Why We Have To Pass The Health Care Bill:

[djcraig]

<big>
[b]So that you can find out what is in it!</big>[/b]



<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KoE1R-xH5To&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KoE1R-xH5To&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Finally, a politician speaks the truth- seems it inadvertently slipped out!



<a href="http://www.djcraig.net/los_angeles_dj">DJ Craig</a>

[i_like_lectric_motors]

We also need to pass it so people like the fat chick in the other thread are taken care of. [xx(]

-----------------------------------
Sabrina, don't just stare at it, eat it.

[SallyLightfoot]

Meh. Anyone can take a soundbite from a speech and make political hay with it.

The bill is not a mystery. The final House and Senate bills have been published for months, and the reconciliation plan (a short list of items to remove from the Senate bill, such as the outrageous giveaways to buy-off the blue-dog senators) is also available.

Nancy probably meant to say, "So you can start benefiting from it", but fumbled because only about 10% of the insurance market will see significant changes (the uninsured, purchasers of individual insurance, and very small businesses).

[djcraig]

Thank God we have someone to interpret what expert political spokespeople meant to say.

Let's give Pelosi credit for actually being candid even if it was caused by attempting to speak without precalculating, causing a rare Freudian slip of honesty.

I doubt Pelosi or the majority of Congress understand most of what is in the bill. Except for the sweetheart deals they added and the fact that they will not be subject to...er... get to enjoy the benefits of it.

Not that actually understanding legislation is any longer a requirement to pass it or that the will of the people should influence those who "represent" them.



<a href="http://www.djcraig.net/los_angeles_dj">DJ Craig</a>

[SallyLightfoot]

What Nancy said was clumsy and inarticulate, but note that she's [i]70 years old[/i]. By contrast, you're a lot younger and we've seen frequent examples of your compromised literacy. [:)]

It is true that most members of Congress are not familiar with the low level details of the HCR bills. For the most part, they don't have time-- when Congress isn't in session, they're constantly fund-raising. Which is why they have a staff of a dozen or so aides who read issues and formulate/negotiate policy.<blockquote>[b]djcraig[/b] wrote: "I doubt Pelosi or the majority of Congress understand most of what is in the bill. Except for the sweetheart deals they added and the fact that they will not be subject to...er... get to enjoy the benefits of it."</blockquote>A couple of rebuttals to your (mis)understanding:<ol><li>There won't be "sweetheart deals" in the HCR bill. The Senate bill had a bunch of desperate ones to buy conserva-dem votes, but under reconciliation route those votes are no longer critical, so those deals are being pulled.</li><li>In fact, <a href="http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/11/22/senate-health-care-vote/#ixzz0XhhiW3WY" target="_newb">Congress will be required to use the same health care program</a> (i.e. "the exchange") that the HCR is creating. So the benefits [i]and[/i] flaws of the system will be shared by members of Congress.</li><li>Aggregate polls for Healthcare show that it's tracking in a close range, with 44% in favor and 49% against, and <a href="http://www.pollster.com/blogs/rising_tide_for_hcr_especially.php" target="_djcraig-blowhard">momentum is shifting toward support</a> of the bill.</li></ol><blockquote><a href="http://www.pollster.com/blogs/rising_tide_for_hcr_especially.php" target="_djcraig-blowhard"><img src="http://www.pollster.com/blogs/2010-03-17-hcr-embedded.png" height="222" width="290"></a></blockquote>For the 2012 presidential election, I predict you will see GOP candidates fear-mongering for votes by accusing Democrats of cutting HCR, just as today you (hypocritically) see the GOP accusing Dems of cutting Medicare.

[SallyLightfoot]

[b]Update[/b]: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) rated the reconciled version of the Senate & House HCR bills, and reports the following:<blockquote><a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/cbo_health-care_reform_bill_cu.html" target="_nahnah">[b]Health-care reform bill cuts deficit by $1.3 trillion over 20 years, covers 95%[/b]</a>

"The CBO has finished its work and will release the official preliminary score later today. But here are the basic numbers: The bill will cost $940 billion over the first 10 years and reduce the deficit by $130 billion during that period. In the second 10 years -- so, 2020 to 2029 -- it will reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion. The legislation will cover 32 million Americans, or 95 percent of the legal population.

To put this in context, that's more deficit reduction than either the House or Senate bill, and more coverage than the Senate bill."</blockquote>

[djcraig]

[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
<br>What Nancy said was clumsy and inarticulate, but note that she's [i]70 years old[/i]. By contrast, you're a lot younger and we've seen frequent examples of your compromised literacy. [:)]

It is true that most members of Congress are not familiar with the low level details of the HCR bills. For the most part, they don't have time-- when Congress isn't in session, they're constantly fund-raising. Which is why they have a staff of a dozen or so aides who read issues and formulate/negotiate policy.<blockquote>[b]djcraig[/b] wrote: "I doubt Pelosi or the majority of Congress understand most of what is in the bill. Except for the sweetheart deals they added and the fact that they will not be subject to...er... get to enjoy the benefits of it."</blockquote>A couple of rebuttals to your (mis)understanding:<ol><li>There won't be "sweetheart deals" in the HCR bill. The Senate bill had a bunch of desperate ones to buy conserva-dem votes, but under reconciliation route those votes are no longer critical, so those deals are being pulled.</li><li>In fact, <a href="http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/11/22/senate-health-care-vote/#ixzz0XhhiW3WY" target="_newb">Congress will be required to use the same health care program</a> (i.e. "the exchange") that the HCR is creating. So the benefits [i]and[/i] flaws of the system will be shared by members of Congress.</li><li>Aggregate polls for Healthcare show that it's tracking in a close range, with 44% in favor and 49% against, and <a href="http://www.pollster.com/blogs/rising_tide_for_hcr_especially.php" target="_djcraig-blowhard">momentum is shifting toward support</a> of the bill.</li></ol><blockquote><a href="http://www.pollster.com/blogs/rising_tide_for_hcr_especially.php" target="_djcraig-blowhard"><img src="http://www.pollster.com/blogs/2010-03-17-hcr-embedded.png" height="222" width="290"></a></blockquote>For the 2012 presidential election, I predict you will see GOP candidates fear-mongering for votes by accusing Democrats of cutting HCR, just as today you (hypocritically) see the GOP accusing Dems of cutting Medicare.
[/quote]

First off, only PARTS of Nancy are 70. Many pieces of her face are just a few months old.

As for my comprehension, I can only one day hope to be as cognizant and erudite as you, Sappy. I am working on my cutting and pasting skills to try and reach your level.

The Proposed bill, now that it has been tweaked, spindled, mutilated and finalized is 2,700 pages including 153 pages of last-minute changes that were added after weeks of secrecy-shrouded meetings. Legislators have 72 hours to read and comprehend the entire bill before a vote will be called.

What could go wrong there?

Last year Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) introduced a bill that urges members of Congress who vote to create a government-run health insurance agency to give up their own comprehensive health insurance plans to join the new the public option they advocate for others.

My understanding is that, under the new bill, even after the 5 year grace period, they have the option to opt out.

As for sweetheart deals: [b][i]

-Democratic leaders have included in their revisions a provision worth an estimated $99 million over two years in higher Medicaid payments to Tennessee hospitals in order to win the vote of Rep. Bart Gordon of Tennessee. Sen.

-Ben Nelson of Nebraska got a series of concessions including millions of dollars in federal aid for his home state.

-The bill retains $300 million in extra Medicaid aid for Louisiana, which had helped win support for the Senate health bill from Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La. Keeps $100 million included in the Senate bill that is expected to go for a public hospital in Connecticut sought by Dodd, who is retiring.

-Preserves language won by Baucus permitting many of the 2,900 residents of Libby, Mont., to qualify for Medicare benefits. Some of them have asbestos-related diseases from a now-shuttered mine.

-Provides an additional $8.5 billion over the next decade for 11 states and the District of Columbia to help them pay for the more generous Medicaid assistance they have been providing low-income residents.

-Maintains a Senate-approved provision giving extra money for hospitals and doctors in North and South Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.

-Provides sixteen States and DC with billions of dollars in unrestricted funding, spending which would produce no change in health insurance enrollment.[/i][/b]

Americans would be required for the first time to purchase insurance, and face penalties if they refused. Americans would have to provide proof of insurance coverage with their annual tax returns.

The IRS would expand it's powers to enforce the new regulations and collection. The current bill does not include the additional [b]10 BILLION[/b] to cover the cost of IRS enforcement for the first 10 years.

37 states have enacted or have pending legislation to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance.

As a result of shoving this unpopular and costly "health reform" down the American people's throats, Obama's approval ratings are down to where George Bush's were when he left office.

Sappy, as you have done in the past, feel free to go ahead- revise and correct your previous posts accordingly. I'll pretend not to notice.



<a href="http://www.djcraig.net/los_angeles_dj">DJ Craig</a>

[djcraig]

[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
<br>[b]Update[/b]: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) rated the reconciled version of the Senate & House HCR bills, and reports the following:<blockquote><a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/cbo_health-care_reform_bill_cu.html" target="_nahnah">[b]Health-care reform bill cuts deficit by $1.3 trillion over 20 years, covers 95%[/b]</a>

"The CBO has finished its work and will release the official preliminary score later today. But here are the basic numbers: The bill will cost $940 billion over the first 10 years and reduce the deficit by $130 billion during that period. In the second 10 years -- so, 2020 to 2029 -- it will reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion. The legislation will cover 32 million Americans, or 95 percent of the legal population.

To put this in context, that's more deficit reduction than either the House or Senate bill, and more coverage than the Senate bill."</blockquote>
[/quote]

And they all lived happily ever after...



<a href="http://www.djcraig.net/los_angeles_dj">DJ Craig</a>

[SallyLightfoot]

<blockquote>[b]DJCraig[/b] wrote: First off, only PARTS of Nancy are 70. Many pieces of her face are just a few months old.</blockquote>LOL, maybe that's true (although I doubt botox counts as plastic surgery), but it wouldn't be the first time you alleged something without proof.

<blockquote>[b]DJCraig[/b] wrote: As for my comprehension, I can only one day hope to be as cognizant and erudite as you, Sappy. I am working on my cutting and pasting skills to try and reach your level.</blockquote>I admire your attitude, DJForrestGump. I can see the result of your efforts below.

<blockquote>[b]DJCraig[/b] wrote: The Proposed bill, now that it has been tweaked, spindled, mutilated and finalized is 2,700 pages including 153 pages of last-minute changes that were added after weeks of secrecy-shrouded meetings. Legislators have 72 hours to read and comprehend the entire bill before a vote will be called... What could go wrong there?</blockquote>First of all, you should measure the length in words, not pages. All legislation is written in extra large font with double-spaced typing, which makes it automatically about half the length you cite. See for yourself-- <a href="http://docs.house.gov/rules/hr4872/111_hr4872_reported.pdf">here's the actual final bill</a>. But setting that aside, man, what is it with right-wingers and shrieking about the <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1375-For-Bills-in-Congress-How-Long-is-Long-" target="_new">length of legislation</a>? Maybe because it's a bill written by Democrats? The republican written 'Transportation Highway Bill of 2005' was only 68 words shorter than the HCR bill, and nobody squealed about that. And the GOP-penned 'No Child Left Behind' is almost 90% as long, yet somehow that got passed without a lot of hysterical whining.

As I mentioned earlier, each Congress person has a team of aides. If it came down to it, a Congress person could assign each aide 200 pages and be done with it in a single day. But in reality, the final House bill was passed in December, and the final Senate Bill has been available since January. Those bills are [i]done[/i]. The only thing that remains is the Reconciliation act, which is the 153 pages you mentioned. <a href="http://www.rules.house.gov/bills_details.aspx?NewsID=4606" target="_new">It's available right now</a>... and it highlights all of the changes/amendments to the Senate Bill (which is the basis for the final bill). Any Congress person can handle reading 153 pages in the remaining days before the vote.

<blockquote>[b]DJCraig[/b] wrote: Last year Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) introduced a bill that urges members of Congress who vote to create a government-run health insurance agency to give up their own comprehensive health insurance plans to join the new the public option they advocate for others... My understanding is that, under the new bill, even after the 5 year grace period, they have the option to opt out.</blockquote>I'll keep my eye out for that. The current <a href="http://docs.house.gov/rules/hr4872/111_hr3590_engrossed.pdf" target="_dup">bill</a>, on page 157 line 16 states, "REQUIREMENT -- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Goverment may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are (I) created under this Act; offered through an Exchange established under this Act..."

<blockquote>[b]DJCraig[/b] wrote: As for sweetheart deals: (SNIPPED)</blockquote>I'll report back on these individually, but I can see from a quick scan that you're listing stuff which is specifically eliminated from the final bill (Ben Nelson's thing, for example, is directly addressed in the reconciliation language at: <a href="http://www.rules.house.gov/111_hr4872_secbysec.html">Sec. 1201. Federal funding for States.</a>)

<blockquote>[b]DJCraig[/b] wrote: Americans would be required for the first time to purchase insurance, and face penalties if they refused. Americans would have to provide proof of insurance coverage with their annual tax returns.</blockquote>Well, all uninsured Americans would be required to purchase insurance. Kinda like all automobile drivers are required to have auto insurance, so I'm not sure the requirement is all that oppressive as you make it sound. The over 85% of us who are already insured (via our employers, medicare/medicaid/VA/COBRA) don't need to do a thing.

<blockquote>[b]DJCraig[/b] wrote: The IRS would expand it's powers to enforce the new regulations and collection. The current bill does not include the additional 10 BILLION to cover the cost of IRS enforcement for the first 10 years.</blockquote>I believe the CBO estimated 5 to 10 BILLION for the IRS over 10 years, which means an additional 10% annual budget for them. The US annual budget is 4+ Trillion. Meh.

<blockquote>[b]DJCraig[/b] wrote: 37 states have enacted or have pending legislation to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance.</blockquote>Possibly true, I know I've heard of some of that. I'm willing to bet a lot of those states have republican governors, and are located in the South. Ironically, they're usually the poorer welfare states (i.e., receive more $ from the federal govt than they contribute) who would benefit most from the expansion of healthcare coverage.

<blockquote>[b]DJCraig[/b] wrote: As a result of shoving this unpopular and costly "health reform" down the American people's throats, Obama's approval ratings are down to where George Bush's were when he left office.</blockquote>Where [i]do[/i] you get your polling data? Bush's approval in office when he left office was [b]25%[/b]. (Bush on left, Obama on right; Red line = disapproval, Black line = approval)
<img src="http://www.pollster.com/Bush43JobApprovalr600.png" height="281" width="375"><img src="http://www.pollster.com/Obama44JobApprovalr.png" height="281" width="375">
<blockquote>[b]DJCraig[/b] wrote: Sappy, as you have done in the past, feel free to go ahead- revise and correct your previous posts accordingly. I'll pretend not to notice.</blockquote>LOL. Thanks for the invite. You can read a timestamp, right?

[ghosty]

[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
Well, all uninsured Americans would be required to purchase insurance. Kinda like all automobile drivers are required to have auto insurance, so I'm not sure the requirement is all that oppressive as you make it sound. The over 85% of us who are already insured (via our employers, medicare/medicaid/VA/COBRA) don't need to do a thing.
[/quote]

See, while I agree that Healthcare needs a major overhaul, this kind of thinking is just too cold. That's roughly 46 million people who don't have health insurance because, in all likelihood, they simply can't afford it. Further penalizing them financially doesn't make much sense.

[SallyLightfoot]

[quote][i]Originally posted by ghosty[/i]<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
Well, all uninsured Americans would be required to purchase insurance. Kinda like all automobile drivers are required to have auto insurance, so I'm not sure the requirement is all that oppressive as you make it sound. The over 85% of us who are already insured (via our employers, medicare/medicaid/VA/COBRA) don't need to do a thing. [/quote]See, while I agree that Healthcare needs a major overhaul, this kind of thinking is just too cold. That's roughly 46 million people who don't have health insurance because, in all likelihood, they simply can't afford it. Further penalizing them financially doesn't make much sense.[/quote]I hear what you're saying, and a lot of moderates and liberals are concerned about the individual mandate (and Obama himself campaigned against it). On one hand, we can't afford to give scott-free insurance coverage to 50 million people (a significant % of which can afford to kick in [i]some[/i] money for their health-- see next para). And on the other, lacking any penalties or enforcement, the individual mandate would break down in what is called the <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/one-health-care-reform-indivisible/" target="_newx">Insurance Death Spiral</a>: Healthy people avoid buying the insurance (until they get sick), which causes premiums to rise for people who are in the system, which encourages more healthy people to quit the system... etc.

By the way, we're not talking about the [i]poorest[/i] segments of the country-- people living at or below the poverty-level-- those folks are already covered today by Medicaid. We're talking about the level above that-- 133% of poverty level to 400%. The breakdown goes like this: There are 50 million uninsured. Medicaid will be expanded to cover the poorest 20 million of those people right off the bat. For the remaining 30 million, the deal is this: As long as insurance doesn't cost more than 8% of their monthly income, they must purchase private insurance through the exchange. Subsidies are provided (a sliding scale according to income) to Exchange participants to help make it affordable. These folks will not be allowed to wait until they get sick or get hurt and and then buy insurance, which shifts the costs onto everyone else. The cost of having a near-universal health care system is that [i]all[/i] people have to participate.

[SallyLightfoot]

DJCraig--
The <a href="http://www.rules.house.gov/amendment_details.aspx?NewsID=4609" target="asshat">list of amendments</a> submitted to the reconciliation act looks like it pretty well covers your list of "sweetheart deals". We'll see which amendments get approved in the final bill on Sunday, and early next week I'll try to validate what from your list made it through (if any).

[zill]

I'm just a bill.
Yes, I'm only a bill.
And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill.
Well, it's a long, long journey
To the capital city.
It's a long, long wait
While I'm sitting in committee,
But I know I'll be a law someday
At least I hope and pray that I will,
But today I am still just a bill.

[SallyLightfoot]

Hey Zill, so what's the reaction to all of this up in Canada?

[zill]

[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
<br>Hey Zill, so what's the reaction to all of this up in Canada?
[/quote]

Well, the sheep in our country continue to gush over Obama...

....but personally, I'd like to extend congratulations from Canuckistan to the Soviet States of America on your first dangerous step to becoming a socialist regime. I really enjoy handing over 44% of my pay to the government...I hope you do too.

I can understand the rush to get this done at this time, but from afar it seems like hastily pulled together legislation for an extremely complex issue. I foresee the overhaul of healthcare becoming a national past time in the USA in the years ahead.