Petition for those against the use of "reconciliation" for US health care
Well, I think that, yes, it's a reasonable argument that you should only need a majority to pass things in the senate, but that's not how our government works. Maybe we should change it, but I don't think it's right for the democrats to use a loophole around the law.
(Then again, I guess you could make the case that the founding fathers never envisioned the use of the fillibuster as it is currently used today. I think Paul Krugman made that argument in an article not too long ago.)
Thank you for the info about FreedomWorks! If anyone has a better petition against reconciliation, I'll change the link.
Edit: I found the Krugman article! http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/the-curse-of-the-supermajori...
.
Maybe we should change it, but I don't think it's right for the democrats to use a loophole around the law.
And the Republicans have used it plenty of times in the past too. If people want to make the argument that it should have never been allowed, ever, that is fine. But to wait for it to be about something that you don't agree with before you want to change it is kind of a 'too bad' scenario, IMO.
Then again, I guess you could make the case that the founding fathers never envisioned the use of the fillibuster as it is currently used today.
This is very true. I hate to say it, but we put too much effort into what the founding father's wrote down. They purposely wrote a document that could be modified because they knew shit would change. Did they have some great ideas? Absolutely. Are many of them still applicable? Without a doubt. But times change.
I think a case could be made that it's being rammed down the minority's throats. Obama wants to pass the legislation without a single Republican vote--I think a case could be made that that's forcing the issue. On the other hand, you could say that there is no compromise as far as Republicans are concerned, that they're going to vote against anything, no matter how much the Democrats give in.
Maybe we should change it, but I don't think it's right for the democrats to use a loophole around the law.
And the Republicans have used it plenty of times in the past too. If people want to make the argument that it should have never been allowed, ever, that is fine. But to wait for it to be about something that you don't agree with before you want to change it is kind of a 'too bad' scenario, IMO.
You're saying the Republicans are hypocrites, and I agree. But as the old saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the Republicans abused the system, doesn't mean the Democrats should.
I know I'm coming out on the side of the Republicans on this, but I'm not myself a Republican. I'm a registered Democrat, though I'm definitely a moderate.
Then again, I guess you could make the case that the founding fathers never envisioned the use of the fillibuster as it is currently used today.
This is very true. I hate to say it, but we put too much effort into what the founding father's wrote down. They purposely wrote a document that could be modified because they knew shit would change. Did they have some great ideas? Absolutely. Are many of them still applicable? Without a doubt. But times change.
But you have to admit, that argument could be used against anything someone doesn't like in the constitution. I know where you're coming from, but it makes me nervous just the same. It makes me imagine someone wanting to modify first amendment rights under the idea that times have changed.
That's exactly why the idea reconciliation being used came up in the first place. There has been a bunch of stuff put into it to appease Republicans, people who have no better ideas because they seriously think the system is fine.
But you have to admit, that argument could be used against anything someone doesn't like in the constitution. I know where you're coming from, but it makes me nervous just the same. It makes me imagine someone wanting to modify first amendment rights under the idea that times have changed.
The difference is it wouldn't be "someone". It would have to be a majority of your elected officials who make the change. If we elect a majority of people who don't think we should have free speech, we don't deserve to have it.
But you have to admit, that argument could be used against anything someone doesn't like in the constitution. I know where you're coming from, but it makes me nervous just the same. It makes me imagine someone wanting to modify first amendment rights under the idea that times have changed.
The difference is it wouldn't be "someone". It would have to be a majority of your elected officials who make the change. If we elect a majority of people who don't think we should have free speech, we don't deserve to have it.
My point is that the argument "times have changed" can be used against anything in the constitution.
Yes, I understand the thought process. "We added in stuff to appease the Republicans, but they're still against what we propose, so we're going to override them."
It's like, a father who wants to feed his son a shit sandwich. Of course, the son doesn't want to eat it, so the father adds ketchup and a slice of cheese to it. His son loves ketchup and cheese, so you could imagine how shocked the father is to find his son still doesn't want to eat the shit sandwich!
I think what the Republicans are saying is that, they don't want to eat a shit sandwich in the first place, they need a new sandwich.
I'm for majority vote. The minority is holding congress at a standstill because they are upset they cannot get there way! We need to pass the healthcare bill, reconciliation will help. It doesn't matter anyway how we do it, the republicans will run in the mid-term elections on repealing the health reform bill...
I think what the Republicans are saying is that, they don't want to eat a shit sandwich in the first place, they need a new sandwich.
No, they are saying "I will only eat the exact sandwich that I make" which is ridiculous.
I think what the Republicans are saying is that, they don't want to eat a shit sandwich in the first place, they need a new sandwich.
No, they are saying "I will only eat the exact sandwich that I make" which is ridiculous.
I don't think they're saying that. I think there is room for compromise, but the compromise is far from what the Democrats have in mind. Most of the democrats' ideas are akin to a father trying to feed his vegetarian son a meat sandwich. The compromise needs to be a whole new category of sandwich (like a soy burger).
.
Republicans don't want anything that gets in the way of profiteering. And pharmaceuticals ARE big business. Some of the biggest. My son is uninsured. My wife is uninsured. To get them insured would cost a weeks pay. Rent already eats up two. That would leave me one weeks pay to live on. For a family of three. My electrician has to take antibiotics on a regular basis because he too is uninsured and can't afford to take his tonsils out.The fact that we are even having this debate shows the gullibility of the American people to act against their own best interests and furthers the Republican cause. We argue. They profit. Ram it down their throats, I say. Kick their teeth in. They can afford it. They're all insured.
That's the irony of the whole debate. WE pay for those fuckers to have insurance.
Profiteering? This article is from last year, but the numbers are probably not hugely different.
"Overall, the profit margin for health insurance companies was a modest 3.4 percent over the past year, according to data provided by Morningstar. That ranks 87th out of 215 industries and slightly above the median of 2.2 percent. By this measure, the most profitable industry over the past year has been beverages, with a 25.9 percent profit margin."
http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/08/25/why-health-insure...
3.4 percent isn't what I would call profiteering, I would simply call that turning a profit.
Edit: a more up to date article saying the profit is at 3.3%
http://seekingalpha.com/article/189285-health-insurance-companies-rank-8...
so can i have health insurance yet or not?
Profiteering? This article is from last year, but the numbers are probably not hugely different.
"Overall, the profit margin for health insurance companies was a modest 3.4 percent over the past year, according to data provided by Morningstar. That ranks 87th out of 215 industries and slightly above the median of 2.2 percent. By this measure, the most profitable industry over the past year has been beverages, with a 25.9 percent profit margin."
http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/08/25/why-health-insure...
3.4 percent isn't what I would call profiteering, I would simply call that turning a profit.
Edit: a more up to date article saying the profit is at 3.3%
http://seekingalpha.com/article/189285-health-insurance-companies-rank-8...
My heart just bleeds for the bastards.
I don't know if they'll run on this or not, but from what I understand, domestic entitlement programs are seldom reversed. That's what so scary about this health plan, once it's passed, even if it turns out to be a disaster financially for the country, there's no taking it back. If it does get passed, I sure do hope Paul Ryan is wrong about his numbers,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870454860457509760243638811...
Republicans aren't 100% of the problem, you know. Everyone I knew growing up was a Republican. And most of the people I knew growing up were farmers. You think they have health insurance? It's a problem of a stuck system and demonization of each other, not an individual party.
There is hope, but not for us.
Profiteering? This article is from last year, but the numbers are probably not hugely different.
"Overall, the profit margin for health insurance companies was a modest 3.4 percent over the past year, according to data provided by Morningstar. That ranks 87th out of 215 industries and slightly above the median of 2.2 percent. By this measure, the most profitable industry over the past year has been beverages, with a 25.9 percent profit margin."
http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/08/25/why-health-insure...
3.4 percent isn't what I would call profiteering, I would simply call that turning a profit.
Edit: a more up to date article saying the profit is at 3.3%
http://seekingalpha.com/article/189285-health-insurance-companies-rank-8...
My heart just bleeds for the bastards.
And they're bastards why? Because they turn a profit? I actually do agree with the statement they're bastards, but for a different reason. I go to the doctor, he prescribes something, and then I have to fight the insurance company to pay for it. If I could, I wouldn't have regular insurance, I would just pay out of pocket, but I would want catastrophic coverage, which unfortunately isn't offered.
I call them bastards because they raised my monthly premium by $800. Now my wife and I have no insurance, and we both have prescription medicines that we have to take daily.
But the Democrats are going to kill gramma. So I guess it's worth it if we keep them from doing that.
"Life isn’t divided into genres. It’s a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
-Alan Moore
I don't know if they'll run on this or not, but from what I understand, domestic entitlement programs are seldom reversed.
And from what I understand, no industrialized country that has ever adopted universal health care has ever had a desire to get rid of it. You know why? Because the people love being able to go to the fucking doctor when they get sick. And they like not having to sell their house because they got cancer or something else terrible.
So you end up paying for someone else. If you never have anything bad happen to you, congrats, you're the big winner. If you have something bad happen, you're also a winner because you don't end up financially ruined.
When the majority of bankruptcies in this country are a result of medical expenses, something is seriously wrong.
I don't know if they'll run on this or not, but from what I understand, domestic entitlement programs are seldom reversed.
And from what I understand, no industrialized country that has ever adopted universal health care has ever had a desire to get rid of it. You know why? Because the people love being able to go to the fucking doctor when they get sick. And they like not having to sell their house because they got cancer or something else terrible.
So you end up paying for someone else. If you never have anything bad happen to you, congrats, you're the big winner. If you have something bad happen, you're also a winner because you don't end up financially ruined.
When the majority of bankruptcies in this country are a result of medical expenses, something is seriously wrong.
I'll take your word for it that everyone is happy with the health care they get in places like Canada--though I do wonder about stories such as the premier of Canada's east coast province having to go to the United States for treatment (not the first time I've read of people from Canada having to go to the US).
http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=380&sid=1879172
On, and I remember something about long wait times for MRI's in Canada, too...
http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=crmas&p=canada+mri+wait&rs=1&...
Though I do read good things about Germany's system...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91971406
In my own personal opinion, there should be catastrophic coverage, so if you do get something serious like cancer, you're covered, and you don't go bankrupt.
I didn't say everyone was happy in other places but clearly the vast majority of them are. Evident in the very fact that they all laugh about the idea that health care is a privilege in America. There will always be someone who is unhappy.
Quite honestly, I would rather have to wait to get an MRI than not to be able to get one at all.
Additionally, there is no reason that Doctors couldn't still have a private practice or that private insurance companies couldn't still exist. It doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing option in either direction.
And honestly, if the service health insurance companies are offering is so good, they should have no problem selling that to people.
But they know their service sucks, and no one would actually pay for it as it is.
It's uncomfortable territory for me debating Canadian health care, since I know nothing about it, but I'm curious if the vast majority of Canadians are really happy with it. Doing a quick search, I found:
"Nearly two-thirds of the 1,000 Canadians surveyed gave the overall quality of the system a grade of 'A' or 'B', roughly the same rating as last year."
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20050815/CMA_survey_...
Unless you consider a C or below to be a good grade, that would seem to indicate some dissatisfaction.
On a side note, has anyone read The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care?
http://www.amazon.com/Healing-America-Global-Better-Cheaper/dp/159420234...
I don't mean to make it sound that the United States current system is better than the Canadian one, I really don't know. Maybe it is. To bring things back to the original topic, my issue is with the way the democrats are handling the process with reconciliation.
Well, 2/3 of the population scoring it A or B seems like a pretty impressive feat. In fact, that is even more than a supposed "super majority".
And when you consider that Canadians rate higher than Americans on nearly every quality of life or health index, you can pretty easily equate that to a better system.
That is truly frightening, sir. Especially considering how little the vote of a citizen matters when we elect people like, say, the president.
"I'm glad I live in the GPS era. In a different century, I would've set off to visit the other side of the village and wandered off into the mountains and been eaten by a carnivorous plant. Or discovered the Americas."
-LaJessica
I know there are a lot of pros and cons to the proposed system. I don't know much about the details. What I do know is that I pay $300 a month for health insurance. Plus another $120ish for prescriptions. My deductible is $2500 and then 80/20% after that with a max out of pocket of $3000 dollars. Last year I had my appendix out in August, the previous year I had my gall bladder out in October. The surgeries were less than 12 months aparts, but they were separated by a calender year, so my deductible rolled over. So, not counting doctors visits, which are a $50 copay, my health cost me $10,540ish dollars last year. That is a lot of money.
I recently tried to get covered under a different plan from the same company who currently insures me. It would be cheaper by the month, with a higher deductible. I was denied because I have ADHD and a history of depression. I am currently under a group plan, so I can't be denied coverage. My mother will be going on Medicare (or is it Mecaid?) very soon. When this happens I will not be able to have a group plan and will therefore be uninsurable. My sister applied for health insurance last year and was denied because of acne. A friend of mine shattered his left arm in a car accident, he was denied because of this injury. This isn't a problem to people in the corporate world. If your company offers healthcare, you can be covered under the group plan. It is a problem for people like my sister and me, who are self-employed, and my friend, who is a contract abstracter.
All I really want is to be able to see my lady doctor once a year, and pay a reasonable price for my prescriptions. I'd like to be able to go in if i get sick as well, and I'd like to be able to have a rotten organ removed without wiping out my savings. I would like to be able to keep my current doctors, but if I can't, I'll get over it. I have a long and shitty medical history, so it sucks to have to acquaint a new doctor with it, but its the same thing I would face if I were to move out of town.
I've sort of gotten carried away and don't know how to wrap this up. So i'll just go now.
"I'm glad I live in the GPS era. In a different century, I would've set off to visit the other side of the village and wandered off into the mountains and been eaten by a carnivorous plant. Or discovered the Americas."
-LaJessica
All I know on the subject is that no one I know in Europe gets ulcers by worrying about how they will pay the next health bill.
And when you consider that Canadians rate higher than Americans on nearly every quality of life or health index, you can pretty easily equate that to a better system.
But what Obama is proposing (especially without even the public option) isn't anything like the Canadian system, wouldn't you agree?
I don't have time to debate more, sadly enough. But I will make one point. Consider wealth redistribution. I'm sure 2/3 of the country would be happy if we redistributed the wealth, but that doesn't make it right. (Well, I guess that depends on your philosophy.)
Must run now, going to see a play in the city. Venus in Fur.
.
And when you consider that Canadians rate higher than Americans on nearly every quality of life or health index, you can pretty easily equate that to a better system.
But what Obama is proposing (especially without even the public option) isn't anything like the Canadian system, wouldn't you agree?
I don't have time to debate more, sadly enough. But I will make one point. Consider wealth redistribution. I'm sure 2/3 of the country would be happy if we redistributed the wealth, but that doesn't make it right. (Well, I guess that depends on your philosophy.)
Must run now, going to see a play in the city. Venus in Fur.
No, it isn't like the Canadian system, that is correct. But at least it is a step in the right direction.
Equating the ability for people to receive treatment when they are ill to wealth redistribution is not only a ridiculous analogy, it is disgusting.
If you really think they are even remotely similar, I don't even know what to say.
Additionally, I would argue that we have already re-distributed wealth. Only we did it in the wrong direction and somehow let the rich get richer while everyone else gets poorer. 30 years ago executives made 30 times as much money as his average employee. Today that ratio is 300 times as much.
How they get typical Americans to vote against their own interest is beyond me, yet somehow they do. It is a sad state of affairs that we are so gullible. Or perhaps we are all so stupid that we all think one day we'll be the guy making 300 times what his employees do. In either case, we are losing. The very fact that the Republicans have been able to scare people off of getting some health care or the same health care says a lot.
I'm probably going to stop now because I really don't know how to debate the concept that everyone is entitled to a healthy life with someone who doesn't agree with that. The 'free market' and competition hasn't (and has no interest) in solving the problem, so it's time the government step in.
My mention of wealth redistribution wasn't meant as an analogy, it's a reality. Obama for example is increasing the taxes with those with better health care he's taxing the cadillac plans. You. Might say that's justified but still.
Cut your bullsh*t, Bug, you know you want to say it, so why don't you just come out and scream it: Obama's nothing but a big Socialist and making sure the poor have universal health care is just another means of marginalizing the white race!
And I agree with you, Jane, Republicans aren't 100% of the problem. Moderate Democrats are just Republicans who haven't come out of the closet yet.
I'm for using it. If a majority vote is enough to get you elected to office, it should be enough to pass legislation.
Also here is a big surprise. The site you linked is brought to you by "FreedomWorks" a company who:
There is a BIG surprise!