The Health Care Debate

[DaveKCMO]

Haven't heard the pro-health care folks use anything factual when talking about the cost. Why is that?

because the CBO won't let you include savings in the health care system (versus just savings in the federal budget). that's been the message problem since day one. it "costs" the government $849 billion over 10 years and "saves" government $130 billion, but also removes $X billion of cost from the private health care system.

[phuqueue]

Well you don't really get it do you.

Who's the one who's not getting it?  All I'm trying to say is that your original post on the subject was disingenuous:

Not quite sure how this will affect the debate but the proposed changes with regards to breast cancer screening might have a negative effect for the supporters public option or other drastic changes in our health care debate.

The rationale for the changes, no mammograms for those under 50 and once every two years instead of every year for those over 50, is - in a nutshell - to save money and some take that to mean rationing care.  At least that is what many women are seeing.  There are sound reasons for the changes but the subject of breast cancer is very personal for many women, with some saying if the proposed changes are adopted and one woman dies of breast cancer as a result of the changes then that is one death too many.

What "proposed changes"?  From your post, we'd be led to believe they were proposed changes within the bill.  The rationale is "to save money"?  Maybe they'll be manipulated (by private insurance and/or the government's public option) to save money, but that wasn't the rationale behind issuing them, unless the US Preventive Services Task Force is just losing tons of money on the mammograms it performs every year.

It's fair to say that some people see it as a cost-cutting measure, and certainly I don't know what sorts of conflicts of interest the task force members might have where it'd be in their interest to save money here, so maybe that's part of it.  And it's fair to say that a cost-cutting measure, or what is seen as a cost-cutting measure, would by extension be seen as rationing, and that people wouldn't be happy about that.  The problem here is that the entire thing is founded on the ambiguous suggestion that the public option had adopted the guidelines (and more than that, that they weren't even guidelines issued by some other agency but just a cost-cutting plan that had been incorporated into the health care bill).  In reality, why should this affect the public option more than anything else?  This cursory glance at the materials seems to suggest that a lot of people are afraid that private insurance will use it to save money (except for the politicking Republicans in your excerpt).

You're being disingenuous.  You're twisting the facts.  What is there to get?  I get it just fine.  I think you're the one who doesn't get it.

[aknowledgeableperson]

How both sides handle the abortion issue and the public option will decide how the final bill looks.  All other discussions will be sideshows to these two issues.

A good possibility, the bill does not go to Obama because of lack of overall Dem support due to abortion restriction funding and just having a trigger for the public option.

[grovester]

How both sides handle the abortion issue and the public option will decide how the final bill looks.  All other discussions will be sideshows to these two issues.

A good possibility, the bill does not go to Obama because of lack of overall Dem support due to abortion restriction funding and just having a trigger for the public option.

no fucking way

[aknowledgeableperson]

no fucking way

Well, there are already 40 Dem house members who voted for its version of the bill who stated they won't vote for a bill that has the same type of abortion restrictions.  Plus there are a number of Dem house who won't vote for a bill that does not have abortion restictions in it.  Either way that subtracts enough votes to sink it in the House.  On the Senate side there are enough Dem-side senators to kill the bill with a public option in it.

Would love to be in those smoke-filled rooms to see what kinds of deals are offered/made in order for Obama/Dems to get the votes.  And that's before there is any effort to get any Republican votes.

[grovester]

political posturing for select audiences, kabuki theater, there will be a bill passed in the end.

[phna]

The Senate unveiled its health reform plan...

http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/1579489.html


"Federal advice on mammograms hasn?t changed, says Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. "

[im2kull]

Food For Thought:

Is this being rushed through Capitol Hill because it will create large amounts of new revenue for the government?

Is that (Revenue) the sole reason why every American will be forced to pay for insurance (which is taxed) or pay an additonal yearly Tax/Fee directly to the government (Under this proposed plan)?

Is our Government begining to blur the line between running the country and running a private (In which We have no means of control) enterprise??

Is this not the very thing our founding fathers feared?
(A government that thinks for itself, without representation)

---

...if the upper levels of the government truly wanted reform (rather than revenue), don't you think we'd see at least a Hint of a social healthcare system, rather than some sham of change consisting of a "Public Marketplace" and a supposedly Competitive "Public Option"??

[phxcat]

Food For Thought:

Is this being rushed through Capitol Hill because it will create large amounts of new revenue for the government?

Is that (Revenue) the sole reason why every American will be forced to pay for insurance (which is taxed) or pay an additonal yearly Tax/Fee directly to the government (Under this proposed plan)?

Is our Government begining to blur the line between running the country and running a private (In which We have no means of control) enterprise??

Is this not the very thing our founding fathers feared?
(A government that thinks for itself, without representation)

---

...if the upper levels of the government truly wanted reform (rather than revenue), don't you think we'd see at least a Hint of a social healthcare system, rather than some sham of change consisting of a "Public Marketplace" and a supposedly Competitive "Public Option"??

No.

And the second part is due to the politics of getting a bill passed.

[DaveKCMO]

Is this being rushed through Capitol Hill...

your perception of pace is extremely flawed.

[im2kull]

your perception of pace is extremely flawed.

It went through the house in what...a week? Maybe 2? From the time it was approved for voting & debating, to the time it passed.  Most bills take MONTHS.  Hell, go read their agenda right now and see how damn backed up they're getting on some bills that Have to be passed ASAP (Debt Ceiling, Plan for this next years funding of the Afghan war, etc)!  Serious incompetence if you ask me..

[grovester]

After it had been talked about and debated for 9 months

[DaveKCMO]

It went through the house in what...a week? Maybe 2? From the time it was approved for voting, to the time it passed.  Most bills take MONTHS.  Hell, go read their agenda right now and see how damn backed up they're getting on some bills that Have to be passed ASAP (Debt Ceiling, Plan for this next years funding of the Afghan war, etc)!  Serious incompetence if you ask me..

you are not counting the months in committee -- a record number of committees in both chambers. sorry, but it was in the news during that period and it counts. and i personally count the entire 2008 election cycle, as there were plenty of details and options bandied about by all candidates during that time.

would you care to recap for us how long the patriot act or TARP spent on the floor? hmm?

bills vary depending on complexity. i'm happy to hear you've mastered the legislative process, however.

incompetence is waiting until the 11th hour to provide a formal alternative.

[im2kull]

you are not counting the months in committee -- a record number of committees in both chambers. sorry, but it was in the news during that period and it counts. and i personally count the entire 2008 election cycle, as there were plenty of details and options bandied about by all candidates during that time.

would you care to recap for us how long the patriot act or TARP spent on the floor? hmm?

bills vary depending on complexity. i'm happy to hear you've mastered the legislative process, however.

incompetence is waiting until the 11th hour to provide a formal alternative.

But there has been No formal floor debate on it yet, yes?

[KCMax]

But there has been No formal floor debate on it yet, yes?

Yes, there was a floor debate in the House on it. It lasted about a month. The Senate just approved the bill for floor debate on Saturday after 39 Republicans voted against debate.

[im2kull]

Yes, there was a floor debate in the House on it. It lasted about a month. The Senate just approved the bill for floor debate on Saturday after 39 Republicans voted against debate.

I realize the House has had their debate, my point was that the Senate has not...so don't go around saying its been debated for months (By the people, news, and everyone else that doesn't matter), when the only debate that does matters has yet to occur.

[DaveKCMO]

I realize the House has had their debate, my point was that the Senate has not...so don't go around saying its been debated for months (By the people, news, and everyone else that doesn't matter), when the only debate that does matters has yet to occur.

if your only point was to say that the senate has yet to complete a formal floor debate, then YOU WIN. otherwise, there's been plenty of time to digest all of the legislative action.

you original statement wasn't specific:

Is this being rushed through Capitol Hill because it will create large amounts of new revenue for the government?

[im2kull]

if your only point was to say that the senate has yet to complete a formal floor debate, then YOU WIN. otherwise, there's been plenty of time to digest all of the legislative action.

That was indeed the fact I was pointing out, nothing more, nothing less (as I have said previously..that is THE only debate that matters, is it not?)

you original statement wasn't specific:

If you want to talk about Original statements then we'll go back to the begining of this thread.  That's not nessecary here because what we have is a continuation of conversation (Over the length of this thread), rather than one that (Clearly) begins, and ends.

I can see where it can become confusing, so to clear this up my original point (as it relates to your response) was the following:

It went through the house in what...a week? Maybe 2? From the time it was approved for a vote & debate, to the time it passed.  Most bills take MONTHS.  Hell, go read their agenda right now and see how damn backed up they're getting on some bills that Have to be passed ASAP (Debt Ceiling, Plan for this next years funding of the Afghan war, etc)!  Serious incompetence if you ask me..

&

But there has been No formal floor debate on it yet, yes?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was simply an open ended laundry list of questions I was posing to stir up some conversation from a different angle.  It was by no means rhetorical, nor was it presented as fact.  "Rushed Through" is purely figurative in this case.

Food For Thought:

Is this being rushed through Capitol Hill because it will create large amounts of new revenue for the government?

Is that (Revenue) the sole reason why every American will be forced to pay for insurance (which is taxed) or pay an additonal yearly Tax/Fee directly to the government (Under this proposed plan)?

Is our Government begining to blur the line between running the country and running a private (In which We have no means of control) enterprise??

Is this not the very thing our founding fathers feared?
(A government that thinks for itself, without representation)

---

...if the upper levels of the government truly wanted reform (rather than revenue), don't you think we'd see at least a Hint of a social healthcare system, rather than some sham of change consisting of a "Public Marketplace" and a supposedly Competitive "Public Option"??

[KCMax]

I don't see why the House debate doesn't matter.

[LenexatoKCMO]

I don't see why the House debate doesn't matter.

It "doesn't matter" because brotha2kull obviously wasn't really aware of it when he went off and made is ill-informed commentary about how this is being rushed through. 

'What, Congress debated it for a month?  That's trivial.  I am defiantly going down with this loser of an argument like a rat on a sinking ship."