Do Senate Democrats think they are royalty? It would seem so.

[BeAChooser]

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-22564-Des-Moines-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m12d23-Senate-hypocrites-refuse-ObamaCare-for-themselves-force-it-on-everyone-else


Senate hypocrites refuse ObamaCare for themselves, force it on everyone else

... snip ...

The health care legislation about to be passed by the U.S. Senate requires all Americans to purchase health insurance. All Americans, that is, except for the Senate, other members of Congress and their staff. The Democrats refuse to even allow vote on the matter.

[Dr Adequate]

You appear to have been duped into talking garbage by a liar and a fool.

In other news, the sun rose in the East this morning.

[Eyeron]

Why is the article a lie?

[Thunder]

this is a stupid topic.

[BeAChooser]

You appear to have been duped into talking garbage by a liar and a fool.

Here's what a REAL liar said not long ago, Dr Adequate ...


I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes. And here's what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future. I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period.

[Dr Adequate]

Why is the article a lie? Well, look at the first sentence:

The health care legislation about to be passed by the U.S. Senate requires all Americans to purchase health insurance.

No it doesn't.

[BeAChooser]

this is a stupid topic.

Why? You think it's stupid to question why members of Congress keep passing laws to which they are exempt? They force the majority of Americans into public schools that have failed half the kids in the 50 largest school disticts (including Washington DC's) then send their own kids to private schools. They voted in Social Security then made themselves exempt. In the midst of a recession they vote increases in their own pay. And now they are going to force Americans to buy health insurance ... but again exempt themselves. They seem to act like royalty if you ask me. But then maybe you don't object to royalty. :D

[BeAChooser]

Well, look at the first sentence:

The health care legislation about to be passed by the U.S. Senate requires all Americans to purchase health insurance.

No it doesn't.


http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=824262


The "individual responsibility" provision in Section 1501 of the Senate healthcare bill (H.R. 3590) requires anyone who fails to buy a "qualifying" health insurance plan to pay an annual tax penalty of $750 per adult family member and $375 per child, or up to a maximum penalty of $2,250 per family.


I guess technically you're correct. You can "choose" not to buy insurance and then just be penalized. But then that's just like playing games with the word "is". There's another word this law is playing games with. "Insurance". You see, this approach will allow someone to save thousands of dollars a year by not buying the "insurance" for a family member until that family member gets seriously sick. Because then the law states that the person can not be refused "insurance" due to a pre-condition. And it states that the pre-condition cannot be a factor in the cost of that "insurance". So in essense, if people work the system right, they can get a virtually free ride up to the point they need hundred thousand dollar medical treatments. They'll get those treatments without ever putting any significant money into the "insurance" program. Hard to call what they buy "insurance", without completely diminishing the meaning of the word "insurance". Hard to imagine this is anything but a scheme to destroy real insurance companies. And it's hard to imagine why anyone will choose to do anything other than pay the penalty until one really needs "insurance". Why we'd almost be fools to do that. :D

[Dr Adequate]

I guess technically you're correct. You can "choose" not to buy insurance and then just be penalized. Or you can be one of the people who is not required to purchase health insurance.

[Redtail]

Who pays for the Senate's health care plan as it stands now?

[BeAChooser]

Or you can be one of the people who is not required to purchase health insurance.

You mean ... become a Senator? :D

[Redtail]

You mean ... become a Senator? :D

Who pays for the Senate's health care plan as it stands now?

Exactly!:D

[Puppycow]

You mean ... become a Senator? :D

Or a member of the armed forces for example.
Or a Christian Scientist.

[Puppycow]

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm

Members of Congress receive retirement and health benefits under the same plans available to other federal employees.

Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=usgovinfo&cdn=newsissues&tm=42&f=10&tt=2&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.opm.gov/insure/)
The Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program can help you and your family meet your health care needs. Federal employees, retirees and their survivors enjoy the widest selection of health plans in the country. You can choose from among Consumer-Driven and High Deductible plans that offer catastrophic risk protection with higher deductibles, health savings/reimbursable accounts and lower premiums, or Fee-for-Service (FFS) plans, and their Preferred Provider Organizations (PPO), or Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO) if you live (or sometimes if you work) within the area serviced by the plan.

Use this site to compare the costs, benefits, and features of different plans. We chose the different benefit categories based on enrollee requests, differences among plans, and simplicity. However, we urge you to consider the total benefit package, in addition to service and cost, and provider availability when choosing a health plan.

[Dr Adequate]

You mean ... become a Senator? :D Or do any other job where your employer provides you with health benefits (like 59.7% of people with healthcare) or have it paid for by the government (like 27.0% of people with healthcare). Senators, of course, fall into both categories, and therefore, like the vast majority of Americans, are not obliged to purchase health care, and, like them, will in fact not be eligible to participate in the Health Exchange Scheme.

Therefore, the moron who wrote that the legislation "requires all Americans to purchase health insurance", and that apart from Congressmen "the rest of the nation" would be buying through Health Exchange Schemes, was, as I have pointed out, a liar and a fool, as was Grassley when he claimed that Health Exchange Schemes would be "imposed on the rest of the country".

A liar, because it is obviously untrue, and a fool, because, really, how many people are going to be dumb enough to fall for a lie that transparent?

[BeAChooser]

Or a member of the armed forces for example.

Speaking of which, why are military beneficiaries and vets so eager to be shielded from the *wonders* of Health Care Reform?

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,206499,00.html

:D

[BeAChooser]

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscong...ongresspay.htm

Quote:
Members of Congress receive retirement and health benefits under the same plans available to other federal employees.


LOL!

http://public-healthcare-issues.suite101.com/article.cfm/health_care_for_the_us_congress "Politicians Receive the Country’s Best Care - at Taxpayers' Expense"

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/02/nation/na-congress-benefits2 "Congress' own healthcare benefits: membership has its privileges"

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/congress-health-care-clinic/story?id=8706655 "Special Health Care for Congress: Lawmakers' Health Care Perks"

[BeAChooser]

Or do any other job where your employer provides you with health benefits (like 59.7% of people with healthcare)

LOL! The new laws will assess penalties against employers that don't provide health benefits. For example, the Senate version states that firms with more than 50 workers will have to pay a fine of $750 annually per worker if any of their employees obtain federally subsidized coverage. And the bill requires employers with health plans to provide cash vouchers to lower-income workers to obtain insurance on the exchange. Both individuals and employers are being forced to obtain health insurance ... or else. That's the reality. And again, the provisions/penalties are such that employers are going to be more likely to drop employer coverage ... throwing individuals onto the individual mandate and the whims of the federal exchange.


or have it paid for by the government (like 27.0% of people with healthcare)

And where do you think the government gets that money? :rolleyes:

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why is the article a lie?

For one thing, there are several exceptions to the individual mandate. (Religious objections and financial hardships, IIRC.)

For another, Congress is not exempt from the requirement to have health insurance; it's just that theirs is already paid for by the taxpayers. People who still enjoy insurance entirely paid for by their employers are also not exempt from the requirement to have coverage; it's just that someone else is paying for it.

In these situations, presumably, that benefit is considered part of compensation for doing that particular job.

Heck, if you had a rich uncle who was kind enough to buy you insurance, you also aren't exempt from the requirement to have coverage. It's just that you got someone else to pay for it for you.

[MattusMaximus]

:popcorn1

[Gangularis]

Seriously, BAC?? You think Democrats are the only political party that act this way? Seriously???? Wow..

[JoeTheJuggler]

Seriously, BAC?? You think Democrats are the only political party that act this way? Seriously???? Wow..

Well sure. Everyone knows Senate Republicans have all opted out of the healthcare benefits available to them as U.S. senators. . . .
:)

[BeAChooser]

Everyone knows Senate Republicans have all opted out of the healthcare benefits available to them as U.S. senators.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/10/newt-gingrich/most-democrats-are-opposed-giving-their-health-car/



In every committee when the health care bill was considered, Democrats voted against an amendment that would require members of Congress and their staff to take the government-run public option as their health care plan.
Newt Gingrich on Sunday, August 9th, 2009 in an interview with This Week.

... snip ...

That brings us back to Gingrich's claim. He's correct that Democrats in the House and Senate have generally voted against proposals to make the public plan mandatory for members of Congress. Even when Coburn's motion narrowly passed, nine of 12 Democrats voted against it. We can't assess the Democrats' positions on the voice vote in the House education committee or the energy and commerce panel where the motion was ruled irrelevant. So we can't be sure that Democrats voted against it in every committee. But based on the counts that are available, Gingrich's underlying point is correct that Democrats have generally opposed it. So we find his claim Mostly True.

[BeAChooser]

If Congress can force everyone to purchase health insurance (even when 60% of people indicate they don't want that), what can't Congress do? Wasn't the main purpose of the Constitution to limit the powers of the federal government, leaving all undefined powers to the states and the people? If the power of the federal government is expandable by their own whim, then the Constitution has no real purpose anymore. What democrats are now in the process of doing is turning it into just another scrap of paper.

[KoihimeNakamura]

1) Yes, they don't have to take stupid grandstanding

2) No, it's allowed in the Constitution.

[BeAChooser]

http://townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2009/12/24/obamacare_freedom_on_life_support?page=full


What words in the U.S. Constitution allow the federal government to compel every American to purchase health insurance? Where does the Constitution allow the federal government to take money from some Americans and give it to others so that they may purchase health insurance?

... snip ...

The left tells us that "health care is a right, not a privilege." Surely the Constitution says so. No, it does not. Article I, Section 8 details the limited power, duties and responsibilities of the federal government. Extracting money from your paycheck and giving it back to you when you retire -- Social Security? Not there. Taxing workers to pay for the health care of seniors -- Medicare? Not there. Mandating that employers pay workers a minimum wage? Not there.

This is not hypothetical. During the Great Depression, the Supreme Court struck down much of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal on constitutional grounds. No, said the Court, the federal government cannot use the Constitution's commerce clause to regulate virtually all economic activity. No, said the Court, the federal government cannot use the welfare clause to redistribute wealth, whether or not it accomplishes a socially or economically desirable objective.

... snip ...

By design, the federal government plays a limited role. The rest is up to us. Our country was founded in opposition to tyranny by government.

Today we submit to it.


Bow before the President and Congress. The New Royalty.

[JoeTheJuggler]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/10/newt-gingrich/most-democrats-are-opposed-giving-their-health-car/

I think you're confused. The Senate plan doesn't even have a public option.

I've already shown that they're not exempt (by being Senators anyway) from the individual mandate. No one will get the public option. (Again, there is no public option in the Senate bill passed today, and since Lieberman won't change his mind, it's almost certain there will be no public option in the merged version.)

When you say Senate Democrats refuse "ObamaCare" for themselves but force it on the rest of us, what exactly are you talking about?

[fuelair]

I think you're confused. The Senate plan doesn't even have a public option.

I've already shown that they're not exempt (by being Senators anyway) from the individual mandate. No one will get the public option. (Again, there is no public option in the Senate bill passed today, and since Lieberman won't change his mind, it's almost certain there will be no public option in the merged version.)

When you say Senate Democrats refuse "ObamaCare" for themselves but force it on the rest of us, what exactly are you talking about?talking about 'dat ol Republicker talkin' point blues.......:D:D:D

[BeAChooser]

I think you're confused. The Senate plan doesn't even have a public option.

You are the one who is confused, Joe. It's apparent that the whole bill is designed to promote a government run ... i.e., public ... option. Eventually. Because it's designed from the ground up to destroy the viability of the private health care insurance industry so that eventually only the government will be left to provide the bulk of all *insurance*. And the government will determine what is and isn't covered. True, this won't happen over night ... but it will happen. And top democrats have in fact admitted as much ... at least when speaking to their own base. Don't you remember the video clips?

When you say Senate Democrats refuse "ObamaCare" for themselves but force it on the rest of us, what exactly are you talking about?

Tell us, Joe, when the federal health plan that Senators have changes slightly ... alters some deductible or what's covered ... or when a Senator changes his choices or who is covered, will he be automatically thrown into the Federal Exchange like the rest of us will be when that happens to our private insurance (at least that's what language in previous versions of the health care reform bill indicated would happen)? Will the consequences of this bill drive the Senate's insurance provider out of business ... like is likely to happen to our non-public insurance providers? Tell us, Joe, how are private insurance companies supposed to be competitive if they have to (by law) offer insurance to people with pre-existing conditions at the same price as they do those without pre-existing conditions? Do you really think that's a viable business model for private companies? :rolleyes:

[Uzzy]

Bow before the President and Congress. The New Royalty.

Check out Obama's new crown! :D:D

http://premium1.uploadit.org/Uzzy101//Helm-ROTK-King-Ellesar-Crown-Sideshow.jpg

[KoihimeNakamura]

Ah, slippery slope fallacy

That's all I'm going to say.

[rwguinn]

All I can say is my rate went down by $20 a month (<2%) . Deductible went up to $500, my drug costs tripled, and I now pay 15% of all costs (after deductible). At the end of the year, sometime in 2011, I will get a check for everything I spent over $1500 each for my wife and myself.
Wife just had knee replacements (as in both) and had a fall that set her back. Right now, PT costs me $120 a week ($40/visit copay) Starting Jan 1, it will cost me $450 a week--and I am unemployed...
I am real happy, indeed...

[Ladewig]

If the power of the federal government is expandable by their own whim, then the Constitution has no real purpose anymore. What democrats are now in the process of doing is turning it into just another scrap of paper.

So when Cheney and Bush decided that a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil did not have the right to a trial, was that also turning the Constitution into a just another scrap of paper?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ETA: Extra points go to you for referring to Universal Health Care as a whim.

[MattusMaximus]

Ah, slippery slope fallacy

That's all I'm going to say.

This whole thread is a fallacy :rolleyes:

[JoeTheJuggler]

You are the one who is confused, Joe.

Nuh-uhn, you are.

Come on--you cited a Politifact article that said, "In every committee when the health care bill was considered, Democrats voted against an amendment that would require members of Congress and their staff to take the government-run public option as their health care plan."

I pointed out that there is no longer a public option in the Senate plan. I further pointed out that the individual mandate (what it seemed you were referring to earlier) also applies to Senators and other people who already have insurance just as it does to people who currently have no health insurance. It's just that people with it, already comply.

It's apparent that the whole bill is designed to promote a government run ... i.e., public ... option.
Nonsense. There is no public option in the Senate plan.

Eventually.
Nope. If a bill passes without a public option (which is likely given that every Democratic vote in the Senate--including Lieberman's--will be necessary to pass it), in this rare Congress where the Democratic Party enjoys a supermajority, it won't happen under Congresses less favorable to it.


Because it's designed from the ground up to destroy the viability of the private health care insurance industry
That's absurd. It requires millions of people to purchase private health care insurance.


When you say Senate Democrats refuse "ObamaCare" for themselves but force it on the rest of us, what exactly are you talking about?
Tell us, Joe, when the federal health plan that Senators have changes slightly ... alters some deductible or what's covered ... or when a Senator changes his choices or who is covered, will he be automatically thrown into the Federal Exchange like the rest of us will be when that happens to our private insurance (at least that's what language in previous versions of the health care reform bill indicated would happen)? Will the consequences of this bill drive the Senate's insurance provider out of business ... like is likely to happen to our non-public insurance providers? Tell us, Joe, how are private insurance companies supposed to be competitive if they have to (by law) offer insurance to people with pre-existing conditions at the same price as they do those without pre-existing conditions? Do you really think that's a viable business model for private companies? :rolleyes:
Why bother quoting my very simple and direct question about the statement you made in the OP if you're simply going to ignore it?

You argue like a kindergardener.

[Dr Adequate]

LOL! The new laws will assess penalties against employers that don't provide health benefits. So why do you think that the U.S. Senate should be the one employer that is exempt from this law? Do you think the Senate should be treated differently from every other employer with more than 50 workers? Why should they be the one exception? Should there be one law for the Senate and another law for everyone else?

And the bill requires employers with health plans to provide cash vouchers to lower-income workers to obtain insurance on the exchange. Both individuals and employers are being forced to obtain health insurance ... or else. That's the reality. And again, the provisions/penalties are such that employers are going to be more likely to drop employer coverage ... throwing individuals onto the individual mandate and the whims of the federal exchange. Your limited grasp of the present does not encourage me to believe that you can foresee the future.

And where do you think the government gets that money? :rolleyes: Taxation, what's your point?

My point was that people such as veterans who get their health care provided by the government will not in fact be required to purchase it. What was yours?

[Tricky]

I want to see those Republican Senate Anti-hypocrites argue to give the public the same health care they get. When I see that, I'll belive that this is an issue. Until then, I will not pay particular attention to the call of the pots who rail at the kettles.

[Thunder]

I want to see those Republican Senate Anti-hypocrites argue to give the public the same health care they get. When I see that, I'll belive that this is an issue. Until then, I will not pay particular attention to the call of the pots who rail at the kettles.

yes. i don't see why my tax dollars should pay for their healthcare.

[KoihimeNakamura]

.. and from the opposite end..

[Puppycow]

Speaking of which, why are military beneficiaries and vets so eager to be shielded from the *wonders* of Health Care Reform?

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,206499,00.html

:D

I guess they're happy with their single-payer socialized medicine.

[SezMe]

It's apparent that the whole bill is designed to promote a government run ... i.e., public ... option. Eventually. Because it's designed from the ground up to destroy the viability of the private health care insurance industry so that eventually only the government will be left to provide the bulk of all *insurance*.
Surely, then, you can point to all those other, awful, socialist countries where private insurance industry has been "destroyed".


And the government will determine what is and isn't covered.
So? As it is, private insurance companies now make that determination with no appeal route available. This point is merely a right-wing talking point which makes no sense.

[Tricky]

I want to see those Republican Senate Anti-hypocrites argue to give the public the same health care they get. When I see that, I'll belive that this is an issue. Until then, I will not pay particular attention to the call of the pots who rail at the kettles.

yes. i don't see why my tax dollars should pay for their healthcare.

Actually, I don't believe that you don't want them to have any health care, but I do believe that you don't want your tax dollars to pay for a "Cadillac" plan for the government workers that the average citizan is not entitled to.

And I agree with you to a point here. Congress, the military, even civil service workers get health care far above the average citizen. This is not something the Republicans have opposed. I don't even totally oppose giving good benefits to those who have served our country, be they soldiers or public servants. But they shouldn't be so ridiculously out of line with what the average citizen receives. Single-payer, government adminsistered health care works for them, so much that their systems are considered better than private systems.

What should we learn from this?

[tyr_13]

What should we learn from this?

That I should have taken that job at the DMV?

[Tricky]

That I should have taken that job at the DMV?
Careful what you wish for.:D

[Redtail]

Actually, I don't believe that you don't want them to have any health care, but I do believe that you don't want your tax dollars to pay for a "Cadillac" plan for the government workers that the average citizan is not entitled to.

And I agree with you to a point here. Congress, the military, even civil service workers get health care far above the average citizen. This is not something the Republicans have opposed. I don't even totally oppose giving good benefits to those who have served our country, be they soldiers or public servants. But they shouldn't be so ridiculously out of line with what the average citizen receives. Single-payer, government adminsistered health care works for them, so much that their systems are considered better than private systems.

What should we learn from this?

That we should make them pay for private health insurance like every one else! Why would we want our government to be socialists!?!??!

[Cactus Wren]

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=824262

At the top of the page it says "OneNewsNow, a division of the American Family News Network (http://www.fairness.com/resources/relation?relation_id=82417)".

October 2008: 'OneNewsNow is part of the American Family News Network, an offshoot of the American Family Association founded by arch-religious right conservative Donald Wildmon. AFN is dedicated to purveying “Your Latest News From A Christian Perspective.”'

[BeAChooser]

You argue like a kindergardener.

Tell us, Joe, how are private insurance companies supposed to be competitive if they have to (by law) offer insurance to people with pre-existing conditions at the same price as they do those without pre-existing conditions? Did you learn your economics in kindergarTen? :D

[BeAChooser]

Quote:
And where do you think the government gets that money?

Taxation, what's your point?

:rolleyes:

[SezMe]

:rolleyes:
The point, BAC, is that we Americans are going to pay for health care one way or another. The VA, Medicare, etc. have proven to be more efficient and effective. So what do you want, pay through the government or pay twice as much to a private insurance company for less protection? Or maybe this is one of those, "Let 'em eat cake" situations.

[BeAChooser]

I want to see those Republican Senate Anti-hypocrites argue to give the public the same health care they get. When I see that, I'll belive that this is an issue.

Where have you been, Tricky? Are you completely unaware of the amendments offered by Senators Tom Coburn (R-Okla) and David Vitter (R-La) that required that the President and all members of Congress and their staffs enroll in any newly-created public health-insurance plan?

Senate democrats consider themselves royalty ... the will of the American people be damned:

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/healthplan.php?xml=/flashcharts/content/xml/HealthCare.xml&choices=Oppose,Favor&phone=&ivr=&internet=&mail=&smoothing=&from_date=&to_date=&min_pct=&max_pct=&grid=&points=&trends=&lines=

[KoihimeNakamura]

.. you missed his point, BAC. But you're good at that:

ETA: 1) there is no single payer. and 2) Tricky's arguing they should make the Congressional plan open access to public.

[SezMe]

Are you completely unaware of the amendments offered by Senators Tom Coburn (R-Okla) and David Vitter (R-La) that required that the President and all members of Congress and their staffs enroll in any newly-created public health-insurance plan?
Are you completely unaware that those amendments were a political stunt that they did not intend to pass but were intended to embarrass the Dems. IIRC, Sen. Harkin and others called them on their bluff and tried to co-sponsor the legislation. The Elephants would have none of it and it died.

Sheesh, you, BAC, being the political animal that you are, should not have been taken in by Republican Stupid Tricks. Beer goggles?

[BeAChooser]

The VA, Medicare, etc. have proven to be more efficient and effective.

LOL!

http://www.tampabay.com/news/military/veterans/article857001.ece "Dying veteran says busy VA hospital refused to admit him"

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_veterans_040904,00.html "Fourteen years ago, an ABCNEWS hidden-camera investigation ignited a firestorm about conditions and competence inside Veterans Administration hospitals. Recently, there have been new stories of misdiagnosis, disastrous management and deficient care at some of the nation's 162 facilities."

http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20090601_9856.php "Auditor blasts VA for poor IT management and oversight"

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/12/president-obama-federal-government-will-go-bankrupt-if-health-care-costs-are-not-reigned-in.html "The president said that the costs of Medicare and Medicaid are on an “unsustainable” trajectory and if there is no action taken to bring them down, “the federal government will go bankrupt.” Oh yeah ... that sounds like a *proven* model of efficiency. :rolleyes: And tell us, SM, do you know what an unfunded liability is? Medicare has a REALLY big one. :D

[BeAChooser]

Tricky's arguing they should make the Congressional plan open access to public.

At what cost? Do you know the cost of the Congressional plan? If he's suggesting that, then he clearly isn't concerned about exploding health care costs. Because that cost is MUCH higher than the current national average. :rolleyes:

[KoihimeNakamura]

I can't speak for his rationale.

[Dr Adequate]

:rolleyes: I asked, what was your point. A cartoon face is not a point.

[Dr Adequate]

Tell us, Joe, how are private insurance companies supposed to be competitive if they have to (by law) offer insurance to people with pre-existing conditions at the same price as they do those without pre-existing conditions? They'll compete with one another under the new regulations just as they did under the old ones.

Duh.

[Dr Adequate]

LOL!

http://www.tampabay.com/news/military/veterans/article857001.ece "Dying veteran says busy VA hospital refused to admit him"

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_veterans_040904,00.html "Fourteen years ago, an ABCNEWS hidden-camera investigation ignited a firestorm about conditions and competence inside Veterans Administration hospitals. Recently, there have been new stories of misdiagnosis, disastrous management and deficient care at some of the nation's 162 facilities."

http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20090601_9856.php "Auditor blasts VA for poor IT management and oversight" Oh look, anecdotes.

One word --- "rescission".

No-one claims that the government is always perfect, just that under certain circumstances it's better than the alternatives. You have instanced alleged failures of the VA --- but will you tell us that veterans would be better off without it?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/12/president-obama-federal-government-will-go-bankrupt-if-health-care-costs-are-not-reigned-in.html "The president said that the costs of Medicare and Medicaid are on an “unsustainable” trajectory and if there is no action taken to bring them down, “the federal government will go bankrupt.” Oh yeah ... that sounds like a *proven* model of efficiency. I guess that that's why this bill that is causing all your hysterics reins in costs.

[Dr Adequate]

Where have you been, Tricky? Are you completely unaware of the amendments offered by Senators Tom Coburn (R-Okla) and David Vitter (R-La) that required that the President and all members of Congress and their staffs enroll in any newly-created public health-insurance plan? You remember how you started a thread on this idiocy and we laughed your dumb garbage to death?

[Dr Adequate]

Speaking of which, why are military beneficiaries and vets so eager to be shielded from the *wonders* of Health Care Reform?

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,206499,00.html

:D Even when it comes to someone whom I like as little as you, it is still embarrassing to watch you cut your own throat in public. We are, after all, both members of the same species. Please try to be less wrong. I do not enjoy the sensation of feeling sorry for you.

[leftysergeant]

Speaking of which, why are military beneficiaries and vets so eager to be shielded from the *wonders* of Health Care Reform?

Because what we have works. We weren't exactly hurting before the debate started. We were never subject to wanton recission, escalating costs and refusal of coverage. It would have helped had idiots like the Shrub and Rummy reralized the importance of funding these programs for our soldiers, and told the upper-crust that their tax cuts would have to take a second priority.

My approach to military and veterans' health care is, if it ain broke don't greak it.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Tell us, Joe, how are private insurance companies supposed to be competitive if they have to (by law) offer insurance to people with pre-existing conditions at the same price as they do those without pre-existing conditions? Did you learn your economics in kindergarTen? :D

Yet another BaC evasion. The topic of this thread which you started is the proposition that Senate Democrats refuse to apply "Obamacare" to themselves and want to force it on everyone else. (I have addressed competition on several threads, but that's not really the topic of this thread, is it?)

I've asked several times what you mean by this, because no formulation of it seems to make sense.

The individual mandate does indeed apply to senators.

There is no public option at all in the Senate plan, so the idea that the Senate would refuse to use it (even though they'd have no need to, since they already have insurance) or force it on others (the public option was meant to be a lower cost alternative to others--I don't think there was an plan where it was forced on anyway, but it's moot since there is no public option in the Senate plan).

So for at least the third time, what exactly do you mean when you claim that Senate Democrats refuse "Obamacare" for themselves but would force it on the rest of us?

[JoeTheJuggler]

They'll compete with one another under the new regulations just as they did under the old ones.


Even though it didn't make it into the Senate's final plan, the House's plan would remove anti-trust exemptions for insurance companies which would increase competition. I'm still hopeful that that measure will make it into a final plan.

But what does the ability of insurance companies to compete have to do with allegations of a hypocritical position? It sounds like BaC is just trying to slip out of what he said in the OP of this thread.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Where have you been, Tricky? Are you completely unaware of the amendments offered by Senators Tom Coburn (R-Okla) and David Vitter (R-La) that required that the President and all members of Congress and their staffs enroll in any newly-created public health-insurance plan?

And where have you been? The Senate plan passed yesterday, and there is no public option in it--not for anybody.

As I've been saying (and you keep ignoring), since Lieberman's vote will be required to overcome a Republican filibuster, it's pretty likely that there will be no public option in the final merged plan.

So what are you talking about? Some purely political, for-show proposal that really had nothing to do with the real debate that was going on in the Senate?

Why not discuss the RNC's abortion coverage in their own health insurance from 1991 until a few weeks ago? It too has nothing to do with the health insurance reform bill.

[jdp]

The individual mandate does indeed apply to senators.

There is no public option at all in the Senate plan, so the idea that the Senate would refuse to use it (even though they'd have no need to, since they already have insurance) or force it on others (the public option was meant to be a lower cost alternative to others--I don't think there was an plan where it was forced on anyway, but it's moot since there is no public option in the Senate plan).

So for at least the third time, what exactly do you mean when you claim that Senate Democrats refuse "Obamacare" for themselves but would force it on the rest of us?

I have to agree with Joe, I don't see how this reform doesn't apply to Senators. They currently are part of a group health insurance plan so like all others how have health insurance, they won't need to buy insurance in the exchanges. Though for those who do go back to private life, they certainly might buy insurance in the exchange just like others if their private life jobs don't offer health insurance.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I have to agree with Joe, I don't see how this reform doesn't apply to Senators. They currently are part of a group health insurance plan so like all others how have health insurance, they won't need to buy insurance in the exchanges. Though for those who do go back to private life, they certainly might buy insurance in the exchange just like others if their private life jobs don't offer health insurance.

Best I can tell, BaC wants to talk about a silly for-show amendment some Republicans introduced into each of the committees that were working on a healthcare reform bill a while back that would require members of Congress and their staff to take the public option.

As I've pointed out, under most formulations (and there were dozens at the time), the public option would have been an option for people who can't otherwise afford insurance. It certainly would never be forced on anyone who already has insurance. Under the individual mandate, it might be a low-income person's only option (but again, it might not--there were expansions of Medicare and subsidy plans in many versions at the time).

At any rate, it had nothing to do with the substance of health insurance reform. It was just a dramatic gesture by Republicans so that Newt Gingrich (and BaC) could go around saying that Senate Democrats don't want "Obamacare" for themselves, even though there's no way such a statement is accurate.

But since there is no public option in the version passed by the Senate, it doesn't even make sense to claim that Senate Democrats want to force the public option on others while refusing it themselves. Since every Republican voted against the plan, one can only say it was Senate Democrats (including Lieberman) who were responsible for stripping out the public option.

The Republicans were just on the side-lines of the actual debate grandstanding.

[leftysergeant]

Actually, BAC, there is no essential right for the insurance companies to exist and make a profit if we decide that a government pool of the risk is a more effective way to be sure that doctors get paid for their services. If we can install a public system, and people would rather buy into that system than into private plans, tough cookies.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Where have you been, Tricky? Are you completely unaware of the amendments offered by Senators Tom Coburn (R-Okla) and David Vitter (R-La) that required that the President and all members of Congress and their staffs enroll in any newly-created public health-insurance plan?

Senate democrats consider themselves royalty ... the will of the American people be damned:

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/healthplan.php?xml=/flashcharts/content/xml/HealthCare.xml&choices=Oppose,Favor&phone=&ivr=&internet=&mail=&smoothing=&from_date=&to_date=&min_pct=&max_pct=&grid=&points=&trends=&lines=

You seem to have missed the news. The Senate version passed with no public option. None of the Senators are "forcing" a public option (you do know what the word "option" means, don't you?) on anyone.

As I've been speculating, it looks like (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/28/health.care/index.html) the merged version will also likely not have a public option either.

It's only in your mind that this meaningless amendment introduced by Republicans while the various versions of this bill were still in committee matters in any way.

This is just the kind of nonsense some Republicans were doing rather than participating in an actual debate on healthcare reform.

[BeAChooser]

This is just the kind of nonsense some Republicans were doing rather than participating in an actual debate on healthcare reform.

Tell us, Joe, how are private insurance companies supposed to be competitive if they have to (by law) offer insurance to people with pre-existing conditions at the same price as they do those without pre-existing conditions? Why are you so evasive towards that question? Perhaps because you don't believe in free market principles and you know your answer will demonstrate that? Aren't democrats just changing the meaning of the word "insurance" and driving (real) insurance companies out of business via unfair competition (unfair because government will be able to give something like health care away for free which no private concern could ever afford to do)? Of course, neither can governments in the long run. With that in mind, what is the end result of your form of economics, Joe? The same thing that happened to the Soviet Union? :D

[Cleon]

Interesting. Since my insurance is paid for my employer, I wouldn't be required to buy the public plan either. I guess Senate Democrats think I'm royalty, too!

[JoeTheJuggler]

Tell us, Joe,
<bunch of blather that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread>

The same thing that happened to the Soviet Union? :D

Once again, BaC trying to change the topic after putting his foot in his mouth.

Still think the Senate Democrats are trying to force anyone to use the public option while refusing it themselves?

Or wasn't this just more grandstanding on the part of a few Republicans that weren't willing to participate in the debate on healthcare?

[dudalb]

I agree with everything BAC Says about the Senate Democrats.
Where he goes wrong is not seeing that the GOP Senators behave in exactly the same way.
It does not matter which party is in the majority, you get a definent air of "The Common Rules should not apply to me" from the Senate, and to a slightly lesser degree, The House.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I agree with everything BAC Says about the Senate Democrats.
Where he goes wrong is not seeing that the GOP Senators behave in exactly the same way.
It does not matter which party is in the majority, you get a definent air of "The Common Rules should not apply to me" from the Senate, and to a slightly lesser degree, The House.

Except that in this particular case it's not really accurate.

I agree, Senators get a sweet deal with their healthcare benefits. But the amendment introduced wasn't a matter of applying the same law to Senators that would apply to the rest of us. (There was no such exemption in the law to begin with.) As shown, the bill would already apply to them--they would be required to have health insurance, just like the rest of us. In their case, they already have prime health insurance, so they'd already comply with the individual mandate.

The Republicans who introduced this amendment to undo their sweet health insurance benefit knew pretty well it would never pass. (They may have also known pretty certainly that a public option would never survive the Blue Dog Democrats and Lieberman.) And they're certainly free to turn down their health insurance benefit and take out a plan similar to what the public option would have been.

But it's a safe bet they won't.

Their reason for introducing the bill was pretty much so that people like BaC would cite the vote as "evidence" that the Democrats don't want to abide by the laws they're proposing, which of course isn't true.

[Thunder]

I am a life-long Democrat. And while I do not believe that we are royalty, I do however believe that most Republicans are crap.

:)

[Newtons Bit]

The point, BAC, is that we Americans are going to pay for health care one way or another. The VA, Medicare, etc. have proven to be more efficient and effective. So what do you want, pay through the government or pay twice as much to a private insurance company for less protection? Or maybe this is one of those, "Let 'em eat cake" situations.

Medicare is cheaper (not more efficient) because it underpays for services. To give an anecdote: I had Christmas dinner with a friend of mine and her family. Her mother, who is physically disabled and on Medicare explained her most recent bill to me. The bill for a GP visit said that the visit cost $120 and Medicare approved $29.00 of that charge and that Medicare would pay 80% of the 29.00 and she would have to pay 20% of the 29.00. She then looked me straight in the eye and thanked me for having private insurance and making up the difference for her. She knows how the shell game works.

[Random]

Medicare is cheaper (not more efficient) because it underpays for services. To give an anecdote: I had Christmas dinner with a friend of mine and her family. Her mother, who is physically disabled and on Medicare explained her most recent bill to me. The bill for a GP visit said that the visit cost $120 and Medicare approved $29.00 of that charge and that Medicare would pay 80% of the 29.00 and she would have to pay 20% of the 29.00. She then looked me straight in the eye and thanked me for having private insurance and making up the difference for her. She knows how the shell game works.

Yeah, Medicare is huge and able to use its size to force doctors and hospitals to agree to lower prices. This is why, counter-intuitively, increasing competition between health insurance companies will help drive up prices.

When there are more health insurance companies, they will each have a smaller portion of the market in any given area, and will have less negotiating power. Aetna cut a bunch of members not because they were sick or unprofitable, but just because they physically lived in areas Aetna didn’t have a high percentage of the market in.

[Alt+F4]

how are private insurance companies supposed to be competitive if they have to (by law) offer insurance to people with pre-existing conditions at the same price as they do those without pre-existing conditions?

In two words: age and tobacco. The Senate bill would let insurers charge older people three times more than younger ones, the House bill, twice as much. I don't recall how much more the bills say insurers could charge smokers.

[BeAChooser]

As shown, the bill would already apply to them

Will it? If deductibles or other provisions of their current insurance plan changes, will they be automatically thrown into the Federal insurance exchange ... like we will? Or are they exempt from that?

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
how are private insurance companies supposed to be competitive if they have to (by law) offer insurance to people with pre-existing conditions at the same price as they do those without pre-existing conditions?

In two words: age and tobacco. The Senate bill would let insurers charge older people three times more than younger ones, the House bill, twice as much. I don't recall how much more the bills say insurers could charge smokers.

Sorry but smoking and age are not what is meant by pre-existing conditions. A pre-existing condition is a serious medical problem (like cancer) that exists at the time the person wants to first buy insurance. It might be caused by smoking or it might not. It might happen in a 2 year old or a 90 year old. The principle behind "insurance" is that the insured pays into a pool (along with many, many others) in anticipation that they might need assistance (if they ever do) from that pool for some unlikely occurance ... not that one pays into the pool only when one already needs that assistance. The new law is going to force private insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions (like a damaged liver or cancer) that will be very expensive to treat even though they never paid one dime into the insurance pool when they were still healthy people. It's wrong to even call that insurance. And I'm curious why anyone out there might think that it's economically viable to sell such a "product"?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Will it? If deductibles or other provisions of their current insurance plan changes, will they be automatically thrown into the Federal insurance exchange ... like we will? Or are they exempt from that?

I don't understand what you're asking. The insurance exchange is government-regulated marketplace of insurance plans. How could Senators be thrown into that?

Or are you saying that their primo insurance plans might become less than primo and that they would then be able to take advantage of plans in the exchange?

I don't think it's a matter of them being "exempt from that" by law. Rather they won't need it.

ETA: Similarly, Senators won't be "exempt" from receiving subsidies. They just won't need them or qualify for them.

[Alt+F4]

Sorry but smoking and age are not what is meant by pre-existing conditions. A pre-existing condition is a serious medical problem (like cancer) that exists at the time the person wants to first buy insurance. It might be caused by smoking or it might not. It might happen in a 2 year old or a 90 year old. The principle behind "insurance" is that the insured pays into a pool (along with many, many others) in anticipation that they might need assistance (if they ever do) from that pool for some unlikely occurance ... not that one pays into the pool only when one already needs that assistance. The new law is going to force private insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions (like a damaged liver or cancer) that will be very expensive to treat even though they never paid one dime into the insurance pool when they were still healthy people. It's wrong to even call that insurance. And I'm curious why anyone out there might think that it's economically viable to sell such a "product"?

I know what a pre-exisiting condition is silly! To cover the high cost of insuring people with pre-exisiting conditions both bills would allow insurance companies to charge smokers and older folks much higher premiems than currently allowed.

In addition, if the government is able to force even 50% of the uninsured to get coverage the insurance companies will do fine since the majority of people they will be covering will be healthy.

[BeAChooser]

To cover the high cost of insuring people with pre-exisiting conditions both bills would allow insurance companies to charge smokers and older folks much higher premiems than currently allowed.

So now you are claiming that the intent in allowing insurance companies to charge smokers and older people more than others was to cover the cost of eliminating pre-existing condition rules? Is that fair (I thought this administration was all about *fairness*)? Do the smokers and old people (at least those who still support this monstrosity of a bill) know that the plan is to make them pay for those people who don't buy health insurance until they have an expensive pre-existing condition that needs treatment? In fact, do you have any citation that proves that was the intent of this provision in the bill or did you just think this up? Isn't it true that the portion of the legislation that allows for smokers and old people to be charged more is because they are viewed as the largest contributors to health care costs? It doesn't have anything to do with covering pre-existing conditions, does it. And note that I'm not saying that forcing old people to pay more is even justified. I'm just noting what is the apparent view of things from the liberal side of the aisle. :D

[JoeTheJuggler]

So are you abandoning the claim you made in the OP, BaC?

Seems like you want to talk about everything but that topic.