Health Care Reform Dead

[Qingdai]

If they read this graph, it makes them seem even stupider.

Infographic of the Day: How Bad Is U.S. Health Care? | Design & Innovation | Fast Company

[Cliche Guevara]

Originally Posted by Qingdai

If they read this graph, it makes them seem even stupider.

Infographic of the Day: How Bad Is U.S. Health Care? | Design & Innovation | Fast Company

That graph shows that the terrorists have won.

The question then becomes, "who are the terrorists?"

Yes, it's a rhetorical question. No, the answer is not Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is small fry when it comes to who really hurts the great majority of average Americans.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Cliche Guevara

That graph shows that the terrorists have won.

The question then becomes, "who are the terrorists?"

Yes, it's a rhetorical question. No, the answer is not Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is small fry when it comes to who really hurts the great majority of average Americans.

Hint: About 100,000 American die each year due to 'iatrogenic diseases'. The terrorism is forced upon us by our very own healthcare system AND it makes us pay premium prices to impose that terror. The otorhinolarygologist who fucked up my hearing permanently got paid handsomely by my insurance company to do so...with absolutely no repercussions for him or the healthcare institution which employed him.

[Bastard]

Healthcare is screwed ok..

On the eve of that anniversary, the people of Massachusetts, the bluest of blue Democratic states, delivered a thunderous rejection of the Democratic Party and, by implication, the President.

In a special election to fill the seat vacated by the late Senator Ted Kennedy, the people of Massachusetts did something they had not done for more than 40 years: they elected a Republican to represent them in the Senate.

This was unimaginable one year ago, as Washington was gripped by euphoria over the charismatic Obama.

Shockingly, today's election wasn't even close.

With 2 million votes counted, a previously obscure Republican state Senator, Scott Brown, 50, defeated the Massachusetts Attorney-General, Martha Coakley, 56.

The margin was 52 per cent to 47 per cent, a resounding turnaround, given Massachusetts' voting record.

The result is a political earthquake.

Republicans win in Massachusetts

Apologies if this has already been done...

[Bastard]

Healthcare is screwed ok..

On the eve of that anniversary, the people of Massachusetts, the bluest of blue Democratic states, delivered a thunderous rejection of the Democratic Party and, by implication, the President.

In a special election to fill the seat vacated by the late Senator Ted Kennedy, the people of Massachusetts did something they had not done for more than 40 years: they elected a Republican to represent them in the Senate.

This was unimaginable one year ago, as Washington was gripped by euphoria over the charismatic Obama.

Shockingly, today's election wasn't even close.

With 2 million votes counted, a previously obscure Republican state Senator, Scott Brown, 50, defeated the Massachusetts Attorney-General, Martha Coakley, 56.

The margin was 52 per cent to 47 per cent, a resounding turnaround, given Massachusetts' voting record.

The result is a political earthquake.

Republicans win in Massachusetts

Apologies if this has already been done...

[Jug Pilot]

Stephen Colbert:

I love these kinds of elections! Where one state gets to speak for everyone.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Garnet

Martha Coakley(D) has conceded the Massachusetts senate race to Scott Brown (R). There goes the filibuster proof majority in the Senate.

What does that mean for healthcare reform? Passing the Senate bill as is? Trying to push a reconciled bill through anyway? Does my thread title come true?

From what I've read, it probably means the House passing the Senate bill and then adjusting the numbers in reconciliation. So, we wouldn't see any major changes but we could see, for instance, an increase in the size of the subsidies, the excise tax rate, etc.

Also, I love the "Americans reject health care reform" spin. Because the residents of one state, which already has subsidized health care, represent America. And the candidate in question supports the very similar health care program in his own state.

Also also, to quote Ezra Klein:

If Scott Brown wins today, Democrats go from having the largest Senate majority since the 1970s to...the second largest Senate majority since the 1970s. They go from 60 votes for health-care reform to 59. Republicans haven't had a majority this large in generations.

It's evidence of how thoroughly we've internalized rule-by-filibuster that this is even a big deal in terms of short-term legislating.

[Garnet]

Pelosi says House cannot pass Senate's health-care bill without changes - washingtonpost.com

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that the Senate will have to amend its version of a health-care reform bill before her chamber can pass it.
"I don't think it's possible to pass the Senate bill in the House," Pelosi told reporters after a morning meeting with her caucus. "I don't see the votes for it at this time."

Pelosi has been struggling for days to sell the Senate legislation to reluctant Democrats in order to get a health-care bill to the president's desk quickly. But moderates in her caucus have raised doubts about forging ahead without bipartisan support -- a challenge as the midterm election approaches -- while liberals rejected the Senate bill as not going far enough.

I find it hard to believe that there are people still engaging in the bipartisan support fantasy.

[Garnet]

Mike Lux: Clear Path vs. Clear Meltdown

Democrats have an absolutely clear path to passing a strong health care reform bill quickly that will re-establish their image for being able to deliver real change, begin to rebuild their bond with their base, and allow them to move on to dealing with jobs and the economy. To fail to take this path will lead to a worse meltdown and beat-down than the 1994 or 1980 elections. What they have to do is buck up their courage, stop acting out, and get the deal done.

The path, which has been suggested by many other people as well as me, is to simply pass the full Senate bill, and then immediately pass a clean-up bill through the reconciliation process, which requires only 51 votes in the Senate. The clean-up bill could include the provisions that progressives in the House and Senate, as well as wide majorities of the American people, have been demanding: the compromise on the benefits tax issue, more affordability for low and moderate income folks, ending insurers' exemption from anti-trust laws, a national insurance exchange instead of the weaker fragmented state run exchanges, and yes, some form of that public option that voters and activists keep saying we want. Doing this kind of double bill approach would allow all the good insurance regulations and other provisions in both the Senate and House versions of the bill that can't be passed through the reconciliation process because of Senate rules to still get done, while making the bill far more politically popular with voters and healing the rifts caused with the base because of all the bad compromises forced by Lieberman and other Democratic conservatives in the Senate.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by Garnet

Pelosi says House cannot pass Senate's health-care bill without changes - washingtonpost.com

I find it hard to believe that there are people still engaging in the bipartisan support fantasy.

I read how Obama was saying that the Democrats should not 'try to jam a solution through'. Pissed me right off. Fucking coward assholes never really wanted a real plan, did they? Now they have their excuse to make it even less substantial. Bah. Good thing I don't have to force myself to vote for these losers.
Not that it's that much better here. We have some parties that still have principles, but they can afford to because they will never be in power anyway.

[Caligulette]

What they HAVE agreed to is already egregious.

[viscousmemories]

I think the bill needs at least another thousand pages before they should even think about it.

[Caligulette]

If one of those pages included the words Public Option Will Be Had, I'd agree.

[erimir]

It's better than nothing (great praise, I know), and passing it now is more likely to result in better reforms later than allowing it to die will.

Which is to say, allowing it to die will not result in better health care for people. Period.

It's true, the bill isn't very good, but they need to just fucking pass the damn thing before instead they collapse and we get nothing but more fucking batshit Republicans.

Gawd I hate American politics.

[Hoss]

Originally Posted by Bastard

Healthcare is screwed ok..

Black cock or white cock or strap-on, it was going to be screwed any which way.

[godfry n. glad]

It seems clear to me that Congress, or any elected body, will not be a source of reform. Corruption just became permanently entrenched. The question to ask any and all candidates for public office is, "Who owns you?"

I suspect the Supreme Court has practically assured a civil war....revolt of some kind seems inevitable now.

I suspect more of our tax dollars will be expended upon corporate subsidies and various corporate financial underwriting needs. Plus, they'll pay well to make sure that regulation to stop them from building yet another house of cards doesn't happen and for us to, yet again, bail them out when it all comes back on them.

Damn...Secession is looking better and better all the time.

The dialectic marches forward.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by erimir

It's better than nothing (great praise, I know), and passing it now is more likely to result in better reforms later than allowing it to die will.

Which is to say, allowing it to die will not result in better health care for people. Period.

It's true, the bill isn't very good, but they need to just fucking pass the damn thing before instead they collapse and we get nothing but more fucking batshit Republicans.

Gawd I hate American politics.

Yeah pretty much. If the party hadn't fucked everything up in Massachusetts it might be a whole different story but as it stands, if they don't pass something then there's absolutely no way there'll be any gains in November.

[erimir]

On the other hand, if we don't pass it, health care will probably suck ass for another decade, and then maybe people will be serious about reform (of course, there's no reason to assume that we wouldn't also get more serious reforms 10 years from now after passing the health care bill).

In the meantime, I've got mine jack because I'm young, healthy and middle-class, and by the time they get around to real reform, I'll be old enough for it to be more important for me.

So I guess I ought to be in favor of the bill dying.

[Jug Pilot]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Damn...Secession is looking better and better all the time.

These states would benefit

States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)

Imagine what they could do if they could keep the revenue.

[California Tanker]

If November is important, another option is to simply give it up as a bad lot and start spending time on things that the public are a little more concerned about right now, such as jobs and housing.

The House has figured that out, and made time in their schedule to pass a bunch of economic issues. After all, they're up for election this year. The Senate, most of which are not being re-elected this year, have not found anything like a pressing urgency to pass anything at all.

NTM

[erimir]

And where in this plan does not passing the health care bill help Democratic Congress members (House or Senate) get elected?

The damage has already been done - not passing the bill won't help them, it will only hurt them overall. There may be a few conservative Democrats who would be better off if it didn't pass, but Democrats in general? No, that's not going to help them.

Which is why the urgency created by the GOP win in Massachusetts might actually get them to finally pass the damn thing, since killing the bill won't help almost any of them, and being the one who killed the bill and screwed the rest of the party... well, generally won't help you either, unless you plan to change parties.

And the fact is, that when the public is informed of what's actually in the bill, they support it at a much higher rate. It's not polling so badly because Americans hate it, it's polling so badly because Republicans lied about it. Hey, the Iraq War was popular at the time too. Public opinion of the plan might improve after it passes.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by erimir

It's better than nothing

Are you sure? Does anyone even know the full impact this bill as written will have?

[Adam]

Of course, no one is absolutely sure, but the CBO claims that the bill would slow the rate of growth in health care costs, and it will lead to several million people who would not otherwise be able to afford insurance being insured.

[Caligulette]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Are you sure? Does anyone even know the full impact this bill as written will have?

No one knows the full impact, since it's still in flux. What I *have* seen is not good, though, and still leaves millions unable to afford insurance. (And, as someone who has paid some post-cancer expenses out of pocket for a period of about a year- GOOD LUCK no having insurance.) It also leaves a lot of pre-existing conditions in question as to coverage, as there has been no serious talk on capping fees.

Plus, the extra special Fine for not buying insurance - that is worse.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Caligulette

...still leaves millions unable to afford insurance.

That's true. According to the CBO, though, the Senate bill makes insurance affordable for 30 million additional Americans. I'd prefer everyone, but 30 million is more than 0.

It also leaves a lot of pre-existing conditions in question as to coverage, as there has been no serious talk on capping fees.

This is the part of the bill I'm the murkiest on.

Plus, the extra special Fine for not buying insurance - that is worse.

Unless you're going to go full single payer, though (and, make no mistake, that's my preference, although it's unlikely to happen any time soon), that's pretty much necessary. If insurance companies can't discriminate based on preexisting conditions, and people are not required to buy insurance, then the young and healthy are not going to buy insurance and premiums are going to spiral upwards. The fine is the mechanism for making young healthy people buy insurance.