Where are the protests?

[Smartt33]

If America wants this health care "reform" so badly, why arent people protesting these politicians to get them to pass it. Instead we see the exact opposite.

If there are protests against, and none for, why do our politicians think its such a good idea to push this through Congress?

America does not want this HC reform.The protests are being addressed by letter email and phone to the reps of the citizens.
Reform is needed, forced political reform is not the way to do it.

I would rephrase that to say SOME Americans do not want it. Ironically, every poll out there says that MOST DO want cost containment at the private level, and that they DO see the need for some kind of government intervention.

But...it probably won't happen because people like you are louder than people like me.

You are correct. I should have said "some" or maybe even "almost everyone I have spoken to about it." I have spoken to many many people about it, including my Representatives and Senators. However, I have not read the stats because they seem to all be biased these days in one direction or the other.

I agree that most want some kind of reform, and "cost containment" is the main issue, along with "no force," and being able to "have our own plan" as it is now.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Most likely, yes, they will set up some sort of separate provision for themselves once private insurance dies out. Probably something where they're the only people in the country with the ability to purchase health care "a la carte", with the government picking up the check.

They did it for Social Security later amended requiring them to participate. Why wouldn't they do it here?

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30631.pdf

Immie

They exempt themselves from damned near every law they think is such a spiffy idea for the rest of us.

They're exempt from affirmative action and equal employment laws. That's why only a tiny fraction of Congressional staffers are minorities. Try that in a private sector business.

They're exempt from OSHA regulations and the laws governing safety features like sprinklers, fire alarms, and proper ventilation in their offices.

They're exempt from minimum-wage laws.

That's just for a start.

 

[Care4all]

Question, if gov't run health care is so great why won't congress sign an amendment requiring those who vote yes on it to have it as their health care?

If government run health care is so bad, why didn't a single Republican vote to end medicare when an amendment to do so was presented on July 30?

Because they didn't want to cut off their nose to spite their face. Those old folks votes are gold next year. Duh.

Dems need to put up or shut up about this; if they think it's so great they need to agree to drop their private insurance and sign on the dotted line. Not holding my breath.

But Zoom,
basically, what you are asking them to do, is NOT LET the people who have private insurance now, be grandfathered for 5 years with the plan they have now?

I thought one of the arguments that conservatives have taken and I agreed should have been an option in this bill, is that they want people to be able to keep their own private plans that they have now...in fact, they went a little berserk over it, telling the Public that this plan would take away their own private insurance that they have now and force them in to a government run public plan...

Yet in this bill, a section was added that specifically deals with the people that want to continue with the insurance policy that they have now, they can do so for up to 5 years...they are "grandfathered" for 5 years in their existing plan.

Then after the 5 years, they or their employers, whoever pays and picks the plan, can choose any of the private insurers that are in the pool of insurers in their area for a plan or the Public option for a plan.

No one is forced in to a public plan....NO ONE. Even if you are uninsured, you can choose from a number of private insurance plans that will be made available to you at the 'exchange' or you can choose the public option insurance plan....depending on what you can afford and what you want in your insurance coverage, or your employer wants for its employees in an insurance plan.

Those in congress, if they like their insurance plan, can follow the rules in the Insurance Reform Plan, that all other citizens have to follow, and the "grandfather clause" that allows all citizens to keep their own insurance company and plan for 5 years, applies to congress as well.

I don't see a problem with this and do not think legislation taking away from them, what is offered to all other citizens would not be "equal" under the law.

This Bill is a gifthorse to the private insurance industry...who does absolutely nothing in getting the sick healthy again, but only push paper and waste everyone's hard earned dollar....imho.

This is one of the reasons why I am against this program....NOT because of all the disinformation that has been passed along on it.... I think it is a fairly good bill...they have crossed their i's and t's on most everything, IF you WANT a for profit, private insurance run healthcare system...

the other reason i am against it, is i have seen no price control reforms or measures taken that could reduce costs....on medical prescription costs that will bankrupt us for the elderly, and the average joe..., on medical school costs, malpractice costs, waste in general...

that being said, i don't see ANY of the alarmist things the conservatives are parroting and believe me, i read the sections of the bill that were brought up as concerns, more than a handful of times zoom, and just haven;t found any of it, to mean what some alarmist conservatives swear it says???

and happy birthday zoom!

care

 

[Zoom-boing]

If government run health care is so bad, why didn't a single Republican vote to end medicare when an amendment to do so was presented on July 30?

Because they didn't want to cut off their nose to spite their face. Those old folks votes are gold next year. Duh.

Dems need to put up or shut up about this; if they think it's so great they need to agree to drop their private insurance and sign on the dotted line. Not holding my breath.

But Zoom,
basically, what you are asking them to do, is NOT LET the people who have private insurance now, be grandfathered for 5 years with the plan they have now?

I thought one of the arguments that conservatives have taken and I agreed should have been an option in this bill, is that they want people to be able to keep their own private plans that they have now...in fact, they went a little berserk over it, telling the Public that this plan would take away their own private insurance that they have now and force them in to a government run public plan...

Yet in this bill, a section was added that specifically deals with the people that want to continue with the insurance policy that they have now, they can do so for up to 5 years...they are "grandfathered" for 5 years in their existing plan.

Then after the 5 years, they or their employers, whoever pays and picks the plan, can choose any of the private insurers that are in the pool of insurers in their area for a plan or the Public option for a plan.

No one is forced in to a public plan....NO ONE. Even if you are uninsured, you can choose from a number of private insurance plans that will be made available to you at the 'exchange' or you can choose the public option insurance plan....depending on what you can afford and what you want in your insurance coverage, or your employer wants for its employees in an insurance plan.

Those in congress, if they like their insurance plan, can follow the rules in the Insurance Reform Plan, that all other citizens have to follow, and the "grandfather clause" that allows all citizens to keep their own insurance company and plan for 5 years, applies to congress as well.

I don't see a problem with this and do not think legislation taking away from them, what is offered to all other citizens would not be "equal" under the law.

This Bill is a gifthorse to the private insurance industry...who does absolutely nothing in getting the sick healthy again, but only push paper and waste everyone's hard earned dollar....imho.

This is one of the reasons why I am against this program....NOT because of all the disinformation that has been passed along on it.... I think it is a fairly good bill...they have crossed their i's and t's on most everything, IF you WANT a for profit, private insurance run healthcare system...

the other reason i am against it, is i have seen no price control reforms or measures taken that could reduce costs....on medical prescription costs that will bankrupt us for the elderly, and the average joe..., on medical school costs, malpractice costs, waste in general...

that being said, i don't see ANY of the alarmist things the conservatives are parroting and believe me, i read the sections of the bill that were brought up as concerns, more than a handful of times zoom, and just haven;t found any of it, to mean what some alarmist conservatives swear it says???

and happy birthday zoom!

care

What I am saying is that all those who vote yes on this in Congress should be mandated to drop their private congressy insurance and be covered under whatever 'government run' plan they come up with. If it's good enough for me, it's good enough for them. So far, no bites on that from the Dems.

My understanding of it is that after the 5 year period, private insurance will not be able to compete with the government run plan cost-wise and will die out and we will be left with government run health care. Obama is a proponent of single-payer and a government run plan will eliminate private over time. His words, his view, his plan Care. His stance now is pulling back on this somewhat and I call bull on that. He's born and bred on marxism and Rev. Wright and a tiger doesn't change his stripes. Just how I see it.

Thanks for the birthday wishes. Another one bites the dust!

 

[Immanuel]

My understanding of it is that after the 5 year period, private insurance will not be able to compete with the government run plan cost-wise and will die out and we will be left with government run health care. Obama is a proponent of single-payer and a government run plan will eliminate private over time. His words, his view, his plan Care. His stance now is pulling back on this somewhat and I call bull on that. He's born and bred on marxism and Rev. Wright and a tiger doesn't change his stripes. Just how I see it.

And any so called "private insurance" plan that is out there, will be a one size fits all plan. Variety will be a thing of the past. By variety I mean choosing higher deductibles to lower the cost, varying out of pocket maximums, types of coverage, whether or not to include prescription drugs etc. Gone.

One size fits all. Just like Social Security. Do you realize how many investment options there are on the market today, yet with Social Security you are limited to no options, no way to maximize returns. One size fits all. Take it or leave it... oh wait, there is not leaving it. Your stuck with what they give you... period.

Happy Birthday Zoom!

Immie

 

[Zoom-boing]

My understanding of it is that after the 5 year period, private insurance will not be able to compete with the government run plan cost-wise and will die out and we will be left with government run health care. Obama is a proponent of single-payer and a government run plan will eliminate private over time. His words, his view, his plan Care. His stance now is pulling back on this somewhat and I call bull on that. He's born and bred on marxism and Rev. Wright and a tiger doesn't change his stripes. Just how I see it.

And any so called "private insurance" plan that is out there, will be a one size fits all plan. Variety will be a thing of the past. By variety I mean choosing higher deductibles to lower the cost, varying out of pocket maximums, types of coverage, whether or not to include prescription drugs etc. Gone.

One size fits all. Just like Social Security. Do you realize how many investment options there are on the market today, yet with Social Security you are limited to no options, no way to maximize returns. One size fits all. Take it or leave it... oh wait, there is not leaving it. Your stuck with what they give you... period.

Happy Birthday Zoom!

Immie

Thanks!

 

[N4mddissent]

Question, if gov't run health care is so great why won't congress sign an amendment requiring those who vote yes on it to have it as their health care?

If government run health care is so bad, why didn't a single Republican vote to end medicare when an amendment to do so was presented on July 30?

Because they didn't want to cut off their nose to spite their face. Those old folks votes are gold next year. Duh.

Dems need to put up or shut up about this; if they think it's so great they need to agree to drop their private insurance and sign on the dotted line. Not holding my breath.

And why would those old folks vote go against republicans? After all, government run healthcare is a terrifying, horrible prospect. They should be glad to not have medicare anymore. Could it be that *gasp* they like medicare and would not want to see it go? What about our military families? Shouldn't we get rid of their government run healthcare as well? If the private sector does such a swell job, then these groups should voluntarily exchange their evil, govenment run, rationed healthcare for private policies.

Furthermore, why would Democrats vote on an amendment that would affect them differently than everyone else? That makes no sense. All Democrats are not even saying that the public option will be the best- they are merely saying people should have a choice. So how does it make sense to restrict their own choice while fighting for the people to have a choice? It only makes sense to the Republican propagandists.

For example, they point out that Federal Employees are exempt from the act and sometimes use section 3116 to support such a claim. Section 3116 is simply definitions. If you go to Title XXXI, you will see a nice detailed explanation stating that because Federal health insurance plans are so good, the congress feels it is only fair that at a minimum, the public have access to equally good plans. Thus it is this section that requires each state to establish "gateways". Here's a little about gateways

(b)AMERICAN HEALTH BENEFIT GATEWAYS.—An
American Health Benefit Gateway (referred to in this section as a ‘Gateway’) means a mechanism that—

‘‘(1) facilitates the purchase of health insurance coverage and related insurance products through the Gateway at an affordable price by qualified individuals and qualified employer groups; and]​

‘‘(2) meets the requirements of subsection (c).​

‘‘

(c) REQUIREMENTS.—

‘‘

(1) VOLUNTARY NATURE 1 OF GATEWAY.—​

‘‘(A) CHOICE TO ENROLL OR NOT TO ENROLL.—A qualified individual shall have the
choice to enroll or not to enroll in a qualified health plan or to participate in a Gateway.​

‘‘(B) PROHIBITION ON COMPELLED ENROLLMENT.—No individual shall be compelled to enroll in a qualified health plan or to participate in a Gateway.​

As for the Gateway, Federal Employees already have such good health coverage, they are considered ineligible to participate in a Gateway.

And once again, this section demonstrates the dishonest nature of these debates since it clearly states no one will be compelled to enroll. So tell me again how compelling congress to enroll would be "putting up or shutting up"? That usually implies putting your money where your mouth is- or in other words, doing to yourself the same thing you advocate for others. So when they advocate giving you the choice to keep your current coverage, purchase a different private insurance policy that meets minimal standards, or participate in a public plan, like our military and seniors do- how is restricting their choice and compelling them to accept one option even comparable?

Whereas, all this crying about "socialized medicine" is absolutely relevant to medicare since it, in fact, is a government run health insurance- yet supported by every Republican?

And Representative Fleming, who you linked to, has his own Empowering Patients First act which would provide subsidies to the poor, prevent pre-existing condition exemption, and in his own words:

"All of this is accomplished without a government takeover, gutting Medicare, long lines, bureaucrats interfering in the sacred doctor-patient relationship,..."

So, he apparently hates bureaucratic interference and government take over- but hates the idea of gutting Medicare. Go figure. And "sacred doctor-patient relationship"? A bit overstated, I think. But he's a doctor, maybe that's how he sees it. After all, they tithe to him.

The Democrats have a doctor too. Dr. Steve Kagan. He is the only person I've seen in Congress who has literally "put up". He has refused health insurance coverage on himself until everyone has at a minimum the same choices he has as a member of Congress. He has refused Federal Health insurance and does not allow himself to be included in his wife's policy which covers her and their children. Federal Employees have a choice of 10 plans to choose from. Most employers (85%) only offer their employees one choice. As

“I am literally naked, without coverage,” Kagen said. “That gives me a lot of motivation to solve this problem. If everyone in Congress relinquished coverage, we’d get real progress in weeks.”

Being able to compare private plans on a level field because of standardization of basic packages, having minimum requirements for coverage, subsidizing low income families, and yes, including an elective public option- these will increase competition in a marketplace that is stagnant and an industry that values profit over human decency.

Some people predict that the public option will undercut the private industry and drive them all out of business- that this is some stealth method of getting to single-payer coverage. I think that argument is a bit lame on two fronts:

1) It's not an argument based on the language of this bill- just an economic prediction. And we know how well all the economists predicted our current economic downturn, don't we. It's ridiculous to argue about "what ifs". It won't be an immediate effect. If a couple of years down the road we see private insurance companies starting to falter, the American people can speak out and have their congress change the rules if things are heading in a direction they don't like.

and

2) How on earth can the bureaucratic nightmare of the public option outperform the private sector? Even if it is cheaper, with its long lines, and rationed healthcare providing poor quality of care, who would choose such an option when they can get sparkling beautiful private coverage at a subsidized price by the government?

Seems to me, the only way this would be a legitimate concern is if public healthcare turned out to have lower prices and quality of care equal to or better than the private sector. And of course, we know that's not possible, right?

 

[BrianH]

I don't begrudge Texas it's economic wealth. It's where the oil is; it's where the oil industry is and all the supporting businesses (big and small). But all the wealth in the world doesn't mean it's put to the best use for its citizens.

When was the last time you lived in Texas?

I'm not being critical of Texas. Don't get your panties all in a wad. We know you think your state it the biggest baddest and bestist. But I did live there for about 8 months from 1977 through 1978 when my husband was on TDY, so I can't be a fair judge about its political climate. The people then were friendly, and the restaurants second only to New Orleans. The best BBQ ever! But it was hot hot hot and humid, way too much traffic (made LA freeways look like country roads on Christmas Day ), so it really wasn't a place I put on my list of places to retire.

Traffic?? You obviously chose the wrong place to live in Texas... Should have picked a rural area. Sometimes you'll drive miles without passing another car!! It's quite nice!