Rex Kickass

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 02:33 PM) Because they will be forced to. Employers will not offer insurance after this passes. If employers don't offer a plan, there is a penalty. To fund the public plan. I believe it's something along the lines of 7% of revenue or something like that.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 02:29 PM) They wouldn't last long with a mass exodus of companies and private citizens jumping to the public option... Hell, most insurance companies already laid off people because of the downturn in the economy and they were the most resilient part of it. They could simply find a way to make money off of it. Maybe market to opponents of the health care proposals? Or are you admitting that you'd immediately take advantage of the same things you don't want to see enacted?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 02:21 PM) So then stop saying/repeating that people can keep their private insurance, because there is no way that's reality if everyone ditches it for something "free", which will NOT be free by any stretch, especially if you toss 320+Million people on that free plan. Also, if what you're saying is true, congratulations, private health insurance folds, and you have millions upon millions of unemployed workers. Why do you assume that private industry will remain static?

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:59 PM) Key words: AFFORDIBILITY CREDITS. That's all this talks about. There's not a damn thing in here about coverage. Nothing. They are covered, or more specifically, there's nothing in the bill to NOT deny them COVERAGE. Same section - services covered by this act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics... ok, looks to be like they get their coverage. Besides that, one swipe of the pen, they're all legal. Poof. Argument over. So you're against people paying into an insurance pool?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 12:14 PM) That wasn't serious, but it really doesn't help. If any other business had $10 trillion in accumulated losses, it wouldn't be around still. Clearly you've never flown Alitalia.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 10:58 AM) Grassroots movements by people who are not paid or bussed in is not 'astroturfing'. The SEIU and ACORN bussing in of proponents is. Get your term straight. Look at the different sides at the town hall meetings. The people opposed are real people with real concerns, not paid plants, not bussed in, have homemade signs. The proponents always seem to have the most professional sigage, all alike, and are often bussed in from outside whatever district the meetings are in. Most grassroots stuff is astroturf. This is no exception.

It was a really bonehead move on the part of Kennedy, and really ridiculous. Interesting piece, but there's a bit of a revisionist history - calling Kennedy's actions providing "aid and comfort" is a bit much. You could make a good argument that it was Reagan/Bush detente with a Soviet Union crumbling from within due to its own economic pressures that were the bigger issues.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 09:59 PM) See, that is the backdoor in this. Obviously this health care plan will have to be heavily subsidized by the US government. There is no way that taking on high risk patients is going to be reconciled financially without either high rates being paid in by participants of the system or massive amounts of government help. I would suspect the former is what the public option would be. So basically, yes, they are guaranteeing government provided health care for non US citizens. People are wary of this plan because basically they know they aren't getting the entire story. The Democrats wanted to 'get it passed fast' so people wouldn't know some of the expensive or unsavory details. Actually, I'd argue that the 'get it passed fast' goal was really just to get the astroturfed opposition to burn brightly for a second and get weary and fade out. It's a smart move to shoot for August, wait for the protests and then shift the goalposts til December and bet that the protests will dissipate before October... so far its proven to be a pretty sound bet.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 09:36 AM) Where is your line? What exact freedoms are you willing to give up so the government can make things "better"? I hear a lot of s*** from people who are willing to turn their lives over to the government, but I am curious for you all to start answering your own questions? Speech? Religion? Movement? Property? I'd just like to know where you get the erosion of freedom from allowing a government run insurance option to compete with the private insurance industry. Britain nationalized its healthcare and it still has private health care and private health insurance options. That isn't even what's close to being proposed here. At its scariest, what's been proposed doesn't even compare to the parallel systems that France offers - who also has a thriving private medical industry. Maybe you can spell it out more clearly, exactly which freedoms I'm abridged by allowing a government run insurance program to offer me affordable health care? Because I have a hard time jumping from being able to afford going to the doctor to no longer being able to be free to assemble.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 02:55 AM) 1 - Stop the employer provided insurance, provide incentive for individuals to get coverage in real pools and choices, and let people shop on their own instead of having to be forced to take employer covered insurance. That solves a lot of things. I'll MAYBE go into more depth here some other time, but I'm sure this is stupid and will be attacked ad hominem or ignored. This isn't a bad idea in and of itself, but that choice does already exist. I spent 18 months with self-purchased health insurance. It was cheaper than my own work's option for a better plan than what it offers. There needs to be some method to make insurance available more easily without using your employer, including being able to deduct health insurance costs from your taxes, which is currently NOT possible if you insure outside the workplace. I don't disagree that tort reform should be a part of health care reform. There should be some limits on medical malpractice claims - and maybe some method to separate medical tort claims from other tort claims, so that these cases go before a court that may be more knowledgeable about what considers malpractice than the average jury. From what I've read, Pharma has given up some in the current health care costs - about the only segment of the industry that has so far in this push for reform. I don't know too much about the details admittedly, but they've come to the table with a way to cut costs. There are some systemic issues with Medicare that need to be corrected, you are right. Part of it is a funding issue, part of it has to do with the program's administration. Despite its financial flaws, the program is a huge success. If it wasn't so successful, there wouldn't be such an aversion for a generation to even touch the program's benefits. It's not that I trust government more than I trust business. It's that business has a poor track record in making healthcare more affordable for Americans in this issue. It's that this business in particular is fighting, kicking and screaming to reject any change that might somewhat be more in the national interest rather than in the interest of their profit margins. I'm sorry but I don't agree with Goldwater and Reagan's legacy that government is the problem. The truth is that the government is useful for a lot of great things. We trust the government to provide us with a transportation infrastructure. We trust the government to keep us safe. We trust the government to put out fires. We trust the government for a lot of services and I don't see the harm in allowing the government to offer a public insurance option to help lower costs in the health industry in general as part of a reform of health care services in the US. That doesn't mean that there should be takeover. Forty plus years ago, Reagan opposed the creation of Medicare saying it was a slippery slope to communism and losing the freedoms we cherish. Instead of living under the red menace today, we just live longer as a result. Reagan's comments are eerily similar to what so much of the opposition to health care reform talks about today, so forgive me for disagreeing with it. Reagan turned out to be fundamentally wrong about what Medicare has done. And I just have to think that all the Cassandras crying about public health care is wrong again this time.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 12:04 AM) Oh, but wait, I keep being told that there's not a bill. Which way is it? And "Immy-gants" are covered, and they shouldn't be. That's a problem. You just slapped citizens in the face. And "Death Panels" - as I said, I even have a problem with that language, but read the 'Zeke Emanual article, and they bring that s*** on themselves by the crap he utters, especially since he effectively is leading this mess. That's "data" when they say it themselves - that hippacratic oath sucks balls and costs too much. There's a section in the House Bill that you constantly rant about that specifically says that it won't cover undocumented workers. Specifically. But you'll discount that because that part of the bill won't be "enforceable" or "won't really count" or some other bulls*** you'll come up with to keep that section of your argument. You reference a section of the bill that talks about not being able to enroll in any other existing private plan - although when I asked you what part of the bill this specifically references you didn't come up with an answer - when I found what I think is the same section of the bill that you reference (I think I even posted that section in this thread,) it appears to be a grandfather clause which simply says that private insurers won't be able to take new enrollees in existing plans that don't meet the same guidelines and rules about what policies can and can't exclude (pre-existing condition, recission, etc.) It doesn't say anything about prohibiting employers from swapping to a new private option or any of that. It just simply says that existing programs that don't comply with federal regulations established by this bill won't be able to have new members enroll. Unless you're referencing another part of the bill that I missed. If so, please provide the section number of the bill so that we all can see in black and white exactly what the scary government is trying to do to kill the insurance industry. I believe, (and although I mostly skimmed the same bill you constantly reference and didn't read it in depth) also talked about Medicare and what it will and won't cover. It basically says that any public option - Medicare included will cover a living will consultation. That doesn't make having one mandatory. Your argument about compromise is that Obama is only including tort reform in that bill if they get on board with a public option. But given that the Republican party has given no indication about what they would offer besides tort reform and a poorly defined co-op concept that hasn't been used on a large scale (and with not a lot of success) since the 1930s. Beyond that, there is very little in terms of actual ideas that they have provided besides "no." The last Republican with a real proposal on establishing more universal health care access was Nixon, and his idea was just to force all employers to provide healthcare regardless of size.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 02:08 PM) You're not going to get 100 dem senators. If they can't get stuff done when they completely control the government it's their own fault. Just put another Kennedy in the final 60 seat. There would still be problems passing a health care program. So many excuses, nothing is ever the Democrats fault. It's getting old fast. Maybe they should address unemployment then fix health care. It's simple and we'll see if it gets done after the recess. It's called reconciliation. That only requires 51 votes and most of the public option bill can be passed with that legislative tool.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 01:59 PM) The Democrats have 60 in the Senate and completely control the house. A Democrat is president. The fact is the Democrats are not even together on health care. Actually, they currently have 59... and until a couple weeks ago, only 58 available to vote as Byrd was ill. That includes two senators who do not belong to the Democratic party, one of whom hasn't been a terribly reliable vote as of late.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 04:29 PM) Well, you did have that prostitution ring operationg out of his house, and he was a major player in the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac stuff, yet nothing ever came of that because his party is in power. There has to be more there.... He totally did have the prostitution ring in his brother's house. He did almost go to jail and lose his seat, I believe when that came out in the 80s but didn't. Don't get me wrong, I think Barney Frank is a good Congressman. I would vote for him in most circumstances, but I hate that guy so much. I never want to meet him again.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 05:33 PM) ETA: There's a hell of a lot of stuff that the Dems went with on the GOP controlled Congress. And now the Dems are pissed about how the GOP isn't going along? It's because what they are ramming down our throat is unprecedented. If this stuff was being "rammed down your throat," there wouldn't be all this drama in the Senate Finance Comm. There wouldn't have been a stimulus bill that was 50% tax breaks. The Democrats won the election - and in 2008, they won it largely on the basis of these ideas. They also won it largely on the basis that they would work with anyone willing to contribute. The Democrats have been willing to compromise on a lot of things, and have worked to find common ground with the GOP - so much so that they've even started to alienate a good chunk of their base about it. However, there's only so much bipartisan work that can be done when the only compromise the opposition is willing to accept is "no."

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 01:01 AM) I can't find the link, but I know I read somewhere that back in the Nixon era, kennedy OPPOSED a version of national healthcare that was proposed back then. I have to find that later. It was a Nixon plan to mandate all employers offer healthcare insurance for all their employees and although he initially opposed the plan, he did work with Nixon and developed a compromise that he did introduce in Congress. Watergate derailed the plan.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 01:33 PM) You never did answer me about the Vegas cruise Oh sorry, but that was because you wanted a balcony cabin on the Staten Island Ferry instead.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 11:52 AM) You have to wonder if its just phone-trolling. Nope, just dumb people.

Since the announcement of his cancer diagnosis, a number of these stories have dribbled out into the press. For all his flaws and misgivings, Kennedy did a lot of good in this world - and I feel that it should be shared. 47 years in the Senate and he did a lot of positive things there and for his constituents. There are few Senators really like that left these days - Lugar comes to mind in Indiana, but I don't know of many others. In many ways, Kennedy represented the best of what I always thought a Senator should be. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachus...d_it_in_others/ http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachus..._and_desperate/

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 11:53 AM) http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/2009082...ATES01/90826020 http://www.helenair.com/news/state-and-reg...1cc4c03286.html One no and one possibly no. At this rate, Schumer will not even get reconciliation through. Tester said he'd support a public option in your article. He also said he'd support a bill without a public option. That's not a "possibly no," that's an argument for incrementalism.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 26, 2009 -> 06:48 PM) Yea, because the Democrats have power, she has no purpose anymore. She lost her relevance in 2004 IIRC.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 25, 2009 -> 04:32 PM) Along that line, my mom used to sell Amtrak trips. She had more than a handful of people call in asking for the train to Hawaii. I used to have people call me and ask about cruises to Las Vegas.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 10:34 AM) And read the reasons why that is. Are you talking about a high undocumented worker population? El Paso has about the same number of those people and the average bill in El Paso is roughly half. Or are you talking about all the "high tech medical stuff" there that El Paso also has and the average bill in El Paso is roughly half (and rates the same or higher as McAllen in quality of health care services across the board.

I'm going to guess you are referring to Sec 102 of the bill. The one that allows existing coverage to remain unmodified. It's a grandfather clause. So rules about preexisting conditions and recission, etc simply do not apply. Here's the text. Nowhere in this section does it prohibit insurance companies from creating new health insurance plans that would conform to this particular bill. In fact, from what I understand the bill to contain, if you are to choose new insurance - you have options of private and public plans through a federal or state level health insurance exchange. You even have the option of taking no coverage whatsoever (although you will pay a tax of 2% of gross income if you elect not to choose health insurance.)

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 10:07 AM) The immediate concern is to get this clusterf*** of a bill killed. Then, let's talk about real reform. What's going on today isn't reform, it's revamping (removing), and there's a total difference. But there's no impetus on the side of the Republicans to bring about any reform whatsoever. You hear about tort reform. You hear about co-ops from the same Senators who say they'd vote against a bill with co-ops in it anyway. If the Republicans cared about real reform, where's their competing proposal? Oh wait, they don't have one. BTW: Where in the bill you've referenced does it state that people can't option back into private coverage? Could you provide a section number?