Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
An Absolutely Wonderful Response To Sen. Reid  
User currently offlinedxing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (4 years 7 months 1 day ago) and read 1674 times:

Senator Reid on Tuesday said that "republicans should quite whining about reconciliation".

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/02..._over_reconciliation_.html?showall

I wonder if he remembers what he and other democratic members had to say back in 2005 when judicial nominations were a sticking point and the GOP threatened using reconciliation?

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-i...-grab-against-the-founders-intent/

What a wonderful compilation of video. I really enjoyed then Senator Bidens response about what would happen next time the other party got into power. Go ahead hypocrites, use that reconciliation vote!

20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8280 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (4 years 7 months 1 day ago) and read 1660 times:

Quoting dxing (Thread starter):
use that reconciliation vote!

And they just might!

Why not?

Republicans did it with Welfare Reform as I recall.

Don't see any reason not to do it with Health Reform

I'd even be happy if the House simply voted in the Senate Bill - Obama could have it to sign within days.


User currently offlinedxing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (4 years 7 months 1 day ago) and read 1620 times:

Quoting ken777 (Reply 1):
Republicans did it with Welfare Reform as I recall.

Don't see any reason not to do it with Health Reform

Saving money (welfare reform) versus spending money (Obama care) ........Hmmmm. BTW, the final passage of the welfare reform bill in the Senate was 78-21. Just slightly different than 51 votes.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/tally1996.html


User currently offlineGatorFan From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 331 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (4 years 7 months 20 hours ago) and read 1555 times:

wait wait wait. Doesn't President Clinton take credit for welfare reform?

User currently offlineken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8280 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (4 years 7 months 20 hours ago) and read 1540 times:

Quoting dxing (Reply 2):
Saving money (welfare reform) versus spending money (Obama care)

Considering the rate of inflation in health care (a 39% increase is the best I've seen this year) I believe that ANYTHING different than the current system has a potential for saving the consumers money.

You can put your trust in COnservatives all you want- you're not paying for your health insurance. When that entitlement dies because of unacceptable increases in private health insurance to your employer you'll be changing your mind.


User currently offlineGatorFan From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 331 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (4 years 7 months 20 hours ago) and read 1516 times:

Quoting ken777 (Reply 4):
Considering the rate of inflation in health care (a 39% increase is the best I've seen this year) I believe that ANYTHING different than the current system has a potential for saving the consumers money.

Ironic that the biggest increase occurred in the state (California) with the most regulation of insurance companies. I think there a huge lesson to be learned there.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8841 posts, RR: 24
Reply 6, posted (4 years 7 months 19 hours ago) and read 1472 times:

Quoting ken777 (Reply 1):
Why not?

Republicans did it with Welfare Reform as I recall.

Don't make sh%t up. Welfare reform was bipartisan.

6/27/1996 Introduced in House
6/27/1996 The House Committee on The Budget reported an original measure, H. Rept. 104-651, by Mr. Kasich.
7/18/1996 Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 256 - 170 (Roll no. 331).
7/23/1996 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate in lieu of S. 1956 with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 74-24. Record Vote No: 232.
7/30/1996 Conference report H. Rept. 104-725 filed.
7/31/1996 Conference report agreed to in House: On agreeing to the conference report Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 328 - 101 (Roll no. 383).
8/1/1996 Conference report agreed to in Senate: Senate agreed to conference report by Yea-Nay Vote. 78-21. Record Vote No: 262.
8/1/1996 Cleared for White House.
8/19/1996 Presented to President.
8/22/1996 Signed by President.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:h.r.03734:

By the way, The Democratic Stimulus plan gutted much of the bipartisan reforms of 1996.

http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfil...-welfare-issue-is-alive-alive.aspx

[Edited 2010-02-24 19:34:35]


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinedxing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (4 years 7 months 18 hours ago) and read 1460 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 6):
Don't make sh%t up. Welfare reform was bipartisan.

Give him a break, he doesn't understad that sometimes reconciliation is a bipartisan effort so things can be speeded up. Nor does he seem to understand that even Sen. Byrd does not agree with reconciliation for anything outside of budgetary items. The video in the OP is about using reconciliation to get judicial appointments that the democratic party opposed a simple up or down vote since they were filibustering virtually everyone of them.

Quoting ken777 (Reply 4):
Considering the rate of inflation in health care (a 39% increase is the best I've seen this year) I believe that ANYTHING different than the current system has a potential for saving the consumers money.

Here we go again. One company now represents all companies.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8841 posts, RR: 24
Reply 8, posted (4 years 7 months 17 hours ago) and read 1447 times:

Quoting dxing (Reply 7):
Here we go again. One company now represents all companies.

To be fair, I don't know of any company that dropped their rates. And it's not really the fault of the insurance companies - their profit margins are in the low single digits, and their costs have increased because of price increases they have gotten from healthcare providers and, yes, legal payouts.

And the funny thing is that we get upset at the insurance companies when they start questioning whether certain procedures are really necessary in their attempts to control costs.

There is no question that reform MUST happen.

There are 4 groups that drive the costs of healthcare. These are the places where we need to look at if we want to lower costs.

1) The healthcare providers themselves - A hate to target them, but the fact is that they are the ones that decide what proceedures are performed, their profit margins are high, and I've never heard of a doctor with a middle-class salary outside of the military.

2) The ambulance chasers and malpractice lawyers. Scum-sucking leeches on the industry that do not add any value (except for very occasionally), and who play the legal system like a lottery - throw out 100 lawsuits and if only one sticks with a multimillion dollar payout, he's ahead.

3) The insurance companies - Without universal coverage, we will never lower the average cost of healthcare, but on the other hand the payback should be a complete flattening of insurance rates. An individual mandate should be balanced by a ban on disqualification for pre-existing conditions, and your rates should be the same whether you are 30 years old and healthy or 60 years old and not-so-good.

4) Finally, and we always seem to forget this one - Government. The government makes money every step of the way (federal and local). They make income tax from the doctors, nurses, hospitals, medical suppliers, insurance companies and employees, the lawyers - all at rates between 30% and 60%, once you include all the taxes, and many times taxes are paid on previously taxed funds.

Just an idea - if the government declared the medical industry to be a tax-free industry top-to-bottom, you might drop the cost of medical care by half without impacting service levels or even the net income levels of those who work in the industry at all. There would have to be careful supervision and oversight to make sure the savings go all the way down to the consumers, but the savings could be tremendous. Combine those savings with tort reform, better competition, and controls of health care practitioners to stop them increasing their prices by 30% every year...

But Obamacare does practically none of that. It's just a special interest boondoggle.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (4 years 7 months 17 hours ago) and read 1434 times:

Quoting ken777 (Reply 4):
Considering the rate of inflation in health care (a 39% increase is the best I've seen this year) I believe that ANYTHING different than the current system has a potential for saving the consumers money.

Thankfully the people that actually will have to vote on this know better and it's why it doesn't have the votes.


User currently offlineAKiss20 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 609 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (4 years 7 months 15 hours ago) and read 1407 times:

Quoting GatorFan (Reply 5):
Quoting ken777 (Reply 4):
Considering the rate of inflation in health care (a 39% increase is the best I've seen this year) I believe that ANYTHING different than the current system has a potential for saving the consumers money.

Ironic that the biggest increase occurred in the state (California) with the most regulation of insurance companies. I think there a huge lesson to be learned there.
http://xkcd.com/552/

All I am saying.



Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are
User currently offlineflanker From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1638 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (4 years 7 months 15 hours ago) and read 1399 times:

Quoting dxing (Thread starter):
Go ahead hypocrites, use that reconciliation vote!

Yep, typical double standard bs. Shame.



Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist
User currently offlinedxing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (4 years 7 months 6 hours ago) and read 1356 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
To be fair,

Yes, I understood what I was typing and you are correct, none have gone down but pointing to one company and intoning that is the industry standard is misleading.

Your points are well taken but as you also pointed out, health care workers, lawyers, and the government itself are not in play when it comes to cost control in Obama care. On the GOP side health care workers and the government are not in play when it comes to cost control. Those are just part of the reasons this bill needs to be scrapped and started over with nothing being declared sacred or off the table.

Now before too long someone will chime in that the education cost and the time it takes to pay that back have much to do with what doctors charge. I have a sister-in-law that is a pathologist. She may not be represenative of the entire health care workforce but she isn't doing bad for herself 15 years out of medical school. Good for her I say. What if we were to install tort reform (nationwide since that is the only way it will work)? Would that lower her costs? Could it then be passed on in the form of savings to the consumer? How about tax relief to pay student loans? Could that also lower her cost, again to be passed on to the consumer?


Where it comes to government, how about making medical costs and devices tax free instead of actually taxing them? Would that lower consumers direct cost? How about tax credits to lower middle income families so they can afford insurance? How about a law requiring insurance companies to work with those families at that income level to find a way to build a policy that works for them and is affordable? As stated above, why not make all medical costs tax deductable once you get above the tax credit threshold?

There is a whole host of methods and means that have not been explored that would not involve creating and maintaining a huge new government bureaucratic nightmare that would turn into a money sucking monster.


User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6818 posts, RR: 34
Reply 13, posted (4 years 7 months 6 hours ago) and read 1355 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 6):
Don't make sh%t up. Welfare reform was bipartisan.

Ouch. That's going to leave a mark. haha


User currently offlineGatorFan From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 331 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (4 years 7 months 4 hours ago) and read 1308 times:

Quoting AKiss20 (Reply 10):
All I am saying.

Are you implying that correlation never implies causation? Instead of posting something like this and running away, take a stance and defend it. Otherwise, it just comes across as cowardly.


User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6608 posts, RR: 24
Reply 15, posted (4 years 7 months 3 hours ago) and read 1299 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
There are 4 groups that drive the costs of healthcare.

Actually, there's a fifth and it's probably the most important one of all.....the individual consumer. Too many people choose to live unhealthy lifestyles that have dramatically driven up healthcare costs. Our current system largely rewards those with unhealthy lifestyles with almost infinite care.

The other problem is that people have unrealistic expectations toward their later years in life. They demand massive amounts of healthcare, only to find that it provides only minimal increases in life expectancy and those last years are often of extremely poor quality....locked in nursing homes and largely bed-ridden.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
your rates should be the same whether you are 30 years old and healthy or 60 years old and not-so-good.

But that guarantees system failure. If you really want private health insurance to work, they have to be able to price to risk. A not-so-good 60 year old is a greater risk than a healthy 30 year old. This is already done in car insurance, auto insurance, homeowner's insurance, etc.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8841 posts, RR: 24
Reply 16, posted (4 years 7 months 2 hours ago) and read 1278 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 15):
But that guarantees system failure. If you really want private health insurance to work, they have to be able to price to risk. A not-so-good 60 year old is a greater risk than a healthy 30 year old. This is already done in car insurance, auto insurance, homeowner's insurance, etc.

Understood, but there is no f&ckin way that you can reasonably expect that an older person should pay $20,000 per year.

the problem is that in the US we look at insurance as a short- term item - which unfortunately is obligatory as long as there is no universal coverage. But in a system where you 'over-pay', strictly speaking, when you are 30 years old allows you to balance out your payments over time.

It's the system they use in Switzerland, which is a 100% private system with individual mandates. It works, and there are only 3 age groups for pricing - 0-18 years, 19-25, and 26-and-above. It's a system that works and does not require thousands of government bureaucrats to implement. Risk is balanced because you have contributed over your entire lifetime.

The American system where you don't have insurance until you have a high likelihood of needing it is unworkable. That requires some basic rules to be set up by the government, but can be done 100% private. Switzerland is proof that such a system can work, and is far, far more desirable than too much government involvement through a public option or income redistribution.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6608 posts, RR: 24
Reply 17, posted (4 years 7 months 2 hours ago) and read 1268 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16):
But in a system where you 'over-pay', strictly speaking, when you are 30 years old allows you to balance out your payments over time.

We already have that system now. The amount I pay now as a 30 year old is vastly more than it should be given that I virtually never use my insurance (but between premiums and company benefits pay almost $5,000 annually). In theory, all that money should be built up for when I get older. The same is true of Medicare where I'm paying in now with the payout to (theoretically) come much later.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16):
Switzerland is proof that such a system can work, and is far, far more desirable than too much government involvement through a public option or income redistribution.

But the Swiss system still requires significant government intervention. The government still subsidizes those who are poor. This works in Switzerland, but would be expensive in the U.S. since we have a much larger population in poverty. The Swiss government also regulates drug prices and the cost of medical procedures.

The Swiss system also places an even higher burdern on consumers for out-of-pocket expenses. This works ok in country that is more uniformally wealthy, but not so well in a country like the U.S. where much of the population falls into the category of poverty or working poor.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8841 posts, RR: 24
Reply 18, posted (4 years 7 months 1 hour ago) and read 1257 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 17):
We already have that system now. The amount I pay now as a 30 year old is vastly more than it should be given that I virtually never use my insurance (but between premiums and company benefits pay almost $5,000 annually). In theory, all that money should be built up for when I get older.

Correct, but the pricing is not based on the knowledge that you will remain in the system, and this is more geared towards "what are the chances of customer X becoming sick THIS YEAR, regardless of what he may have paid in the past"

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 17):
But the Swiss system still requires significant government intervention.

Not really. The Swiss Federal bureaucracy that oversees the system consists of a few dozen inspectors who investigate complaints and ensure compliance.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 17):
The government still subsidizes those who are poor.

Yes, and I have no problem with helping out the bottom 10% of the population, as long as it is only about 10% and not 30,40 or 50%.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 17):
This works in Switzerland, but would be expensive in the U.S. since we have a much larger population in poverty.

Their subsidies are managed at a local level, not federal.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 17):
The Swiss government also regulates drug prices and the cost of medical procedures.

Only those that fall under LaMAL. All services and drugs not covered by the minimal insurance level are market driven. Private room, dental plans, homeopathic medicine and other treatment options are not part of LaMAL, and are essentially unregulated.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 17):
The Swiss system also places an even higher burdern on consumers for out-of-pocket expenses.

Don't confuse the FX-translated income with purchasing power. The Swiss may make a lot of money in dollar terms but the rent on a 3-room apartment, even well outside the city can easily reach $3,000 or more per month. Living in Switzerland is frackin' expensive.

One of the best tools to get people to take responsibility for their own expenses, even with insurance, is to ensure that the first, let's say, $500 of medical expenses during the year comes out of your pocket, and that the patient must pay 5 or 10% of all expenditures up to, say, a maximum of 5,000 or so. That way, if the doctor says that you have to go through a crapload of procedures, the patient is more likely to at least ask the doctor whether these tests are really necessary, or of the doctor is simply racking up the bill because he can.

I had exactly that experience today. I had to go to the doctor for a painful condition I've had for several days. A few tests and the doctor tells me that it is probably an infection, treatable with antibiotics, but that there is a chance that it could be something else, and wanted to schedule an MRI. I pushed her a bit and she admitted that it was a very small chance. So I told her to just prescribe me the antibiotics and after a few days I don't start feeling better, I'll come back for the MRI.

The patient is the first line of defense against excessive medical expenses, but with insurance plans like mine (I just had a $15 co-pay, no deductable), there is no incentive for people to pay attention.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6608 posts, RR: 24
Reply 19, posted (4 years 7 months 1 hour ago) and read 1238 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18):
Yes, and I have no problem with helping out the bottom 10% of the population, as long as it is only about 10% and not 30,40 or 50%.

The last article I saw about the Swiss system showed that about 35-40% of the population got some form of subsidy. In the U.S., the percentage would likely be even higher given the demographics of our population.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18):
Only those that fall under LaMAL.

But that's the bulk of the cost for most people...things like heart attacks, cancer,etc are the big cost drivers and they all fall under LaMAL.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18):
One of the best tools to get people to take responsibility for their own expenses, even with insurance, is to ensure that the first, let's say, $500 of medical expenses during the year comes out of your pocket, and that the patient must pay 5 or 10% of all expenditures up to, say, a maximum of 5,000 or so.

I agree, hence my original post where I said that consumers are the biggest driver of healthcare cost. The problem with the scheme you just described is that for much of the population, one serious illness/accident would bankrupt them since they could potentially face a bill of $5,500. While theoretically everyone should have an emergency fund built up, the reality is that only 40% of American's have such a fund.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8841 posts, RR: 24
Reply 20, posted (4 years 7 months ago) and read 1213 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 19):
The last article I saw about the Swiss system showed that about 35-40% of the population got some form of subsidy. In the U.S., the percentage would likely be even higher given the demographics of our population.

No way, It's means-tested, and you basically have to be pretty poor to get subsidized (it depends on the canton as well)

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 19):
But that's the bulk of the cost for most people...things like heart attacks, cancer,etc are the big cost drivers and they all fall under LaMAL.

Hence the regulation. But if you want dental and other non-vital coverage, that is much less regulated.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 19):
agree, hence my original post where I said that consumers are the biggest driver of healthcare cost. The problem with the scheme you just described is that for much of the population, one serious illness/accident would bankrupt them since they could potentially face a bill of $5,500. While theoretically everyone should have an emergency fund built up, the reality is that only 40% of American's have such a fund

Who is going to file bankruptcy for $5000?

In any case, the upper amount can be set to something like 5-10 times the deductible. The idea is to make the person feel a little bit of financial pain in order to keep costs under control.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Which Response To Genocide Is Worse? posted Sun Feb 17 2008 08:47:34 by Jm017
Handling Mental Illness - Response To VA Tech posted Sun Apr 22 2007 19:35:47 by Adh214
Response To "I Love You Man" From A Friend? posted Sat Jan 20 2007 03:46:01 by Misbeehavin
Kennedy's Response To The SOU posted Wed Feb 1 2006 23:35:36 by Roger136913
Response To Far9/11: Celsius 41.11, In Theatres posted Tue Sep 28 2004 22:44:44 by ConcordeBoy
Turning The Tables, Biblical Response To The Right posted Sat Sep 4 2004 03:20:36 by Vaman
Airbus Response To The 7E7 posted Wed Jun 18 2003 04:54:26 by ARGinMIA
India Condemns US Response To Kashmir Massacre posted Wed Mar 26 2003 13:50:56 by B747-437B
Yasser Arafats Response To Isreali Missile Attack posted Tue Jul 23 2002 22:10:29 by JETPILOT
In Response To Johan's Topic posted Sat Nov 24 2001 01:32:46 by ILS