APP - Woopsie! Health bill recalculation

[Damocles]

You're just making shit up as you go along. First of all, the only bill being considered by the Finance Committee was the Baucus bill, a bill that Baucus drafted in the hopes of pleasing Chuck Grassley and other Republcians on the committee. They aren't considereing HR 3200. They aren't considering the bill approved by the Senate HELP Committee. They aren't considering the bill sponsored by Senator Sanders. They aren't considering the bill sponsored by Senator Coburn. They are considering one bill, the bill drafted by the chairman.

Of course, that does not mean that any senator on the committee cannot offer up one of the other bills as an amendment in the nature of a substitute as I have mentioned several times now. But, that would require an actual member of the finance committee offering up such an amendment. No one has done that because no one really supports any of those other bills.

It isn't some nefarious plot by the Democrats to prevent the Republicans from offering up an alternative. There just is no alternative that has anything more that a scintilla of support.

With respect to amendments, the Finance Committee members have submitted 564 amendments to the Baucus bill. Of those 564 amendments, many are Republican amendments. Many of the Republican amendments were rejected. Many Democratic amendments were rejected. That's the way the process works. What's the problem?

You are saying whatever you think will cause people on your side to reject what I have stated regardless of however much distraction or dissembling you may have to use.

The Senate is not the Congress where the bills were presented and never scheduled, yet many of them contained ideas I summarized earlier in the thread.

And as I have mentioned several times, Amendments were offered that followed along those lines and were rejected along partisan lines in the Congress. Of course ignoring the Congress this way only helps in your dissembling and attempts at distraction.

You also never consider the position that offering Amendments to what is one of the hugest messes ever to be considered by the Senate when portions of your argument is that such huge measures are not what is necessary may be contrary to your beliefs and your position. You just pretend the only option is to either jump on board this wagon, however creaky and weak it is, even if you think it is going to fall apart. They may think it is best to build a few better constructed wagons, in order to get that done first they have to get you to pay attention and notice that this one is about to fall apart.

Your argument is based in the first assumption that the only way that the Rs can show they don't like the bill is by offering up amendments to it, even if they think such a monstrosity shouldn't exist to begin with.

 

[Damocles]

In short, defeating this thing is just the first step in getting the Senate and Congress to start actually working on reform rather than simply trying to force partisan solutions on people without regard to what they say or think.

This, of course, can be stopped by the fact that they (the R Congresspeople and Senators) are in the minority. However, there are some who believe that the first step in working towards a measure that is palatable is to defeat this mess rather than pretending that a few amendments can make it less of a pile of inedible rubbish.

 

[Bonestorm]

In short, defeating this thing is just the first step in getting the Senate and Congress to start actually working on reform rather than simply trying to force partisan solutions on people without regard to what they say or think.

This, of course, can be stopped by the fact that they (the R Congresspeople and Senators) are in the minority. However, there are some who believe that the first step in working towards a measure that is palatable is to defeat this mess rather than pretending that a few amendments can make it less of a pile of inedible rubbish.

Oh, I see. Step one is to defeat this plan, in which case why offer amendments?

Once they do that the Republicans will then offer up their plan. Is that it?

Maybe the Republicans should have thought about doing their version of reform (assuming it exits) sometime between 2002 and 2006 when they controlled the whole shebang. There's a thought.

 

[Bonestorm]

You are saying whatever you think will cause people on your side to reject what I have stated regardless of however much distraction or dissembling you may have to use.

The Senate is not the Congress where the bills were presented and never scheduled, yet many of them contained ideas I summarized earlier in the thread.

And as I have mentioned several times, Amendments were offered that followed along those lines and were rejected along partisan lines in the Congress. Of course ignoring the Congress this way only helps in your dissembling and attempts at distraction.

You also never consider the position that offering Amendments to what is one of the hugest messes ever to be considered by the Senate when portions of your argument is that such huge measures are not what is necessary may be contrary to your beliefs and your position. You just pretend the only option is to either jump on board this wagon, however creaky and weak it is, even if you think it is going to fall apart. They may think it is best to build a few better constructed wagons, in order to get that done first they have to get you to pay attention and notice that this one is about to fall apart.

Your argument is based in the first assumption that the only way that the Rs can show they don't like the bill is by offering up amendments to it, even if they think such a monstrosity shouldn't exist to begin with.

I'm merely discussing the actual procedure in the Senate whereas you are just making shit up as you go along because it comports with what somebody told you is happening.

As I have said now three or four times, if the Republicans in the Senate hate the monstrosity that is the Baucus bill and have an alternative plan, they are more than free to offer their plan as an amendment in the nature of a substitute which would replace the entirety of the Baucus bill with the entirety of the Republican plan. The Republicans haven't done that and they haven't because they have no plan at all. Same thing on the House side with HR 3200.

Everyone knows what the Republican strategy is on this, water the bill down as much as possible through the amendment process to make it as bad a bill as possible and then vote against it. Pretending otherwise is lunacy. Or hackery. Take your pick.

 

[Damocles]

Oh, I see. Step one is to defeat this plan, in which case why offer amendments?

Once they do that the Republicans will then offer up their plan. Is that it?

Maybe the Republicans should have thought about doing their version of reform (assuming it exits) sometime between 2002 and 2006 when they controlled the whole shebang. There's a thought.

Because there are others who think they can make the bill suck less. Your pretense is that either of the parties are some sort of creature of its own with no people who may have a different opinion of things in them.

And yes, I've made that point earlier, I wish they had paid more attention to domestic issues when they had control of Congress and worked to create fiscally responsible plans rather than later having to fight trillion dollar behemoths that cover about 1/3 of those who currently don't have insurance...

 

[Damocles]

I'm merely discussing the actual procedure in the Senate whereas you are just making shit up as you go along because it comports with what somebody told you is happening.

As I have said now three or four times, if the Republicans in the Senate hate the monstrosity that is the Baucus bill and have an alternative plan, they are more than free to offer their plan as an amendment in the nature of a substitute which would replace the entirety of the Baucus bill with the entirety of the Republican plan. The Republicans haven't done that and they haven't because they have no plan at all. Same thing on the House side with HR 3200.

Everyone knows what the Republican strategy is on this, water the bill down as much as possible through the amendment process to make it as bad a bill as possible and then vote against it. Pretending otherwise is lunacy. Or hackery. Take your pick.

Yet I'm not, even you admitted that there are a "smattering of R bills" that were presented, yet I was able to point out that none have even reached the debate table in committee. And I am speaking of Congress while you continue to talk about the Senate. You are deliberately misleading the conversation into where you think it should be to "support" your position rather than actually listening to what was said. Then asking rhetorical questions based on your own position that working within the parameters of this bill is the only way the Rs should be working to make a difference. Personally I think that defeating this pile of crap is the only reasonable way towards a future. Amazingly bills can be offered in more place than one, and there are better ways of doing something about a bill that are more effective than just offering amendments that will be summarily rejected and would be ineffective to make this bill any more palatable.

There is no way it is worth nearly a trillion collected over 10 years and spent only over 5 to cover 4 to 7 percent more of the population. It isn't a good deal in any way it can be looked at. This is almost directly $1000 hammers right in front of our face.

 

[belme1201]

You are saying whatever you think will cause people on your side to reject what I have stated regardless of however much distraction or dissembling you may have to use.

The Senate is not the Congress where the bills were presented and never scheduled, yet many of them contained ideas I summarized earlier in the thread.

And as I have mentioned several times, Amendments were offered that followed along those lines and were rejected along partisan lines in the Congress. Of course ignoring the Congress this way only helps in your dissembling and attempts at distraction.

You also never consider the position that offering Amendments to what is one of the hugest messes ever to be considered by the Senate when portions of your argument is that such huge measures are not what is necessary may be contrary to your beliefs and your position. You just pretend the only option is to either jump on board this wagon, however creaky and weak it is, even if you think it is going to fall apart. They may think it is best to build a few better constructed wagons, in order to get that done first they have to get you to pay attention and notice that this one is about to fall apart.

Your argument is based in the first assumption that the only way that the Rs can show they don't like the bill is by offering up amendments to it, even if they think such a monstrosity shouldn't exist to begin with.

......and since this bill is so bad, where is an alternative Republican bill? The truth is they are being paid off to prevent any bill from coming into being. In other words, the status quo and a repeat of their position 15 years ago.
It's so obvious, why can't you admit it, that or find the alternative bill supported by the Republicans?

 

[apple0154]

The number one idea that needs to happen in order to create actual competition is to allow people to cross state lines in their purchase of health insurance. People need to be able to decide what level of insurance they are comfortable with.

Level of insurance? That's the basic problem right there. What level of insurance does one take to insure their home? If their house is worth $250,000 do they insure it for $100,000? Is their $30,000 auto insured for $15,000?

Does one choose which diseases they want covered by insurance? How many people would choose prosthesis coverage? How many individuals who lost an arm or leg thought about that?

How many people know what is involved with certain illnesses? How can the average individual choose a level of coverage? It's like asking one to decide what contents of their home they want to insure. The thief will probably take the TV and recorder but not the dining room table so does the home owner not insure the dining room set? The thief probably won't take the bedroom bureau but they may bust it up ransacking through it.

A decent insurance policy includes "replacement value". Anything damaged or stolen is replaced. Simple as that. Is there a "replacement value" clause in health insurance or something similar?

In other words if a person loses a kidney is the cost of a transplant automatically included (assuming there is a kidney available)? If one has an eye disease are the operations and glasses and everything necessary to deal with the illness included or is each thing specified? And if specified how does the average person know what will be required?

Unless one is aware of all the possible illnesses they may contract and all the possible cures/therapies how can they make an informed decision? The answer is they can't. That's why we hear about people requiring prior approval from insurance companies and insurance companies stopping treatment part way through.

There is no solution to the health care crisis short of a universal plan. Then everyone is equally insured. Everyone is entitled to all the treatments/operations/etc that anyone else would be entitled to. There is no "prior approval" necessary. No guessing or gambling on what misfortune may strike.

Level of insurance? What diseases and treatments should be covered? It's like deciding which rooms in a house one should insure.


///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

There were several offered, but none allowed to hit the schedule for debate in committee so that you and I would have those details. Can you tell me why your party leaders are so afraid to even debate them?

The number one idea that needs to happen in order to create actual competition is to allow people to cross state lines in their purchase of health insurance. People need to be able to decide what level of insurance they are comfortable with. It needs to be decoupled from employers, instead the employee needs to get the extra money in their paycheck to pay for the insurance that they finally decide on. Let unions argue how much extra they get rather than argue that they be chained further to the employer with the chains of insurance that they "won" for us so long ago. All of what you spend on health care should be tax deductible, not just portions of it once you reach an incredibly high number.

That's just a start of the stuff that was in most of the bills presented by the Rs.

One thing that I know, I can point out the craptacular job the Ds did in writing legislation that would cover "everybody" and actually understanding what would make it worth it. Trillion dollar bills to cover 4 to 7 percent is absolutely horrendous.

 

[Damocles]

Level of insurance? That's the basic problem right there. What level of insurance does one take to insure their home? If their house is worth $250,000 do they insure it for $100,000? Is their $30,000 auto insured for $15,000?

Does one choose which diseases they want covered by insurance? How many people would choose prosthesis coverage? How many individuals who lost an arm or leg thought about that?

How many people know what is involved with certain illnesses? How can the average individual choose a level of coverage? It's like asking one to decide what contents of their home they want to insure. The thief will probably take the TV and recorder but not the dining room table so does the home owner not insure the dining room set? The thief probably won't take the bedroom bureau but they may bust it up ransacking through it.

A decent insurance policy includes "replacement value". Anything damaged or stolen is replaced. Simple as that. Is there a "replacement value" clause in health insurance or something similar?

In other words if a person loses a kidney is the cost of a transplant automatically included (assuming there is a kidney available)? If one has an eye disease are the operations and glasses and everything necessary to deal with the illness included or is each thing specified? And if specified how does the average person know what will be required?

Unless one is aware of all the possible illnesses they may contract and all the possible cures/therapies how can they make an informed decision? The answer is they can't. That's why we hear about people requiring prior approval from insurance companies and insurance companies stopping treatment part way through.

There is no solution to the health care crisis short of a universal plan. Then everyone is equally insured. Everyone is entitled to all the treatments/operations/etc that anyone else would be entitled to. There is no "prior approval" necessary. No guessing or gambling on what misfortune may strike.

Level of insurance? What diseases and treatments should be covered? It's like deciding which rooms in a house one should insure.


///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Yes, level of insurance. There are many ways it can fit better for different people in different ways, forcing people to accept only a crappy one-size fits all program simply increases the cost for many people who are happily well-covered with a different level of coverage than you.

I would seriously prefer a safety net to this debacle that only increases costs.

 

[Damocles]

......and since this bill is so bad, where is an alternative Republican bill? The truth is they are being paid off to prevent any bill from coming into being. In other words, the status quo and a repeat of their position 15 years ago.
It's so obvious, why can't you admit it, that or find the alternative bill supported by the Republicans?

Again, bills have been offered, even your pal Turd understands that a "smattering of bills" have been proposed by Rs that simply remain in perpetual darkness. The bills are where I said they are, waiting (in perpetuity) to be scheduled.

 

[Bonestorm]

Again, bills have been offered, even your pal Turd understands that a "smattering of bills" have been proposed by Rs that simply remain in perpetual darkness. The bills are where I said they are, waiting (in perpetuity) to be scheduled.

I understand that a smattering of bills have been offered by both Ds and Rs and that only the Baucus bill is being discussed in the Senate Finance Committee. What you fail to admit is that the R bills have zero support as evidenced by the fact that no one has offered any of them as an amendment in the nature of a substitute as could easily have be done.

There is not need to wait for them to be scheduled. Offer them as amendments. Of course, that would require someone to actually support the proposals. The trouble is that no one does. Just like the bill Bernie Sanders sponsored.

 

[Damocles]

I understand that a smattering of bills have been offered by both Ds and Rs and that only the Baucus bill is being discussed in the Senate Finance Committee. What you fail to admit is that the R bills have zero support as evidenced by the fact that no one has offered any of them as an amendment in the nature of a substitute as could easily have be done.

There is not need to wait for them to be scheduled. Offer them as amendments. Of course, that would require someone to actually support the proposals. The trouble is that no one does. Just like the bill Bernie Sanders sponsored.

And again, some have offered those same amendments to HR 3200 (those people who are on the side that thinks they can make this thing stink less). You continue to keep repeating things that are simply untrue. While (I'll say almost here although I can't think of one R Amendment that has passed the partisan wall) almost every Amendment is rejected summarily by the majority party.

 

[Bonestorm]

And again, some have offered those same amendments to HR 3200 (those people who are on the side that thinks they can make this thing stink less). You continue to keep repeating things that are simply untrue. While (I'll say almost here although I can't think of one R Amendment that has passed the partisan wall) almost every Amendment is rejected summarily by the majority party.

If you can't think of one Republican amendment that has passed either in the House or Senate you just plain aren't looking. At all. Particularly in the Senate. You've got to be out of your fucking mind with that garbage.

Oh, and please state what I keep repeating that is untrue.

 

[Damocles]

If you can't think of one Republican amendment that has passed either in the House or Senate you just plain aren't looking. At all. Particularly in the Senate. You've got to be out of your fucking mind with that garbage.

Oh, and please state what I keep repeating that is untrue.

That they have not put forward any of the ideas in the bills as amendments. It is flatly untrue. And I don't have to be "out of my mind" I simply listen to the Rs that were on the original panel who made it clear that it was created without acceptance of republican input. Even among that gang of six.

 

[belme1201]

Again, bills have been offered, even your pal Turd understands that a "smattering of bills" have been proposed by Rs that simply remain in perpetual darkness. The bills are where I said they are, waiting (in perpetuity) to be scheduled.

......and those "bills" proposed by Republicans are unavailable for public view and were not published previously by the Republican sponsoring Congress person? I find it amazing that you buy that folly. A Republican supported bill simply does not exist and you are dancing a semantic jig to avoid that fact. If
it did exist, you would post in in a flash, and that's all the evidence needed to prove it is a GOP PR myth.

 

[Damocles]

......and those "bills" proposed by Republicans are unavailable for public view and were not published previously by the Republican sponsoring Congress person? I find it amazing that you buy that folly. A Republican supported bill simply does not exist and you are dancing a semantic jig to avoid that fact. If
it did exist, you would post in in a flash, and that's all the evidence needed to prove it is a GOP PR myth.

A singular bill does not exist because the Rs do not support the juggernaut approach. You are playing the "semantic hypocrisy" game.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I doubt Republicans offered any constructive amendment.

 

[belme1201]

A singular bill does not exist because the Rs do not support the juggernaut approach. You are playing the "semantic hypocrisy" game.

Thank you. As well as not supporting the "juggernaut approach", they support no healthcare bill at all, Democratic or Republican. It's obvious to anyone honest with himself.

 

[Damocles]

Thank you. As well as not supporting the "juggernaut approach", they support no healthcare bill at all, Democratic or Republican. It's obvious to anyone honest with himself.

Again, what you say is just rubbish. They support a different approach to reform, using regulation and actual competition, they do not support this mess that is so very costly for so little return.

 

[TuTu Monroe]

......and those "bills" proposed by Republicans are unavailable for public view and were not published previously by the Republican sponsoring Congress person? I find it amazing that you buy that folly. A Republican supported bill simply does not exist and you are dancing a semantic jig to avoid that fact. If
it did exist, you would post in in a flash, and that's all the evidence needed to prove it is a GOP PR myth.

I'd like to know why the Democrats rejected every amendment the Republicans proposed in the Baucus bill. Bi-Partisan? Hell no.