Obama Admits Health Care Overhaul May Die in Congress

Sorry to put you on the spot, thumbs, but you're one of the few anti-health-care-bill people here that seems actually willing to discuss the issue without the standard "it's socialism!" criticisms. The problem I have with your viewpoint is that it seems convoluted.

On one hand, you're opposed to the public option, but then you support a public option for all called Medicare.

You want a bill that's bipartisan, but don't seem to care that the bill is extremely moderate and is supported by most of the centrists in the Senate. A simple rule of thumb in the senate is that you'll probably have 35 liberals, 35 conservatives, and 30 moderates at any given time. Whichever party has control has the majority of the moderates - this is because American's political tendencies don't shift, just the parties they associate with. So in the Senate, of your 30 moderates, 25 or so will be Dems right now - and they are all on board.

You're opposed to the complexity of the bill and prefer piecemeal reform, but then you simultaneously say In short, health care reform will require a comprehensive, inter-related plan. And your health care solution was to expand Medicare to everyone, become isolationist, do a comprehensive energy overhaul, etc - far less piecemeal than anything proposed.

Your primary complaints about the bill seem to be all secondary - it's long, it's complicated, it was done behind closed doors, etc. All of these things are not ideal, but none of them equate to "bad". You can have a long bill that's good. You can have a complicated bill that's good. You can have a bill that was created sketchily that is still good. Nothing you complain about seems to actually pertain to any of the content of the bill.

In short, it doesn't seem like you have any real reasons for opposing the current bill except that you're already invested in opposing it.

 

Great news for the USA. Now we need to take it further.
http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/23/markets-not-mandates


Medicare should also be phased out.

But really, this is just another failed effort of the WAR ON SALT.

 

Apologies for being in and out, but there is a lot of networking going on among tea party advocates right now. That is my first priority, so please do not infer that the time lapses mean you are putting me on the spot. Understanding and compromise are forged through honest discussion.

Yes, I want a plan that works for the general citizenry. As I was trying to explain, I said perhaps a step of step expansion of Medicare might be the best solution. It's a plan that is generally accepted and acceptable, so it could be a way to satisfy everybody. Funding it, I agree, is an issue, which is why I was postulating some of the cuts we would necessarily have to implement in order to finance it.

If you do your research, you will find that I have never opposed health care reform. Even within the ranks of the staunchest opponents will you find many who are opposed. The Reid/Pelosi Democrats literally forced people into opposition by the tactics they employed, particularly the secrecy that made a nervous populace even more nervous. You have to agree the Democratic leadership made woeful tactical mistakes.

However, if the Senate bill is passed using reconciliation, the American people will revolt in the 2010 elections. I'm sure it will be called the Great Democratic Massacre of 2010. Instead of the Republican Party facing extinction, it will be the Democratic Party. Personally, I wouldn't want to see that.

But I digress: things I don't like about the Senate version.

1) Ambiguous language regarding abortion.
2) Lacks meaningful regulation on the insurance industry.
3) Provides unfair exceptions (like union plans) and ways to game the system.
4) Sets up a bureaucracy that sets up barriers between doctors and patients.
5) Doesn't address issues such as tort reform, interstate insurance or rural medical needs.

Anyway, I am not an expert on these things so I am at best an ineffective advocate. However, I do have an instinct for what will not pass, what will pass and with what result, not because I am smarter than anyone else but because I listen to everyday people.

 

Good plan, then you have 1 party

 

First, if you read the quote, it sounds to me that he is challenging the democrats in congress.

Second, as far as "WE NOT THE REPUBLICANS", that logic is stupid. One could just as easily say they will not ever vote Republican because they are the "party of no".

If you don't want to vote democratic, the fact they are spineless should cover you....

 

The Republicans were not interested in this at all.... the mistake Obama made was attempting to have an open dialogue to begin with. He should learn from Bush, Reagan and LBJ.... sometimes it is more effective just to force things.

This "open dialogue" is a red herring.. and isn't going to get anywhere.

 

okay i am glad if the health bill fails simply because no one knows what the hell is the bill in the first place..
i find it funny how both sides are arguing for and against the health bill but do any of you really know what is in this huge ten thousand page bill???

everything was done behind closed doors.. most of the people in congress admit not having read the bill ..

 

It's good for it to die, anyway. The lobbyists had already sweet talked Congress into gutting government option for health insurance.

It would have been a mess like cash for clunkers, when lobbyists convinced Congress to weaken the fuel efficiency standards. People were just trading in vehicles 10 year old gas guzzlers for brand new gas guzzlers with a 3 mpg improvement.

 

Just because you choose to not know something doesn't mean everyone else is as ignorant as you.

 

Hey man! It's hard reading 10 thousand pages!

 

Yes, much better to have nothing good than some good. I'm sure all the millions of people impacted negatively by having no bill is a much better alternative.

Except that when the actual stats came out, we found that the average improvement was much larger than 3mpg.

http://blogs.consumerreports.org/ca...s-final-sales-and-mpg-results-and-totals.html


The average new car bought with the rebates got 9.2 mpg more than the average clunker traded in, for an annual average fuel savings per driver of 277 gallons of fuel or about $720.

Notably, 690,114 older cars were taken off the road, including 450,778 SUVs and other light trucks that likely lacked electronic stability control and other modern safety equipment. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has estimated that making ESC standard on new cars would save as many as 10,000 lives a year. This program has taken a significant step toward that goal.

 

Oh I agree about the Dems handling badly - very badly. And I know you're genuinely for health care reform, which is why I'm engaging you as opposed to people like Mojo who just repeat talking points.

I disagree here - anyone who doesn't like how Congress handled health care is already going to vote against them, whether it passes or dies. All the damage is already done. However, what happened in Massachusetts was that the people who support health care stayed home because they were fed up with Congress. It's the base that will come back if the Dems pass health care. No one elects people to do nothing - and if they go back to their constituents and say they didn't accomplish anything wrt health care, they'll definitely and deservedly be booted out of office.

This is a good list - thank you! I disagree with it, but they are valid points. Here would be my counter arguments:

1. I agree on this one, but that seems like the centrist compromise you were looking for. I'm not sure what a good solution on the abortion issue really is. I assumed taking out the public option resolved that, but apparently not.

2. It has some significant regulation, though not as much as before. But this seems like the perfect step-by-step approach you advocated. Additional regulations can always be added. By adding less now, you get to see how the whole thing works and then make adjustments as needed.

3. The union plans were going to be in the House response, which is dead. There was no union exemption in the Senate bill. In fact, it's fairly hard on unions because it taxes those high-end health plans that unions often negotiate. (this was the reason the unions were fighting it in the House)

4. What additional bureaucracy is there? I don't see anything new at all. Your doctor/hospital still bills the insurer and the insurer decides what procedure is accepted. If anything, it puts less in there because the insurer will be more regulated in terms of what they can deny.

5. Tort reform has been done in multiple states and shows no impact at all on health care rates. Interstate and rural are valid issues, but again, they are things that can always be added down the road in your step-by-step approach.

No one has suggested this is the be-all/end-all of health insurance reform. New issues will certainly crop up and needed to be addressed. But it is a very significant overhaul of the general system - and the other issues can always be addressed as the system gets built.

 

His presidency thus far has been a complete and utter failure. It is actually sad to see a President coming into office with such a mandate only to literally squander it and end up, more than a year later, having "changed" nothing significant about America.

He took one big swing on the Health Care bill and he missed badly. A year later, and still no major legislative achievement to speak of.

Oh well, he still has 7 years ahead of him to make some strides towards his legacy.

 

Okay, please explain to me what is in this bill mr genius? And I don't want some crap summary you read in a NBC article. It is a thousand pages long and how many pages have you personally read yourself? I am willing to bet its zero. I could be wrong but my original point was the majority of americans and people on this board have no clue what is in this bill. They only know what they hear in the news. You know I am right here. So why dont you stop flaming and shut up and stop calling names. I am sure you are the ignorant one compared to me but I am not one to brag about personal accomplishments here. Also I never claim to know something I do not know which is what my original post was stating.


I do not claim to know what is in this bill but one thing I am sure is it is one expensive bill and we have no way to pay for it. We are already facing unprecedented debt and don't need another huge bill for the middle class to foot the bill. Almost all economist and experts (both democratic and republican) say this bill will raise taxes to the middle class somehow. Either directly or indirectly.

 

classic

 

Is there some type of graph or any statistics available that shows CBO estimates vs actual costs? I'd like to see how close or far they are from the actual numbers.

 

did you support the patriot act?

 

a good start on the house bill

Estimated Budgetary Impact of H.R. 3962

According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting H.R. 3962 would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $104 billion over the 2010–2019 period (see Table 1). In the subsequent decade, the collective effect of its provisions would probably be slight reductions in federal budget deficits. Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty.

The estimate includes a projected net cost of $894 billion over 10 years for the proposed expansions in insurance coverage. That net cost itself reflects a gross total of $1,055 billion in subsidies provided through the exchanges (and related spending), increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers; those costs are partly offset by $167 billion in collections of penalties paid by individuals and employers. On balance, other effects on revenues and outlays associated with the coverage provisions add $6 billion
to their total cost.

Over the 2010–2019 period, the net cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending changes, which CBO estimates would save $426 billion, and receipts resulting from the income tax surcharge on high-income individuals and other provisions, which JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $572 billion over that period.1

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf


the senate bill


CBO’s analysis of the package of revisions to the Senate health system reform bill negotiated by Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was released on December 19th by the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation. The combined effect is to lower the deficit by an added $2 billion over the next decade. The gross cost of health insurance expansion provisions rose from $848 billion to $871 billion. The revised package includes an added $10 billion to build community health centers and increase the number of doctors in medically underserved regions but also increase revenues by $12 billion, according to the analysis.

http://nchc.org/facts-resources/cbo-scores-revised-senate-bill

 

That is certainly true - I haven't read any of the actual bill. In fact, I haven't read any of the bills that passed Congress in the last 100 years. Yet, I still know what is in them. I didn't read the Bush tax cut, yet I still know what taxes it cut and by what amounts. How could that possibly be?!?!

As far as what's in the bill, wide ranging changes in regulations on every part of the health care sector; mandates on health care; additional taxes and fees to pay for it; restrictions on insurers; etc; etc.

Am I to assume you are opposed to any bill that you have not read the entirety of? In other words, presumably, you are against every law passed in the US?

I won't stop flaming because you're an idiot - and you are so by choice. If you're opposed to the bill because you choose to remain ignorant about it, fine - that's absolutely your choice. To say others are just as ignorant as you is, well, idiotic.

Plenty of other people actual follow the debate and do know the core of the bill. Do we know all the details? Of course not - it's irrelevant. That's the whole point of electing legislators. We don't know all the details of any bill before Congress.

So you don't know anything about the bill, but you know we can't pay for it? That's just brilliant.

Wait - so now you're relying on experts? Why don't you care when these experts say the bill will lower health care costs and provide better care? Or that it will increase American productivity? Or that it will save countless lives? Or that the bill is fully funded?

Your selective reliance on experts is amusing. And yes, idiotic and ignorant. If you want me to stop calling you that, stop making idiotic and ignorant arguments.