Moving Days: Can Delicate Coalition Survive Thousand Cuts?
EmailABC News’ Rick Klein reports: That probably won't be the last major unveiling on the steps of the Capitol. But now that it's all put together — watch it all get picked apart. Among the consequence of building two separate (shaky) houses from the bottom is that it leaves twice as many parts for opponents (or even allies) to try to take out. And in this instance, you have to move one of the houses to the left, and the other one to the right, while keeping everyone inside. In the broader political landscape, add in a tight calendar, an intervening Election Day, united Republicans, deep splits inside the Democratic caucus, and various other political challenges ranging from war strategy to economic unease. (And don't forget to check the math on the stimulus jobs report coming Friday.) Add to that new ethics revelations — showing far broader inquiries than previously known, though not a lot of actual action out of them — and maybe this isn't the best of days in the halls of Congress. But having actual, real-life health care legislation ready for a vote means it's decision time, at last: "So should progressives get behind this plan? Yes. And they probably will," Paul Krugman writes in his New York Times column. "The people who really have to make up their minds, then, are those in between, the self-proclaimed centrists. . . . History is about to be made — and everyone has to decide which side they're on." There's a broad case to be made, but this remains a bill defined by its particulars. Even beyond the $1 trillion price tag and the public option, you've got the PhRMA deal, abortion issues, the "Cadillac plan" tax, coverage for undocumented immigrants, hospitals' and doctors' rates, and 1,990 pages of goodies and not-so-goodies. The critics' round-up: "Doctors complained that lawmakers removed a provision that staved off deep cuts to physicians' Medicare payments. Hospitals fretted the new public plan would underpay them, despite increases in reimbursement rates," The Wall Street Journal's Janet Adamy writes. "The sharpest criticism came from employers, who say it will saddle them with higher taxes, and insurance companies, which say a new public insurance plan will drive them out of business." The Washington Times cobbles together some talking points: "House Democrats' health care bill runs to 1,990 pages, costs $1.06 trillion, covers 96 percent of eligible Americans and demands the production of 42 studies on everything from whether post-partum screening should be required to using student loan programs to help recruit doctors." A lot of noise for a small player: "An analysis of the House bill released late Thursday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that 6 million people would choose a public plan, making it a relatively small player, despite the issue's outsize role in the health-care debate," The Washington Post's Shailagh Murray and Lori Montgomery report. Just a bit over that magic — while randomly chosen — number: "Throughout Thursday, news accounts, including our own, focused on $894 billion – which was the total cost given out by aides to the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, before the official cost analysis was released by the Congressional Budget Office," David M. Herszenhorn and Robert Pear write for The New York Times. "But a closer look at the budget office report suggests that the number everyone should have reported was $1.055 trillion – which is the gross cost of the insurance coverage provisions in the bill before taking account of certain new revenues, including penalties by individuals and employers who fail to meet new insurance requirements in the bill." Plus: "None of the cost estimates of the bill included provisions to increase Medicare payments to doctors. Those provisions, which would cost more than $200 billion over 10 years, were put into a separate bill, also introduced Thursday." Getting more interesting in the Senate: Asked whether he's ready to join a Republican filibuster to sink the entire health care bill, Sen. Joe Lieberman tells ABC's Jonathan Karl: "Yes, that's right. . . . Bottom line: I'm saying this public option is so unnecessary to genuine health care reform and so bad for our Country and the people of our country that I would vote to stop final vote on this health care reform bill if the public option is part of it." Also in the interview, the latest installment of Karl's "Subway Series": "I probably will support some Republican candidates for Congress or Senate in the election in 2010. I'm going to call them as I see them." (Look for more online at ABCNews.com, and with a clip on the "Top Line" political Webcast at noon ET.) Lieberman also thinks it's time for Obama to make up his mind on Afghanistan. Plus, he's supporting his old friend, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.: "I believe Sen. Dodd will get re-elected, but it's not going to be easy. This is going to be a tough year for incumbents." But Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., and Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., join a growing caucus of we-won't-filibuster-health-care Democrats, per The New Republic. http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/bayh-backing-his-threat In the House: "What I think everybody in the caucus sticks by is the notion that they understand how important it is to have healthcare reform," House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson, D-Conn., said on ABCNews.com's "Top Line". "We're going to pass health care reform, and we've got the votes to do it." "I'm not big on showing weakness. It's not my thing," Speaker Pelosi tells Politico's David Rogers. From a memo to House Republicans going out Friday from the office of House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va.: "The Pelosi Bill: It's still the same flawed bill. It is still a government takeover of health care. Totaling 1,990 pages, the bill completely rewrites nearly 1/6th of the nation's economy. Health care costs will go up, and the bill raises taxes, cuts seniors benefits, and doesn't come close to fulfilling the promise that if you like what you have you can keep it." Annals of diplomacy: Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, to a Pakistani newspaper, Dawn: "Al Qaeda has had safe haven in Pakistan since 2002," she said. "I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn't get them if they really wanted to." Clinton, to ABC's Jim Sciutto, in Pakistan Friday: "Trust is a two-way street. There is a trust deficit…it would be a missed opportunity and lack of recognition of full extent of the threat, if they did not realize that any safe haven, anywhere, for terrorists, threatens them, threatens us and has to be addressed." Is the US losing the war in Afghanistan? "No I don't think so… [But] the Taliban has some momentum." (And on the David Plouffe book — did her husband cost her the vice presidency? [Big laugh.] "I have no idea, but I really am satisfied and happy to be doing what I'm doing… I'm not somebody who looks backward — I look forward.") ABC's Kirit Radia: "Clinton made her sharpest comments during a three day diplomatic offensive in Pakistan, a U.S ally where she has generally praised Pakistan and its military for its willingness to take on the Taliban along its rugged frontier with Afghanistan." "Clinton's three-day visit is her first to Pakistan since she became secretary of State, and its principal goal is to improve strained relations. On the first day of her visit, in Islamabad, she declared that she wanted to ‘turn a page' in the U.S.-Pakistani relationship," Paul Richter reports for the Los Angeles Times. Will this help drain any swamps? "House ethics investigators have been scrutinizing the activities of more than 30 lawmakers and several aides in inquiries about issues including defense lobbying and corporate influence peddling, according to a confidential House ethics committee report prepared in July," Ellen Nakashima and Paul Kane write in The Washington Post. "The report appears to have been inadvertently placed on a publicly accessible computer network, and it was provided to The Washington Post by a source not connected to the congressional investigations. The committee said Thursday night that the document was released by a low-level staffer." "Watchdog groups have accused the committee of not actively pursuing inquiries; the newly disclosed document indicates the panel is conducting far more investigations than it had revealed," they write. (But doesn't this confirm longstanding criticism that the process is broken? This is a whole bunch of open investigations that are leading to not a whole lot of conclusion, or discipline.) Based on the document obtained by the Post: "House investigators are looking into whether seven members of a powerful government-spending committee violated congressional ethics rules in their dealings with a lobbying firm that secured earmarks from the committee," Brody Mullins writes for The Wall Street Journal. "The document indicates the House Ethics Committee is looking into whether the lawmakers on the defense-spending subpanel of the House Appropriations Committee ran afoul of House rules by trading earmarks for campaign contributions, according to the newspaper." Bad news for Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y.? "Though the probe has not yet found any of these House members guilty of wrongdoing, this episode will place pressure on Pelosi and her colleagues to show they're not a party of sleaze. Consequently, Rangel is more vulnerable to the Republican's campaign against him," David Corn writes. New from the earmarks war: "As it turns out, President Obama's proposed spending cuts aren't entirely the kind of change Congress can believe in," the Los Angeles Times' Richard Simon writes. "A determination to protect the power over the purse — something Congress has fiercely guarded since the earliest days of the republic — was on display Thursday as the House and Senate approved a bill preserving funding for a number of programs the White House had sought to cut. It was the latest move by lawmakers in both parties to support projects they consider important to their states — and perhaps to their reelection prospects." The president's Friday, per ABC's Sunlen Miller: "This morning, President Obama will sign the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009, providing funding for low-income people with HIV/AIDS. … Later the president will hold his seventh formal meeting on Afghanistan and Pakistan and sit down with his Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Situation Room." The new stimulus jobs report is out Friday afternoon: "Obama administration officials expect new reports Friday to show that the government's fiscal stimulus program helped create or save about 650,000 jobs, a figure officials are prepared to tout as a significant sign of stimulus success," The Wall Street Journal's Maya Jackson Randall reports. A senior administration official e-mails Politico's Mike Allen: "We anticipate that these reports will credit the Recovery Act with directly creating or saving about 650,000 jobs. Because these reports show that less than half of the spending through that date created or saved about 650,000 jobs, they confirm government and private forecaster's estimates that overall Recovery Act spending has created and saved at least 1 million jobs." Pre-buttal statement from House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, as provided to The Note: "The trillion dollar ‘stimulus' isn't working, and no amount of phony statistics can change that. The President and his economic team promised the ‘stimulus' would create jobs ‘immediately' and unemployment would stay below eight percent But America has lost more than three million jobs since then, and the unemployment rate is nearing double digits. While Washington keeps spending and piling more debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren, out-of-work families keep asking, ‘where are the jobs?' " A balancing act, on the economy: "Tugged in different political directions, the White House is seeking credit for good economic news and trying to escape blame for the bad stuff," the AP's Tom Raum writes. "President Barack Obama greeted as "obviously welcome news" a government report showing the economy grew 3.5 percent from July through September after four quarters of declines. That's unofficial confirmation that the long, harsh recession has ended. But he had to serve it up with a dose of political reality." Drawing close to Election Day — and maybe getting a little bit nervous: "One of President Barack Obama's key political advisers has become the central strategist in New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine's bruising campaign for re-election, a race the White House desperately wants to win to avert the consequences for its own agenda of a Republican winning in a traditionally Democratic state," Politico's Ben Smith reports. "The White House was so concerned about Corzine's chances during the summer that Corzine's aides feared the first-term governor was being pressured to step aside for a stronger candidate. Those fears turned out to be groundless, but were part of the reason Corzine hired Joel Benenson, who has helped impose discipline on a struggling campaign and crystallize Corzine's aggressive attacks on the character of his Republican opponent, former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie," he writes. "For the White House, it's a crucial symbolic prize." Don't read too much into the Big Three contests, Charlie Cook warns: "The most likely outcome this year is a split decision," he writes for National Journal. "Whatever the outcome of this year's New Jersey and Virginia governor's races, the results will depend on conflicting factors that are unlikely to be replicated in many contests next year. Beware, then, of drawing sweeping conclusions." "No matter how they are spun, rerun and overdone, the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races are not national referenda," writes Walter Shapiro, at Politics Daily. "But if you are stubbornly determined to try to find lasting answers in the 2009 results, then ignore the macro (counting up what party won what) and concentrate instead on the micro (small trends buried in the exit polls and the actual returns)." Pre-game spin from the Democratic side: "I think you are seeing play out this fight that's going on within the Republican Party nationally between those who believe that the Republican Party is not ideologically pure enough yet, that they're not holding to their ideals, and those who believe there should be greater pragmatism and breadth of opinion within the Republican Party," Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., told reporters at a Christian Science Monitor Breakfast, per ABC's David Chalian. Profiles in courage, in NY-23: "The House Republican leadership is prepared to welcome Doug Hoffman into its ranks, National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) said Thursday, a sign that the GOP establishment is recalibrating its approach toward the contentious New York special election and the Conservative Party nominee whose candidacy has divided the party," Alex Isenstadt and Josh Kraushaar write for Politico. The debate tells the story: "Now that Hoffman has emerged as the GOP's best bet for holding the Republican seat, the Democratic candidate, Bill Owens, used a Thursday debate to tie Hoffman to the Club for Growth, an anti-tax group which has backed Hoffman, and ignored the Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava," ABC's Teddy Davis writes. How to become a celebrity in Congress without really trying (or, by trying just a little): "In today's Congress, the propriety of a gentleman and $5 will get you lots of committee work and a ham sandwich. Embrace the new media landscape, however, and you can break out in the national media fun house as an Internet and cable-news populist. Fame and campaign cash await," Time's Michael Scherer and Jay Newton-Small write. "Just take a look at this year's two great breakout stars of partisanship: Florida Democrat Alan Grayson and Minnesota Republican Michele Bachmann." Coming up on "This Week" Sunday: Presidential advisor Valerie Jarrett. And on the roundtable: George Will, former Clinton White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers, former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie, Ron Brownstein of National Journal, and the Rev. Al Sharpton.
The Kicker: "MyCongressmanisNuts.com was formed due to outrage and embarrassment within Central Florida over Alan Grayson's liberal positions and childish approach in Washington, D.C." — Press release announcing the new PAC, MyCongressmanIsNuts, based in Grayson's Central Florida district.
For up-to-the-minute political updates check out The Note's blog . . . all day every day:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
Of course the GOP, Blue Dogs and others will attack the details, especially the details that help and favor ordinary people.
I believe in a strong public option. Polls show a majority of people want a public option.
This is a test for congress. Will they continue to represent the lobbyists, huge corporations, and vested interests. Or will they act a different way this time?
I suspect they will cop out, just like always. Remember Medicare D? The big corporations, their congressional robots, and George W. Bush ripped everybody off. The people and the government.
Posted by: JAB | October 30, 2009, 9:13 am 9:13 am
Today’s Bill: Public Option in.
Tomorrow’s: No Public Option.
Day after: Public Option in.
..
..
so on..
Posted by: Freedom | October 30, 2009, 9:18 am 9:18 am
To JAB -
Other polls show a majority against a public option… you conveniently believe in the ones that support your position.
“Public Insurance” has been tried before in various forms in states like Hawaii and Tennessee… it doesn’t work.
I support health savings accounts, tort reform and buying across state lines.
Posted by: Shane | October 30, 2009, 9:33 am 9:33 am
Nanny Pelosi poor baby!
Posted by: LongT | October 30, 2009, 9:34 am 9:34 am
How do you spell toast?
Posted by: LongT | October 30, 2009, 9:36 am 9:36 am
She says 96% of americans will be covered. Thats not all. When you run the numbers only a 6% increase is tabulated for increase coverage compared to right now. Then she says this is for us all. She is not included. She continues with the best health care in the world. This is so bogus. Please California get her out….
Posted by: Jim Rod | October 30, 2009, 9:38 am 9:38 am
Why are dems bemoaning the fact that those opposed will be looking at every detail of the bill? What should they do? Turn a blind eye and go on how they feel like most democrats? I don’t think so; it’s time for some judging of the facts written down by the dems. If they can’t stand the analysis then this bill deserves to fail.
Posted by: afkbrad | October 30, 2009, 9:41 am 9:41 am
It’s up to you California!
Posted by: LongT | October 30, 2009, 9:43 am 9:43 am
Shane | Oct 30, 2009 9:33:44 AM…..I have family that lives in Hawaii. They said the program lasted about 9 months and was going to have devastating financial consequences for the state if the program was not stopped.
Posted by: deanbob | October 30, 2009, 9:48 am 9:48 am
Thank you Nancy. Now Vote on it. I still say you should have forced the vote on the robust public option. I would have been just as happy with a list of politicians to send packing. The more republicans cry the better it must be for the people. I was hoping for some republican screaming agony. The voters would be pouring salt into their wounds coming the 2010 elections.
Posted by: rightbehind | October 30, 2009, 9:50 am 9:50 am
Two words. Dole pinapple!
Posted by: LongT | October 30, 2009, 9:54 am 9:54 am
Oh, poor ABC… Instead of focusing on Nancy’s outfit or her hairstyle those (?:”&%!@) constituents are talking about who will be paying for all this mess.
Posted by: H1N1hysteria | October 30, 2009, 10:12 am 10:12 am
If You want to know why the Republicants are against a public option try looking at their main Campaign Contributors — Start with Mitch Mcconnell who got Millions from insurance Companies.Then go down the line and see why the GOP – the “Got Our Payola” Party-
are against Health Reform.
Posted by: brian | October 30, 2009, 10:13 am 10:13 am
The public option only is available to those who do not have health insurance, if you currently have insurance you can not have the public option you have to keep what you have. This bill is designed to give the insurance companies 47 million more payers, I think we are being lied to again. Then if someone cant pay your tax dollars will be at work.
Posted by: earl | October 30, 2009, 10:13 am 10:13 am
JAB – No, “most people” do NOT want a public option. Read the polls! A public option means government control of our healthcare system and people finally realize it! My God, why would ANYONE want Washington to be in charge of our health??!! Try tort reform, letting people buy insurance across state borders and taking care of the 15% who CANNOT afford health care. Leave the rest of us ALONE!
Posted by: M. Summer | October 30, 2009, 10:16 am 10:16 am
Brian – You need to read the news once in awhile. There was a report this week on the profits of the insurance companies. They were WAY behind most big corporations. Their profits are 3% where others are much, much more. Open your eyes, folks. You are walking into the biggest scam every produced by politicians!
Posted by: M. Summer | October 30, 2009, 10:18 am 10:18 am
Bounce Lieberman.
Seriouisly, if Lieberman filibusters one of two things have to happen:
Lieberman is dropped from our caucus; or
We get rid of the filibuster altogether.
Now, I am not sure I want to get rid of the filibuster, but it may be necessary. We cannot work on one piece of legislation for one year and have one guy filibuster it to death.
No Way. Now How. No Lieberman.
Posted by: teo | October 30, 2009, 10:23 am 10:23 am
Nancy Pelosi is a joke. For her to
stand up and sell this as something
more than a political point, I may
suggest she be the first to sign up
for a brain scan and see if there really is anything rattling around
that skull of hers. The name for this
healthcare bill should be Lollapelosi.
Its a big show with lots of glitz but
no social redeeming value.
Posted by: wis134 | October 30, 2009, 10:24 am 10:24 am
7 Years, 428 Percent Profits:
Farm Economics
The most staggering statistic was that from 2000 to 2007, profits at the top 10 publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428%. Talk about beating the stock market…
This lack of competition is especially bad for small non-profit organizations or people who are self-employed or own small businesses. In a consolidated market, an insurance company can set prices as high as they want, and small groups or individuals don’t have the ability to purchase policies “in bulk”, so it’s like they’re paying retail for something larger businesses and organizations can buy wholesale.
Small businesses, entrepreneurs and self-employed workers are the lifeblood of rural communities. Without health reform that works for them, the economies of our rural communities will continue to suffer. Yet our rural states are some of the most consolidated in the country.
Of the list of top 10 most consolidated health insurance states, only two – Hawaii and Rhode Island – have a rural population of less than 30% of their total population.
Health care coverage must be affordable, accessible, and available to everyone:
A public plan option – one that consumers can choose if they want to – is necessary to guarantee competition among insurers
Reform that includes meaningful options for small business and the self-employed will bolster entrepreneurship
Talk about your own experience with health care, or the importance of health care reform to your community
It’s the role of government to protect citizens from abuse by big corporations. It’s time we raise our voices and demand equality in health care.
Posted by: gus amaral | October 30, 2009, 10:31 am 10:31 am
The insurers profits exceed the oil profits!
In 2008, Exxon-Mobil Profits Up 250% Since 2000.
Posted by: gus amaral | October 30, 2009, 10:36 am 10:36 am
2008: Exxon-Mobil Profits Up 250% Since 2000, American Worker Wages Stagnant.
Insurance companies have the oil industry beat! Imagine all that profit from the sick and dying.
Posted by: gus amaral | October 30, 2009, 10:39 am 10:39 am
Well let’s see we have frick running the congress, frack running the senate and fruck running the WH!!! How did our Country come to this??? Oh Yeah CHANGE???????? I can’t even laugh anymore! It’s pathetic!!! Come on 2010 & 2012!
Posted by: lovingpolitics | October 30, 2009, 10:41 am 10:41 am
In other words, they want to nit-pick the bill to death. I sure hope there are better people ready to challenge the members of congress at the next election. We needs people who are FOR the people.
Posted by: Wayne | October 30, 2009, 11:03 am 11:03 am
Polls do NOT show that a majority of Americans want a strong public option. As a matter of fact neither stance (option or no option) has a “majority” in favor of it. The most that either side can garner, in the various polls that I have read, show that there IS a plurality that indicates that 48% of Americans polled are against the Public Option and 43% are for it. That represents that most of those polled do NOT want this plan. Sorry if the numbers rain on your parade, but if you want to use poll results, then use them honestly.
Posted by: ncpilot09 | October 30, 2009, 11:07 am 11:07 am
This is going to be easy for the repubs to take back congress in 2010 with this bunch of idiots in charge. These guys are way worse than the Bush era.
Posted by: JJJ | October 30, 2009, 11:11 am 11:11 am
I’m rather new to these boards, but I’m far from new in following this health care debate. In the last few weeks, for a reason I did not yet know, every time I have heard, read, or seen debate over health care reform, I could not stop thinking about our invasion of Iraq in 2003 and Franklin Roosevelt. I know… you’re asking “what the hell does that have to do with anything?” For a while, I couldn’t answer that question because frankly I didn’t know, but now? Now I do.
In 2003 when we invaded Iraq the public was split down the middle as to whether to support the measure or not. World opinion frowned upon it horribly, and al though most in Congress supported it, many of them did so in a very cautious and overly reluctant way. Without that kind of unanimous support that is usually needed when entering any armed conflict, our resolve for being in Iraq faded quicker then any of us could blink. Keep that in mind as I will get back to it in a minute, and don’t worry… all the pieces of my riddle will fit soon.
From Iraq, you go to the exact opposite way of thinking which revolves around FDR. As early as 1939 Roosevelt knew that sooner or later an armed conflict with Japan would become unavoidable. In addition, the second Germany invaded Poland in September of that year, he likewise knew that the direct involvement of the United States into the war in Europe could only be prolonged to a certain point. The reason Roosevelt did not immediately enter our country into war with either Japan or the Germans was very simplistic: lack of public resolve. After World War I, most of America felt that the loss of American lives in the war was wasteful and without reason, so we adopted somewhat of an isolation style approach towards worldly affairs. Unless there was a direct threat towards American lives and unless there was American blood spilt, we wished to keep our nose out of the business of others (how far we have come from that way of thinking-lol).
With all of the above said, allow me to make my point. It seems as though those in Congress have not learned from the history of our country, most noticeably the two issues I have mentioned (Iraq/FDR). To say that the health care debate has been the cause for division, argument, and the polarizing of support would be a gross understatement. Merely one aspect of the debate alone has split the country. The “public” option has nowhere near unanimous support in either Congress of the general public. I’m not saying that it lacks more support then opposition, but I’m not saying the opposite either. If you go by the polls, the picture appears rather hazy. For instance, in the latest NBC/WSJ poll, the support of the public option is at 48% and opposition is at 42%. However, if you read the specifics of the poll, just under half of those polled were admitted “Democrats.” In addition, if you go to Rasmussen, support for the public option is at 46% while opposition is at 52%. For every poll putting the public option ahead, there is another poll which puts it behind.
Being as objective as a person can be, I think it would be justified to say that opinion of this one issue which lies within the health care debate is split. However, that is ONLY ONE ISSUE. You must also take into account the countless other issues and divisions within the overall debate which have split the country. What about the cost to the taxpayer? How will version of the bill will impact the federal deficit, quality of care, limitation of the free market, the fabric of the Constitution, competency of our government, “death panels,” federal funding for abortions, or coverage to illegal aliens? Those in favor of health reform have attempted to address these questions, but have not convinced enough Americans that the impact on any of these issues will be positive.
Regardless of whether you support or oppose the health reform proposals set forth by both the Senate and the House, I think most people (aside from those on the far far left or far far right) would agree that America is not exactly united in either its support or opposition of these proposals. It saddens me that we have not taken a deep look at the history of this country. When we have been united, the sky has been the limit in any endeavor we have undertaken. Yet, when we are split, just as we are now in this debate, or as we were in Iraq, or just as we would have been had we entered the second World War 2 years before we actually did, we are destined to fail. At this point in time, if such sweeping health care legislation is to be passed with far more questions then answers and with such deep deep division, history tells us that, despite our best intentions, we will fail. Now is not the time to defy what is al ready set in stone.
Posted by: Chris | October 30, 2009, 11:14 am 11:14 am
Not to change the subject…but, is anyone else still stunned by Sec. Clinton’s reception in Pakistan? The news that Pakistanis are insulted we put a rider on the billions of dollars we gave them, asking them to promise to try and defeat the extremists using their country as a safe have? The reports of all those Pakastani airing their grievances against the US while our soldiers lose their lives fighting terrorists in their country? OK, I can see the Pakastani resenting our presence in their nation, and the horror of civilians killed by drones, but I wasn’t hearing any understanding on their part that the Taliban and al-Qaeda pose a bigger threat to them then we do. Perhaps they like the extremists. OK. Perhaps we should withdraw from the region, let the extremists takeover Pakistan, and we can use our money here at home, on healthcare and homeland security. Why not?
Posted by: Amy in Maine | October 30, 2009, 11:15 am 11:15 am
Gee Gus, where did you get your “facts”? Moveon.org, the dailyKos, or the white house propaganda website??
Insurance companies ranked 37th among the nations large companies for profits at under 3%. Where does your 428 figure come from? If you are going to ell tall tells.. at least let us know what you are using as a sourse.
THERE IS NO MAJORITY SUPPORT FOR A PUBLIC OPTION !!!!
The 84% of americans who have health insurance support tort reform, purchasing across state lines and providing government subsidized healthcare for those citizens who can’t afford it. BUT – we do not support the governmental takeover of our healthcare, taxation of company sponsored Healthcare plans, the reduction of senior medicare advantage programs, OR a public option that will in Obama’s own words “eliminate private insurance companies and move the country to single payer government healthcare within 10 years” (2005).
Posted by: arkievet | October 30, 2009, 11:23 am 11:23 am
gus amaral
Try real facts posted not from a blog on changeorg, lmao
Posted by: plopsdad | October 30, 2009, 11:29 am 11:29 am
Chris
You say yourself that FDR understood the Nazi threat before we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, but he could not act because the public would not support it.
I’m assuming you believe a lack of public support make it impossible for FDR to do the right thing, and confront the threat earlier.
Then, you turn around and say, because the public is split on health care reform we should not go forward. In other words, you want to wait for premiums to go up even more, more people to die or go bankrupt because they can’t pay for medical care, our economy to falter due to health care costs, before we attempt reform. Sounds like its you who cannot learn from history: let’s do the right thing and let the Republicans cry in their beer.
Posted by: Amy in Maine | October 30, 2009, 11:32 am 11:32 am
plopsdad arkievet
I suppose you believe health insurance agencies are charitable organizations that have taken on administrating our health care system out of the goodness of their souls? Perhaps their executives were specifically chosen by the Angel Gabriel, who asked God if they could have 20 million dollar bonuses on top of being assured a seat in heaven? And God said…”yea unto you will come a summer house in the Hamptons, thus are righteous executives rewarded for denying care to those who do not work for big companies. Blessed are the profit-makers.”
Posted by: Amy in Maine | October 30, 2009, 11:42 am 11:42 am
stickman
If you see me on here all day and night, what do YOU do for a living?
I do work, my job is long and boring and I post here because it keeps my mind engaged.
I have medical, dental and vision insurance on this job, which is by far the easiest job I have ever held, and I actually get benefits, go figure! That’s America for you, suck on the corporate teat and you get bennies, work at a really difficult and challenging job and go without health insurance. Been there, done that. Now I post all day on a news sites and I only have a $10.00 co-pay! PS My premium is $60.00 a month, jealous?
Posted by: Amy in Maine | October 30, 2009, 11:49 am 11:49 am
Amy, I never said one way or another whether I did or did not support health care reform. All I questioned was the timing. In addition, you trash Republicans in your statement. Are you under the assumption that I am one of them? If so, please don’t assume anything Amy.
Finally, what makes you any different then George W. Bush in 2003? I remember him and Cheney stating “would you rather wait to invade Iraq until they ship WMD to rouge groups who will use them to kill innocent civilians?” How is your argument any different? Is health care in this country a mess? Of course it is, but will it lead to some sort of apocalyptic scenario that many on the far left assume it will come to if we do not pass these precise bills just like Bush said our country would be practically doomed if we didn’t invade Iraq? That is debateable. I’m not saying I agree or disagree with the notion of those on the far left, but am merely pointing out that if these Pelosi/Reid bills pass, the margin for error is so thin that you can barely see it because there is no united support.
If we are going to restructure 1/6 of the economy, and change the way health care overall is operated in this country, wouldn’t you personally want it done with the blessing of at least 2/3 or 3/4 of the country as opposed to barely half of the U.S. Senate which is finding it problematic to push forth their bill in a part of Congress they themselves control? Think about that hun. Please. :)
Posted by: Chris | October 30, 2009, 11:50 am 11:50 am
Snow White and friends
Pinocchio, Snow White, and Superman are out for a stroll in town one day. As they walked, they come across a sign: “Beauty contest for the most beautiful woman in the world.”
“I am entering!” said Snow White. After half an hour she comes out and they ask her, “Well, how’d you do?”
” First Place !” said Snow White.
They continue walking and they see a sign: “Contest for the strongest man in the world.”
“I’m entering,” says Superman. After half an hour, he returns and they ask him, “How did you make out?”
” First Place ,” answers Superman. “Did you ever doubt?”
They continue walking when they see a sign: “Contest! Who is the greatest liar in the world?” Pinocchio enters.
After half an hour he returns with tears in his eyes.
“What happened?” they asked.
“Who the hell is Nancy Pelosi?” asked Pinocchio.
Posted by: A True American Citizen | October 30, 2009, 11:51 am 11:51 am
“THERE IS NO MAJORITY SUPPORT FOR A PUBLIC OPTION !!!!”
Sure there is.
Public option support/opposition
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll Oct. 22-25, 2009
support- 48%
oppose- 42%
USA Today/Gallup Poll. Oct. 16-19, 2009
support- 50%
oppose- 46%
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009
support- 61%
oppose- 38%
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Oct. 15-18, 2009
support- 57%
oppose- 40%
Kaiser Family Foundation Kaiser Health Tracking Poll. Oct. 8-15, 2009
support- 57%
oppose- 39%
CBS News Poll. Oct. 5-8, 2009
support- 62%
oppose- 31%
Ipsos/McClatchy Poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs. Oct. 1-5, 2009
support- 53%
oppose- 42%
Posted by: gary | October 30, 2009, 11:55 am 11:55 am
“In other words, they want to nit-pick the bill to death. I sure hope there are better people ready to challenge the members of congress at the next election. We needs people who are FOR the people.”
—
Which people are you talking about. I’m an American citizen just like, hopefully, you are. You believe that Congress should do what you want, totally ignoring a huge number of fellow Americans. Including me.
I am for health insurance reform; heck I would like to see health care reform. But that’s not what Congress is working on.
I also expect, no…demand…that all members of Congress take the time to study and ponder AND pick this thing to pieces. That is what they are there for…not rubber-stamp whatever is shoved under their nose.
Posted by: malcat | October 30, 2009, 12:04 pm 12:04 pm
Gary
You’re not wrong, but you’re not right either. Yes, those are the exact results of polls you listed. That cannot be debated. However, look into who they polled. On many of those results (most notably the NBC/WSJ poll) a majority of the people polled are self described Democrats. I’m not saying that makes the polls null and void, but it does make the support they project to be somewhat of a “best case scenario.” I always go to Rasmussen. The polling is the most balanced. In the last two Presidential election they were dead on all throughout. Take care. :)
Posted by: Chris | October 30, 2009, 12:04 pm 12:04 pm
As for polls, I never read them except to shake my head at the total absurdity of them.
Polls are useless because of the low number of persons actually polled versus the total ‘population’ they then extrapolate to.
I’m a data analyst trained in statistics. It is stupid to ask 1000 people a question and then use the percentages from those 1000 against the millions of vastly independent, free-thinking, onery Americans.
If you gather a group of 10 strangers and ask their OPINION, you are going to get at least 5 very different viewpoints. Not to mention the rousing discussion that will then ensue.
This is totally different from calling someone to ask: “Do you believe the public insurance option is good for the country…Yes or No?”
Posted by: malcat | October 30, 2009, 12:10 pm 12:10 pm
Chris
Reform isn’t easy, Democracy is loud and contentious. I do not agree with your judgment we should shelve reform because it doesn’t have universal support.
You may not know this, but in the latest Wall Street Journal poll, only 25% of Americans viewed the Republican Party positively, while 46% viewed the Democrat Party favorably. You wouldn’t know it from the amount of publicity the MSM gives Palin, Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, et al, but most Americans are not right wing conservatives, or even Republicans.
Posted by: Amy in Maine | October 30, 2009, 12:11 pm 12:11 pm
“Perhaps we should withdraw from the region, let the extremists takeover Pakistan, and we can use our money here at home, on healthcare and homeland security. Why not?”
Amy, I like your thinking on principle. On the bad days when my family hasn’t heard from our loved ones for a few days, I have thought the same thing. Of course, on the REALLY bad days I add the thought: and if you let the terrorists get out of hand, we’ll come back and bomb the &^$# out of you.
But then reason returns….until the next time. I just wish we would either get the job done right and fast, or bring them all home.
Posted by: malcat | October 30, 2009, 12:15 pm 12:15 pm
Amy, don’t bury the Republican Party so quickly. Those of us who can think WILL get rid of the lunatic fringe.
I suggest Democrats start working on their own loonies as well.
Then and only then can this nation become united again.
Posted by: malcat | October 30, 2009, 12:18 pm 12:18 pm
“A random sample, therefore would have to contain more Democrats then Republicans, to be an accurate representation, yes?”
No.
Amy, please read my post about polls. It will explain my answer.
Posted by: malcat | October 30, 2009, 12:25 pm 12:25 pm
Amy, I was talking about this bill, not your coverage. What does it cover? Why would I care about the excellent coverage you get now? I am trying to figure out what it will be replaced with.
Posted by: stickman | October 30, 2009, 12:27 pm 12:27 pm
“I am trying to figure out what it will be replaced with.”
—
Me too, stickman, me too. I have good coverage right now thru my employer. But that coverage will disappear faster than a drop of water on a hot griddle when reform kicks in.
I have to have insurance, and I will probably have to settle for a very cheap policy if I lose EGHP. So whatever Congress cooks up, it better be darn good.
Posted by: malcat | October 30, 2009, 12:31 pm 12:31 pm
Amy, just because a party is considered favorably does not mean that a person identifies themselves as apart of that party. In fact, if this were 1998 I would say I viewed Democrats very favorably, but would be damned if I called myself one of them. The people in some of these polls (including the NBC/WSJ poll) were asked point blank “are you a Democrat, Republican, or neither?” And most of them replied Democrat, which is somewhat of an uneven balance when I objectivley feel that the largest party is the one that does not have one…Independents. I feel party ideology is too one sided, which is why I prefer polls like Rasmussen or Gallup because the field is largely more balanced. :)
Chris
PS-Sounds like you and I have the same kind of job. lol. :)
Posted by: Chris | October 30, 2009, 12:37 pm 12:37 pm
Oh, and one more thing I just noticed (to Amy) I at NO POINT said i wished to halt reform. I am not saying that at all. We need health reform incredibly, but we cant have reform just to have reform. In otherwords, don’t do it recklessly. If the problem was just reform in general there would be no problem… most Americans agree there should be reform, but in regards to these SPECIFIC bills put forth both in the House and Senate, the divisions are far too wide to be safe. It is as if we would be cutting off our nose to spite our face.
Posted by: Chris | October 30, 2009, 12:40 pm 12:40 pm
google “insurers profits 400% over last 7 years”
you’ll get a plethora of sources.
Posted by: gus amaral | October 30, 2009, 12:41 pm 12:41 pm
Obama,Pelosi and Reid are walking the democrats off the cliff by shoving this massive government entitlement program down the people throats…I can’t wait for election day
Posted by: phillysmart | October 30, 2009, 12:52 pm 12:52 pm
A little help for the moron that wrote this piece. We all want to reform health care and it’s high prices. The problem you don’t seem to understand is that hidden in the ‘details’ of any law or bill is where the idiots, like Pelosi, will bury things that will ruin you as a person or the US as a nation. With the vague verbiage, they will be able to interpret things anyway they want and we will all be on the losing end.
Posted by: James L. | October 30, 2009, 12:53 pm 12:53 pm
When our founding fathers wrote the Constitution they put limits on the power of the federal government, specifically they gave the federal government 17 enumerated powers and all other powers were left to the individual states. Nowhere is the provision of providing health care or the provision of the government running health care included as one of these 17 enumerated powers. The founding fathers left this as a power to be dealt with by the individual states as their design was to have a small federal government, over the years power hungry politicians have felt that the federal government should grow giving the federal government more and more power over the people instead of a small government which answered to the people.
Posted by: A True American Citizen | October 30, 2009, 12:54 pm 12:54 pm
Gus amaral where are you getting your facts? From the DNC? Insurance makes between 5% and 10% How does that equate to 50% and 100% for the oil companies?? Please explain
Posted by: Jim Rod | October 30, 2009, 12:55 pm 12:55 pm
The entire proposed bill(s)is JUNK!I’ve seen better results come from a sewer outfall
Posted by: Gunrunner | October 30, 2009, 12:58 pm 12:58 pm
Gus, you are using HCAN? Nice try. Why not go to yahoo finance and look up under key statistics for each company and compare for yourself. Since you like google (GOOG) lets start there. How about a 21.73% profit margin? How about Humana? 2.79%. Get it? Do your own research. Try a few others it’s fun!
Posted by: stickman | October 30, 2009, 12:58 pm 12:58 pm
For any health reform plan, have every Congressman and White House member sign a pledge/contract that they will only obtain health care through ‘the’ approved plan. Not fair. Gee. I am 71 and my wife is near my age. By the time any approved ‘plan’ goes into affect, we will be entering a critical window. I am using a lot of my retirement for health insurance now, but I know what I have. The new health plan may not be as favorable to us. I can see some government commissioner saying ‘they’ are too old for us to care about. They may have built this country and fought her many enemies on the battlefield, but we are in control now and it will be what we think is right for everyone.
Posted by: James L. | October 30, 2009, 12:59 pm 12:59 pm
What are those pesky things doing there? What are they called again? Oh that’s right….. FACTS. Hard to dispute are they not Gus? Amy? Anyone?
Posted by: stickman | October 30, 2009, 1:21 pm 1:21 pm
Choose sides and ordinary Americans? The ‘sides’ statement is only inclusive of Democrats or Republicans and the ‘ordinary’ Americans perception is limited to those that are perceived to be members of the entitlement class. So what about the working class that has to pay for this and the independents that are now taking a stand against the fraud being pushed upon them?
Posted by: TX_MBell | October 30, 2009, 1:28 pm 1:28 pm
stickman
Accoding to FactCheck.org, insurance company profits have not gone up this year.
Why, Wellpoint’s $693 million for the quarter paled next to its third quarter 2008 profit of nearly $821 million. it appears to me that as the recession forces companies to tighten up, they are dropping insurance for more employees. Lower profits for insurance companies. Poor insurance companies! And to think they provide such a valuable service by keeping health care costs down (not.)
Posted by: Amy in Maine | October 30, 2009, 1:38 pm 1:38 pm
I would much prefer the government give the insurance companies some competion-right now our health decisions are being decided by bean counters in the insurance companies..not by us, not by our doctors based on their medical opinions…I have health insurance thru my union..it has high deductables, so that I cannot afford to use it, try to figure out what is covered, and what they will approve..it is a disgrace…insurance companies only want to insure those least likely to get sick, you only have to look at recent history to see they are trying to exclude many americans from getting ANY insurance.
Posted by: cowgirl | October 30, 2009, 1:41 pm 1:41 pm
“UnitedHealth Group had reported its earnings for the second quarter of 2009, which beat analysts’ expectations with profit of $859 million. Still, other quarters have been more profitable for the insurer, such as the first quarter of 2008, when profit rang in at $994 million.
Humana Inc. logged a quarterly profit of almost $282 million. But in the third quarter of 2007, it rang up $302 million in profits. Aetna came in at $347 million in profit for the quarter, which lagged behind its $480 million of a year earlier”
Amazing. What do these companies produce, invent, serve to, the public that warrants profits like these? I mean, oil companies drill for oil we use for energy. Jack-in-the-box produces lunch. Why SHOULD insurance agencies make this much profit?
Posted by: Amy in Maine | October 30, 2009, 1:51 pm 1:51 pm
Amy, you have to be kidding. I shouldn’t even respond to your question because you know the answer and just don’t like it. Insurance companies pool risk. Plain and simple. It’s not free to underwrite and administrate policies. You post these HUGE numbers but again avoid facts. What about MSFT? You know that wonderful guy Bill Gates company? 24.46% profit margin, go after them. Cigna on the other hand….3.2%. See you can throw out your big bad numbers and ignore the truth but people like me won’t let you get away with it and spread false emotions.
Posted by: stickman | October 30, 2009, 2:13 pm 2:13 pm
stickman
I have no problem with companies making a profit, even for goods and services that are not as valuable as what Microsoft provides. Coke and Pepsi are two examples of companies making a profit on an unnecessary service. But i don’t have to pay PepsiCo., if I am dehydrated, I can go over to the water fountain and drink municipal water.
Posted by: Amy in Maine | October 30, 2009, 2:26 pm 2:26 pm
Yes you are right, and if you are sick you can go to the emergency room, free clinics, and the health department. That’s three choices right there. I wish there were three different flavored water fountains.
Posted by: stickman | October 30, 2009, 2:32 pm 2:32 pm
Humana, collects enough money in premiums to cover the costs of managing the risk pool, PLUS they earn a profit of $282 million in just three months? And that is one company?
What if the government collected the premium, and used the “profit” to cover the people currently clogging our emergency rooms, lowering the costs of health care…which they could pass on to higher salaries for healthcare providers, you know, people who actually provide a valuable service? I’m just saying.
Posted by: Amy in Maine | October 30, 2009, 2:36 pm 2:36 pm
The Uk has the 3rd largest employer in the world. It’s called their health care system. Their economy is in the worst shape of any 1st world country. Canada is following their lead just on a smaller scale. Medicare here=broke, Social Security=broke, post office, fannie, freddie, soon GM and on and on and on. I have no faith the government will make a “profit” in anything. In fact this is VERY similar to how Fannie and Freddie started. Look how that turned out. Can’t wait can you?
Posted by: stickman | October 30, 2009, 2:54 pm 2:54 pm
I’m not big on showing weakness. It’s not my thing,” Speaker Pelosi
I guess cutting of water to the farmers in CA so her vineyard has water is good for all.
Posted by: Lizzie | October 30, 2009, 2:57 pm 2:57 pm
stickman
I prefer to focus on facts, not partisan ideology.
For instance, that the post office can deliver a letter from Maine to Wasilla, Alaska for just .44 cents. FedEx can’t do that. That the VA provides first class health care to veterans and their families (my mom is in the Augusta Veteran’s Home, they have a wonderful staff1) That the healthiest, happiest, wealthiest countries are in Scandanavia!
Posted by: Amy in Maine | October 30, 2009, 3:07 pm 3:07 pm
White House Chalks Up 650,000 Jobs to Stimulus: October 30, 2009
The federal stimulus program has saved or created nearly 650,000 jobs through aid to states, infrastructure projects and federal contracts, the Obama administration claimed Friday morning, adding that officials believe they are on track to meet their goal of 3.5 million jobs over two years.
The new figures are based on reports being released today from 131,000 recipients of the stimulus money and are intended to give the clearest sense to date of how many jobs are being created or saved directly by the stimulus. Until this month, most jobs figures have been based on the estimates of economists — not actual reports.
The figures do not include jobs indirectly created by the money pumped into the economy through tax cuts, unemployment benefits and aid to states for Medicaid. If those were included, the administration estimates, the tally would rise to more than 1 million jobs saved or created.
Posted by: gus amaral | October 30, 2009, 3:12 pm 3:12 pm
Again, you are not wrong, but they are broke, that’s a fact. You can’t argue that. It’s simply not possible. With that being said sure we can pass this bill and it will be an even worse disaster. All politics aside I have no problem providing the less fortunate a better avenue. This bill is not it. How about one step at a time? Why should we force people who are young or who self insure to buy an insurance plan? Why not instead provide a subsidy for those in the position that want insurance but can’t afford it. Would that not make more sense? How about letting me shop in Oklahoma if I live in New York? How about working on cutting the cost of actual healthcare instead of crushing the insurance industry. Think about this, this started out as HEALTH care reform, now it’s health INSURANCE reform. Insurance is not an enemy and certainly not the problem. Let’s slow this thing down and get it right. What do ya say?
Posted by: stickman | October 30, 2009, 3:15 pm 3:15 pm
NY: October 30, 2009:
Sensitive to the criticisms of Republicans in Washington, the Obama administration invited a marquee Republican to the White House to praise the stimulus: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, whose state has faced perhaps the most severe budget crisis in the nation.
“Some of our colleagues are saying that it hasn’t done much, or was a waste of money,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said, sharing the stage with Mr. Biden. “Well, I would dispute that.”
He said the stimulus had created or saved more than 100,000 jobs in California, more than half of which were the jobs of teachers, professors and school administrators. The governor noted that some people have questioned whether those teachers would actually have been laid off: without the stimulus, he said, “No, those teachers would have been gone.”
Posted by: gus amaral | October 30, 2009, 3:16 pm 3:16 pm
PolitiFact:
[is a project of the St. Petersburg Times to help you find the truth in
PolitiFact is a project of the St. Petersburg Times to help you find the truth in American politics. Reporters and editors from the Times fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups and rate them on our Truth-O-Meter.] newspaper from Florida–?a red state
“Rockefeller’s stated 400 percent… the numbers Rockefeller used reflect 10 of the biggest companies as opposed to “insurance companies” in general. On the other hand, the increase exceeded 400 percent for the period 2001 to 2007, and however you slice the numbers, the rise in insurer profits is large indeed.”
Posted by: gus amaral | October 30, 2009, 3:29 pm 3:29 pm
stickman
Lets pass healthcare reform next month, and if we don’t like how it works, we can change it! Why not?
Posted by: Amy in Maine | October 30, 2009, 3:31 pm 3:31 pm
Okay, Just not this “Insurance” reform.
Posted by: stickman | October 30, 2009, 3:55 pm 3:55 pm
Heres a gem from Nazi Pelosi’s bill that will do absolutly nothing to reduce costs of healthcare. Why is something like this here, this is exactly what is wrong with bills this large.
Section 2531, entitled “Medical Liability Alternatives,” establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But]…… a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys’ fees or imposes caps on damages.
Posted by: Sandcrab1613 | October 30, 2009, 4:06 pm 4:06 pm
The following DISPELLS Several Lies, Spin and Intentional Misrepresentations by the OPPONENTS OF Health Care Reform!!! (Tho’ I know the hard-right-edge won’t let it be “put to rest.”) bobj72
Posted by: gary|Oct 30, 2009 11:55:34 AM
“THERE IS NO MAJORITY SUPPORT FOR A PUBLIC OPTION !!!!”
Sure there is.
Public option support/opposition
NBC News/WS Journal Poll Oct. 22-25, 2009
support- 48%
oppose- 42%
USA Today/Gallup Poll. Oct. 16-19, 2009
support- 50%
oppose- 46%
CNN/Opinion Research Corp.Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009
support- 61%
oppose- 38%
ABC News/Wash. Post Poll. Oct. 15-18, 2009
support- 57%
oppose- 40%
Kaiser Family Foundation Kaiser Health Tracking Poll. Oct. 8-15, 2009
support- 57%
oppose- 39%
CBS News Poll. Oct. 5-8, 2009
support- 62%
oppose- 31%
Ipsos/McClatchy Poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs. Oct. 1-5, 2009
support- 53%
oppose- 42%
bobj72 10.30.09 5:45 PM
Just curious – how would a Government OPTION – charging 10% over Medicare Fees be Government Control of Health Care???
What Costs would ‘look like’, would be the following:
Actual Local
Cost of Service: $100
Medicare Pay: $64
Patient Pay: $36
Public Option: $70.40
Patient Pay: $29.60
Competing
Private Ins.: $80
Patient Pay: $20
Presently @ Plus 30%
Private Ins.: $104
Patient Pay: $26
Presently @ Plus 50%
Private Ins.: $120
Patient Pay: $30
These present-day practices not only continually drive up costs, they also effectively “Artificially Fix” the costs of services in the local areas. That is why it’s said; the only way to reign-in the “predatory” practices of the Private Health Care (“H/C”) Insurer’s is to initiate a “Public Option.” This would bring in 25MM Plus New Consumers, which the Private companies would willingly compete for, if for no other reason but for the Volume!!!
10% of $100 = $10 or $10MM for every 1 Million Consumers. So the 25MM New Consumers spending a more realistic Annual Average of $500 X 10% in Health Care related costs = $1,250,000,000 (Billion) in Gross Profit to the Private H/C Insurer’s. And BELIEVE ME……. that’s enough to encourage any of the “make believe” 1,300 H/C Insurer’s (In reality the number’s more like 40 – 50 H/C Insurer’s) to compete for that business.
Posted by: bobj72 | October 30, 2009, 6:57 pm 6:57 pm
The House Bill eviscerates Medicare breaking every promise government made to Seniors. So when government takes over the rest of Health Care expect government to break all of the promises Nancy Pelosi made yesterday to the American people.
Pelosi promised:
– Lower costs, instead expect Higher costs
– Higher quality, instead expect Lower quality,
– More Choice, instead expect Less Choice
– More competition, instead expect Less Competition
Bottom line, it is impossible to provide quality health care for 30 million more people and at the same time lower costs and increase quality. The reality is the opposite will happen and anyone who says otherwise is a liar.
Below is a summary of what’s in the bill:
Total cost: $1.055 trillion
New Taxes: $572 billion
Cuts to Medicare: $426 billion
Not included: $247 billion needed to stop Medicare payments to doctors from decreasing, pledged to be passed in a separate bill to keep this bill “revenue neutral”
Pages: 1,990
The word regulation appears in the bill 181 times.
The word fees appears in the bill 103 times.
The word tax appears in the bill 214 times.
“As we all know, nothing says ‘affordability’ like higher taxes and fees.”
The word “shall” – as in “must” or “required to” – appears over 3,000 times. “The word, alas, is never preceded by the patriotic phrase “mind our own freaking business.” Not once.”
From Dow Jones Newswires:
“The $1.055 trillion estimate also does not include $245 billion needed to stop Medicare payments to doctors from decreasing, which the House plans to address through separate legislation introduced Thursday.
Posted by: James | October 30, 2009, 8:20 pm 8:20 pm
Another gem from Nazi Pelosi’s bill.
Pages 25-26 of house bill..line 22: “Insufficient funds—If the Secretary estimates for any fiscal year that the aggreate amounts available for payment of expenses of the high-risk pool will be less than the amount of the expenses, the Secretary shall make such adjustments as are necessary to eliminate such deficite, including reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or establishing waiting lists.” Very handy power to have, I should think.
This thing needs to be killed NOW.
Posted by: Sandcrab1613 | October 31, 2009, 4:51 pm 4:51 pm