The only people that wouldn't be worried are retards and the very wealthy. Anyone who understands why we have taxes, and what those taxes pay for would be worried.
See, I thought you were discussing how the two different ideas up there could be taken by the public at large ("how could that fly better"), rather than which is the better idea to help fund this thing.
The only people that wouldn't be worried are retards and the very wealthy. Anyone who understands why we have taxes, and what those taxes pay for would be worried.
See, I thought you were discussing how the two different ideas up there could be taken by the public at large ("how could that fly better"), rather than which is the better idea to help fund this thing.
The only people that wouldn't be worried are retards and the very wealthy. Anyone who understands why we have taxes, and what those taxes pay for would be worried.
See, I thought you were discussing how the two different ideas up there could be taken by the public at large ("how could that fly better"), rather than which is the better idea to help fund this thing.
Oh no, that wasn't I was discussing at all.
Misunderstanding then. I'm used to that phrase being used as a "how will people take the news" kind of thing.
And really what the public thinks about a particular bill has very little to do with how it will actually perform.
Retconn on
0
Options
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
edited December 2009
Also, the tax hike nexuscrawler was referring to is the income tax hike on those earning over 500k (for families, 250k for individuals, I think), not the fees assessed to small businesses that don't provide health insurance.
In other news, what does everybody think of the idea of the house just passing the senate bill as is, skipping over the conference but also skipping over the need to send it back to the senate for another run past the Lieberman/Nelson cloture gauntlet? Personally, I think that it would be a smart move, and, consequently, not very likely to happen.
Also, the tax hike nexuscrawler was referring to is the income tax hike on those earning over 500k (for families, 250k for individuals, I think), not the fees assessed to small businesses that don't provide health insurance.
In other news, what does everybody think of the idea of the house just passing the senate bill as is, skipping over the conference but also skipping over the need to send it back to the senate for another run past the Lieberman/Nelson cloture gauntlet? Personally, I think that it would be a smart move, and, consequently, not very likely to happen.
I dislike the idea for a couple reasons. First, the Senate needs to remember that they aren't the only house of Congress and that they do, in fact, need to compromise and negotiate with the House. Second, some bad bits need to be smoothed over or nixed from the Senate bill in exchange for losing some stuff that Conservadems are gonna bitch about. So long as the conservadem holdouts are in the room, there's no reason the final bill shouldn't be passable by both houses.
Also, the tax hike nexuscrawler was referring to is the income tax hike on those earning over 500k (for families, 250k for individuals, I think), not the fees assessed to small businesses that don't provide health insurance.
In other news, what does everybody think of the idea of the house just passing the senate bill as is, skipping over the conference but also skipping over the need to send it back to the senate for another run past the Lieberman/Nelson cloture gauntlet? Personally, I think that it would be a smart move, and, consequently, not very likely to happen.
I dislike the idea for a couple reasons. First, the Senate needs to remember that they aren't the only house of Congress and that they do, in fact, need to compromise and negotiate with the House. Second, some bad bits need to be smoothed over or nixed from the Senate bill in exchange for losing some stuff that Conservadems are gonna bitch about. So long as the conservadem holdouts are in the room, there's no reason the final bill shouldn't be passable by both houses.
I doubt they would have set all this in to motion without pre-arranging compromises to be made in the conference to ensure passage.
So when doctors whine about Medicare reimbursement rates, the proper response is to tell them "Well, you shouldn't have tried to kill it in the first place - maybe then you would have had some say in what the rates are?"
Yes, but what if we aren't talking to a 100 year old doctor?
I mean, even if I were inclined to blame every single doctor for the lobbying strategy decided on not by them but by their professional organization, there would surely have to be a generational limit on my vengeful bitchiness.
The advisory board as it is now written can decide on whatever they want. They already do this. The US Preventive Services Task Force makes up guidelines that the insurance companies use as the gold standard. They recently decided women don't need mammograms til they're 50. The American Cancer Society and pretty much every physician disagrees. Not surprisingly at least 2 members of the task force are linked to insurance companies. Their recommendation basically says insurance companies do not need to cover elective mammograms til age 50. They can if they want to.
Very long I know, but I also know this guy is a doctor, so is this true? Pretty shitty if it is
A page or so back, but this really cheeses my shorts so I'm bringing it back.
Say it all together now, "DOCTORS ARE NOT INFALLIBLE!" The whole "mammograms before 50 don't really help" is exactly what we need to be doing to control costs. Some doggs looked at some data, and they saw that doing mammograms before the age of 50 didn't really catch much and were generally just a waste of money. But doctors get paid for every mammogram that gets done, so they said "No, you better still do a whole lot of mammograms!" Just like how auto mechanics would love it if you'd bring in your car for an examination every 10,000 miles. Doctors have a financial incentive to prescribe useless care - since we as a society lionize doctors and generally do what they say unconditionally, a lot of unnecessary care gets consumed, with no benefit to the consumer. If we want to control costs, the whole "no mammograms before 50" is exactly the kind of thing we need to be doing.
So when doctors whine about Medicare reimbursement rates, the proper response is to tell them "Well, you shouldn't have tried to kill it in the first place - maybe then you would have had some say in what the rates are?"
Yes, but what if we aren't talking to a 100 year old doctor?
I mean, even if I were inclined to blame every single doctor for the lobbying strategy decided on not by them but by their professional organization, there would surely have to be a generational limit on my vengeful bitchiness.
Yes, how dare we refer to a group as a collective entity. Fucking English language.
The professional organization as a whole is made up from the sum of its parts. They're repeating the exact same mistakes that they made decades ago.
The advisory board as it is now written can decide on whatever they want. They already do this. The US Preventive Services Task Force makes up guidelines that the insurance companies use as the gold standard. They recently decided women don't need mammograms til they're 50. The American Cancer Society and pretty much every physician disagrees. Not surprisingly at least 2 members of the task force are linked to insurance companies. Their recommendation basically says insurance companies do not need to cover elective mammograms til age 50. They can if they want to.
Very long I know, but I also know this guy is a doctor, so is this true? Pretty shitty if it is
A page or so back, but this really cheeses my shorts so I'm bringing it back.
Say it all together now, "DOCTORS ARE NOT INFALLIBLE!" The whole "mammograms before 50 don't really help" is exactly what we need to be doing to control costs. Some doggs looked at some data, and they saw that doing mammograms before the age of 50 didn't really catch much and were generally just a waste of money. But doctors get paid for every mammogram that gets done, so they said "No, you better still do a whole lot of mammograms!" Just like how auto mechanics would love it if you'd bring in your car for an examination every 10,000 miles. Doctors have a financial incentive to prescribe useless care - since we as a society lionize doctors and generally do what they say unconditionally, a lot of unnecessary care gets consumed, with no benefit to the consumer. If we want to control costs, the whole "no mammograms before 50" is exactly the kind of thing we need to be doing.
As I've said many times before, the entire provider community needs to understand that costs need to come down, which means their prices will need to come down. There is currently no price competition between providers, partly due to unionization and partly due to prices not being posted. If we can get posted prices and actually be able to shop around for the best prices for the services, maybe it'll help. I'm still of the opinion, though, that some price controls will be needed eventually.
But do you go to the doctor that will give you a colonoscopy for 40 bucks, or the doctor that all your family and friends say is the best? How do you determine which doctor will actually give you the better care?
But do you go to the doctor that will give you a colonoscopy for 40 bucks, or the doctor that all your family and friends say is the best? How do you determine which doctor will actually give you the better care?
But do you go to the doctor that will give you a colonoscopy for 40 bucks, or the doctor that all your family and friends say is the best? How do you determine which doctor will actually give you the better care?
This is pretty much how we evaluate other items/services now. Medical care is one of the few where we're ignorant of the true costs and can't/don't shop around. Of course, the insurers are totally aware, so that's why you find that once you get on a plan you're restricted to certain doctors unless you're willing to go out of network.
Anyway, I'm really hoping that the 80% stipulation gets bumped up in the conference bill. And I'm miffed that the drug re-importation thing was chopped from the Senate bill but the WH is throwing it out as a bone for progressives for the conference bill, despite the fact that it probably won't make the cut.
But do you go to the doctor that will give you a colonoscopy for 40 bucks, or the doctor that all your family and friends say is the best? How do you determine which doctor will actually give you the better care?
Facebook app?
I'm not really kidding.
A++++++++++++++++++++ would get colonoscopy from again!!!1
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
So.... John Ensign(R, of course), is now saying that the bill should be struck down as unconstitutional because of the mandate, basically saying that forcing Americans to buy something is something that congress totally can't do, and now he's saying that really the fine is a tax that's even worse than normal taxes because illegal immigrants won't pay it.
I'm not sure which is worse, that he's arguing against something that of course we need in the bill or that it was another republican yesterday who was arguing against the bill because people just wouldn't buy health insurance.
They don't even have any sort of consistency now, they're just yelling loudly about anything they can.
Khavall on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
So.... John Ensign(R, of course), is now saying that the bill should be struck down as unconstitutional because of the mandate, basically saying that forcing Americans to buy something is something that congress totally can't do, and now he's saying that really the fine is a tax that's even worse than normal taxes because illegal immigrants won't pay it.
I'm not sure which is worse, that he's arguing against something that of course we need in the bill or that it was another republican yesterday who was arguing against the bill because people just wouldn't buy health insurance.
They don't even have any sort of consistency now, they're just yelling loudly about anything they can.
Are republicans allowed to plead constitutionality?
Well, I guess they are, but they simply have to somehow be more humble about it. You can't invoke something you evidently do not respect, unless you readily accept blame as well and recognize how you yourself have weakened its power and meaning.
So.... John Ensign(R, of course), is now saying that the bill should be struck down as unconstitutional because of the mandate, basically saying that forcing Americans to buy something is something that congress totally can't do, and now he's saying that really the fine is a tax that's even worse than normal taxes because illegal immigrants won't pay it.
I'm not sure which is worse, that he's arguing against something that of course we need in the bill or that it was another republican yesterday who was arguing against the bill because people just wouldn't buy health insurance.
They don't even have any sort of consistency now, they're just yelling loudly about anything they can.
Are republicans allowed to plead constitutionality?
Well, I guess they are, but they simply have to somehow be more humble about it. You can't invoke something you evidently do not respect, unless you readily accept blame as well and recognize how you yourself have weakened its power and meaning.
I think someone would have to be hurt physically or financially by the law once enacted to have standing and then they would have to take it all the way to the supreme court to challenge the constitutionality of it.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Did I just hear right that the final vote is at 8PM tonight? Is that actually going to happen? I haven't been able to figure out or find the schedule.
Also, seriously, the pubs are just either yelling out lies or complaining about the fact that the dems didn't crumble and give in to all their demands
My understanding is that the final vote for the Senate bill is 7pm on the 24th. There's going to be a vote on something today, and there's be another one tomorrow, but final passage is Thursday.
Then it's a matter of getting conference finished up and passed before SoTU.
Did I just hear right that the final vote is at 8PM tonight? Is that actually going to happen? I haven't been able to figure out or find the schedule.
Also, seriously, the pubs are just either yelling out lies or complaining about the fact that the dems didn't crumble and give in to all their demands
My understanding is that the final vote for the Senate bill is 7pm on the 24th. There's going to be a vote on something today, and there's be another one tomorrow, but final passage is Thursday.
Then it's a matter of getting conference finished up and passed before SoTU.
They moved it up to the morning of Christmas Eve at some point today.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
edited December 2009
Which gives them what? A week in conference? Considering that SotU is on the 20th(21st?) of January, and recess is until like the 4th.... That's at most 16 days for conference. At the longest.
Which gives them what? A week in conference? Considering that SotU is on the 20th(21st?) of January, and recess is until like the 4th.... That's at most 16 days for conference. At the longest.
Can we do this?
Where'd you get the 20th from? It just has to occur at some point in January and even that's just due to tradition.
Also, you do realize that political negotiations and maneuvering doesn't only happen when people are on the clock, right?
moniker on
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Which gives them what? A week in conference? Considering that SotU is on the 20th(21st?) of January, and recess is until like the 4th.... That's at most 16 days for conference. At the longest.
Can we do this?
Where'd you get the 20th from? It just has to occur at some point in January and even that's just due to tradition.
Also, you do realize that political negotiations and maneuvering doesn't only happen when people are on the clock, right?
But isn't that the traditional time? Sometime around Jan 20th? Kinda like the innauguration? I could be very wrong, but that's vaguely what I remember it being around.
And Yes, smart ass, I do realize that, but still. They do get to sleep at some point. They are all rather old people, they do need their naps. It still seem a bit rushed.
And no, I'm not saying that's a bad thing, other than rushing too much might mean that conference will miss things.
Which gives them what? A week in conference? Considering that SotU is on the 20th(21st?) of January, and recess is until like the 4th.... That's at most 16 days for conference. At the longest.
Can we do this?
Where'd you get the 20th from? It just has to occur at some point in January and even that's just due to tradition.
Also, you do realize that political negotiations and maneuvering doesn't only happen when people are on the clock, right?
But isn't that the traditional time? Sometime around Jan 20th? Kinda like the innauguration? I could be very wrong, but that's vaguely what I remember it being around.
And Yes, smart ass, I do realize that, but still. They do get to sleep at some point. They are all rather old people, they do need their naps. It still seem a bit rushed.
And no, I'm not saying that's a bad thing, other than rushing too much might mean that conference will miss things.
The 2008 SoTU was on January 28th, 2006 was on the 31st.
And most staffers are in their 30's.
moniker on
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Which gives them what? A week in conference? Considering that SotU is on the 20th(21st?) of January, and recess is until like the 4th.... That's at most 16 days for conference. At the longest.
Can we do this?
Where'd you get the 20th from? It just has to occur at some point in January and even that's just due to tradition.
Also, you do realize that political negotiations and maneuvering doesn't only happen when people are on the clock, right?
But isn't that the traditional time? Sometime around Jan 20th? Kinda like the innauguration? I could be very wrong, but that's vaguely what I remember it being around.
And Yes, smart ass, I do realize that, but still. They do get to sleep at some point. They are all rather old people, they do need their naps. It still seem a bit rushed.
And no, I'm not saying that's a bad thing, other than rushing too much might mean that conference will miss things.
The 2008 SoTU was on January 28th, 2006 was on the 31st.
And most staffers are in their 30's.
I stand corrected then.
And I have the strong desire to stick my tongue out at you right now.
But again, how much of this type of negotiations are staffed out? Am I one of the few that might be too paranoid to send my young staffer or intern to do these negotiations and worry that they might do things against my wishes? Like approve a public option being placed back in?
Or is that just my being paranoid?
Also Rep Sestak (D-PA) was just on msnbc saying he will fight in conference for public option.
But do you go to the doctor that will give you a colonoscopy for 40 bucks, or the doctor that all your family and friends say is the best? How do you determine which doctor will actually give you the better care?
Facebook app?
I'm not really kidding.
A++++++++++++++++++++ would get colonoscopy from again!!!1
You laugh, some cry, and I for one support the inevitable march of technology.
Videoconferencing for doctor visits is on the rise. It costs $45, regardless if do you don't have insurance. They're able to write prescriptions for anything that isn't a controlled substance. They hope to soon be able to have full access your medical history, and some competitors have already expanded services to mental health and other areas.
Apparently some hospitals already use internal videoconferencing so that doctors can direct hospital employees without needing to run around the building, or even come in that day. So it's not entirely without precedent.
zerg rush on
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Posts
Scaring less people doesn't mean the plan is inherently better.
There are plenty of things that don't sound scary to an individual but would fuck up the entire country.
For instance you can say
"Hey tax cuts for everyone yay!!!"
No one would be scared
but then the government would go bankrupt or in greater debt very quickly.
See, I thought you were discussing how the two different ideas up there could be taken by the public at large ("how could that fly better"), rather than which is the better idea to help fund this thing.
Oh no, that wasn't I was discussing at all.
In other news, what does everybody think of the idea of the house just passing the senate bill as is, skipping over the conference but also skipping over the need to send it back to the senate for another run past the Lieberman/Nelson cloture gauntlet? Personally, I think that it would be a smart move, and, consequently, not very likely to happen.
I dislike the idea for a couple reasons. First, the Senate needs to remember that they aren't the only house of Congress and that they do, in fact, need to compromise and negotiate with the House. Second, some bad bits need to be smoothed over or nixed from the Senate bill in exchange for losing some stuff that Conservadems are gonna bitch about. So long as the conservadem holdouts are in the room, there's no reason the final bill shouldn't be passable by both houses.
I doubt they would have set all this in to motion without pre-arranging compromises to be made in the conference to ensure passage.
Yes, but what if we aren't talking to a 100 year old doctor?
I mean, even if I were inclined to blame every single doctor for the lobbying strategy decided on not by them but by their professional organization, there would surely have to be a generational limit on my vengeful bitchiness.
A page or so back, but this really cheeses my shorts so I'm bringing it back.
Say it all together now, "DOCTORS ARE NOT INFALLIBLE!" The whole "mammograms before 50 don't really help" is exactly what we need to be doing to control costs. Some doggs looked at some data, and they saw that doing mammograms before the age of 50 didn't really catch much and were generally just a waste of money. But doctors get paid for every mammogram that gets done, so they said "No, you better still do a whole lot of mammograms!" Just like how auto mechanics would love it if you'd bring in your car for an examination every 10,000 miles. Doctors have a financial incentive to prescribe useless care - since we as a society lionize doctors and generally do what they say unconditionally, a lot of unnecessary care gets consumed, with no benefit to the consumer. If we want to control costs, the whole "no mammograms before 50" is exactly the kind of thing we need to be doing.
Yes, how dare we refer to a group as a collective entity. Fucking English language.
The professional organization as a whole is made up from the sum of its parts. They're repeating the exact same mistakes that they made decades ago.
As I've said many times before, the entire provider community needs to understand that costs need to come down, which means their prices will need to come down. There is currently no price competition between providers, partly due to unionization and partly due to prices not being posted. If we can get posted prices and actually be able to shop around for the best prices for the services, maybe it'll help. I'm still of the opinion, though, that some price controls will be needed eventually.
Facebook app?
I'm not really kidding.
This is pretty much how we evaluate other items/services now. Medical care is one of the few where we're ignorant of the true costs and can't/don't shop around. Of course, the insurers are totally aware, so that's why you find that once you get on a plan you're restricted to certain doctors unless you're willing to go out of network.
Anyway, I'm really hoping that the 80% stipulation gets bumped up in the conference bill. And I'm miffed that the drug re-importation thing was chopped from the Senate bill but the WH is throwing it out as a bone for progressives for the conference bill, despite the fact that it probably won't make the cut.
A++++++++++++++++++++ would get colonoscopy from again!!!1
I'm not sure which is worse, that he's arguing against something that of course we need in the bill or that it was another republican yesterday who was arguing against the bill because people just wouldn't buy health insurance.
They don't even have any sort of consistency now, they're just yelling loudly about anything they can.
Are republicans allowed to plead constitutionality?
Well, I guess they are, but they simply have to somehow be more humble about it. You can't invoke something you evidently do not respect, unless you readily accept blame as well and recognize how you yourself have weakened its power and meaning.
I think someone would have to be hurt physically or financially by the law once enacted to have standing and then they would have to take it all the way to the supreme court to challenge the constitutionality of it.
Also, seriously, the pubs are just either yelling out lies or complaining about the fact that the dems didn't crumble and give in to all their demands
My understanding is that the final vote for the Senate bill is 7pm on the 24th. There's going to be a vote on something today, and there's be another one tomorrow, but final passage is Thursday.
Then it's a matter of getting conference finished up and passed before SoTU.
They moved it up to the morning of Christmas Eve at some point today.
Can we do this?
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Where'd you get the 20th from? It just has to occur at some point in January and even that's just due to tradition.
Also, you do realize that political negotiations and maneuvering doesn't only happen when people are on the clock, right?
But isn't that the traditional time? Sometime around Jan 20th? Kinda like the innauguration? I could be very wrong, but that's vaguely what I remember it being around.
And Yes, smart ass, I do realize that, but still. They do get to sleep at some point. They are all rather old people, they do need their naps. It still seem a bit rushed.
And no, I'm not saying that's a bad thing, other than rushing too much might mean that conference will miss things.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
The 2008 SoTU was on January 28th, 2006 was on the 31st.
And most staffers are in their 30's.
I stand corrected then.
And I have the strong desire to stick my tongue out at you right now.
But again, how much of this type of negotiations are staffed out? Am I one of the few that might be too paranoid to send my young staffer or intern to do these negotiations and worry that they might do things against my wishes? Like approve a public option being placed back in?
Or is that just my being paranoid?
Also Rep Sestak (D-PA) was just on msnbc saying he will fight in conference for public option.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
It's pretty great.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
You laugh, some cry, and I for one support the inevitable march of technology.
Videoconferencing for doctor visits is on the rise. It costs $45, regardless if do you don't have insurance. They're able to write prescriptions for anything that isn't a controlled substance. They hope to soon be able to have full access your medical history, and some competitors have already expanded services to mental health and other areas.
Apparently some hospitals already use internal videoconferencing so that doctors can direct hospital employees without needing to run around the building, or even come in that day. So it's not entirely without precedent.
Who do you want on the conference committee?
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Doesn't matter. Rahm and the leadership will be hammering things out informally.
Oh c'mon. Play along with the game, dammit. :P
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Zombie Ted Kennedy.
Amen. But... unfortunately that's not an option. If only.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad