Successful Negotiations on The US Budget.

[AVG-JOE]

Whose fault is that?

How to Write Letters to Congress

[SIZE="-6"]`[/SIZE]​

 

[Wiseacre]

Do you reckon seeing that kind of behavior on the inevitable campaign commercials that would result from such C-SPAN video might have affected the last election?

Do you reckon having live cameras in the negotiation rooms might have had a civilizing effect?

Transparency rocks!

I am not sure what the effect might be for live cameras. It could have a negative effect too, politicians act differently when the cameras are on.

That's what I'm counting on.

But maybe they'll act differently not in a good way. I dunno. let's just say I'm somewhat sanguine about getting positive results.

 

[Foxfyre]

For instance, here is what initially happened in order for Obama to get support for the bill:

“Friday marks the last time HHS will have to update the total number of waivers, putting to rest a recurring political firestorm. The department had been updating its waiver totals every month, prompting monthly attacks from the GOP,” writes Sam Baker of The Hill.

Naturally, Republican opposition to the bill seized on these waivers as an opportunity to advance the argument that the healthcare law is “unworkable.”

So how does the HHS justify granting the waivers? The department argues that the waivers show the law provides “flexibility.”

But who gets to choose when the law is “flexible”?

“All told, 1,231 companies applied for and received waivers from the law’s restrictions on annual benefit caps,” Baker writes. “The law requires plans to gradually raise their benefit limits, and all annual limits will become illegal in 2014. Companies that received waivers can keep their caps intact until 2014.”

When added together, the healthcare waivers excuse about 4 million people, or about 3 percent of the population, from having to participate, HHS said.
And the Final Number of ‘Obamacare’ Waivers is… | TheBlaze.com

Who is included in the 1.231 companies receiving waivers? Almost all union shops and big Democratic contributors. And if any of these find Obamacare to be a problem as the full application of the law approaches next year, look for more waivers to be granted. They can afford to be generous to 4 million critical supporters because there are a whole bunch of us left to tax to support the program. Already Medicare recipients, who have no place to go other than Medicare, are seeing higher premiums and much larger deductibles. That will be magnified next year and will no doubt force some to give up Medicare and go on Medicaid that collects no premiums and has no deductibles. And that will likely force more and more doctors to refuse to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients or, if the government regulations--you know, those regulations still to be written--don't allow them to do that, it is likely many will just close up shop altogether.

And if none of that happens, I will admit that I bought into anti-Obamacare rhetoric that is just plain wrong. Meanwhile, many people dear and important to me are facing uncertainty re their personal healthcare and their jobs due to the threat (and uncertainties) of Obamacare hanging over them. I know at least a dozen business owners who are laying off people or cancelling plans to hire to avoid being subject to Obamacare next year. How much transparency are we seeing re that?

No, it is sufficient that the hearings and floor debates are made open to us. But I want the hard negotiations to be behind closed doors without any media or hidden recording devices so they can be brutally honest and purposeful in hashing out the details and don't have to worry about how that might be dishonestly displayed in a partisan media later on.

2011: Medicare Part B Premiums = $115.00 / month - 80% coverage.
2012: Medicare Part B Premiums = $ 99.90 / month - 80% coverage.

I just don't see the increase.

Depends on where you get the Part B coverage. Neither one of those numbers apply to us or ours.

 

[Foxfyre]

For instance, here is what initially happened in order for Obama to get support for the bill:

“Friday marks the last time HHS will have to update the total number of waivers, putting to rest a recurring political firestorm. The department had been updating its waiver totals every month, prompting monthly attacks from the GOP,” writes Sam Baker of The Hill.

Naturally, Republican opposition to the bill seized on these waivers as an opportunity to advance the argument that the healthcare law is “unworkable.”

So how does the HHS justify granting the waivers? The department argues that the waivers show the law provides “flexibility.”

But who gets to choose when the law is “flexible”?

“All told, 1,231 companies applied for and received waivers from the law’s restrictions on annual benefit caps,” Baker writes. “The law requires plans to gradually raise their benefit limits, and all annual limits will become illegal in 2014. Companies that received waivers can keep their caps intact until 2014.”

When added together, the healthcare waivers excuse about 4 million people, or about 3 percent of the population, from having to participate, HHS said.
And the Final Number of ‘Obamacare’ Waivers is… | TheBlaze.com

Who is included in the 1.231 companies receiving waivers? Almost all union shops and big Democratic contributors. And if any of these find Obamacare to be a problem as the full application of the law approaches next year, look for more waivers to be granted. They can afford to be generous to 4 million critical supporters because there are a whole bunch of us left to tax to support the program. Already Medicare recipients, who have no place to go other than Medicare, are seeing higher premiums and much larger deductibles. That will be magnified next year and will no doubt force some to give up Medicare and go on Medicaid that collects no premiums and has no deductibles. And that will likely force more and more doctors to refuse to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients or, if the government regulations--you know, those regulations still to be written--don't allow them to do that, it is likely many will just close up shop altogether.

And if none of that happens, I will admit that I bought into anti-Obamacare rhetoric that is just plain wrong. Meanwhile, many people dear and important to me are facing uncertainty re their personal healthcare and their jobs due to the threat (and uncertainties) of Obamacare hanging over them. I know at least a dozen business owners who are laying off people or cancelling plans to hire to avoid being subject to Obamacare next year. How much transparency are we seeing re that?

No, it is sufficient that the hearings and floor debates are made open to us. But I want the hard negotiations to be behind closed doors without any media or hidden recording devices so they can be brutally honest and purposeful in hashing out the details and don't have to worry about how that might be dishonestly displayed in a partisan media later on.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, Foxy One. It's the accusations from BOTH sides of obstructionism during the closed door meetings that is causing the problem.

Cutting in to the source is required... treating a symptom does nothing to cut the cancer out to allow the healing to begin.

It's okay to disagree, but I have served on a school board and on church boards and have run a public agency in which tough decisions have to be made. People are far less likely to express their honest opinions and concerns, if these have any potential to be controversial, when there is an audience and most especially when the press is present. Much better to work out the hard stuff and critical details where everybody is able to speak freely than to attempt to do that in an open forum.

However, the nonsense of quid pro quo and all that could be managed by simply requiring that ALL legislation that targets or benefits a specific state, entity, person, demographic, or group must be a stand alone bill debated and voted on alone in front of the cameras. No more hiding the special favors, payoffs, and pork by sticking them in with a huge bill with an unrelated title.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Whose fault is that?

How to Write Letters to Congress

[SIZE="-6"]`[/SIZE]​

Waste of paper if I ever saw one.

Let me clue you in; fucking corrupt politicians (meaning all politicians) do not give a shit what the people think.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Whose fault is that?

How to Write Letters to Congress

[SIZE="-6"]`[/SIZE]​

Waste of paper if I ever saw one.