Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

US health care vote

ObamaCare 2010

  • Please log in to reply
147 replies to this topic

#1 tallulah

tallulah
  • Islander
  • 574 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 12:12 AM

I'm surprised no one has posted this yet.  Here is CNN's report:

vote result

T.

Edited by Dev F, 26 March 2010 - 11:58 AM.
Added cool-it symbol

Three L's and an H.
--The Doctor

Dinner and bondage.  Works for me.
--Margaret, Dr. Who, though, really, it could be anyone

When nice girls learn to respect themselves, they'll always finish first.
--Marin, Men in Trees

#2 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 12:29 AM

I haven't posted because I'm not happy.
Posted Image

#3 Mark

Mark
  • Islander
  • 5,269 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 01:54 AM

Mark: I've already gotten complaints from a friend about people near her who are going to lose their jobs at small businesses because of this. This was not a good bill to pass at this moment in time, and in it's current form.  :headshake:

Edited by Mark, 22 March 2010 - 01:54 AM.

Mark
Discussion is an exchange of knowledge: argument is an exchange of ignorance.
Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the ability to cope with it.
APOGEE MESSAGE BOARD

#4 FnlPrblm

FnlPrblm
  • Administrator
  • 12,507 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 05:24 AM

As much as I'm for a healthcare plan, this one really strikes me as a "I'm now fudged" bill.  Gathering/listening/reading as much info as I could about it over these past few months (even hearing my own democratic representative speak), it really does not sound like a good idea, even if it's good intentions.  At least (as Mark put it), in it's current form.  Forcing those who couldn't afford it to begin with to pick it up at cost (or be hit with large fines), sounds kind of ironic considering how much this was supposed to help those very same people.  Kind of like giving a starving person who couldn't afford food before, a sandwich, then coming around later to collect a food tax somewhat equal to that of the cost of the sandwich.  :crazy:

Maybe I'm missing something. If so, please tell me. :)  (I've tried not getting into these debates until there was an actual final bill on the table.)
"It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes: The Beryl Coronet

The Boscombe Valley Mystery: "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact."

"Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing." --- Ralph Waldo Emerson 'Art,' 1841

"Such welcome and unwelcome things at once, 'Tis hard to reconcile." --- Macbeth IV.III.138-9


LauraBertram.net

"Once in one's life, for one mortal moment, one must make a grab for immortality; if not, one has not lived." -- Sylvester Stallone

Time to eat all your words, swallow your pride, open your eyes...Sowing the Seeds of Love - Tears4Fears

#5 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 06:44 AM

This is not a perfect bill, but if anyone can point me to one of those, I'd be very much interested in reading it.  The bill does, however, do a lot of very good, very overdue things (i.e., insurance company can't drop you for pre-existing condition, post-college kids can stay on their parents' insurance until 26, etc) while leaving open ample room for making improvements down the road.  

I call that a big win.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#6 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,028 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 07:53 AM

http://www.pbs.org/n...comparison.html

"A new 10 percent tax would be levied on indoor tanning services."
Wait, WHAT?

I'm waiting for the inevitable court challenge.  Forcing people to buy health insurance can't possibly stand up.

#7 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 07:53 AM

I agree with Scott. I don't think it goes far enough, but I'm not going to quibble with the improvements and consumer protections this bill brings to us.

http://www.washingto...0032200410.html

Quote

HOW MANY COVERED: 32 million uninsured. Major coverage expansion begins in 2014. When fully phased in, 95 percent of eligible Americans would have coverage, compared with 83 percent today.

INSURANCE MANDATE: Almost everyone is required to be insured or else pay a fine. There is an exemption for low-income people. Mandate takes effect in 2014.

INSURANCE MARKET REFORMS: Starting this year, insurers would be forbidden from placing lifetime dollar limits on policies, from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions, and from canceling policies because someone gets sick. Parents would be able to keep older kids on their coverage up to age 26. A new high-risk pool would offer coverage to uninsured people with medical problems until 2014, when the coverage expansion goes into high gear. Major consumer safeguards would also take effect in 2014. Insurers would be prohibited from denying coverage to people with medical problems or charging them more. Insurers could not charge women more.


MEDICAID: Expands the federal-state Medicaid insurance program for the poor to cover people with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, $29,327 a year for a family of four. Childless adults would be covered for the first time, starting in 2014. The federal government would pay 100 percent of costs for covering newly eligible individuals through 2016. A special deal that would have given Nebraska 100 percent federal financing for newly eligible Medicaid recipients in perpetuity is eliminated. A different, one-time deal negotiated by Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu for her state, Louisiana, worth as much as $300 million, remains.

TAXES: Dramatically scales back a Senate-passed tax on high-cost insurance plans that was opposed by House Democrats and labor unions. The tax would be delayed until 2018, and the thresholds at which it is imposed would be $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. To make up for the lost revenue, the bill applies an increased Medicare payroll tax to the investment income and to the wages of individuals making more than $200,000, or married couples above $250,000. The tax on investment income would be 3.8 percent.

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS: Gradually closes the "doughnut hole" coverage gap in the Medicare prescription drug benefit that seniors fall into once they have spent $2,830. Seniors who hit the gap this year will receive a $250 rebate. Beginning in 2011, seniors in the gap receive a discount on brand name drugs, initially 50 percent off. When the gap is completely eliminated in 2020, seniors will still be responsible for 25 percent of the cost of their medications until Medicare's catastrophic coverage kicks in.

EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY: As in the Senate bill, businesses are not required to offer coverage. Instead, employers are hit with a fee if the government subsidizes their workers' coverage. The $2,000-per-employee fee would be assessed on the company's entire work force, minus an allowance. Companies with 50 or fewer workers are exempt from the requirement. Part-time workers are included in the calculations, counting two part-timers as one full-time worker.

SUBSIDIES: The proposal provides more generous tax credits for purchasing insurance than the original Senate bill did. The aid is available on a sliding scale for households making up to four times the federal poverty level, $88,200 for a family of four. Premiums for a family of four making $44,000 would be capped at around 6 percent of income.

HOW YOU CHOOSE YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE: Small businesses, the self-employed and the uninsured could pick a plan offered through new state-based purchasing pools called exchanges, opening for business in 2014. The exchanges would offer the same kind of purchasing power that employees of big companies benefit from. People working for medium-to-large firms would not see major changes. But if they lose their jobs or strike out on their own, they may be eligible for subsidized coverage through the exchange.

This bill helps the unemployed and the under-employed. There is going to be even more disinformation out there, so it's important to keep checking to see what is in the bill and to take claims of impending doom with a grain of salt.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#8 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 08:30 AM

View PostBklnScott, on Mar 22 2010, 06:44 AM, said:

This is not a perfect bill, but if anyone can point me to one of those, I'd be very much interested in reading it.  The bill does, however, do a lot of very good, very overdue things (i.e., insurance company can't drop you for pre-existing condition, post-college kids can stay on their parents' insurance until 26, etc) while leaving open ample room for making improvements down the road.  

I call that a big win.
I agree. It ain't perfect, but I'd rather we try for an imperfect solution than insist on a perfect solution while clinging to the status quo. But I guess that's the raw essence of liberalism -- to trust that the devil you don't know is at least better than the devil you do -- and I certainly can't begrudge those who are more skeptical.

What I do begrude is the shameful tactics of the Republicans in Congress and the media, who turned what could've been a sober and productive debate over the merits of the proposed solutions into a crazy-town shouting match about socialism and fascism and death panels. They did not represent the kind of genuine skepticism I'm seeing here, or offer the kind of opposing perspective that actually helps to balance the liberal point of view. And the final bill is undoubtedly the worse for it.

In other words, I find it harder to blame liberal and moderative politicians for being liberals and moderates than to blame conservative politicians for acting completely nuts.

#9 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 08:32 AM

View PostOmega, on Mar 22 2010, 08:53 AM, said:

http://www.pbs.org/n...comparison.html

"A new 10 percent tax would be levied on indoor tanning services."
Wait, WHAT?

I'm waiting for the inevitable court challenge.  Forcing people to buy health insurance can't possibly stand up.

"Forcing people to buy health auto insurance can't possibly stand up."  

Oh, wait.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#10 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 09:02 AM

^ You don't have to buy auto insurance. You only have to buy auto insurance if you want the privilege of driving. ETA: Also, I'm not aware of any states that require drivers to purchase auto insurance to cover their car, only damage done to the other car (or injuries inflicted on others).

Edited by Palisade, 22 March 2010 - 09:10 AM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#11 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,028 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 09:05 AM

And that's on a state level, not a federal one.

#12 Vapor Trails

Vapor Trails

    In a world where I feel so small, I can't stop thinking big.

  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 16,523 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 09:40 AM

Whatever. We'll see. As someone who's been boned royally by those in positions of power who could help, saying "it's better than nothing" doesn't cut it for me. Period.

If that annoys some folks, sorry-but harsh experiences have a way of hardening one's skepticism. :suspect:
Posted Image

Politicians are like bananas; they hang together, they're all yellow, and there's not a straight one among them.

"We're relevant for $ and a vote once every two years. Beyond that, we're completely irrelevant, except of course to consume, and preach the gospel according to [insert political demigod here]."--Cait

#13 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 10:02 AM

View PostBklnScott, on Mar 22 2010, 06:32 AM, said:

View PostOmega, on Mar 22 2010, 08:53 AM, said:

http://www.pbs.org/n...comparison.html

"A new 10 percent tax would be levied on indoor tanning services."
Wait, WHAT?

I'm waiting for the inevitable court challenge.  Forcing people to buy health insurance can't possibly stand up.

"Forcing people to buy health auto insurance can't possibly stand up."  

Oh, wait.

COMPLETELY different and you know it.  People have a choice about cars.

Their bodies?  They're stuck with them.
Posted Image

#14 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 10:09 AM

The mandate can't be challenged in court until it takes effect can it?  I mean, no one can have standing in a suit until they're actually forced to buy coverage, correct?

#15 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,028 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 10:18 AM

That's what I thought, but apparently the AG of Virginia believes otherwise.  Anybody know how that works?  I'm curious.

http://www.informati...SSfeed_IWK_News

Quote

"Once the president signs it into law, we'll walk across the street and file suit b/c the ind mandate is unconstitutional," Cuccinelli wrote.

Translation: Cuccinelli, as well as a number of other state officials and lawmakers, believe the bill's requirement that individuals who do not obtain health insurance from their employers must purchase coverage through government-backed exchanges or face fines is not authorized by the Constitution.

Attorneys general in 11 other states are reportedly mulling similar actions.


#16 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 10:34 AM

Don't know off the top of my allergy head.
Posted Image

#17 Vapor Trails

Vapor Trails

    In a world where I feel so small, I can't stop thinking big.

  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 16,523 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 10:44 AM

View PostBad Wolf, on Mar 22 2010, 11:02 AM, said:

View PostBklnScott, on Mar 22 2010, 06:32 AM, said:

View PostOmega, on Mar 22 2010, 08:53 AM, said:

http://www.pbs.org/n...comparison.html

"A new 10 percent tax would be levied on indoor tanning services."
Wait, WHAT?

I'm waiting for the inevitable court challenge.  Forcing people to buy health insurance can't possibly stand up.

"Forcing people to buy health auto insurance can't possibly stand up."  

Oh, wait.

COMPLETELY different and you know it.  People have a choice about cars.

Their bodies?  They're stuck with them.

(Saul looks at himself in the mirror)

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww..... :barf: :yucky:
Posted Image

Politicians are like bananas; they hang together, they're all yellow, and there's not a straight one among them.

"We're relevant for $ and a vote once every two years. Beyond that, we're completely irrelevant, except of course to consume, and preach the gospel according to [insert political demigod here]."--Cait

#18 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,316 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 10:49 AM

Well, if they decide that the mandate is unconstitutional, I won't complain.  President Obama didn't run on mandates, and I'd like to see them go.  I'd feel way better if some of the other cost measures that got watered down get beefed up again to compensate.  It would be even more awesome if the Supreme Court tuled that if the government makes a mandate, the government has to provide an option.  But I guess that's asking a lot of this Supreme Court. ;)

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#19 Balthamos

Balthamos

    Once more unto the breach!

  • Islander
  • 2,280 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 10:56 AM

How would people feel if the USSC declares it unconstitutional. Does that give you the bill without the mandate or is the whole thing scrapped?

Is the bill better off without the mandate?

#20 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 11:36 AM

View PostQueenTiye, on Mar 22 2010, 11:49 AM, said:

Well, if they decide that the mandate is unconstitutional, I won't complain.  President Obama didn't run on mandates, and I'd like to see them go.  I'd feel way better if some of the other cost measures that got watered down get beefed up again to compensate.  It would be even more awesome if the Supreme Court tuled that if the government makes a mandate, the government has to provide an option.  But I guess that's asking a lot of this Supreme Court. ;)

QT

Strictly speaking, it isn't actually a "mandate" per se.  You don't go to jail by not getting health insurance, it's just a tax penalty.  So I don't think the Supes can really strike it down.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: ObamaCare, 2010

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users