Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Benny B on October 14, 2009, 09:00:02 AM
-
Another GOP senator open to health care overhaul
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – A second Republican senator signaled Wednesday she's open to voting for sweeping health care legislation this year, putting President Barack Obama closer to a historic achievement that has eluded generations of Democratic leaders.
But Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, told The Associated Press that the bill approved Tuesday by the Finance Committee needs substantial improvements to make coverage more affordable, contain costs, and protect Medicare. Nevertheless, she joined her Maine GOP colleague Sen. Olympia Snowe in endorsing the goal of far-reaching changes.
"My hope is we that can fix the flaws in the bill and come together with a truly bipartisan bill that could garner widespread support," Collins said in an interview. "I think this bill is far superior to the ones passed by the Senate (health) committee and the three House committees, but it needs substantial additional work."
The ten-year, $829 billion Finance bill was approved by the committee Tuesday on a 14-9 vote, after Snowe broke ranks with her Republican colleagues to support Chairman Max Baucus' middle-of-the-road plan.
Wednesday, Snowe tackled the most divisive issue still on the table: creation of a government insurance plan that would compete with private ones.
While emphasizing that she still opposes the so-called public option, Snowe said in a nationally broadcast interview that she could foresee a government-run plan that would "kick in" if private insurers failed to live up to expectations that they keep premiums in check.
"I think the government would have a disproportionate advantage" in the event of a government-run option, Snowe acknowledged. At the same time, she added, "I want to make sure the insurance industry performs, and that's why we eliminate many egregious practices."
If the industry didn't follow through on congressionally-mandated changes aimed at making health care more affordable, she said, "then you could have the public option kick in immediately."
Snowe previously had proposed using the public option as an incentive, or a threat, to private insurers. This "trigger" option, or some version of it, has survived the bitter debate and scrutiny to remain a viable option for compromise.
Such a statement from a Republican can be very influential in an environment in which GOP lawmakers almost universally have opposed any kind of government-run health care option to compete with private insurers. It represents a break in party solidarity, even if finite. Health care proposals advanced in the House include such a government option.
Snowe broached her standby notion again as talks among lawmakers on health care were going back behind closed doors; Senate leaders are trying to merge two very different bills into a new version that can get the 60 votes needed to guarantee passage.
Collins, however, said she could not support Snowe's idea because she thinks it would make it too easy for a Democratic administration to impose a government plan nationwide. "It would simply delay the public plan for a couple of years," she told AP.
The White House dispatched chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag and other top advisers to Capitol Hill for afternoon meetings on combining the bills.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has said he wants move quickly to merge the Finance bill with a version passed earlier by the Senate health committee. His goal is to get health care overhaul legislation onto the floor the week after next.
Both bills were written by Democrats, but that's not going to make it easier for Reid. They share a common goal, which is to provide all Americans with access to affordable health insurance, but they differ on how to accomplish it.
The Finance Committee bill that was approved Tuesday has no government-sponsored insurance plan and no requirement on employers that they must offer coverage. It relies instead on a requirement that all Americans obtain insurance.
The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee bill, passed earlier by a panel in which liberals predominate, calls for both a government plan to compete with private insurers and a mandate that employers help cover their workers. Those are only two of dozens of differences.
In general, bills moving toward floor votes in both houses would require most Americans to purchase insurance, provide federal subsidies to help those of lower incomes afford coverage and give small businesses help in defraying the cost of coverage for their workers.
The measures would, among other things, bar insurance companies from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions and for the first time limit their ability to charge higher premiums on the basis of age or family size. Expanded coverage would be paid for by cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from future Medicare payments to health care providers. Each house also envisions higher taxes — an income tax surcharge on million-dollar wage-earners in the case of the House, and a new excise levy on insurance companies selling high-cost policies in the Senate Finance Committee bill.
-
Another GOP senator open to health care overhaul
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – A second Republican senator signaled Wednesday she's open to voting for sweeping health care legislation this year, putting President Barack Obama closer to a historic achievement that has eluded generations of Democratic leaders.
But Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, told The Associated Press that the bill approved Tuesday by the Finance Committee needs substantial improvements to make coverage more affordable, contain costs, and protect Medicare. Nevertheless, she joined her Maine GOP colleague Sen. Olympia Snowe in endorsing the goal of far-reaching changes.
"My hope is we that can fix the flaws in the bill and come together with a truly bipartisan bill that could garner widespread support," Collins said in an interview. "I think this bill is far superior to the ones passed by the Senate (health) committee and the three House committees, but it needs substantial additional work."
The ten-year, $829 billion Finance bill was approved by the committee Tuesday on a 14-9 vote, after Snowe broke ranks with her Republican colleagues to support Chairman Max Baucus' middle-of-the-road plan.
Wednesday, Snowe tackled the most divisive issue still on the table: creation of a government insurance plan that would compete with private ones.
While emphasizing that she still opposes the so-called public option, Snowe said in a nationally broadcast interview that she could foresee a government-run plan that would "kick in" if private insurers failed to live up to expectations that they keep premiums in check.
"I think the government would have a disproportionate advantage" in the event of a government-run option, Snowe acknowledged. At the same time, she added, "I want to make sure the insurance industry performs, and that's why we eliminate many egregious practices."
If the industry didn't follow through on congressionally-mandated changes aimed at making health care more affordable, she said, "then you could have the public option kick in immediately."
Snowe previously had proposed using the public option as an incentive, or a threat, to private insurers. This "trigger" option, or some version of it, has survived the bitter debate and scrutiny to remain a viable option for compromise.
Such a statement from a Republican can be very influential in an environment in which GOP lawmakers almost universally have opposed any kind of government-run health care option to compete with private insurers. It represents a break in party solidarity, even if finite. Health care proposals advanced in the House include such a government option.
Snowe broached her standby notion again as talks among lawmakers on health care were going back behind closed doors; Senate leaders are trying to merge two very different bills into a new version that can get the 60 votes needed to guarantee passage.
Collins, however, said she could not support Snowe's idea because she thinks it would make it too easy for a Democratic administration to impose a government plan nationwide. "It would simply delay the public plan for a couple of years," she told AP.
The White House dispatched chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag and other top advisers to Capitol Hill for afternoon meetings on combining the bills.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has said he wants move quickly to merge the Finance bill with a version passed earlier by the Senate health committee. His goal is to get health care overhaul legislation onto the floor the week after next.
Both bills were written by Democrats, but that's not going to make it easier for Reid. They share a common goal, which is to provide all Americans with access to affordable health insurance, but they differ on how to accomplish it.
The Finance Committee bill that was approved Tuesday has no government-sponsored insurance plan and no requirement on employers that they must offer coverage. It relies instead on a requirement that all Americans obtain insurance.
The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee bill, passed earlier by a panel in which liberals predominate, calls for both a government plan to compete with private insurers and a mandate that employers help cover their workers. Those are only two of dozens of differences.
In general, bills moving toward floor votes in both houses would require most Americans to purchase insurance, provide federal subsidies to help those of lower incomes afford coverage and give small businesses help in defraying the cost of coverage for their workers.
The measures would, among other things, bar insurance companies from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions and for the first time limit their ability to charge higher premiums on the basis of age or family size. Expanded coverage would be paid for by cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from future Medicare payments to health care providers. Each house also envisions higher taxes — an income tax surcharge on million-dollar wage-earners in the case of the House, and a new excise levy on insurance companies selling high-cost policies in the Senate Finance Committee bill.
YYYEEEAAAHHHH - More taxes, regulations, mandates, deficit spending. HHHOOORRAAAYYY!
The Baucus bill is going nowhere.
-
60 VOTES! ;D
-
Why dont these two skanks from Maine just join the democratic party?They obviously are suffering from jungle fevor and want Obamas stick.
-
Why dont these two skanks from Maine just join the democratic party?They obviously are suffering from jungle fevor and want Obamas stick.
LOL
You should quit your dayjob and start doing stand up comedy Billy-Moe. 8)
-
maybe repubs are sensing this thing is going to pass, and suddenly want to get ON the bandwagon.
I still don't know what the solution is... but I do know my own personal health insurance went from 146 to 175 to 215 in the last year, and I only went to doc once to have a shoulder looked at. If my rates went up 47% this year, and I'm a healthy guy in my 30s, what is happening to all the old people on fixed incomes who are actually costing the companies money?
-
60 VOTES! ;D
IMO, it won't be 60 votes.
it'll either be 50, or it'll be 70. Once the repubs who are scared to lose their jobs realize it has a chance - they'll vote for it. They DON'T want to be on the wrong side of something that will give every american health care. Imagine being the guy who voted AGAINST medicare or social security (both considered lib programs back in the day).
-
maybe repubs are sensing this thing is going to pass, and suddenly want to get ON the bandwagon.
I still don't know what the solution is... but I do know my own personal health insurance went from 146 to 175 to 215 in the last year, and I only went to doc once to have a shoulder looked at. If my rates went up 47% this year, and I'm a healthy guy in my 30s, what is happening to all the old people on fixed incomes who are actually costing the companies money?
I will say this as nice as I can to you 240 - get your head out of your fucking ass. The Baucus bill is going to drive your premiums way higher, not less.
-
IMO, it won't be 60 votes.
it'll either be 50, or it'll be 70. Once the repubs who are scared to lose their jobs realize it has a chance - they'll vote for it. They DON'T want to be on the wrong side of something that will give every american health care. Imagine being the guy who voted AGAINST medicare or social security (both considered lib programs back in the day).
I don't agree. Only the Maine senators will vote for the final bill, just as they did with the stimulus. All the other Republicans will remain unified as the Party of No...just as they did with the stimulus bill.
-
IMO, it won't be 60 votes.
it'll either be 50, or it'll be 70. Once the repubs who are scared to lose their jobs realize it has a chance - they'll vote for it. They DON'T want to be on the wrong side of something that will give every american health care. Imagine being the guy who voted AGAINST medicare or social security (both considered lib programs back in the day).
Guess what 240? I had a meeting with my financial advisor yesterday and he told me of meetings and conferences he went to recently about the taxes needed to pay for these govt scams and I left shocked. I am simply shocked that someone who claims to have an MBA can be so uninformed, ignorant, and clueless can cheer this on.
You clowns think these programs are good things? They are broke and causing this nation to go into third world status under the weight of its own debt.
Serious 240 - spend a few weeks researching these programs, their related debt obligations, etc and all of a sudden you will find yourself agreeing with me on more than 75% of these topics.
Do you realize we are 66 TRILLION in debt as it is?
-
idiots all ppl are in favor of health care overhaul just not necessarily the utopian liberal view of it...
how exactly are they going to make ppl get health care you ask?
with a fine, a fine that is something like $700 bucks well the average insurance cost is much more then that.
ANNNNNDDDD they are taking out the no prexisting conditions clause(which Im for) this will allow you to not have insurance until you need it so why not pay the fine b/c its cheaper until you get sick?
the problem you ask?
insurance survives b/c the premiums of many pay for a few...what happens when nobody uses insurance b/c the smarter move is to not have insurance?
STILL ALOT OF WORK LEFT TO BE DONE FOLKS
-
IMO, it won't be 60 votes.
it'll either be 50, or it'll be 70. Once the repubs who are scared to lose their jobs realize it has a chance - they'll vote for it. They DON'T want to be on the wrong side of something that will give every american health care. Imagine being the guy who voted AGAINST medicare or social security (both considered lib programs back in the day).
Every American?12 million will still not have health care.
-
Every American?12 million will still not have health care.
Anyone cheering on this insanity, i.e. 240, Benny, needs their heads examined.
-
I will say this as nice as I can to you 240 - get your head out of your fucking ass. The Baucus bill is going to drive your premiums way higher, not less.
Well, I welcome your thoughts on a better solution.
I'm a healthy male in my 30s and my rates went up 47% this year. Without Obama's program.
Do you have proof that with his program, they will go up more? Do you have any documentation that my rates won't go up ANOTHER 47% in the next year, and leave me paying $316 per month next year?
I don't like the idea of funding health care for those 1/6 of people who buy cigarettes each day but carry no health care. But something needs to be done to stop these guys from raising my rates 47% per year. The repub's response seems to be "do nothing". that sucks.
-
Well, I welcome your thoughts on a better solution.
I'm a healthy male in my 30s and my rates went up 47% this year. Without Obama's program.
Do you have proof that with his program, they will go up more? Do you have any documentation that my rates won't go up ANOTHER 47% in the next year, and leave me paying $316 per month next year?
I don't like the idea of funding health care for those 1/6 of people who buy cigarettes each day but carry no health care. But something needs to be done to stop these guys from raising my rates 47% per year. The repub's response seems to be "do nothing". that sucks.
1. How much do you want to pay?
2. Its common sense that adding mandates to existing policies is going to drive costs up. This is econ 101 which I guess that they did not require in your MBA course of studies.
3. Interstate comp, lessening mandates and regulations, tort reform, would immediately lower the costs.
-
Well, I welcome your thoughts on a better solution.
I'm a healthy male in my 30s and my rates went up 47% this year. Without Obama's program.
Do you have proof that with his program, they will go up more? Do you have any documentation that my rates won't go up ANOTHER 47% in the next year, and leave me paying $316 per month next year?
I don't like the idea of funding health care for those 1/6 of people who buy cigarettes each day but carry no health care. But something needs to be done to stop these guys from raising my rates 47% per year. The repub's response seems to be "do nothing". that sucks.
idiots all ppl are in favor of health care overhaul just not necessarily the utopian liberal view of it...
how exactly are they going to make ppl get health care you ask?
with a fine, a fine that is something like $700 bucks well the average insurance cost is much more then that.
ANNNNNDDDD they are taking out the no prexisting conditions clause(which Im for) this will allow you to not have insurance until you need it so why not pay the fine b/c its cheaper until you get sick?
the problem you ask?
insurance survives b/c the premiums of many pay for a few...what happens when nobody uses insurance b/c the smarter move is to not have insurance?
STILL ALOT OF WORK LEFT TO BE DONE FOLKS
how do you think insurance companies having less ppl to spread the cost around to is going to effect insurance premiums?
LOL you guys are so far up obama and the liberals ass its hilarious
first off everybody is in favor of health care reform
just not your utopian view of it
-
how do you think insurance companies having less ppl to spread the cost around to is going to effect insurance premiums?
LOL you guys are so far up obama and the liberals ass its hilarious
first off everybody is in favor of health care reform
just not your utopian view of it
60 VOTES...IS...COMING. ;D
See you afterwards when you are eating cheese with your WHINE with "33334567", "BILLY MINIMUM" and others on this board over the next seven years.
-
People are getting dumber by the day. I just look at posts by 240 and it is obvious that people like himself have shed any sense of critical thinking and are buying into every lie and scam by the govt. Its sad. 240 is now like a pod person.
As if the massive failure of the stimulus bill were not enough, people like 240 are ready to buy into another massive lie when the govt has never shown any proof or evidence that their claims will hold true.
I have posted this graph alot lately and for good reason. If the very first thing Obama did turned into such a massive failure and was so grossly misjudged, why should we believe him on anything else?
Come on 240 - give me a coherent answer to that? Dont bother if you are going to blame Bush since that is the refuge of someone with no answers.
-
60 VOTES...IS...COMING. ;D
See you afterwards when you are eating cheese with your WHINE with "33334567", "BILLY MINIMUM" and others on this board over the next seven years.
glad you think a legislative, monetary and fiscal disaster is cause to act like a 5 yr old ;)
-
1. How much do you want to pay?
2. Its common sense that adding mandates to existing policies is going to drive costs up. This is econ 101 which I guess that they did not require in your MBA course of studies.
3. Interstate comp, lessening mandates and regulations, tort reform, would immediately lower the costs.
good points.
-
60 VOTES...IS...COMING. ;D
See you afterwards when you are eating cheese with your WHINE with "33334567", "BILLY MINIMUM" and others on this board over the next seven years.
-
The other issue is that the baucus bill will now be merged with the other house bills...and the people doing it are far left Liberals (Reid and Pelosi...yeah, they are in charge of crafting a final bill to vote on). This could even be worse...and more costly, as all 4 other democratic bills had a public option, more gov intervention, mandates and cost.
-
The other issue is that the baucus bill will now be merged with the other house bills...and the people doing it are far left Liberals (Reid and Pelosi...yeah, they are in charge of crafting a final bill to vote on). This could even be worse...and more costly, as all 4 other democratic bills had a public option, more gov intervention, mandates and cost.
yup the end result will be some frankenstein patch work that barely resembles what is on the table now.
-
The other issue is that the baucus bill will now be merged with the other house bills...and the people doing it are far left Liberals (Reid and Pelosi...yeah, they are in charge of crafting a final bill to vote on). This could even be worse...and more costly, as all 4 other democratic bills had a public option, more gov intervention, mandates and cost.
Great point Shoot!
By the time they are done, the end bill will be 1.5 Trillion.