massive hit in peoples compensation who get employer sponsored healthcare. I know for a fact my company of 40K plus people would give us ZERO additional income even tho we no longer cost them anything in terms of healthcare. Inf fact they are watering at the mouth for this huge increase to bottom line.
c) Some assurances of no tax increase needs to be addressed. A framework for who will pay what and what cost..
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
Then don't take the option and buy your limousine plan privately.
There needs to be something to disincentive companies from dropping people from the payroll and putting them on the government plan. From the perspective of controlling runaway costs from the government/taxpayer end, this makes sense.
They figured this out. Not that it mattered. It's not about budgets or deficits. It's about profits. But anyway, the money was going to come from premiums people paid into the system. The subsides were to come from rolling back Bush's medicare giveaway to the insurance companies by putting those people back on Medicare rather than paying insurance companies to insure them for us at a cost that is about 1/3 higher. The other money came from levying a 1 percent tax on the ultra wealthy.
Whatever. It's not even worth debating anymore. HR 3200 is dead. Noisy, ignorant assholes like you killed it by knowing shit about it, refusing to learn about it, and disregarding it loudly.
C
Cancel4
Guest
The president promising multiple times that he won't sign any bill that increases the deficit isn't good enough for you, obviously. We'll just have to pass what we can without you.
BTW, I'll let some of the Republicans on the Hill know that you think they're "limousine liberals" because they have health care, but you don't want ordinary citizens to have a chance to get the same kind of plan if they're broke or already sick.
I do think it fair that people who use it more pay more.. so having copays for services being the bulk of the costs.. I don't think its fare to make a 20yo kid who never goes to the dr pay the same amount as a 40yo obese smoker who constantly has health issues.
Perhaps a nominal participant fee to fund about 30% then premiums based on usage to cover the other 70% or something... of course the poor (proven via tax return) can have fees waived.
Perhaps a nominal participant fee to fund about 30% then premiums based on usage to cover the other 70% or something... of course the poor (proven via tax return) can have fees waived.
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
They had different levels of plans you could buy into with the public option and health exchange. Some were cheaper, some were better. They had one that was precisely as you described, with 70/30 split.
see I am reasonable. I just don't trust the government either side of it so im overly critical at all times about anything they try to sell us. If they come up with a plan that makes logical sense to me id reluctantly go along. Actually i wouldn't mind having national care. It could free me up to try to start a business. HOWEVER I don't want some crap snake oil.