Support NeoGAF

[PhoenixDark]

It's true that the Democrats cannot stop a filibuster, but seriously, that's an empty threat.
Filibustering healthcare is going to be a political suicide for the GOP (and any Democrat that is going to support it), the problem is that the Dems' senate leadership are a bunch of pussies that are unlikely to call on their bluff.
But Harry Reid had shown *some* signs of having a spine lately, so who knows.

Why would it be suicide when the republicans are running on a position that claims the bill will kill people, annihilate jobs, and lead to American freedoms being stripped...all while the media score counts. Who's going to call them on being obstructionist? Plus they're pockets are being lined by the insurance companies? Of course they're filibuster (if given the chance), and of course they'll get away with it.

 

[Chichikov]

Why would it be suicide when the republicans are running on a position that claims the bill will kill people, annihilate jobs, and lead to American freedoms being stripped...all while the media score counts. Who's going to call them on being obstructionist? Plus they're pockets are being lined by the insurance companies? Of course they're filibuster (if given the chance), and of course they'll get away with it.

Because filibusters always devolve into retarded silliness (assuming the Dems make them do an actual filibuster, which they can and should do) and historically, the public always turns against a long filibusterers.
Remember, the public overwhelmingly want some kind of healthcare reform, and a solid majority support the public option, if we'll go through a couple of weeks of blocking such legislation with weird family stories and senseless charts (and I don't know if you ever watched a filibuster, but these are the sane parts of it) you will get a backlash against the GOP, I guarantee it.

 

[mckmas8808]

I'm not exactly shouting from the rooftops with glee that a bunch of people are going to be forced to buy shit insurance in 2013. I mean, it's a step forward, I guess, if you're an extreme pessimist.

IMO you're wrong that all private insurance is shit. To me (the insurance that I'm going to get for 2010 is pretty good) it's okay depending. Most people that have insurance like their insurance.

 

[adamsappel]

IMO you're wrong that all private insurance is shit. To me (the insurance that I'm going to get for 2010 is pretty good) it's okay depending. Most people that have insurance like their insurance until they get sick.

Fixed.

My teabagging mother-in-law is currently in the hospital. We've had discussions where she criticized that veterans get free govt. health care for life, and she put off all sorts of medical procedures until she qualified for Medicare. She lives in WV but is currently in a Pittsburgh hospital. We wanted to bring her to Maryland for her rehabilitation in a facility not 10 minutes away, but her supplemental insurance won't cover it. Instead, we've gotten to spend ~$1000 traveling to visit her. But thank God we've at least kept the government out of Medicare!

 

[FleckSplat]

My parents and the neighbors are talking about Nancy Pelosi's saggy boobs...

 

[Blackhead]

My parents and the neighbors are talking about Nancy Pelosi's saggy boobs...

poligaf doesnt have to know everything

 

[GhaleonEB]

Any idea what the goal of the College loan reform would be? Is there any information about a bill being prepared?

It's passed the House already.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/education/18educ.html

Short version: it cuts out the middle man on student loans, saving $80b over 10 years. And invests that into increasing the Pell grant, expanding community colleges and a host of other higher-ed investments.

Read this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/opinion/17collins.html

 

[The Librarian]

poligaf doesnt have to know everything

I don't know... I think if we start some sort of trend we can become some sort of "GAF Help Center."

Of course, PoliGAF will have to know everything first.

 

[RiskyChris]

IMO you're wrong that all private insurance is shit. To me (the insurance that I'm going to get for 2010 is pretty good) it's okay depending. Most people that have insurance like their insurance.

Private insurance doesn't exactly do much to keep health care costs down. It's not the only entity bringing prices up, but having a for-profit system is pretty disgusting.

 

[soul creator]

Keith Olbermann is doing sports again?

 

[Incognito]

It's passed the House already.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/education/18educ.html

Short version: it cuts out the middle man on student loans, saving $80b over 10 years. And invests that into increasing the Pell grant, expanding community colleges and a host of other higher-ed investments.

Read this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/opinion/17collins.html

Here's the story I was talking about earlier, from a few weeks ago.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...g-special-budget-rules-to-move-education-bill

Harkin said he will attempt to use special budget rules that only require a simple majority vote to advance a bill that would end the Federal Family Education Loan program, which would free up money for other education programs.

But centrist Democrats are blanching at Harkin’s move to use the reconciliation process for an education bill that includes major policy reforms, echoing concerns they raised over using those rules for healthcare legislation.

It's unclear whether the bill has even the 51 votes it would need to advance under reconciliation. While the legislation has strong backing from the Obama administration, which predicts that it could save the government more than $87 billion over 10 years, Republicans oppose it and enough centrist Democrats have yet to get on board. The bill has already passed the House on a largely party-line vote.

Harkin, when asked this week about centrists' worries, said he plans to go ahead with the special procedure because the budget resolution, approved by Democrats in April, tells him he can.

But Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said enacting policy changes isn't reconciliation's purpose.

"I'm not interested in using reconciliation for any purpose other than deficit reduction," Conrad told The Hill.

Democratic Sens. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Mark Begich (Alaska) Ben Nelson (Nebraska) have come out against the bill because they said it would restrict options for loans. New Mexico Democratic Sens. Jeff Bingaman and Sen. Tom Udall have also objected to the proposal. Conrad and seven other Democrats are on the fence, according to a report last month by Height Analytics, a financial firm studying the student loan sector.

"I just don't think we need to turn it all over to the federal government," Nelson said. Instead of ending the program for private lenders, Nelson suggested that lawmakers find savings by adjusting the amount of money given to private lenders.

Several lawmakers who have opposed or questioned the bill have student loan companies in their states that stand to lose out on business if the proposal becomes law. Nelnet is based in Nebraska. Sallie Mae is based in Pennsylvania. Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) has voiced concern over the effect of the plan on the 2,200 people in his state who work for the loan company.

Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) said he's mostly worried about whether the bill will save the $87 billion anticipated by the administration. A Congressional Budget Office report, which was requested by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) and takes into account the market risk of having the government administer the loans, found the program may save only $33 billion over the next decade.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Here's the story I was talking about earlier, from a few weeks ago.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...g-special-budget-rules-to-move-education-bill

I know. I've responded to this before.

But centrist Democrats are blanching at Harkin’s move to use the reconciliation process for an education bill that includes major policy reforms, echoing concerns they raised over using those rules for healthcare legislation.

The reconciliation instructions were put in specifically because of those bozos. If odds are narrow via reconciliation, they are zero without it. It's going through reconciliation. It may not pass, but that's the only way it has a shot.

 

[kkaabboomm]

anyone down for a new PoliGAF thread either before the Senate starts their healthcare shit or at the latest after some healthcare bill gets passed? this one is a bit....large, to say the least.

 

[Diablos]

the good think about having such a huge majority is that you can afford to have defections and still pass monumental legislation. those voting against this legislation believe, however foolish the thought is, that a vote against healthcare will protect them in 2010. obviously, this is stupid. but if you have to deal with a number of defections in order to pass HCR, then i'm for it

But too many defections will not allow it to pass. Reconciliation or bust, I say.

 

[Hawkian]

anyone down for a new PoliGAF thread either before the Senate starts their healthcare shit or at the latest after some healthcare bill gets passed? this one is a bit....large, to say the least.

No. 1000 pages or bust.

 

[charlequin]

I'm not exactly shouting from the rooftops with glee that a bunch of people are going to be forced to buy shit insurance in 2013. I mean, it's a step forward, I guess, if you're an extreme pessimist.

So you're one of the "I'm dissatisfied that Obama didn't wave his magic bubble wand and give us the perfect healthcare system" people?

(assuming the Dems make them do an actual filibuster, which they can and should do)

The costs of a filibuster mostly fall on the party who supports the bill (the Democrats would have to keep a quorum in place at all times, 24/7, until the filibuster was done, while the Republicans would only need a single Senator present at any given time, to watch the floor and object whenever a member of the majority moves to proceed) and it's not even actually necessary for the minority members to talk at length -- just to stay and make the appropriate parliamentary motions when required. It's pretty much been honed by years of Senate policy adjustments into a tool that isn't ever actually properly used, in part because it's to the personal benefit of all centrist Senators to always oppose changes that would eliminate or depower the filibuster.

 

[RiskyChris]

So you're one of the "I'm dissatisfied that Obama didn't wave his magic bubble wand and give us the perfect healthcare system" people?

Yeah I'd say I'm pretty peeved with this health care "reform," but I never really expected Obama to do anything good with this. His rhetoric quickly gave away his motives earlier this year when he started talking about how everyone would rather just keep getting their health care from their employers.

Why wouldn't someone be upset with this bill? There's some nice things in it, but I don't see how this solves any of the major problems with our current system.

 

[Chichikov]

n
The costs of a filibuster mostly fall on the party who supports the bill (the Democrats would have to keep a quorum in place at all times, 24/7, until the filibuster was done, while the Republicans would only need a single Senator present at any given time, to watch the floor and object whenever a member of the majority moves to proceed) and it's not even actually necessary for the minority members to talk at length -- just to stay and make the appropriate parliamentary motions when required. It's pretty much been honed by years of Senate policy adjustments into a tool that isn't ever actually properly used, in part because it's to the personal benefit of all centrist Senators to always oppose changes that would eliminate or depower the filibuster.

First of all, senate majority leader may require a real, talk-about-bullshit-until-your-throat-bleed, filibuster.
Also, as I understand the quorum call rules (and please, someone correct me if I'm wrong), not having a quorum does not defeat the bill, it just call in a recess, the GOP will have to continue filibustering if the next day.
You won't break the filibuster by making them tired, you'll break it by making them pay a political price, which they will.
And in any case , this *should* be academic, the Dems just need toughen the fuck up, sleep in their offices and make the calls.

 

[mckmas8808]

Private insurance doesn't exactly do much to keep health care costs down. It's not the only entity bringing prices up, but having a for-profit system is pretty disgusting.

Well not IMO, it isn't disgusting. I think it's a great thing! I just want a government option available along side it.

Sorta like colleges in America. There's private and public options available. I don't want the government to run say 80% of the insurance industry.

 

[RiskyChris]

Well not IMO, it isn't disgusting. I think it's a great thing! I just want a government option available along side it.

Sorta like colleges in America. There's private and public options available. I don't want the government to run say 80% of the insurance industry.

Why not? What would the downside of the government running it even be? It'd be pretty hard to be any worse than the status quo. What does a government option along side the insurance industry even do? Compete?

How in the fuck is it a great thing for a group to have incentives to make a profit off people's sickness? The only thing health care should be about is the health of the patient.

 

[mckmas8808]

Why not? What would the downside of the government running it even be? It'd be pretty hard to be any worse than the status quo. What does a government option along side the insurance industry even do? Compete?

How in the fuck is it a great thing for a group to have incentives to make a profit off people's sickness? The only thing health care should be about is the health of the patient.

The downside would be the overall cost to the government. It's not like Medicare is being run financially great. The government will be slow to raise rates when they need to be raised.

And yes it competes. Do you think a government (public) option can't compete with private insurance?

And I do believe in business and capitalism. I do believe that it's okay for people to make a profit for helping people's health. As long as everything is being done by the law.

 

[faceless007]

Profiting off other people's misery and misfortune is the American way.

 

[RiskyChris]

The downside would be the overall cost to the government. It's not like Medicare is being run financially great. The government will be slow to raise rates when they need to be raised.

And yes it competes. Do you think a government (public) option can't compete with private insurance?

And I do believe in business and capitalism. I do believe that it's okay for people to make a profit for helping people's health. As long as everything is being done by the law.

Competition doesn't do anything in the health insurance industry. The public option won't even be that competitive period when you consider the costs.

Profit usually gets in the way of helping people's health...

 

[Chichikov]

The problem with the current system is not so much the fact that it's private for profit insurance companies providing coverage, is that it's (for the vast majority of people) employee based.
Listen, I'm a pinko socialist and I'm all for a single payer or even nationalized healthcare system, but you can't say "capitalism doesn't work" based on the status quo.
Most consumers don't have a choice, there's no free market for the companies to compete at.
The shitfest we're in is neither a condemnation of free market or social programs.

And while I'm sure it's been posted here before, you guys should REALLY listen to This American Life's two episodes about the US's healthcare -
More Is Less.
[URL="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1321]Someone Else's Money.[/URL]

 

[mckmas8808]

The problem with the current system is not so much the fact that it's private for profit insurance companies providing coverage, is that it's (for the vast majority of people) employee based.
Listen, I'm a pinko socialist and I'm all for a single payer or even nationalized healthcare system, but you can't say "capitalism doesn't work" based on the status quo.
Most consumers don't have a choice, there's no free market for the companies to compete at.
The shitfest we're in is neither a condemnation of free market or social programs.

And while I'm sure it's been posted here before, you guys should REALLY listen to This American Life's two episodes about the US's healthcare -
More Is Less.
[URL="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1321]Someone Else's Money.[/URL]

Yeah dude you got right. Even with a public option, things won't change much if the average person can't get their hands on it. That Wyden amendment, with the public option is what I believe could have changed the game completely.

 

[The Chosen One]

Maybe someone here knows. Why is meet the press still not in hd and instead crappy 4:3? Will it ever make the leap?

Do we really need to to see David Gregory in HD?

 

[teh_pwn]

Why does there need to be competition in health insurance? It's like demanding competition with roads, water, utilities. It's something everyone needs, and the insurance companies offer absolutely no innovations. It should be socialized to minimize overhead. Keep regulated, highly competitive capitalism in places that need innovation rather than pooling up investor capital on bullshit.

 

[StoOgE]

Yeah dude you got right. Even with a public option, things won't change much if the average person can't get their hands on it. That Wyden amendment, with the public option is what I believe could have changed the game completely.

This is the first step.

The theory is you get the Public option up and running and able to negotiate rates. Assuming it works and is able to lower costs the way we think it will then it will be impossible to STOP it from becoming available to everyone.

People will want in on the plan. Set the plan up now. Make it open in 5-10 years. Everyone flocks to the system over time and you have a defacto single payer system. It's what the republican's fear and I'm hoping for.

 

[Chichikov]

Why does there need to be competition in health insurance? It's like demanding competition with roads, water, utilities. It's something everyone needs, and the insurance companies offer absolutely no innovations. It should be socialized to minimize overhead. Keep regulated, highly competitive capitalism in places that need innovation rather than pooling up investor capital on bullshit.

For free market to work, you need to have a competition.
I, like you, don't think that insurance companies provide any worthwhile service and would be extremely happy if they go the way of the dinosaurs, but many people in the US believe that the government cannot run a healthcare program effectively (and some oppose to it out of moral reasons); if you think the answer it the private sector, you need to have competition, otherwise, you have the worst of both worlds.

This is the first step.

The theory is you get the Public option up and running and able to negotiate rates. Assuming it works and is able to lower costs the way we think it will then it will be impossible to STOP it from becoming available to everyone.

People will want in on the plan. Set the plan up now. Make it open in 5-10 years. Everyone flocks to the system over time and you have a defacto single payer system. It's what the republican's fear and I'm hoping for.

Exactly.
The private option is potentially a Trojan Horse (and I mean it in a good way), this is why it's critical that you don't have an weaken option set to fail.
Much like if it succeed it can pave the way to a public option for all or even a single payer, if it fails, it will kill any chance for for a meaningful reform for a generation.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Late Update: I realize that the original version of this post wasn't entirely clear. It was not my understanding that mandates and the exchanges are staggered in the way that BK suggests. And I've just confirmed that that is not the case. The issue is that few of the structural changes go into effect before the 2012 election. Bans on denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, dropping people as soon as they get sick ("recision") will go into effect earlier, basically new regs cracking down insurance companies' behavior. And those should be popular for a lot of people. But the stuff that really tackles cost and other aspects of availability won't go into effect during this presidential term. That's problematic politically for the Democrats. And I think it also raises the real prospect that the insurance companies will start pulling various pricing shenanigans in advance of 2013, hoping they can create the political climate for repeal before those parts of the legislation come into effect.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/11/2010_or_2013.php#more?ref=fpblg

Seems like a big political gamble, if this occurs in the final bill. The early provisions on pre-existing conditions and other things will be popular, but if prices start rising during a presidential election year...yeah

 

[GhaleonEB]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/11/2010_or_2013.php#more?ref=fpblg

Seems like a big political gamble, if this occurs in the final bill. The early provisions on pre-existing conditions and other things will be popular, but if prices start rising during a presidential election year...yeah

The leadership in the House recognized that, and pulled a lot of the reforms in to 2010. Here's what takes place at the start of the year in their version. (Reid sent multiple versions of several provisions of his bill to the CBO, many of which focused on pulling stuff in to match the House). I don't think it's a coincidence that a lot of the benefits are for seniors, the most reliable voters. And some for college students, who benefit Dems when they do vote. I think it's a pretty substantial mix of reforms to kick in that fast, and all will likely prove popular.

TOP 14 PROVISIONS THAT TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY

1. BEGINS TO CLOSE THE MEDICARE PART D DONUT HOLE — Reduces the donut hole by $500 and institutes a 50%discount on brand-name drugs, effective January 1, 2010.

2. IMMEDIATE HELP FOR THE UNINSURED UNTIL EXCHANGE IS AVAILABLE (INTERIM HIGH-RISK POOL) — Creates atemporary insurance program until the Exchange is available for individuals who have been uninsured for severalmonths or have been denied a policy because of pre-existing conditions.

3. BANS LIFETIME LIMITS ON COVERAGE—Prohibits health insurance companies from placing lifetime caps on coverage.

4. ENDS RESCISSIONS—Prohibits insurers from nullifying or rescinding a patient’s policy when they file a claim forbenefits, except in the case of fraud.

5. EXTENDS COVERAGE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE UP TO 27TH BIRTHDAY THROUGH PARENTS’ INSURANCE— Requires healthplans to allow young people through age 26 to remain on their parents’ insurance policy, at the parents’ choice.

6. ELIMINATES COST-SHARING FOR PREVENTIVE SERVICES IN MEDICARE—Eliminates co-payments for preventiveservices and exempts preventive services from deductibles under the Medicare program.

7. IMPROVES HELP FOR LOW-INCOME MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES—Improves the low-income protection programs inMedicare to assure more individuals are able to access this vital help.

8. PROVIDES NEW CONSUMER PROTECTIONS IN MEDICARE ADVANTAGE— Prohibits Medicare Advantage plans fromcharging enrollees higher cost-sharing for services in their private plan than what is charged in traditional Medicare.

9. IMMEDIATE SUNSHINE ON PRICE GOUGING—Discourages excessive price increases by insurance companies throughreview and disclosure of insurance rate increases.

10. CONTINUITY FOR DISPLACED WORKERS—Allows Americans to keep their COBRA coverage until the Exchange is inplace and they can access affordable coverage.

11. CREATES NEW, VOLUNTARY, PUBLIC LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE PROGRAM—Creates a long-term care insuranceprogram to be financed by voluntary payroll deductions to provide benefits to adults who become functionally disabled.

12. HELP FOR EARLY RETIREES—Creates a $10 billon fund to finance a temporary reinsurance program to help offset thecosts of expensive health claims for employers that provide health benefits for retirees age 55-64.

13. COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS—Increases funding for Community Health Centers to allow for a doubling of thenumber of patients seen by the centers over the next 5 years.

14. INCREASING NUMBER OF PRIMARY CARE DOCTORS — Provides new investment in training programs to increase thenumber of primary care doctors, nurses, and public health professionals.

 

[ToxicAdam]

 

[thefit]

What a horrible background picture they should have a bikini clad girl next time.

 

[MetatronM]

And? We shouldn't do any more to keep our own emissions low just because "China and the developing world are gonna screw it all up anyway?"

Or that we shouldn't be concerned that based on your own evidence our carbon emissions are at right around their highest point in at least the last 40 years?

 

[WickedAngel]

I don't really understand the language of the bill with regards to the high-risk pool. Most people with pre-existing conditions can get health insurance (Though they won't be able to claim anything that they would most likely want to claim); the language of the bill makes it seem as if you have to be denied a policy outright for the reason of pre-existing conditions (Which isn't how the industry operates; they have more to gain by accepting people they know they won't cover and collecting premiums until they make that claim that is going to be denied).

 

[Dhx]

And? We shouldn't do any more to keep our own emissions low just because "China and the developing world are gonna screw it all up anyway?"

No, but we shouldn't go overboard with handcuffing our economy during a recession, either. The graph also shows we're doing a fair job of keeping our emission levels from spiking with moderate intervention. Throwing a wrench into an economic recovery-in-progress with cap and trade for a minuscule reduction of total carbon emissions (natural + man-made worldwide) would seem maddening to say the least.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

Does Lieberman not value his job? Why is he acting like this?

 

[cntr]

Places like India are choosing not to decrease their emissions because "the US isn't doing anything about their emissions, so why should we do anything about ours?"

 

[gcubed]

The leadership in the House recognized that, and pulled a lot of the reforms in to 2010. Here's what takes place at the start of the year in their version. (Reid sent multiple versions of several provisions of his bill to the CBO, many of which focused on pulling stuff in to match the House). I don't think it's a coincidence that a lot of the benefits are for seniors, the most reliable voters. And some for college students, who benefit Dems when they do vote. I think it's a pretty substantial mix of reforms to kick in that fast, and all will likely prove popular.

yup. basically if seniors dont get put to death, they will approve mightily of Obama for the drug discounts

 

[Hawkian]

Places like India are choosing not to decrease their emissions because "the US isn't doing anything about their emissions, so why should we do anything about ours?"

While I agree, the idea that the US should be setting an example for the rest of the world lost a lot of credence during this decade.

 

[cntr]

While I agree, the idea that the US should be setting an example for the rest of the world lost a lot of credence during this decade.

Actually, that is the argument against reducing emissions in India.

 

[The Librarian]

Don't tread on him.

Part One
Part Two

From Part One

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) tells crowds "Your efforts to stop this bill are being heard loud and clear." He continues: "Be assured not one Republican will vote for this bill," a statement that is met with raucous shouts of "Kill the bill."

There's always one...

 

[maximum360]

Does Lieberman not value his job? Why is he acting like this?

He probably realizes that his re-election chances are slim to none so he's likely made some shady deals to set him self up for success when he's out of office. He's pretty much determined to be a hindrance to the Dems at this point so why not just strip him of everything and be done with it?

 

[yoopoo]

Look at the horrified kid on the right :lol

 

[RiskyChris]

Nobody in that crowd has any clue the ramifications of the bill. Is that Michelle Bachmann in the middle?

 

[Particle Physicist]

 

[maximum360]

Look at the horrified kid on the right :lol

I love how the media is all over this.

Stay classy T-baggers.

 

[kaching]

Talk about a mixed message, chaining babies to Pelosi and Reid in Hell...they're baby killers and they somehow took the babies with them? What? Did the babies somehow commit suicide?

 

[RiskyChris]

Talk about a mixed message, chaining babies to Pelosi and Reid in Hell...they're baby killers and they somehow took the babies with them? What? Did the babies somehow commit suicide?

You don't keep trophy fetuses?

 

[Hawkian]

They're ostensibly unbaptized, so maybe they're they're in purgatory on the way down or something?