[luke warm]

cherdanno, on Mar 22 2010, 09:34 AM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 22 2010, 09:29 AM, said:

cherdanno, on Mar 22 2010, 09:18 AM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 22 2010, 05:09 AM, said:

the house just got played by the senate... as for the abortion executive order, wait and see how that goes... if you recall, medicaid originally had much the same language

So? My understanding is it still has. Of course, many states decided to offer payments through abortions from their own funds. I gather you are against such a sweeping expansion of state rights?

that isn't what i said, arend... medicaid was passed with 'no abortion funding' as part of it... and as for "sweeping expansion of states rights" let's see how this all pans out when 30 - 35 states 'opt out' of this legislation... we'll see then whether any states rights arguments are tongue-in-cheek

Then it's not the same language as the executive order. I guess you haven't read it.

"Make no doubt about it. There will be no public funds for abortion," Stupak said in announcing the agreement Sunday ahead of a vote on the landmark health care bill.

the medicaid language changed over the years, most recently (i think) in 1983, and it isn't a given that this executive order has the weight of law... all of these things will, i'm sure, be ironed out in court

PassedOut, on Mar 22 2010, 02:09 PM, said:

Stupak may have been in some political trouble before, but the texas pinhead's comment has pretty much sent his opponents here scurrying back to their holes. For now at least.

which opponents?

[PassedOut]

His opponents here.

[kenberg]

Some of the closing features of this drama were pretty bad. I suggest ignoring them.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on Mar 22 2010, 04:26 PM, said:

Some of the closing features of this drama were pretty bad. I suggest ignoring them.

Yes, a lot of the name-calling and anger was pretty bad and worth forgetting.

On the other hand, it's not often that one really has the opportunity to pitch in to change the direction of the country for the better, and we were fortunate enough to be in that position in the last few days. People really can make congress listen, as we proved here.

A local film-maker wrote a piece about this: How the People in My District Changed Stupak's Mind and Saved Health Care Reform

Quote

Stupak, and his seven "right to life" Democrats who had said they would vote against the bill, reversed themselves after what Stupak said Sunday afternoon was a week of his staff having "really taken a pounding." Hey, all we did here in northern Michigan was let him know that we would be unceremoniously tossing him out of Congress in this August's Democratic primary. One of our group announced she would oppose him in the Dem primary. That seemed to register with him.

All of this made Stupak look pretty worn down at his press conference yesterday, pleading with people like us to stop calling his house and waking his wife "at two or three in the morning." Hey! That's not us. We never call during Carson Daly!

Obama needed 216 votes in the House last night -- and he barely got them (219 was the final number). Had Stupak not done a 180 in the last 24 hours, the health care bill would have gone down in flames. Thank you, to all of you here in northern Michigan who did what had to be done. You and you alone saved this bill in the final moments.

You are welcome, America.

[mike777]

Good Economic....damn the economics this is really a morality debate.

-------------------


If one side of the debate says it is morally right and economics did not matter all discussion ends. Politics of course matters, politics is there to decide these competing issues.

[jdonn]

PassedOut, on Mar 22 2010, 10:02 PM, said:

You are welcome, America.

Thank you!

[Al_U_Card]

Hey, all we did here in northern Michigan was let him know that we would be unceremoniously tossing him out of Congress in this August's Democratic primary. One of our group announced she would oppose him in the Dem primary. That seemed to register with him.

The power of the people.

All that really matters.

[kenberg]

"Local film maker" Michael Moore and Bart Stupak in the same congressional district! Reality programming at its finest, to be completed when Stupak is voted off the island.

A couple of observations:

I am really glad that the bill was not sunk on the basis of abortion arguments. Whatever the merits of their arguments, abortion is not the only health issue. It's not clear Stupak changed his mind, he just changed his vote. But that's what it took.

Again from an ardent supporter of the bill, we see in Moore's last paragraph:
"Now, we have some real work to do if we really want to say we have universal health care. The sharks who run the insurance companies have every intention of turning this lemon into some very profitable lemonade."
Well, yeah, they just might do that.

I am wary of this. But it's done, and I take the attitude that now it has to be made to work. Michael Gerson, in a column today, points out that on the whole this is permanent. Republicans, and others, may try to alter some aspects of it and may succeed, but no politician of any stripe will run a campaign promising to restore insurance companies' prerogative to refuse coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

As to some of the protesters, they really ought to ask themselves if they would like their kids to see them on television acting like this. Go to bed without your supper if you can't behave!

[Winstonm]

Gee, I feel healthier already and it's only Tuesday.

[Winstonm]

Huffington Post:

Quote

Democrats didn't just get a health-care-related boost in the realm of public opinion. The Democratic National Committee reported raising more than $1 million in donations on Tuesday even without making a direct ask. The money is expected to pour in for other campaign committees as well.

No doubt this money is pouring in from all the uninsured just to say, thanks.

[Winstonm]

The last thing I want to hear as an argument is "we can't afford healthcare." A couple of facts:

1) The 2010 Department of Defense budget was nearly $600 billion excluding the wars.
2) The U.S portion of the world's output by GDP on military spending is 41%.

Quote

The third "ask" that AIPAC supporters will make of Congress on Tuesday is to once again pass the $3 billion in U.S. aid provided annually to Israel.  Among other major purchases, the Israeli government has announced plans to replace its aging fleet of F-16 fighter jets with new, American-made F-35 fighters, a major cost that Israel hopes will be substantially born for [sic] by American taxpayers.

Medicare and Social Secuity benefit cuts = NECESSITY???
Military-Industrial Complex Spending = NECESSITY???

[Al_U_Card]

Simple question of efficiency.

If you kill a person (X $) it is a fixed cost in present dollars.

If you "fix" a person and have to keep them healthy over time, it is a present cost (Y $) plus associated costs (Ya $).

When X < (Y + Ya) the calculation is easy and it seems that somebody has done the math.

[mike777]

My best guess is this thread will turn into a heated discussion on a USA VAT tax 12 months from today.

[Al_U_Card]

mike777, on Mar 24 2010, 11:29 PM, said:

My best guess is this thread will turn into a heated discussion on a USA  VAT tax 12 months from today.

Well, SOMEBODY is going to have to pay for the bailout, the wars(?) and universal (except for the public option) healthcare!

(I didn't include a cap and trade option to pay for as there is still some hope that AGW will be debunked in time.)

[PassedOut]

Al_U_Card, on Mar 25 2010, 07:23 AM, said:

there is still some hope that AGW will be debunked in time

This could happen in one of three ways:

1) Showing that CO2 is not really a heat-trapping gas.
2) Showing that mankind does not really pump billions of tons of CO2 into the air each year.
3) Showing that some as-yet-unknown mechanism rids the earth of that extra trapped heat.

Until one of these happens, no one (excepting the uneducated and the usual number of cranks) will consider it debunked no matter how convenient that would be for all of us.

[Al_U_Card]

PassedOut, on Mar 25 2010, 08:02 AM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Mar 25 2010, 07:23 AM, said:

there is still some hope that AGW will be debunked in time

This could happen in one of three ways:

1) Showing that CO2 is not really a heat-trapping gas.
2) Showing that mankind does not really pump billions of tons of CO2 into the air each year.
3) Showing that some as-yet-unknown mechanism rids the earth of that extra trapped heat.

Until one of these happens, no one (excepting the uneducated and the usual number of cranks) will consider it debunked no matter how convenient that would be for all of us.

1-No question there but the jury is still out on the "forcing" that CO2 provides in terms of temperature rise, globally.

2-Sadly, other than our own exhalations, this is a real problem on so many levels. Even just 5 billion extra "exhalers" is an issue.

3-The science will eventually expose the mechanisms of this type of energy and mass balance within our planetary system. We just want to make sure that science is not agendized into only looking in one direction with one intention.

That we should be greatly concerned by our profligate and poisonous presence, is a given. Whatever the agent and recourse for its control, efficient use of our resources is paramount. Spending trillions on what even the IPCC shows as providing a minor change in global temperature reduction is the issue.

The incentive to provide non-CO2 producing energy sources would be ideal. Wind, tidal, solar and geothermal (I dislike nuclear for obvious reasons) could all use our money without creating a "carbon exchange" that would be rife with speculators. I am reassured by the "unadjusted" global temp history, that normal cycles will continue to keep us in the "zone" so that we can get our act together.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Mar 24 2010, 11:29 PM, said:

My best guess is this thread will turn into a heated discussion on a USA VAT tax 12 months from today.

It will be hijacked into AGW or curling - guess which.

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on Mar 25 2010, 05:34 PM, said:

mike777, on Mar 24 2010, 11:29 PM, said:

My best guess is this thread will turn into a heated discussion on a USA  VAT tax 12 months from today.

It will be hijacked into AGW or curling - guess which.

At least Al has given up on the 911 truther idiocy

We learn to take pleasure in the little things in life...

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on Mar 20 2010, 06:01 PM, said:

I don't know if this is going to work or not. I think some claims for it have been more along the line of wishes rather than of fact. Counting revenue from a tax that is to be implemented eight years from now seems to me to be very very optimistic. But I do think that Democrats will be seriously motivated to make it work. Contrary to some ways of thinking, I think that failure is always an option. But it would be very ugly.

Failure is always an option. But before health care reform passed the system was headed toward certain failure. When faced with a choice in bridge, I prefer the approach that might succeed over the one that is certain to fail.

The bill that our country adopted contains quite a number of cost control measures proposed by experts of all political persuasions. Only if those measures turn out to be counter-productive (and that surely won't be the case -- anyone can see that with a quick reading) will we be worse off than we were.

On the other hand, we will now have 32 million uninsured people brought into the US health care system. This will unleash a pent-up demand that will increase costs in the short term, and congress has reallocated some funds (taking some bankers off the public teat, for example) to cover those costs. In the long term, though, bringing those people in will help rein in costs for the rest of us.

For starters (as the republicans often point out) many folks without insurance can find emergency rooms that will treat them anyway. The cost of that treatment is already borne by those of us who do have health insurance. Furthermore, using emergency rooms in this manner is a tremendously expensive way to deliver health care. Now 32 million people will start contributing toward paying those costs, and they will also be able to get care in a more cost-effective way.

Speaking for the republicans, Lamar Alexander argues that these gains will be more than offset because some people today -- whether through pride or ignorance -- die without going to an emergency room to obtain the care they need. Now those people will be brought into the system, increasing costs.

I've not seen any hard numbers that support Alexander's position on this, but suppose he is correct? I still want to bring those folks into the system, and I would not want to be running for office on a platform of excluding them.

While passing this health care reform was necessary, it is far from sufficient. We definitely need to chip away at the huge amount of money wasted on undignified and largely unwanted contraptions attached to folks near the end of life. There are also some savings to be obtained by more aggressive tort reform. And -- maybe somewhere down the road -- the US can gain the efficiencies of the single-payer system that luke warm and many others want.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Mar 27 2010, 12:24 PM, said:

On the other hand, we will now have 32 million uninsured people brought into the US health care system. This will unleash a pent-up demand that will increase costs in the short term, and congress has reallocated some funds (taking some bankers off the public teat, for example) to cover those costs. In the long term, though, bringing those people in will help rein in costs for the rest of us.

For starters (as the republicans often point out) many folks without insurance can find emergency rooms that will treat them anyway. The cost of that treatment is already borne by those of us who do have health insurance. Furthermore, using emergency rooms in this manner is a tremendously expensive way to deliver health care. Now 32 million people will start contributing toward paying those costs, and they will also be able to get care in a more cost-effective way.

most of those 32 million have never been to an emergency room, so yes costs should increase dramatically... and while the present cost of the uninsured visits to the ER is borne by those who pay premiums (as you note), future health care costs for those same people should spread out - depending on the court battle results

Quote

Speaking for the republicans, Lamar Alexander argues that these gains will be more than offset because some people today -- whether through pride or ignorance -- die without going to an emergency room to obtain the care they need. Now those people will be brought into the system, increasing costs.

I've not seen any hard numbers that support Alexander's position on this, but suppose he is correct? I still want to bring those folks into the system, and I would not want to be running for office on a platform of excluding them.

maybe not, but you'd also not want to say that you voted for this bill because of savings and deficit reduction (if alexander is right)

Quote

While passing this health care reform was necessary, it is far from sufficient. We definitely need to chip away at the huge amount of money wasted on undignified and largely unwanted contraptions attached to folks near the end of life. There are also some savings to be obtained by more aggressive tort reform. And -- maybe somewhere down the road -- the US can gain the efficiencies of the single-payer system that luke warm and many others want.

*if* the dems plan is to prevent the existence of private insurers* as a way of implementing a single payer system, i can understand this bill... otherwise, it's my view that this is a bill that is not in the best interests of the country or its people

*as more and more small and large businesses opt out of private health insurance for their employees, as will happen