PDA

View Full Version : Why We Cheer For This Health Care Bill



Gayle in MD
03-19-2010, 11:02 AM
This journalist very accurately describes why the passing of this bill is cause for celebration.


By Steven Pearlstein
Friday, March 19, 2010


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

As passage of health reform nears, a historic chance to help fix Washington, too

<span style="color: #000066"> </span> House Minority Leader John Boehner and other Republicans claim that opposition to the health-care bill runs far and wide, but as passage nears, it seems the people have kept their outrage to themselves.
It's shaping up to be a great weekend here in Washington.

I'm not just talking about the spectacular weather or another upset-filled NCAA basketball tournament. I'm talking about the prospect of a quasi-climactic vote in the House that would finally have the United States join the rest of the industrialized world in offering health insurance to all its citizens.

Sometimes, those of us who live here and participate in political life can get a bit cynical. We tend to focus on the process or the gamesmanship or the unsavory compromises. Which is why it is important at moments such as this to get your head out of the weeds, look at the Capitol dome in the distance and remember how lucky you are to have a front-row seat to one of the world's longest-running historical dramas.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>What strikes me about the lead-up to this weekend's health-care vote in the House is how quiet things actually are.

If, as Republicans would have us believe, Americans are so up in arms about the prospect of "Obamacare," why aren't there angry hordes marching on the Mall or jamming the halls of the Rayburn Building? </span>
<span style='font-size: 20pt'>If the plan really represents a wholesale government takeover of one-sixth of the economy, why are so many associations representing private doctors, hospitals and drugmakers either supporting the legislation or staying relatively neutral? </span>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>And if this Democratic version of health reform is such a threat to economic prosperity, why are stocks, bonds and the dollar all rising this week as odds of passage increase? </span>
One of the silliest Republican talking points is that Democrats are "ramming health-care reform down the throats of the American people." In fact, we've been talking about it, on and off, for decades, ultimately winding up with a solution that is not only remarkably centrist but also not all that different from the compromise nearly reached between Ted Kennedy and the Nixon White House in the early 1970s.

Indeed, although you'd never know it from the overheated rhetoric, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>the remarkable thing about the final proposal is how little it would change things, at least initially, for most Americans. That's no accident -- in fact, it's by political design. This plan is more like a time-release tablet meant to reform the system slowly from the inside out rather than surgically from the outside in. </span>

<span style="color: #000066">This man gets it! This is exactly what several Capital Hill Representatives have told me. And also, it is why the Republican rhetoric about jamming it down America's throat is so absurd...</span>
If all goes according to plan, Medicare and private insurers will begin changing the way doctors and hospitals are paid, from a system in which they are compensated on the basis of how many tests they order or procedures they perform to one that rewards doctors based on how healthy they keep their patients and how closely they adhere to proven medical practices.

Over time, those government-sponsored exchanges will be so effective at generating competition and offering good deals on a range of insurance plans that big companies that now run their own programs will want to drop theirs and simply give employees a voucher to buy insurance on the exchanges.

And over time, the cap on tax-free health benefits will force insurers to better manage the cost of care, or charge patients higher co-payments and deductibles that will turn them into more price-conscious consumers.

Although Republicans are not wrong in declaring that "Obamacare" represents a significant change in the social compact, it falls well short of the European-style socialism they fear. In a uniquely American arrangement, health care would become both a personal right and a public responsibility, one shared jointly by workers, individuals and the government.

Over the past year, anyone following the health-care drama has been tempted, at various points, to question the judgment and the leadership of President Obama, his staff and the Democratic leaders in Congress. Should they succeed this weekend, however, there is no disputing that it will be a remarkable political achievement, the result of a combination of focus, determination, flexibility and patience not seen since the early Reagan years.

Most of all, enacting health-care reform would be a desperately needed victory for a political system teetering on the verge of breakdown. Years of polarization, partisanship and stalemate have led to a widespread and cynical belief that Washington is simply incapable of solving any major problem. Passing a health-care reform bill would restore not only a measure of trust and confidence in our political process but also, more significantly, trust and confidence in ourselves.



</div></div>

<span style="color: #000066"> I'll be holding a celebration at a Washington D.C. hotel on the evening that the bill goes through. If any of my friends would like to attend, send me a pm and I will email you an invitation...there will be lots of interesting people to meet...

G.</span>

eg8r
03-19-2010, 12:06 PM
So because this man does not see anything you call his perception accurate? Accurate for who? Those who celebrate socialism?

eg8r

LWW
03-19-2010, 12:28 PM
I'd like to attend.

LWW

Gayle in MD
03-19-2010, 12:35 PM
You obviously do not understand the definition of socialism.

It wasn't meant to satisfy you, Ed, your party didn't win the election. The majority of people in this country voted for President Obama, and part of the reason why they did, is because they want an end to being crucified by the Health Insurance Industry.

Going forward, as the author above clearly understands, the bill will be amended to provide even further savings, and cover more people...

It has to be done in stages, so that the transition will be smooth...

G.

pooltchr
03-19-2010, 12:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The majority of people in this country voted for President Obama,
G. </div></div>

And the majority of those people are now seeing what a horrible mistake they made!

Steve

LWW
03-19-2010, 01:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Members continued to be inundated with phone calls from constituents and interest groups Friday thanks to an impending vote on health care reform this weekend.

Calls to the House numbered close to 100,000 an hour, creating a bottleneck in a phone system only meant to handle 50,000 calls an hour. The chamber has been similarly overloaded for four consecutive days, beginning on Tuesday when radio host Rush Limbaugh told viewers to call the Capitol switchboard phone number.

Jeff Ventura, spokesman for Chief Administrative Officer Dan Beard, said the problem was essentially unsolvable. The issue lies with the capacity of the cables buried underneath the Capitol complex — and even if those could be dug up and replaced, Members simply don’t have enough staff to answer so many calls, he said.

“Our capacity rate is about 50,000 calls an hour, and once we hit the 40,000 mark, we start to get these signals,” he said. “We’re beyond that. There’s no other way to say it other than the system is at capacity.” </div></div>

&gt;&gt;&gt;OH DEAR&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://www.rollcall.com/news/44382-1.html?type=aggregate_friendly)

LWW

eg8r
03-19-2010, 02:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It wasn't meant to satisfy you, Ed, your party didn't win the election. </div></div>You were stating it as "matter of factly" as being accurate. Whether your intent is to satisy anyone is completely irrelevant.

As far as my definition of socialism, I am spot on and government run/funded healthcare (higher taxes on the rich the cover the poor) is definitely a big part.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Going forward, as the author above clearly understands, the bill will be amended to provide even further savings, and cover more people...
</div></div>Going forward, I have a different view but mine is based on real life actual government contracts. Given the business I have been in for the past 12 years government contracts are never on time, and never on budget. Never on budget NEVER means underrun. I am positive the bill is going to be ammended but given 100+ years of real data your position has no chance in heck. Further savings, a joke. There are no savings now. Tax 10 years for 4 years of service? What happens when the actual expenses catch up to the current year of taxes? Overrun. It happens every time. In order to believe your position one would have to throw away a century's worth of data proving you wrong.

eg8r

Sev
03-19-2010, 04:07 PM
The entire debacle is obscene. The techniques being employed are nothing short of criminal if not unconstitutional.
Winning an election does not give license to the ends justify the means.

The progressives have a plan and it has nothing to do with benefiting the American citizen.

LWW
03-19-2010, 04:39 PM
Do you have permission to post in her thread?

LWW

Gayle in MD
03-20-2010, 12:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It wasn't meant to satisfy you, Ed, your party didn't win the election. </div></div>You were stating it as "matter of factly" as being accurate. Whether your intent is to satisy anyone is completely irrelevant.

As far as my definition of socialism, I am spot on and government run/funded healthcare (higher taxes on the rich the cover the poor) is definitely a big part.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Going forward, as the author above clearly understands, the bill will be amended to provide even further savings, and cover more people...
</div></div>Going forward, I have a different view but mine is based on real life actual government contracts. Given the business I have been in for the past 12 years government contracts are never on time, and never on budget. Never on budget NEVER means underrun. I am positive the bill is going to be ammended but given 100+ years of real data your position has no chance in heck. Further savings, a joke. There are no savings now. Tax 10 years for 4 years of service? What happens when the actual expenses catch up to the current year of taxes? Overrun. It happens every time. In order to believe your position one would have to throw away a century's worth of data proving you wrong.

eg8r </div></div>

One of the biggest cost suckers and wasters are privatized services, that should be taken over by the government.

You're going to see more of that because the contractors are ripping off tax payers.

As for the health care bill, it is not government run health care, and anyone who says it is does not know what they're talking about.

As for costs, I beliee the CBO knows more about that than you do.

Too bad your team lost the election, and too bad you didn't even bother to vote, in which case, you'd have a right to an opinion...IOW, if you didn't bother vote, don't complain.

G.

LWW
03-20-2010, 03:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As for costs, I beliee the CBO knows more about that than you do.

G. </div></div>
I'm glad you finally agree. Here's what they say:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Congressional Budget Office said Friday that rolling back a programmed cut in Medicare fees to doctors would cost $208 billion over 10 years. If added back to the health care overhaul bill, it would wipe out all the deficit reduction, leaving the legislation $59 billion in the red.

The so-called doc fix was part of the original House bill. Because of its high cost, Democrats decided to pursue it separately. Republicans say the cost should not be ignored. Congress has usually waived the cuts to doctors year by year. </div></div>

They also said that the stimulus package would have a negative effect on the national economy.

Next deflection?

LWW

Sev
03-20-2010, 06:56 AM
HAHAHHAHHAHHAHAAHHAHA!!!!

And you trust Washington not to rip of the tax payers!!!!!

That's is just rich.

I'll stick with private enterprise thank you. At least they go out of business when they are caught. The government just grows.

Gayle in MD
03-20-2010, 07:09 AM
Here's a good example for you:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Walter Reed Army Medical Center has been in the news lately for poor care and treatment of returning soldiers from Iraq. Won’t national health insurance have similar problems?
As we consider what we can learn from the Walter Reed Army Medical Center debacle with regard to government-run efforts, some clarifications should be made:
1. Walter Reed Army Medical Center is an Army hospital and is run by the Department of Defense. The VA hospitals are run by the Veterans Administration (Veterans Health Administration), a separate organization. The news media has clouded this fact and has led the public to presume that all government-run health efforts fail. The VA health system continues to receive the best quality scores of any segment of the U.S. health system, with the most satisfied patients. It beats the best HMOs in quality ratings, has a model information system, and focuses on primary care. It has led in addressing medical errors and in its application of AHRQ quality guidelines to both inpatients and outpatients. In 2004 it won the Baldridge Prize for quality and patient-safety improvements.
2. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>There is a lot we can learn from the Walter Reed disgrace. Its operation was outsourced to a Halliburton-connected company in 2002, over the objections of some Army medical personnel and leadership, with a subsequent drastic reduction in staff and loss of government employees with institutional experience. There was also some hanky-panky with the contracting process; when the government employees’ bid for the operations contract came in lower than the Halliburton company’s bid, the bids were “recalculated” to make the private company the lowest bidder.</span>(This section was contributed by Dr. Anne Carroll.)
</div></div>

Now you know why I have stated that Bush mistreated our soldiers. I really wish more of you could have seen what I saw. You, too, would never vote for a Republican.

G.

pooltchr
03-20-2010, 08:21 AM
The CBO can only work with the information they are given...and the Dems provided them with the information.

Steve

eg8r
03-22-2010, 11:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As for costs, I beliee the CBO knows more about that than you do.</div></div>Yes, and to that extent even more greatly than you.

eg8r

eg8r
03-22-2010, 11:40 AM
The CBO has already stated that Obama's policies will raise the debt to $9 trillion. gayle did not like those numbers but now some savings might show up she is all giddy with the CBO. That is just hilarious to me. On top of this, gaylio refuses to admit the poor estimations by this administration. The costs for this are greatly underestimated and only those with zero to little exposure to government contracts would have a grasp of this common sense.

eg8r

pooltchr
03-22-2010, 12:07 PM
She is just following the party line like a good little Obamatron. Notice how she trots out the soldiers to use as a prop for her faulty arguement? Just what the lefties always do. The Clintons made it clear that the left hates the military, but they have no problem using them to promote their agenda!

Sickening!

Steve

wolfdancer
03-22-2010, 12:14 PM
Gayle, I think the majortiy of your right wing "friends" will be too sick to attend.
A lot of people put their political career on the line with their vote. I wonder the impact on the next Presidentail election?

pooltchr
03-22-2010, 01:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A lot of people put their political career on the line with their vote. I wonder the impact on the next Presidentail election? </div></div>

Had they voted the will of the people, rather than the will of the party, their jobs wouldn't have been put on the line.

Steve

Gayle in MD
03-22-2010, 01:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gayle, I think the majortiy of your right wing "friends" will be too sick to attend.
A lot of people put their political career on the line with their vote. I wonder the impact on the next Presidentail election? </div></div>

Immediately, insurance will not be able to drop you, nor turn you away for pre-existing conditions.

The CBO said this plan will save 142billion the first few years, and 1.2 trillion, after that.

The plan is to get the illegals documented, and paying their taxes, and fines, and increase penalties going forward, for any future illegals.

By iliminating all those expensive emergency visits, and plenty of them are not by illegals, either, just people with no insurance...we will save plenty of money.

Tax cuts for small businesses who provide insurance, some increase for the larger ones for not providing, but that is only businesses with over fifty people, I believe...

There are lots of good tings in the Bill.

Once all the people realize that there really are no death panels, no federal funding for avortion, no invasive IRS actions, (you know, the right always uses fear...to get their puppets revved up, same ol', same ol')....and people realize that there will be a lot of protection for everyone, the more positive parts will be more embraced.

Just think of all the families whose teens can now stay on their parents plans until after they graduate from college and a few years aafter that. that will help loads of people, who won't then be left with nothing but the emergency room!

Medicare cuts are only on those with the Medicare Advantage, which is a total rip off beause of the huge sudsidies for the insurance industry that the Republicans included in Medicare Advantage /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif...

This is far better than doing what Republicans always do, totally ignore everything that is critically broken, to protect the greedy thieves who renig on their promises to the consumers, and exploit them.

The more I have learned about the bill, the better I like it.

I don't think the Dems will lose a damn thing. We all know who ignored and blocked and obstructed doing any damn thing at all, while the problem grew to emergency proportions.

It will all work out just fine. Also, the changes for reconciliation will be an improvment...I like what I'm hearing. The right would be bashing, regardless.

They said from the very beginning all they wanted was for this president to fail. The country was in the midst of a national emergency when they said it. I also heard a good bit of talk going on about how lots of moderates do not want to be associated with these Tea Party thugs, that the Republicans failed to speak out against in the midst of racist, homophobic hate speak.

If that doesn't show people what kind of total A** H*Les Republicans really are then, Screw Em!

We already knew they were all missing a few screws long ago. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

G.

Gayle in MD
03-22-2010, 01:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gayle, I think the majortiy of your right wing "friends" will be too sick to attend.
A lot of people put their political career on the line with their vote. I wonder the impact on the next Presidentail election? </div></div>
Immediate Improvments For Americans:


Prohibit pre-existing condition exclusions for children in all new plans;

Provide immediate access to insurance for uninsured Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition through a temporary high-risk pool;

Prohibit dropping people from coverage when they get sick in all individual plans;

Lower seniors' prescription drug prices by beginning to close the donut hole;

Offer tax credits to small businesses to purchase coverage;

Eliminate lifetime limits and restrictive annual limits on benefits in all plans;

Require plans to cover an enrollee's dependent children until age 26;

Require new plans to cover preventive services and immunizations without cost-sharing;

Ensure consumers have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to appeal new insurance plan decisions;

Require premium rebates to enrollees from insurers with high administrative expenditures and require public disclosure of the percent of premiums applied to overhead costs.

The right won't be able to scare people now that everything will be crystal clear about this bill.

I predict, losts of good things are going to come about, and in fact, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if this President doesn't get bin Laden, before the election...a little birdie told me. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

BTW, did you hear they're buiding a new steel mill in Ohio! How long has it been since you heard something like that!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

pooltchr
03-22-2010, 02:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[
The plan is to get the illegals documented, and paying their taxes,
</div></div>

And VOTING!!!!!!

Just so I'm sure I get it straight....you were against amnesty until you were for it????

Steve

Qtec
03-23-2010, 02:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As far as <u>my definition</u> of socialism, I am spot on and government run/funded healthcare (higher taxes on the rich the cover the poor) is definitely a big part. </div></div>

Is the Govt taking over HC? If so, according to Socialism as defined in the dictionary, all private insurance HC companies will be Nationised?
Is this happening?

No.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources </div></div> WIKI

Most people who call themeselves progressives or Democratic Socialists would agree with this staement,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Socialists generally share the view that <span style='font-size: 20pt'>capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation.</span> This in turn <u>creates an unequal society,</u> that fails to provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potential,[6] and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential <span style='font-size: 20pt'>nor in the interests of the public.</span>[7] </div></div>

If the banks had operated in the pubic interest, ie the <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Nation's </span>interest, there would never have been a CC and the disastrous consequences caused by greed of the already wealthy.

Q

Gayle in MD
03-23-2010, 07:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As far as <u>my definition</u> of socialism, I am spot on and government run/funded healthcare (higher taxes on the rich the cover the poor) is definitely a big part. </div></div>

Is the Govt taking over HC? If so, according to Socialism as defined in the dictionary, all private insurance HC companies will be Nationised?
Is this happening?

No.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources </div></div> WIKI

Most people who call themeselves progressives or Democratic Socialists would agree with this staement,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Socialists generally share the view that <span style='font-size: 20pt'>capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation.</span> This in turn <u>creates an unequal society,</u> that fails to provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potential,[6] and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential <span style='font-size: 20pt'>nor in the interests of the public.</span>[7] </div></div>

If the banks had operated in the pubic interest, ie the <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Nation's </span>interest, there would never have been a CC and the disastrous consequences caused by greed of the already wealthy.

Q </div></div>

Thank you, Q., for yet another clear anaylsis of factual information, which destroys the strawman attacks of the right.

I have a question for you. If you had to name the true reason for so much ignorance on the part of the right, in America, what would it be at it's very core?

G.

eg8r
03-23-2010, 03:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is the Govt taking over HC?</div></div>Yep. Right before our eyes and it is sad.

eg8r

Sev
03-23-2010, 05:55 PM
Just a note.
If by design legislation is passed that will force out an industry over time and then the government is the only entity to be able to provide the service it is still a govt take over.

The US constitution provides for equal opportunity not equal outcomes.

That is the way it should be.

pooltchr
03-24-2010, 08:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Socialists generally share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation.


Thank you, Q., for yet another clear anaylsis of factual information, which destroys the strawman attacks of the right.

<span style="color: #FF0000"> So are you admitting that you agree with the socialist view of how government should and should not operate? You have certainly expressed similar views over the years on this forum. Are you a socialist???</span>

If you had to name the true reason for so much ignorance on the part of the right, in America, what would it be at it's very core?

G. </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000"> It's actually a perception problem resulting from so much ingorance on the left to actually try to study and understand issues. Research is not simply reading people who you know will agree with your already established beliefs. If you feed yourself nothing but a diet of liberal beliefs, you are only getting part of the story. You should try opening your mind once in a while.
Steve</span>