Watch The U.S. Accept Or Defeat The Health Reform
- Thread starter Liberalman
- Start date
Here are the figures in from yesterday if anyone has interest.....
House Democrats pass historical health-care legislation washingtonpost.com
House Democrats pass historical health-care legislation washingtonpost.com
By the way, Williams isn't a bastard because he's rich, he's a bastard because he is a nasty prick who treats anyone and everyone like dirt.
Hi Juan
I'm split - if I were to be downright honest. What I hear him say and read and what Pelosi talks about - these are all attractive to me personally as a worker -
but as you probably remember I have a pre-existing lung condition which may
eventually exclude me from some heroic intervention which to this day I have not
had to decide on...... I am four years into the "extension period"....
or.....when I retire (God willing) I wonder if I would be best served by what he or his successor will lay out for the next twenty or thirty years.
It's a bit of time away but I don't see anything better being offered by either party and there are so many people out of work, illegally here with no documentation, but will be put on the medical rolls if they are made citizens.
As I understand it they will have to be working to "pay" for the insurance.....and I wonder how many companies and insurance agencies have had the courage to read through the plan and accept any, all or a percentage of it. If the immigration group get laid off from their work will they be able to continue paying for their
medical without a job? I guess the public will be picking up their assistance and medical as it does now legal or not.
It's our money they continue to spend and spend and nobody justifies where it is
going or what the future plans are.
Nothing has been told to the people.....and what frizzles me is what I truly believe in but it is "pie in the sky" stuff......whatever they demand the public accept, all the elected officials must in kind be on the same program.... (cue laughter here).
I guess I'll always be a Union Man's daughter because I like equal work, pay and benefits....
Thanks for asking!
I'm split - if I were to be downright honest. What I hear him say and read and what Pelosi talks about - these are all attractive to me personally as a worker -
but as you probably remember I have a pre-existing lung condition which may
eventually exclude me from some heroic intervention which to this day I have not
had to decide on...... I am four years into the "extension period"....
or.....when I retire (God willing) I wonder if I would be best served by what he or his successor will lay out for the next twenty or thirty years.
It's a bit of time away but I don't see anything better being offered by either party and there are so many people out of work, illegally here with no documentation, but will be put on the medical rolls if they are made citizens.
As I understand it they will have to be working to "pay" for the insurance.....and I wonder how many companies and insurance agencies have had the courage to read through the plan and accept any, all or a percentage of it. If the immigration group get laid off from their work will they be able to continue paying for their
medical without a job? I guess the public will be picking up their assistance and medical as it does now legal or not.
It's our money they continue to spend and spend and nobody justifies where it is
going or what the future plans are.
Nothing has been told to the people.....and what frizzles me is what I truly believe in but it is "pie in the sky" stuff......whatever they demand the public accept, all the elected officials must in kind be on the same program.... (cue laughter here).
I guess I'll always be a Union Man's daughter because I like equal work, pay and benefits....
Thanks for asking!
You are confusing the history, gopher. Tom Foley was the Speaker, not Gingrich. Tom Foley was an ineffectual Speaker, he was not able to get enough support for the reform in the House. It did not even come to the vote, either in the House or the senate.
Foley lost his seat in 1994. He may have been the only Speaker in the history to lose his seat in an election, most of them (like Dennis Hastert) retire. That is when Republicans captured Senate and House, and Gingrich became the Speaker. But when health care was being debated, both the Senate and the House were Democrat controlled.
But neither George Mitchell in the Senate nor Foley in the House could produce enough votes to pass the health care reform. But to be fair to Mitchell, he did not have 60 Democratic senators. But there was no excuse for Foley.
Last edited:
Good points FP, If the republicans attempted such an unpopular move, it will blow up on their faces come election time 2012. About time stop the pillage on the backs of needy sick people. Today I don’t have a problem with Capitalism taking the back seat. Good job Democrats.............
Republicans will bluster all right for a while about repealing the law (it is the law now, or will be when Obama signs it tomorrow)). However, in 60 days the provision goes into effect, that insurance companies cannot deny coverage to children with preexisting conditions. Are Republicans going to repeal that, give insurance companies the right once again to deny coverage to children?
In 4 years, they cannot deny coverage to adults with preexisting conditions. Are Republicans going to repeal that? In six months, those who have preexisting conditions can go to state insurance exchange and get insurance there.. Are the Republicans going to repeal that?
Talk of repeal is just a bone thrown to the far right faction of the Republican Party, the teabaggers. Nothing will come of it. The law is here to stay. Such laws are difficult to pass, and even more difficult to repeal.
I've been wracking my brains trying to figure out why anyone would concern themselves about Danny Williams' health care arrangements. I guess if it's really important I'll put it down as #504 on my list of things to worry about.
It may take a while, but I think it is a done deal. Democrats don't need 60 votes in the Senate, they need only 51 (or even 50, with the Vice President casting the deciding vote).
The most Republicans can do is delay it by introducing hundreds of amendments. If one or two of them are passed, then the House has to vote on it again. There is of course no filibuster in the House.
There may be a few skirmishes left, but the war is over, the war is won.
This is a good day for American medicine, not Canadian medicine. How can it be a good day for Canadian medicine. If people like Danny Williams don't go to USA, Canada will have to treat them for free. How is that good for Canada?
Thanks Curiosity, for providing a little more insight into it. With so much opposition (like 47%) you know darn well, there are aspects we are not being told and I'm a person who just doesn't accept everything until all "i"s & "j"s are dotted & "t"s are crossed. For one thing (as most posters here know) I'm not in favour of Gov't involvement in any thing except enacting and enforcing legislation. They are just too wasteful, regardless of which party it is.
I'm with you to a degree: I think many gov't activities are bloated and wasteful but healthcare is one area that I think they do belong. There is an inherent conflict of interest in a privately run medical system: corporations' first obligations are always to the shareholder by definition, and not the patient. If a choice has to be made between the corporation or the consumer, the consumer comes in second. Governments are ultimately answerable to the people in ways corporations are not thus eliminating that conflict. Its also why corporate self-regulation doesn't work.
It was interesting listening to Pittsburgh radio this morning, talking about the Bill and its estimated impact. They are claiming 32 million people who were not covered now, will be covered by this bill. Thats almost the entire population of Canada. Its incredible to me. I can't see how, with numbers like that, people could oppose this Bill in good conscience...
Oh, they can and they will. Republicans have already introduced legislation in the House to repeal the law. Of course it isn't going anywhere, but that tells us where Republicans stand.
However, I do hope Democrats allow some debate on the bill, in about 60 days when the provision goes into effect that insurance companies cannot deny coverage to children with preexisting conditions.
i would like to see Republicans argue in the House that they are for giving the insurance companies the right to deny coverage to children.
Curio
I can't even pretend to completely understand your system but you've given a lot of useful information.
I always chuckle a bit when politicians do things like excluding certain people from medical benefits. You know that we are not going to just let people die so one way or another, they get the service.
Health services in Canada have a way of becoming an open ended mystery and nobody knows where the hell it is going. I think it is probably the same everywhere.
There is an inherent conflict of interest in a privately run medical system: corporations' first obligations are always to the shareholder by definition, and not the patient. If a choice has to be made between the corporation or the consumer, the consumer comes in second. Governments are ultimately answerable to the people in ways corporations are not thus eliminating that conflict. Its also why corporate self-regulation doesn't work.
..[/quote]
Definitely a valid point, Wulfie
..[/quote]
Definitely a valid point, Wulfie
"so says Gopher"
Yes, I erred. The number is actually 45,000 according to Harvard University:
Study links 45,000 U.S. deaths to lack of insurance | Reuters
Yes, I erred. The number is actually 45,000 according to Harvard University:
Study links 45,000 U.S. deaths to lack of insurance | Reuters
"Tom Foley was the Speaker, not Gingrich"
That is correct. However, it was Gingrich along with arch right winger William Kristol who fought against what was called "Hillary Care" in 1993, 1994 and lessened all momentum for reform. When Gingrich became Speaker, all efforts at reform were completely dropped.
That is correct. However, it was Gingrich along with arch right winger William Kristol who fought against what was called "Hillary Care" in 1993, 1994 and lessened all momentum for reform. When Gingrich became Speaker, all efforts at reform were completely dropped.
Well yes, but you would expect Republicans to fight any attempt to reform health care tooth and nail, that was to be expected. They did not fight any less viciously this time around.
But observe the difference. Tom Foley could not get the House to pass a health care bill, even with big Democratic majority. In this House, Pelosi was able to get the House to pass a strong health care bill, with a public option.
Of course a complicating factor in 1993 was that Democrats did not have 60 seats in the senate, they did not have a filibuster proof majority. So it would have been difficult to pass health care reform anyway. But if Foley had been an effective Speaker, he would have been able to get the House to pass a strong health care bill. If it had died in the Senate, that wouldn’t be his fault.
The difference between Foley and Pelosi is quite striking. Indeed, I saw somebody on television say that she is the strongest, most effective Speaker in 100 years.
Oh no. The rich and wealthy will always be able to afford the cadillac plans so they will be able to pay a little extra and not have to bother with the added red tape. So wealthy Canadians who want to pay the extra money for faster service will be able to do so.