Sunday, while walking inside a local coffee shop for my hourly caffiene fix, I saw a young couple sitting inside a beat-up old car decorated with all kinds of "Sestak" and "Health Care Reform Now" signs. They were both smoking like chimneys.
That's the tinfoil hat wing of the Democratic Party, folks, demanding "change" from everyone but themselves.
"Hi! If you believe in health care reform so much, why are you both smoking?" I asked.
"Fuck you, asshole," was my answer.
They must know me.
What these suckers fail to realize is that Pelosi care is a dream come true for the health insurance industry. They're already raising insurance premiums. And guess what? By 2019, health costs under Pelosi care will make up 21.1 percent of our GDP, compared to 20.8 under current law.
Health insurance lobbyists are so mixed up in this mess they actually managed to prepare talking points for 22 House Republicans and 20 Democrats, playing both sides of the fence. That must be where congressional candidate John Callahan, who spent 13 years as a "Senior Institutional Healthcare [sic] Consultant" at a pharmaceutical company, learned how to talk out of both sides of his mouth.
Last Thursday, the Bethlehem Mayor bravely joined Moveon.org wingnuts to protest Dent's refusal to vote for Pelosi care. He courageously told Express Times reporter Lynn Olanoff , "If we don't act, things are going to get worse. It's something that Congressman Dent just doesn't get."
So that means he must support Pelosi care, right?
Well, not exactly. He declines to state whether he supports the bill.
So, that must mean he's against it, right?
Well, not exactly. He tells The Morning Call's Scott Krauss, "I do think it’s a step in the right direction. We’ve got a long way to go. I want to see what is in the Senate version. I want to see what is in the conference committee report. I think the legislation coming out of the House was a good first step. If I was in Congress I would be working to try to get to yes, rather working to preserve the status quo."
So that must mean he really does support it after all, right?
Well, not exactly. "That is a difficult question to answer because it is a hypothetical question. I don’t really accept the premise. If I was in Congress right now I would have worked to make this bill a better bill."
I see. Actually, I don't. Neither does Palmer Township's Mathew Benol, who asks The Express Times, "What type of leadership is that? ... [T]o be attacked by a congressional candidate who may have voted against the bill himself is hypocritical and a joke. Callahan protests a vote without offering an opinion."
Take a close look at the video. I swear some consultant has his hand so far up Callahan's derriere that the guy’s fingers poke out every time John opens his mouth.
Now, to be fair, Callahan does state he supports health care reform that doesn't increase the country's debt, allows people to go to doctors of their choosing and retains Medicare and Medicaid.
I know someone else who feels that way, too. His name is Charlie Dent.
54 comments:
What a disaster. I just was watching on the news that 60% of bankruptcies in the US are because of medical bills and 80% of those bankruptcies are people who HAVE health insurance. I think that it would help the economy greatly if we were able to get rid of 60% of the nation's bankruptcies. In all the reading I'm doing, I've never read why all the other industrialized nations went to universal healthcare but the US. Does anyone know what our reasoning was? I think the rest of the world must be laughing at us.
Well Ohare that couple in the car at least addressed you by your proper name!
Anon 12:29, you are right on target. While America will never accept the restictive nature of the British system. I believe the Swiss or German systems may actually hold some promise.
Do you realize that in Germany due to National purchasing power the same drugs you buy in the US cost 70-80% less. also the entire cost of their health care is half of what we expend as a percentage of GDP. The Germans have lower child mortality and longer average lifespans than US.
Of course so do all the indusrtialized nations. The solution is to control the profit motive of health Insurance companies. The Republicans refuse to touch that and the current Democratic Bill is sadly lacking in that area.
But there is no debating your point that most American bancruptcies are because of medical bills of people who HAVE helath Insurance.
Two years ago the number of people who declared bancrupcy because of medical issues in Germany was 10. Yes 10 in the entire nation.
We really should be ashamed of ourselves not just for are inhumanity we feel towards each other but beccause we are stupid enough to accept a system of healht care that is based on lazze faire private insurance.
Bernie,
I scratch my head at the liberal “we had/need to do something” rhetoric. Since when is doing “something” better than doing the right thing and why rush forward and quite possibly do the wrong thing? More harm will come than good with government imposed health care solutions.
By the way, the fact that Callahan would appear with an extremist group provides an indication of how he would represent us in Washington.
Scott Armstrong
Maybe the administration will use some of the space in the new terrorist prison in Illinois for those who don’t pay for their new health care.
Allentown Democrat Voter
Ah yes the German plan, been there seen that. It is going bankrupt, and they are turning to a more privatized system. Those low cost drugs are great. But there are mny drugs that are just not available in Germany that we have here (the NEWER ones) and an added cost saver, they cannot sue the drug compaies or the government for bad drugs OR medcal malpractice.
Bayer (Bavaria) has moved its research divisions elsewhere becasue there is no money in it in Germany, ROche, Bayer , and many others(many are foreigh owned)will leave the US for free trade counties if we restrict profits.
Sad but true, the best way to lower costs is TORT REFORM
Where do the Republicans stand on universal health care? What plan in the last 100 years have they offered? Oh yeah, I guess they're still working on getting it right. I hope I'm still alive when the Rs finally get it right.
Bernie, where do you stand on issues of interstate potability and legal reform? These issues are not being talked about and seem obvious places to gain quick reforms/improvements to a bad system. It looks like insurance companies and lawyers have a pretty good gig going with Pelosi/Reid/Obama -care. No talk of fixing their wagons.
Being the news junkie that I am I was watching "Dateline's," PEOPLE WHO MAKE A DIFFERENCE well yes folks right here in good old Pheonixville PA. there is a Doctor who gave up her practice, bought an old house and transformed it into a clinic. Fully staffed by volunteers,other Doctors,nurses donated meds. I was blown away by this one lady. So, I challenge the Lehigh Valley. About 10 years ago or more a good friend who now is Chairwomen of Emergency Services at Warren Hospital and I started to do just that, but alas,methinks we ruffled too many feathers. But we were on our way to a one stop shopping center for all your needs but some dirty deeds done dirt cheap derailed our efforts and consequently if you have no heathcare or access to a clinic you are screwed. Yeah, there are initiatives here and there but I am talking grassroots Community Care. Anyone that cares enough and is sick of status quo...Check out the one woman heathcare machine in Phoenexville and then talk to me about healthcare........And I agree the German & Swiss systems have their pros& cons but are still worth of tweaking--- perhaps for the good old USA....... where ya can't get a flu shot and our children and at risk folks are dying!It is not a simple in the box solution but I am not professing to have an answer I just see the many problems since Privatization and don't even get me started on the Pharmaceutical Companies I would overload your site Bernie.
Who ever recorded that video needs some medication. Shake much?
HEY RS
Here's the deal Pelosi & Co. have assed a rule that Republicans cannot propose bills in the House anymore. Also, they have been excluded fromt he room during all and any planning sessions. The plan that they have is 1., Assigned RIsk pools that Insurance COmpany's must particpate in so that no one is refused insurance for preexisitng conditions 2. Portability of insurance so that if you lose your job you do not lose your insurance 4. the ability to shop across stste lines fro insurance to allow cost comepetition 5. Tort reform (this by the way does more than limit settlements, it also does away with cover your own ass testting and procedures by doctors.)
It has been available on line since May. It will NOT be discussed in this Congress, becasue it does not payout to the administrations supporters who have to be paid back for election support.
"Where do the Republicans stand on universal health care? What plan in the last 100 years have they offered? Oh yeah, I guess they're still working on getting it right. I hope I'm still alive when the Rs finally get it right."
RS, Republicans generally oppose universal health care, feeling it adds another layer of bureaucracy and that it just makes the system more costly. But this is not to say they oppose medical care reform.
Instead of one massive bill, Dent and other Rs have proposed numerous, smaller bills, to deal with individual issues. For example, Dent has proposed a bill that limits the liability for medical treatment in an ER. There are other bills providing for more restrictions on insurance companies, including the requirement that all pre-existing conditions be covered.
If you still want one massive bill, it would be best for all to propose legislation where there is agreement instead of ramming something thru bc you can.
Since medical care affects 1/7th of our GDP, it makes sense to approach this cautiously, realizing that one wrong move can have a disastrous impact.
Tort reform must be considered because, contrary to what I thought just a few months ago, the evidence is that fear of lawsuits leads to the increased cost of defensive medicine.
You canot pay for health care reform by making $400 billion in Medicare cuts. For years, Congress has been trying to reduce inefficiencies there and has failed. Pelosi care will add to our defecit when all is said and done.
WE ARE #1 FOR WHAT WE PAY FOR HEALTHCARE!! YES! USA! USA! Now what can we do about this:
The World Health Organization's ranking
of the world's health systems.
Source: WHO World Health Report - See also Spreadsheet Details (731kb)
The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems was last produced in 2000, and the WHO no longer produces such a ranking table, because of the complexity of the task.
See also: Preventable Deaths By Country
See also: Healthy Life Expectancy By Country
See also: Health Performance Rank By Country
See also: Total Health Expenditure as % of GDP (2000-2005)
See also: Main Country Ranks Page
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rank Country
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
40 Brunei
41 New Zealand
42 Bahrain
43 Croatia
44 Qatar
45 Kuwait
46 Barbados
47 Thailand
So are we supposed to immediately adopt Pelosi care so things can get worse? We all agree that reform is needed. (Except Callahan, who is still polling the issue). But we can't sink this country financially paying for this. We only have so many printing presses.
Every minute we don't pass this innocent children die.
Fire up the printing presses.
Weeeeeee Obama!
Who cares how much things cost.
The rich can pay their fair share for a change!
You call MoveOn supporters wingnuts but you defend teabaggers?
Biased much BO?
To all the haters, like Bernie:
Imagine where we'd be if Bush were still president?
At least the economy, stocks, life savings and retirement funds, and housing markets are recovering. Hopefully we never go back to glutton consumerism who use their equity in their home as an ATM, even if it makes more jobs.
Bernie you are just on the repub payroll. We know Angle is paying your rent, okay?
"Every minute we don't pass this innocent children die."
This hysterical appeal to emotion ios just that. Pelosi care does not solve that problem. It just makes health care more costly. In fact, it eliminates CHIP, the one program that does save children's lives.
"In fact, it eliminates CHIP, the one program that does save children's lives."
Former Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.), said that moving kids from CHIP to exchange plans has at least two distinct advantages: First, CHIP requires renewal every few years, leaving the program’s longevity to the whims of Congress. And second, exchange coverage could wrap kids and their parents into the same insurance plan — a strategy the Michigan Democrat says will increase enrollment of youngsters.
“The most important thing is to cover the children,” Dingell said in an email. “As effective as CHIP has been, families constantly must deal with long wait lists or block grants running out. Families in the Exchange or Medicaid will not have the same problems.”
There is unquestionably a benefit to returning SCHIP coverage to the federal level. Many states are facing budget shortfalls and scaling back their SCHIP coverage or wait-listing patients. States which cannot deficit spend are always threats to cut children’s health.
"You call MoveOn supporters wingnuts but you defend teabaggers?"
I am well aware that the tea party movement, like Moveon, has its share of wingnuts. Extremism is counterproductive, whether it comes from the left or the right.
"Bernie you are just on the repub payroll. We know Angle is paying your rent, okay?"
Pointing out the flaws in Pelosi care does not make me A Republican, put me on their payroll, or mean Angle must therefore be paying my rent. This is the typical cheap shot of someone who has no argument in the first place.
Pelosi care is a bad bill. It will drown us in debt and end up denying coverage to the people who need it most.
I believe fervently in the need for health care reform. But what Pelosi has rammed thru the House does nothing to address the insurance industry, which is out of control. It will end up reducing medicare payments to seniors. It will force out children out of CHIP, the one successful program we have. It will result in premium increases for those who have insurance.
All in all, it's a bad bill. If standing up for our children makes me a Republican, then I guess I must be a Republican.
But Ron Angle does help you out financially.
You are a liar and bought just like any cheap politician.
And you have a woman problem, in bed and in politics.
Maybe Ron can get you to a shrink.
Anon 10:59,
Wow! An anonymous personal attack having nothing to do w/ the subject at hand. How original. I can feel the love.
I have never been assisted financially by Angle. As far as my personal relationships are concerned, that is none of your business.
Repeating a lie over and over does not make it true. That may work in advertising and Hitler tried it, but it does not work here.
Bernie (8:50 AM)said.. Instead of one massive bill, Dent and other Rs have proposed numerous, smaller bills
I favor that a hellva' lot more then one big pile of baloney.
I think what has driven this bill, is the Democrats want to expedite the whole damn thing in one big chunk out of fear of losing the majority in Congress next year.
But since we waited this long.. Why not take each issue separately one by one?
If in a couple of years if they wish to combine the bunch, that would be fine. But rushing to the table before losing the Democratic majority could have some ugly consequences for congress to unsnarl down the road. Something Congress is lousy at.
By way of example. Medicare needs a lot of repair. Next year if nothing is done, doctor's fees are cut 21% and another 21% in 2011. FIX THAT 1st!
Numbers are funny things.
w/o reform National health spending is expected to reach $2.5 trillion in 2009, accounting for 17.6 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). By 2018, national health care expenditures are expected to reach $4.4 trillion—more than double 2007 spending.
According to the Council Of Economic Advisers to the President's Report (June 2009).. By 2040 if nothing is reformed, 34% of our GDP will be spent on healthcare.
So it is clear SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE.
Not sure if this will work out, but WE HAVE TO FIX THIS
agreed.
Tort reform and interstate portability are the very simple solutions that are not even being considered.
You'll never get a Congress that's half ambulance chasers to agree to give up feeding on the medical profession.
Obama and a D Congress bailed ou AIG to protect union pensions. They're squarely in the camp of Big Insurance. The state by state monopolies will remain intact.
Nobody is discussing any issues that will address greater access and lower cost. Nobody.
It's weird that MoveOn is partnering with Big Insurance. But Big insurance at 6%, only made half the margins that Heinz Corp. made last year. Perhaps MoveOn feels sorry for a struggling industry?
Also breaking this hour: Callahan won't commit to liking either Mom or apple pie at this time.
Of course the reference to the German system has a "been there done that" response. Every time someone mentions Canada someone hops on here and talks about their horror stories. Someone alswaus comes on and quicky points out a problem, no crap, whcih system is perfect?
My cousin worked for GM Canada for years and while he prefered US care he did not get the horror stories some of you partisans spot. Many would have liked some changes but when pressed did not want our system.
By mentioning Germany and Sweden as well a Japan and France and so on, it is to illustrate various systems. Can we find fault with them, of course. They all have flaws. The point is they also have very good points as well.
The US system is a good system if you can afford it. If you have to buy Insurance on your own, good luck. If the Insurance Company doesn't want to cover something dispite your paying premiums, good luck. There are serious problems with health care being a totally capitalist venture. Big Insurance has played Bernie Madoff for decades and finally people have said enough. Why do we need Blue Cross sponsering Ballyards and Chamber events, they have way to much money to play with if they can do that. We regulate public utilites but say fair game when it comes to health of american citizens.
The ideas of tort reform, portability, and no-denials are very good.
I find it amamzing that once the Democrats come forward with a Bill the Republicans cry that they have a plan, no one will listen and Pelosi's plan stinks.
In 1994 the Republicans took over Washington. They have had controlling majorities in both houses for many years yet where was their move on Health care reform?
Answer, they didn't do a damn thing because they don't care about the issue. Medicare Part D is a major handout to the Drug Companies since they wrote the Bill but Dem's joined Republicans in getting it passed. The current Bill has flaws but no one is buying the Republican stall tactics anymore. You had many opportunities and the American people know you don't give a Damn.
This bill is not perfect but you have made it clear from day one you don't want any change.
The fact that Dent is carrying the GOP water on this important issue doesn't change the urgency.
Your three strikes are over, NEXT BATTER!!
"Tort reform and interstate portability are the very simple solutions that are not even being considered."
I agree with this statement and I am completely against the Pelosi health care bill as well as Dent's "lesser evil" plan for socialized medicine - which has fallen by the wayside since the summer.
Where I do agree with the health care protesters on is that something should be done - and the key answer to that is get the government OUT of our health care.
For my health care plank, please visit http://towneforcongress.com/platform-issues/health-care
Below is what I will do as Congressman.
If citizens are in favor, I would introduce tax relief legislation to allow individuals and families to reduce their federal income tax nearly dollar-for-dollar by the amounts they spend out-of-pocket on private health care premiums. This would help make private health care a more affordable option for everyone.
I would introduce a bill to reduce federal income taxes dollar-for-dollar by amounts spent out-of-pocket by parents for their children with terminal illnesses, major disabilities or cancer. How silly is it that the government helped finance the housing boom through mortgage credits, but has no mercy when it comes to a truer form of wealth, our children? Parents in such situations would greatly benefit from such a tax relief.
Similarly, I would introduce a bill to suspend the obligation of individuals suffering from terminal illness or cancer to continue paying the Social Security tax on their income. What could be more heartless than forcing a person to continue paying Social Security money they will never see while they are sick and need every dollar to survive?
While I condemn frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits, there are certainly sad cases where individuals are harmed physically, mentally, or economically either by health care providers or insurance companies. However, liability and contract law are the responsibility of the state Congress of Pennsylvania, not DC. Of course, the right of individuals to seek recourse in state courts should not be infringed, but it is the responsibility of the state Congress to determine how best to discard frivolous lawsuits and procedurally balance the rightful reparation for plaintiffs with the need for reason in judgments against defendants.
One of the constitutional responsibilities of Congress is to "regulate Commerce... among the several States." Currently there is no state portability over state lines due in large part to the crippling state mandate system. (21) (22) This means major health care insurers must subdivide into 50 companies to cover each state, which is fairly ridiculous. I am for portability over state lines, although I must remark that using the Commerce Clause as justification for "essentially unlimited power" over health care (from House Speaker Pelosi) is completely false, see my article "To Nancy Pelosi on Health Care - Are You Serious?" (23)
THE BOTTOM LINE: Your health is too important to be in the hands of bureaucrats who can’t even balance a budget.
Jake Towne
Candidate for US Congress, PA-15
towneforcongress.com
I wouldn't write off the CMS report. Democrats in the House and the Senate should learn something from it.
I agree with Matthew Yglesias that the big question is what to make of the report. The opinion of the House Republicans seems to be that we should vote the bill down, thus depriving the currently un- or under-insured the benefits of the House bill while also not accomplishing anything on the cost-control front. A better approach, suggested by Igor Volsky, is that those interested in seeing more cost-control push for the inclusion of more robust cost-control measures such as the insurance excise tax and super-IMAC provisions that are in the Senate health care bill. Pushing for a more robust version of the public option, such as liberals initially wanted to see in the House bill, would also help.
The reason why I would not listen to Republican talking points about this is because Republican members make it clear that they won’t support a universal health care bill irrespective of the details.
Costs of health care are going to rise at an unsustainable rate without this bill and, pending more some more analysis, it might look like it doesn't tackle it as well as we should with just the House's legislation. However, if you read my post on the House's legislation (http://rrrylock.blogspot.com/2009/11/why-we-should-support-houses-health.html), we are in a much better position to tackle costs than without it.
I still would have voted for the legislation, if anything to keep the process moving. And if the final bill somehow is proven to worsen costs than improve them, that's when I would vote it down. Although, I believe there is tremendous potential in this legislation if there were less politics.
ryLock, right on as usual but this is a political blog. Mr. Ohare is a Dent operative who will nitpick your observations.
Of course you are right. I would vote for a flawed Bill over no Bill at all. Based on the history of this issue.
I love how the Republican spin masters make this a "defining issue".
Unless the Bill rivals the ten commandenments in beauty and content it is flawed and should be thrown out.
What Law or Legislation ever passed attained perfection? This is the game bieng played by Republican operatives to STOP any and all moves to reform American healthcare. Hopefully it will be seen for what it is.
"Health is too important to be left in the hands of bureaucrats who cannot even balance a budget."
That's a statement everyone ought to be able to agree with ---
But, then again, there are PLENTY of people who think Big Daddy Government WILL take care of them and actively campaign and vote for such.
Funny how it's mid-November now and the country is still arguing this health care business.
I thought Lord God King President Obama (I never heard of haste makes waste) ordered this to be done in a week last August?
Screw those Teabaggers. What happened - shouldn't this be over by now?
Where is the Super Majority and why aren't they there when we really need them?
(Because the bill sucks?)
Innocent children are dying horrible deaths by the truckloads every day...mostly on account of those rude, repugnant and racist Republicans.
"What Law or Legislation ever passed attained perfection?"
Agreed.
I do not think that any bill is better than no bill. The status quo is unsustainable, but there are bills that could make our current situation even worse -- but the House's legislation isn't one of them. Even as HR 3962 doesn't do much for cost control, it's important to move the process forward, since the Senate bill actually already seems to do much more for cost control than the House (like the excise tax and Super-MedPAC).
I'm glad this report came out before the Senate's final bill is voted on, so they have some extra cost-containment measures to go over with CMS and other Senators before conference.
"but there are bills that could make our current situation even worse -- but the House's legislation isn't one of them."
Time for some nitpicking!
The House's bill, even though it is not law, has ALREADY made the situation worse. I've linked to the HuffPo piece about health insurance premiums going up ALREADY so that when it is time to negotiate, insurance companiesd can knock them down. The main reason why Dent voted against that bill is its cost, which will be felt be everyone. It was a deal killer for him, and would be for me as well. In addition, I cannot support anything that hurts CHIP. I have seen first hand how well that program works, and it is sheer idiocy to destroy something that works.
I'd pretty much agree w/ most of the other provisions, but how do you get around the cost? In my opinion, that is impossible unless some other measures are injected into the mix, like tort reform and interstate portability. I would also advocate muich stronger regulation of the health insurance industry than exists in the current legislation.
Since this bill addresses 1/7th of our GDP, a little nitpicking is in order.
So eiter way the Health Insurance Companies want to hold us hostage. fight us and we will increase your premiums or let us go and we will increase your premiums. Well Dent can surrender but I say fight. Fight the bloated bastards!
NEXT!!!
Breaking news Bernie..MC reporting that President Obama will be in Allentown in early December and Callahan will be on his to do list. No details yet but it looks like he will spend an entire day in and around the Queen city. Cool.
Wow! Scott Armstrong will be so happy!
I'm all for nitpicking!
"I've linked to the HuffPo piece about health insurance premiums going up ALREADY so that when it is time to negotiate, insurance companiesd can knock them down."
I read this article and completely agree that the Blue Dogs fucked up cost controls big time by proposing negotiated rates instead of "Medicare plus five" or even "Medicare plus ten" reimbursement rates. The part that I don't buy is, what insurance company wouldn't raise their prices if they felt they were in danger of ultimately having to bring their costs down in the future?
The part that's amazing about this to me is the fact that conservatives (and Dent-enthusiasts) tout this CMS report as a death-blow to the Democrats' health care legislation, but want I think it does is (a) provides for a better bill to come out of the Senate [and ultimately the conference committee] and (b) simply proves that the progressives of the House were right.
"but how do you get around the cost? In my opinion, that is impossible unless some other measures are injected into the mix, like tort reform and interstate portability. I would also advocate muich stronger regulation of the health insurance industry than exists in the current legislation."
I'm not opposed to tort reform, but it's not the life-saver that Republicans link themselves to. Most analyses that I've seen confirms that any sort of cost might reduce at most from somewhere to 0.5-1.5%. And it's also not as easy as I think people write tort reform off as being. I agree that most Democrats simply don't support it, because of the amount of trial lawyer contributions that they receive, but tort reform would have to be extremely careful -- being that it would have to ensure that whatever legislation isn't making it more difficult for people that actually need to sue for malpractice to get it done.
Also, interstate competition could also slightly reduce costs (0-3%), but the bill that Dent voted for is a complete deregulation of the insurance industry. You can't allow insurance companies to go wherever they want without strict regulation -- which is exactly what the bill that Dent supports proposes. I know I use this argument all the time, but credit card companies can move across state lines, and all of them ended up in Delaware, because the regulation is so lax. That would mean devastation for health care.
"I cannot support anything that hurts CHIP. I have seen first hand how well that program works, and it is sheer idiocy to destroy something that works."
And I'm still with you on this. I wouldn't have voted against the bill solely for this reason (because with the initial House legislation, you're not voting for implementation of those policies, you're voting to move the process forward), but I think that CHIP is an excellent program and it shouldn't be eliminated. I understand the argument: They're saying that it will be easier for lower-income family and more cost-efficient to put the entire family on Medicaid, rather than having the parents on Medicaid and the kids on CHIP. However, I still feel that would result in decreased care for children -- which is obviously something that none of us should support.
However, I don't think that the exclusion of CHIP will pass the Senate and I think that CHIP will remain after conference. Jay Rockefeller is fighting hard to keep it and he's winning the fight.
Just another reason to move the process forward.
"I'd pretty much agree w/ most of the other provisions, but how do you get around the cost?"
Did you read my post about the House's legislation -- specifically with regards to cost control? Check it out so I don't have to repeat myself. Although, the Senate has much better cost-saving measures than the House does. The Joint Committee on Taxation's numbers show that workers will make $300 billion more in wages because of the excise tax on Cadillac plans. Also, Super-MedPAC will do a great job at bending the cost curve.
The House has a lot of good parts in their bill and the Senate has lots of good parts in theirs. Much like both have bad parts of the bill. The good news is that if you take all the quality parts of the Senate bills and merge them with the superior parts of the House bill, you'd end up with a great piece of legislation.
I wouldn't put that much faith in the conference committee, but I stand by the fact that what comes out of conference will be a fundamental step in the right direction.
Ryloc,
The first step in the right direction should have come from the House. It failed bc it failed to account for cost.
Now, in a weird intersection of county and national politics, it appears that pelosi care has another problem. It may make access to nursing homese more difficult. That's the word from Ross Marcus, Northampton County's Director of Human Services.
I'm writing a post about his concerns.
Marcus is off base. Not surprising since he misinterperted the data.
I expected more out of O'Hare than to reduce this issue to the cute name "PelosiCare." In the 90's it was "HillaryCare." I suppose O'Hare fails to understand the legislative process and the concept of conference and the OTHER body of Congress. Oh well, these things happen when a Republican campaign strategist writes his blog pieces for him.
By the way, what does an individucal using a legal product have to do with healthcare? Do the smokers take issue in insuring the obese or the alcoholic? Must we be perfect to expect humane care?
These Callahan attack pieces are a joke.
Hey Central, I use the term "Pelosi care" to distinguish a very flawed bill from meaningful health care reform. And guess what? I wrote this piece.
Some of us Democrats get very turned off by politicians who refuse to give a straight answer.
"Rammed through." Bwaahaha
The President was elected by a majority of people with health care reform being one of the President's main campaign points. The only ones concerned with "ramming" are the 35%ers that would rather spend billions on wars than humanely treating our own citizens. Health care is not a "pull up by your bootstraps" issue as much as the Repubs want to make it so.
Was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "rammed through?"
Was the Social Security Act of 1965 "rammed through?"
Throughout US history, conservatives have been pulled dragging and kicking into becoming more civilized. This is no different.
Pelosi care was rammed through the House on a late Saturday night, squeaking by w/ a bare majority. Given the controversial nature of health care reform, more effort should have been spent in building more of a consensus. This is unlike Civil Rights or SS, which were popular notions in most of the country and passed by larger margins.
This partisan disaster, which will drive us into a financial abyss, is no piece of noble legislation. It is crap that will end up making things worse. It is DOA in the Senate.
Hey Central, I use the term "Pelosi care" to distinguish a very flawed bill from meaningful health care reform.
But you could use the term "House Bill" or something similar. You choose to cater to your Republican readership and feed their hunger for liberal attacks and smears. Besides, like I said, anyone who understands the legislative process would know that the House bill as it stands has little to do with what the final bill will look like. But this kind of rational though doesn't jibe with attacking a political opponent, now does it?
Re: 9:50 AM
Please. You are not this uninformed, are you? Many Democrats voted against the bill because it did not go FAR ENOUGH. In my opinion, the bill is weak for this reason. THere was no way in hell that any Repub will get on board with the President on this because they are political hacks who are given their marching orders by Hannity and Limbaugh.
To say healthcare for all Americans (like every other civilized country in the world) is not a "popular notion" is disingenuous and displays a severe lack of knowledge in the area. Sorry, but every major poll disagrees with you and the Repubs wholeheartedly.
Central,
I use the term "Pelosi care" because it is an apt description. it was no piee of bipartisan legislation, but was instead a partisan attempt to ram an expensive disaster down our throats.
"Pelosi care was rammed through the House on a late Saturday night, squeaking by w/ a bare majority."
All right, dude. Even with your distaste for the bill, let's keep it factual. The House bill was not "rammed through." Those late Saturday night votes are by no means uncommon to congress. Second, don't think for a second that Pelosi didn't have more than 220 votes if she needed them. She, guaranteed, let a lot of people vote against it -- not entirely because of their aversion to the legislation, but because they live in conservative districts and it would have been politically obtuse for them to vote for this "liberal" bill when the House legislation will have little to do with the more conservative bill that comes out of conference.
"This partisan disaster, which will drive us into a financial abyss, is no piece of noble legislation. It is crap that will end up making things worse. It is DOA in the Senate."
Let's not forget here that the Republicans #1 goal is obstruction. Besides Richard Nixon, no Republican has effectively tried to reform our health care system. Let's try to remember the facts if you're spewing off this psychobabble bullshit. Republicans won't vote for anything. The Republicans wouldn't have even voted on their own bill if it was written by Obama. Facts to prove this? The number of Republicans (especially Grassley) that were fully supportive of an individual mandate until the Democrats started coming around to it. Now Republicans and Grassley don't just disagree with it, they think it's unconstitutional. Think with your head -- not Dent's. Republicans had their plan from day one and it was: stop Obama from signing a bill. The only way that they would have been satisfied where if the bill that they wrote garnered enough bipartisan support to push through their alternative bill and they could tout it as a victory for them and a blow against Obama. Luckily for people like me, their bill was an utter joke and completely torn to pieces by the CBO.
And let's also not forget that the House's legislation reduces the deficit by $104b. (The Republican bill only does so by $68b.) But let me guess! The CBO scores are overstated on the Democratic plan and understated on the Republican plan! Right?!
This legislation is by no means making things worse, and while it's not a giant leap, it's a solid step in the right direction. I want it to do more with cost-control to (which it will when it's merged with the cost-saving measures in the Senate bill), but many economists say that we literally cannot take care of the cost problem until we take care of the coverage problem -- if most sane people want 36 million more people covered.
And the House bill DOA in the Senate? Such a stupid talking point. You realize they write different bills, don't you? The House bill isn't voted on in the Senate. You sound as dumb as Lindsey Graham.
You use it to evoke negative sentiment amongst the conservative right. Let's not kid ourselves.
And the House bill DOA in the Senate? Such a stupid talking point. You realize they write different bills, don't you? The House bill isn't voted on in the Senate. You sound as dumb as Lindsey Graham.
Isn't it amazing that most people who comment on the legislative process have no idea on how it actually works.
Two words for O'Hare: Schoolhouse Rock
Hey Central & Ryloc,
First of all, let's get beyond this cheap schoolyard tricks, shall we? I know very well that the House and Senate vote on different versions. My point is that the final bill out of conference will be nothing like the Pelosi care package enacted in the House. I have read similar remarks elsewhere, regarding this and other legislative packages, throughout the years.
Since that is the case, and since the bill is seriously flawed, why did it pass in the first place? It is, as I stated, DOA.
Ryloc, if you honestly feel that Republicans' Number 1 goal is obstruction, then you are unwilling to work on a bipartisan solution. With that attitude, you yourself become the obstructionist, dismissing every R proposal as tainted.
I refuse to accept the notion that Rs have nothing to offer but ostructionism. I also refuse to accept the bullshit that everything sposored by a Democrat is necessarily good.
Pelosi care, and I use that term to describe a partisan concoction to a serious national problem, is a flawed bill. It is every bit as flawed and just as divisive as the partisan cap-and-trade bill she rammed thru the House. That bill, incidentally, is DOA in the Senate, too. I would not pass a flawed bill just to move the process forward, as Ryloc has ridiculously suggested.
We all know, or should know, that it will increase our defecit too much. It incredibly kills the one program - CHIP - that actually works and that Dent voted to support.
We need a solution, not partisan games. Everything should be on the table.
"I know very well that the House and Senate vote on different versions."
Hey, no harm, no foul. Stating that "a House bill is DOA in the Senate" sounds an awful lot like it's from a person that doesn't really understand the process.
"Ryloc, if you honestly feel that Republicans' Number 1 goal is obstruction, then you are unwilling to work on a bipartisan solution. With that attitude, you yourself become the obstructionist, dismissing every R proposal as tainted."
Have you ever read anything that I wrote? Specifically in this same post? Where I did not write off tort reform or interstate portability? I don't think tort reform is a godsend and I think both could be a very bad idea if not properly regulated, but I never wrote them off. And the reasons why I don't trust these ideas coming Republicans is because most (if not all) Republicans feel that the role of government should be severely downgraded in any system. For things especially like buying insurance across state-lines, that is a very bad thing. Let's not forget about the financial collapse that was almost completely because of regulation. And I attach that more to Republicans than Democrats simply because it's true that more R's push to deregulate everything than D's, but I also won't let people like Clinton off the hook who played a decent part in the deregulation of the industry.
"I would not pass a flawed bill just to move the process forward, as Ryloc has ridiculously suggested. "
If it is at least a mild step in the right direction and it will, in all likelihood, get better -- why the hell wouldn't you, even if you didn't agree with it entirely?
Don't get me started on everything that you've ridiculously suggested. I can always just call Dent and ask if he's got a list of talking points I can read. That should take care of part of it.
"We need a solution, not partisan games. Everything should be on the table."
Then agree with me that the Republican alternative is a joke of a bill. It's far worse than HR 3962. Just ask the CBO.
"We all know, or should know, that it will increase our defecit too much"
ARE YOU SERIOUS? Honestly. How many times do I have to say that THE HOUSE BILL (HR 3962) REDUCES THE DEFICIT BY ONE HUNDRED AND FOUR BILLION DOLLARS OVER TEN YEARS AND EVEN MORE AFTER THAT -- AS CONFIRMED BY THE CBO, THE MOST TRUSTED NON-PARTISAN ANALYSIS GIVING INSTITUTION IN WASHINGTON.
Hopefully that cleared some things up.
You guys are doing a great job, prepare to be deleted by Ohare!
Good for you Bernie. I usually get the universal greeting when I remind people that Cigarettes are litter after they flick their butts out their car window.
The Senate bill also reduces the deficit. And since it hasn't even been brought to cloture yet, how can it be DOA? I'm very confused.
Post a Comment