Nov 21, 2009

Historic health care reform bill moves forward

Good news Saturday night when the U.S. Senate voted 60-39 to allow debate on the historic health care legislation.

The majority of Americans want health care reform -since President Roosevelt, Teddy that is, yet every single Republican voted to block debate. They didn’t necessarily vote against the bill itself, they voted against even debating the bill. All the Democrats and independents did the right thing and stood up for the American people, and Republicans, again, stood up for rich insurance company CEOs.

Lie after Republican lie has been debunked, and it continued tonight. Amazing; they all voted against even debating the bill. I say, fine; then you don’t get to debate the bill.

After all, they have not offered any real plan of their own, and all they can do is say no and block real reform. All they want is the status quo.


liberalshateusa said...

That is good Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) vote only cost taxpayer 300 million. What will the file tally be? Was the demorats not the party that wanted to end the culture of corruption?

Communications guru said...

That’s all you got, hate the USA? The $100 million in Medicaid funds went into her pocket? No, it went to sick kids and the working poor. How corrupt she is. You really do hate the USA, don’t you hate?

Not Anonymous said...

Debate begins on the Senate bill. Higher taxes for all. Not just those making over $250,000.

Additional taxes because insurance companies will be taxed and that is always passed on to the consumer. Companies don't pay taxes.

Government panels to decide if you're worthy enough to get care, such as women under 50 not getting mammograms and women now getting pap smears every two years rather than every year.

If this passes, which I'm not so certain of, this will be entirely a Socialist Democrat plan which means that when it fails, and it will, it will be the Socialist Democrats to blame for it.

This will also guarantee victory in 2010 for Republicans and Conservatives because the majority of the American people do not like what they know of this bill and they don't even know the bulk of it yet since it's only been out there for three days.

Congrats to the Socialist Democrats. Your plan to socialize America is taking shape.

By the way, the Republicans have had a plan out there. Status quo is not what the Republicans are for. Even if I didn't know that, I'd know it for certain after hearing a moron say that the Republicans are only for the status quo.

Communications guru said...

A debate on health care reform? Sorry, anonymous, we can’t have one of those; your corporate shrills knows as Republicans voted not to have a debate. But I’ll do it anyway, even though when you lose, anonymous, you will just stoop to your standard debate tactic of false, personal smears.

Sorry, you are wrong; it will not mean, “higher taxes for all.” But, even if that were the case, I don’t care if it increases taxes. We are spending $2 trillion per year on health care. One person goes bankrupt due to health care costs every 30 seconds. The fact is many of the more than 50 million Americans without health care use the ER to treat major problems that were once minor problems that could have been taken care of cheaply and with minimal care in a doctor‘s office. The hospital cannot collect from those people. The fact is a subsidized public plan does collect a premium. Just eliminating the waste in the system will pay for the plan. For example, we would save $177 billion in unwarranted subsidies to the insurance industry in the next 10 and put that money into actual care for people.

The old government panels lie. Nor true. It didn’t take long for right-wingers to jump on the mammogram lie. The AP reported that the independent panel, the Preventive Services Task Force, released a recommendation that women not routinely undergo mammograms until age 50. Note the words “recommendation.” The fact is, insurance companies routinely deny care, refuse to cover accepted medical process by calling them “experimental” and accepting premiums for years then refusing to cover people by claiming a “pre-existing condition.” That’s not a recommendation. Why is that OK with you, anonymous?

There is no such thing as a “socialist Democrat” in this county, and that is just a fascist Republican talking point.

People have been pushing for health care reform since TR’s time. I like Democrats and the country’s prospects in 2010.

The Republicans do have a plan, but not a serious one. Plus, it is not nearly as good as the Democrats’ plan, and it is basically the status quo. The fact is the grand oil party plan is to just to say no.

From the Washington Post, based on the CBO report:
“The Congressional Budget Office released its initial analysis of the health-care reform plan that Republican Minority Leader John Boehner offered as a substitute to the Democratic legislation. CBO begins with the baseline estimate that 17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won't have health-care insurance in 2010. In 2019, after 10 years of the Republican plan, CBO estimates that ...17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won't have health-care insurance. The Republican alternative will have helped 3 million people secure coverage, which is barely keeping up with population growth. Compare that to the Democratic bill, which covers 36 million more people and cuts the uninsured population to 4 percent.

But maybe, you say, the Republican bill does a really good job cutting costs. According to CBO, the GOP's alternative will shave $68 billion off the deficit in the next 10 years. The Democrats, CBO says, will slice $104 billion off the deficit.

The Democratic bill, in other words, covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan. And amazingly, the Democratic bill has already been through three committees and a merger process. It's already been shown to interest groups and advocacy organizations and industry stakeholders. It's already made its compromises with reality. It's already been through the legislative sausage grinder. And yet it saves more money and covers more people than the blank-slate alternative proposed by John Boehner and the House Republicans. The Democrats, constrained by reality, produced a far better plan than Boehner, who was constrained solely by his political imagination and legislative skill.”