Health Reform Status (in Off-topic)

With all the constant changes, debates, rewrites, arguing, and bipartisan politicking, what actually IS the current state of the health care reform?

Dead, Dead, Dead!!!!

Thank God!!!

I feel like since Scott Brown won in MA, it's going to be stalled for quite a bit at the least.

I also believe that the Republican Party will drive the healthcare reform to the ground whether or not it would be good or bad for the country to gain political momentum for the 2010 mid-term elections. As in, even if the individual members of the party support the bill, they will vote against it/filibuster/try to stop any type of movement to support their party.

Which means this bill is going nowhere.

Republicans don't have to do anything for momentum.

In all reality, it is dead.

However there are processes that the Democrats can use to jam this unwanted bill down our throats.

The following are their options:

1) Use reconciliation to pass it. That would have the House pass the Senate Bill as it is, and use Reconciliation to change the features they do not like. But these changes have to be budget neutral. Things like abortion language, federal vs state insurance exchanges can be done this way.

However, if they go this route, cloture votes still occur in the Senate and the House may be stuck with the Senate Bill in the end. Which I think they do not want.

2) Go back and try to get 1 Republican Senator like Snowe or Collins. Which I do not think, with the Bill as it currently is, will happen.

3) Let the bill die and start completely over trying to get bipartisan support. This is likely the best option given how the people have spoken. However, liberal democrats want something done and want to jam something through.

4) Get a joint House/Senate bill done before Brown can be seated in the Senate while they still have Kirk in the Senate. Then pass it with 60 votes to overcome a fillibuster.

It seems by Obama's rhetoric he is going option with option 1.

There have been a few Senators and Representatives that have already stated option 4 is not what they want. Including Barney Frank a very liberal Democrat.

So my best hope is option 3. But I suspect they may still try to pass it thinking the public are idiots and they do not know what is best for them. Which is the wrong way of thinking.

After Bill Clinton tried to pass health care in 1993, the 1994 elections gave the Republicans huge gains and control. Clinton, to his credit, became more central in his policies and the US did very well during that time.

From all I hear and read, Obama is taking the opposite approach and is "doubling down" to get his ultra-liberal agenda through.

If the Director of Election in MA tries to stall the seating of Brown in the Senate, there will be a fecal storm so large you will be able to smell it in China.

That is certainly not an option. And with a few Senators and Representatives specifically stating they should wait till Brown is seated, I do not see option 3 as I stated above being a viable one.

But then again, one never knows what politicians will do.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) released a statement Tuesday night warning that it would be wrong "to pass a health care bill as if the Massachusetts election had not happened."

The statement seems to advocate against ramming reform through Congress before Republican Scott Brown is seated and acknowledges that the House-Senate-White House negotiations are likely over.

The liberal congressman said he was "disappointed" in Tuesday's election resultsﾗand that with Brown's victory, "a reasonable compromise" between the House and Senate bills is no longer possible and support from GOP senators is now required to move the legislation.

"I feel strongly that the Democratic majority in congress must respect the process and make no effort to bypass the electoral results," Frank said. "If Martha Coakley had won, I believe we could have worked out a reasonable compromise between the House and Senate health care bills. But since Scott Brown has won and the Republicans now have 41 votes in the senate, that approach is no longer appropriate."

Meredith Shiner


Full statement after the jump:

"I have two reactions to the election in Massachusetts. One, I am disappointed. Two, I feel strongly that the Democratic majority in congress must respect the process and make no effort to bypass the electoral results. If Martha Coakley had won, I believe we could have worked out a reasonable compromise between the House and Senate health care bills. But since Scott Brown has won and the Republicans now have 41 votes in the senate, that approach is no longer appropriate. I am hopeful that some Republican senators will be willing to discuss a revised version of health care reform. Because I do not think that the country would be well served by the health care status quo. But our respect for democratic procedures must rule out any effort to pass a health care bill as if the Massachusetts election had not happened. Going forward, I hope there will be a serious effort to change the senate rule which means that 59 are not enough to pass major legislation, but those are the rules by which the health care bill was considered, and it would be wrong to change them in the middle of this process."

As a foreign observer of your (US) STRANGE debate about health-care I can only say: It's a shame that so many people in one of the most modern countries aren't getting good health-care!

Wow, you really do believe the liberal propaganda.

We, in reality, have less than 15M who do not have health insurance. Illegal immigrants should not have access to the US health care system. They are hear ILLEGALLY.

Our ERs never turn away someone in need. There are quite a few free health clinics that people have no idea about that treat non insured people.

Most people in the US like their healthcare even though it is a bit expensive.

However you get what you pay for. While some may argue that the US system is not the best, for many things, including cancer survival, heart disease survival and stroke survival, the US is the best.

But getting immediate care, including access to the best technology does have a monetary cost. Which is something quite a few people cannot understand. You pay for what you get. We could be a British or French or Canadian type system where people wait and wait for elective MRIs. However in America if you want an MRI for knee pain, you most likely get it, if you have insurance, within 3 days. Not 6 months.

There are good and bad points to the US system. However, I never hear of US people going to England for care. But I do hear of British coming to America.

16% without health-insurance is a better number. Should translate roughly to 85M. (There's enough news-coverage of it, or is CNN again propaganda?) But my English isn't good enough for a debate with you, and your stance is also much influenced be Republican propaganda.

So a discussion would be pointless anyway.

As far as I know, nowone in Germany would go to the US for health-care. Maybe if you have huge amounts of money the US system has some positive sights. But I'm working at university (paying very bad) and couldn't effort anything apart from flu without public health-care.

All news is propoganda... When it comes down to it, every channel has an owner, every owner has their beliefs. To what extent they are willing to take it is another story (CNN can't hold a candle to Fox News or MSNBC :P).

Far as healthcare, I've had to do battle for the sake on an inhaler, so I'm not really a fan of what we got going on around here atm. But i make no claims to even partial knowledge of what the system as a whole is like now, what should be done, or what is being done...

We have 330M people. 16% is about 50M +/-.

One can believe that, however, there are a significant number of people that take the true number to be between 15-20M, which is less than 10%.

The 16% includes the following:

1) Illegal aliens, which I personally believe are not entitled to healthcare. This is a very heated subject.
2) Young people who CAN buy insurance but CHOOSE not to. It is their choice, which would be removed in the new bill.
3) People who are eligible for Medicare (poor) but have not yet filled out the proper paperwork. This is an area we as a population are woefully bad about.

Remove these people and you are left with about 15M uninsured people.

However, American is a capitalistic country, not a socialistic one. And there are methods for getting healthcare even if you do not have insurance. I see it everyday where I work.

I also see people who would rather go on trips, buy new cars, buy new TVs rather than pay their doctor/hospital bill.

What works for France, Germany, England, Canada may not work in the US. So why are the Democrats trying to shove something down our throats that it is obvious the public does not support in a majority.

And FYI, I read and watch Foxnews, MSNBC and CNN.

I do see all sides to the story except when Olbermann is on.

He is just beyond anyone I have ever seen. His rant last night on Brown was just beyond deplorable.

What I don't understand: You have an unemployment rate which is near that of Germany and still rising. As far as I understand MEDICARE is for older/handicapped people. But what is with the unemployed?

That is an entirely different subject and could be discussed for days.

Brief version:

We have had problems with the financial markets and housing markets with respect to abuse.

Banks being forced to make loans to people who could not obviously afford the house they bought. And when there was a downturn, they defaulted on the mortgages. The financial sector used accounting "tricks" to overstate earning so their administrators could be huge bonuses. Combined with other abuses, the financial sector collapsed.

Once that happened, people stopped hiring and businesses folded.

This is a very very simplistic version that I am sure others will disagree with.

But it is my view.

I wish they would find some way to fix healthcare, just not like this. Too many special interests.

However, this is all getting kind of personal for me. I'm moving from one state to another, and trying to find work in my new city. However, the company I am now with, Walmart, only seems to hire/allow people to transfer into part-time positions. So unless I actually have luck and find a new job before I get too desperate, I'll be forced into being PT and losing my benefits. Granted they're not much, but it's nice to have that safety just in case I do get injured.

I can't say I'm happy with a system where employers can kick you out of having health insurance. And this is coming from a die-hard conservative.

Yes... a lot of CNN is propaganda...

Vaynard,

I agree completely. Something has to be done to fix problems in the system.

I think insurance should be portable. That is able to be transferred if you move out of state. This is something Republicans insist on putting in any health care bill but is something Democrats refuse to budge on.

I see where Walmart if coming from unfortunately. With the economy still being so bad, even after TARP, companies are just afraid to hire new people. Combine that with the inability of the current administration to address the economy, instead focusing on health care for the past year, and you have companies that are afraid.

In addition, the uncertainty of possible new taxes is making every small and large business owner think 3 or 4 times before hiring new people and investing in their company.

If the Democrats want to work with Republicans, instead of calling them obstructionists, a proper Health Care bill can be produced.

But every single amendment that the Republicans tried to introduce during this past year has been refuffed by the current administration.

And this latest election, in addition to those in Virginia and New Jersey, should show the current administration they are going in the wrong direction.

But all the rhetoric I am seeing/reading shows they are taking the opposite approach. Defiance. Which is bad for everyone.

I think he was asking what do the unemployed do. :P I'll field this one.

The unemployed, and employed people who are broke simply avoid doctors/hospitals like the plague. They find alternative routes to treatment through the internet and friends. They find over-the-counter remedies and fixes to substitute for what prescriptions they should be on (last time I bought Advair, it cost me $245 for a 30-day supply... Primatene Mist at Wal Mart for $16 ftw!).

When needed, and I mean absolutely NEEDED, they sit in the emergency room for 6-8 hours, until they are seen, and realizing that the individual has no insurance or money to pay the bill, they put the quickest, easiest, cheapest patch on whatever problem there may be before referring them to a "specialist" that was right next door the whole time. Why the referral as opposed to just having them come over and get it done with? 'cuz they've patched you up, their obligation has ended, for a week or two anyway. You can go to the specialist if you prefer treatment to patching but only if you have a few hundred dollars to toss out upfront.

Hatch,

Given your situation, which is unique to you alone, have you seen if you qualify for Medicaid?

It seems you may qualify.

If you do not know, I can give you the number of people to contact as you live close by.

Additional to Hatch: They get treatment they can't afford and go bankrupt after the bills start rolling in.

At least in America you have the option to get certain treatments.

In other socialistic type of medical societies, once the government decides something is not cost effective, that option is off the table.

I guess in that case, dying is better than being bankrupt.

But for the 83+% with health insurance, these treatments are almost always available.

Bankruptcy or death, pretty easy choice.

One of the biggest problems we have in America is that everyone wants the best health care in the quickest manner using the most state of the art equipment/drugs. But they do not want to pay for it.

Though it's merely a detail, I'll go ahead and point out that that's horribly slanted. Most of my clients who lack insurance "can" get it in the sense that it's offered by an employer or by getting a personal policy, but "choose" not to because they cannot remotely afford it. When the "choice" is between healthcare coverage and keeping the lights on, they choose the lights.



Yep. Preventative care plummets and emergency care increases. A neglected chronic issue can end up meaning three days in a hospital, which can easily run $60k. Even with a hospital writing off $15k as charity, the person still has to file chapter 7 bankruptcy.

It's wonderful that Ranger is informed enough to give us the update on what's going on, but in full-disclosure, it should be noted that he has worked/is working as a health-care provider, and while incredibly knowledgeable about the subject of health care, does have his own biases.


The problem is, when the more liberal version of the bill was stripped down to accommodate the GOP, it was still denied, then it was stripped down some more and they still denied it. The problem is that the GOP and the democrats have a holistically different definition for what they think health care reform is.

It seems pretty obvious to most people that the GOP doesn't want to help health care reform get passed at all because of the cynical belief that it will help the president as part of his agenda. (I don't know if you read it Ranger, but did you see that press release they crafted and tried to pass it off as 'legislation'?)

The GOP wants X, Y, Z in health care reform, the democrats want A, B, C in health care reform. Rather then try to find something in the middle to agree on, which requires work and political will, the GOP are choosing not to work with the democrats because they do not want to work on a compromise.

If it was just republicans who thought that this bill was bad, it would have been passed a long time ago Fex. See blue dogs...

Barney Frank is right, as usual.

Who's spouting off propaganda now? If you go by Ranger's statement, only illegal immigrants aren't covered and nearly every legal American is. That is not true.

And last I checked, I am not an illegal alien, nor are my co-workers, nor are the .. well, lots and lots of other people I know who are uninsured.

15 million? Hmm, I'm pretty sure that number is a bit higher: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/04/uninsured.epidemic.obama/

And we're not counting illegals here. Just Americans.

Last time I was at the ER they still billed me a rather hefty amount, which I was not able to pay at the time. The hospital threatened to ruin my credit over it.

If this is what the Republican's health care plan offers me, no thank you.

For people who can pay for their lives. I hear stories every week of uninsured people dying over stuff that could have been prevented if they had insurance, or if their insurance company had not dropped them.

Oh yeah, Sebidach: you should also know that in America, if your insurance company doesn't feel like paying.. uh, I mean you have a "pre-existing condition," they can drop your coverage at will even though you've paid for it. Yeah, I hope the Republicans give us more of that.

Exactly. Aside from there so called "free clinics" (which gave me a $90 bill the last time I went to one, but the Prilosec samples they gave my made up for it.. a bit) you cannot get any major preventative treatment if you are poor and uninsured.

Because in this matter the opposition is wrong, regardless of numbers. Most of them are uninformed and have been lied to by your side anyway.

Olbermann is fun to watch, but he's rather out there. He's the liberal counter to Hannity, O'Reilly and the like, and can be counted as news as much as the others can.

The difference is, Olbermann doesn't pretend to be "fair and balanced." Yep, he's biased, but doesn't try to hide it and lie to the viewers about it.

I'm not Hatch but I will answer as well. Yes, I tried and was denied. I also tried for Michigan's health program for low income workers and was denied that. Well, I wasn't so much officially denied as they threw the application right back at me and said the program is full, no new applicants are being accepted, sorry, but we just ran out of budget.

So I'm still screwed.

This is yet another liberal lie.

I have worked closely with the Florida Medical Society in trying to help shape this bill.

So I am in the know on a lot of the back door deals going on.

I can say, without reservation, every single Republican amendment offered in committees and in session was rejected along party lines.

This is just a lie. We want a joint cooperative approach incorporating some of the Republican idea. Not a unilateral approach to destroying the economy.

I NEVER stated this. There you go again changing my words to suit your biased arguments. If you get RID of the illegal aliens in the statistics, we have 15M American's uninsured.

However,

To get back to the first post, the current health care bill in congress is almost dead.

If the Democrats refuse to believe the elections in Virginia, New Jersey and Mass are a referendum on their agenda, they will try to shove what they currently have through.

If they get smart, and realize the public is sick of one party rule, they may go back to the beginning and try to pass a bipartisan bill.

if you are a doctor you may feel that way. as a self-employed, self-insured patient i see it very differently.

most people don't want to pay fifty percent of their income on taxes while those wanting reform do not want to pay fifty percent of their income on insurance and healthcare.

Source please.

For many of them it is not a lie. They are willing to sacrifice any attempt at reform for political and monetary gain.

as far as i know the republicans have never come up with a plan. if past history is any indication, they are quite happy with the status quo.

I forgot this:
I will ask you again Ranger, when did the Republicans EVER give the liberals bipartisanship when they ran all three branches of government including both houses of Congress during the Bush years. Note that their "you liberals can vote for what we conservatives want" brand of bipartisanship does not count.

I pay my own health insurance for my family. Same as you. However I get the benefit of being part of a large company. Which is a Republican proposal to let small businesses and solo people group together to form partnerships for lower rates. Which was soundly rejected by the Democrats in favor of a national exchange. I do not know about you, but I have little faith in the government running something correctly and cost efficient.


A very good point. However, with taxes, I see little tangible benefit for myself or family. I see my money going to Washington for more waste and abuse. When I pay for my healthcare, I see it directly benefiting my family.

But again, I see people wanting the best care and yet not want to pay for it.

yet you seem to trust capitalist ventures to do a much better job even in light of the financial woes our country is in?

Don't like the post office?
Amtrak?
Medicare!?!?

However, with the current private insurance system, I see little tangible benefit for myself or "family" of fellow low income workers. I see my money going to pad the pockets of rich insurance CEOs and toward corporate waste and abuse, while they just drop me anyway when I really need help. When I pay taxes for public health care, I see it directly benefitting my "family."

10 points to Dude!

I see millions of people wanting _some_ care and willing to pay what they can for it.

A company never wants to run anything cost-efficient, they want to have high profits. But high profits and good health-care/transportation/pension don't go together. There are many cases where the capitalist market does a better job, but I don't wont my life vs. money on anybodies 1-year profitability plan.

Certainly.

I also remember Congress assuring us the Fannie and Freddie Mac were in great shape and in no danger of going under. Which basically started the housing crisis.

Are you making my point for me? I think the government is poorly running these businesses. Amtrak is losing money, Medicare is almost bankrupt. The post office ?! do not get me started on that area.



I guess this is a where we differ. I look at the mounds of layers of bureaucracy in the government and compare that to insurance companies. There is far more waste in the government than any insurance company. However, I do agree that dropping people's coverage whenever they want is wrong. There are other issues with private insurance companies that should be addressed, but not to the point of blowing the whole system up and replace it with a government run entity.

But this is the beauty of the United STATES of America.

If you do not like the policies in one state, you can move to another. I certainly have moved due to those reasons-twice.

I hear Mass has universal health care. However, it may be bankrupt by the time you get there :)

i just disagree with a tendency to blame all of our countries problems on a small percentage of people who take advantage of social programs.

if you really see that many people in america as being of that mindset, i believe it says so much more about you than it does about the state of our country.

if you also think the government caused the financial crisis, you are blinded by more than just a tendency to be a glass half empty sort.

A huge part of the current crisis is due to the government forcing banks to make loans to people that obviously could not afford the house they bought.

As part of the fair lending act. McCain repeatedly stated Freddie and Fannie were in trouble and nameless Democratic Representatives stated that was all hogwash.

I am not saying the government is wholy responsible, but shares a large part of the blame. And Bush had a Democratic Congress his last 6 years in office, so get off that blame game train.

But it is ok to blame the problems of our economy on a few greedy venture capitalists? That says a lot about you as well.

why is this not in the Debate forum

Nope, just asking.

Amtrak may be losing money, but does it serve countess people every day? Are they pleased with the service?

Medicare is nearly bankrupt, yes, and even liberals acknowledge this, which is why several of them, including Barney Frank said this needs to be fixed. Not privatized, fixed.

However, last I read the vast majority of Medicare recipients were pleased with the program.

I see no problem with the post office, but I'd certainly welcome your view on it. If you prefer to share, you can make another thread for it. Personally, I think any company that can get an envelope across the country in only a few days for less than half a dollar is pretty efficient.

Insurance companies that put more value on their bottom line than they do on my life. Sorry, I'll take the bureaucracy over that. At least with the government, I'm paying for something that won't drop me for profit and that is directly accountable to myself and the other citizens every election.

And I think this is where we agree. It's a myth among conservatives that liberals like wasteful spending for it's own sake. We would prefer efficient spending. I would love to give you and every other American, rich or poor, a nice big tax cut if we could eliminate all the wasteful spending. But that doesn't mean eliminating programs that help millions of people in need, or just privatizing everything.

Because it was a question, not a debate.

whoa nelly! the only playing the blame game in this thread is you blaming all the po' people for all of our countries problems.

some questions will naturally spawn debates and with a little foresight should be placed in the proper thread.

A Democratic congress that tried to pass financial reform but was met with a filibuster in the Senate and the threat of a presidential veto. It did not have the 2/3 in either chamber to overcome that.

But the blame lies on many, many groups, not just the Republicans. Still, as president, Bush had the opportunity to make it a priority to fix before it blew up, which like most things, he failed to do.

The post office can get a letter across the country for less than a dollar, it just means they run a yearly deficit of 3.8 billion dollars, after cutting 6 billion in costs and another 4 billion in health benefits to retirees.

http://www.usps.com/communications/newsroom/2009/pr09_098.htm

The problem LB that I see is the following:

As any company gets larger, there are more costs involved. More layers of useless people sucking the life and profit out of the system.

Where is there a bigger company, less efficiently run then the US government? In America that is.

To me, if it is a choice between a private company running something, with appropriate oversight to prevent fraud and abuse vs the government doing the same job, give me private enterprise any day.

I am not saying the po' people are to blame for our problems, but they have to take some responsibility. IE, buying a house that they know they cannot afford, taking that vacation instead of paying their doctor bill (yes, I see that quite a lot), buying that new TV instead of paying their mortgage. But I keep reading that the solution is to tax ONLY the higher earners to pay for everyone. And that is something I cannot get behind.

Even Obama is putting the brakes on Health Care reform as it currently is shaped:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34953876/ns/politics-health_care_reform/

I'm tempted to post this topic to the debates forum:

"Why The Poor Are The Problem"

But since I can't post The Onion articles here, I won't be able to post any facts to back it up.