Senator Olympia Snowe - a republican heroine
Discussion
The committee was stacked in the Democrats favour, her vote didn't matter.
I also fail how to see how this vote helps "the less fortunate". The matter is more complicated than the BBC makes it out to be. Even Snow herself says that if the bill changes out of committee (which it will) she will reserve the right to vote against it.
This is nothing more than a politically contrived move on her part to get re-elected from a centre left State.
This entire health reform issue is a MESS. In it's current form (The Bachus Bill) it falls short of it's goal of universal coverage. The CBO estimates that 14 to 16 MILLION people will still be left without health insurance.
The issues are complex and wide ranging (certainly more complex than what the BBC would have you believe) and is more politically motivated than altruistic.
ErnestM
I also fail how to see how this vote helps "the less fortunate". The matter is more complicated than the BBC makes it out to be. Even Snow herself says that if the bill changes out of committee (which it will) she will reserve the right to vote against it.
This is nothing more than a politically contrived move on her part to get re-elected from a centre left State.
This entire health reform issue is a MESS. In it's current form (The Bachus Bill) it falls short of it's goal of universal coverage. The CBO estimates that 14 to 16 MILLION people will still be left without health insurance.
The issues are complex and wide ranging (certainly more complex than what the BBC would have you believe) and is more politically motivated than altruistic.
ErnestM
ErnestM said:
I also fail how to see how this vote helps "the less fortunate". The matter is more complicated than the BBC makes it out to be. Even Snow herself says that if the bill changes out of committee (which it will) she will reserve the right to vote against it.
This entire health reform issue is a MESS. In it's current form (The Bachus Bill) it falls short of it's goal of universal coverage. The CBO estimates that 14 to 16 MILLION people will still be left without health insurance.
Agree with most of that. There's a long way to go and many hurdles to be jumped. 14 to 16 million is a huge improvement on 47 million..This entire health reform issue is a MESS. In it's current form (The Bachus Bill) it falls short of it's goal of universal coverage. The CBO estimates that 14 to 16 MILLION people will still be left without health insurance.
This whole issue is complex and controversial but it is moving forward and that's the key. (IMO - I know many republicans are bankrolled by the pharm and insurance industries and disagree.
)unrepentant said:
ErnestM said:
I also fail how to see how this vote helps "the less fortunate". The matter is more complicated than the BBC makes it out to be. Even Snow herself says that if the bill changes out of committee (which it will) she will reserve the right to vote against it.
This entire health reform issue is a MESS. In it's current form (The Bachus Bill) it falls short of it's goal of universal coverage. The CBO estimates that 14 to 16 MILLION people will still be left without health insurance.
Agree with most of that. There's a long way to go and many hurdles to be jumped. 14 to 16 million is a huge improvement on 47 million..This entire health reform issue is a MESS. In it's current form (The Bachus Bill) it falls short of it's goal of universal coverage. The CBO estimates that 14 to 16 MILLION people will still be left without health insurance.
This whole issue is complex and controversial but it is moving forward and that's the key. (IMO - I know many republicans are bankrolled by the pharm and insurance industries and disagree.
)Of the 46 million "uninsured", approximately one quarter or 12 million of them qualify for coverage under two existing government run medical plans, medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Plan (S-CHIPS) Most of that 12 million have just not bothered to register. However, if they go to a hospital to seek care, they are AUTOMATICALLY registered if they qualify. So now we are down to 34 million. Another 10 million (and this is a VERY conservative number - most put the number at 17 million) are illegal aliens or are in the country legally but are non-citizens working in the US. Now we are down to 24 million. Of that 24 million, about 43% of them (about 10 million) have incomes higher than 250% of the poverty level (about $55,125 per annum for a family of four) and have simply chosen not to purchase health insurance coverage despite having the opportunity to do so (a lot of those are younger members of the work force and would rather spend their money on pub crawls, etc). Well now we are down to about 14 million that REALLY cannot afford health insurance.
A. We are already at the 14 million point that you state is a huge improvement over 46 million
B. At a cost of over $860 Billion for a ten year period (According to the Congressional Budget Office), it would be CHEAPER by 50% to buy these 14 million people a group insurance policy through a private insurer and just call it a day than to sign onto this monstrosity.
---
Oh, and speaking of bought and paid for politicians, why is there no mention of tort reform in this bill? Who do you think bankrolls the democrats? Could it be trial lawyers?
Just some food for thought...
ErnestM
DJC said:
Excuse me for being dumb Ernest but if those figures are true then er, why has nobody just implemented that plan and saved a shedload of dosh?
What am I missing?
I feel the same way, but it boils down to politics, economics and State versus Federal responsibilities.What am I missing?
1. Politics - Taking care of the 14 million does NOT give you the power grab the you would get if you controlled the entire US healthcare system. So, why take care of 14 million people when you can control 300+ million?
2. Economics (kind of related to the next reason as well)
a. The Federal Government has yet to lay out a scheme of any kind that didn't result in massive waste, corruption, fraud and a plethora of jobsworth busybodies to support
b. How do you pay for it? General funds? surtax on "the rich"? Tax the insurers so they raise everyone's rates?
3. State vs Federal - I live in Florida. We have about 185,000 people without health insurance at any given time. So about 1.32% of the 14 million total. However, the economy isn't that bad here (contrary to popular belief - however - the real estate market another story entirely) The State of Mississippi has about 600,000 people without health insurance at any given time. So about 4.3% of the 14 million. Florida's economy is stronger than Mississippi's. Obviously Florida would pay more. Is that fair? Other States make the same argument about supporting Florida's high homeowner's insurance rates because of hurricanes. Also - currently all health insurance is controlled at the State Level and would have to be federalized for the scheme to work (See item 2-a)
Finally - most States also have supplementary healthcare systems already in place. "Free" and nonprofit clinics supported by State revenues and charities do a very good job of taking care of the uninsured in most States (for instance - here in Florida some people qualify for "free" H1N1 jabs)
It's a boondoggle power grab of massive proportions that will solve nothing, make matters worse and, at the end of the day, still leave a lot of people uninsured.
If the government REALLY wanted to drive down health costs, they would sponsor massive tort reform legislation that would limit payouts or endorse some sort of "loser pays" scenario to get rid of frivilous lawsuits. That would be REAL health insurance reform and make it more affordable to everyone while still keeping freedom of choice for the individual.
All of this is my opinion. However, I will say that, currently, ALL of my employees are covered. Doesn't cost them a dime because I get to write off the total cost. If these jackasses in DC start to charge me tax on that, it will end!
ErnestM
edited for speeling
Edited by ErnestM on Wednesday 14th October 15:13
unrepentant said:
ErnestM said:
Why is she a heroine?
ErnestM
Because she bravely defied her own party for the greater good of those less fortunate?ErnestM
For an issue as controversial as this sure a referendum would be the appropriate way to decide the issue?
Wadeski said:
Ernest, you failed to mention "socialism" or "hyper-sweden" at all during the previous post. I recommend watching Glenn Beck on repeat for a few hours until your signign the right tune!
Thanks for your contribution.I have never seen Glenn Beck's show nor read any of his books. I have better things to do with my spare time.
As far as socialism, I don't know or care. If the US Congress and the executive branch can figure out a way to solve the 10% of this particular problem without destroying the 90% that works, I will be their biggest fan. However I have strong belief that "the politics of envy" (it's all the fault of those godless corporations and evil rich people) is NOT the way to do it. I have never been hired by a poor man.
Never heard the term "hyper-sweden" so you, obviously, are a much more learned individual than I am.
ErnestM
Fittster said:
unrepentant said:
ErnestM said:
Why is she a heroine?
ErnestM
Because she bravely defied her own party for the greater good of those less fortunate?ErnestM
For an issue as controversial as this sure a referendum would be the appropriate way to decide the issue?
I don't know enough about her Maine constituancy to comment regarding her support for the views of the people that voted for her. However, she probably did knowing what I do about Maine.
The real vote will come after the House and Senate have a chance to reassemble all of the different proposals into one package. If there is a so called "public option" then not only will Senator Snowe NOT vote for it (she already has said as much) but the bill will lose a lot of Democratic support as well.
ErnestM
ErnestM said:
However, I will say that, currently, ALL of my employees are covered. Doesn't cost them a dime because I get to write off the total cost. If these jackasses in DC start to charge me tax on that, it will end!
Your employees are very lucky Ernest. I'm sure from reading your posts over a number of years that you are a good and caring employer, as many are. However, there are many employees who aren't so lucky and don't get workplace funded healthcare.Many others have underlying pre existing health issues that mean that they are refused cover by the insurance companies. If the insurance companies won't cover them and no government organised scheme exists to help them what do you do? Let them stay uninsured and if they get sick let them go backrupt? That's pretty much the way it works at the moment. I have personal experience of someone very close to me going through that exact scenario so I don't need to be told how utterly crap the current system is.
Obama is at least trying to change things to make the system work for everyone. Clinton tried and got nowhere. Ted Kennedy tried for 40 years and died still trying. The current proposals are not perfect, nobody believes that, but they are some progress. All decent politicians should pull together to create something that does work. Some of the scaremongering and rabid falsehoods put about by the far right over this issue are a disgrace.
unrepentant said:
ErnestM said:
All of this is my opinion. However, I will say that, currently, ALL of my employees are covered. Doesn't cost them a dime because I get to write off the total cost. If these jackasses in DC start to charge me tax on that, it will end!
Your employees are very lucky Ernest. I'm sure from reading your posts over a number of years that you are a good and caring employer, as many are. However, there are many employees who aren't so lucky and don't get workplace funded healthcare.Many others have underlying pre existing healthcare issues that mean that they are refused cover by the insurance companies. If the insurance companies won't cover them and no state funded scheme exists to help them what do you do? Let them stay uninsured and if they get sick let them go backrupt? That's pretty much the way it works at the moment. I have personal experience of someone very close to me going through that exact scenario so I don't need to be told how utterly crap the current system is.
Obama is at least trying to change things to make the system work for everyone. Clinton tried and got nowhere. Ted Kennedy tried for 40 years and died still trying. The current proposals are not perfect, nobody believes that, but they are some progress. All decent politicians should pull together to create something that does work. Some of the scaremongering and rabid falsehoods put about by the far right over this issue are a disgrace.
The reason that I, and other employers, offer the benefits that we do are easy. There is no altruism here. We can simply attract better quality workers. I do appreciate your compliment, however.
I agree something has to be done. However, there are alternatives to an overbloated bureaucratic system infested by middle management simpletons that make no contribution other than to take form A and put it into box B and advise people that their situation "isn't that bad and they will have to wait while the more deserving go first."
So - pre-existing conditions - fine, make the exclusion go away. Make group policies truly group with no exclusions. However, you will have to combine that with tort reform and some sort of reduced liability for the insurance companies where they look to the ambulance chasers much like the goose that is trying to hide the proverbial golden egg. Oh, and those that elect NOT to buy insurance when offered don't get to feed at the public trough because of their lack of responsibility when they make enough money to cover the cost of insurance.
I cannot speak to your friend/family member's situation, obviously, but I hope everything works out ok for them. Laws in every State make it illegal for somebody to be turned away for necessary medical treatment due to their inability to pay. Also, banks and other lending institutions tend to give VERY LITTLE weight to any medical entries on people's credit reports so bankruptcy may not be an issue. I have a friend that is the medical "back office" business (they do the back office services for a lot of hospitals) and they do payment plans for people all of the time based on customer input regarding finances. Some of the plans stretch fifty years.
I hope that your friend gets better as that is the most important thing.
ErnestM
ErnestM said:
I agree something has to be done. However, there are alternatives to an overbloated bureaucratic system infested by middle management simpletons that make no contribution other than to take form A and put it into box B and advise people that their situation "isn't that bad and they will have to wait while the more deserving go first."
So - pre-existing conditions - fine, make the exclusion go away. Make group policies truly group with no exclusions. However, you will have to combine that with tort reform and some sort of reduced liability for the insurance companies where they look to the ambulance chasers much like the goose that is trying to hide the proverbial golden egg. Oh, and those that elect NOT to buy insurance when offered don't get to feed at the public trough because of their lack of responsibility when they make enough money to cover the cost of insurance.
I agree with all that. So here's the chance for politicians of all hues to get together and make it happen, reform a system that IS ALREADY bloated and beauracratic and hugely expensive and make it better and accessible for all. Under G W Bush more people filed for bankruptcy because of medical debt than for any other reason and the USA stands alone in my experience as a first world nation that allows some of it's citizens to have no medical safety net simply because they have pre existing conditions that mean they might get ill!So - pre-existing conditions - fine, make the exclusion go away. Make group policies truly group with no exclusions. However, you will have to combine that with tort reform and some sort of reduced liability for the insurance companies where they look to the ambulance chasers much like the goose that is trying to hide the proverbial golden egg. Oh, and those that elect NOT to buy insurance when offered don't get to feed at the public trough because of their lack of responsibility when they make enough money to cover the cost of insurance.
unrepentant said:
ErnestM said:
I agree something has to be done. However, there are alternatives to an overbloated bureaucratic system infested by middle management simpletons that make no contribution other than to take form A and put it into box B and advise people that their situation "isn't that bad and they will have to wait while the more deserving go first."
So - pre-existing conditions - fine, make the exclusion go away. Make group policies truly group with no exclusions. However, you will have to combine that with tort reform and some sort of reduced liability for the insurance companies where they look to the ambulance chasers much like the goose that is trying to hide the proverbial golden egg. Oh, and those that elect NOT to buy insurance when offered don't get to feed at the public trough because of their lack of responsibility when they make enough money to cover the cost of insurance.
I agree with all that. So here's the chance for politicians of all hues to get together and make it happen, reform a system that IS ALREADY bloated and beauracratic and hugely expensive and make it better and accessible for all. Under G W Bush more people filed for bankruptcy because of medical debt than for any other reason and the USA stands alone in my experience as a first world nation that allows some of it's citizens to have no medical safety net simply because they have pre existing conditions that mean they might get ill!So - pre-existing conditions - fine, make the exclusion go away. Make group policies truly group with no exclusions. However, you will have to combine that with tort reform and some sort of reduced liability for the insurance companies where they look to the ambulance chasers much like the goose that is trying to hide the proverbial golden egg. Oh, and those that elect NOT to buy insurance when offered don't get to feed at the public trough because of their lack of responsibility when they make enough money to cover the cost of insurance.
ErnestM
Edited to add: Also - under GW Bush the bankruptcy laws were changed to make it more difficult to file the type of bankruptcy that eliminates your debt (called Chapter 7) The Bankruptcy attornies made a MINT over this. The advertising on television, radio, internet and even spam emails was horrendous. They, basically, made people believe that "if you don't file now, you'll never be able to do it". It was absolutely the most gutter-dredging, appalling, money grubbing display of self-promoting tripe that I have ever seen in my life. The sad thing is, a lot of the CH. 7 filings were converted to CH. 13 and people had to pay back the money anyway. Of course, the attornies had already received their upfront $ 1000 fees.
Edited by ErnestM on Wednesday 14th October 18:57
unrepentant said:
ErnestM said:
Why is she a heroine?
ErnestM
Because she bravely defied her own party for the greater good of those less fortunate?ErnestM
Edited by Jimbeaux on Wednesday 14th October 20:17
ErnestM said:
If the US Congress and the executive branch can figure out a way to solve the 10% of this particular problem without destroying the 90% that works, I will be their biggest fan.
That is a key point that never gets through to the viewing/reading public, the fact that things are about 90/10. The 46 million has been burned into people's minds as oppossed to the more accurate 14 million uninsured.unrepentant said:
ErnestM said:
I agree something has to be done. However, there are alternatives to an overbloated bureaucratic system infested by middle management simpletons that make no contribution other than to take form A and put it into box B and advise people that their situation "isn't that bad and they will have to wait while the more deserving go first."
So - pre-existing conditions - fine, make the exclusion go away. Make group policies truly group with no exclusions. However, you will have to combine that with tort reform and some sort of reduced liability for the insurance companies where they look to the ambulance chasers much like the goose that is trying to hide the proverbial golden egg. Oh, and those that elect NOT to buy insurance when offered don't get to feed at the public trough because of their lack of responsibility when they make enough money to cover the cost of insurance.
I agree with all that. So here's the chance for politicians of all hues to get together and make it happen, reform a system that IS ALREADY bloated and beauracratic and hugely expensive and make it better and accessible for all. Under G W Bush more people filed for bankruptcy because of medical debt than for any other reason and the USA stands alone in my experience as a first world nation that allows some of it's citizens to have no medical safety net simply because they have pre existing conditions that mean they might get ill!So - pre-existing conditions - fine, make the exclusion go away. Make group policies truly group with no exclusions. However, you will have to combine that with tort reform and some sort of reduced liability for the insurance companies where they look to the ambulance chasers much like the goose that is trying to hide the proverbial golden egg. Oh, and those that elect NOT to buy insurance when offered don't get to feed at the public trough because of their lack of responsibility when they make enough money to cover the cost of insurance.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff