I'm still pretty lost as to how this'll move forward. So far, the administration is essentially hoping for the CURRENT bill to pass through. They're calling for Republican support and talks, and who knows, maybe we'll compromise, but Obama is adamant in his fight to get insurance to the uninsured.

Bottom line, right now they're going to pass 2 bills it seems: a small one with things both sides can agree on (no pre-existing conditions ban, can't get dropped outta no where etc.), and a comprehensive bill later... how'll THIS one get passed? Heck, I seriously think if they're going to do it, it'll be through reconcilliation.

Also, even if they DO get a small bill passed where denying coverage over pre-existing conditions becomes illegal, it's not a sustainable bill... all of a sudden, a large influx of "expensive" patients will flood in, and since not everyone'll be paying into the pool, there'll be no way to offset this influx. We're gonna' need that second bill.

As a fiscal pragmatist, the idea of a public option actually intrigues me. Normally, I'm conservative when it comes to financial issues because I often find that the private sector provides services more effectively and efficiently than public services do.

this is a demonstrably false assumption, take a look at the water riots in Bolivia not too long ago, Bechtel managed to make a bad situation even worse. Profitability is not synonymous with efficiency.

The bigger question though, is how we provide a basic health care system for the uninsured. I'll have to admit, and this is pretty much a suicide thing to do at GW, but I'm a bit hazy on the ethics of forcing people to pay for health care for that select group of people. As a foreword, I'm not at all disputing the idea that "I am my brother's keeper," which is the founding idea of the Democratic point of view (the irony is its cross-application to the 'religious' Republican). It's obvious that we are responsible for our fellow Americans to a certain extent, one of the biggest examples of this being education -- you might not have kids, but you're paying education taxes because it's THAT important to us and our nation as a whole (eg democracy kinda depends on it). But going back to providing free services to the uninsured, it seems to me that it promotes rigid classism because it provides incentive for people not to rise up out of that financial position. Case in point -- my mom makes 26K a year, but because of the extra costs and taxes that come with the bigger paycheck, she is very careful not to make too much money. We can lose our government-subsidized apartment, which forces us to pay *twice* as much for rent as a result, and will really put the family in the financial crapper (back to eating rice, grits, and Kraft Mac-n-snot). Going back to the main point, these sorts of things actually -do- have an effect on social class, and it's not because people are lazy, as many opponents of welfare systems stupidly think. It's about economic feasibility and whether it's a good idea to rise up in the ranks. I don't think it's morally permissible to entice the lower class with goods aimed to keep them from rising up in the world. And yes, to pre-empt your response, I am willing to trade those goodies for continued financial hardship. Why? Because I have a pretty good idea of what it means to be poor, so I'm used to it. I also know that the best way to serve the poorest people is to provide them with a 'world class' education. Sure, not very many people will be able to get the managerial jobs that a good education calls for, assuming that everyone actually gets this education...but I am one to believe that life is a pursuit, and while the goal of it is to get someplace, the value lies in the journey. Never should you provide incentive for anyone to remain stuck, as providing health care to the uninsured does. You would be depriving them of one of the unassailable human rights that once founded this country -- the right to the pursuit of happiness. 

This is just too much. Do you really think that poverty is a choice people consciously make and that cutting things like subsidies for low income families is going to result in them just 'waking up' from their supposedly self-induced state of poverty and all pull themselves up by their bootstraps to 'get somewhere'? This is another observably false assumption. The biggest result of cutting welfare services is crime and its a no-brainer as to why, upward social mobility just isn't the norm.

The best solution is obviously a single-payer universal healthcare system. This is the case all over the world, even the most conservative folks in politics in countries where universal healthcare is implemented often don't dare suggest "American style" privatized health insurance based alternatives because its so wildly unpopular. Its certainly not perfect, yet despite all of the problems universal healthcare systems face, they do the job better than companies motivated solely by profit

When it comes to health care, I'm all for a universal system. But seeing as how the assholes making these decisions won't even consider such a thing then I'd like the second best.

The way my healthcare works with my company is, I can pick and choose what coverage I get: dental, Health, Vision, Life insurance, Disability, cancer insurance and prescription coverage with or without family coverage. I can pick between insurance providers (two atm) and I can pick whether I want full coverage or another system kind of like a banking system but with insurance coverage, its the cheapest, the money put away for the insurance can be used at a later time for whatever I need.

And with all this, I don't have to pay hardly shit. My company gives me an insurance credit and they pay about 2/3 or 3/4 (I can't remember exactly how much but its most of it) of my annual payments for me. And that is before they draw out money from my check to pay for benefits.

If companies would all do something like this, credit their employees to help them pay for their insurance and keep them healthy and in the work force. It would not only be very helpful to people out there that need coverage but it would also help make the workforce more efficient.

But I also think right now with the economic downslump and alot of the biggest hiring places out there being selfish as fucking shit, it would be nearly impossible. But in my opinion holding employers responsible for taking care of their employees would not only help out the general public but also encourage folks out there to join the workforce if at all possible.

And with all this, I don't have to pay hardly shit. My company gives me an insurance credit and they pay about 2/3 or 3/4 (I can't remember exactly how much but its most of it) of my annual payments for me. And that is before they draw out money from my check to pay for benefits.

isn't this exactly like tax?

i think if the states was going to have public healthcare they'd need to prevent pharmaceutical companies from advertising to the public  (Ask your doctor for Cyndaquil)

i think if the states was going to have public healthcare they'd need to prevent pharmaceutical companies from advertising to the public  (Ask your doctor for Cyndaquil)

i hope professor elm will write me a prescription

do you suffer from heart burn and a general lack of adventure?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/16/health.care.harry.reid/index.html

Looks like there's a chance that the public-option MIGHT come back, and pass with reconcilliation - the thing I've been hoping for since the beginning. The health care summit is on the 25th; my prediction: Republicans show up, their proposals fail to meet coverage/cost reduction parameters set by Obama, Dems realize there is NO OPTION but the PUBLIC OPTION via reconiclliation!

i hope professor elm will write me a prescription

you're brilliant

they're trying to make heath care cheaper (kind of bullshit) and mandatory so more americans can afford and possess it. They are not trying to make it free because then how would insurance companies rip everyone off into paying for their god given right to be healthy? In my opinion this whole health insurance debacle is just a way to force everyone to buy healthcare at a cheaper rate but still a fucking rate because the insurance companies will make more money if more people possess health care even if it is a little cheaper.

And there are alot of americans that don't have healthcare. In fact I can't say I know anyone in my hometown that can afford or has ever had their own healthcare coverage.

With the amount I hear you guys can spend on your medical bills I cant help but wonder if it would be cheaper to buy a flight to the UK and just show up at one of our own hospitals.

There are people who travel to china to get organ transplants because it's much cheaper

Just finished watching the summit... yeah, I watched all 7 hours of it

I thought the Democrats did fantastic. The CBO was with them all the way in terms of deficit reduction, and showed how medical malpractice wouldn't save more than $50 billion over 10 years, where as the Senate bill would save $1.2 trillion over 20 years. And also how, medical malpractice, the #1 issue from Republicans, doesn't even come close to addressing the actual issues of health care reform: raising premiums and opening access to 30 million Americans; dealing with pre-existing conditions and lowering over all costs.

And as for the "starting over" with a blank slate... I don't know why they kept saying it. I mean, about 70% of the bill is in agreement with Republicans, so there's no need to start over - that's just a talking point and political stunt. As they said, incremental steps isn't possible for this type of reform since EVERYTHING is so interconnected; there was even proof: states that did JUST insurance reform, or repealed pre-existing conditions, all had premiums EXPLODE with rate hikes. Makes sense right? If they repeal pre-existing conditions, only the sick get insurance and premiums will obviously explode. I didn't understand how a "high risk pool" was a good idea from the Republicans either... I mean, yes the high-risk people would be able to get insurance, but it would be incredibly expensive. The whole philosophy of insurance is the pool together high-risk and low-risk people, especially when in terms of HEALTH, everyone is at some risk.

I remember there was a heated exchange about whether or not PREMIUMS would rise under the Senate plan. CNN made the verdict that Obama was right, and premiums will decrease by about 14% - however, because everything will be CHEAPER overall, many families would opt for better coverage at the same premium price. This is what the Republican was saying, but really, you still have the option of staying on the cheap insurance that's 14% cheaper than what you're currently paying now. As for raising taxes on Americans? It's ONLY on people that make over $250,000 or a family that makes $500,000 ...there's nothing wrong with that! We're all trying to be doctors, and maybe one day will make that kind of money, will you people really mind paying higher taxes for the poor that are hurting? We'll be way better off and can easily afford to make that slight sacrifice.

No one should say that this is a government take over, the case MIGHT have been made when the public option was in play but that isn't anymore... the Senate Bill just sets REGULATIONS for insurance exchanges. It's like saying the fact that the FDA (food and drug admin.) exists means there's a GOVERNMENT TAKE OVER over what we eat - obviously that's not the case. It just sets regulations on what we eat, making sure nothing is toxic or bad - or in this case, insurance that you pay for and then drop the second you get sick.

And it seemed President Obama is opening to doing tort reform - even though, if it's so important to Republicans, I don't know why they didn't proceed with this sort of bill back when Bush and the Republicans was in charge. It seems as though reconciliation is the way President Obama is going to proceed with.

Loren C------ Republicans, do us all a favor and just STFU!!!
4 hours ago via Mobile Web · Comment · Like

K--- R-------- I wonder what the next evil industry will be destroyed and tens of thousands of workers dismissed in the name of change but the intent to control and redistribution.
5 hours ago via Facebook for iPhone · Comment · Like

K--- R-------- Well, so much for representative govt.
5 hours ago via Facebook for iPhone · Comment · Like

Jessica W------- joined the group I bet we can find 1,000,000+ people who disapprove of the Health Care Bill.
17 hours ago · Comment · LikeUnlike · Join this Group

Mandi T---- I want you all to know that I tried not to do this to you, but I cannot contain myself any longer. HAPPY HEALTHCARE SUCKAAAAAAAA! (yes, yes, yes!)
Yesterday at 11:34pm · Comment · Like

Jessamyn H------ Yay healthcare reform bill! Just in time cause i lose my parents insurance when I graduate
Yesterday at 11:20pm via Facebook for iPhone · Comment · Like

Morgan G----- Uggggh passed healthcare bill..
Yesterday at 10:31pm · Comment · Like

K--- R--------- Sad day for our Country. I know not what choice others may take.... - sadder, that's actually what they want. Arm up brothers.
Yesterday at 5:23pm via Facebook for iPhone · Comment · Like