|
Harry Reid finds his balls
latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-naw-healthcare-reid27-2009oct27,0,4995758.story
latimes.com Senate healthcare bill to include public option, Reid says The majority leader says states would be allowed to opt out of the government-sponsored insurance plan. By Noam N. Levey 1:34 PM PDT, October 26, 2009 Reporting from Washington Fueling the push for a new government insurance plan, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said today that his chamber's healthcare bill would include a compromise that would create a nationwide public option but give states the right to opt out. "The public option is not a silver bullet, [but] I believe it's an important way to ensure competition and to level the playing field for patients with the insurance industry," Reid said. "Under this concept, states will be able to decide what works for them." Reid sent the proposal to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to be analyzed today, a key step before he can bring a bill to the floor for debate. His decision does not settle the debate roiling Democratic ranks over how to create a government plan that would give consumers who don't get coverage through their employers an alternative to plans offered by commercial insurers. The "opt-out" compromise is still two votes shy of the 60 Reid needs to overcome a Republican filibuster, according to a senior Democratic aide on Capitol Hill who requested anonymity when discussing the plan. And while Reid expresses a preference for the opt-out proposal, others continue to push for an alternative, known as a "trigger," that would establish local public options around the country only if commercial insurers did not provide affordable plans to consumers. That scenario is being championed by Sen. Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, the only Republican to vote for the healthcare reform measure approved by the Senate Finance Committee. With a 60-40 voting majority, which includes two independents who caucus with Democrats, Reid has to hold all his members or pick up Republicans to head off a filibuster. Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D- San Francisco) are advancing separate healthcare bills in the Senate and House, which would have to be reconciled later this year before they are sent to the White House for President Obama's signature. But Pelosi indicated Friday that the opt-out alternative could be included in a reconciled bill. For now, House Democrats are poised to pass a bill that would create a nationwide government plan, although there is still disagreement about how much such a plan should pay doctors, hospitals and other medical providers. Liberals, including Pelosi, favor a proposal that would link those payments to the existing Medicare program, which often pays providers less than commercial insurers. Proponents believe such an arrangement would save money and help drive down costs. But many conservative Democrats, particularly from rural areas where Medicare typically pays less, want the government plan to negotiate its rates with providers, as commercial insurers do. Pelosi hopes to settle those differences in time to unveil a bill later this week, according to her office. |
Harry Reid finds his balls
"H the K" wrote in message
m... latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-naw-healthcare-reid27-2009oct27,0,4995758.story latimes.com Senate healthcare bill to include public option, Reid says The majority leader says states would be allowed to opt out of the government-sponsored insurance plan. By Noam N. Levey 1:34 PM PDT, October 26, 2009 Reporting from Washington Fueling the push for a new government insurance plan, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said today that his chamber's healthcare bill would include a compromise that would create a nationwide public option but give states the right to opt out. "The public option is not a silver bullet, [but] I believe it's an important way to ensure competition and to level the playing field for patients with the insurance industry," Reid said. "Under this concept, states will be able to decide what works for them." Reid sent the proposal to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to be analyzed today, a key step before he can bring a bill to the floor for debate. His decision does not settle the debate roiling Democratic ranks over how to create a government plan that would give consumers who don't get coverage through their employers an alternative to plans offered by commercial insurers. The "opt-out" compromise is still two votes shy of the 60 Reid needs to overcome a Republican filibuster, according to a senior Democratic aide on Capitol Hill who requested anonymity when discussing the plan. And while Reid expresses a preference for the opt-out proposal, others continue to push for an alternative, known as a "trigger," that would establish local public options around the country only if commercial insurers did not provide affordable plans to consumers. That scenario is being championed by Sen. Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, the only Republican to vote for the healthcare reform measure approved by the Senate Finance Committee. With a 60-40 voting majority, which includes two independents who caucus with Democrats, Reid has to hold all his members or pick up Republicans to head off a filibuster. Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D- San Francisco) are advancing separate healthcare bills in the Senate and House, which would have to be reconciled later this year before they are sent to the White House for President Obama's signature. But Pelosi indicated Friday that the opt-out alternative could be included in a reconciled bill. For now, House Democrats are poised to pass a bill that would create a nationwide government plan, although there is still disagreement about how much such a plan should pay doctors, hospitals and other medical providers. Liberals, including Pelosi, favor a proposal that would link those payments to the existing Medicare program, which often pays providers less than commercial insurers. Proponents believe such an arrangement would save money and help drive down costs. But many conservative Democrats, particularly from rural areas where Medicare typically pays less, want the government plan to negotiate its rates with providers, as commercial insurers do. Pelosi hopes to settle those differences in time to unveil a bill later this week, according to her office. Unfortunately, he's still angling to include a bogus trigger or a state opt-out. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Harry Reid finds his balls
On 10/26/09 8:37 PM, jps wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:52:49 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "H the wrote in message m... latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-naw-healthcare-reid27-2009oct27,0,4995758.story latimes.com Senate healthcare bill to include public option, Reid says The majority leader says states would be allowed to opt out of the government-sponsored insurance plan. By Noam N. Levey 1:34 PM PDT, October 26, 2009 Reporting from Washington Fueling the push for a new government insurance plan, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said today that his chamber's healthcare bill would include a compromise that would create a nationwide public option but give states the right to opt out. "The public option is not a silver bullet, [but] I believe it's an important way to ensure competition and to level the playing field for patients with the insurance industry," Reid said. "Under this concept, states will be able to decide what works for them." Reid sent the proposal to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to be analyzed today, a key step before he can bring a bill to the floor for debate. His decision does not settle the debate roiling Democratic ranks over how to create a government plan that would give consumers who don't get coverage through their employers an alternative to plans offered by commercial insurers. The "opt-out" compromise is still two votes shy of the 60 Reid needs to overcome a Republican filibuster, according to a senior Democratic aide on Capitol Hill who requested anonymity when discussing the plan. And while Reid expresses a preference for the opt-out proposal, others continue to push for an alternative, known as a "trigger," that would establish local public options around the country only if commercial insurers did not provide affordable plans to consumers. That scenario is being championed by Sen. Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, the only Republican to vote for the healthcare reform measure approved by the Senate Finance Committee. With a 60-40 voting majority, which includes two independents who caucus with Democrats, Reid has to hold all his members or pick up Republicans to head off a filibuster. Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D- San Francisco) are advancing separate healthcare bills in the Senate and House, which would have to be reconciled later this year before they are sent to the White House for President Obama's signature. But Pelosi indicated Friday that the opt-out alternative could be included in a reconciled bill. For now, House Democrats are poised to pass a bill that would create a nationwide government plan, although there is still disagreement about how much such a plan should pay doctors, hospitals and other medical providers. Liberals, including Pelosi, favor a proposal that would link those payments to the existing Medicare program, which often pays providers less than commercial insurers. Proponents believe such an arrangement would save money and help drive down costs. But many conservative Democrats, particularly from rural areas where Medicare typically pays less, want the government plan to negotiate its rates with providers, as commercial insurers do. Pelosi hopes to settle those differences in time to unveil a bill later this week, according to her office. Unfortunately, he's still angling to include a bogus trigger or a state opt-out. Hey, if the Red States want to keep winning at being the least educated and unhealthful, they're going to have to turn it down. Mark Sanford had the right idea. Turn down that stimulus money. If some few red states want to opt out, that'll be the utter end of the GOP in those states. |
Harry Reid finds his balls
"jps" wrote in message
... On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:52:49 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "H the K" wrote in message news:Kdmdna_pR45wvnvXnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@earthlink. com... latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-naw-healthcare-reid27-2009oct27,0,4995758.story latimes.com Senate healthcare bill to include public option, Reid says The majority leader says states would be allowed to opt out of the government-sponsored insurance plan. By Noam N. Levey 1:34 PM PDT, October 26, 2009 Reporting from Washington Fueling the push for a new government insurance plan, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said today that his chamber's healthcare bill would include a compromise that would create a nationwide public option but give states the right to opt out. "The public option is not a silver bullet, [but] I believe it's an important way to ensure competition and to level the playing field for patients with the insurance industry," Reid said. "Under this concept, states will be able to decide what works for them." Reid sent the proposal to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to be analyzed today, a key step before he can bring a bill to the floor for debate. His decision does not settle the debate roiling Democratic ranks over how to create a government plan that would give consumers who don't get coverage through their employers an alternative to plans offered by commercial insurers. The "opt-out" compromise is still two votes shy of the 60 Reid needs to overcome a Republican filibuster, according to a senior Democratic aide on Capitol Hill who requested anonymity when discussing the plan. And while Reid expresses a preference for the opt-out proposal, others continue to push for an alternative, known as a "trigger," that would establish local public options around the country only if commercial insurers did not provide affordable plans to consumers. That scenario is being championed by Sen. Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, the only Republican to vote for the healthcare reform measure approved by the Senate Finance Committee. With a 60-40 voting majority, which includes two independents who caucus with Democrats, Reid has to hold all his members or pick up Republicans to head off a filibuster. Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D- San Francisco) are advancing separate healthcare bills in the Senate and House, which would have to be reconciled later this year before they are sent to the White House for President Obama's signature. But Pelosi indicated Friday that the opt-out alternative could be included in a reconciled bill. For now, House Democrats are poised to pass a bill that would create a nationwide government plan, although there is still disagreement about how much such a plan should pay doctors, hospitals and other medical providers. Liberals, including Pelosi, favor a proposal that would link those payments to the existing Medicare program, which often pays providers less than commercial insurers. Proponents believe such an arrangement would save money and help drive down costs. But many conservative Democrats, particularly from rural areas where Medicare typically pays less, want the government plan to negotiate its rates with providers, as commercial insurers do. Pelosi hopes to settle those differences in time to unveil a bill later this week, according to her office. Unfortunately, he's still angling to include a bogus trigger or a state opt-out. Hey, if the Red States want to keep winning at being the least educated and unhealthful, they're going to have to turn it down. Mark Sanford had the right idea. Turn down that stimulus money. I'm assuming this is a tongue in cheek reply! Everyone, despite their circumstances needs to be covered. Some people can't help it if they live in a state where the governor is a jerk. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Harry Reid finds his balls
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:09:20 -0400, H the K
wrote: If some few red states want to opt out, that'll be the utter end of the GOP in those states. Yep. Good Dem play. If they really have the balls to get it. Ain't done yet. What's important to a lot of people is job mobility. Me for instance. Since we can't ensure that either one of us can get a job that offers a health care policy, the wife stays where she is. Might convince her to move to Florida with a new insurance regime. Though I must say there are other reasons for staying put, including family, seasons, and plain old inertia. She says a number of people at her work - the ones that don't use the ER for health care - are there only for the health policy. Job market and wages might undergo quite a bit of change. Could invigorate the economy. But then maybe Florida will opt out. Their choice, given state rights and all. hehe. --Vic |
Harry Reid finds his balls
On 10/26/09 9:36 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:09:20 -0400, H the K wrote: If some few red states want to opt out, that'll be the utter end of the GOP in those states. Yep. Good Dem play. If they really have the balls to get it. Ain't done yet. What's important to a lot of people is job mobility. Me for instance. Since we can't ensure that either one of us can get a job that offers a health care policy, the wife stays where she is. Might convince her to move to Florida with a new insurance regime. Though I must say there are other reasons for staying put, including family, seasons, and plain old inertia. She says a number of people at her work - the ones that don't use the ER for health care - are there only for the health policy. Job market and wages might undergo quite a bit of change. Could invigorate the economy. But then maybe Florida will opt out. Their choice, given state rights and all. hehe. --Vic There are a lot of Americans who are trapped in their jobs by the economy and by the vagaries of obtaining health insurance at a new job. If Reid and Pelosi pull off a decent health care/insurance reform bill with no votes from the GOP, that party will be even further up the creek than it is now. It also seems possible that our creaky economy is really beginning to make a turn for the better. The GOP can only succeed in the face of failure. If there isn't failure, and if the GOP is seen to have virtually nothing to do with the recovery, it should be interesting politically. |
Harry Reid finds his balls
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:13:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "jps" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:52:49 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "H the K" wrote in message news:Kdmdna_pR45wvnvXnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@earthlink .com... latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-naw-healthcare-reid27-2009oct27,0,4995758.story latimes.com Senate healthcare bill to include public option, Reid says The majority leader says states would be allowed to opt out of the government-sponsored insurance plan. By Noam N. Levey 1:34 PM PDT, October 26, 2009 Reporting from Washington Fueling the push for a new government insurance plan, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said today that his chamber's healthcare bill would include a compromise that would create a nationwide public option but give states the right to opt out. "The public option is not a silver bullet, [but] I believe it's an important way to ensure competition and to level the playing field for patients with the insurance industry," Reid said. "Under this concept, states will be able to decide what works for them." Reid sent the proposal to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to be analyzed today, a key step before he can bring a bill to the floor for debate. His decision does not settle the debate roiling Democratic ranks over how to create a government plan that would give consumers who don't get coverage through their employers an alternative to plans offered by commercial insurers. The "opt-out" compromise is still two votes shy of the 60 Reid needs to overcome a Republican filibuster, according to a senior Democratic aide on Capitol Hill who requested anonymity when discussing the plan. And while Reid expresses a preference for the opt-out proposal, others continue to push for an alternative, known as a "trigger," that would establish local public options around the country only if commercial insurers did not provide affordable plans to consumers. That scenario is being championed by Sen. Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, the only Republican to vote for the healthcare reform measure approved by the Senate Finance Committee. With a 60-40 voting majority, which includes two independents who caucus with Democrats, Reid has to hold all his members or pick up Republicans to head off a filibuster. Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D- San Francisco) are advancing separate healthcare bills in the Senate and House, which would have to be reconciled later this year before they are sent to the White House for President Obama's signature. But Pelosi indicated Friday that the opt-out alternative could be included in a reconciled bill. For now, House Democrats are poised to pass a bill that would create a nationwide government plan, although there is still disagreement about how much such a plan should pay doctors, hospitals and other medical providers. Liberals, including Pelosi, favor a proposal that would link those payments to the existing Medicare program, which often pays providers less than commercial insurers. Proponents believe such an arrangement would save money and help drive down costs. But many conservative Democrats, particularly from rural areas where Medicare typically pays less, want the government plan to negotiate its rates with providers, as commercial insurers do. Pelosi hopes to settle those differences in time to unveil a bill later this week, according to her office. Unfortunately, he's still angling to include a bogus trigger or a state opt-out. Hey, if the Red States want to keep winning at being the least educated and unhealthful, they're going to have to turn it down. Mark Sanford had the right idea. Turn down that stimulus money. I'm assuming this is a tongue in cheek reply! Everyone, despite their circumstances needs to be covered. Some people can't help it if they live in a state where the governor is a jerk. Yes, tongue firmly planted in cheek. I say they need to vote a governor that isn't stupid if they find themselves opted out. |
Harry Reid finds his balls
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:49:04 -0400, H the K
wrote: There are a lot of Americans who are trapped in their jobs by the economy and by the vagaries of obtaining health insurance at a new job. If Reid and Pelosi pull off a decent health care/insurance reform bill with no votes from the GOP, that party will be even further up the creek than it is now. It also seems possible that our creaky economy is really beginning to make a turn for the better. The GOP can only succeed in the face of failure. If there isn't failure, and if the GOP is seen to have virtually nothing to do with the recovery, it should be interesting politically. I don't think either the D's or R's have a clue about how to bring the jobs back. Which is to penalize companies sending jobs over the borders and encourage (yep, subsidies) companies who generate jobs here. That means I can buy a washing machine, refrigerator or TV that is made in the U.S.A. Et cetera. Most other countries do this, but their govs aren't whores of Wall Street and/or kumbaya one-world liberalism. The economy works trickle-up. Always has. But don't hold your breath. --Vic |
Harry Reid finds his balls
|
Harry Reid finds his balls
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:06:22 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote: On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:49:04 -0400, H the K wrote: There are a lot of Americans who are trapped in their jobs by the economy and by the vagaries of obtaining health insurance at a new job. If Reid and Pelosi pull off a decent health care/insurance reform bill with no votes from the GOP, that party will be even further up the creek than it is now. It also seems possible that our creaky economy is really beginning to make a turn for the better. The GOP can only succeed in the face of failure. If there isn't failure, and if the GOP is seen to have virtually nothing to do with the recovery, it should be interesting politically. I don't think either the D's or R's have a clue about how to bring the jobs back. Which is to penalize companies sending jobs over the borders and encourage (yep, subsidies) companies who generate jobs here. That means I can buy a washing machine, refrigerator or TV that is made in the U.S.A. Et cetera. Most other countries do this, but their govs aren't whores of Wall Street and/or kumbaya one-world liberalism. The economy works trickle-up. Always has. But don't hold your breath. --Vic Wall Street Liberalism? It's Wall St. Capitalism that doesn't give a **** about the welfare of its fellow citizens. |
Harry Reid finds his balls
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:07:41 -0700, jps wrote:
Most other countries do this, but their govs aren't whores of Wall Street and/or kumbaya one-world liberalism. The economy works trickle-up. Always has. But don't hold your breath. --Vic Wall Street Liberalism? It's Wall St. Capitalism that doesn't give a **** about the welfare of its fellow citizens. And/or. There are many free-trade liberals who think that the if the price of joblessness here is "lifting up" the Mexican or Chinese peasant, that's a fair trade. Right in line with the Wall Street pukes who see also see that as fine, for reasons of lower wages enhancing "shareholder value." Of course I think they're all full of ****. They live in fairyland, since most have never worked with their hands producing real goods, and still don't realize that the money party is over and it's time for Americans to get back to work. But they'll come to their senses as the economy continues to tank. Or be brought to their senses by tar and feather. Just my opinion, gently told. Man, I miss my factory jobs. Maybe a little boring compared to some work, but finishing a shift with clear head and a sense that I contributed something to the real world made that worthwhile. Kept me in good shape too, ready to go to another job and play two! Wouldn't mind trying it again. Die with grease on my hands and a smile on my face. ......Nah. --Vic |
Harry Reid finds his balls
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:41:16 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote: On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:07:41 -0700, jps wrote: Most other countries do this, but their govs aren't whores of Wall Street and/or kumbaya one-world liberalism. The economy works trickle-up. Always has. But don't hold your breath. --Vic Wall Street Liberalism? It's Wall St. Capitalism that doesn't give a **** about the welfare of its fellow citizens. And/or. There are many free-trade liberals who think that the if the price of joblessness here is "lifting up" the Mexican or Chinese peasant, that's a fair trade. You're leaving out an important tenet of the liberal message. Those wages should be living wages and come with the same benefits and security they would in a civilized nation such as ours. IOW, it'd be a good deal more expensive to take those jobs and distribute them to the lowest bidder if the quotient included bennies. Right in line with the Wall Street pukes who see also see that as fine, for reasons of lower wages enhancing "shareholder value." Of course I think they're all full of ****. They live in fairyland, since most have never worked with their hands producing real goods, and still don't realize that the money party is over and it's time for Americans to get back to work. Agreed. But they'll come to their senses as the economy continues to tank. Or be brought to their senses by tar and feather. My preference. Just my opinion, gently told. Man, I miss my factory jobs. Maybe a little boring compared to some work, but finishing a shift with clear head and a sense that I contributed something to the real world made that worthwhile. Kept me in good shape too, ready to go to another job and play two! Wouldn't mind trying it again. I had a factory job for a while out of high school. I wasn't ready for more school yet. Felt the same way. Ran a tab at the local greasy spoon and let me drink beer at lunch and after work. After a while it made me want to go back to school. Turned wrenches on cars while going to school. That was brutal. Die with grease on my hands and a smile on my face. Grease on the hands is good. Don't die that way. .....Nah. --Vic |
Harry Reid finds his balls
|
Harry Reid finds his balls
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:53:14 -0700, jps wrote:
You're leaving out an important tenet of the liberal message. Those wages should be living wages and come with the same benefits and security they would in a civilized nation such as ours. IOW, it'd be a good deal more expensive to take those jobs and distribute them to the lowest bidder if the quotient included bennies. Yeah, but it hasn't worked out that way with NAFTA and Mexico. And that's basically unenforceable. How many liberals who believe in that are wearing Nikes made in Asian child-labor sweatshops. It's bull****, and like I said. Fairyland. You take care of your own first, then worry about others. Ideals are one thing, facts another. --Vic |
Harry Reid finds his balls
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:11:38 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote: On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:53:14 -0700, jps wrote: You're leaving out an important tenet of the liberal message. Those wages should be living wages and come with the same benefits and security they would in a civilized nation such as ours. IOW, it'd be a good deal more expensive to take those jobs and distribute them to the lowest bidder if the quotient included bennies. Yeah, but it hasn't worked out that way with NAFTA and Mexico. And that's basically unenforceable. Went down the wrong road. It's the thing I like least about Clinton's time in office, among others. Monica I can handle, WTO is a giant screw job. Jobs were already in Mexico and have been leaking there for decades. Supporting the wholesale abdication of manufacturing in the US was a giant mistake. That's been in process for decades too. How many liberals who believe in that are wearing Nikes made in Asian child-labor sweatshops. I wear Brooks, which are likely made in some Asian country. I've become much more aware of purchasing US made products in the last several years. I look at everything now. It's bull****, and like I said. Fairyland. You take care of your own first, then worry about others. Ideals are one thing, facts another. Understood and I agree. The jerks who support gloabalism accuse anyone who wants to protect our manufacturing base and protectionists and isolationists who will hasten our departure from the world community. China will want to call its loans. Bottom line, we're screwed. How the hell does this country regain even a small percentage of what we've given away? --Vic |
Harry Reid finds his balls
"H the K" wrote in message
m... On 10/26/09 8:37 PM, jps wrote: On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:52:49 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "H the wrote in message m... latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-naw-healthcare-reid27-2009oct27,0,4995758.story latimes.com Senate healthcare bill to include public option, Reid says The majority leader says states would be allowed to opt out of the government-sponsored insurance plan. By Noam N. Levey 1:34 PM PDT, October 26, 2009 Reporting from Washington Fueling the push for a new government insurance plan, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said today that his chamber's healthcare bill would include a compromise that would create a nationwide public option but give states the right to opt out. "The public option is not a silver bullet, [but] I believe it's an important way to ensure competition and to level the playing field for patients with the insurance industry," Reid said. "Under this concept, states will be able to decide what works for them." Reid sent the proposal to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to be analyzed today, a key step before he can bring a bill to the floor for debate. His decision does not settle the debate roiling Democratic ranks over how to create a government plan that would give consumers who don't get coverage through their employers an alternative to plans offered by commercial insurers. The "opt-out" compromise is still two votes shy of the 60 Reid needs to overcome a Republican filibuster, according to a senior Democratic aide on Capitol Hill who requested anonymity when discussing the plan. And while Reid expresses a preference for the opt-out proposal, others continue to push for an alternative, known as a "trigger," that would establish local public options around the country only if commercial insurers did not provide affordable plans to consumers. That scenario is being championed by Sen. Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, the only Republican to vote for the healthcare reform measure approved by the Senate Finance Committee. With a 60-40 voting majority, which includes two independents who caucus with Democrats, Reid has to hold all his members or pick up Republicans to head off a filibuster. Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D- San Francisco) are advancing separate healthcare bills in the Senate and House, which would have to be reconciled later this year before they are sent to the White House for President Obama's signature. But Pelosi indicated Friday that the opt-out alternative could be included in a reconciled bill. For now, House Democrats are poised to pass a bill that would create a nationwide government plan, although there is still disagreement about how much such a plan should pay doctors, hospitals and other medical providers. Liberals, including Pelosi, favor a proposal that would link those payments to the existing Medicare program, which often pays providers less than commercial insurers. Proponents believe such an arrangement would save money and help drive down costs. But many conservative Democrats, particularly from rural areas where Medicare typically pays less, want the government plan to negotiate its rates with providers, as commercial insurers do. Pelosi hopes to settle those differences in time to unveil a bill later this week, according to her office. Unfortunately, he's still angling to include a bogus trigger or a state opt-out. Hey, if the Red States want to keep winning at being the least educated and unhealthful, they're going to have to turn it down. Mark Sanford had the right idea. Turn down that stimulus money. If some few red states want to opt out, that'll be the utter end of the GOP in those states. Yes. As I said, I think we need a strong two (or more) party system. We need another party that has a centrist slant. We (liberals - I'm one, don't know about others) need a loyal opposition. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Harry Reid finds his balls
wrote in message
... On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:36:12 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:09:20 -0400, H the K wrote: If some few red states want to opt out, that'll be the utter end of the GOP in those states. Yep. Good Dem play. If they really have the balls to get it. Ain't done yet. What's important to a lot of people is job mobility. Me for instance. Since we can't ensure that either one of us can get a job that offers a health care policy, the wife stays where she is. Might convince her to move to Florida with a new insurance regime. Though I must say there are other reasons for staying put, including family, seasons, and plain old inertia. She says a number of people at her work - the ones that don't use the ER for health care - are there only for the health policy. Job market and wages might undergo quite a bit of change. Could invigorate the economy. But then maybe Florida will opt out. Their choice, given state rights and all. hehe. --Vic I don't believe Florida would opt out but you might see a lot of the relatively healthy center of the country where they have a low uninsured rate anyway. Unfortunately that pool of healthy people will not be there to balance the coasts in the public company. I agree. I don't think Florida would opt out. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Harry Reid finds his balls
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:52:49 -0700, nom=de=plume wrote:
Unfortunately, he's still angling to include a bogus trigger or a state opt-out. It really isn't much of an opt-out, as I understand it. A state could only opt-out until 2014. |
Harry Reid finds his balls
|
Harry Reid finds his balls
"thunder" wrote in message
t... On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:52:49 -0700, nom=de=plume wrote: Unfortunately, he's still angling to include a bogus trigger or a state opt-out. It really isn't much of an opt-out, as I understand it. A state could only opt-out until 2014. That's what I heard, but when does the plan start? They were talking about 2013? Why does it take so long to get it going? That's crazy. It took less than a year to get Medicare going and only double to get a moon landing. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Harry Reid finds his balls
|
Harry Reid finds his balls
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:37:09 -0400, H the K
wrote: On 10/27/09 10:24 AM, Tosk wrote: In , says... On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:36:12 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:09:20 -0400, H the K wrote: If some few red states want to opt out, that'll be the utter end of the GOP in those states. Yep. Good Dem play. If they really have the balls to get it. Ain't done yet. What's important to a lot of people is job mobility. Me for instance. Since we can't ensure that either one of us can get a job that offers a health care policy, the wife stays where she is. Might convince her to move to Florida with a new insurance regime. Though I must say there are other reasons for staying put, including family, seasons, and plain old inertia. She says a number of people at her work - the ones that don't use the ER for health care - are there only for the health policy. Job market and wages might undergo quite a bit of change. Could invigorate the economy. But then maybe Florida will opt out. Their choice, given state rights and all. hehe. --Vic I don't believe Florida would opt out but you might see a lot of the relatively healthy center of the country where they have a low uninsured rate anyway. Unfortunately that pool of healthy people will not be there to balance the coasts in the public company. It's a red herring. Who is going to "opt out" and still end up paying half their income for the part of the country that doesn't pay any taxes at all? Right... Well, if you got a job, you could be paying taxes. Dickbrain doesn't understand that it'd be the Red States opting out, who statistically return the least amount of federal tax/capita. It'd certainly be more equitable on a state-by-state basis if they did opt out. |
Harry Reid finds his balls
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:52:40 -0700, jps wrote:
Dickbrain doesn't understand that it'd be the Red States opting out, who statistically return the least amount of federal tax/capita. Yeah, but I want to see who is actually going to pay. It wouldn't be the first federally underfunded mandate the states have to carry. |
Harry Reid finds his balls
In article ,
says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:36:12 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:09:20 -0400, H the K wrote: If some few red states want to opt out, that'll be the utter end of the GOP in those states. Yep. Good Dem play. If they really have the balls to get it. Ain't done yet. What's important to a lot of people is job mobility. Me for instance. Since we can't ensure that either one of us can get a job that offers a health care policy, the wife stays where she is. Might convince her to move to Florida with a new insurance regime. Though I must say there are other reasons for staying put, including family, seasons, and plain old inertia. She says a number of people at her work - the ones that don't use the ER for health care - are there only for the health policy. Job market and wages might undergo quite a bit of change. Could invigorate the economy. But then maybe Florida will opt out. Their choice, given state rights and all. hehe. --Vic I don't believe Florida would opt out but you might see a lot of the relatively healthy center of the country where they have a low uninsured rate anyway. Unfortunately that pool of healthy people will not be there to balance the coasts in the public company. It's a red herring. Who is going to "opt out" and still end up paying half their income for the part of the country that doesn't pay any taxes at all? Right... I believe opt-out means that you don't pay and you don't get. Personally, I think that should not be allowed, at least not for the first several years Why not require every living, breathing human to be a part of the plan. No opt-outs, no special plans for union employees, no special plans for federal employees, no special plans for Congress. This could be called the screw everyone option. |
Harry Reid finds his balls
On 10/28/09 11:46 AM, BAR wrote:
In , says... wrote in message ... In , says... On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:36:12 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:09:20 -0400, H the K wrote: If some few red states want to opt out, that'll be the utter end of the GOP in those states. Yep. Good Dem play. If they really have the balls to get it. Ain't done yet. What's important to a lot of people is job mobility. Me for instance. Since we can't ensure that either one of us can get a job that offers a health care policy, the wife stays where she is. Might convince her to move to Florida with a new insurance regime. Though I must say there are other reasons for staying put, including family, seasons, and plain old inertia. She says a number of people at her work - the ones that don't use the ER for health care - are there only for the health policy. Job market and wages might undergo quite a bit of change. Could invigorate the economy. But then maybe Florida will opt out. Their choice, given state rights and all. hehe. --Vic I don't believe Florida would opt out but you might see a lot of the relatively healthy center of the country where they have a low uninsured rate anyway. Unfortunately that pool of healthy people will not be there to balance the coasts in the public company. It's a red herring. Who is going to "opt out" and still end up paying half their income for the part of the country that doesn't pay any taxes at all? Right... I believe opt-out means that you don't pay and you don't get. Personally, I think that should not be allowed, at least not for the first several years Why not require every living, breathing human to be a part of the plan. No opt-outs, no special plans for union employees, no special plans for federal employees, no special plans for Congress. This could be called the screw everyone option. That's what the Swiss have, basically. You know, Switzerland, the most free-market country in the world. |
Harry Reid finds his balls
"BAR" wrote in message
. .. In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:36:12 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:09:20 -0400, H the K wrote: If some few red states want to opt out, that'll be the utter end of the GOP in those states. Yep. Good Dem play. If they really have the balls to get it. Ain't done yet. What's important to a lot of people is job mobility. Me for instance. Since we can't ensure that either one of us can get a job that offers a health care policy, the wife stays where she is. Might convince her to move to Florida with a new insurance regime. Though I must say there are other reasons for staying put, including family, seasons, and plain old inertia. She says a number of people at her work - the ones that don't use the ER for health care - are there only for the health policy. Job market and wages might undergo quite a bit of change. Could invigorate the economy. But then maybe Florida will opt out. Their choice, given state rights and all. hehe. --Vic I don't believe Florida would opt out but you might see a lot of the relatively healthy center of the country where they have a low uninsured rate anyway. Unfortunately that pool of healthy people will not be there to balance the coasts in the public company. It's a red herring. Who is going to "opt out" and still end up paying half their income for the part of the country that doesn't pay any taxes at all? Right... I believe opt-out means that you don't pay and you don't get. Personally, I think that should not be allowed, at least not for the first several years Why not require every living, breathing human to be a part of the plan. No opt-outs, no special plans for union employees, no special plans for federal employees, no special plans for Congress. This could be called the screw everyone option. It's called single payer. Works fine. I'm in favor of it. There are two ways to reduce healthcare costs. You can have a public option (or better yet single payer). This (the PO) gives the ins. companies motivation to compete. The other way is for heavy regulation. Germany does this I believe, and they do it quite successfully. Since we believe in capitalism first and foremost, then I think the competitive approach is more desireable. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Harry Reid finds his balls
"BAR" wrote in message
. .. In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:36:12 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:09:20 -0400, H the K wrote: If some few red states want to opt out, that'll be the utter end of the GOP in those states. Yep. Good Dem play. If they really have the balls to get it. Ain't done yet. What's important to a lot of people is job mobility. Me for instance. Since we can't ensure that either one of us can get a job that offers a health care policy, the wife stays where she is. Might convince her to move to Florida with a new insurance regime. Though I must say there are other reasons for staying put, including family, seasons, and plain old inertia. She says a number of people at her work - the ones that don't use the ER for health care - are there only for the health policy. Job market and wages might undergo quite a bit of change. Could invigorate the economy. But then maybe Florida will opt out. Their choice, given state rights and all. hehe. --Vic I don't believe Florida would opt out but you might see a lot of the relatively healthy center of the country where they have a low uninsured rate anyway. Unfortunately that pool of healthy people will not be there to balance the coasts in the public company. It's a red herring. Who is going to "opt out" and still end up paying half their income for the part of the country that doesn't pay any taxes at all? Right... I believe opt-out means that you don't pay and you don't get. Personally, I think that should not be allowed, at least not for the first several years Why not require every living, breathing human to be a part of the plan. No opt-outs, no special plans for union employees, no special plans for federal employees, no special plans for Congress. This could be called the screw everyone option. Oh, I forgot to add... yes, no special plans for Congress! They have a choice of 12 different plans. How come they have that and the rest of us don't. -- Nom=de=Plume |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:57 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com