Bipartisanship Achieved!
A fully-bipartisan consensus was reached today in the United States Senate, which just unanimously condemned Ted Cruz as nothing more than a self-aggrandizing and self-promoting buffoon. Well, that wasn't exactly the title of the bill which came up for a vote, but it amounted to the same thing when every senator voted to ignore Cruz's "fauxlibuster" and move forward on the budget bill. The truly astounding thing in this unanimously bipartisan vote? Even Ted Cruz voted against Ted Cruz. If that isn't a bipartisan consensus, then I don't know what is.
Senator Cruz has had a rough couple of weeks, mind you. After leading a crusade this summer to "defund Obamacare," Cruz angered many of his own Tea Party supporters in the House last week by admitting reality -- which the entire "defund Obamacare" campaign had been vociferously denying, all summer long.
The Big Lie that Cruz sold -- lock, stock, and barrel -- to the Tea Party faithful was that it'd be downright easy to succeed in defunding Obamacare, proving the superiority of the congressional "power of the purse" over things Congress didn't approve of. This was always a lie (see: Democratic control of Senate; presidential veto power), but it sold well out in Republican House districts. This sustained campaign stiffened the backbone of all the Republicans in the House, and they were about to dutifully pass a budget bill which "defunded" Obamacare (it didn't, actually -- it only defunded about 20% of Obamacare, but this was a minor detail to the Tea Partiers). Cruz, mere days before this House vote was to happen, publicly admitted that the effort was doomed to failure in the Senate. This was always the reality of the situation, but it directly contradicted the Big Lie which Cruz had spent so much time and effort promoting for the past few months. When the House Tea Partiers viciously (and predictably) turned on Cruz, he had to quickly backtrack and promise he'd use every possible Senate gimmick to fight the good fight -- up to and including a filibuster.
Cruz's problem, however, was that this was just as big a fantasy as the original Big Lie. Think about it: the House Republicans passed a "defund Obamacare" budget bill. The Senate takes up the House bill. So what is Cruz to do? Filibuster the Republican "defund" bill? What would that achieve? It would kill the Tea Party's bill! That makes no sense. What Cruz would really like to do is to filibuster the inevitable Democratic amendment to the bill which will restore the Obamacare funding. But Senate rules prohibit this -- the amendment will pass with only a simple majority of 51 votes (even if the last vote is Joe Biden's, in a tie). Denied his dramatic "Mr. Cruz Goes To Washington" filibuster moment, Cruz decided to launch what is now universally termed his "fauxlibuster" -- a completely meaningless talk-a-thon. There are three separate reasons why Cruz talking all night was nothing short of idiocy and showboating: there was a time limit (unlike a real filibuster), Cruz could not prevent a vote (the entire purpose of a real filibuster), and the bill Cruz was talking about was the Tea Party House bill which did exactly what Cruz was begging for -- "defund" Obamacare (and which, if killed, would annoy the heck out of the Tea Party, to put it mildly).
After this pointless egotistical exercise, the Senate voted unanimously to move forward on the bill. Maybe it was having to hear Cruz claim that his father invented green eggs and ham (you just can't make this stuff up, folks). But when the rubber hit the road today, every single senator voted to take the bill up. Every Tea Partier -- even Ted Cruz himself -- voted for the motion, in the end.
So the point of the exercise becomes crystal clear: Ted Cruz wanted to be on television. That's pretty much it, in terms of any effective result that he achieved. In fact, it was so obvious that the worst invective against Cruz continues to come from his own party, as it has throughout this entire period. First, he led a crusade against the establishment Republicans. Then, he enraged the Tea Partiers. Finding himself backed into a corner, he grandstanded on the Senate floor, hoping that nobody would notice the uselessness and pointlessness of his last stand. Not only did he not find much support, he also saw his entire party -- including himself -- ignore his advice the next day, after his monumental 21 hours of trolling cable news television cameras.
John McCain seems to be leading the Senate Republicans in denouncing Cruz. Not only did he personally react to Cruz likening Obamacare to Nazi Germany (using "appeasement" as a metaphor for those who would not defund Obamacare), but two former senior McCain advisors had some strong words for Cruz and the Tea Partiers. Here is Mark Salter, directly explaining to the Tea Party base voters why the Tea Party take-no-prisoners approach will fail:
Because, dear bravehearts, you don't have the numbers to prevail. You're a minority. You're a minority in Congress and you're a minority in the country. A majority of Americans might tell pollsters they don't like Obamacare, but guess what? They like the idea of shutting down government even less, as every recent survey has shown. And they'll blame Republicans for it -- and make them pay for it.
You'll give a needed boost to the president's flagging popularity and diminish the Republican brand, which really can't take much more diminishing. And you'll delay the day when you might conceivably have the numbers to repeal Obamacare because you'll have made it a lot harder to elect a Senate majority in 2014. But you'll have stood by your conservative principles even to the point of sacrificing the prospects for their success.
And here is Steve Schmidt, another former McCain 2008 senior advisor, regretting his own previous embrace of the Tea Partiers:
We've lost five U.S. Senate seats over the last two election cycles and fundamentally we need Republicans whether they're running for president, whether they're in the leadership of the Congress to stand up against a lot of this [Tea Party] asininity. You finally see it with Ted Cruz, maybe he was the one that has gone a bridge too far. And as we come up against a potential default, potential government shutdown, wise people understand the political consequences for the Republican party. Maybe we'll start seeing our elected leaders stop being intimidated by this nonsense, have the nerve, have the guts to stand up and say enough is enough, this isn't what the Republican party's about. To fight to take conservatism's good name back from the freak show that's been running wild for four years and I have deep regret in my part, certainly, in initiating [it]. But it's time for Republicans to again embrace what made us successful in the past, which is a party that has solutions to the problems that face the country.
There is a full-scale civil war going on within the Republican universe. Comments like these are merely a sampling of what is currently being said by Republicans about fellow Republicans. It's not just in the halls of Congress, either. Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh are attacking Fox News. Karl Rove is attacking the Tea Party. What is that, if not fratricidal civil war?
There are two morals to this story. The first is that when a Big Lie is exposed to the harsh cold light of reality, those who believed the Big Lie freak out. They have bought into a worldview that is not true, and the shattering of the fantasy is going to hit some folks mighty hard. Think of Karl Rove on election night, last year. Epic meltdowns of this sort are just around the corner, folks -- scheduled for next Monday, in fact, when the House will be forced to vote on whatever bill the Senate comes up with.
The second moral to the story comes from the realm of fantasy fiction. There's a rule in many fantastical magical worlds which the wizardly types are supposed to hew to in their magic: "Do not call up that which you cannot put down." Do not summon a demon more powerful than yourself, to put it another way. You can trace this theme all the way back to Frankenstein's monster. Or you can track the idea back even further, as there is a Biblical quote with much the same advice: "They that sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind."
Back in 2009 and 2010, the Republican establishment thought that the Tea Party would be good for their party, and boost the grassroots to turn out at the polls. The Tea Party could be later tamed, when elections were won. As Steve Schmidt now admits, however, this is proving to be harder to accomplish than initially thought. While it certainly is interesting for Democrats to watch all of this -- the spectacle of a monster causing havoc while Dr. Frankenstein wrings his hands in regret -- perhaps today was the first step towards the Republican Party taking some responsibility for what they have unleashed upon our governing system. Because finally there is something which all of Washington agrees upon in truly bipartisan fashion: Ted Cruz is an egomaniacal loose cannon, and should be condemned or (even better) ignored. Hey, it's a start....
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Time will tell Chris.
Of course, the repubs don't like Cruz because he's an a$$hole and a grandstander, but they have no problem with what he espouses or supports. They just want their cake while eating it -- they want to roll back the New Deal but not pay any price for it. They want to destroy the middle class while still making money on their investment portfolios. They want their healthcare while denying it to others. They want to benefit from the Beltway revolving door, while keeping minimum wage from going up. They want to keep their jobs while pandering simultaneously to the FOX Ignoramus crowd AND Koch Brother-type bazillionaires, while hoping that the less venomous members of their tribe don't get turned off.
So it will be a relief to the rest of the world if/when they stop being as actively malignant as they are now. But do not give them credit for anything other than the recognition that their cushy positions are at risk. We can welcome the return, by some, to realism and sanity. Just don't credit them with repentance unless they atone. Otherwise it's just expediency -- which is an improvement, certainly. But remember Aesop's fable about the scorpion and the frog.
Chris-
To illustrate the moral in your penultimate paragraph, I would suggest a different example than Frankenstein. To bring it to a level the Tea Partiers might understand, I would have gone with Mickey Mouse in the "Sorcerer's Apprentice". That's much more their speed.
Once again I am constrained to point out and there can be no denying..
If Cruz had been a Democrat, ya'all would be singing his praises to the high heavens..
Ask yourself this.
When was the last time a DEMOCRAT showed such passion??
I am also constrained to point out that your quotes from two *former* McCain advisers hardly constitutes a "civil war" within the GOP...
Maybe there is a reason why they are "former", eh? :D
No, what we have here is a simple case of filibuster envy...
I saids it befores and I'll says it again..
Up until I actually grew up, I considered myself a Democrat. GOP'ers seem to be acting like I thought DEMOCRATS would have acted...
And THAT's just gotta hurt. :D
We'll know in about a year when the people go to the polls... Personally I can't wait.. :D
Michale
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
-Mahatma Gandhi
I'm just sayin'...... :D
Michale
The truly astounding thing in this unanimously bipartisan vote? Even Ted Cruz voted against Ted Cruz.
Sorry to bring a little reality to the euphoria, but that is not what happened..
What happened is Cruz (and every other Senator) voted to move the bill along to the Cloture Vote that will be held either today or tomorrow..
It is THAT vote that will determine who is on the side of the American people, who don't like obamacare and don't want obamacare, and who is on the side of corporate interests and Party agendas...
{/reality}
Back to the regularly scheduled GOP-bashing euphoria....
Michale
It's easy to be a 'rebel' when you have the corporate backing of the Senate Conservatives Fund, Club for Growth, and Senate Conservatives Action.
"The top two super PACs supporting Cruz were Club for Growth Action, which spent more than $5.5 million to help elect Cruz, and the Senate Conservatives Fund and Senate Conservatives Action, which spent $1.3 million and gave Cruz more than any other candidate that cycle."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/25/ted-cruz-s-fake-fight-against-obamacare-is-making-millions.html
Ted Cruz isn't a rebel ... he's a corporate shill.
-David
David
Ted Cruz isn't a rebel ... he's a corporate shill.
How do you define "corporate shill"??
The standard definition (to me) would be anyone who takes corporate money and then push's the corporate agenda..
That would describe everyone who supports obamacare?
Hell, it describes every Dem CongressCritter as well..
Let's face it..
Ya'all don't mind corporate shills as long as they are shilling for the agenda ya'all agree with...
I'm just sayin'.....
Michale
PS- Have I mentioned that I have missed you?? :D
The standard definition (to me) would be anyone who takes corporate money and then push's the corporate agenda.
To some extent, you're right. I'd be much happier if everyone in Congress took a lot less money from corporate interests.
There are those, however, who try to balance the interests of people and interests of businesses.
Obamacare is a great example.
- On one side, you had exorbitant insurance costs.
- On the other side, you had corporations advising on their issue w/ healthy people dropping out of the system.
You can hate it. And I'm admittedly not the biggest fan. But it was a balance of interest compromise.
Alternatives proposed by Republicans take ONLY the interests of corporations into consideration.
-David
You can hate it. And I'm admittedly not the biggest fan. But it was a balance of interest compromise.
Except for the interests of the middle class... Surely the much BETTER approach would have been to worry about fixing the sk-rocketing costs and THEN worry about expanding the coverage.
Wouldn't you agree??
Alternatives proposed by Republicans take ONLY the interests of corporations into consideration.
Not true.. Most, if not all, of the GOP ideas address the rising costs issue.
As they should...
How good can obamacare be if Unions universally do not support it??
The only people who support it are those who don't want to see Obama's signature legislation go down in flames and the corporate interests who are going to make billions off of the American people...
Michale
Michael:
Shill has a well defined meaning. A shill poses as an enthusiastic customer, client or supporter of a business or organization without revealing that he/she is being paid to do so.
The lack of transparency is what makes shilling unethical The shill is participating in a swindle. You can take corporate money and not be a shill if you simply reveal this relationship. Of course, transparency defeats the purpose of the enterprise.
Shills are fairly common at pick-up gambling games, auctions, and are rife in advertising....when you see so and so "is a paid spokesperson" flash across the bottom of the screen, the advertiser is trying (not particularly hard) to not quite cross the thin yellow shill line.
Shill, stooge and plant all basically mean the same thing. Who The Three Stooges were shilling for is unclear, but they were certainly enthusiastic.
Campaign finance laws were intended to prevent political shilling or at least minimize it.
Citizens United is pro shill in that it hides the identity of the corporation actually funding the political shill.
Citizens United is pro shill in that it hides the identity of the corporation actually funding the political shill.
So, would you say that donors being anonymous is a bad thing and should not be allowed??
Michale
Wouldn't you agree?
Respectfully, no. I think 30 million people without health insurance was disgraceful.
Especially in what is supposed to be the richest nation on the planet.
Not true.. Most, if not all, of the GOP ideas address the rising costs issue.
Some GOP ideas address costs. Typically costs to insurers. The assumption is that these cost savings will "trickle down" to consumers.
In my experience, this strategy hasn't worked so well in many areas. Health care is one of them.
-David
Respectfully, no. I think 30 million people without health insurance was disgraceful.
I think 30 million people w/o a Home Theater PC is disgraceful...
Doesn't mean I want to foot the bill to make sure they have one...
Health insurance is not an inalienable right.. The mindset that it is, is the problem from the get-go.
Some GOP ideas address costs.
And those ideas were promised to be incorporated into obamacare..
Still waiting on that..
Typically costs to insurers.
Not true. MOST of the ideas addressed costs to the doctors and other medical practitioners..
Michale
Michale:
If you actually cared about the specifics of the ACA as instead of reflexively opposing it because thats what obedient repubs do, you would take the trouble to research the law and see how it addresses rising costs in HC. What you would find is a number of steps and approaches written into the law that will indeed reduce costs overall, and for most people.
What you won't find is the truest best way to lower costs for everyone, which is a national health service or Medicare for All, because our leaders could not bring themselves to end the corporate welfare scheme that is medical insurance. Too many people employed in it, too much money tied up in it and too big a leap for most Americans to wrap their heads around. And too many lobbyists and too much campaign contribution, etc.
So they did their best within the confines of the existing system.
All the stuff you read about how bad it is, how unpopular, etc. is, in part, pure nonsense (the right wing machine spreading misinformation as it always does) and part confusion -- polls have consistently shown that while much of the public is either concerned about or confused about the ACA, they, in the realm of 75%+, very much like the major components of the law, once they are told what those components are.
And while your folks lie and whale about how disastrous it will be, they've done squat about fixing anything, other than putting forth the same set of fossilized proposals about Tort Reform and all the rest, and they don't even believe in them. They can't defend them, or explain them in any detail or promote them with any real enthusiasm. All their energies are focussed on destruction, not construction.
The Stig (10): great comment.
If you actually cared about the specifics of the ACA as instead of reflexively opposing it because thats what obedient repubs do, you would take the trouble to research the law and see how it addresses rising costs in HC. What you would find is a number of steps and approaches written into the law that will indeed reduce costs overall, and for most people.
I read how it's SUPPOSED to work...
But there is ample evidence that PROVES beyond any doubt (at least to the politically objective person) that how obamacare is SUPPOSED to work is a far FAR CRY (III :D) from how it actually works..
Why do you think there have been so many missed deadlines, exemptions and delays???
It's like the IPCC.. We're "supposed" to be a LOT hotter now, according the the IPCC models..
Yet, the facts show that we are way WAY below the LOWEST projection from the Models..
We have, written into obamacare, how it is SUPPOSED to bring down costs..
We also have the REALITY that proves that obamacare doesn't work as advertised..
One only has to point to the huge increase in rates across the board to know that this is fact..
All the stuff you read about how bad it is, how unpopular, etc. is, in part, pure nonsense (the right wing machine spreading misinformation as it always does) and part confusion -- polls have consistently shown that while much of the public is either concerned about or confused about the ACA, they, in the realm of 75%+, very much like the major components of the law, once they are told what those components are.
I'll say the same thing to you I said to David...
Cite???
HuffPo, DailyKos and Obama Administration cites do not count.. :D
And while your folks lie and whale about how disastrous it will be, they've done squat about fixing anything, other than putting forth the same set of fossilized proposals about Tort Reform and all the rest, and they don't even believe in them. They can't defend them, or explain them in any detail or promote them with any real enthusiasm. All their energies are focussed on destruction, not construction.
" As a matter of cosmic history, it has always been easier to destroy than to create."
-Captain Spock, STAR TREK VI, THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY
But, since we are talking about medical, it's common for a doctor to destroy an invading and insidious virus (destruction) before said doctor can move onto making the patient well (construction)...
It's only logical, wouldn't you agree??
Michale
"I read how it's SUPPOSED to work..."
Cite -
MOST of the ideas addressed costs to the doctors and other medical practitioners.
Perhaps they're designed for these industries too.The insurers benefit as well because they provide malpractice insurance.
And even if you say "doctors and other medical practitioners" ... the idea is that cost savings will "trickle down"
When was the last time you saw the medical industry pass on the savings to consumers?
Is that we we had the highest medical costs of any country in the world before the ACA?
-David
From the bastion of liberal bias..
Poll: Obama approval drops to 43%
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57604620/poll-obama-approval-drops-to-43/
Apparently, Obama keeps doing something wrong.. My guess is that he ignores the will of the people..
Can't wait for OBW... :D
Michale
But there is ample evidence that PROVES beyond any doubt (at least to the politically objective person) that how obamacare is SUPPOSED to work is a far FAR CRY (III :D) from how it actually works..
PROVES beyond any doubt!?! Beyond any doubt? Considering the program has not been fully implemented yet, that is hyperbole.
Why do you think there have been so many missed deadlines, exemptions and delays???
Because it is a large complex government program and many states are resisting it on political grounds?
HuffPo, DailyKos and Obama Administration cites do not count.. :D
Just about every link you have posted about Obamacare has been from jaded source. Why should everyone else here be on different constraints?
But, since we are talking about medical, it's common for a doctor to destroy an invading and insidious virus (destruction) before said doctor can move onto making the patient well (construction)...
It's only logical, wouldn't you agree??
Only if you know little about science. Bactria and fungal infections you would be right but it's currently pretty rare that doctors can kill a viral infection. Typically they treat the symptoms, boost the immune system and try to get the body to kill the virus it's self...
RE: (18) Not relevant. General polls about general popularity are not the point.
Polls about people liking/not liking ACA are relevant depending on what was actually asked, as I pointed out earlier.
Bashi,
Because it is a large complex government program and many states are resisting it on political grounds?
Exactly..
So, ya'all saying it's the best thing since frozen pizza or even saying it's good or OK is as ridiculous as me saying it's hell on earth..
However, the indications, based on what HAS been done, is that obamacare is a LOT closer to what *I* say it's going to be than it is to what ya'all say it's going to be.....
Just about every link you have posted about Obamacare has been from jaded source. Why should everyone else here be on different constraints?
Because the links I post are not bastions of Right-Wing rhetoric.. Forbes?? USA Today?? CBS??? Seriously!???
Hell, some of the links are bastions of *LEFT*-Wing rhetoric...
Only if you know little about science. Bactria and fungal infections you would be right but it's currently pretty rare that doctors can kill a viral infection. Typically they treat the symptoms, boost the immune system and try to get the body to kill the virus it's self...
Oh puuhh-leeese.. Nit pick much??? So I am not a doctor. Sue me...
But... OK, OK... I'll play...
But, since we are talking about medical, it's common for a doctor to destroy an invading and insidious Bactria and fungal infections (destruction) before said doctor can move onto making the patient well (construction)...
It's only logical, wouldn't you agree??
Happy??? :D
Paula,
RE: (18) Not relevant. General polls about general popularity are not the point.
Polls about people liking/not liking ACA are relevant depending on what was actually asked, as I pointed out earlier.
If I was making a point about obamacare, you would be correct..
But I am not, so you are not. :D
I was simply referring to Obama's popularity is sinking because of his tendency to look at for himself first, his Party second and the American people a distant DISTANT third...
However, if you wish, I would be happy to shelve that particular discussion until the next CW OPW and we can talk about it then. :D
I'se aim to please.. :D
Michale
So, ya'all saying it's the best thing since frozen pizza or even saying it's good or OK is as ridiculous as me saying it's hell on earth.
We're not. I just think it's better than what existed before.
However, the indications, based on what HAS been done, is that obamacare is a LOT closer to what *I* say it's going to be than it is to what ya'all say it's going to be.
Hell on earth?
Wow. Methinks you need some real problems.
It's hard to see how more affordable insurance is a 'hell on earth'.
-David
Because it is a large complex government program and many states are resisting it on political grounds?
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Many states are resisting it because what we have seen so far really really sucks...
"Water sucks!! It really really sucks!!"
-Henry Winkler, THE WATERBOY
:D
Michale
Let's try a different tact.. Let's see if we can find some common ground...
What is ya'alls opinion on delaying the personal mandate for one year, like Obama delayed the business/corporate mandate???
Michale
Oh puuhh-leeese.. Nit pick much??? So I am not a doctor. Sue me...
Yes, your lack of science knowledge is legendary...
Assumes facts not in evidence.
It is not a large government program? Many states are not resisting it because of republican majorities in their states government? Are you sure you know what a "fact" is?
Yes, your lack of science knowledge is legendary...
And your ability to obfuscate and miss the point is equally as legendary... :D
The POINT is valid, regardless of the scientific validity of the "fer instance"...
A point you continuously miss.. :D
It is not a large government program? Many states are not resisting it because of republican majorities in their states government? Are you sure you know what a "fact" is?
Sure do... Enough to know you haven't provided any...
Remember, DailyKos and Obama Administration don't count.. :D
Michale
Sure do... Enough to know you haven't provided any...
Well, if I have not provided any facts then why are you so up in arms for so long about a small government program?
Remember, DailyKos and Obama Administration don't count.. :D
Well, as long as I can use HuffPo :D
What is ya'alls opinion on delaying the personal mandate for one year, like Obama delayed the business/corporate mandate?
Ridiculous ... if we're going to do it, let's do it.
Obama should never have delayed the business/corporate mandate either.
-David
"Do. Or do not. There is no try." - Yoda
I disagree.. What a shock, eh? :D
As ya'all pointed out, this is a very complex, HIGHLY complex (un-necessarily so) piece of legislation.. It makes sense to delay things until we can have a reasonable expectation of it being done right.
*MY* point is, is if Obama needed to delay things because it's all frak'ed up to hell and back, he should delay things for BOTH..
Not just delay it to serve the corporate interests...
"Do. Or do not. There is no try." - Yoda
Well said.. :D
Michale
And while your folks lie and whale about how disastrous it will be.
paula, i think you meant "wail." whaling has been illegal in most waters since 1986.
Health insurance is not an inalienable right.. The mindset that it is, is the problem from the get-go.
michale, i find that statement highly problematic. it frames the issue as "insurance," an economic issue, not "medicine," which is humanitarian. sure, nobody's going to die a gruesome death due to lack of viagra. however, a certain minimal level of medical care absolutely should be a right, not a privilege. furthermore, doctors, hospitals and state governments should not have to go broke due to people requiring life-preserving care who can't afford it.
the real problem in my opinion is that medical treatments of all kinds are lumped together into the same system. heart bypass surgery is on the same plan as prescriptions for erectile dysfunction. care for terminal cancer is on the same plan as care for poison ivy. while some kinds of medical care are certainly not inalienable rights, other kinds absolutely ought to be, with a third category (asthma, fibromyalgia, major depression) perhaps somewhere in the middle. if somebody can't afford acupuncture three times a week, then whatever, that's their problem. however, the practice of denying or delaying life-saving medical care based on inability to pay is essentially a form of homicide.
JL,
That opens up a whole nother can of worms...
For example.. If you have one person requiring $100,000 worth of health care that will prolong his/her life another 10 years....
Or that same $100,000 will save 10,000 children whose life expectancy would be 60+ years...
Who gets the care???
Further, and even MORE important.....
Who is in a better position to MAKE that decision??
Ya'all feel it's the government that should make that decision..
I, personally, feel it's the DOCTORS who should make that decision...
That's probably my biggest beef about obamacare.
It puts the government in charge..
And THAT rarely works well...
Michale
For example.. If you have one person requiring $100,000 worth of health care that will prolong his/her life another 10 years.... Or that same $100,000 will save 10,000 children whose life expectancy would be 60+ years...
Who gets the care???
EVERYBODY. life-saving care, if it's available, is a right, not a privilege. whatever it costs needs to get paid, and you're mistaken if you think i would put that decision in the hands of anyone but a doctor. to do less is a form of homicide. there's just no excuse not to save both the one old person AND the 10,000 kids, especially not while when our congress critters are using our tax money to put them on a plan that pays for stem cell therapy for acne.
JL
nypoet (30): you're right, it should be "wailing"
2 points re: healthcare as a "right".
1. I agree that looking at it economically rather than as a humanitarian issue. But I think it goes beyond that. I think we should provide it because we can. To not do something that we have the capabilities of doing, which is the case, makes it a deliberate choice to withhold help. Which is what it is. I'm not putting this well, but my feeling is that "rights" imply something people feel they are entitled to. But for me it isn't about what people take, its about what we should give.
2. Second, re: "privilege", people end up needing healthcare not only due to accidents that are presumably not their "fault", or because they've made "poor" choices (they drink, they smoke, take drugs, are overweight, don't exercise, don't get enough sleep), but also because of things they have no control over such as hereditary ailments, AND as a result of environmental factors such as toxins in our water, air, food supply, and commercial products. They also get ill as a result of the massive overprescription of various pharmaceuticals that goes on in this country. It's the height of injustice to make people ill and then withhold treatment. To call universal hc a "privilege" is a gross dodging of responsibility.
If you have one person requiring $100,000 worth of health care that will prolong his/her life another 10 years....
Or that same $100,000 will save 10,000 children whose life expectancy would be 60+ years...
Currently who gets the care is who can afford the care.
And has nothing to do with government.
Who should get the care is who needs the care. Not who can afford it.
Basic care should be a right.
-David
Paula [1] -
Just a side note: there's no profanity "filter" here, so no need for the $$...
:-)
Pastafarian Dan [2] -
Good one! Mickey is indeed a great example.
Michale [3] -
Um, Wendy Davis? Texas? Pink sneakers? Should ring a bell... except that, you know, she was mounting a real filibuster.
And it's not just McCain, it's a full-on anti-Ted movement in Republicanland. See: last Friday's column. I haven't had to quote a Democrat in a week or more -- because the Republicans are the ones making all the scathing comments.
Michale [18] -
Actually, Obama's approval hit bottom in the midst of the Syria crisis, and has been moving back up since then. Quick preview of OPW numbers: flat for September, likely to rise in October.
As for Obamacare polls, I suggest you review the history of the prescription drug benefit Bush signed into law. Large, complicated program. Many snafus at the start of implementation. Things eventually smoothed out, and Obamacare is even fixing the "donut hole" which was the worst part of it. Public polling: before implementation, the drug benefit polled worse than Obamacare. During implementation, lots of stories of how it wasn't working on the news, poll numbers stayed low. After implementation, when it started working, polling jumped, and it's now very popular. The same thing's going to happen with Obamacare.
Hey, I've been meaning to ask you a very pertinent question (but it is personally intrusive, so feel free to ignore it or tell me to go fly a kite): how do you get your medical insurance? How much do you pay a month? Are you going to be eligible for the Obamacare exchanges? So what will happen to your rates?
I ask because I know you're self-employed, so you may be in the worst health insurance market possible (buying solo, instead of employer group coverage) right now. Which means that Obamacare may affect you. So what are the costs on the Flordia exchange?
Of course I may be wrong, you may get VA care or have coverage through your wife or something, but I thought it was worth asking. Again, it's an awfully personal subject, so feel free to blow off the question.
I ask because a lot of what we're going to hear in roughly the next six months are going to be (pro and con) personal stories. I personally know folks that CAN'T WAIT to sign up for Obamacare exchange insurance. They have pre-existing (preëxisting? Sorry, sorry....) conditions, have not been insurable for a while, and are self-employed. The "high risk pool" stopgap was way too expensive, and they are overjoyed they'll get insurance at a decent price come January. But there will be plenty of anti personal stories as well.
No matter how hard you tried, though, you would NEVER be able to convince my friends that Obamacare is some sort of "hell on earth" because, for them, it will indeed be the best thing since sliced pizza (or whatever). And they won't even qualify for a subsidy -- they're just happy they'll be able to finally afford health care to take care of their pre-existing condition, rather than what they have now, which is nothing (or the choice of paying $5,000 per month, which they cannot afford).
nypoet22 [30] -
whaling has been illegal in most waters since 1986.
Unless you're an Eskimo, and subsistence hunt. Heh.
Paula [33] -
"The rich stay healthy while the sick stay poor."
-U2
-CW
JL,
EVERYBODY. life-saving care, if it's available, is a right, not a privilege.
Really??
You have some old guy who is looking at a million dollar treatment to prolong his life another 6 weeks.
Same million dollars can treat a hundred thousand kids for a year...
The problem with your position is that it completely ignores the concept of triage...
and you're mistaken if you think i would put that decision in the hands of anyone but a doctor.
Yet, you support obamacare and THAT is exactly what obamacare does..
It takes the decesions away from the doctor and puts them in the hands of the government??
Remember?? "You will be able to keep your doctor and your plan.."
Now we find out that if your doctor is forced out because of obamacare or your plan doesn't meet government arbitrary standards, you get what the government tells you.
That is the entire problem with obamacare.
We were told it was this, this and that.. We learn now it's not this, but that.. Not this, but that. And not that, but this..
obamacare is a crock 'o crap wrapped up in nothing but lies and propaganda...
A shit sandwich slapped between to slabs of bullshit.....
David,
Basic care should be a right.
And under obamacare, who decides what's "basic"??
Not the doctor...
The government...
And THAT is what is wrong with obamacare...
Don't take my word for it. Wait 10 days..
Then we'll see who is right and who is way WAY wrong..
Michale
Michale [36] -
Earth to Michale... Earth to Michale... you're breaking up...
Sigh.
The reason I am full-on mocking you is that you are denying reality. You love to rant about all the bad things in Obamacare, and you love to posit a perfect world where the doctor and the patient are supreme, but you absolutely refuse to admit the situation as it stands now.
Where oh where is the insurance company in your nice little doctor/patient/government model? Because right now, the insurance company has the final say on treatments. Not the patient, not the doctor. With Obamacare, the government is indeed involved in the process. By saying -- to the insurance company "you must provide a minimum level of coverage, and you cannot dump people off insurance after reaching a dollar limit."
Before Obamacare, if your hypothetical patient hit a ceiling (a million bucks, or whatever), that patient would be kicked off the health plan. The insurance company would decide that the treatments necessary to keep the patient alive were too expensive, and that it'd rather spend the money on other stuff (CEO pay and dividends).
Under Obamacare, that will no longer happen.
So please, when formulating your arguments, include "this is the pre-Obamacare model" and don't forget to include the one with the ultimate veto in that model: the insurance company.
-CW
CW,
Actually, Obama's approval hit bottom in the midst of the Syria crisis, and has been moving back up since then. Quick preview of OPW numbers: flat for September, likely to rise in October.
You don't realize HOW bottom Obama's numbers hit over Syria...
http://today.yougov.com/news/2013/09/25/americans-doubt-obamas-effectiveness-syria/
Putin got almost TWICE the approval rating that Obama got.
PUTIN, fer chreest's sake!!!???
Hey, I've been meaning to ask you a very pertinent question (but it is personally intrusive, so feel free to ignore it or tell me to go fly a kite):
No worries.. :D If there is ONE subject I like talking about, it's me!! :D
how do you get your medical insurance? How much do you pay a month? Are you going to be eligible for the Obamacare exchanges? So what will happen to your rates?
I have a hodge-podge of insurance. Some left over from my military days, some coverage by certain specific.. uh... 'incidents' in my past, some with my wife's work.. A little of this, a little of that..
Using myself as an example is misleading as I am not your typical insurance-ee... I have certain guarantees in place that SHOULD not affect my insurance coverage/payments...
If you read my obit that I keeled over from a heart attack, you'll know I got scrooed.. :D
Again, it's an awfully personal subject, so feel free to blow off the question.
"Let's go blow this guy!!!"
"AWAY!! Blow this guy AWAY!!!"
-Demolition Man
:D
No matter how hard you tried, though, you would NEVER be able to convince my friends that Obamacare is some sort of "hell on earth" because, for them, it will indeed be the best thing since sliced pizza (or whatever).
That's because ALL they choose to believe is what the Obama Administration is saying.
They are ignoring all the FACTS, all the horror stories and thinking to themselves, "that can't happen to me!"...
What are they going to do if it DOES happen to them?? Do they acknowledge the possibility??
"The rich stay healthy while the sick stay poor."
-U2
"Capitalism takes more people out of poverty than aid"
-Bono
And it allows them to keep their self-respect...
I'm just sayin'...
Michale
You have some old guy who is looking at a million dollar treatment to prolong his life another 6 weeks.
Same million dollars can treat a hundred thousand kids for a year...
The problem with your position is that it completely ignores the concept of triage...
geez man, suck it up and spend the two million! it's not as if we don't spend that much and more to shoot missiles at afghanis. triage is defined as deciding treatment based on need, not based on who's a better investment - much less who has the money to afford it.
Yet, you support obamacare and THAT is exactly what obamacare does..
perhaps "support" is too strong a word. i do think it is better than nothing, and i don't think you're being honest about the full consequences of nothing, if that had been what we did, or if that is the condition to which we return.
JL
amendment: the LIKELY consequences. i'm not assuming a predetermined result, but postulating consequences should we return to pre-obamacare health law. as hypotheses go, it may not be purely factual, but considering the facts of healthcare pre-obama it's a hell of a lot more reliable than pure speculation.
Michale -
Um, no. They choose to believe reality. Their reality. With their facts. Their facts are as I've laid them out.
Before Obamacare: uninsurable, due to PEC. Self-employed, must buy insurance on personal market. $5000 or more per month is the only thing on that marketplace.
After exchanges open, and after Jan. 1: Able to afford cheap insurance that actually insures them. The key word: ABLE. Because until Obamacare, they were not able -- such coverage DID NOT EXIST.
Those are their facts. Please spin a horror story about how it's going to be worse for them under Obamacare, than it is for them now, uninsured and paying through the nose for their necessary medical care. You can't. Because the facts are the facts, and nothing you've yet said is more horrific than their current circumstances -- not by a LONG shot.
You laugh at lefties because you think lefties cannot admit that there is one tiny thing wrong with Obamacare. This is false, as most lefties wanted a much better system. But we know that this is a huge step forward from what existed previously.
You, on the other hand, find it impossible to admit that Obamacare is going to help MILLIONS of people in the exact same circumstances that I just described. Some of them are downright chomping at the bit to sign up on the exchanges.
Lefties have, all along, been saying there will be snafus in implementation -- even Obama's always said so. But righties refuse to admit that it's not going to be hell on earth for everyone involved.
In fact, righties have shot themselves in the foot. Their horror stories have actually lowered the bar for measuring "success" for Obamacare. When the horror stories don't happen -- because they were always lies -- then people are going to say "Hey, this Obamacare is nowhere near as bad as Sarah Palin said it would be!"
-CW
triage is defined as deciding treatment based on need, not based on who's a better investment - much less who has the money to afford it.
"Mr President.. That's not ENTIRELY accurate"
-SecDef Nimzicki, INDEPENDENCE DAY
The largest factor in triage is "viability"...
Does it makes sense to waste resources on a patient that's not viable?
It does not..
perhaps "support" is too strong a word.
Then we're half way there! :D
and i don't think you're being honest about the full consequences of nothing,
We'll never know...
as hypotheses go, it may not be purely factual, but considering the facts of healthcare pre-obama it's a hell of a lot more reliable than pure speculation.
Since past is prolouge, we have a pretty good idea on how bad obamacare is going to be..
Even if you take all the bad reports with a huge grain of salt, the fact that there are so MANY bad reports covering a wide spectrum.... It's safe to postulate that when obamacare actually goes online, it's going to be very bad indeed..
But.. as I said above. We'll have a pretty good idea in about 10 days whether obamacare is a Mustang or an Edsel...
Michale
You, on the other hand, find it impossible to admit that Obamacare is going to help MILLIONS of people in the exact same circumstances that I just described. Some of them are downright chomping at the bit to sign up on the exchanges.
Because there is absolutely NO factual evidence to support such a claim. There is only conjecture and wishful thinking..
See my IPCC example above.... The obamacare "models" have not lived up to the hype...
When the horror stories don't happen -- because they were always lies -- then people are going to say "Hey, this Obamacare is nowhere near as bad as Sarah Palin said it would be!"
And if the horror stories DO happen?? In spades???
What happens then??
That's my entire point..
Ya'all are taking what the Obama Administration is claiming at face value and completely ignoring the FACTS of what we already know about obamacare..
The lost hours and wages of employees.
The exorbiant high rate hikes.
Businesses closing..
Doctors leaving..
All of this is happening RIGHT now and it's ALL because of obamacare..
But no one here even acknowledges that reality.
All ya'all do is sit and soak up what the Administration tells ya'all w/o ANY critical eye to reality..
Ya'all believe EVERYTHING that the Administration says about obamacare and completely ignore all of the afore mentioned facts..
Like I said..
In about 10 days, we'll know who's right and who's not..
Now..... About that wager... :D
Michale
Senator Boehner was asked if he would accept and push thru the Senate bill that allows the CR and funds obamacare..
"I just don't see that happening"
As I indicated last week and many times since then..
The idea that the CR would go thru AND obamacare be funded is not the foregone conclusion that ya'all THINK it will be...
As things stand now, the vote has been pushed to tomorrow or, more likely, Saturday...
As we have seen with CongressCritter Cruz, a LOT can happen between now and then..
It's exciting, no?? :D
Michale
One thing I've so far about the discussion is that there has been a dearth of sources and facts. I see a lot of, it's my opinion... I have stories... and quotes from seriously bad 90s movies, so let’s raise the level of discourse here a bit.
I would like to start with Conservatives favorite document, the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Need I saw more about universal health care? One can quibble with Malthusian hyperbole, but we Americans are fundamentally entitled to our right to exist, and further, the health care that enables our further existence. Will our governmental system ever perfectly realize this? No of course not, we’re human, imperfection comes with the program. But to attempt to deny our bedrock ideals because you think it might be expensive? Or that, horror of horrors, you might have to pay out some of your money?
The American health care system pre ObamaCare utterly fails at delivering on the American unalienable right of Life. Between 1999 and 2009, the number of uninsured rose from 14 to 16.7 percent, or to put it in numbers 38.7 million to 50.6 million people.
( http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/data/historical/index.html) (THAT is what a fact looks like people )
The cost of health care in the same period is just as fun, in addition to more Americans losing or never seeking health insurance, we also pay more for health insurance than any other industrialized country.
( http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/health-care-spending-in-the-united-states-selected-oecd-countries_chart11.gif )
As you can see, the United States pays $2,535 more per capita than the next highest country, Norway of all places. And further you can see that this difference in health care costs is unprecedented across industrialized nations, to get a comparable difference in per capita costs, one has to back thirteen places, to get a difference of $2274 between Japan and Norway.
But what about American healthcare costs in the period between 1999 and 2009? Don’t worry I have fact laden chart for that as well, this one from the U.S. Department of Labor.
( http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2010/ted_20101101.htm )
As you can see the cost of health per hour worked has steadily increased over the ten year period, and that is just the cost to employers. For the workers it’s even more fun, in between 2004 and 2009 the cost of single coverage rose from $67.67 to $92.43 per month, for families in the same time period (2004-2009) it dropped, no I’m kidding, it rose! From $264.59 to $349.36 per month. In 2009 the average cost of a family health insurance policy was $13,375.
( http://kff.org/health-costs/perspective/pulling-it-together-simple-arithmetic/ )
For comparison, full time employment on minimum wage in 2009? $15,080, mind you this is after the minimum wage was raised to $7.25.
So let’s break this down people, in the ten years before ObamaCare came onto the national scene, we’ve seen healthcare costs almost double for those in the system, further we’ve seen more people either unable or unwilling to buy insurance. This is a serious problem. As we have already established, we have an unalienable right to life in this country and these trends indicate that life is becoming more and more expensive and less and less people have access to it. Unacceptable.
Let’s examine one of the other peculiarities of the US health care system, for profit insurance. One can see that these corporations are an inherently bad idea. How do they make money? Well, people pay them their insurance premiums. How do they spend their money? Administration and oh yah health care. If one was an insurance company whose goal was profit how would one make more money? Well personally, I would raise premiums and then make sure I spent far far less on actual healthcare and administration. To be clear, the basic incentive behind for profit insurance it vacuum up as much money as possible and then pay as little as possible back to the insured, in other words, deny healthcare. Let me reiterate, cause this is not rocket science, it’s basic economics, they make money when people pay them and then they pay nothing back. No need to worry about death panels people, WE ALREADY HAVE THEM.
But let’s get some numbers back into here, obviously basic logic won’t convince some of you so were going to compare America’s current system with the elephant in the room. SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, cue ominous sounds of thunder, or follow this link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEzmbnzH1x4
Scared yet? Because you should be.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Fund-Reports/2007/May/Mirror--Mirror-on-the-Wall--An-International-Update-on-the-Comparative-Performance-of-American-Healt.aspx
This is a study that compares the American system with five other countries, Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom., the United States with its awesome system of private enterprise places last or next to last. That’s right last, and in metrics ranging from quality, access, efficiency, equity, and healthy lives, and we’re the only one without universal health care. And the country with the most expensive health care system. Now correlation is not causation, but we’re obviously screwing up pretty bad, maybe I dunno, a change is in order?
Next time Obamacare.
Now..... About that wager... :D
Wager?
What's the bet?
http://th06.deviantart.net/fs7/PRE/i/2005/255/b/9/Stealing_Candy_From_a_Baby_by_nasey.jpg
-David
BTW ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/26/debt-limit-republicans_n_3999019.html
Boehner ... complete and total incompetence.
Cruz ... thank! Love you.
Cantor ... come on over!
Boehner ... complete and total incompetence.
As opposed to Nancy Pelosi who was always the epitome of competence, eh? :D
Something about glass domiciles and rocks comes to mind.. :D
Michale
YoYoTheAssyrian -
(May I just call you YoYo? That whole thing is a lot to type...)
Just a reminder, before I get to answering comments... if you post more than one link per comment, it gets automatically held for moderation, and sometimes this takes a while (as it is dependent on when I see it). Break multilink comments up so there's only one link per comment, and they'll appear instantly.
As I said, just a friendly reminder!
:-)
-CW
Michale [43] -
What, exactly is wishful thinking about what I said? It's all factual, pal. OK, I'll take out the "millions" (even though I think I'm on pretty solid demographic ground with it), how's that?
People with PEC now cannot buy affordable insurance. That's a fact. It is not available.
People who are self-employed (my friend and his wife both work at their own business, so no help with spousal insurance for them) have to purchase insurance on the open market.
$5K per month or more is all that is on offer.
When the exchanges open, they will be able to get insurance for hundreds (not thousands) per month. That is a fact -- CA has published their prices.
They are indeed excited and overjoyed that they'll be able to sign up for this next week. Fact.
They will, come Jan 1, get health care for their pre-existing condition, which requires constant medical care. Previously, without insurance, they have had to pay the FULL COST of this care out of their own pocket.
There are many like them. Fact.
They will indeed be helped by Obamacare. Fact.
You keep refusing to admit that people will indeed be helped. I have offered up a personal story of friends of mine. You have offered up no facts which relate to them -- not a single one. No horror stories apply to them. They're just happy to be allowed access to insurance.
So please tell me how any of this even remotely approaches "conjecture" and/or "wishful thinking." There is no conjecture in their story. The only wishful thinking they have had about the Obamacare exchanges is that they really wished that they hadn't been delayed for political reasons until now. They would have happily signed up three years ago, in fact.
So please, explain how their story is going to morph somehow into a "horror story" -- because no matter what problems Obamacare's implementation has, it will still be not only better but MILES better than what they have now. You can ignore stories like this all you want, but that doesn't make them somehow not factual.
-CW
YoYo -
To begin with I would add "not to mention the Constitution and the bit about 'promote the general welfare'..."
:-)
You post is chock full of excellent points, all around. And facts -- I love a good graph, personally!
-CW
Michale [48] -
Say anything you like about Nancy Pelosi, but you cannot say that she was incompetent in bringing bills to the floor. Name me ONE TIME when she had to backtrack (as Boehner REGULARLY does) because she miscounted a vote. Just one -- I dare you.
(don't spend too much time looking...)
-CW
YoYo is fine Chris, the name is seriously ridiculous, but it's unique and I never need to put numbers after it. Bonus points and a cookie to whoever can name the reference!
As far as the posts go I know the policy, but my style of writing is generally filled with citations, blame it on historical training. And I prefer to present a complete piece of writing. I'll take the wait for moderation.
Btw, is there any way to put pictures in comments? I had all those charts and graphs in the piece when I worked it up in word, but the comment system did a number on my formatting.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/data/historical/index.html
first link is broke because a parentheses got into the link, here's a repost
How to pay for it all.
One bit I forgot last time, socialized medicine or universal healthcare, take your pick of terms, costs money. Now as I have already established, the United States spends more on healthcare than any other comparable industrialized nation, and gets the worst results. So how do other countries fund their statistically superior systems? Now this is going to blow your minds conservatives, but they fund their systems through taxes. I know right? You decry taxes and government at every possible turn; it’s kind of the conservative thing to do. But countries who embrace government controlled and funded healthcare get better results and they pay less. This means one of two things, first, conservatives are completely, utterly, and totally wrong about healthcare, they parrot non-factual sources, have no real knowledge of how healthcare works in reality and they just really hate that black guy in the oval office. Second, get your tinfoil hats boys and girls! The UN is coming for us in its black helicopters and is willing to completely subvert our observed reality in order to prepare the way for the new world order.
…
I’d got with the first option personally, but hey feel free to rebut me and use some actual sources and facts.
For example:
https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/FundRep_EN.pdf
This is a Canadian report on health care costs, it’s basically a goldmine, Canada in general pays about 70% of its health care costs through the public system and 30% through private sources, hence its title. Now if you’ll turn to page 19 (pdf page 29) you can see a chart that compares what the government is paying for and what it is not compared to Germany, The Netherlands and France. To boil it down you pay for dental, eye-care and your drugs, the government covers everything else. For actual numbers this comes down to 91 billion in government funding and 39 billion in private. Now if you’ll turn to pages 33 and 34 (pdf pages 43-44) of your packet you can see two graphs that catalog health care spending as a percentage of gdp. Good news for conservatives, the USA wins! We spend the most! Come on up USA, you get the gold in the most inefficient and costly system in the world! USA! USA! USA! The report goes on and on, has a ton of figures and frankly is going to take a while to work through, but hey read it yourself! It’s not like it’s linked right here or anything.
Now you might say that in return for their statistically superior system, Canadians pay far more in taxes than the United States, as far as I can tell, since I don’t live in Canada and don’t see the pay stubs, we pay about the same.
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427
This article asserts that here in the US we get about 81.9% of our paychecks, in Canada, 82%. Now its opinion, and has no sources, but it’s written by a Canadian doctor who now lives in the US.
Or you could go here http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html see the actual rates and compare them with ours here in the US here http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-11-52.pdf and see that we basically pay the same, though the US’s format is way more complicated.
Basically this leads to one conclusion. If we want a rational, affordable and decent health care system we’re going to have to pay for it. Currently, and unlike any other industrialized nation, we have middleman for profit insurers. On an unrelated note, we have the most expensive and inefficient system in the world. Other industrialized nations pay for about two thirds (very roughly on average) of their health care cost through government funding; they have better and more affordable care than we do. Our system needs to change, it fails to deliver on our unalienable rights, maybe we should look at other systems that work better than ours and adapt them to the specific condition and needs of the United States. Or we could decry creeping socialism, death panels, and propose no solutions.
Next couple of times, Obamacare: provision by provision.
CW,
(May I just call you YoYo? That whole thing is a lot to type...)
I have always wanted to ask the same, but I figured it would be insulting coming from me.. As most thigns are.. :D
Say anything you like about Nancy Pelosi, but you cannot say that she was incompetent in bringing bills to the floor.
There's a lot more to competence than just bringing bills to the floor.
She is the MINORITY leader in the house. Due to her incompetence.. :D
When the exchanges open, they will be able to get insurance for hundreds (not thousands) per month. That is a fact -- CA has published their prices.
No, it's not fact. It's conjecture.
Once the exchanges open... IF the exchanges open... and they are able to get that price for that insurance... Then... AND ONLY THEN... will it become fact..
Put another way..
If you see an advertisement for a new 2014 Mustang for $100 and you can buy it in a year, it's not fact until you actually buy it..
Until that point, it's wishful thinking that's too good to be true..
They are indeed excited and overjoyed that they'll be able to sign up for this next week. Fact.
That they are excited and overjoyed is factual. Well, I'll take your word for it..
That they will be able to sign up next week??
Conjecture..
It ain't a fact til it actually happens..
You keep refusing to admit that people will indeed be helped. I have offered up a personal story of friends of mine. You have offered up no facts which relate to them -- not a single one. No horror stories apply to them. They're just happy to be allowed access to insurance.
Sure, SOME people will be helped.
YOU (and everyone else) keep refusing to admit that MANY people will be scrooed..
What about them?? Don't THEY count???
Even if MORE people are helped then are scrooed, that STILL means that many people will be scrooed..
People are being scrooed RIGHT now???
What about them!!??
Ya'all refuse to even concede they exist..
Ya'all concentrate on the good and ignore the bad..
The people who are getting hit with the bad do not have that luxury...
because no matter what problems Obamacare's implementation has, it will still be not only better but MILES better than what they have now.
Better for THEM..
What about the people that it is worse, MUCH WORSE for??
Don't they count??
Aren't they Americans??
I have absolutely NO PROBLEM admitting that there will be SOME good in obamacare..
But not one single person here can admit that there will be thousands, maybe MILLIONS, that are going to be royally scrooed..
Not one single person here will admit that hundreds, THOUSANDS of people are being scrooed right now..
I ask ONE simple question and hope for an answer.
What about them??
Michale
SEIU unionists strike over Obamacare-related cuts
http://washingtonexaminer.com/seiu-unionists-strike-over-obamacare-related-cuts/article/2536458
I can list fact after fact after fact of businesses closing because of obamacare and employees getting their hours/pay cut because of obamacare..
But ya'all are following Obama's lead and simply denying that these facts exist.. That these people exist.
What about them??
Michale
Ironically enough, it seems like *I* am the only warrior for the Middle Class in the here and now..
Isn't THAT just the weirdest thing ya ever heard of!!? :D
Michale
What it all boils down to is this..
Ya'all are probably right..
obamacare is probably not going to be as bad as I say it will be..
But *I* am probably right as well.
obamacare is probably not going to be as GOOD as ya'all say it will be either..
The only question that is unknowable is who is going to be MORE right and who is going to be MORE wrong..
Considering all the *facts* we know now about how employees are getting scrooed and doctors are getting scrooed and businesses are getting scrooed, the odds are that I will be more right than ya'all are..
Michale
David,
What's the bet?
Before we can decide the stakes, we have to agree on the criteria that determines the winner..
Michale
we have to agree on the criteria that determines the winner.
Yep. Sorry, that's what I meant. Not the stakes but what you wanted to bet on.
Individual health care plan prices available on the open market will be lower than before?
What were you thinking?
-David
What about the people that it is worse, MUCH WORSE for?
If there are loopholes which corporations can take advantage of to continue to screw people, we should close 'em.
I'm with 'ya here.
-David
Individual health care plan prices available on the open market will be lower than before?
Depends on the age group..
As I showed above, young people are going to see their rates skyrocket..
If there are loopholes which corporations can take advantage of to continue to screw people, we should close 'em.
We're not talking loopholes. We're talking about a complete breakdown of obamacare..
But, let's explore your idea further.
Let's say that employers who are cutting hours are exploiting a "loophole"..
How would you propose to close it??
I have one idea. Actually cut the COSTS of health care.. THAT is the *ONLY* viable incentive for employers to keep their full time employees...
obamacare DOESN'T cut any costs. It concentrates on expanding the rolls... obamacare is an insurance companies wet dream...
Michale
Let's say that employers who are cutting hours are exploiting a "loophole".
Let's look at the loophole.
The clause that they're exploiting says employers who hire more than 50 FTE employees must cover individual full-time workers.
FTE= full time equivalent
They put this in so that it counts hours rather people so companies couldn't hire 100 workers at 20 hours a week and say they didn't have 50 employees.
You have 50 employees if you have any number of people working 4000 hours.
This first part is good - using FTEs to see if you hit the 50 employee minimum.
Here's the loophole. It's stated that they only have to insure individual full-time workers.
So they can hire 100 people at 20 hours a week and not insure these people.
Closing the loophole is simple. Make them insure based on FTEs.
If you have 200 people working 20 hours each, you would have 4000 hours. This equals 100 FTEs.
Employers should have to pay for insurance for 100 people.
This would mean you'd have to insure half your people.
Since you have to insure 100 people anyways ... the incentive would be to have 100 people working full-time rather than 200 people working part-time.
Why would you hire an additional 100 people when you had to insure 100 people anyways?
It's easy to fix if you set up the incentives right. Unfortunately, you're right. Currently, the loophole has lead some companies to hire more part-time workers. Home Depot is one.
Absolutely, this needs to be closed!!! I can't add enough explanation points to say how messed up this is.
It concentrates on expanding the rolls... obamacare is an insurance companies wet dream.
This is simply false. Many, many provisions of the ACA concentrate on lowering costs.
From the competitive exchanges to the provisions about how much has to been on actual health care (rather than overhead or profit).
Great point though about the part-time worker loophole!
-David
This is simply false. Many, many provisions of the ACA concentrate on lowering costs.
For example??
From the competitive exchanges to the provisions about how much has to been on actual health care (rather than overhead or profit).
"Competitive Exchanges" would be a LOT more competitive if they were allowed to cross state lines.
No??
The clause that they're exploiting says employers who hire more than 50 FTE employees must cover individual full-time workers.
FTE= full time equivalent
They put this in so that it counts hours rather people so companies couldn't hire 100 workers at 20 hours a week and say they didn't have 50 employees.
You have 50 employees if you have any number of people working 4000 hours.
This first part is good - using FTEs to see if you hit the 50 employee minimum.
Here's the loophole. It's stated that they only have to insure individual full-time workers.
So they can hire 100 people at 20 hours a week and not insure these people.
Closing the loophole is simple. Make them insure based on FTEs.
OK, now yer just confusing me...
At the beginning, you say that FTE based Insurance requirements ARE part of obamacare.
At the end, you say that it's NOT in there, but it SHOULD be in there..
So, I am a little confused..
Further.. What's the argument AGAINST using FTE as the baseline??
I am sure there is one. What is it??
Michale
To net out, here's what the law says:
Employers who hire more than 50 FTE employees must cover individual full-time workers.
What it should say is:
Employers who hire more than 50 FTE employees must cover the number of FTEs they employ.
-David
At the end, you say that it's NOT in there, but it SHOULD be in there.
It's there, but not completely the way it should be. See above.
"Competitive Exchanges" would be a LOT more competitive if they were allowed to cross state lines.
Sounds reasonable to me. I believe the state provision was fought for by those who were hoping to leave it up to individual states w/ the idea that some states would simply ignore it.
A standard tactic used by corporate lobbies is to yell "states rights!" whenever they're not getting what they want at the federal level.
There might be other reasons against a larger national exchange, but I can't see any right now.
Good thought!
-David
Michael:
"So, would you say that donors being anonymous is a bad thing and should not be allowed??"
I think there are legitimate concerns about donor privacy. Without it, there is high potential for large donors to chill small donors out of the political process. (Campaign sign on lawn - "Yer fired bub!"). This applies to both ordinary working stiffs and smaller businesses.
However, privacy also endangers the notion of political districts, with big outside donors, private or corporate, subverting local representation. Outside money has plenty incentive to buy your local shill to influence higher level politics, but has no legitimate right to do so. For outside the district money, name names, and name amounts. Experience shows this will be very hard to enforce, (politicians are resourceful and have 200+ years of experience gaming, tweaking the rules and outright cheating) but it's worth the effort.
Inside the district, I think transparency is adequately balanced against privacy if the public knows the distribution curve of money flowing to the local candidates. No actual names, so everybody gets plausible deniability. If there are only a few donors, private or corporate supporting your local shill, than the voter has reasons to suspect oligarchy, and consider voting for a reperesentative with broader base of support.
I think it's also appropriate for voters to know what classes of support are behind a particular local candidate: private citizens, business of particular types, PACs, charitable institutions, unions etc. If the the match doesn't reflect your interest, you might want to shift your vote to a different representative.
Guiding principle, if your local shill has a broad base of financial support, that's actually a reasonable approximation of representative government.
TS,
I think CW had the best idea ever..
Use the NASCAR method..
Any candidate has to wear the patch of whomever is giving them money. The more money, the bigger the patch..
My beef (as usual) has always been that the Left (in general) wants to know all about the Right's donors, but wants to keep THEIR donors secret..
For every Koch, there is a Soros.
That's my story and I'm stickin' to it!! :D
David,
Good thought!
I have my moments.. :D
Michale
Dem Senator says that partisanship has reached "Civil War" levels...
Comments?? :D
Michale
Nobody has fired on Fort Sumpter. Yet. If they do, The Parks Service is going to be really steamed unless they have the proper permit and use authentic equipment.
It's hyperbole, but "approaching Civil War level" might be about right. The North South political gradient is still there, but with a West appendage tacked on for added complication.
Nobody has fired on Fort Sumpter. Yet. If they do, The Parks Service is going to be really steamed unless they have the proper permit and use authentic equipment.
The only reason I mention it is because CW has written quite extensively how what we are experiencing today is absolutely no where on the same planet as the kind of partisanship we saw during the Civil War years...
Having said that, I was born 28 Sep 1962 and I can say for certain that things between the Partys has never EVER been as bad as it is today...
I think I am on firm ground saying that...
It's hyperbole, but "approaching Civil War level" might be about right. The North South political gradient is still there, but with a West appendage tacked on for added complication.
I like the way you think.. :D
Michale
Any candidate has to wear the patch of whomever is giving them money. The more money, the bigger the patch.
Hahahah ... love it!
I'd want to know more about everyone's donors too
That CW, he's a pretty smart cookie sometimes :)
-David
It's Fort Sumter btw, not "sumpter" no p
So as we all know opinions about Obamacare are like cockroaches, they’re everywhere but it’s hard to pin the buggers down. We see a lot of discussion, about what we each think Obamacare is going to do, whether it’s “good” or “bad.” And the occasional complaint that Obamacare is “way too complex.” Well get you lunches boys and girls, we’re going to sit down and dissect this law, provision by provision. And then, unlike anyone else on the internet involved in this debate, we will actually be informed about Obamacare and its consequences.
A brief note on complexity
Yes Obamacare is complex, you know what else is complex? Life. If one attempts comprehensive reform, it’s going to be a big complicated monster of a law, this is not a bad thing. It’s just reflection that Obamacare is trying to balance the conflicting interests and desires of 300 million constituents, their representatives, and all the money and corporations that are in our current system. It’s a complicated problem, it got a complicated answer.
http://kff.org/interactive/implementation-timeline/
So I’m going to be using the Kaiser family foundation timeline, as it has formatting, but you can see the provisions of Obamacare in a lot of places. I wouldn’t recommend Wikipedia per say (as it can be edited by anyone), but if you use their footnotes one can often find the primary source, feel free to follow along however you like.
Obamacare 2010
There are 26 separate provisions that went into effect in 2010, I’m going to skip over the provisions that simply create committees and studies, those are important as one needs metrics and statistics, but they don’t really pertain to our discussion. In 2010, 5 of our 26 provisions fall into that category. But what about the other 21?
1. Review of Health Plan Premium Increases: Obamacare reviews premium increases across insurance and prohibits “unreasonable premium increases.” Basically insurance companies can’t just jack up prices to increase their profits, as we have established earlier, the for profit healthcare model in the US is one of the biggest reasons why we pay so much and get so little.
2. Changes in Medicare Provider Rates: Obamacare has reduced the rates they pay out to hospitals and variations thereof, however they introduced an adjustable rate based on productivity. Not entirely sure what this one means, but as far as I can tell its attempt to curb Medicare payments while giving and incentive for “productive” care.
3. Qualifying Therapeutic Discovery Project Credit: This one gives a tax credit of 50% on investment costs for small research institutions of 250 employees or less. They can get this credit if they’re researching to “produce new therapies, reduce long-term cost growth, or advance the goal of curing cancer within 30 years.” So woo, more money for cancer research.
4. Prevention and Public Health Fund: This one is a money grant. It’s for exactly what it sounds like, prevention and public health.
5. Medicare Beneficiary Drug Rebate: This about the “doughnut hole” it gives a $250 rebate to cover it, also the process to close the doughnut hole begins in 2011. The doughnut hole is a gap between initial coverage and the catastrophic-coverage threshold.
6. Small Business Tax credits: If you run a small business of less than 25 employees and pay them less than $50,000 on average, then you get tax credits when you provide health insurance for them. Currently this is 35% of employer costs, but it’s going to rise to 50% in 2014.
7. Medicaid Drug Rebate: increases the rebate on name brand drugs to 23.1%, with some exceptions and qualifiers. Essentially though you get the drugs you need cheaper through Medicaid.
8. Generic Biologic Drugs: allows the FDA to approve generic biologics, and gives manufacturers 12 years before generics can be produced. Biologics are drugs than are manufactured inside organisms, generally of the micro-organism variety, this differs from standard drugs with are produced through chemical synthesis (Think Walter White for the last one)
9. New Requirements on Non-Profit Hospitals: Hospitals now have to make sure they’re fitting the needs of their community, also they need a plan to help those who need financial assistance. If they don’t, they get a fine.
10. Medicaid Coverage for Childless Adults: If you make up to 133% of the federal poverty line ($15,281.70) then states can allow you to qualify for Medicaid. They have to allow you into the system starting in 2014. If you’re poor, you get coverage, pretty simple.
11. Reinsurance Program for Retiree Coverage: This one is less important, it’s a temporary program that’s being phased out in 2014. But what is does is create a program for people over 55 who don’t qualify for Medicare.
12. Pre-existing Condition Coverage Plan: This the one Chris has been talking about as he has friends who are directly affected. This is that high risk pool. However it’s about to phased out in 2014 and people with pre-existing conditions will able to buy insurance like anyone else on the exchanges.
13. Consumer Website: It’s the 21st century people, and you have to create websites so people can get all the information they need. This website helps people find coverage that’s right for them, essentially one of the digital components of the exchange system.
14. Tax on Indoor Tanning Services: 10% tax on such things. I’m ok with this as indoor tanning has a direct link to diseases such as skin cancer. You’re of course still allowed to burn yourself to that nice orange color, but it’s more expensive as it will lead to health complications. Speaking as a smoker, these kind of provisions make a lot of sense to me. Do I want the government telling me I can’t do the harmful thing I get pleasure from? No. But hey it is harmful, and that sends ripple effects through the health care system. If you want your Skin or Lung Cancer covered, be prepared to pay a tax if you engage in behavior that leads directly to those medical consequences.
15. Expansion of the Drug Discount Program: There’s a program that makes Drugs cheaper, eligibility has been expanded. Fairly self explanatory.
16. Adult Dependent Coverage to Age 26: This is one of the more famous provisions of Obamacare, and it’s well understood. Kids stay on their parent’s plans till 26.
17. Consumer Protections in Insurance: No more lifetime dollar limits on coverage, no getting kicked off your plan unless you engage in fraud, children with pre-existing conditions can’t be denied coverage. Also annual dollar limits on coverage are restricted and finally eliminated in 2014. All basic stuff aimed the very common abuses of the insurance industry. For example, if you get cancer? Insurance can’t boot you because you’re about to be expensive.
18. Insurance Plan Appeals Process: Consumers can appeal health plan decisions, there is also an external review requirement on new plans. Insurance company still messing with you? Don’t worry, there’s a process for that now.
19. Coverage of Preventative Benefits: Insurance plans must now cover things like immunizations. Also standard preventative care and screenings for infants, children, adolescents and women. Apparently insurance companies were so cheap that they wouldn’t even pay for flu shots, well now they have to (in certain cases).
20. Health Centers and the National Health Service Corps: More money for community health centers. This ranges from infrastructure improvements to brand new health centers. It’s better access to health care.
21. Medicaid Community-Based Services: extends home and community based services through Medicaid. Now I’m not sure what makes a service home and community based. Maybe it means more home visits to mobility challenged patients? In any case it’s been expanded.
So there we are. Man that was a bunch of stuff and we still have a ton of things to work through. I’ve done my best to clarify and explain in simple language, so please let me know if this giant brick of text is useful. I certainly found it so as I would like to actually know what the law does and not what every pundit thinks it’s going to do.
As far as my perception of Obamacare in 2010, it’s seems like no brainer stuff. We already know the major problems of US healthcare, declining access, a decline in people with insurance, rising costs, and for profit companies sitting in the middle of this mess. These provisions, even if they don’t fix the problem immediately, address abuses and move the system in the right direction. Next time we’ll deal with 2011.
Yossarian the Assyrian
As I would like to keep this discussion current, the next piece will be in the comments for the new Friday talking points. It's all about Obamacare, so woo for consistency. Feel free to comment on 2010 here, but 2011 will be in a different thread.