America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

[Kepler]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Come on now....There isn't a single Dem in Congress specifically elected to fix health care.

Depends how specific "specifically" is. Health care was one of the top 5 issues he ran on. The economy, the wars, transparency, health care, energy policy. I'd say the former were 1-2 in no particular order, the latter were 3-4-5.

He's acted boldly on the economy, timidly on the wars and transparency, and not at all on energy. It was a question before last night whether he'd be bold or timid on health care. The Blue Dogs tried to dissuade him because politicians don't like to lead, but now he's all in. If public pressure mounts in his favor it will be a good vote for them and it will pass -- if it stalls they'll play the logrolling game (Max Baucus' state is going to get a lot of goodies). If the opponents can gin up enough Loud Noises! it'll die.

The Dems' 1993 lesson is if they don't pass it they're dead. Their choice is to get called Dirty Commies or Dirty Commie Losers. America does not like losers.

 

[MattS]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Not specifically, but it was a top agenda item.

Maybe but not the reason they got elected.

The way I see it, to not pass comprehensive reform would be to misuse this opportunity. Fillibuster proof majorities are rare.

True enough.

Voters knew if they elected Obama and even more Dems in 08, they would get this effort to fix the health care system. Really the party is just fulfilling their duty. If you wanted to elect people to give lip service to problems but not actually do anything about them, why not just re-elected the GOP Congress?

Got to disagree here. Voter's don't know jack. They majority certainly didn't vote for Obama and Congress because of heath care. At least not the major reason. They voted for Obama and an extension, Congress, because of Iraq, the economy, and to get as far away from W as possible.

Depends how specific "specifically" is. Health care was one of the top 5 issues he ran on. The economy, the wars, transparency, health care, energy policy. I'd say the former were 1-2 in no particular order, the latter were 3-4-5.

The is a huge difference between how the voters view and vote with respect to the President and Congress. Obama might have had health care and maybe some Congressmen on their platform. But it would be a huge mistake to think they were elected because of it. As I stated before they were elected because of Irag, the economy, and Obama is not W and those Congressman are of W's party.

The Blue Dogs tried to dissuade him because politicians don't like to lead, but now he's all in. If public pressure mounts in his favor it will be a good vote for them and it will pass -- if it stalls they'll play the logrolling game (Max Baucus' state is going to get a lot of goodies). if the opponents can gin up enough Righteous Anger it'll die.

Thanks for restating what I posted earlier abet more wordy.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Voters knew if they elected Obama and even more Dems in 08, they would get this effort to fix the health care system. Really the party is just fulfilling their duty.

While it's nice to pretend that a majority of voters actually think ahead before they step into the voting booth, it is doubtful most would have had the foresight to put two and two together here, as you claim.

By and large, my generation voted for Obama and the Democrats because they bought into the whole "change" message. Not because they actually thought about the issues, and understood the quirks of our political system.

 

[ScottM]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

It was a question before last night whether he'd be bold or timid on health care. The Blue Dogs tried to dissuade him because politicians don't like to lead, but now he's all in. s.

I was surprised when he mentioned the use of med-mal arbitration panels, something floated under the last regime, outside of the legislation itself, and tied it to the practice of "defensive medicine". If there's more meat to that idea, he may be able to bring in a few Rs.

 

[unofan]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Not specifically, but it was a top agenda item.

The way I see it, to not pass comprehensive reform would be to misuse this opportunity. Fillibuster proof majorities are rare. Voters knew if they elected Obama and even more Dems in 08, they would get this effort to fix the health care system. Really the party is just fulfilling their duty. If you wanted to elect people to give lip service to problems but not actually do anything about them, why not just re-elected the GOP Congress?

The last Congress elected on anything resembling a major platform of ideas was when the GOP took over control of Congress in the 90's (1994, I think?) with the Contract for America.

Since then, the entire Congress has been one big pork-spending, lip-serving body.

 

[Bill]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

As far as I know it is, and it was mentioned in the speech last night. So, what speech did you watch?

Oh, and I don't have any woes over this. I could give a rip if it gets passed or doesn't pass.

It would be more accurate to say tort isn't completely out of the picture. It was hardly a rah rah we need tort reform from Obama. He mentioned something about doing a few trials to see what impact it has on costs. Hardly a warm endorsement of tort reform. If tort reform doesn't play a significant part in the eventual bill, then the Ds talk of bringing health costs under control is just that, empty talk.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

It would be more accurate to say tort isn't completely out of the picture. It was hardly a rah rah we need tort reform from Obama. He mentioned something about doing a few trials to see what impact it has on costs. Hardly a warm endorsement of tort reform. If tort reform doesn't play a significant part in the eventual bill, then the Ds talk of bringing health costs under control is just that, empty talk.

Sure, cause obviously TORT is the sole reason that health care costs are out of control.

 

[ScottM]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

The last Congress elected on anything resembling a major platform of ideas was when the GOP took over control of Congress in the 90's (1994, I think?) with the Contract for America.

Since then, the entire Congress has been one big pork-spending, lip-serving body.

And yet, "We the People" keep sending these cretins back.

 

[dropthatpuck]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Well then explain how in just a few short years you went from hating everyone who ever questioned the president to someone who now defends it. Come on...educate me since I apparently lack knowledge. Do you have the balls to do it without sidestepping it, I think we all know you don't

If you want I will let you watch Bill O'Reilly tonight and see what excuse he comes up with so you can frame it that way! I am sure the No Spin Hypocrite will have nothing but wonderful things to say about how it is patriotic to hate Obama while he said such things were on par with treason when Jr. ran the Country!

We will all be waiting...come on man show us what ya got!

Dude - put the paintbrush down and let your mom change your diaper so you can maybe stop the cry-baby whine-fest.

Since you keep bringing it up, you mischaracterizing, immature little toady, go back to all of these posts of mine you keep referring to regarding W and show us. You'll never find anything as sheep-esque as you make them out to be.

Looks like you have some work to do, grasshopper. Try to impress us all. There's a first time for everything.

 

[Rover]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

The last Congress elected on anything resembling a major platform of ideas was when the GOP took over control of Congress in the 90's (1994, I think?) with the Contract for America.

I agree up to a point. The '94 election did bring in a clear gameplan to Congress, the clearest one in my lifetime. I'd say that on not that grand a scale, but still somewhat significant, was the 2006 election in that Dems were a bit more specific about what they hoped to accomplish (particularly in regards to Iraq). IMHO, had they not reluctantly come out against it (following Murtha's lead, after they took a few days to let the controversy play out and check the poll #'s ) I'm not sure they would have taken over Congress. Recall Rove had figured the GOP would lose about 14 seats, giving them a bare majority. Had he only been fighting on one front (corruption) he might have been right if he was still facing a wishy-washy Kerry like Dem campaign in regards to the war.

 

[Bill]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Sure, cause obviously TORT is the sole reason that health care costs are out of control.

Like it or not, Tort reform needs to be included in the bill in a significant way if we're to believe the Ds are serious about cost control.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Every business prices the cost of insurance on their business into their cost structure.

Doctors are no different.

And malpractice insurance premiums are high because of the legal costs and judgements doctors may face.

You have to deal with all aspects of this, trial lawyers lobby be ****ed.

 

[dropthatpuck]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

As far as I know it is, and it was mentioned in the speech last night. So, what speech did you watch?

I watched the speech where he said (as an add-on) that he'd look into it via committee - with Sebelius in charge - you know, the former lobbyist for the Kansas Trial Lawyers Assn.

Kool-Aid is good!!!

 

[goldy_331]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Sure, cause obviously TORT is the sole reason that health care costs are out of control.

There have been estimates that at least 20% of tests and procedures are defensive medicine. Think that there is no cost impact there?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

There have been estimates that at least 20% of tests and procedures are defensive medicine. Think that there is no cost impact there?

I didn't say that.

 

[Rover]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Just out of curiousity, what kind of TORT reform are people looking for, and how much roughly would it cut costs - as in any proposal you're advocating?

 

[mookie1995]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

.... the clearest one in my lifetime. .

and to bring up a point, the only D who has run for congress in your lifetime on a health 'insurance' for all platform was harris wofford

someone a day or so ago was trying to explain 'insurance' here. as in 'insurance for large, catastrophic bills'.

nobody buys health insurance. we buy health care. harvard pilgram health care. tufts health plan.

it is a ponzi scheme.

the 'insurance' companies try to collect enough premiums and control the expenses they pay out to run the company.

some don't use what they pay in (thank you!). some take out much more than they pay in (moi!).

i've come to the conclusion that all these middlemen are wasteful overhead.

going through this crap for nothing more than to cover the 'uninsured' is waste of my time and everyone else's money. so that ain't what BHO is doing.

why are unions (great health care) and teachers (great health care) and public sector employess (great health care) holding the signs?? they aint in that 30 million [down from 47 million] that the $900billion will take care of.

for a single payer to work, you need

-some tort reform to control wasteful costs.
-eliminate all the middle folks who collect premiums and pay bills to control wasteful expenses.

give a national contract to the 'company' that runs the congressional health care. collect the premiums out of our paychecks like john kairy pays. pay my doctor and buy my scripts like he gets too.

call me Bullworth.

(next problem!)

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Just out of curiousity, what kind of TORT reform are people looking for, and how much roughly would it cut costs - as in any proposal you're advocating?

Who really knows? All I know is that the first person to have the wrong leg removed is going to be pretty upset with their settlement after it happens.

 

[Rover]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

mookie,

Are you drinking right now? Because while you might have had a few interesting points in there, I haven't seen a response this disjointed since Bobby Jindal tried to respond to Obama.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

mookie,

Are you drinking right now? Because while you might have had a few interesting points in there, I haven't seen a response this disjointed since Bobby Jindal tried to respond to Obama.

drinking arnold palmer and watching the stillers!!