You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Both parties not serious about deficit; $750 billion wasted per year in health care
- Thread starter tmarket
- Start date
note... I re read this... when I said only... I mean single payer vs what Obama created.
Creating what Obama did and then forcing people to buy insurance... was a disgusting and I still believe unconstitutional sell out by the dems.
Creating what Obama did and then forcing people to buy insurance... was a disgusting and I still believe unconstitutional sell out by the dems.
Quote from jem:
where do people get this partisan bullshit? this is the 3rd or 4th time a person on et has said crap like ths. we hear stuff like this from dems all the time. they try to blame Obamacare on Republicans.
not a single republican voted for Obamacare. Therefore they did not kill any provision. had the dems put single payer up for a vote... some Republicans would have voted for it... I believe many businessmen would love to get healthcare costs off their balance sheet and therefore some Rs would have been pressured to vote for it.
Single payer was killed by the insurance companies who owned the democrats and told them what they could pass.
Neither Obama nor any of dems had the integrity in the end to stand up for the only type of health care which could have improved things for individuals and businesses.
Quote from jem:
Single payer was killed by the insurance companies who owned the democrats and told them what they could pass.
Neither Obama nor any of dems had the integrity in the end to stand up for the only type of health care which could have improved things for individuals and businesses.
Very astute.
We didn't need the healthcare bill at all. We needed Democrats to stand up to insurance companies and make them behave like good citizens. Before the healthcare bill 85% of Americans had insurance and were satisfied with it. The biggest problems were from insurers that could cancel a policy as soon as a person became ill, no? Of course the job of the democrats is to "level the playing field" between producers and welfare recipients and they don't care if it's done by tearing down the healthcare for producers..
We are going to wind up with two tiered medicine; fakey cheap stuff to keep the welfare class voting for Democrats and pay as you go stuff for producers.
With regard to the public option, actually zdreg is technically right! One of the few times I've agreed with him, sorta! Technically, it was not the Republicans, as I stated in a post above, but the Democrats, as zdreg stated, who killed it. Specifically, it was Pelosi, who took it out of the Bill on reconsideration in order to get enuf votes in both the House and Senate to pass the reconciliation version. It was in the original bill debated and passed in the House with the Stupak-Pitts amendment attached. Stupak-Pitts was a joint Democrat-Republican nut-wing supported amendment that allowed the House to pass the original House Bill which included the Public option.
None off this however invalidates the truth that it was the Republicans who really killed the Public Option. A bill with that provision was going to be virtually impossible to pass in both Houses, mainly due to strong Republican opposition in the Senate to a Bill with both the Stupak-Pitts amendment left intact and a Public option. The public option was a casualty of the negotiating process needed to get a reconciliation Bill passed by both houses, and the Truth is it was strong Republican opposition that made passing a Bill in both Houses that contained the Public Option virtually impossible. The Republicans claimed that inclusion of the Public opposition would have been the death kneel for the private Health Insurance Industry. I suppose they were right about that!
Let us recall Obama's position: " the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers, and would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better."
Let us also recall that in order to calm down the Stupak-Pitts bunch, and to get Stupak's vote on the final Bill, Obama promised he would issue an order preventing public money from being used for abortions.
Senate Republicans operated like a well oiled, but wrong-headed machine, whereas Senate, and House Democrats behaved like a pack of feral cats.
Whatever you may think of Nancy Pelosi, she was highly skilled at getting complex, difficult to pass legislation through both Houses. Much better, I must say, at compromise then her likeable successor, John Boehner, has so far been.
None off this however invalidates the truth that it was the Republicans who really killed the Public Option. A bill with that provision was going to be virtually impossible to pass in both Houses, mainly due to strong Republican opposition in the Senate to a Bill with both the Stupak-Pitts amendment left intact and a Public option. The public option was a casualty of the negotiating process needed to get a reconciliation Bill passed by both houses, and the Truth is it was strong Republican opposition that made passing a Bill in both Houses that contained the Public Option virtually impossible. The Republicans claimed that inclusion of the Public opposition would have been the death kneel for the private Health Insurance Industry. I suppose they were right about that!
Let us recall Obama's position: " the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers, and would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better."
Let us also recall that in order to calm down the Stupak-Pitts bunch, and to get Stupak's vote on the final Bill, Obama promised he would issue an order preventing public money from being used for abortions.
Senate Republicans operated like a well oiled, but wrong-headed machine, whereas Senate, and House Democrats behaved like a pack of feral cats.
Whatever you may think of Nancy Pelosi, she was highly skilled at getting complex, difficult to pass legislation through both Houses. Much better, I must say, at compromise then her likeable successor, John Boehner, has so far been.
Quote from jem:
note... I re read this... when I said only... I mean single payer vs what Obama created.
Creating what Obama did and then forcing people to buy insurance... was a disgusting and I still believe unconstitutional sell out by the dems.
Guess you missed the Supreme Court ruling, it's constitional.
Quote from BSAM:
I believe Obamacare will either be removed via a later administration or will go back and be removed via the supreme court.
THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT TELL YOU WHAT TO BUY!
Maybe they shouldn't, but that would mean the end of government. They tell you to buy a piece of 2500, F22's, for example, and part or all of thousands of other things that you must buy from private for profit companies. You either buy them or the government will put a lean on, or seize, property that you own. Why should they not tell you to buy insurance? Or do you prefer not having a government.
Or perhaps you think there are some things it is OK for the government to tell you to buy, but not other things. How do you decide what it's OK to be forced to buy and what's not? Maybe you would like a court to decide. But I think they may already have decided.
Quote from piezoe:
Maybe they shouldn't, but that would mean the end of government. They tell you to buy a piece of 2500, F22's, for example, and part or all of thousands of other things that you must buy from private for profit companies. You either buy them or the government will put a lean on, or seize, property that you own. Why should they not tell you to buy insurance? Or do you prefer not having a government.
Or perhaps you think there are some things it is OK for the government to tell you to buy, but not other things. How do you decide what it's OK to be forced to buy and what's not? Maybe you would like a court to decide. But I think they may already have decided.
I don't quite understand what you are trying to say, but the terms "common sense" and "www.lp.org" come to mind.