President Obama Preparing to Go It Alone with Just Democrats on Health Care Reform?

Good.
With Enzi, Hatch and Grassley all raising the bar today, in a seemingly coordinated effort, to claim that nothing less than 80 votes in the Senate for a bill can be considered “bipartisan”, it’s become clear that Republicans (even those supposedly working in a “bipartisan” committee group) have no interest in passing anything.
If 80 votes were the criteria for legislation to be seen as bipartisan and legitimate, this country would never have passed Social Security, Medicare, the Civil Rights Act or any bill of significance.
It’s time to just do the right thing and stop trying to appease the Republicans who have made it clear they have no interest in anything but killing health care reform and muddying the waters to boost their 2010 chances.

pssst….Mr. President…you don’t need Republican votes to pass this bill…you do realize this, don’t you?

“my commitment to the American people is to get a good product which will include Republican ideas…”
Can anyone find me a link where Obama endorses any Republican idea? Talk is cheep, show me the evidence. This is just more campaign attack methodology.
By the way, Im not happy with the Republican leadership either. The town hall folk are laboring to be heard while under despicable attacks. The leaders should be out front leading, loudly enough to be heard. They are squandering their opportunity demonstrate their willingness to take a stand for the future of our nation. They should make Obama put up or shut up.

Of course he wants a bipartisan bill, he also wants Kim Jong Il to step down and invite the UN in to run elections. The reality is he has been hitting this hard since the early March bipartisian health summit. After almost a half-year, during which the right has turned to a campaign of blatant lies rather than constructive debate, he’d be naive to not see the prospect that they simply have no interest in serving their country in any way. They could make contributions, as the minority Democrats did with healthcare in the 90′s or the Bush tax cuts in the 00′s.
But the Republicans appear to be choosing pure obstructionism.

j0112:”the President said to the Republicans, “We won.” Now he’s saying it again on health care. With this type of attitude, why does anyone expect bi-partitisanship to be the President’s desired goal?”
He said that We won to laughter during an informal meeting. And after the Republicans campaign of lies, it seems awfully clear which side is refusing to compromise in any way. As if there was any doubt after the stimulus party line vote – when big, $70 billion+ adds and cuts by Republican amendments were incorporated, gained zero votes in the House. Such bad faith compromising is unprecedented since the battles over segregation.

“pssst….Mr. President…you don’t need Republican votes to pass this bill…you do realize this, don’t you?”-tjp612
Yes he does so when it fails like everything else he has done he can play it on republicans, they dont want to go at this alone because he knows he wont be able to blame republicans on it like he has for everything he fails at in the ast 6 months, funny how he NEVER takes blame for anything he does.

“He said that We won to laughter during an informal meeting. And after the Republicans campaign of lies, it seems awfully clear which side is refusing to compromise in any way.”
To paraphrase that great bipartisan Democrat Congressman Barney Frank (/sarc.) “On what planet do you spend most of your time?”
Who do you think was laughing during that meeting? Who has turned out to be a greater “liar” post-campaign (hint: most of Obama’s campaign promises come with expiration dates).
“Awfully clear”? Really? Yes, it is “awfully clear” which side is refusing to compromise.

The truth is that most of us are one devastating illness away from financial ruin.No one with a brain will dispute that. the insurance companies are not in the business to protect people from devastation, they are in the business to make mmoney, period. I think the president wants to hold their feet to the fire the only way he can.
It’s not perfect, but if we rely on the Republicans, how much real reform will ever be done? they might get around to tort reform. That might be a positive. They might say people could buy insurance across state lines. The fix would still be in for the rates to escalate every year. In the midst of all the right wing hysteria and resentment about covering the “undeserving poor”, people should stop and think what it’s like to travel to Mexico or to India, where you see sick, maimed and abandoned people on every street corner (except in the rich people’s exclusive communities). That is where the far right wing of the Republican Party is taking us, and the Blue dog Democrats are right behind them.

Public opinion is against the plan. Let them pass it and they will be responsible for it failure. The political pendulum will start swinging back to the right fast in 2010.

We have no money as it is. This reform is going to cost us too much money. I was not happy when Bush spent a lot of money. All I have seen so far is Obama spending more. How is the nation going on the right track? If we don’t have the money, why are we spending it.

Tony Labounte:”This bill is going to BANKRUPT our country.”
So I guess in your world we can afford to spend double what the other first world nations spend on health care? Other first world nations with, on average, longer life expectancies?
That big Medicare deficit? It goes away if we get our health care spending per person down to the average of what every other first world country in existence spends per person.

It’s time to kill the Republican plan. This country leans slowly, but it learns. Yes we can do it without a Republican.

“Actually, public opinion is FOR the plan. According to a BRAND NEW survey done by one of the most accurate survey companies in the world, Survey USA, 77% support a plan WITH A PUBLIC OPTION.”
====================================
Let’s take a look at the press release:
Commissioned by MoveON, the survey asked 1200 adults how important they feel it is “to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance?”
Fifty-eight percent of respondents said “extremely important.” Nineteen said “quite important”: a total of 77 percent. The rest of respondents said the choice of a public option was not important or weren’t sure.
(now back to reality – the release continues)
The NBC/WSJ poll asked “Would you favor or oppose creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies?” Forty-three percent favored, 48 opposed.
You cite a poll commissioned by MoveOn, by “one of the most accurate survey companies in the world” (I’ve never heard of “SurveyUSA”), provide incomplete information, and expect to be credible?
Desperation.

“If he were interested in a bipartisan bill that would significantly lower costs, he would consider GOP recommendations about tort reform.”
Several states, including Texas and Missouri, have instituted tort reform and guess what? It hasn’t lowered health care costs at all. Look it up.

The Constitution of the United States enumerates seventeen and only seventeen powers to Congress in Article 1 Section 8, providing health care through or managed by the Federal Government is NOT one of the seventeen. Article 2 which lists the powers granted to the executive branch make NO mention of providing health care through or managed by the Federal Government. The tenth Amendment states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Based on the Constitution of the United States if health care is to be provided through or managed by a government entity then that government entity is the individual states unless an amendment is made to the Constitution using the provisions of Article 5 to amend the Constitution giving the Federal Government the power to provide or manage health care on a national level.

How is this going to save us on our medical costs? Obama has cut a deal with the drug companies. They’re to cut drug prices $80million for medicare and provide up to $150million in advertising to promote Obama care. Yet, the drug companies have been promised that the US will not import drugs from Canada. In other words, we will not have any price breaks on our medications – we’ll still pay premium dollar.
Look at what HR3200 offers: Individuals will pay $5000 per year, families will pay $10,000 per year. Benefits paid at “approximately” 70%.
You will have no choice – pay for insurance or be fined 2.5% of your adjusted gross income! This insurance is more expensive than what my family pays. If our employer drops their private insurance to save money, we’ll be stuck with an inferior public option. Check out HR3200, Section 122, lines 26-30 if you don’t believe the premium costs and benefit payments! Don’t think this insurance is free because it’s not!!!

HANG ON FOLKS, only a couple of years until we vote Americans into Congress.

Let me see if I have this right. The US has a huge debt from past years, an ongoing huge deficit, a huge unfunded debt in Social Security, and a huge unfunded debt in Medicare and Medicaid. Now we want to add a new healthcare plan that nobody has read, is changing every minute, will increase our already huge deficit, and even Obama can’t tell us what is in it. AM I MISSING SOMETHING?

“Posted by: Sandcrab1612 | Aug 20, 2009 7:18:10 PM”
So Medicare and the VA are unconstitutional and should be abolished.
I think these right wing views need more air time.

The GOP Mantra: “I only regret that I have but two feet to drag for my Party!”

“During World War II the FDR administration and the congress enacted wage and price controls (always ill-advised). In their wisdom, they decreed that sums spent by an employer on health insurance for employees would be deductible to the employer, and the value of the premiums would not be considered taxable income to the employee.”
Finally bringing us out of the Great Depression and setting the stage for a economic boom in the post war years.
Thanks FDR for saving the country from right wingers.

If Obama’s goal is lower costs, he should be pushing tort reform, inter-state competition, and open plans with open pricing that are not tied to your employer. And disallow the constant expensive drug ads on TV. That would lower costs and the republicans would support it big time.
Instead Obama seems to have a goal of increasing control over people and industry by making both more dependent on the federal government.

tjp612 | — “I’ve never heard of SurveyUSA” Then you don’t know what you are talking about. SurveyUSA.com The question asked was: “In any health care proposal, how important do you feel it is to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance–extremely important, quite important, not that important, or not at all important?” Gosh, how stupid do you think people are? Furthermore, SurveyUSA asked: “Now I am going to tell you more about the health care plan that President Obama supports and please tell me whether you would favor or oppose it. The plan requires that health insurance companies cover people with pre-existing medical conditions. It also requires all but the smallest employers to provide health coverage for their employees, or pay a percentage of their payroll to help fund coverage for the uninsured. Families and individuals with lower- and middle-incomes would receive tax credits to help them afford insurance coverage. Some of the funding for this plan would come from raising taxes on wealthier Americans. Do you favor or oppose this plan?” 51% favored, 43% opposed it. That’s quite a difference!

dear potatoegator22,
If you have read Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, you must know that it specifically says: “The Congress…shall have the power…to provide…for the general welfare”. Case closed.

Ryan C” During World War II the FDR administration and the congress enacted wage and price controls (always ill-advised). In their wisdom, Blah blah blah++++++You really think that is what brought us out of the depression?????

You democratic KOOKS
The GOP Mantra: “I only regret that I have but two feet to drag for my Party!”
Jordan >>>>>>>> Democrats have the majority and YOU CANT EVEN GET YOUR PARTY TO PASS THIS PIECE OF GARBAGE BILL. ITS THAT BAD

America is NO Third War country….. Affordable Healthcare for it’s citizens. I guess the Democrats are the truly real “pro-lifers”….

It’s about time the President realized that the GOP could care less about the American people. Their only goal is to defeat anything and everything that comes before them, because they believe that by destroying American and the American people, they will win politically. They had their chance and decided not to play fair. They dug their own graves.

The president just wants the republicans to accept his positions and really doesn’t listen to their ideas.
The best response to the president is GO FISH!

Tort reform will do nothing to lower health care costs. 30 states already have it, and it hasn’t helped one bit.
I am so sick of Republicans running around saying they don’t want the government in their lives. If that’s true, then stay out of mine. I want national health care. I would like nothing better than a single-payer national health care system, but at the very least I want a public option.
If Obama and the Democrats pass health care reform there will be the biggest turn over in history in Congress in 2010? Please. Obama’s health care reform plans were no secret in the last election, and the Democrats trounced the Republicans. Nothing will change in 2010 unless the Democrats buckle under to the Republicans over this.
I never thought I would say this, but I actually want them to go it alone now. The longer this goes on, the more obvious it is to me that Republicans will never do anything that goes against the for-profit insurance and drug companies. They have no interest in doing what’s best for the majority of the citizens of this country.

Flash Override:”Right wingers hate a government plan, and they hate government employees. Why don’t we put all the government employees on the government insurance, saving about $30-$45 billion per year?
The best part is that most of the tax savings goes against some of the more regressive and onerous taxes, like the property tax.
What do you think?”
No private industry is going to dump all their employees and talent onto the safety net public plan. If you want your government to have the same quality of employee as WalMart – the government that runs the fastest computers in the world, the government that started the mapping of the human genome, the government with robots active on Mars, the government that created (and still controls) the Internet, the government that built and operates Hoover dam…
Well, I think it is a stupid idea. I do not hold my government, which has presided over the rise of the most prosperous free nation mankind has ever known, in contempt.

“The democrats think they are royalty throwing bones to the surfs.”
Imagine if you will: Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al., on the beach, wearing crowns, tossing half-eaten KFC drumsticks into the sea…

The Swiss model of care is free market, mandated coverage, and offers individual choice.
In response to some of the other comments, the democrats don’t need any republicans to do as they please. It is laughable that people talk like the Republicans are the ones holding anything up. Good try though.

as is in the micro it is in the macro … socialism is the Macro community unit of the liberaterian micro .
health care is needed for the overwhelmed masses effected by the CONFUSE AND CONQUER of the eocomony that uses them .

The real bottom line is that the Constitution clearly states that the Supreme Court has the power to interpret it and determine Constitutionality…
Actually, it doesn’t say that. The idea that the Court had that power wasn’t settled until Marbury v. Madison.
Well into the 20th Century the congress was not permitted to legislate except within its enumerated powers as set forth in the constitution. (Eisenhower had to dress up the Interstate Highway Program as being undertaken in the national defense.) No doubt today, however, that it can do pretty much whatever it wants.

Now I know why some Democrats and some Republicans tried to pass Health Care Reform before their August recess. They knew the town hall meetings that they held in their home states during their “recess” would be filled with constituents wanting answers to what was going on with the Health Care Reform Bill. The people had time or took the time to read the Bill, unlike some of the politicians.

“Dr. Denis Cortese, the chief executive of the Mayo Clinic. Argues that reformers should stop obsessing over whether there’s a “public option” in the plan.”
Of course the right wing wants to abolish what he seeks to reform.
C’mon right wingers tell people outright how you are against Medicare.

IamwomaninMI — Well, sorry to say this, but if YOUR state is any example of what 60 years of Dem rule means — I want NO part of it!!!

There are three very beneficial reforms that the president could get enacted tomorrow with more than 75 votes in the Senate:
(1) A one-page bill declaring all restrictions against interstate sales of health insurance void.
(2) A one-page bill making the payment of health insurance premiums by individuals deductible, thus leveling the playing field between individual and employer purchases.
(3) A five-page bill abolishing “the entire medical-malpractice system. Create a new social pool from which people injured in medical errors or accidents can draw. The adjudication would be done by medical experts, not lay juries giving away lottery prizes at the behest of the liquid-tongued John Edwardses who pocket a third of the proceeds.” (Per Charles Krauthammer.)
There is absolutely no need whatsoever to pass any legislation with as broad a scope as this monstrosity. No American, including no member of congress, can possibly know what all of the unintended ramifications of this legislation would be. It is very difficult for anyone even to read the bill, let alone know what the whole thing means. And the president contradicts himself about whatever “his” plan is on a daily basis.

This bill is going to BANKRUPT our country. At that point, those American who cry they have a “right” to “affordable” healthcare will be living in a shell of what was once the most powerful country on earth. . . .why not see this financial buzz saw before it’s too late??
Posted by: Tony Labounty | Aug 20, 2009 6:44:17 PM
***
Tony, have you been paying attention at all. Health care costs are escalating at a rate three times that of income levels. Morevoer, while affordable universal coverage is one goal, the proposed reform contains several consumer protections, retains choice, solves the pre-existing conditions problem and has several measures to reduce cost. Coverage and cost containment. Two main goals. If you’re going to mock us at least get our concerns right. And, by the way, as it turns out, the cost over the next ten years is less than what we’ve paid for the Iraq War. Some perspective there.
As an aside here, while we were at war the last president asked no financial sacrifice, passed tax cuts without offsetting them, and a presciption drug benefit without paying for it. As early as 2002, most of the seven-member Federal Reserve Board were Bush appointees, and by 2006 they all were, Mistakes in housing policy were committed by and the responsibility of Bush appointees at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other agencies. Why didn’t they know what was going on and push to fix it? Better to sit tight? Sheesh. The mistakes made by banks and other financial institutions were either overlooked or signed off on by Bush appointees at the Securities & Exchange Commission and so on. In other words, around here there seems to exist this wholly unjustified view that Republicans have a better record on federal finances and the economy. Nope. Remember Clinton for pete’s sake? Sure, you can mentione dot.coms but Clinton left office with a budget surplus and Bush left with the largest deficit in history. I know, I know, the deficit is larger now. Well, frankly, I believe Obama and the Democrat Congress stopped the recession and a likely depression. My stock and pocketbook is already doing much better– and we’ll see how it looks next summer. It did much better under Clinton than Bush. My finances, and the country’s seem to do much, much better under Democrats– and don’t point me back to Carter. I was too young to be in the work force then.
On another note, the President was much clearer and more concise today, both with Smerconish and in the OFA meeting reagrding how the health exchange would be set up. I find it curious that none of that made it into the write up. Hmmm.
Before anybody says it I agree a succinct description in written form of the cost and cost containment measures would be useful.

The Republicans have absolutely nothing to do with the outcome of this bill. It’s the Democrats to win or loose. Their majority is filibuster and otherwise proof. The republicans have no power or say on the outcome.Articles like this are just political theater aimed at sticking the republicans with the negative aspects of the bill.

Alyson – You said “Clinton left office with a budget surplus and Bush left with the largest deficit in history.”
Don’t know what you are using for a reference but according to data from the US Treasury website, just look at federal government debt to the penny. The government debt when Slick Willy took office $4,188,092,107,183.60 and the government debt when Slick Willy left office $5,727,776,738,304.64 and increase of $1.5T, not a surplus. Looking at history James Madison, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford Hayes, Chester Arthur, Grover Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover accomplished the one thing that no administration since 1933 has accomplished and that is to reduce the government debt while in office. All other Presidents have increased the government debt during their term of office. Who had the biggest change you ask? In order of magnitude (percentage of change as over the years the actual numbers have increased so the only fair method is to look at the percentage of change during each administration) they are:
1. Abraham Lincoln (2,959% increase, Civil War years)
2. Martin Van Buren (1,558% increase, Andrew Jackson had reduced the debt by over 99% during his preceding terms)
3. Franklin D. Roosevelt (1,147% increase, WW II)
4. Woodrow Wilson (822% increase)
5. James Polk (395% increase)
6. James Buchanan (315% increase)
7. Ronald Reagan (286% increase)
8. James Madison (216% increase)
9. George W. Bush (185% increase
10. Gerald Ford (147% increase)
This is the top 10 so the next question to answer is where did William Clinton rank among the Presidents who had an increase in the government debt during their time in office? William Clinton had an increase of 136% in office which ranked as number 13 (not a ranking to be proud of). Where would Barack Obama rank if his administration continues the rate of spending we have experienced to date? Barack Obama at the current rate of spending would have an increase of the federal debt to the tune of $194% which would rank him as number 9 on the list of top ten ahead of George W. Bush. This data is all verifiable from the dept of the treasury website, just google government debt and it will lead you to the right area.

You will have no choice – pay for insurance or be fined 2.5% of your adjusted gross income! This insurance is more expensive than what my family pays. If our employer drops their private insurance to save money, we’ll be stuck with an inferior public option. Check out HR3200, Section 122, lines 26-30 if you don’t believe the premium costs and benefit payments! Don’t think this insurance is free because it’s not!!!
Posted by: grannysunni | Aug 20, 2009 7:21:29 PM
***
This is incorrect. While you will have to sign up for insurance, you do not have to choose the public option. The way it will be set up is that there will be a health exchange including a public option, and you get to choose which plan you’d like. It could be the public option. It could a minimum low cost coverage of the type young people might like, or it could be Aetna or Blue Shield or whatever. Employers already switch plans frequently– as costs rise they will likely happen even more frequently, regardless of whether reform passes or not. Your employer may also change how much of the premium you pay. If your employer drops coverage and you find yourself in the position that you have to choose coverage from the exchange, you still have choices. The president explained it very clearly today. Do you complain that your state requires minimum car insurance?
And btw, no insurance is free. Sheesh. Yes, folks have to pay for their insurance, or their employers do.

Flash Override | Aug 20, 2009 7:47:49 PM
How many Canadians come to the US for surgeries as opposed to Americans moving to Canada for healthcare?

Alyson — I find your post at 8:50ish refreshing with thoughtful details that can be debated! — Thanks for your attempt not just to inflame, but discuss — There are many parts I would like to address — first and foremost — just for the sake of argument — What would you feel of a plan that would actually (over time) give us LESS choice, and would result assuredly in a total government control (single-payor system) of our healthcare system!! — I truely believe (and the creators and advisors of the base plan have admitted), that this is the goal — Right there, without debating any other point, I would have to say “NO, try again”!! — I am not saying there doesn’t need to be some reform, but NOT at the cost of total government control!!!

. . . and everything that Alyson said. :)
The only thing that I’ll add is that the prescription drug benefit — the one that was passed by the Republicans without having any way to pay for it — is a joke for anyone that is on expensive medications.

Alyson — You said — “While you will have to sign up for insurance, you do not have to choose the public option. The way it will be set up is that there will be a health exchange including a public option, and you get to choose which plan you’d like.” — This will only work as long as the insurance companies can compete with a non-profit, tax paid, makes-all-the-rules entity called the government!! — How many years do you give them?? — Kind of hard to compete with the guy who can change the rules on you anytime they want — This is ALL ADMITTED by Berkeley Professor Jacob Hacker, who created the basic healthcare reform design that both houses of congress are using to develop their proposal of healthcare reform!! — Its all a sham!!!!

Berkeley Professor Jacob Hacker created the basic healthcare reform design that both houses of congress are using to develop their proposal of healthcare reform. In a presentation to the TIDES organization, referring to his base reform design, he JOKED about the intention of his design, saying “Someone once said to me that this (design) is a “Trojan Horse” for a single-payor system. I said, well, it’s not a “TROJAN” horse, (he turns, smiles and raises his voice) IT’S JUST RIGHT THERE!!!! (Laughter from the audience) I’m telling you we’re going to get there, over time, slowly, but we’ll move away from reliance on employer-based health insurance, as we should, but WE’LL DO IT IN A WAY that we’re not going to FRIGHTEN people into thinking that they are going to lose their private insurance!”

ChangeThis: I believe that Japan has a public option and private insurance. I haven’t really researched much about their system yet, but I’m going to. It seems to have worked very well for them for the last 30 years or so.
Personally, I would have no problem if the insurance companies couldn’t compete and just went away. They are the problem, as far as I’m concerned. The fact is that they could compete and still make a profit if they weren’t so greedy.
However, I don’t want to force people who want the choice of private insurance not to have that choice. I wish those against a public option would have the same respect those who want that option.
Someone posted earlier wondering about how many Canadians come here for health care. I live right on the border and have many friends who are Canadian. Not a single one of them come here for treatment, no matter how serious their condition. I have three Canadian friends who are nurses at a hospital here. Our health care system is a joke to them. I don’t see Canada, or any other country for that matter, wanting to change to our system.
As for going to Canada for health care, I can only pray that they will have me if something isn’t done about our system before it’s too late for me.

Posted by: ChangeThis | Aug 20, 2009 9:18:26 PM
I don’t know where you get your information about Medicare-D, but I will tell you that people are suffering with those plans. Between the constant formulary changes and premium changes every year, those on the program are constantly having to change medications.
Drug formularies are based on kick-backs received from BigPharma. I am constantly having to get doctors to obtain prior authorizations for medications. Medications patients have been on for quite some time and have been getting paid for, but lo & behold the formulary changes so tough luck patient you don’t get your med unless you want to pay for it.
And are you uniformed about the “Donut Hole” with Medicare-D?? Patients out of pocket expense can be over $4,000. That out of pocket expense goes up every year. Meanwhile, grandma’s social security check stays the same.

Don’t like the public option? Don’t use it. Everybody wins and nobody loses – except maybe the health insurance industry….

Millions of America’s working poor, under-employed and unemployed don’t qualify for medicade and can’t afford private insurance or the price of a hospital, doctor or dentist’s bill. Adults in the fast food industry is just one familiar example. This is why universal health care reform was conceived and this is the element that The Right is striving to have ignored or minimized in the minds of all of us. Their tools are confusing the issues and injecting tons of false conclusions about what reform will do. In short, they want to pit the haves against the have-nots and really don’t care about the people who need care and can’t afford it. They’d like for us to believe they don’t exist. Take a good look around and it’s easy to see that they are in every community, including yours.

ChangeThis:
While RX coverage for senior citizens and the disabled is called Medicare Part D, it is not a Medicare benefit. You cannot get RX coverage through Medicare. You must buy this RX coverage from a private insurance company just like someone would buy supplemental and/or Medigap insurance. The only thing that Medicare has to do with it is that you have to be eligible for Medicare A and B to purchase supplemental and RX coverage through the private insurance company. Medicare Part D would be excellent along with a real Medicare benefit — the way that Medicare Part A and B work with supplemental or Medigap insurance — but without that option it is woefully lacking.
If you don’t know a single person who Medicare Part D hasn’t helped, then you don’t know anyone who is on a Tier 4 or 5 drug. Those would be the drugs that costs thousand of dollars every month. You should check out the out-of-pocket costs of even one of those drugs and tell me if you think you could afford to take that drug if you had to rely on Medicare Part D coverage to pay for it.
I do NOT nor have I ever received assistance from Medicare. I work for a living, and I have since I was 18 years old. I make a very good living; I have excellent employer-paid health insurance; I have put away quite a bit of money in retirement accounts over the last 23 years, and I have short and long-term disability through my employer.
I also have a long-term disability insurance that I was smart enough to buy for myself before I was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. Even with all this planning on my part, if I were to become disabled due to my MS, my RX costs alone would take everything I’ve worked so hard for in about six or seven years, maybe less. It’s been a few years since I checked the numbers because, frankly, it stresses me out to even think about it. I am 42 years old, and I pray every day that I remain as lucky as I have been so far.
Finally, your “boo-hoo” comment was just plain mean-spirited and rude. For a second there, I thought you might be someone capable of having a reasonable discussion with. I guess not. Perhaps you should have asked me why I feel the way I do about Medicare Part D instead of jumping to the conclusion that I receive that assistance and that I wanted you to “boo-hoo” for me.
I do not want anyone to cry for me. I want all health care, including Medicare Part D, changed so that people like me do not lose everything they have because they had the bad luck to get sick.

CjDean — I know all about Medicare Part D, thank you!! — My point was, NOT that it is perfect, but that it is PAYING bills that were formerly paid for by the consumer ONLY! — Now the first $2500 (adj for inflation)is still partially paid for by the plan!! — For a LOT of people, this is valuable assistance, because they never hit the donut hole!!

Boxcar,
I would have said that I know more than a handful of Canadians. But I suppose you’re right; overall it probably is a handful.
And I’m not saying that the Canadian system or any country that has universal coverage is not without flaws. It’s just that our system has many, many more flaws. There are long wait times in this country for people without good insurance while an insurance company, not the patient or doctor, decides on care and treatment.
And then there are the millions here who are not covered at all and never get any care and treatment.
I don’t doubt that there are people that come here from other countries for treatment. It’s just that I would like to know what kind of treatment they are coming here for. It can’t be anything long-term and serious for a majority of those people because who could afford that in this country without our insurance?

auntiedancer | Aug 20, 2009 11:22:22 PM
I didn’t say I was against reform. I just don’t care for the amount of government control that comes along with the current bill.

ChangeThis:
You miss my point.
Once again, I am not on Medicare. Part D has never paid a dime towards the cost of my drugs. I have no year-end summary to look at. People who work and are not of retirement age do not qualify for Medicare.
Budget constraints have nothing to do with Medicare Part D. Once again, they ARE NOT a Medicare-paid benefit. Private insurance companies not making enough money is the problem with Medicare Part D. It needs to be thrown out and redone.
Medicare Part D is not a gift horse for those who cannot afford the high co-pays for obscenely expensive drugs. If someone can’t afford the high co-pays on their medications, it doesn’t matter what Part D would cover.
You may think you know all about Medicare Part D, but it’s quite obvious that you do not.

>>>>This is incorrect. While you will have to sign up for insurance, you do not have to choose the public option. The way it will be set up is that there will be a health exchange including a public option, and you get to choose which plan you’d like. It could be the public option. It could a minimum low cost coverage of the type young people might like, or it could be Aetna or Blue Shield or whatever.
Posted by: Alyson | Aug 20, 2009 8:58:53 PM<<<<
Alyson, please provide your references to the options you mentioned for "minimum low cost coverage of the type young people might like, or it could be Aetna or Blue Shield or whatever". Have you read HR3200 or are you repeating what you heard on TV? I can't find this provision anywhere in HR3200. I'd like to know what section and page you're referring to.
This health care reform bill requires all health insurance provide specific benefits. All insurance offered through employers will have to meet the basic requirements of the public option. Yes, there will be three higher cost premium tiers offered in the health exchange. HR3200 sets the family obligation at $10,000 per year, an individual will pay $5000. This is listed on page 29, lines 26-30, of HR3200. There are no other figures given for a minimum low cost coverage plan that you mention. It also states benefits will be paid at "approximately" 70%. HR3200 also states everyone is required to purchase insurance. If you do not, you will be fined 2.5% of your adjusted gross income.
I believe some type of reform is needed, however, HR3200 is a mess and the cost exorbitant. Employers will drop their own health plans and employees will end up with reduced coverage at the cost of higher premiums. Why force this upon 300 million people when only 50 million are the uninsured? Why force this insurance upon us when not one Democratic Senator or Congressmen will accept this care for themselves? Republicans introduced legistation in every committee in the house that would require congress to take the same insurance but Democrats voted it down. This is obviously inferior to the insurance congress currently receives. Obama promised during his campaign that he would bring health care to us that was the same high quality care congress receives. Why should we settle for anything less?

Mumblemouth – You may think that Medicare is a healthy program but if you look at the unfunded liability (the difference between the benefits that have been promised to current and future retirees and what will be collected in dedicated taxes and Medicare premiums) over the next 75 years of 32,000,000,000,000.00 (32 Trillion) dollars. Social Security also has an unfunded liability but it is nowhere near as large as the unfunded Medicare liability. Currently, Medicare claims about 11 percent of federal nonentitlement tax dollars. By 2020, Medicare deficits will claim one in every five federal tax dollars that are not already dedicated to Medicare and Social Security. This means that in just 13 years the federal government will have to stop doing one in every five things it does today if taxes are to remain at their current level and projected Medicare benefits are paid on behalf of the disabled and the elderly. By 2030, the deficits in Medicare will claim one in every three general revenue dollars; by 2050, they will claim one in every two.
This does not look like a healthy program but it sure looks like a program which is sinking fast without drastic intervention. And as Medicare only pays providers $0.94 on the $1.00 to providers the difference is made up when they charge insurance companies for folks not on Medicare. The government needs to pay 100% for services then the rest of us wouldn’t have to pay through our insurance. The underpayment likely makes up the differance you claim between Medicare increases and private insurance increases. And lets not forget Medicaide they pay less than Medicare on the $1.00 so that is even more we have to make up because the government does not pay there share. Is it a wonder that there are quite a few health care providers who will not accept these programs because they loose money.

“DEATHSQUADS!”
Maybe there needs to be an IQ test before people are allowed to read and pontificate on legislative bills they obviously don’t understand.
Perhaps “fight4rightsorlooseem” (love the spelling, btw) is the guy who stood up at a town hall meeting and harangued his congressman that all bills should be written “on a junior high school level” so people could understand them.
Brilliant.
Perhaps it is necessary, though, seeing how many people are misinterpreting things they don’t understand.

Obviously you think you can read the bill and interpret it. Please enlighten us on your reading of that section.
In my previous post, I posted clearly how illegal aliens were allowed to get health care and health insurance on equal terms with us, and many will be paid for at our expense, since many illegal aliens do not have high incomes. Often the field workers do not even work the the full year, so that does impact their income.
I can read through the advanced care section, and post how that could be used for “deathsquads”, though the deathsquads are not the correct terminology, but I probably wont be able to get to until tomorrow, if then.
One thing people could do is research and understand how to interpret a bill, how the courts interpret a bill. Not what Congress tells you (that is PR), and not what policital pundits tell you (that is PR too).
“DEATHSQUADS!”
Maybe there needs to be an IQ test before people are allowed to read and pontificate on legislative bills they obviously don’t understand.
Perhaps “fight4rightsorlooseem” (love the spelling, btw) is the guy who stood up at a town hall meeting and harangued his congressman that all bills should be written “on a junior high school level” so people could understand them.
Brilliant.
Perhaps it is necessary, though, seeing how many people are misinterpreting things they don’t understand.

Obama is the 2008 reincarnation of Jim Jones.

Question: What is a forum where the “moderators” remove posts that do not violate the terms of use?
Answer: It’s not a forum. MSM is an embarrassment to the idea of honest journalism.

Censorship is cool, yes? :)

There is no Bill that most Americans would agree to….none. You sure wouldnt agree to the one Pelosi created. Obama is selling nothing but words he knows you want to hear, but he will sign whatever gets through. He has said “Lets get it through and we will work it out later”. Later when the cost hits them and they are exempt anyway, how hard do you think they will work it out and to whose advantage do you think it will be. If you wont buy a care this way, why would you buy this.

The current version of health care reform is basically the ideas of Pelosi, Waxman and Rangel, who represent the highly liberal urban districts. Obama should be aware that his government will be in big trouble in the next election, if this version of reform prevails without any support of Republican lawmakers and the blue dog Democrats since they represent the vast conservative regions

It gets worse. Any variation from the basic coverage as outlined by HR3200 must be in accordance with standards specified by the government, and must offer a higher level of coverage. So, people like me, who prefer to pay lower premiums in return for taking care of my basic health care expenses myself will no longer have that option.

Alyson. I’m not young, just an educated consumer who prefers to excercise a little more control over my family’s insurance and health care choices. :) Hopefully you are right and I will be able to select a plan that fits with my preferences.
I will say this about the plan. It can work as intended without a public option, so both sides of that line in the sand are expending a lot of energy for nothing.

>>Here’s what is incorrect– you have to have insurance. If you don’t you have the choice of using the health insurance exchange or buying it another way on your own. So your fears make no sense. your spin is incorrect. Don’t like the health insurance exchange? Don’t. use. it. If you have insurance it’s unlikely you even qualify to use it!!
Posted by: Alyson | Aug 21, 2009 9:56:43 AM
<<
Alyson, HR3200,Page 167, Section 59B – Tax on Individual Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage – begin at line 20 and continue onto to page 168. This explains that there will be a 2.5% tax imposed on individuals who do not meet the requirements of acceptable health care coverage. I was not fear mongering, I was stating something I had read in the bill.
I believe that we all need affordable health care that does not exclude pre-existing conditions. Just because I have insurance now doesn't mean that I don't need to be concerned with the reform. I think none of us can afford to be complacent.

We need a broad, broad range of policies to choose from.
Posted by: Alyson | Aug 21, 2009 2:58:00 PM
***
I should add that I do think there should be some requirements as a means of consumer protection, and that employer-based insurance plans are regulated and must meet certain requirements to be tax exempt.

Anyone that thinks they can trust any politician needs brain surgery or a head transplant! Both parties will lie or do any thing they deem necessary to consolidate power in the hands of Politicians! It goes with saying the more power Citizens give Politicians over our lives the less power we have in making decisions based on what is best for us and our families!
We are repeatedly lied to by both the Politicians and the media!
It is past time to demand our Politicians start serving American Citizens instead of their selfs, the special interests, their pay masters, La Raza, ACORN, ACLU, Illegal Aliens, & the ones ones that will not at the expense of the ones that will!

==========================
Can someone explain to me, if 10-20 percent of the population have no healthcare coverage and need it, why is Obama super-re-engineering 100% of the entire United States healthcare industry?
This is like Obama knocking down the entire Whitehouse adn rebuilding it because Michelle want to remodel a room.
==========================

The Democrats win the election. We have the House, we have the Senate.We ,the people, voted a mandate for CHANGE. If the sore-loser Repubs don’t want to get on the bandwagon,let them experience the same feeling of being the Loyal Opposition that we felt when Bush ran the country into the ground and stomped on it. The president has bent over backward to extend an olive branch to these Fat Cats ( Who are boo-hooing because they are no longer in the driver’s seat)The time for asking for compromise has ended. The Dems will exercise their majority and get this show on the road.

Something as significant as Health care reform of this magnitude should have 80% support of the people, not 40% – 60%. we have a system that can be incrementally improved with widespread support. It is likely that if passes it will be reversed causing damage in the mean time.