My Kingdom for Health Care regualtion reform!


----------------
Dennis from Ohio,

Smoot Hawley is different in what it did, but the effects will be the same.  We have projected numbers that make it look like it can be successful (just like smoot hawley did in 1930), but putting government induced penalties on private corporations at this time is going to create even more of a deficit.  It's not as if folks have a bunch of extra liquidity as it is.  Now smoot hawley was different in that it indirectly hurt our ability to produce because demand for our products went down abroad due to tarrifs.  Cap and trade will not do this of course but it will directly affect our ability to finance production.  Aside from that it's going to make it more difficult for start-ups.  These smaller companies don't get gov't subsidies, to cover regulatory costs like guys like GE do.  

So my comparison was a little broad, and I apologize for that.  I think the point is still valid though.

On top of that this bill will do nothing to stem America's biggest polluter:  The Federal Government.  Government Agencies are not subject to these laws.  This need to be addressed since they pollute more than all of our private industries combined.  Just think how long our military has been firing depleted uranium shells all over the globe.  

This is just another example of Government double standards.

Hurry, hurry!!  No time to read it - just pass the dang thing!!  Hurry, hurry, we need it now!  NO! - don't read it - just vote on it!! Hurry - the sky is falling!!

Wish I had a job.
Wish I had a job.
Wish I had a job.

Where are all the jobs, OBAMA??

The takeover of Health Care by the government is dead. Obama has painted himself into a corner that there is no getting out of. For one thing, the government takeover of HC is going to cost a lot more then anyone predicts, and that means Obama will need to raise taxes on most everyone to pay for it, and not just a little, but a lot. The other funding alternative is to tax businesses, but that won't do much but to continue increasing unemployment rolls.

The bill might get 35 votes in the Senate. Tops.

Don't worry a mish-mash of comprimises will be included in a bill that no one will have time to read nor understand the consequences.  Sorry, I was thinking of the stimulus and energy bills.  I have full confidence that this will have clear and concise objectives and a set of measurements and milestones that will measure progress.

BTW Nash, Obama may not have uttered the words but his administration is on record as predicting that unemployment would peak at 8% if the stimulus bill was passed.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/business/economy/03jobs.html?bl&ex=1246766400&en=8550aaa276e4d846&ei=5087

Will congress be reading this bill, or just voting on it?

It would seem that the entire point of this post is to make us feel that it is going to be very hard for Congress to do their jobs before their big vacay.

Cry me a river.

P.S. Why no discussion of the bill draft last week that came in at $600 billion dollars over 10 years and covers 97% of Americans?

When the incomplete bill came in over 1 trillion dollars, that was all the media could talk about?

Get the price down and the coverage up? Silence.

Strange.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/01/tnr-full-help-bill-covers_n_224509.html

P.S. Thanks for the kind words Anita . . . seems like all these facts are too much for some to handle . . . the get all grumpy and irrational  . . . so predictable! :)

I don't think the health care bill has 51 votes. These Democratic Senators, they plan on getting re-elected, yes? They vote for the health care train wreck, then they'll be in the unemployment line with the rest of us.

From Bloomberg regarding Obama's quest for health care:

The federal picture is so bleak because the Obama administration is the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of the U.S. I would imagine that he would be the intergalactic champion as well, if we could gather the data on deficits on other worlds. Obama has taken George W. Bush’s inattention to deficits and elevated it to an art form.

The Obama administration has no shame, and is willing to abandon reason altogether to achieve its short-term political goals. Ronald Reagan ran up big deficits in part because he believed that his tax cuts would produce economic growth, and ultimately pay for themselves. He may well have been excessively optimistic about the merits of tax cuts, but at least he had a story.

Obama has no story. Nobody believes that his unprecedented expansion of the welfare state will lead to enough economic growth. Nobody believes that it will pay for itself. Everyone understands that higher spending today begets higher spending tomorrow. That means that his economic strategy simply doesn’t add up.

Obama's big mistake is that he tried to do too much too soon, all the while the country was in a deep recession. That's why this bill fails. Rather fix the problems with the current system, he had to go for broke and nationalize healthcare. And there is where he failed.

The liberals are going to be so disappointed.

With Franken the dems are emboldened.

The healthcare dialogue reminds me of the passages in Dicken's 'A Christmas Carol' that deals with healthcare. Scrooge could not countenance helping those who were not well off, when asked, saying he could not afford it, (which was a damn lie).

It was not until he was redeemed that he accepted to help Tiny Tim get better through providing him with the healthcare Bob Crachett could not.

How many of you repubs raging against national healthcare, realize that you are the embodiment of  Dicken's Scrooge, even as you enjoy your Christmas cheer every year, and probably believe yourselves to be good Christians?

Ken Strickland: Well written and informative comments on Healthcare.  

In many ways it is too early to say much as no one knows what the bill, after going to a compromise committee, will look like.  

The Republicans will likely say, "Too much money can not afford it.  Let the people suffer.  The Democrats will pass something.  

What the Republicans do not understand is that the people want healthcare.  To vote against it for the reason that it is too expensive...simply will not fly.  I do not see Republicans gaining any congressional seats by voting against healthcare.

Where are all the jobs, OBAMA??
Willing to Work

You can be a paper-shedder in Congress. They'll need one soon to destroy the evidence.

Even if it goes beyond August I want it done and done right this year. Congress can and must pass a health care reform bill before the end of the year. The bill must have teeth and not be watered down so much it is useless.

The Finance Committee is THE committee to watch. If the committee gives up its efforts for a bipartisan bill, it will likely trigger Dem leaders to use a procedural tool called "reconciliation."

Buy gold NOW. Between Obama's Crap and Trade energy tax and the Great Free Medical Care Giveway this country is going to see inflation in the next five to ten years that will rival the Weimar Republic in Germany.

Bury your money and gold now.
Stick it to the man.
Buy nothing.
Stick it to the man.
Stop paying taxes.
Stick it to the man.
Siphon all your gas from government cars.
Stick it to the man.

P.S. Why no discussion of the bill draft last week that came in at $600 billion dollars over 10 years and covers 97% of Americans?

===============

Because it was a complete fabrication, in short, a lie.

The previous bill was for $1.6 trillion and it covered only about a third of the uncovered. So now we're to believe that a trillion has been knocked off the bill, and most everyone is covered?

Be careful what you hear from Congress. They lie.

HEALTH CARE REFORM NOW!  WE NEED IT NOW! HOW LONG DO PEOPLE HAVE TO DIE FROM DISEASE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ERADICATED BY NOW?  IT CAN'T BE ANY MORE EXPENSIVE THAN WHAT WE HAVE TO PAY NOW.

BTW Nash, Obama may not have uttered the words but his administration is on record as predicting that unemployment would peak at 8% if the stimulus bill was passed.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/business/economy/03jobs.html?bl&ex=1246766400&en=8550aaa276e4d846&ei=5087
Alan, NJ
==========================================
Yes, Alan, I am aware of that . . . however, this was analyis done BEFORE the Inauguration . . . of a PROPOSED stimulus bill . . . not the one that actually passed . . . and the analysis was accompanied by the CLEAR STATEMENT that it would EVOLVE and CHANGE . . . check it out for yourself!

January unemployment was at 7.6% BEFORE the stimulus bill was even signed . . . so how could it possibly keep unemployment below 8%?

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf

Everynigh Americans should go up on their roofs or out on their front porches and yell into the dark night sky

UNIVERSAL HEATLH CARE

What the Republicans do not understand is that the people want healthcare.  To vote against it for the reason that it is too expensive...simply will not fly.  I do not see Republicans gaining any congressional seats by voting against healthcare.
Ron Indiana


+++++++++++++++++++

What the Democrats don't understand is someone has to pay for healthcare. The people can want it all they want, but unless there is a solid revenue stream to fund it, this legislation is dead in the water.

To Jonathan Flint, MI:

The reason that I am taking the time to correct the record about what the Obama Administration did and didn't say about unemployment rates, is because there are many people (including the media apparently) who just repeat things that they have heard without doing any research.



President Obama NEVER SAID that unemployment would not top 8%, and the numbers that are being bandied about that his advisors came up with analyzed a PROPOSED stimulus bill, not the one that was actually passed!



Read it for yourself: http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf



This same thing happened when suddenly everyone started saying that President Obama said he would abolish all earmarks as a candidate, when he never said anything of the sort.



Lastly, I reject and denounce you claim that the free market and lack of regulation had nothing to do with getting us into this mess. How do you explain away Bernie Madoff, Enron, the banking system and mortgage market collapse?



And governement subsidies to private corporations?  



Isn't that kind of like the "tax cuts" for corporations that so called "conservatives" are still hawking today?



Isn't that like all the Republican congress people trying to "protect" for profit health rationing companies from the wrath of the millions of people

they have been screwing over all these years?



I do agree that continuing the same policies under a different president doesn't make much sense . . . but then I think that President Obama's policies ARE different . . . and will reap benefits . . . if given enough TIME to actually work.

Nothing but empty rhetoric about medical tort reform, liability caps, malpractice insurance reform, product liability limitations, and why? The Trial Lawyers Association is the second largest PAC contributor to the Democratic Party. And remember Obamaphiles at MSNBC, the Trial Lawyers will eventually name GE Healthcare and GE Medical Systems as party to some multimillion dollar frivolous lawsuit. There goes Immelt's bonus!

Millionaire Democrats (the seven wealthiest US Senators for example) find it easy to call for National Heath Care because:
1) They won't be paying for it, all their money is in tax sheltered trusts;
2) Nor will they be using it. Uncle Sam pays for what they don’t pay for out of their vast fortunes.

The next time Teddy or Kerry or Kohl or Lauetnberg or Rockefeller or Obama or Clinton or Gore or Daley or Waxman need an operation, they will be airlifted to a private room at Mass General or the Mayo Clinic where no expense will be spared. Crumbs for you and your family as you sit next to an illegal alien in a public hospital.

>> The Democrats will pass something.  <<

The question is what will that bill be. The Democrats will have their failure case that they will pass, it will do basically nothing, but the Dems will be all over the airwaves chest pounding about how wonderful they are.

I don't think the health care bill has 51 votes. These Democratic Senators, they plan on getting re-elected, yes? They vote for the health care train wreck, then they'll be in the unemployment line with the rest of us. Teddy Moore, Indiana (Sent Monday, July 06, 2009 2:54 PM)
----------------------------------------------------

Congress is just stalling so they can squeeze out lobbying dollars...they don't make any money by passing sweeping legislation quickly.

Any competition that will bring down the prices of health insurance will be good for the rest of business.  This could be the single most important piece of legislation passed to help bring about the end of the recession.  It could be the equivalent of giving a tax break of $500 for each employee for those participating.

The healthcare dialogue reminds me of the passages in Dicken's 'A Christmas Carol' that deals with healthcare. Scrooge could not countenance helping those who were not well off, when asked, saying he could not afford it, (which was a damn lie).

The only problem is that there are not enough Scrooge's to pay for everything.  It is a big lie that utopia can be reached only by taxing those who earn more than $250K.  Read another editorial in the Washington Post today where the author suggests that tax as percentage of GDP will have to be raised from 18% to 22%.  As he says this may be acceptable in exchange for HRC and energy reform.  What is unacceptable is lie being peddled that you can get there without rasing taxes on the middle class.

No different than GWB claimed you could run two wars and not raise taxes.

Tommy Adders (Sent Monday, July 06, 2009 2:56 PM)
--------------------------------------------------
Here is a history lesson for you, dude. At the end of WWII, our national debt was 120% of GDP. And we survived just fine.

You're rhetoric is just a little over the top!

Everynigh Americans should go up on their roofs or out on their front porches and yell into the dark night sky

UNIVERSAL HEATLH CARE
Carole, San Diego


Carole, that ship has sailed along time ago. There is no way any bill being discussed today gives something even close to universal coverage.

And be sure not to fall off the roof. Especially if you don't have any health insurance.

January unemployment was at 7.6% BEFORE the stimulus bill was even signed . . . so how could it possibly keep unemployment below 8%?

I don't know.  Maybe you should question the members of the administration who made such an outragious claim (the 8% claim).  As I said in a prior post it's the same nonsense as we can get it all and only soak the rich.

Stock market down today, Unemployment going up to 10%
and the only people are working are the Governmnet
printing press. Welcome to Obama's Socialist Nation.

Sarah Palin 2012

Nice Try Though (Sent Monday, July 06, 2009 2:59 PM)
----------------------------------------------------
You must have an interesting definition of nationalization! I have yet to see any bill suggestion that nationalizes health care. Nationalization of health care would indicate that all health care was controlled by the federal government.

Can you please help me out with calling out exactly which proposed plan nationalizes health care?

You righties with your claims of nationalization, socialism, communism, violation of the constitution and every other fear tactic just have ZERO credibility!

Alan, NJ : '...BTW Nash, Obama may not have uttered the words but his administration is on record as predicting that unemployment would peak at 8% if the stimulus bill was passed....'


HUH ??
Alan, you're ADMITTING Obama NEVER said there would be 8% unemployment, max  !1
In other words, HE DIDN'T SAY IT
In other word YO WERE WRONG
Other than that you're right Alan (?!%$*@)



Tommy Adders: '...From Bloomberg regarding Obama's quest for health care:

The federal picture is so bleak because the Obama administration is the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of the U.S....'

Repeat after me, Tommy: 'SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS'
The most Fiscally irresponsible ??
Reagan, Bush  & Bush are responsible for NINETY PERCENT OF OUR NATIONAL DEBT !!
Who's 'fiscally irresponsible' ???

Reagan: 'The deficit doesn't matter if the economy is growing'

Reagan: 'The deficit is big enough to take care of itse3lf'

Cheney: 'Ronald Reagan proved that Deficts don't matter'

It's called 'VooDoo Economics'
(AKA: the Free Lunch)
Innvented by Reagan and perfected by the Bush boys

'Fiscally Irresponsible' Indeed !!

Yes, Alan, I am aware of that . . . however, this was analyis done BEFORE the Inauguration . . . of a PROPOSED stimulus bill . . . not the one that actually passed . . . and the analysis was accompanied by the CLEAR STATEMENT that it would EVOLVE and CHANGE . . . check it out for yourself!

January unemployment was at 7.6% BEFORE the stimulus bill was even signed . . . so how could it possibly keep unemployment below 8%?

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf
Nashville_fan


-----------------

Convincing you isn't worth the effort. You're nothing but a useless Obama shill.

This is just another bill to put more people on the government dole. Public healthcare will become a monster that has to be fed with more and more funding each and every year. This is the primary objection to national healthcare in England or Canada. Healthcare never actually gets better and always requires more money.

With the health (don't) care lobby spending more than a million dollars a day to defeat reform, we better get this bill passed soon or our premiums will increase 20% next year rather than the normal 10-15%. Those who obtain insurance through work could care less and that is what the industry is banking on.
There are 20,000 deaths a year as a direct result of people without insurance. If those deaths were a result of starvation, wouldn't that draw a bit more attention. Why should there be a difference for this, the greatest country in the world in how our own live or die?
Small business will not survive without massive health care reform, no matter how well the stimulus works. With single payer out the window, we must draw a line in the sand on the public option...

I don't think the health care bill has 51 votes. These Democratic Senators, they plan on getting re-elected, yes? They vote for the health care train wreck, then they'll be in the unemployment line with the rest of us.
Teddy Moore, Indiana (Sent Monday, July 06, 2009 2:54 PM)

Just curious teddy...who is paying for your healthcare right now?

...and just to be clear.  If the congress came out and had a list of cuts that added up to 750b - 1T then nobody would be against HCR.  Here is may starting list Ethanol Subsidies (and most farn subsidies), numerous weapons programs, revoke the Bush tax cuts.

If that doesn't get near 1T I'll look for a few more.

How can anyone say that we are rushing this thing. We have been working on healthcare since, oh say, Teddy Roosevelt. This has been hashed and re-hashed for a hundred years. But I'm sure the GOP will say it was rushed.

I've been very vocal to my representatives in Congress and the Senate that they need to get this done. We've waited too long.

Interesting article here about how health insurers have been looking for any reason to drop people with serious illnesses. Forgot to mention that trip to the dermatologist for acne? Too bad, no more coverage for you. That way we won't have to pay for cancer treatment.

http://www.darkdaily.com/health-insurers-cancel-policies-of-sick-patients#more-

This is one of the many reasons that so many Americans are fed up with the current system!

I’m going to take the liberty of reposting this by Mark, Seattle – because HE SAID IT BEST about the whack jobs & their so called ideology…
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So suddenly every righty on this blog is asking "how do we pay for it?"

Amazing! None of you cared how we were going to pay for the Iraq war! 680 billion bucks as of today. Where is your outrage Dave,TN,NOJOE NO BO,Ugly little chihuahua and the rest? You don't freakin care do you?

Your ideology is so screwed up. You don't care how much it costs to kill people but you shout from the rooftops how much it costs to save them...truly pathetic.
Mark,Seattle (Sent Friday, June 19, 2009 4:28 PM)

To Jonathan Flint, MI:

The Obama Administration "NEVER" said a single word about unemployment rates prior to the stim. It was expected that unemployment rates would reach "double digits". The media put their own interpertation on unemployment numbers.

There were several economist adding their opinions as to what we needed and what we didn't need. At no time was anyone ready to predict the out come of the economy and the unemployment rate, simply because we are facing something we've never faced as a nation. We didn't have a housing bubble during the "Great Depression" did we?

The Houseing bubble hit it's peak in October 2008. The market collapsed...however, the prior year's forecast was given by the Bush Administration, stating that the rate of inflation was nothing out of the ordinary and if need be they would step in if necessary.

Quote:
"The Federal Reserve continues to keep a close eye on inflation and is ready to act abruptly if need be. If inflation does rear its ugly head throughout the month you can throw the predictions above out the window and prepare for another month of rising mortgage rates.”

America got rooked and that's all there is too it. Nashville_Fan got it right...you are off base...way off.

Everynigh Americans should go up on their roofs or out on their front porches and yell into the dark night sky UNIVERSAL HEATLH CARE
Carole, San Diego (Sent Monday, July 06, 2009 3:11 PM)
-------------------------------------------------
Then on the following April 16th they can go to the roof and scream "Where in the hell is all my hard earned money going you IRS crooks!"

Jonathan Flint, MI (Sent Monday, July 06, 2009 2:45 PM)
------------------------------------------------------
I'm with you on the federal government needing tighter regulation. But I can see the argument now: "Are you really going to tell the military they have to stop using tanks, trucks, ships, and planes that pollute?"

I don't agree with your argument that the "cap and trade" is going to hurt the economy. I think your argument assumes their costs will be higher because industry will do nothing about pollution. But if they reduce pollution, they also will reduce energy use (or at least the use of non-renewable energy) and thus will likely see their production costs go down.

Hurry, hurry!!  No time to read it - just pass the dang thing!!  Hurry, hurry, we need it now!  NO! - don't read it - just vote on it!! Hurry - the sky is falling!!

Don't Bother to Read It (Sent Monday, July 06, 2009 2:48 PM)
------------------------------------------------------
This is a ridiculous argument about why we need to slow down. Our representatives have huge staffs that review and dissect bills. They are in the positions they are in because they wanted to work in that environment. Arguing that there isn't enough time to read the bills is bogus. If anyone in our government makes that claim, they are either incompetent or just making excuses.

Stick it to the man.
Stick It To The Man, corner of Hate and Ashburygoldwater, Pleasant Valley, USA (Sent Monday, July 06, 2009 3:10 PM)
-----------------------------------------------------
People like this should really have their brain checked out but hey wait thats what you get from a party with no new ideas alas the republican party!

In 2008 we paid more than $2.0 billion for 30,000+ Congressional Staffers including those that work for GAO, CBO and OTA. Most these staffers make between $28K and $150K a year. About 15,000 staffers (9,000 [D] & 6,000 [R]) work directly for congress men and women.

So when Mr. Boehner starts his yelling that he hasn’t had time to read the bill (and yet points to several items he doesn’t like) he is correct BUT his staffers did have time to read, make notes, summarize and publish a summary report. This is common with most bills that pass thru congress. Congressmen seldom read a bill. They read the summaries because they don’t have time to read bills in their entirety. Staffers point out problem items and the Representative or Senator will read that item.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2007/01/02/GR2007010200322.html

The independently-funded  healthcare policy research organization, The Commonwealth Fund, compared possible savings 'a health insurance exchange' could bring under three different scenarios. One would include a Medicare-like plan along with private insurance. Another would instead offer only a government-run plan with rates somewhat higher than Medicare. The final one would be private insurance with no government plan at all.
Commonwealth's study found cumulative health system savings between 2010 and 2020, compared with projected trends for that period, would range from $3.0 trillion under a Medicare-like plan along with private insurance paying providers at Medicare rates in competition with private plans, to $2.0 trillion for a public plan paying providers at rates between Medicare and private plan rates, to $1.2 trillion in the private plan-only scenario. All three options would help insure nearly all Americans, it said, with the number of uninsured dropping to about 4 million people by 2012.  'Such an exchange' would offer a central point for consumers to shop for and compare health plans.

Under the Medicare-like plan along with private insurance, all U.S. residents would be required to obtain health coverage. The plan would establish a new government-sponsored health program for people younger than age 65 who are not eligible for Medicare. More than 40 million people would be expected to enroll in the program, according to Cathy Schoen of the Commonwealth Fund.

The government-operated insurance exchange would be similar to an existing program in Massachusetts and would allow people to compare coverage offered by private insurers and the new public program. In addition, the plan supports wide adoption of health information technology, better disease prevention efforts and 'changes to the insurance payment system' that promote efficiency. Health spending would continue to increase under the plan, but at a slower rate than current projections over the next 10 years. The Commonwealth Fund said the plan would reduce annual health care spending growth from a projected 6.7% to 5.5% and save a cumulative total of about '$3 trillion' by 2020, adding  a national health insurance exchange program that includes a federally managed health insurance option could potentially save $1.8 trillion more than a plan consisting only of private plans.
The group's analysis assumed other changes would also be made to the U.S. healthcare market. These include  an expansion of existing government coverage and new regulations that would require insurers to cover a wider range of consumers. Hospitals and doctors would also see their revenues grow with any of the three exchanges but at a slower rate, the report said.

The proposal's advocates have argued that a government-sponsored insurance plan would offer the 46 million uninsured Americans an affordable alternative to costly private insurance,  adding that It would provide a strong incentive for private plans to strealine, innovate and compete.

Thank You !

I don't think the health care bill has 51 votes. These Democratic Senators, they plan on getting re-elected, yes? They vote for the health care train wreck, then they'll be in the unemployment line with the rest of us.
Teddy Moore, Indiana (Sent Monday, July 06, 2009 2:54 PM)

======================================================
When was the last time you saw an unemployed politician?  These people don't leave DC and stand in the unemployment office.  Get your head out of your John Brown hinds parts and get a grip on reality.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):