From "The Myth of the Moderate Democrat:" Knowing that the bill will likely be political suicide for any red state Democratic congressman, particularly if he is a freshman, the House leadership had to negotiate with its members to assure that the 38 defectors were the ones who needed political cover the most. That there would be 38 Democrats who would oppose the bill was preordained. Who they would be was the subject of negotiations right up to the wire.
this whole bill is all political, it makes me sick to my stomach to realize what our congressman have come to. the republican from new orleans who voted for it spoke his views. although he doesn't like the whole bill, he said one of the very bad things in the bill is that if you don't have insurance you will be fined or worse. arrested. He made a very good point..who benefits from this? the govt? no, the insurance companies. they are pushing this because guess what?..40 million more policies will have to be sold, that means more money in their pocket. it's all about the money people..your money, just handing it out to the big exec's that are in the pockets of our congressmen and our president.
As much as it pains me to admit that I've been taken, I'm afraid that I have to agree with Glock10mm. The more that this House vote is exposed to the glaring light of day, the more it looks like we have been bamboozled - AGAIN. Just when I thought it might be safe to trust again...
I'm so naive! I just learned that Pelosi had the votes counted and once they realized they had enough, they let some "Blue Dogs" from conservative states vote "no" to save their hides.
Herseth-Sandlin voted against this for one reason only, political expediency. Only because Pelosi let her (and a handful of others) off the hook did she vote "no".
I feel so used and dirty. For a few days I thought Herseth-Sandlin was actually becoming fiscally conservative again. Then reality hit me in the head. 2010 can't get here fast enough.
when issues occur that are based on that 1900 page bill, a judge, or a court, will go straight to the wording of the bill to state "grant relief" or to "deny":
wording does matter, with 1900 pages of words, how they are structured, what they say, when it is 'law' will not be changed--the bill supposedly won't take effect until 2013; with that much time before it's to be in effect--taking six more months or a year to read and know what exists in those 1900 pages should be required of each Representative adn Senator--because the legal words may be a 100% bonus to insurance companies or the pharmaceutical industry, rather than help millions of people who already pay through the teeth for insurance coverage that is controlled by the insurance companies--who have been death panels for decades: they earn really nice money and decide if you are allowed coverage, regardless of death being a reality--death means more money for the insurance industry because they would pay for less care--each death is ka-ching into the accounts of the insurance companies--with how many deals in the 1900 pages that cover the pharmaceutical companies interconnections to the insurance industry/HMOs ?
as regards a 'public option' --'death' will still be the preferred choice from whatever system 1900 pages creates: no money into the system means that coverage will be the least that they are required to do within the words of 1900 pages.
for those that say that 'health' and 'life' is not a guarantee --it certainly is not when those who control the decision are only concerned about spinning the words to look good while making certain that their profits remain excessive: nobody ever said that profits should not be allowed--the 'record breaking profits' with the majority of people paying every dollar they have to survive ?
First of all, let's settle down with the accusations. Take a few deep breaths and let's have a conversation, ok?
Please tell me one thing that is gained by knowing in what code of what act and what line and paragraph a certain provision is found. Just tell me one thing gained. Because that business about the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 takes up about three pages in the bill. I would much rather a Rep not read every sentence about which paragraph of US code will be changed and know the bill will not grant coverage to illegal immigrants than a Rep read the bill line by line and think it does.
Now, as to hidden agendas, I fully support everyone being able to read the bill. I fully support everyone knowing what the bill would do or what it says.
And why do we need bills that are thousands of pages long? Because we're dealing with incredibly complex issues affecting hundreds of millions of people involving trillions of dollars exchanging hands and occupying an incredible chunk of our economy. Given the scope of that, I think it's pretty understandable that we get a little more complex than "Health Care Good. Give Public Option." We're dealing with tax code, health care, insurance providers, Medicare, and a public exchange. It's a little more complex than your average third grade book report.
Every state has a State Dept of Insurance. They are given the responsibility of over-seeing the insurance industry doing business in their respective states. If they are doing their job, rate increases have to be justified and coverage issues reviewed. They have the authority to deny rate increase and pose severe penalties on companies that violate the rules. In my opinion, these offices have become so political that they no longer are effective. The entire system is a fraud! Claims are unjustly denied, rate increases rubber stamped, providers inflate costs and Congress just looks the other way. As an example, Medicare pays over $4,000 for scooters that anyone can purchase for about $1800. How about the cost of a box of tissue or a tooth brush. If this kind of price gouging was done anywhere else, people would be arrested for fraud. The arguement that providers need the extra mark up to pay for the cost of uninsured patients doesn't make it right. It's stiil fraud. Why can we just be honest?
responce to Jammer said on: November 8, 2009, 9:35 am Poplicola --You sound like somebody that likes to sneak things through the system. I have numerous issues with your thought process. Jammer, you are so right the devil is in the detail. There is so many things hidden in this bill, I think many will be exposed in the next year if we do get a house senate compromise. The biggest lier about this bill is the leadership of both chambers, and the President. They know what is in it and want to get something passed before the people find out the details. The bill is all about two things. Gov. control and payback to Obama supporters, the biggest being SCIU. I challenge any one to show me on piece of the bill that will lower the cost of health care for anyone currently with insurance (one of the broken promises).
PEOPLE do some of your own reserch Don't rely on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, or FOX. Wake up take control of your future, don't leave it up to the Gov.
Sorry Stephie, It's been reported that after the pre-vote head count, the party recommended that certain Representatives vote NO since it would pass without their yes vote. These Representatives are from basically conservative states. Your record does not support your allegence to your constituents. Your vote is entirely different from your position a few months ago. Maybe I could be convinced if you would sign on to the Flemming amendment. Weren't you quoted as stating you read every bill you voted on? That's like saying you live in South Dakota because you rent an apartment in Brookings. Again, sorry but you prior history doesn't support your new found concern for the people of this state!
Poplicola --You sound like somebody that likes to sneak things through the system. I have numerous issues with your thought process.
First of all, why do we need to have bills that are 2000 pages thick? I guess so devious lawmakers can sneak things past lazy lawmakers. There are going to be numerous cases of little laws being stuck into the big 2000 page document that people never knew were in there.
You talk about it being more important for lawmakers to know what the bill "supposedly" does, rather than to read every sentence in it. I could not disagree more.
I think it is more important for the American citizens to know what the bill does, rather than to have to read every sentence. We elect Representatives and Senators to do that for us. It is their job to make sure that what is represented to the people is actually what is written into the law. And now you say that is not their job. Well, then who's job is it. Some inexperienced intern that has the most liberal bias on Capitol Hill?
Only a person with a "hidden" agenda can make the kind of statement that you did. We hired these people to represent us when it comes to making the laws of the land. They all said they wanted the job. Now, it is time for them to do their job.
what about AARP? The AARP got a financial windfall in return for its support of the healthcare bill. Over the past decade, the AARP has morphed from an advocacy group to an insurance company (through its subsidiary company). It is one of the main suppliers of Medi-gap insurance, a high-cost, privately purchased coverage that picks up where Medicare leaves off. But President Bush-43 passed the Medicare Advantage program, which offered a subsidized, lower-cost alternative to Medi-gap. Under Medicare Advantage, the elderly get all the extra coverage they need plus coordinated, well-managed care, usually by the same physician. So more than 10 million seniors went with Medicare Advantage, cutting into AARP Medi-gap revenues.
Presto! Obama solved their problem. He eliminates subsidies for Medicare Advantage. The elderly will have to pay more for coverage under Medigap, but the AARP -- which supposedly represents them -- will make more money. (If this galls you, join the American Seniors Association, the alternative group; contact sbarton@americanseniors.org. This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .)
Anyone interested in how Obama got support from AMA? The American Medical Association (AMA) was facing a 21 percent cut in physicians' reimbursements under the current law. Obama promised to kill the cut if they backed his bill. The cuts are the fruit of a law requiring annual 5-6 percent reductions in doctor reimbursements for treating Medicare patients. Bravely, each year Congress has rolled the cuts over, suspending them but not repealing them. So each year, the accumulated cuts threaten doctors. By now, they have risen to 21 percent. With this blackmail leverage, Obama compelled the AMA to support his bill...or else!
Jammer-- I am much more concerned with whether a Representative knows that the bill would do than if the Representative has read every last sentence. For example, I think it's much more important a Rep knows what an employer-provided health plan is than the Rep know that means a plan defined in section 733 (a)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. In fact, I don't think it's necessary whatsoever to know an employer-provided health plan was definted in section 733 (a)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to form an opinion on this bill. You're not seeing the forest for the trees.
Hey Linda - I wish we could sue everyone of them that has not completely read and understood every bill before they voted on it with political malpractice. If they vote for anything that they have not completely read, I think they have failed to live up to the responsibilities of their job.
i am righteously impressed with 46 replies--disagreement throughout--opposing points--but .....RCJ new style, new format :: 46 !!! 'proves' that 'hot topics' won't be ignored: yippee!!!
do i have an opinion.
of course.
but.
i don't want to get slaughtered by either ( both ? ) side.
my Grandparents raised me: they talked politics with each other but they did not tell each other how to vote nor how each did vote. i wish there was a way that we could force everyone in 'Congress' to take a lie detector to say 'yeah' or 'nay' to having read and understood 1900 ( ?) pages supposed to be the salvation for healthcare: 'fail' with passing the 'lie detector' --cattle prods do have a use. IMO
You don't have a right to health care and no one should provide it for you. Next you liberals are going to tell us that you have a right to organic only foods because it will prolong your lives so the rest of us should pay for that too? We have the best healthcare system in the world that's why people come here from all over the world to be treated and cured. DUH! Get it???
To Wolfy: You posted the bill on October 29 that they are were still "working on" and changing the wording of as late as yesterday afternoon? Good trick! Yesterday afternoon the language was changed to backdoor illegal aliens into the bill to get the votes of the twenty Hispanic caucus members. Was that also on your October 29 posting?
Dear Leader has stated many times his goal is a single-payer system. They will arrive at that just like they've arrived at covering illegal aliens: Twenty Democrats from that coalition said they would not vote for the bill if illegals were not covered. To get their voting block to vote for the bill, and knowing the bill couldn't contain languaage saying illegal aliens ARE covered, the language was changed to read that photo IDs are not required. Look for reports in the future of "the same person" to be in six different hospitals at the same time. They have, are, and will in the future say and do ANYTHING they have to deliver the system Dear Leader has stated he desires.
If you assume everyone is a liar then why bother having laws and rules. The bill is what it is, you have to at least believe that the elected officials will enact what they vote on. Regarding the 72 hours, the bill has been available for over a week. As a matter of fact I posted the link to the bill on this board on October 29. Here is my comment from that day: http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/news/article_5aec1fbe-c4ae-11de-a516-001cc4c002e0.html?mode=comments
A "Public Option" is just another fancy way of saying "Yeah, your paying for this too"! Sure you can purchase another Insurance, BUT your still going to be paying for The Govt.Insurance too. It will be like a Gas Tax, you need the gas so YOU pay for it. Ask yourself this... If this Health Care is going to be so good, WHY wont Congress take it?
For anyone who believes that CheckpointsAreUnconstitutional has actually "spoken to dozens of people from Canada, the UK, and France" in-depth about their health care plans, costs and options, I have some great beach-front property in Idaho ....
Then why do my relatives from Canada come to America for faster and better health care? Two of them were given up by Canadian doctors but our American doctors cured them of their cancer. They were on a waiting list of six months to a year in Canada while they got help from American doctors right away. Waiting in line is not the way to attack a cancer. I sure hope we are not going for health care like Canadians do
Checkpoints - I have lived in countries that have this type of system and so my comments are from personal observation and experience. Yes, I had some local friends that felt the same way that you do. However, that was the only system they knew and the local media would often portray Americans as "dying in the street" from a lack of healthcare. So, I took their comments for what they were - misguided.
As for your statement about the costs being lower, that is not really accurate either. Yes - the direct costs of the helthcare is lower. However, you are not considering the huge tax burdens that the people have to endure to subsidize the healthcare system. And these heavy tax burdens are just not on the rich.
Many of these countries have taxed away most of their rich people. The only people left to pay taxes are the middle class. So, please do not mislead people by saying it is cheaper, it is not. Go and look what the tax rates are in these countries. Also, look at the standard of living many of these people have. They live in apartments and have one TV. I am not sure that is the lifestyle most Americans would aspire to.
Jammer - I read your comment 3 times and all you seem to say is "I disagree with what you said because I don't think that's the way it is." I've spoken to dozens of people from Canada, the UK, and France who all have hybrid systems like I described, with universal basic coverage and optional private insurance to provide supplemental care. Every single person has said that they're happy with that system and that they would never trade their system for ours. No system is perfect, but some are better than the one we have. Oh, and the French, the Canadians, the Brits, the Swedes, etc. all pay less per capita for health care than Americans do. Their way covers everyone and it's still less expensive.
devils advocate Wrote "I seriously doubt anyone posting on this site could tell us what the bill does and doesnt cover anyway. Is there a public option? What is the estimated cost? what is the reduction in medciare/medicaid federal funding? What will this health care reform bill accomplish? anyone?"
Yes there is a public option, 1.1 Trillion, 500 Billion. Accomplish? By 2013 anyone without insurance must purchase public option, their by cutting off private insurance getting new client's, Limiting them to an aging client-el. If that won't drive them out of business, at some point in time they will all die. Wallah single payer. It also taxes a large % of the middle class at a staggering 40% of their currant health insurance cost, while not containing anything to lower health insurance. Any other questions?
clktss said "If any one watch Keith Olberman's special comment on health care, you would maybe have a different thought on people you don't want to think about that are sent home to suffer and die every day because they can not afford medical care."
The intelligence of anyone that believes anything from Keith Olberman has to be questioned.
Excellent! We fully support her decision. She knows it would be political suicide to vote for this monstrosity. I hope Johnson gets the message too. Sure, health care needs reform. But not like this, and not right now. Obama has not demonstrated any expertise at fixing anything. He's really not qualified to be president, much less a Asst. Manager at a Pizza Hut (no offense Pizza Hut managers!). Let's all agree he needs to stop before he destroys our economy, ok? He's like Jimmy Carter on steroids.
To Wolfy: Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the socialists will SAY anything to get this bill passed. The newly elected Representative from NY-27 ran promising to vote "No." Since the election Tuesday, he's "found" a reason to vote for it. They lie. Fact of the matter is, you can not assure me of what will be in the bill and what won't because you don't know. You can only repeat what they say. And we know they lie. On-line for seventy-two hours before they vote? Ooops. Another lie.
Under Pelosi’s bill, the Joint Committee on Taxation reports that if an individual or a couple with a joint return does not maintain 'acceptable' health insurance coverage they will be taxed. If a taxpayer doesn’t comply with the individual mandate and doesn’t pay the additional tax, the code provides for both civil and criminal penalties making U.S. citizens healthcare criminals.
There are currently three proposal working their way through congress. A house Republican plan, a senate Democratic plan and the one in question here a house democratic plan. These are the highlights of that plan.
Who’s covered: About 96 percent of legal residents under age 65 — compared with 83 percent now.
Cost: The Congressional Budget Office says the net cost of the bill's expanding insurance coverage over 10 years is $894 billion,
Paid for: $460 billion over the next decade from new income taxes on single people making more than $500,000 a year and couples making $1 million There are also more than $400 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid
Choosing insurance: Beginning in 2013 through a new Health Insurance Exchange open to individuals and, initially, small employers; it could be expanded to large employers over time. States could opt to operate their own exchanges in place of the national exchange if they follow federal rules
Benefit package: A committee would recommend a so-called essential benefits package including preventive services; out-of pocket costs would be capped. The new benefit package would be the basic benefit package offered in the exchange
Requirements: Individuals must have insurance, enforced through a tax penalty of 2.5 percent of income. People can apply for hardship waivers if coverage is unaffordable
Government plan: A new public plan available through the insurance exchanges would be set up and run by the secretary of Health and Human Services
Industry restrictions: No denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions. No higher premiums allowed for pre-existing conditions or gender. Limits on higher premiums based on age.
Antitrust: Would strip the health insurance industry of a long-standing exemption from antitrust laws covering market allocation, price fixing and bid rigging.
Changes to Medicaid: The federal-state insurance program for the poor would be expanded to cover all individuals under age 65 with incomes up to 150 percent of the federal poverty level, which is $33,075 per year for a family of four. The federal government would pick up the full cost of the expansion in 2013 and 2014; thereafter the federal government would pay 91 percent and states would pay 9 percent.
No, the bill has a Public OPTION. As the name implies it is optional. They estimate that between 5-10% of Americans will choose the public option. The rest will keep the insurance they have or get other private insurance. But guess what, the public option will introduce competition and keep the insurance companies honest. It will provide insurance for those who can't afford it and it will lower insurance cost for the rest of us.
Well, Larry 2 hands, sounds like the "Hope and Change" thing is working out well for you. Can't wait to hear your comments after the elections in 2010. Hatred is not good for one's health, even of FOX News.
"Looks like last Tuesdays election put some sense in her head and some fear in her heart."
-Really, cuz the Democrats gained 2 seats in the House.
Surely Fox News didn't report that! And did everyone hear the quote from the owner of Fox, Rupert Murdoch? He stated that he tells Fox pundits what they can and cannot say. -So, basically, Fox, the media outlet for the Republican party, takes it's notes from a socialist in England. Who knew?!
Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail.
I dont support this bill: 1) Its being pushed to fast. 2)all the info in regards to it are not fully known. 3)Somthing this big and costly should be implemented over a couple years so the bugs can be worked out and people can ajust into it. 4) I just dont trust Obama or the other Idiots in charge.
Hey Checkpoints - I think your view that these systems are working successfully is inaccurate. You are correct that there are numerous systems that operate as you pointed out. However, I believe your leap of faith that these systems are working satisfactorily is merely wishful thinking.
I don't disagree that something needs to be done for people that are unable to get healthcare insurance. However, I seriously question your solution.
One If By Land - No, you're incorrect about what a single payer system implies. There are real single payer systems you could learn about if you were actually interested, such as the Canadian system. Canadians have the option of purchasing supplemental insurance from private companies, allowing someone to get coverage for procedures that might not be covered by the public/universal system (this is a means of addressing the concerns about rationing...if you can afford better care then you can get better care). What I suggested is perfectly reasonable and is in fact successfully working in Canada and in other places.
We have only elected 3 Dem Governors, but we will elect to Washington Democrats that are to the right of center...Although Steph saw the writing on the wall running against Dennis for Governor, she has been supporting her states conservative aganda...Thank you Steph!!!
I agree with Korvet. This is a planned strategy. She would be much more likely to be defeated if she voted for it. The Democratic National Committee and Obamification will allow a few representatives to vote no to say 2 things. 1) See we allow disagreements in our own party. 2) We are working towards bilateral support. They know exactly how many votes they need to pass it and by giving her a pass on this issue they will make her comply on another issue down the road that will be more tolerable to the voters of South Dakota. At that point a different representative will be off the hook in his area to give him or her a better chance of winning re-election. I serioulsy doubt her coming out this way has to do with her real opinion on healthcare. This is already about re-election. When it comes down to it, so much pork and pet projects will be added to this bill that people can vote however they want and then blame it on the add-ons for the reason they voted the way they did.
seems like there are some people who just read the headlines and not the stories...read the story and take note that she is voting against the bill not because she would prefer to withold health care from almost 50 million americans, but because in her opinion the bill wont do enough to help the uninsured.
I seriously doubt anyone posting on this site could tell us what the bill does and doesnt cover anyway. Is there a public option? What is the estimated cost? what is the reduction in medciare/medicaid federal funding? What will this health care reform bill accomplish? anyone?
There is currently a bill in the US Senate called the Prevent Health Care Fraud Act. It would require the government to implement proven technologies to red-flag questionable Medicare and Medicaid charges. This is the same technology used by credit card companies to keep fraudulent charges to less than seven cents for every $100 charged. By comparison, one out of every seven dollars spent on Medicare and Medicaid may be lost to health care fraud.
In addition, the bill requires the government to conduct background checks on all new and current health service providers who do business with the federal government. Before we pay claims, we ought to know who we're dealing with. These are common sense solutions and hopefully will be approved and signed into law.
It will be interesting to see if Senator Johnson supports this legislation. The complete destruction of our healthcare system is not the only way to reform healthcare.
I wonder just how much money the Senators and Representatives in this country are getting from the private insurance companies to vote against health care reform?
This is terrible, and no one in congress at any point in time will ever agree on how to help the poor, sick, uninsured Americans who die every day without health care.
If any one watch Keith Olberman's special comment on health care, you would maybe have a different thought on people you don't want to think about that are sent home to suffer and die every day because they can not afford medical care.
"I want MY free insurance and if I don't get it, I won't vote for you again because I have the right to have someone else pay for it for me." Have I got that right?
Sicangu Warrior appears believe that if the Indian Health Care Improvement Act is embedded within HR3962, and if Rep Herseth-Sandlin does not support HR3962, then she opposes all parts thereof. The Indian Health Care Improvement Act is just one small part of a huge trillion-plus dollar behemoth Bill that, if it becomes law, will redefine 30% of the US economy.
When a Bill comes up for floor vote it is not possible to vote in favor of some parts of a Bill and not other parts. If the Indian Health Care Improvement Act has merit (I'm not familiar with its provisions) then pass it on its own or embed it within an overall Bill that is supportable.
Again, I commend Rep Herseth-Sandlin for sticking by her principles and not caving on this Bill with its current flaws. The stakes are too high to not get this right.
Stephanie just can't win with you people. If she votes against whatever you are for, she's no good. If she votes FOR whatever you are for, you call her a sell-out or say she is just doing it to get re-elected.
I personally believe she is doing her job and doing it well. She was elected to represent her constituants. After finding that most South Dakotans are against this bill, and more importantly, after reading it herself, she has judged that the bill as it is written right now, is NOT what is best for us. I want healthcare reform as much as anyone, but I trust Stephanie's judgement. When the bill is finally worked out, I believe we will indeed have healthcare reform, and it will be something we can all live with.
CheckpointsAreUnconstitutional said "we should move to a single payer system with private insurance being an option for anyone who wants it."
Do you even read what you write, much less actually think it through? Which are you in favor of, "a single payer system" or a system "with private insurance being an option"? They are mutually exclusive systems.
But I digress. The real purpose of my comment is to commend Rep Herseth-Sandlin for sticking by her word. She went on record early on in this discussion as to what was acceptable and what she couldn't sign onto.
I see great danger in having both Houses of Congress and the White House all controlled by one Party, especially with a fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate (and yes, I mean EITHER Party). We can only hope that at least a few Congressional Democrats will also see this danger, act with prudence and vote their conscience.
HR 3962 has the Indian Health Care Improvement Act embeded in it. Why come to our SD Tribal Nations and petition our vote when you won't give us one of yours? South Dakota Indian country and our 564 Tribal Nations across America have just been slapped in the face by those against passage of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.
***our elected officials are unwilling to stop the monopolies of the insurance companies***
I take it you're of the opinion that if the government were in charge of the entire healthcare system, and the taxpayers were FORCED to buy their insurance from them they wouldn't have a monoploy. Yeah, okay.
I think our Representative is the one who is "missing the crucial opportunity". It is shameful that so many people cannot afford insurance and our elected officials are unwilling to stop the monopolies of the insurance companies.
As far as improving the bill goes, they could start by removing the requirement for citizens to purchase insurance from private businesses. Forcing people to buy products from companies is patently unamerican. At least with auto insurance you can choose not to drive and avoid having to buy it. If we've decided as a nation that everyone must have health coverage then we should move to a single payer system with private insurance being an option for anyone who wants it. If we haven't decided that everyone must be covered, then we should at least work to bring costs down by addressing malpractice insurance and unnecessary procedures caused by fear of lawsuits. In addition, we should make sure insurance companies can compete nationally to bring down prices through true competition.
Is there anything Rush Limbaugh would say that you would question the legitimacy of for even three seconds before buying hook line and sinker?
Herseth-Sandlin voted against this for one reason only, political expediency. Only because Pelosi let her (and a handful of others) off the hook did she vote "no".
I feel so used and dirty. For a few days I thought Herseth-Sandlin was actually becoming fiscally conservative again. Then reality hit me in the head. 2010 can't get here fast enough.
wording does matter, with 1900 pages of words, how they are structured, what they say, when it is 'law' will not be changed--the bill supposedly won't take effect until 2013; with that much time before it's to be in effect--taking six more months or a year to read and know what exists in those 1900 pages should be required of each Representative adn Senator--because the legal words may be a 100% bonus to insurance companies or the pharmaceutical industry, rather than help millions of people who already pay through the teeth for insurance coverage that is controlled by the insurance companies--who have been death panels for decades: they earn really nice money and decide if you are allowed coverage, regardless of death being a reality--death means more money for the insurance industry because they would pay for less care--each death is ka-ching into the accounts of the insurance companies--with how many deals in the 1900 pages that cover the pharmaceutical companies interconnections to the insurance industry/HMOs ?
as regards a 'public option' --'death' will still be the preferred choice from whatever system 1900 pages creates: no money into the system means that coverage will be the least that they are required to do within the words of 1900 pages.
for those that say that 'health' and 'life' is not a guarantee --it certainly is not when those who control the decision are only concerned about spinning the words to look good while making certain that their profits remain excessive: nobody ever said that profits should not be allowed--the 'record breaking profits' with the majority of people paying every dollar they have to survive ?
enough.
cattle prods would be useful. IMO
First of all, let's settle down with the accusations. Take a few deep breaths and let's have a conversation, ok?
Please tell me one thing that is gained by knowing in what code of what act and what line and paragraph a certain provision is found. Just tell me one thing gained. Because that business about the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 takes up about three pages in the bill. I would much rather a Rep not read every sentence about which paragraph of US code will be changed and know the bill will not grant coverage to illegal immigrants than a Rep read the bill line by line and think it does.
Now, as to hidden agendas, I fully support everyone being able to read the bill. I fully support everyone knowing what the bill would do or what it says.
And why do we need bills that are thousands of pages long? Because we're dealing with incredibly complex issues affecting hundreds of millions of people involving trillions of dollars exchanging hands and occupying an incredible chunk of our economy. Given the scope of that, I think it's pretty understandable that we get a little more complex than "Health Care Good. Give Public Option." We're dealing with tax code, health care, insurance providers, Medicare, and a public exchange. It's a little more complex than your average third grade book report.
What else?
The entire system is a fraud! Claims are unjustly denied, rate increases rubber stamped, providers inflate costs and Congress just looks the other way. As an example, Medicare pays over $4,000 for scooters that anyone can purchase for about $1800. How about the cost of a box of tissue or a tooth brush. If this kind of price gouging was done anywhere else, people would be arrested for fraud. The arguement that providers need the extra mark up to pay for the cost of uninsured patients doesn't make it right. It's stiil fraud. Why can we just be honest?
Poplicola --You sound like somebody that likes to sneak things through the system. I have numerous issues with your thought process. Jammer, you are so right the devil is in the detail. There is so many things hidden in this bill, I think many will be exposed in the next year if we do get a house senate compromise. The biggest lier about this bill is the leadership of both chambers, and the President. They know what is in it and want to get something passed before the people find out the details. The bill is all about two things. Gov. control and payback to Obama supporters, the biggest being SCIU. I challenge any one to show me on piece of the bill that will lower the cost of health care for anyone currently with insurance (one of the broken promises).
PEOPLE do some of your own reserch Don't rely on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, or FOX. Wake up take control of your future, don't leave it up to the Gov.
Again, sorry but you prior history doesn't support your new found concern for the people of this state!
First of all, why do we need to have bills that are 2000 pages thick? I guess so devious lawmakers can sneak things past lazy lawmakers. There are going to be numerous cases of little laws being stuck into the big 2000 page document that people never knew were in there.
You talk about it being more important for lawmakers to know what the bill "supposedly" does, rather than to read every sentence in it. I could not disagree more.
I think it is more important for the American citizens to know what the bill does, rather than to have to read every sentence. We elect Representatives and Senators to do that for us. It is their job to make sure that what is represented to the people is actually what is written into the law. And now you say that is not their job. Well, then who's job is it. Some inexperienced intern that has the most liberal bias on Capitol Hill?
Only a person with a "hidden" agenda can make the kind of statement that you did. We hired these people to represent us when it comes to making the laws of the land. They all said they wanted the job. Now, it is time for them to do their job.
Presto! Obama solved their problem. He eliminates subsidies for Medicare Advantage. The elderly will have to pay more for coverage under Medigap, but the AARP -- which supposedly represents them -- will make more money. (If this galls you, join the American Seniors Association, the alternative group; contact sbarton@americanseniors.org. This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .)
I am much more concerned with whether a Representative knows that the bill would do than if the Representative has read every last sentence. For example, I think it's much more important a Rep knows what an employer-provided health plan is than the Rep know that means a plan defined in section 733 (a)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. In fact, I don't think it's necessary whatsoever to know an employer-provided health plan was definted in section 733 (a)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to form an opinion on this bill. You're not seeing the forest for the trees.
do i have an opinion.
of course.
but.
i don't want to get slaughtered by either ( both ? ) side.
my Grandparents raised me: they talked politics with each other but they did not tell each other how to vote nor how each did vote. i wish there was a way that we could force everyone in 'Congress' to take a lie detector to say 'yeah' or 'nay' to having read and understood 1900 ( ?) pages supposed to be the salvation for healthcare: 'fail' with passing the 'lie detector' --cattle prods do have a use. IMO
Not everyone. Just Socialist Progressives. I have a test to see if they are lying. I look to see if their lips are moving.
If you assume everyone is a liar then why bother having laws and rules. The bill is what it is, you have to at least believe that the elected officials will enact what they vote on.
Regarding the 72 hours, the bill has been available for over a week. As a matter of fact I posted the link to the bill on this board on October 29. Here is my comment from that day: http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/news/article_5aec1fbe-c4ae-11de-a516-001cc4c002e0.html?mode=comments
Sure you can purchase another Insurance, BUT your still going to be paying for The Govt.Insurance too. It will be like a Gas Tax, you need the gas so YOU pay for it.
Ask yourself this... If this Health Care is going to be so good, WHY wont Congress take it?
As for your statement about the costs being lower, that is not really accurate either. Yes - the direct costs of the helthcare is lower. However, you are not considering the huge tax burdens that the people have to endure to subsidize the healthcare system. And these heavy tax burdens are just not on the rich.
Many of these countries have taxed away most of their rich people. The only people left to pay taxes are the middle class. So, please do not mislead people by saying it is cheaper, it is not. Go and look what the tax rates are in these countries. Also, look at the standard of living many of these people have. They live in apartments and have one TV. I am not sure that is the lifestyle most Americans would aspire to.
Good call my friend but made a year too late.
Yes there is a public option, 1.1 Trillion, 500 Billion. Accomplish? By 2013 anyone without insurance must purchase public option, their by cutting off private insurance getting new client's, Limiting them to an aging client-el. If that won't drive them out of business, at some point in time they will all die. Wallah single payer. It also taxes a large % of the middle class at a staggering 40% of their currant health insurance cost, while not containing anything to lower health insurance. Any other questions?
The intelligence of anyone that believes anything from Keith Olberman has to be questioned.
11th Dimension said
It's alway easy for someone to decide what others can do without when they themselves already have everything they need.
It' always easy for libs to decide how to spend my and other people's money.
Who’s covered: About 96 percent of legal residents under age 65 — compared with 83 percent now.
Cost: The Congressional Budget Office says the net cost of the bill's expanding insurance coverage over 10 years is $894 billion,
Paid for: $460 billion over the next decade from new income taxes on single people making more than $500,000 a year and couples making $1 million There are also more than $400 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid
Choosing insurance: Beginning in 2013 through a new Health Insurance Exchange open to individuals and, initially, small employers; it could be expanded to large employers over time. States could opt to operate their own exchanges in place of the national exchange if they follow federal rules
Benefit package: A committee would recommend a so-called essential benefits package including preventive services; out-of pocket costs would be capped. The new benefit package would be the basic benefit package offered in the exchange
Requirements: Individuals must have insurance, enforced through a tax penalty of 2.5 percent of income. People can apply for hardship waivers if coverage is unaffordable
Government plan: A new public plan available through the insurance exchanges would be set up and run by the secretary of Health and Human Services
Industry restrictions: No denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions. No higher premiums allowed for pre-existing conditions or gender. Limits on higher premiums based on age.
Antitrust: Would strip the health insurance industry of a long-standing exemption from antitrust laws covering market allocation, price fixing and bid rigging.
Changes to Medicaid: The federal-state insurance program for the poor would be expanded to cover all individuals under age 65 with incomes up to 150 percent of the federal poverty level, which is $33,075 per year for a family of four. The federal government would pick up the full cost of the expansion in 2013 and 2014; thereafter the federal government would pay 91 percent and states would pay 9 percent.
No, the bill has a Public OPTION. As the name implies it is optional. They estimate that between 5-10% of Americans will choose the public option. The rest will keep the insurance they have or get other private insurance. But guess what, the public option will introduce competition and keep the insurance companies honest. It will provide insurance for those who can't afford it and it will lower insurance cost for the rest of us.
-Really, cuz the Democrats gained 2 seats in the House.
Surely Fox News didn't report that! And did everyone hear the quote from the owner of Fox, Rupert Murdoch? He stated that he tells Fox pundits what they can and cannot say. -So, basically, Fox, the media outlet for the Republican party, takes it's notes from a socialist in England. Who knew?!
Props to Herseth.
I don't disagree that something needs to be done for people that are unable to get healthcare insurance. However, I seriously question your solution.
seems like there are some people who just read the headlines and not the stories...read the story and take note that she is voting against the bill not because she would prefer to withold health care from almost 50 million americans, but because in her opinion the bill wont do enough to help the uninsured.
I seriously doubt anyone posting on this site could tell us what the bill does and doesnt cover anyway. Is there a public option? What is the estimated cost? what is the reduction in medciare/medicaid federal funding? What will this health care reform bill accomplish? anyone?
In addition, the bill requires the government to conduct background checks on all new and current health service providers who do business with the federal government. Before we pay claims, we ought to know who we're dealing with. These are common sense solutions and hopefully will be approved and signed into law.
It will be interesting to see if Senator Johnson supports this legislation. The complete destruction of our healthcare system is not the only way to reform healthcare.
This is terrible, and no one in congress at any point in time will ever agree on how to help the poor, sick, uninsured Americans who die every day without health care.
If any one watch Keith Olberman's special comment on health care, you would maybe have a different thought on people you don't want to think about that are sent home to suffer and die every day because they can not afford medical care.
When a Bill comes up for floor vote it is not possible to vote in favor of some parts of a Bill and not other parts. If the Indian Health Care Improvement Act has merit (I'm not familiar with its provisions) then pass it on its own or embed it within an overall Bill that is supportable.
Again, I commend Rep Herseth-Sandlin for sticking by her principles and not caving on this Bill with its current flaws. The stakes are too high to not get this right.
I personally believe she is doing her job and doing it well. She was elected to represent her constituants. After finding that most South Dakotans are against this bill, and more importantly, after reading it herself, she has judged that the bill as it is written right now, is NOT what is best for us. I want healthcare reform as much as anyone, but I trust Stephanie's judgement. When the bill is finally worked out, I believe we will indeed have healthcare reform, and it will be something we can all live with.
I have never voted outside of my party, but this....
If or when, the opportunity comes up to vote against Stephanie, I am going to. Even if that means voting for a Republican.
Do you even read what you write, much less actually think it through? Which are you in favor of, "a single payer system" or a system "with private insurance being an option"? They are mutually exclusive systems.
But I digress. The real purpose of my comment is to commend Rep Herseth-Sandlin for sticking by her word. She went on record early on in this discussion as to what was acceptable and what she couldn't sign onto.
I see great danger in having both Houses of Congress and the White House all controlled by one Party, especially with a fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate (and yes, I mean EITHER Party). We can only hope that at least a few Congressional Democrats will also see this danger, act with prudence and vote their conscience.
I take it you're of the opinion that if the government were in charge of the entire healthcare system, and the taxpayers were FORCED to buy their insurance from them they wouldn't have a monoploy. Yeah, okay.