I would have preferred that Obamacare had kept the public option, and I'm a Republican voter.

[JAL]

Seems sort of pointless now, but at the same time, I really never had any faith in our politicians to do anything useful. From the beginning, I figured it would either die in committee or become so watered down that both sides would claim victory while nothing would really change.

 

[hakr100]

Rome was not built in a day.

 

[Crude]

Seems sort of pointless now, but at the same time, I really never had any faith in our politicians to do anything useful. From the beginning, I figured it would either die in committee or become so watered down that both sides would claim victory while nothing would really change.

Give it a few years then lets talk. The real effect of this won't be seem for 10 years and it will be blamed on Bush.

 

[JAL]

It's blamed on Bush now.

 

[mike114]

JAL wrote "I would have preferred that Obamacare had kept the public option, and I'm a Republican voter."

Exactly what type of a Republican are you? The big gov't liberal type? Talk about a contradiction in beliefs. And I'm sorry to say, but it's people like you that are wrong with republicans today.

 

[ElasticNinja]

JAL wrote "I would have preferred that Obamacare had kept the public option, and I'm a Republican voter."

Exactly what type of a Republican are you? The big gov't liberal type? Talk about a contradiction in beliefs. And I'm sorry to say, but it's people like you that are wrong with republicans today.

Oh my....



Regulations put in place in the 30's to stop another Crash were gradually removed in the 80's

Guess what happened because of this?


BOOOOOOM!

 

[byteware]

Oh my....



Regulations put in place in the 30's to stop another Crash were gradually removed in the 80's

Guess what happened because of this?


BOOOOOOM!

Actually, this was caused more by banks being forced to make bad loans.

Businesses, by nature, don't do things that are bad for business. When they were forced to make subprime loans, they found a way to get those loans off their balance sheets. They bundled their loans and sold them.

Those bad loans eventually went under, which was why banks didn't make them before they were forced to make them.

 

[byteware]

Seems sort of pointless now, but at the same time, I really never had any faith in our politicians to do anything useful. From the beginning, I figured it would either die in committee or become so watered down that both sides would claim victory while nothing would really change.

I understand what you want here. However, the government is not capable of doing this well.

The Government cannot provide goods and services with any kind of competency. It's the nature of bureaucracy. The bureaucracy of government is ten times the bureaucracy of insurance companies. We WILL be worse off.

 

[ElasticNinja]

I understand what you want here. However, the government is not capable of doing this well.

The Government cannot provide goods and services with any kind of competency. It's the nature of bureaucracy. The bureaucracy of government is ten times the bureaucracy of insurance companies. We WILL be worse off.

Personally, if universal care is unimplentable (for whatever reason), I think having a system where the state pays for insurance for the poor would work well.

This way smokers could have to pay extra too.

Anyway I guess what Obama has done is a start to this

 

[byteware]

Personally, if universal care is unimplentable (for whatever reason), I think having a system where the state pays for insurance for the poor would work well.

This way smokers could have to pay extra too.

Anyway I guess what Obama has done is a start to this

Unfortunately no. What Obama has done will be undone before it ever gets fully implemented. Obama assumed that since his party had complete control of Congress, that he didn't need to be bipartisan in how the bill was passed.

ALL major legislation, including the Civil Rights Bill, have been passed in a bipartisan manner. The main reason that this was done was because a partisan bill that disrupts the status quo in a major way will just be repealed when the next party comes to power.

It will be repealed. Something will take it's place, and if the Republicans are smart, they will pass it in a bipartisan manner. A bipartisan committee will be formed to meet behind closed doors. If we are lucky, it will be a bill that Insurance companies grudgingly accept, instead of wholeheartedly support.

 

[mike114]

Actually, this was caused more by banks being forced to make bad loans.

Businesses, by nature, don't do things that are bad for business. When they were forced to make subprime loans, they found a way to get those loans off their balance sheets. They bundled their loans and sold them.

Those bad loans eventually went under, which was why banks didn't make them before they were forced to make them.

Bingo!!

And if well regulated companies are the utopia liberals dream about, please explain the continuing failure of Fannie and Fredie. They are 2 of the most regulated entities in the country and they FAILED miserably.

 

[Crude]

Unfortunately no. What Obama has done will be undone before it ever gets fully implemented. Obama assumed that since his party had complete control of Congress, that he didn't need to be bipartisan in how the bill was passed.

ALL major legislation, including the Civil Rights Bill, have been passed in a bipartisan manner. The main reason that this was done was because a partisan bill that disrupts the status quo in a major way will just be repealed when the next party comes to power.

It will be repealed. Something will take it's place, and if the Republicans are smart, they will pass it in a bipartisan manner. A bipartisan committee will be formed to meet behind closed doors. If we are lucky, it will be a bill that Insurance companies grudgingly accept, instead of wholeheartedly support.

wow that's worded well

 

[Familyguy1]

I feel a need to respond...

"If the Republicans are smart, they will pass it in a bipartisan manner"

Keyword is If, most likely it will not happen, there is a chance...but a very slim chance.

 

[mike114]

Unfortunately no. What Obama has done will be undone before it ever gets fully implemented. Obama assumed that since his party had complete control of Congress, that he didn't need to be bipartisan in how the bill was passed.

ALL major legislation, including the Civil Rights Bill, have been passed in a bipartisan manner. The main reason that this was done was because a partisan bill that disrupts the status quo in a major way will just be repealed when the next party comes to power.

It will be repealed. Something will take it's place, and if the Republicans are smart, they will pass it in a bipartisan manner. A bipartisan committee will be formed to meet behind closed doors. If we are lucky, it will be a bill that Insurance companies grudgingly accept, instead of wholeheartedly support.

Good post up until the last paragraph. Yes, Obamacare should be repealed, but it certainly should NOT be replaced. Big republican government is just as bad as big democratic government. All federal mandates should also be repealed and tort reform must be passed. Allow for companies to sell insurance across state lines and keep the feds completely out of it.

This is an issue for the states, let them handle any problems with healthcare within their respective states.

 

[AndyLL]

Unfortunately no. What Obama has done will be undone before it ever gets fully implemented. Obama assumed that since his party had complete control of Congress, that he didn't need to be bipartisan in how the bill was passed.

You're joking right? They bent over backwards adding Republican ideas to try to get a few Republican senators.

State Exchanges instead of Public Option - Republican idea

Force mandates through Insurance Companies instead of lower medicare age - Republican idea

Force Companies to provide insurance - Republican idea

Tax cadillac plans to pay for uninsured - Replublican idea

Almost every idea in the plan was at one time proposed by a republican...

The plan itself was modeled after a republican govenors plan.

ALL major legislation, including the Civil Rights Bill, have been passed in a bipartisan manner. The main reason that this was done was because a partisan bill that disrupts the status quo in a major way will just be repealed when the next party comes to power.

Joking again right?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was one of the most contentious bills ever to be passed.

It was the bill that lead to the filibuster rule changes in the Senate because it took so much time. ( a filibuster stopped all other work )

Byrd filibustered for over 14 hours. ( back then you had to actually address the chamber during a filibuster )

If Kennedy would not have been assassinated it would not have even come to a vote.

Don't be fooled by the party votes... this was the final straw for the Dixiecrats and lead to decades of southern states trying to override the federal law.

It will be repealed. Something will take it's place, and if the Republicans are smart, they will pass it in a bipartisan manner. A bipartisan committee will be formed to meet behind closed doors. If we are lucky, it will be a bill that Insurance companies grudgingly accept, instead of wholeheartedly support.

Not a chance. In reality the individual pieces of Obamacare are fairly popular.

The scare tactics used to drive public opposition to the bill don't exist in the bill so you can't repeal them:

You can't repeal death panels because they don't exist.

You can't repeal federally funded abortions because they don't exist.

You are not going to repeal the mandate because the insurance companies do not want it repealed.

Remove the cadillac tax?... the unions would love that

Talk of repealing it is just lip service to get the base riled up ensure that they'll vote... just like all the gay marriage state admenments did in 2004.

 

[byteware]

You're joking right? They bent over backwards adding Republican ideas to try to get a few Republican senators.

There are a couple of things you don't understand.

1) Bipartisan means that the bill is drafted together, pushed through together, and passed together. This bill was presented to the Republicans, and a few changes were made in an attempt to get some on board.

2) Most of the changes made to the bill were done to bring Democrats on board. The bill did not have enough Democrat votes as it was to pass.

3) You should not believe everything your politicians tell you, simply because you are in the same party.

State Exchanges instead of Public Option - Republican idea

Force mandates through Insurance Companies instead of lower medicare age - Republican idea

Force Companies to provide insurance - Republican idea

Tax cadillac plans to pay for uninsured - Replublican idea

Almost every idea in the plan was at one time proposed by a republican...

The plan itself was modeled after a republican govenors plan.

Being able to point to A Republican who put an idea forward does not make the idea a "Republican idea". It means that one politician from the Republican party supported that idea.

Joking again right?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was one of the most contentious bills ever to be passed.

Joking? You don't understand at all do you. There will be important contentious laws that need passing. As contentious as the Civil Rights Act was, why was it never repealed? Because it was passed in a bipartisan manner. Look at the votes for the bill.

Vote totals
Totals are in "Yea-Nay" format:
The original House version: 290-130 (69%

 

[byteware]

Good post up until the last paragraph. Yes, Obamacare should be repealed, but it certainly should NOT be replaced. Big republican government is just as bad as big democratic government. All federal mandates should also be repealed and tort reform must be passed. Allow for companies to sell insurance across state lines and keep the feds completely out of it.

This is an issue for the states, let them handle any problems with healthcare within their respective states.

I'm not looking for Big any government. What I am looking for is something to be done about Health Care. Some of the things we believe are similar. However, something needs to be done about access to health care for the poor. Maybe government run clinics where new doctors can serve for a year (2,3,4,5 maybe) and have their college debts paid off? Things of that nature.

 

[AndyLL]

I'll ignore the civil rights debate. You obviously did not live in the south during the 60s. Anyone that believes that the civil rights battle was bi-partiasn need to do some reading.

I'm glad you think so. If you really want reform, then it will not make Insurance Companies happy. If you really want reform, you need to start with removing the barriers for insurance companies to compete across state lines. This will increase competition and naturally reduce rates.

If you want reform, start with WHY rates are high. Make a move towards increasing the numbers of doctors and nurses entering school so that we can deal with the nurse and doctor shortage. Doing away with short term nursing relocation contracts will go a long way towards reducing the costs of health care. We are currently short 100,000 nurses nationwide, and that's expected to grow to 500,000 by 2018. That alone raises the price of health care.

The next thing you should address are out of control malpractice suits. This is difficult, but I like the way Britain's process was described to me. Each suit must first pass through a panel of three judges. If it is determined frivolous, it does not pass, and the defendant does not have to pay a dime. As a lawyer, if you bring three frivolous lawsuits within a certain amount of time, then you lose your license to practice law. This allows for multimillion dollar judgments where it is warranted, without subjecting doctors to frivolous lawsuits that they will need to defend against.

These are but a few of the things that could/should be done before you even start doing anything else.

So lets talk about health care reform. You trot out the main 2 republican ideas.

1) buying across state lines. If this was such a great idea then why did the republicans insist that the health care exchanges be state based instead of national based? A national exchange would have allowed non-group policy buyers to purchase insurance policies across state lines.

A red herring... when it comes to legislation republican politicians do not want it because insuance companies do not want it.

2) Malpractice - States that have capped malpractice suits have had HC costs rise as fast as those that haven't.

3) Welcome to the dark side comrade. Hard to think of ways to increase Drs and nurses without subsidizing the huge cost/time of educating them. I'm all for it even if it was just low cost government loans.

 

[byteware]

I'll ignore the civil rights debate. You obviously did not live in the south during the 60s. Anyone that believes that the civil rights battle was bi-partiasn need to do some reading.



So lets talk about health care reform. You trot out the main 2 republican ideas.

1) buying across state lines. If this was such a great idea then why did the republicans insist that the health care exchanges be state based instead of national based? A national exchange would have allowed non-group policy buyers to purchase insurance policies across state lines.

A red herring... when it comes to legislation republican politicians do not want it because insuance companies do not want it.

I don't see your point here... Are you stating that it's NOT a good idea?

2) Malpractice - States that have capped malpractice suits have had HC costs rise as fast as those that haven't.

Did you read my post at all? I'm not advocating capping malpractice suits. I'm advocating a system to weed out frivolous lawsuits and prevent them from ever going to trial.

Even if you cap malpractice suits, the insurance company still has to defend against them. They still have costs. If you prevent them from ever going to trial in the first place, then there is no cost to the doctor or insurance company, and costs can begin to decrease.

3) Welcome to the dark side comrade. Hard to think of ways to increase Drs and nurses without subsidizing the huge cost/time of educating them. I'm all for it even if it was just low cost government loans.

Dark side? There are some things that the federal government HAS to do. National Defense, oil spill response, national disaster response, etc...

Doctors and Nurses are a national resource that is getting dangerously low (especially primary care physicians). If nothing is done, then there won't be any way to get medical care at all, and the conversation will be moot.

I'll ignore the civil rights debate. You obviously did not live in the south during the 60s. Anyone that believes that the civil rights battle was bi-partiasn need to do some reading.

Maybe you should look a little better at the voting record for the Civil Rights Act. Republicans voted for it at a higher percentage than Democrats, but the majority of BOTH voted for it.

Maybe your perception at the time was that a particular party in the South was opposed. That's true. The South was opposed. It tended to be BOTH parties that were opposed in the South however.

In DC, the effort for the CRA was a bipartisan effort. If you can't see that simply from the voting record... I don't know what to tell you. Just that, your perception of the history is wrong.

 

[AndyLL]

I don't see your point here... Are you stating that it's NOT a good idea?

I'm on the fence. I don't believe it will reduce costs however. (except in a few states)

In general there has been huge consolidation in insurance companies that in general they are in all states already even if their books are state specific.

Did you read my post at all? I'm not advocating capping malpractice suits. I'm advocating a system to weed out frivolous lawsuits and prevent them from ever going to trial.

Already happened. Unfortionately hasn't had much effect.

Dark side? There are some things that the federal government HAS to do. National Defense, oil spill response, national disaster response, etc...

Doctors and Nurses are a national resource that is getting dangerously low (especially primary care physicians). If nothing is done, then there won't be any way to get medical care at all, and the conversation will be moot.

I wish more conservative believed this. I believe higher education... even vocational training, is a huge benifit for for our country.

Maybe you should look a little better at the voting record for the Civil Rights Act. Republicans voted for it at a higher percentage than Democrats, but the majority of BOTH voted for it.

Sorry... as a history major I must politly say you are wrong.

For civil rights you have to go back to at least lincoln. Parties do not matter because this was the issue that reformated the parties.

It has always been a north/south issue.

Lincoln, and the republican's were the progressives at the time. Southern republican's joined the southern democrates as states rightists over slavery. In short the northern republicans/democrates became the progressive democratic party and southern politicians became the current republican party.

Many southern democrates to this day are more conservative then northern republicans.

The laws passed because in those days filibusters shut down government and a face saving compomise became law.

the battle then shifted to the states.

Anyone who thinks the civil rights laws had a hand-holding bi-partisan suport never lived through desegregation.

 

[byteware]

Anyone who thinks the civil rights laws had a hand-holding bi-partisan suport never lived through desegregation.

I never said everyone supported it. But those that supported it were on both sides of the aisle. Those that were against it, were on both sides of the aisle.

Just because the bill and it's support was bipartisan, doesn't mean that EVERYONE supported it from both parties, or that it wasn't an ugly process.

If you are a history major, it's striking how much you don't seem to understand that politics of a situation.

 

[TheBeardedMann]

Rome was not built in a day.

Yeah, but it burnt in 5 1/2 days.