CBO scores the Senate Health Bill

[IDBillzFan]

To answer your question I do. I saw the interview last night, and the guy appears to be a fiscally conscience independent minded politician.

 

Btw, I also like watching Greta's show, she's got the best interviews that offer the best insight, along with tingles. Her show is meant to be for political junkies like myself, and usually find alot of substance within her show.

I thought her interview with Lindsey Graham was pretty interesting as well, mostly because I think you get a sense from Graham what one of the GOP messages is going to be in the coming weeks, which is "How dumb of a Democratic congressperson do you want to be? Are you really willing to vote in favor of the untouched Senate bill as it exists right now in hopes that the Senate will change it to your liking in the future? Are you REALLY willing to make that bet?"

 

I think Graham did a great job of simplifying what precisely has to happen for reconciliation to move forward, and step one is for Congress to vote for the Senate bill. Period. Nothing else can happen until that happens.

 

Wicked.

[Magox]

I thought her interview with Lindsey Graham was pretty interesting as well, mostly because I think you get a sense from Graham what one of the GOP messages is going to be in the coming weeks, which is "How dumb of a Democratic congressperson do you want to be? Are you really willing to vote in favor of the untouched Senate bill as it exists right now in hopes that the Senate will change it to your liking in the future? Are you REALLY willing to make that bet?"

 

I think Graham did a great job of simplifying what precisely has to happen for reconciliation to move forward, and step one is for Congress to vote for the Senate bill. Period. Nothing else can happen until that happens.

 

Wicked.

Judd Gregg is making that same pitch, so my guess is that this will be one of their messages that they will be pushing over the next couple of weeks.

[IDBillzFan]

Judd Gregg is making that same pitch, so my guess is that this will be one of their messages that they will be pushing over the next couple of weeks.

Just saw a clip of Stupak with Stephanopoulas stating he's got 11 other congressman who voted yes for the Pelosi bill but will vote no on the Senate bill if the Senate doesn't change the language on abortion. If I understand correctly, this is going to be a major problem because if they change the language in the Senate bill, it has to go back to the Senate for a vote, and won't make it now that Brown is in. So in essence, Pelosi has to find another 12 votes to make up for this loss or Obama is going to have to make some serious promises...and he doesn't have a very good track record of keeping his word.

[Magox]

Just saw a clip of Stupak with Stephanopoulas stating he's got 11 other congressman who voted yes for the Pelosi bill but will vote no on the Senate bill if the Senate doesn't change the language on abortion. If I understand correctly, this is going to be a major problem because if they change the language in the Senate bill, it has to go back to the Senate for a vote, and won't make it now that Brown is in. So in essence, Pelosi has to find another 12 votes to make up for this loss or Obama is going to have to make some serious promises...and he doesn't have a very good track record of keeping his word.

Yes, that looks like that could be the case. However, I did read an interview where he said that they could pass a seperate, stand-alone bill with the abortion restrictive language, therefore bypassing the scenario you just outlined. I have serioud doubts though that many of the liberals would pass this bill. To my understanding there are 40 libs that would vote against the bill if this were to be introduced.

 

So the only way this gets through:

 

1) Pelosi gets at least 12 of the previous Nay's to vote for the bill, to make up for the loss of Stupak and co.

2) Stupak and co. were bluffing and they vote for the final bill.

3) They introduce the stand-alone abortion restrictive language and it passes along with the bill, which means that the libs that promised to vote against it were bluffing, or that the republicans vote along with the bill to make up the difference.

[Magox]

Looks like Pelosi is becoming slightly agitated regarding the abortion matter.

[Doc]

Senator Kent Conrad, Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said that they CANNOT pass the (let's call it what it is, and not the misnomer "health care reform") government takeover of health care using reconciliation. Only funding of things like Medicaid and Medicare. I think he would know.

[DC Tom]

Senator Kent Conrad, Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said that they CANNOT pass the (let's call it what it is, and not the misnomer "health care reform") government takeover of health care using reconciliation. Only funding of things like Medicaid and Medicare. I think he would know.

 

That's not what it is either, though.

 

I'm not sure what you could accurately name this piece of **** bill. "The Private Health Risk Subsidation Ass-!@#$ing of 2010"?

[/dev/null]

Senator Kent Conrad, Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said that they CANNOT pass the (let's call it what it is, and not the misnomer "health care reform") government takeover of health care using reconciliation. Only funding of things like Medicaid and Medicare. I think he would know.

Damn that Party of No

[Doc]

That's not what it is either, though.

 

I'm not sure what you could accurately name this piece of **** bill. "The Private Health Risk Subsidation Ass-!@#$ing of 2010"?

It's ultimately a government takeover of health care. But I think we can agree that what it is NOT, is health care "reform."

[Magox]

I personally would call it the "Free Chocolate Ice Cream paid by the productive work class act of 2010"

[DC Tom]

It's ultimately a government takeover of health care. But I think we can agree that what it is NOT, is health care "reform."

 

Ultimately...in 20 years, after the health insurance industry hemmoraghes cash for a decade and gets bailed out by the government. HELL of an expensive way to get to socialized medical care.

[Doc]

Ultimately...in 20 years, after the health insurance industry hemmoraghes cash for a decade and gets bailed out by the government. HELL of an expensive way to get to socialized medical care.

I don't think it will take nearly 20 years.

[Magox]

Ultimately...in 20 years, after the health insurance industry hemmoraghes cash for a decade and gets bailed out by the government. HELL of an expensive way to get to socialized medical care.

The Bill is going to be an absolute political clusterfuk of epic proportions because of the way the bill is set up.

 

 

 

1) Subsidies won't kick in until 2014.

 

2) Taxes begin next year

 

3) Not being able deny people with pre existing conditions will begin immediately. Sounds good, except there is one tiny itsy bitsy problem with this. All these sick people, who were denied coverage from the health insurers will ALL be entering into the health insurance risk pools.

 

What do you guys believe is going to happen with premiums once they become insured?

 

Think of it like this. On a scale of 1- 10, 1 being the healthiest and cheapest premium paying client, 10 being the sickest and most expensive paying client.

 

Assume that as of right now, people who are getting insured from the health insurers range anywhere from a 1 to a 7. Let's say that there are 100 people in the risk pool, with an average rating of 5. We'll give this a total of 500 premium points.

 

Lets say that now because of the legislation, an additional 20 people now enter into the risk pool. Out of those 20 sick people that are entering into the risk pool, the average rating we'll say is an 8. Which means that 160 more premium points have entered into the pool.

 

This now gives us 120 people now in the risk pool with a total of 660 premiums points. Before the legislation each person was paying an average of 5 premium points. Now, each person will be paying 5.5 points, which is an increase of 10%.

 

Of course these numbers are purely hypothetical, it may be a litttle more or less, but this is the basic idea of what the legislation will do to health insurance premiums.

 

Also, with the new legislation, people are going to circumvent the system. If you can't be denied coverage, then what is the incentive of carrying insurance all year long? Wouldn't you consider dropping your insurance for a while and just wait to pick it up when you need it?

 

Obviously there will be some people who do this, which means that most likely the people who are more apt to take advantage of the system will be younger healthier more cash strapped people, which means that even more healthy low premium paying individuals would drop out of these risk pools, which in turn means even higher premiums. And considering that there won't be any mandates to carry insurance until 2015 I believe, then between now and then, premiums will most likely go through the roof.

 

The way it piece of legislation is set up, it exposes itself to alot of negatives and not much upside in the first few years.

 

 

I can already see it now, the GOP will blame Obama for his terrible bill, the Libs will point their fingers towards the insurers and the "Public Option" will be seen as the answer to solving the Health Insurance problems.

[Doc]

3) Not being able deny people with pre existing conditions will begin immediately.

If this happens, why would anyone buy health insurance until they get sick and need it? Oh yes, the laughable $500/year (or whatever number it is now) "fine."

[Magox]

As of right now, Emanuel Cleaver, who is the Dem Midwest whip says that as of right now, they only have 201 votes. They needed 217, but with Massa resigning they only need 216 (how convenient ). According to his calculations, even if you get all 12 of Stupaks holdouts they are still short approximately 5 votes.

 

 

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/201...ealth_care.html

[IDBillzFan]

As of right now, Emanuel Cleaver, who is the Dem Midwest whip says that as of right now, they only have 201 votes. They needed 217, but with Massa resigning they only need 216 (how convenient ). According to his calculations, even if you get all 12 of Stupaks holdouts they are still short approximately 5 votes.

 

 

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/201...ealth_care.html

 

Not sure how accurate this really is, but The Hill breaks down the votes as they stand today.

 

The comments section is pretty funny, essentially warning Dems on the fence, if you think you might vote no, you'd be wise to avoid the shower stalls.

[erynthered]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11...-care-vote.html

 

List of House Dems that voted no on obamacare. Its has some other interesting info too. Check it out.

 

Here's the phone number to call and give them some advice:

U.S. House of Representatives

Switchboard

202-224-3121

[IDBillzFan]

You know those shows or movies you've seen where someone is trying to save a dying friend, giving them CPR or some such treatment, even though they're dead? They keep trying to revive the corpse, unable to accept the reality of the death, and people are standing around them until ultimately someone gently grabs them and says "It's over. They're dead. You need to stop now."

 

Found this off Drudge from the Washington Post, from Patrick Caddell and Doug Shoen.

 

As pollsters to the past two Democratic presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, respectively, we feel compelled to challenge the myths that seem to be prevailing in the political discourse and to once again urge a change in course before it is too late. At stake is the kind of mainstream, common-sense Democratic Party that we believe is crucial to the success of the American enterprise.

 

Bluntly put, this is the political reality:

 

First, the battle for public opinion has been lost. Comprehensive health care has been lost. If it fails, as appears possible, Democrats will face the brunt of the electorate's reaction. If it passes, however, Democrats will face a far greater calamitous reaction at the polls. Wishing, praying or pretending will not change these outcomes.

It's over. They're dead. You need to stop now.

[Taro T]

You know those shows or movies you've seen where someone is trying to save a dying friend, giving them CPR or some such treatment, even though they're dead? They keep trying to revive the corpse, unable to accept the reality of the death, and people are standing around them until ultimately someone gently grabs them and says "It's over. They're dead. You need to stop now."

 

Found this off Drudge from the Washington Post, from Patrick Caddell and Doug Shoen.

 

 

It's over. They're dead. You need to stop now.

That's what's scary. They aren't dead, but they should be (at least in this current incarnation).

 

Until the stake has been driven through the heart of the health care/insurance/whatever they want to call it reform bill, it ain't dead.

[Doc]

The fact is, they don't care. These bills exempt them and their staffers from their rules. And if/when they're voted-out, the go back to their millionaire lives. There needs to be something other than the fear of losing an election instilled in these people.