Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Conservative Democrats break ranks on health care

Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:28 AM EDT
business, politics, us, barack-obama, health-care-overhaul, conservative-house-democrats
Erica Werner, Associated Press
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 3 photos
<p>FILE -- In this March 5, 2009 file photo, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.,right, asks President Barack Obama a question at the White House Forum on Health Reform in the East Room of the White House in Washington.  (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)</p>

FILE -- In this March 5, 2009 file photo, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.,right, asks President Barack Obama a question at the White House Forum on Health Reform in the East Room of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Friday acknowledged the tough going for health care overhaul as lawmakers struggled with fresh divisions over how to pay for comprehensive legislation.

"We're closer to that significant reform than at any time in recent history," Obama told reporters at a news conference in Italy. "That doesn't make it easy. It's hard. And we are having a whole series of constant negotiations."

Conservative Democrats are demanding significant changes before they will support a sweeping health care overhaul, forcing the House to join the Senate in stalling Obama's top domestic priority. Democratic leaders had set an ambitious timetable for the House and Senate to vote on legislation before the August recess.

Asked if it were "do-or-die" if the timetable slipped, Obama said: "I never believe anything is do-or-die. But I really want to get it done by the August recess."

The "Blue Dog Democrats" group released a list of demands on the eve of House Democratic leaders' planned unveiling of their final bill Friday. The bill release was pushed back to next week and Democratic leaders spent part of Friday meeting with the fiscally conservative Blue Dogs to work through their concerns.

"The message that was sent was heard loud and clear," Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pa., a member of the group, said Friday. The group's concerns were the need for more cost containment measures, protections for small businesses and a focus on rural health care.

"We cannot support a final product that fails to" address these issues, members of the group wrote to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. Opposition from the 52-member group could imperil House passage of a bill.

Before Thursday, delays and internal Democratic disputes over taxes and the role of government had seemed mostly confined to the Senate. A bipartisan deal emerging in the Senate Finance Committee was threatened this week when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and other top Democrats indicated displeasure with the likely payment method, a new tax on health care benefits.

That has left Finance Committee members scrambling for alternative taxes to replace the $320 billion the benefits tax would have raised over a decade. Democrats are considering raising taxes on wealthy investors instead, along with other options, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private negotiations. The proposal to extend the current 1.45 percent Medicare payroll tax to capital gains earned by high-income taxpayers would bring in an estimated $100 billion over 10 years.

In the House, Democratic leaders had hoped to release an ambitious bill Friday that would achieve Obama's goals of holding down health care costs and extending insurance to the 50 million people who lack it. Insurers would have to cover all comers, employers would be required to offer insurance and individuals would be required to purchase it, with subsidies for the poor. The tax-writing Ways and Means Committee met throughout the day Thursday to try to finalize plans on how to pay for the plan, with an income surcharge on high-earners of some 3 percent or more emerging as the leading option.

But the move by the Blue Dogs scrambled the equation. It was unclear whether Democratic leaders would be able to satisfy the group's demands since in some cases they're far apart from draft language produced by the three House committees writing health legislation.

Also unclear was whether the setbacks would amount to anything more than a brief delay for a bill of enormous complexity and controversy.

With House leaders scrambling to address moderate Democrats' concerns, business groups increased the pressure on House leaders with letters objecting to pivotal parts of the evolving plans.

The National Coalition on Benefits, representing major business groups and companies like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AT&T, told House leaders that business would be hurt by requiring employer coverage of workers, creating a public insurance plan and other proposals.

"The proposal in its current form needs serious revision," their letter said.

The National Retail Federation wrote leaders of the House Ways and Means Committee to say the House plan would cost jobs and shift health costs to employers.

___

Associated Press writers David Espo, Alan Fram and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar contributed to this report.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Erica Werner's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: Down With Tin Horn Dictators
  • Regions: Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (179)
Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3
LIAMD

About time some rational Democrats were identified.

  • 24 votes
#1 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:06 AM EDT
carpefriggingdiem-866758

LIAMD,

You're right about that.

There's a real 600 pound gorilla that nobody is talking about.

The health insurance companies are widely reviled, particularly by the left. But the money the insurance carriers invest in our economy amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars in real estate and on Wall Street. There are also many retirement funds that have invested heavily in these insurance carriers.

If the health insurance companies are driven out of business---which is likely if there is a government insurance plan that supposedly "competes" with the private sector---the effects will be seen in the real estate market, the prices of stocks and bonds on Wall Street and in the devaluing of the retirement accounts of millions of people. This is like a finely woven tapestry. If you start pulling on one loose thread, you'll screw up a whole lot of things. But these are the finer points our government doesn't care about. They don't even take the time to read the laws they pass. Why should they think about how their "compassion" will unravel our economy even more. But there are compensations. If they can create another crisis, they won't miss the opportunity to expand their control. That's the wet dream of the statist----as much control as possible.

  • 11 votes
#1.1 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:06 AM EDT
The Observer

The Left hates that insurance policies don't pay for certain "unnecessary" procedures. What do you think the government is going to do????

  • 10 votes
#1.2 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:18 AM EDT
Eric AlbertDeleted
Fred-256289

I agree with a lot of what you're saying Eric, but without that corrupt corporate class, there would never have been anywhere near the development of drugs and health care advances that they overcharge for now. Basically, we probably wouldn't have had things like the artificial heart, because that was developed to make a profit. Now they charge an arm and a leg for it. So, yeah, I get what you're saying about the greed, but I would rather have the option of being ripped off for the expensive health care, than not have it available at all when I need it.

  • 5 votes
#1.4 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:12 AM EDT
Eric AlbertDeleted
Eric AlbertDeleted
fedupwithliberals

We already know that 72 percent want SINGLE PAYER-PUBLIC OPTION, and the real issue is if the people are willing to fight for their democracy over Corporate tyranny.

Where did you get that number?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27322/Prescription-Healing-Healthcare-From-People.aspx

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/healthcare/june_2009/50_favor_obama_health_reform_plan_45_oppose_it

  • 5 votes
#1.7 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:59 AM EDT
Eric AlbertDeleted
angela593

Eric -

to charge outrageous premiums, but this time with the government subsidizing tax dollars back into this corrupt parasitic industry.

sounds like more stimulus

  • 3 votes
#1.9 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:13 AM EDT
Eric AlbertDeleted
Eric AlbertDeleted
TheMadraven

I will not read anything that represents a racial group. Move on.

  • 4 votes
#1.12 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:21 PM EDT
Eric AlbertDeleted
angela593

Eric - thanks-

  • 1 vote
#1.14 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:41 PM EDT
tired of carrying everyone

Two cents from and Independent, The only reason for these changes is because they went home for the 4th of July holiday to angry constituents. They know there jobs are on the line also with the fact that the stimulus package has not funneled out yet especially after they said to have it NOW and people losing their jobs left and right. What else would you expect. I know I am not weathy only made 30,000 last year. Just tired to hear that I am not doing my patriotic duty when I have been fiscally responsible, law abidding and tax paying. When will we make All of Washington be resposible for their actions!!!!

  • 7 votes
#1.15 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:55 PM EDT
Fred-256289

And here is a voice from the African American community, along with David Swanson, an activist, both opposed to Obama's constant class and imperial corruption, talking about his failures could translate into a one term presidency because he whores for Wall street and Empire:

Bill Fletcher Jr. & David Swanson: Assessing Obama after 5 months--Fulfilling the promised change or a presidency in trouble?

http://www.thestrategycenter.org/radio/2009/07/06/bill-fletcher-jr-david-swanson-assessing-obama-after-5-months-fulfilling-promised-c

Intersting interview. I can't say I agree that the Obama administraion has a "right lean" though. When I think of right lean, I think of of being fiscally tightfisted, and that's exactly the opposite of what this administration is, though I guess I agree when it comes to social issues.

    #1.16 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:01 PM EDT
    JoulesBeef

    the artificial heart was not made to make a proffit.\

    it was invented by a doctor.. trying to save lives.

    • 1 vote
    #1.17 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:04 PM EDT
    Ellen-for-Obama

    The Left hates that insurance policies don't pay for certain "unnecessary" procedures. What do you think the government is going to do????

    The "left," and I consider myself a proud, card-carrying member, is a diverse group with differing views, just as the right are.

    We need to catch up with the other westernized democracies and ensure that every citizen can get the health care they need. Even as the signs of age appear on my own face, I wouldn't consider cosmetic surgery a "need." Or Botox. Or anything else that's not an actual medical problem.

    Furthermore, I don't want to see the burden of health care placed on businesses - definitely not SMALL businesses. I do think businesses should be encouraged to provide health benefits with tax incentives, but they should not be required to provide something they may not be able to afford.

    I'd like to see a giant American "group plan," with sliding scale premiums, co-pays, deductibles, etc.

    So as a liberal, I disagree with some of Obama's specifics in regard to universal health care, but I applaud his attempts. It's about time we had a president who cared enough to give this controversial issue his attention.

    • 4 votes
    #1.18 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:18 PM EDT
    Fred-256289

    the artificial heart was not made to make a proffit.\

    it was invented by a doctor.. trying to save lives.

    Actually, the first patented one was invented by a ventrilliquist with a medical avocation. Since he patented it, I can only assume he intended to make a prfit from it, or else, why not just let everyone use the design? You know, like Volvo did with ther airbad design?

    • 3 votes
    #1.19 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:18 PM EDT
    Dan Hallo, aka, Zoilus

    I have been saying this for months now.

    The Democratic Party now encompasses both of the traditional two, true American parties.

    The GOP is now the Lunatic Fringe Party and is to late to save from the extremist who infiltrated and subverted it and made it irrelevant..

    • 3 votes
    #1.20 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:51 PM EDT
    FrJackHackett

    The Left hates that insurance policies don't pay for certain "unnecessary" procedures.

    Like what, for instance?

    • 1 vote
    #1.21 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:12 PM EDT
    Dan Hallo, aka, Zoilus

    Retroactive abortions for the racist and bigoted Far-Right lunatic fringe.

    • 2 votes
    #1.22 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:14 PM EDT
    FrJackHackett

    Can people really talk themselves into believing that corruption and greed are essential to progress? The rightwing never fails to present us with jaw-dropping amorality.

    I agree with a lot of what you're saying Eric, but without that corrupt corporate class, there would never have been anywhere near the development of drugs and health care advances that they overcharge for now.

    • 1 vote
    #1.23 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:15 PM EDT
    FrJackHackett

    tired of carrying everyone

    Just tired to hear that I am not doing my patriotic duty when I have been fiscally responsible, law abidding and tax paying.

    It's just slightly possible this really isn't about YOU personally. Maybe you think that you're that important but I doubt anyone in DC is trying to single you out for a guilt trip. Maybe it's something you ate.

      #1.24 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:43 PM EDT
      Fred-256289

      Can people really talk themselves into believing that corruption and greed are essential to progress? The rightwing never fails to present us with jaw-dropping amorality.

      Well, it certainly isn't necessary, but that's what we have had. If you want to start a back and forth on the finger pointing as to which party has ben more corrupt along the way, we'll be here all night, and I'm sorry, but you'll lose because we'll end with current events and the misuse of the stimulus money by this administration. But, hey, if you have a brilliant idea on how to clean it up, I'm all ears.

      • 1 vote
      #1.25 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:26 PM EDT
      Dan Hallo, aka, Zoilus

      Fatalism is for cowards and fear mongers. Americans are not fatalistic, and don't give up so easily.

        #1.26 - Sat Jul 11, 2009 8:56 AM EDT
        Reply
        FrequencyHopper

        I find it scary that we must label a group of legislators "Blue Dogs", who are the only democrats that care about business...which, like it or not, puts food on most of our tables. Shouldn't they all care about business? Wake up democrats! You are being lead by people that really don't care if the business you work for fails--is that what you wanted? They want to tax the crap out of them, and guess what that means, the costs pass on to us by way of lost jobs, and higher product costs. Believe me, the business owners will not eat it if they don't have to.

        • 11 votes
        #2 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:19 AM EDT
        bluecollarbytes

        The majority of folks who work are employed by Small businesses, businesses that are already struggling just to stay afloat.

        Obama and Democrats could have become genuine political "heros" if they'd concentrated on encouraging the business from which everything else gets paid for. But NOOOooo. They just had to push through every Leftist fantasy gathered up over the last 50 years. It was a political opportunity of a political lifetime and they threw it away on their special self-interests. par

        • 12 votes
        #2.1 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:51 AM EDT
        James Andre

        They just had to push through every Leftist fantasy gathered up over the last 50 years.

        Actually it looks like the process is working quite well under Obama.

        • 2 votes
        #2.2 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:07 AM EDT
        Oliver Shagnastey

        bluecollarbytesIs this an opportunity to discuss "spin?" If so I would like to introduce something I found interesting it is as follows;

        Judy Wallman, a professional genealogy researcher in southern California , was doing some personal work on her own family tree. She discovered that Congressman Harry Reid's great-great uncle, Remus Reid, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889. Both Judy and Harry Reid share this common ancestor.

        The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows in Montana territory:

        On the back of the picture Judy obtained during her research is this inscription: 'Remus Reid, horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889.'

        So Judy recently e-mailed Congressman Harry Reid for information about their great-great uncle.
        Harry Reid:

        Believe it or not, Harry Reid's staff sent back the following biographical sketch for her genealogy research:
        "Remus Reid was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory . His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to government service, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad. In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed."

        NOW THAT's how it's done, Folks!
        That's real POLITICAL SPIN

        • 9 votes
        #2.3 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:09 AM EDT
        Craig-303171

        Wow, that is friggin incredible!

        • 2 votes
        #2.4 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:43 AM EDT
        Jimster

        Completely off topic

        • 2 votes
        #2.5 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:06 PM EDT
        VisionCoast

        Comment moved. Apologies.

          #2.6 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:17 PM EDT
          VisionCoast

          From the article:

          Among the Blue Dogs' concerns is the shape of a new public insurance plan that would compete with private insurers.

          Something had better force the private insurers to compete because if that doesn't happen, small business and the self-employed are doomed.

          • 2 votes
          #2.7 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:19 PM EDT
          Where's the sense

          Of course Obama thinks there's still hope for his health plan,he still can't admit that he totally f'd up this recession and the stimulus plan!

          • 3 votes
          #2.8 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:56 PM EDT
          Dan Hallo, aka, Zoilus

          Where's the sense

          Why is it so many of you Right wingers have such BS names? AS if.

          Bush said he needed the TARP to prevent our economy from going off a cliff, a big 3 page ::cough::plan::cough::... He got it. spent half on bailing the banks, asked for the rest to give to the banks as well. Do you think Congress was wrong to not give it to him?

          Sure, Obama has f--ked up Bush's recession...

          • 1 vote
          #2.9 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:06 PM EDT
          Where's the sense

          Dan Hallo,aka Zoils

          why is it you lefty's spend all this time bashing Bushy(ya miss him)

          I just call it as I see it and yes I know the recession started under Bush,I am only pointing out that Obamas plan to shove a ton of money into the country right before election time next year rather then using it now when we need it is blowing up in his face!

          • 4 votes
          #2.10 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:19 PM EDT
          Dan Hallo, aka, Zoilus

          Bash?

          If you gave a @!$%# for truth, you would concede to the fact that this is pretty close to what Obama said would happen and that a year to get out of this rat hole Bush puit us into may not even be enough.

          Considering that Bush put us into an economic mess unprecedented in history. That we have gotten this far without imploding is fantastic.

          So Bush is beyond any reproach and void of all culpability for the condition of our economy today? No you or your far-right corporately owned media can't put this on Obama yet.

          These Nazi propaganda tactics are so last century.

          • 2 votes
          #2.11 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:32 PM EDT
          Where's the sense

          Yes,yes,yes Bush.Don't remember denying that,Nazi well isn't that what you lefty's call everyone who says anything that rubs ya wrong

          • 3 votes
          #2.12 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:38 PM EDT
          FrJackHackett

          Gotta love the rightwing sentimentality: "who will watch out for business, oh whoooo?" Here we have the U.S. private health insurance cartel basically screwing the American people every which way and Sunday and we're supposed to worry about them? Dog, if the conservative mentality isn't indistinguishable from that of a sheep.

          • 2 votes
          #2.13 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:46 PM EDT
          VisionCoast

          The denial from the right is jaw-dropping.

          • 2 votes
          #2.14 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:59 PM EDT
          Dan Hallo, aka, Zoilus

          If you don't want to be compared to the Nazi's stop Lying in support of a Divine-Right demagogue and his subversive anti-American administration..

          Have you've been watching the News? "C street and the Family" The guy is on tape preaching to Sanford and Ensign. , "If you want to have power, real power, you have to hate your wife, your kids, and your country!"

          YouTube - Rachel Maddow & The Republican's "C Street House"

          We don't need secreat subversive republican organizations in the Congress!

          • 1 vote
          #2.15 - Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:11 AM EDT
          TheMadraven

          No Eric! Do not put words into my mouth, I believe the comment was clear and concise. I would not read flith from the KKK or the black panthers either. Does that clear things up for you and Anglea? Next time try not to make an ass of yourself and apparently Angela as well.

          • 1 vote
          #2.16 - Thu Jul 30, 2009 6:51 PM EDT
          Reply
          MS Redhead

          About time they learned "NO" is not a dirty word when it represents the people who voted for you.

          • 14 votes
          Reply#3 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:25 AM EDT
          MyOpIA

          Yes! And how typical of Pelosi to be more concerned about an arbitrary schedule than whether or not something can actually work. When she is gone, there may be more hope for rational thought in congress. Can't happen soon enough.

          • 8 votes
          #3.1 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:37 AM EDT
          JoulesBeef

          we have been discussing this since 1994 how much more time you want MyOpIA?
          the peopel trying to delay this are the same peopel that killed this in 1994.
          it is pure facist gop bull@!$%#.

            #3.2 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:05 PM EDT
            MyOpIA

            Since the only ideas are some fantasy universal health care that can't work, the idea should be killed.

            • 6 votes
            #3.3 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:29 PM EDT
            fedupwithliberals

            we have been discussing this since 1994 how much more time you want MyOpIA?

            How about enough time to figure out how we're going to implement it? How about enough time to figure out how we're going to pay for it? How about enough time for Congress to at least read the bill?

            • 6 votes
            #3.4 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:49 PM EDT
            Dan Hallo, aka, Zoilus

            The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. -- George Washington, August, 1790

            fedupwithliberals What country do you love the most? Try supporting it and it's principles rather then a party for a change.

            This is what you sound like, every other enemy of America.

            The Liberal State is a mask behind which there is no face; it is a scaffolding behind which there is no building. Benito Mussolini

            "Fascism, which was not afraid to call itself reactionary... does not hesitate to call itself illiberal and anti-liberal. Benito Mussolini

            • 1 vote
            #3.5 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:07 PM EDT
            fedupwithliberals

            fedupwithliberals What country do you love the most? Try supporting it and it's principles rather then a party for a change.

            Perhaps if you'd examine what the current meaning of "liberal" is, compared to what Washington meant by it, you would understand. Many of the ideas modern-day liberals propose for this country, and the social/economic/political views they espouse are a far cry from his meaning of the word.

            Definitions change over the years; 40 years ago, gay meant "happy". Jews have a much different historical view of "ghetto". "Text" used to mean the words in a book.

            BTW, please don't question my love for this country and its principles, ideals and values - and I won't question yours.

            • 3 votes
            #3.6 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:53 PM EDT
            Dan Hallo, aka, Zoilus

            The current meaning of Liberial? LOL. Did you bother asking a Liberal?

            I'm sorry, but the Far-Right do not have th right to redifine what I or anyone else believes by changing a word they don't like. Whaaaaaaah!

            If you had an education you'd know that Libeial is the sae word it is today as it was used by the founders.

            I have a copy of the first American english dictionary. Up meant Up and blue was blue.

            The Lunatic fringe have written volumes of books trying to convince everyone what they want them to think a Liberal is.

            In Orwellian Right-Wing speak. What did this mean then.

            "As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality." G. Washington, [1790]

              #3.7 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:28 PM EDT
              fedupwithliberals

              If you had an education you'd know that Libeial is the sae word it is today as it was used by the founders.

              Really? What, in your words, does it mean to be a liberal TODAY? And by the way, I'll just ignore the spelling errors in your attempt to make me look uneducated.

              • 2 votes
              #3.8 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:26 PM EDT
              Reply
              Sherry-523975

              So what is wrong with taking a little time and putting some thought behind the meat of this bill, instead of just passing the first draft that comes along simply because Ms. Pelosi thinks it should be done. Every member of Congress needs to take a look at the people and businesses they represent, and remember they do not work for Peolosi, they work for us. And when addressing the issue, it should be referred to as a "Taxpayer Funded Health Care Plan", because that is what it is. The "Government" cannot fund anything, and when people are under the impression that their health care is provided by the government, they seem to forget that fact.

              • 12 votes
              Reply#4 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:27 AM EDT
              JoulesBeef

              we have been discussing this since 1994.. this is just a tactic to kill it.

                #4.1 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:06 PM EDT
                Reply
                hvymtl83

                Good. I want to see all the ideas on the table and select the best. I do support national healthcare. Some see this as a right, I think is goes far beyond a simple right. It's a national necessity - a security and economic issue. Quite simply, you cannot have a strong vibrant nation if you don't provide for your citizens health.

                • 3 votes
                Reply#5 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:28 AM EDT
                Julian in Dallas

                I agree. I'm actually glad to see that there is some resistance to this plan from other Democrats. It shows that we are the thinking party. We question leadership and their motives. We think critically and don't just agree in oreder to tow the party line. I can't say the same for the Redcoats. Republicans are followers, they were all yes men when Bush was in office. Anything that jackass wanted to do, no matter how detrimental to our nation, the mindless republican sheep follwed his lead without question. They were loyal to Der Fuhrer Bush.

                  #5.1 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:14 PM EDT
                  JoulesBeef

                  Julian in Dallas

                  sorry but bull@!$%#..
                  look at the blue dog fascists dems and who their biggest contributors were.

                  • 1 vote
                  #5.2 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:07 PM EDT
                  Reply
                  Midwestlady

                  I think that it is great that a few democrats are trying to slow down and really look at things they are voting on. Let us not have bills "misread" ro "unread" because the Administration wants things done "swiftly". Obama and Pelosi need to step back and let all of the Congress review this bill and plan and figure out what is right for all Americans.

                  • 5 votes
                  Reply#6 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:42 AM EDT
                  JoulesBeef

                  we have been talking about this since 1994
                  the cbo has investigated dozens of plans
                  all these dems have been funded by the health industtry.
                  this is simple a ploy to kill it.
                  wake up same damn thing they did in 1994

                  • 1 vote
                  #6.1 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:08 PM EDT
                  Reply
                  USA 1-1003451

                  There is nothing wrong with applying some thought into the process. The ram the bill through without any thought or debate tactic hasn't worked out as well as promised.

                  Why is Nancy P. trying to get this done so quickly? How about getting it right instead.

                  • 7 votes
                  Reply#7 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:55 AM EDT
                  JoulesBeef

                  this started in 1994

                  if we put this off till the next presidency this country will go bankrupt./

                    #7.1 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:08 PM EDT
                    USA 1-1003451

                    Seems like we are already on a path toward bankruptcy. Several administration have spent more than we can afford. Nobody wants to cut back if the group affected is themselves. In the end the people left holding the bag will be the ones with the burden of paying in now with no money to pay out when it's their turn. Eventually cuts will have to be made. Might as well start now.

                    • 2 votes
                    #7.2 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:28 PM EDT
                    Reply
                    angela593

                    absolutely- what's the hurry? Tax the banks,Wall STreet and insurance companies. Get some of that bale out money back to help the average citizens.and forbid them from hiking their rates to average citizens. If the money trickles up, then it is high time these government favored money machines be corporately taxed to push some of that wealth down to the masses. A fee/license to practice wealth production, not CEO income taxes, since they can shelter their wealth and find loop holes. It makes sense to connect to Medicare at some level since we know how that works, what it costs, and how it is funded. Not a slave to Medicare, but a guideline. Rural citizens could be served by traveling doctors from urban areas, state of the art clinics, and funding spread per capita regardless of address. This is a nightmare, when the bureaucracies have treated American Health Care as an insurance company that makes the providers wealthy at the expense of the average citizen. (The big bucks are not in rural America so why consider them :0( a sad story indeed)

                    Democrats are considering raising taxes on wealthy investors instead, along with other options, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private negotiations. The proposal to extend the current 1.45 percent Medicare payroll tax to capital gains earned by high-income taxpayers would bring in an estimated $100 billion over 10 years.

                    Who is sheltering money, who can afford a little taxing for the good of this worthwhile cause? not the poor, not the middle class, not the middle class retired, so...What about estate or death taxes on the estates worth over a million after 2010, that should net some money. The health care funding tax needs to be an end tax that can not be passed on to the average person through higher costs, fees, etc. Is that even possible?

                    • 3 votes
                    Reply#8 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:02 AM EDT
                    Rixar13

                    No more Delay, this has been delayed long enough.

                    One conservative Democrat, Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., said he believes no House vote should take place until September.

                    That is well past a midsummer informal deadline set by Pelosi, D-Calif.

                    Deny, Delay and Defend has gone on long enough.

                    • 3 votes
                    Reply#9 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:06 AM EDT
                    James Andre

                    I think they have some legitimate concerns, but I agree. Work harder, get it done.

                    • 2 votes
                    #9.1 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:09 AM EDT
                    fedupwithliberals

                    Heaven forbid they should actually be allowed to have time to read the 1,300+ pages of the bill, discuss it, and come to a rational decision based on facts, and not emotion or political expediency.

                    • 10 votes
                    #9.2 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:04 AM EDT
                    James Andre

                    Heaven forbid they should actually be allowed to have time to read

                    It's their job. I would think their efficiency would be above average.

                    • 3 votes
                    #9.3 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:38 PM EDT
                    JoulesBeef

                    heaven forbitd they actually look at single payer..
                    funny as @!$%# fedup thinks this has to do with reading and not theri campaign contributors.
                    But then again he is a gopr.

                      #9.4 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:10 PM EDT
                      fedupwithliberals

                      It's their job. I would think their efficiency would be above average.

                      Unfortunately, history doesn't seem to bear that out...how many read the stimulus bill before passing it?

                      funny as @!$%# fedup thinks this has to do with reading and not theri campaign contributors.

                      Personally, I think it has to do with educating themselves on the facts and listening to their constituents. Whether or not they actually do those things is another matter.

                      But then again he is a gopr.

                      Actually, he's a she.

                      • 1 vote
                      #9.5 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:54 PM EDT
                      Reply
                      oneforall

                      A bipartisan deal emerging in the Senate Finance Committee was threatened this week when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid indicated displeasure with the likely payment method, a new tax on health care benefits.

                      The problem with health care in the U.S. is that it costs too much - 17% of the GDP vs less than 10% for most western nations offering universal coverage. These costs are bankrupting individuals, businesses, and governments in the same way that the housing bubble collapsed the economy. The current plan calls for pumping another trillion dollars into this badly bloated system. Why? If nothing is done, the health care system will collapse under it's on weight. So, is this a bailout of the current health care system, which is bankrupting the nation? The current system is too expensive for the average worker or small business, so a more economical system which provides comprehensive universal coverage is required. Since insurers and providers have been unwilling or unable to contain medical costs, a public health care system may be needed to curb these costs.

                      Insurers would have to cover all comers, employers would be required to offer insurance and individuals would be required to purchase it, with subsidies for the poor.

                      These mandates scream to the public, "this is not a good plan, but you will have to participate whether you want to or not whether you can afford it or not". An effective health care system should not require such mandates as they infringe upon liberty and freedom and impugn constitutional rights. Who will be served best by this legislation? That is the bottom line.

                      • 2 votes
                      Reply#10 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:21 AM EDT
                      GoldenGateMami_Susi

                      Once again, no matter what side of the aisle you sit on.......nothing will get done because it's all about votes, lobby money, and ME ME ME ME ME.

                      I know where my loyalities lay politically and ideologically but to be honest.......the whole thing disgusts me.

                      The pomposity of politics and those dry humping us through the motions of "For the people by the people" just don't care, wont care and never will care.

                      This country now belongs to lobbyists. Until that is regulated nothing that is for people will ever get through.

                      • 3 votes
                      Reply#11 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:23 AM EDT
                      IndependentVoter

                      It will not get through because reality is that if it passes in the form that Obama wants it to pass...Obama will be a one term President. These Democrats know this to be true in their souls.

                      • 5 votes
                      Reply#12 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:30 AM EDT
                      JoulesBeef

                      obama will only be one term if it doesnt pass.

                      if it does pass you can say good bye to the gop.

                        #12.1 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:11 PM EDT
                        Reply
                        keith in DSM

                        Too bad Congress cannot mearly say yes to health care reform and turn all the ugly details over to the private sector for a couple years work before it becomes effective.

                          Reply#13 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:33 AM EDT
                          antoniojvr

                          So healthcare is now a birthright in the US. Fantastic. Oh, and do you think any of the senators will read the bill?

                          • 6 votes
                          Reply#14 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:54 AM EDT
                          Midwestlady

                          Why should they start reading anything now, they have not since the start of this administration.... Just look at all the mistakes they have made so far with the "swift" passing of their other bills.

                          • 4 votes
                          #14.1 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:09 AM EDT
                          JoulesBeef

                          funny as hell the gop care about reading crap..when everythign under bush was way tooo @!$%#ign important to read or even vote an extension to and read.
                          Funny as @!$%# yall all care about that..
                          prediction.. if there ever is another gopr in office.. yall wont give a crap about reading.. it will be
                          'it must passs of alquada will blow up your children"

                          • 2 votes
                          #14.2 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:13 PM EDT
                          RonBlack66

                          Several questions for Joules:

                          #1: Why must you put @!$%# in virtually all your posts? Does this give your comments more validity?

                          #2: How is it that you are capable of commenting 20 times or more on every single article and seed here on Newsvine? Do you actually have a job? Maybe if you took some of the time you spent here on Newsvine and applied it to earning a paycheck, you could afford your own health care rather than relying on others to pay your way for you. Just a thought.

                          • 9 votes
                          #14.3 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:17 PM EDT
                          LIAMD

                          Ron,

                          I just fell outta my chair laughing. Nice post.

                          • 6 votes
                          #14.4 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:20 PM EDT
                          Wolf Wolfman

                          LIAMD...I want to second your motion. Joules is waiting for the "wealth to be spread around".

                          • 5 votes
                          #14.5 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:04 PM EDT
                          LIAMD

                          There is a sure fire way to get some of the wealth they so despartly want.

                          Determine your skills, select a career and WORK FOR IT!

                          • 2 votes
                          #14.6 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:15 PM EDT
                          Happyblue

                          Unfortunately no matter how hard you work, one job or two, it barely covers the cost of health care. Do we think it fair that a teacher retiring after thirty years will have to dish out per month $400 for basic health care in retirement? Sure, that teacher can pick up a 'little' job to supplement income but that won't cover groceries. Nice that as the boomers age, and since I'm not a boomer I don't care, but one would think a little sympathy for the work forces entering retirement might be on the table.

                          Then there is dental care, eye care. Funny to think isn't it that the people that work to make towns and cities run are not the ones crying foul because their 'investments' went down the toilet with Wall Street. These same people will be taking up jobs until they can no longer work, the younger kids won't be able to find menial minimum wage jobs because the older folks that do not have the ability to retire will be taking them up. So now lets all hear, they should have chosen 'careers'. Well then, who will pick up your garbage?

                          'Career' is not in the vocabulary of those that make the middle class world comfortable. Nobody is waiting for the 'wealth' to be spread around. I find those that scream the loudest are the ones that have the most and the least to lose. Those that were able to afford a college education twenty years ago and went on to a 'career' or the so called 'self employed' and judging by most on the vine, there are a hell of a lot of 'small' business owners. Nice that the ability to set up a small business years ago must have been like picking fruit off the trees.

                          I wonder how people will feel when they reach older ages they find that medicare along with their supplemental coverage won't cover the things they need as they exit this world and what they will leave behind is medical bills for their children to pay. No matter what, the kids are going to pay for the excesses of the boomer generation that took greed to heart. That was obvious since the start of 2000. Doesn't matter if it was on Wall Street or in the heartland.

                          That said, this health care plan won't work, requiring people to have insurance is not the same as giving the people an affordable alternative to health care. This plan protects the insurance industry far too much.

                          • 2 votes
                          #14.7 - Sat Jul 11, 2009 3:57 AM EDT
                          LIAMD

                          Fair, where is fair in the Constitution, where is deserved, where is entitled??? Come on, you want a golden parachute learn to be a top executive or better yet get some skills that someone else will pay you for and learn to live below your means not above.

                          who will pick up your garbage?

                          Quite frankly a better career with better benefits then many professional degrees earn.

                          won't cover the things they need

                          Yet, another subjective statement based really on ones wants not needs. We have become too dependent on someone else to provide the things we want, without sacrifice from ourselves and without forethought to the future. It's the ant and grass hopper parable all over. Save and be thrifty you'll make it, live like the grass hopper and rot in the cold. That is Darwinism at its' finest, your god has decreed this is the way now you don't like it, wah, wah, wah.

                          No matter what, the kids are going to pay for the excesses of the boomer generation that took greed to heart.

                          Really cuz those are the same kids that helped get Obama elected who think exactly like their retarded parents. They are not dooming the boomers kids they are dooming their own children and grandchildren. But since they think like thier retared (can't say that enough) parents they are inept to the realities of their own stupity and ignorance.

                          I refuse to support the grasshopper and that is what this debate is really about. Providing for people who by their own choices have put themselves in a situation that they feel they are entitled to something I busted my ass to get.

                          And for every story (yes story) of someone who works 2-3 jobs and can't afford to live I have a factual example of someone who busted their ass to get ahead and lives just fine in their elder years without the need for government funded health care. And guess what they were teachers and laborers, not CEO's and lucky sperm club members.

                          • 5 votes
                          #14.8 - Sat Jul 11, 2009 10:02 AM EDT
                          Dan Hallo, aka, Zoilus

                          "Egoism, in a broader sense, has been... presented as the source of moral action. It has been said that we feed the hungry, clothe the naked, bind up the wounds of the man beaten by thieves, pour oil and wine into them, set him on our own beast and bring him to the inn, because we receive ourselves pleasure from these acts... These good acts give us pleasure, but how happens it that they give us pleasure? Because nature hath implanted in our breasts a love of others, a sense of duty to them, a moral instinct, in short, which prompts us irresistibly to feel and to succor their distresses... The Creator would indeed have been a bungling artist had he intended man for a social animal without planting in him social dispositions. It is true they are not planted in every man, because there is no rule without exceptions; but it is false reasoning which converts exceptions into the general rule... That a man owes no duty to which he is not urged by some impulsive feeling... is correct, if referred to the standard of general feeling in the given case, and not to the feeling of a single individual... Self-interest, or rather self-love, or egoism, has been more plausibly substituted as the basis of morality. But I consider our relations with others as constituting the boundaries of morality. With ourselves, we stand on the ground of identity, not of relation, which last, requiring two subjects, excludes self-love confined to a single one. To ourselves, in strict language, we can owe no duties, obligation requiring also two parties. Self-love, therefore, is no part of morality. Indeed, it is exactly its counterpart." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Law, 1814.

                          "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785.

                          • 1 vote
                          #14.9 - Sat Jul 11, 2009 10:29 AM EDT
                          LIAMD

                          Well since the first quotes the Bible it obviously can't be used in the debate for public health care, right? Remember, one of the main pillars of liberalism is God does not exist and has ZERO place in government.

                          So the morality derived from the adherence to the teaching of God and Christ can not be applied to this issue or we violate the separation of church and state so sacred to the liberals.

                          In the second quote as a nation we still restricted rights. Namely only land owners could vote, shall we go back to that and see how much traction this issue has then?

                          It is always good to remember where and what we stared from and utilize the teachings and thoughts of the founders but they can't be used piecemeal to support an argument they must be viewed in their entirety and utilized as such or we lose the intent and meaning of those words.

                          • 1 vote
                          #14.10 - Sat Jul 11, 2009 10:54 AM EDT
                          Dan Hallo, aka, Zoilus

                          Sorry, but common sense is never a violation. No matter where it's found.

                          Seeing how you seem to be so careful to stay within the boundaries of this country that are based on liberal principles...

                          "One of the questions... on which our parties took different sides was on the improvability of the human mind in science, in ethics, in government, etc. Those who advocated reformation of institutions pari passu [at an equal rate or pace] with the progress of science maintained that no definite limits could be assigned to that progress. The enemies of reform, [Loyalist/conservatives] on the other hand, denied improvement and advocated steady adherence to the principles, practices and institutions of our [old world] fathers, which they represented as the consummation of wisdom and acme of excellence, beyond which the human mind could never advance... [They predicted that] freedom of inquiry... will produce nothing more worthy of transmission to posterity than the principles, institutions and systems of education received from their ancestors... [But we] possess... too much science [science = knowledge] not to see how much is still ahead of [us], unexplained and unexplored. [Our] own consciousness must place [us] as far before our ancestors as in the rear of our posterity." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813.

                          • 2 votes
                          #14.11 - Sat Jul 11, 2009 11:11 AM EDT
                          VisionCoast

                          LIAMD:

                          I refuse to support the grasshopper and that is what this debate is really about. Providing for people who by their own choices have put themselves in a situation that they feel they are entitled to something I busted my ass to get.

                          Your stated opinion on this subject is simplistic.

                          Consider this situation: I've busted my ass for the last 30+ years, developed a career over the last 20+ years and opened a media business six years ago. I paid the full boat for my health insurance via a cobra plan until it expired. Before the cobra plan expired, I was diagnosed with cancer. At the end of its 18 months, my insurance carrier converted my cobra plan to a "conversion," or independent, plan, one that I've paid in full for the last five years. It used to go up about 10 to 15 percent a year...until the last two years. In June 2009, I get a letter from my carrier informing me of my new 25 percent increase for the coming year. Without doubt, it will go up again, probably considerably, next year.

                          Since I have had cancer, I have no other place to go for insurance. I can either somehow pay this premium—$12,000 a year—or I can risk either death, ill health, greatly reduced retirement savings or bankruptcy.

                          Now, with the economy in the tank, my business is doing OK but it is in jeopardy because my work is dependent on other businesses (it is a B2B business). If I lose a contract, I'm in serious trouble and will likely be unable to pay my insurance premiums. With a preexisting condition, I'm screwed.

                          So, how exactly did I put myself in this situation?

                          Remember, one of the main pillars of liberalism is God does not exist...

                          That is simply untrue. Just because you may hear agnostic or atheistic sentiments from some who hold liberal philosophies does not make atheism a "main pillar" of liberalism. The founding fathers were liberals (by today's Republican standards) while simultaneously being members of a variety of church affiliations. I know plenty of liberals, myself included, who have deep faith in God.

                          and [God] has ZERO place in government...

                          This is what James Madison, considered the "father" of the Constitution, had to say about separation of church and state:

                          Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

                          Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

                          The settled opinion here is, that religion is essentially distinct from civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both; that there are causes in the human breast which ensure the perpetuity of religion without the aid of the law; that rival sects, with equal rights, exercise mutual censorships in favor of good morals; that if new sects arise with absurd opinions or over-heated imaginations, the proper remedies lie in time, forbearance, and example; that a legal establishment of religion without a toleration could not be thought of, and with a toleration, is no security for and animosity; and, finally, that these opinions are supported by experience, which has shewn that every relaxation of the alliance between law and religion, from the partial example of Holland to the consummation in Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, &c., has been found as safe in practice as it is sound in theory.

                          So the morality derived from the adherence to the teaching of God and Christ can not be applied to this issue or we violate the separation of church and state...

                          The morality in question is not from a governmental viewpoint but from that of our people. Thomas Jefferson's quote, posted above by Dan Hallo, makes this clear:

                          The Creator would indeed have been a bungling artist had he intended man for a social animal without planting in him social dispositions.

                          What are these "social dispositions"? It has nothing to do with government. Jefferson was saying that, as creatures designed by a higher being, we should inherently care about our fellow human beings and act on such concerns. This is simple common sense. I don't know how many times I've read on Newsvine the attitude that says "You can't have any of my money because you're just a lazy bum! I'm not helping you even if you can prove you need help." This is the characteristic Jefferson said we, as social animals, should not exhibit. But many in our population do exactly that.

                          • 2 votes
                          #14.12 - Sat Jul 11, 2009 12:33 PM EDT
                          RonBlack66

                          "Determine your skills, select a career and WORK FOR IT!" -- LIAMD

                          You got it! Joules can become a proof-reader. You know, just to make sure there are no spelling errors in company literature. Who knows? They may even provide health insurance. (just kidding, Joules)

                          In all seriousness, I do like Joules because he is passionate about his beliefs (though wrong 98% of the time, imo). Think about it. Newsvine would become bland if it were filled with nothing but "yes men", whether liberal or conservative. There are other websites for that.

                          • 3 votes
                          #14.13 - Sun Jul 12, 2009 9:26 PM EDT
                          Reply
                          rebel-conf

                          we dont need this anyways what a waste. cant wait to see it flop .

                          • 2 votes
                          Reply#15 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:55 AM EDT
                          Pittsburgh Dan

                          Turn all the ugly details over to the private sector?

                          That same private sector that's skyrocketed costs, created a cottage industry out of denying payments and claims, the same sector that's increased premiums nearly 400 percent in the last 10 years alone and rewards its employees for finding new and creative ways to NOT do what we pay them to do (pay legitimate claims?).

                          There's already a bureaucrat between you and your doctor, folks. It's an insurance adjuster, and he or she is looking to screw you out of your security and your claim at the earliest possible convenience. Over half of the bankruptcies in this nation are STILL associated to medical hardship...

                          I'm tired of letting the Foxes run the henhouse.

                          • 3 votes
                          Reply#16 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:01 AM EDT
                          Brandon7221

                          Conservative Democrats?

                          Pelosi, Hoyer are mentioned and Rangel is in the picture - huh?

                          We need some people in Washington that are NOT lawyers.

                          Next, they need to have term limits (whatever we decide) and NOT get paid $170,000 per year

                          No more conflict of interests: you get money from AIG, you CANNOT be on a committee dealing with AIG, you cannot write or amend a bill that deals with it.

                          There needs to be a way to REMOVE them from office when violations occur: Rangel doesn't pay taxes, we have cheaters and schemers- there's no way to clean it up because there are never penalties.

                          • 4 votes
                          Reply#17 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:06 AM EDT
                          Oliver Shagnastey

                          When did Rangel get out of prison? Or did he actually serve any time?

                          • 5 votes
                          Reply#18 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:21 AM EDT
                          johnny angel

                          Now that my job was sent to China (unbridled) my personal coverage is gone. As a Vietnam era veteran, I can't get VA coverage unless I'm destitute. Destitute is, as destitute does; it goes to the Emergency Room, hands the bill to a "patriot" and whistles his way on home.

                          But maybe thats just me.

                            Reply#19 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:24 AM EDT
                            KyleN

                            Blue Dogs say they can't support any link to Medicare rates, which they say pays well below market rates

                            It's good to know some Democrats understand the cost savings the President and his supporters claim is actually a myth helping guide a disaster.

                            • 5 votes
                            Reply#20 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:25 AM EDT
                            IndependentVoter

                            If the people who formulate the administration's economic policy are so smart, why is it so disastrous?

                            • 5 votes
                            Reply#21 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:22 AM EDT
                            Sebbydad

                            this may actually make for a better bill, since the GOP response has been "no" the dems are good enough to provide their own opposition in politics, see what happens when you don't insist everyone must believe the exact same thing GOP. This is how the system is supposed to work, debate and compromise that still gets to the goal. Further, those that want us to feel sorry for the poor insurance companies that will not be able to compete (which makes no sense since the same folks also say the public option will not be as good) isn't that the free market? They will get leaner and offer better products or not. The govt has no obligation to make sure their profits remain high. The govt. does have an obligation to make sure the general welfare of its people is addressed and not sacrificed in the name of profit.

                              Reply#22 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:22 AM EDT
                              KyleN

                              If the government insurer's revenues derived only from investment income and premiums then yes that's free market or well close enough for this discussion. However it will derive most revenue from taxes, comes with a low risk profile - can't fail after all, and should be able to borrow/leverage far higher than any private company could dare (or should dare).

                              All this combined with an ability to force providers to carry it and a fixed payout scheme ala Mediccare and you have something decidedly less than good and yet drive private options out of business.

                              How to 'fix' a public option, give it a lump sum to start with and set it loose with no more or less than any other insurer has access to income stream wise. And no rules on who has to carry it and let the market set the payout rates for services.

                              • 1 vote
                              #22.1 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:41 AM EDT
                              Sebbydad

                              My point is that there is no place for the free market in health care. Insurance is not about providing coverage, it is about collecting premiums. I find it amazing that people scream about being taxed to pay for a public option but have no problem paying exorbitant premiums just to have the privledge to pay additional copays to allow the insurance company to decide what care you are going to recieve. Premium or tax, the money is coming out of my pocket and I want the most care I can get for my dollar. A group not dedicated to making a profit off me first would appear to be the way to go.

                              • 2 votes
                              #22.2 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:14 PM EDT
                              magsby47

                              Sebbydad, well said! I've said for years I would gladly take what I pay for health ins. and pay it towards universal health care, which we should have had 100 years ago (yes, it has been a political football for that long), so that everyone can have decent medical care. As it is, right now I have no ins. because I couldn't pay the big premiums PLUS THE HUGE DEDUCTIBLE.

                              At this point in my life, like millions of Americans, I can afford to die but I can't afford to get sick or injured.

                              Look at who has been making all the money in this country for the past 4 decades - banks and insurance companies. They are constantly raising our rates and paying out huge salaries and bonuses to their management, building new office headquarters, etc.

                              Health care is not a business, it is a social service.

                              Providing health care coverage should not be a cost of doing business. It is one of the reasons why US corporations and businesses are less competitive with other countries. Everyone else has universal health care. It just makes sense to share the cost of medical care - just as we share the costs of roads, dams, bridges, schools - all these things are public goods. If having healthy citizens isn't a public good, I don't what it is.

                              • 1 vote
                              #22.3 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:16 PM EDT
                              VisionCoast

                              #22.2 and #22.3...bravo and amen.

                              • 1 vote
                              #22.4 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:02 PM EDT
                              Reply
                              max-785822

                              http://maxiis.newsvine.com/_news/2009/06/29/2980570-government-run-health-care

                              their not listening .single payer.

                                Reply#23 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:41 AM EDT
                                9sling

                                Obama: "I never believe anything is 'do or die'."

                                Rewind a few months... Obama: Stimulus Bill - DO OR DIE!!!

                                • 3 votes
                                Reply#24 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:57 AM EDT
                                questforfire

                                What Riles People about Health Care and What Can Be Done?
                                News Type: Other — Thu Jul 9, 2009 4:35 PM PDT

                                health, u-s, healthcare, top-news
                                questforfire

                                Overview:

                                When people get scared, they get angry...and people are scared about their health care. People satisfied with their care are afraid they will lose it under proposed reforms pending in Congress, and those without health care insurance are concerned they will never be able to obtain it. For those with employer provided insurance, 159.3 million of them, employee contributions to premium payment has increased more than 120% since 2000 (1) A common figure reported for the uninsured currently runs at 46 million people, although this should be put into context. According to the US Census Bureau, of that 46 million in 2006, 10.2 million were non-citizens. 8.3 million made between $50,000 and $74,999 and 8.74 million made more than $75,000 per year (2) According to the Congressionsl Budget Office, 45% of the uninsured at the time of the 2006 Census were going to have health insurance within 4 months. According to the 2005 CPS, 25% of people below the FPL, or Federal Poverty Level, were uninsured (3). With 36.95 million below the FPL in 2005, that accounts for 9.24 million uninsured who can't afford health insurance and haven't been covered by the government.. Therefore, of the 46 million quoted,36.76 million either should be able to afford health insurance or are foreign citizens. That still leaves 9.24 million people who are either unemployed or working poor that have no chance at present of getting legitimate coverage of their health care.

                                Trends in Cost:

                                In 1980 the total health care expenditures in the U.S. totaled $250 billion; by 1990 tthe figure was $400 bilolion. By 2004 the figure was $800 billion in inflation-adjusted 1980 dollars (4) During that time, hospital inpatient days per 1,000 peopledeclined 33% from 1200 to 800.. Hospital admissions per 1,000 persons declined from 160 to 125; Total inpatient days declined from 280 million to 220 million (5) These numbers reflect more care being rendered in an outpatient setting and superior efficiencies in hospital inpatient treatment. On the face of it this seems puzzling; care is being transferred to a less intensive, technology-driven setting; why the increase in aggregate cost?To account properly for total cost, one must examine all spheres of medical care delivery. Hospitals are mandated to deliver care regardless of insurance coverage in emergent cases. In the time period 1980 to 2005, the total cost of either bad debt or uninsured patients rose from $3.9 billion to $28.8 billion (6) The cost of undercompensation by Medicare ffrom 2000 to 2005 rose from $1.4 billion to %15.5 billion, and Medicaid during the same period from $2.6 billion to $9.8 billion, resulting in reimbursement vs. cost underpayment of $25.3
                                billion (7) Between uncompensated and undercompensated care, there is a gap of $54.1 billion...that all gets spread around to the charges assessed to private insurers, raising the cost of care to those who pay premiums.

                                Demand for Hospital Services is rising; between 1990 and 1004, the number of admissions rose from approximately 31 million to 35 million, and the number of outpatient visits rose from 300 million to 550 million (8)
                                Hospitals face workforce shortages; as of December 2005, there was an estimated nursing supply gap of 118,000. Half of emergency rooms are at or over capacity; the majority of urban units have to divert patients because of a lack of staffed critical care beds. Forty-two percent of hospital emergency departments report a lack of specialty coverage(9) From 2004 to 2006, 14% of hospitals experienced an increase of 50-99.9% in their medical liability costs and 5% experienced a more than doubling; 34% reported 10-49.9% increases (10)

                                Medical liability accounts for a large chunk of the aggregate health care costs as well. The Public Citizen reported that total malpractice costs on record were $3.6 billion in 2008 (11) The hidden costs, however, are much more impressive. In order to avoid the lifelong stigma of a malpractice suit, doctors practice a "defensive" form of medicine that adds layer upon layer of excessive testing in the hope of becoming "invincible" in a court of law. Price Waterhouse did an estimate of the costs of such a practice, as reported in USA Today; it was estimated at $210 billion annually (12) In 2005, a survey published in the Journal of the American Medical Association revealed that 93% of physicians questioned reported that they practice "defensive medicine"; 43% reported ordering image technology that was clinically unnecessary. Forty-two percent reported restricting their practices to avoid certain valuable but high risk procedures because of fear of complications and litigation (13).

                                These liability issues, coupled with the onus of governmental and insurance regulation, has led to a relative decline in the supply of physicians. In 2006 there were 774,849 active MD's in the US.; in 2006 that number only increased to 800,586, a 3.3% increase in the face of rising utilization rates noted above (14). Seventy-eight percent of physicians believe there is a shortage of doctors. Forty-nine percent reported that over the next three years they planned to reduce the number of patients they see or retire entirely. Sixty percent would not recommend medicine to young people as a career. Basic economics dictates that the cost of services rises if demand rises and supply falls.

                                What Has Worked in the Past?

                                In the 1920's, health care costs began to rise. Despite this fact, in 1929, the public paid 80.5% of their medical expenses out-of-pocket. In the 1920's, the Dallas Teachers' Association contracted with Baylor hospital to receive the benefit of a potential hospitalization in case of illness for 21 days in return for a $6 annual premium. (16) In 1928, the median American income was $6078.93 (17)

                                In the 1940's, Blue Shield and Blue Cross were limited in their competitiveness with private companies because they were non-profits, and they were therefore legally required to "community rate" their policies. This meant that they had to charge the same rates to sick patients as they did to healthy ones; this was a boon to those who were unhealthy, and ultimately a penalty for those who were healthy. In contrast, private insurers were free to charge according to risk; by 1960 , 60 million were enrolled in Blue Cross/Blue Shield, but 80 million were enrolled in commercial plans (18).

                                The Decline of Affordability:

                                "Congress Penalizes Individuals, Subsidizes Employer-Provided Group Health Insurance:

                                The regulatory changes that propelled the rapid expansion of employer-provided health insurance during and
                                after World War II helped fuel the hospital cost spiral by completely removing consumers from any contact with
                                health care costs. After Blue Cross showed the way, commercial insurers quickly realized that insuring employees
                                through their employer was a good business and an effective way to lower risk. Companies also learned that experience rating, the practice of setting business premiums by looking at a few years of a group's past claims experience,was an adequate predictor of next year's costs" (19)

                                Where From Here?

                                The trend initiated by the "Blues" was further accelerated by the institution of the HMO concept in the 1970's, when, based on the Kaiser model, government helped conceive a new model for health care that further regulated what could and couldn't be offered in the way of services and how it was to be provided. Forced to offer a range services on speculation, insurance companies developed new layers of bureaucracy, and thus cost, to attempt to meet these regulations and to trim benefits paid for wherever possible to enhance the bottom line. More compulsory coverage further removed the health care consumer, i.e., the patient, from the direct impact of economic decisions and placed more checks on physicians regarding their autonomy in treating patients according to their training and judgment.

                                Rather than dig further down the burrow that has led us to our dysfunctional current system, I offer the following proposal;

                                1) increase medical school slots and the number of accredited medical schools to help increase the supply of physicians
                                2) lift the restrictions on insurance companies that force them to amortize the cost of covering the very ill across the system and penalize those following healthy lifestyles and those who are otherwise fortunate and require few services
                                3) allow insurance companies to offer a broad range of "tiered" plans of coverage, with a certain minimum set of services required to prevent the catastrophic costs that force bankruptcies and home foreclosures. These would included cancer screenings, surgeries, chemotherapy, and other "high-ticket" items. Across this range, escalating ranges of elective services covered would be matched to increasing prices of premiums. This wouold allow insurres to price the plans according to likely cost.
                                4) With a "what you see is what you get" mechanism of services covered, an entire layer of insurance bureacracy could be removed, because they would not be necessary, as no legitimate claims would have to be denied.
                                5) With more elective, routine services covered out-of-pocket, unnecesssary utilization would be curtailed and the lower cost of insurance would allow employers to pay higher wages to remain competitive. 6) Because every insurance company's coverage could be individualize, they would be forced to compete more directly, offering wider ranges of services at lower costs.
                                7) malpractice litigation should be aggressively pursued in Congress to remove the onus of lawsuits and lessen the impetus for "defensive medicine".
                                8) with physicians no longer suffering a financial penalty as they did with HMO's for ordering expensive tests, patients would no longer have to worry their physicians are secretly playing against them.
                                9) with the government, insurance, and legal "interlopers' removed from the exam room, physicians and patients would again be allowed to restore the long mourned "doctor-patient" relationship.

                                Notes

                                1.The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Employee Health Benefits: 2008 Annual Survey. September 2008.

                                2. U.S. Census Bureau, CPS 2006

                                3. "Overview of the Uninsured in the United States :An analysis of the 2005 Current Population Survey U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, September 22, 2005

                                4. American Hospital Association : 2006 Health and Hospital Trends. Chartbook:Trends April 2006

                                5. Ibid

                                6. Health Forum, AHA Annual Survey,, 1980-2005

                                7. Health Forum, AHA Annual Survey, 200-2005

                                8. AHA Health and Hospital Trends, "The State of America's Hospitals: Taking the Pulse" Chartpak ppt presentation, April 2006

                                9. Ibid

                                10.AHA Survey of Hospital Leaders

                                11. The Public Citizen: "Medical Malpractice Epidemic persists Even as Compensation to Victims Decreases" July 2, 2009-07-09

                                12. http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/04/wasted-medical.html

                                13. Defensive Medicine amongh High-Risk Specialist Physicians in a Volatile Malpractice Environment JAMA 2005;293:2609-2617

                                14. Statistical Abstract of the United States.

                                15. The Physicians Foundation,"The Physicians Perspective: Mecdical Practice in 2008", October 2008

                                16." History of Health Care Costs and Health Care Insurance" Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, October 2006

                                17. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_median_income_in_1928

                                18. Health Insurance in the United States:http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/thomasson.insurance.health.us

                                19. "History of Health Care Costs and Health Care Insurance". Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, October 2006

                                • 1 vote
                                Reply#25 - Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:05 PM EDT
                                Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3
                                Leave a Comment:
                                You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                FUN STUFF:
                                • Leaderboard |
                                • E-Mail Alerts |
                                • Top of the Vine |
                                • Newsvine Live |
                                • Newsvine Archives |
                                • The Greenhouse
                                COMPANY STUFF:
                                • Code of Honor |
                                • Company Info |
                                • Contact Us |
                                • Jobs |
                                • User Agreement |
                                • Privacy Policy |
                                • About our ads
                                LEGAL STUFF:
                                • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com