IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

@Cycloptichorn,

Again, cyclops, I think you are wrong. I quote the following, which supports everything that I said in my post. If you have any information to disprove it, be my guest, but you probably won't because I don't think the facts will allow you to do it. To elaborate, not only the CBO, but I don't even think what Snowe voted for was in the final legal wording, that comes in further steps. Please provide evidence if I am wrong here.

I would also remind you that you were wrong in regard to the Obama daughter meningitis issue on the economy thread, for which I am still awaiting an apology and an admission on your part. We will probably end up in the same situation with this point as well.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/The-truth-about-the-Baucus-bill---Part-1-8365844-63886722.html

The truth about the Baucus bill - Part 1
Examiner Editorial
October 11, 2009

Obamacare advocates in the White House, Congress and the newsroom of the New York Times were elated this week when a Congressional Budget Office statement said the health care reform bill by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., would cut the federal deficit by $81 billion annually. Hallelujahs ensued all around, including a Times headline proclaiming "Health care bill gets green light in cost analysis." But two words in the CBO statement -- "Preliminary Analysis" -- demonstrate that such celebrations were not only premature, but fundamentally misleading.

CBO had to qualify its observations because it was not allowed to score the actual text of the Baucus bill but rather had to rely on a legislative summary provided by Senate committee staff. So not only were CBO's analysts forced to look at language that put the bill in the best possible light, they were also denied the concrete details and precise legal wording that quite possibly could change their conclusions entirely. Such "close enough for government work" analyses suffice for Baucus and the Times, but for everybody else, by labeling its assessment as preliminary, CBO was clearly waving yellow caution flags.

Reading further, other yellow flags were present in the CBO analysis. As The Examiner's Susan Ferrechio reported Friday, enactment of the Baucus approach will add approximately $900 billion to the federal budget. That money will have to come from somewhere. Half of it will come from massive cuts in Medicare Advantage, while the other half will be generated by new taxes on high-end insurance, higher income taxes, and new levies on drugs and innovative medical devices. We will address these additional yellow flags on this page on Tuesday in Part 2.

There is another reason why the CBO's preliminary analysis should be taken with a grain of salt, though this one wasn't mentioned in the report. Whatever the content of the Baucus bill once it is voted out of the finance committee, it will disappear into a legislative black hole as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and their key aides do what they did on the economic stimulus package back in February -- huddle together behind closed doors to write the final bill, which will then be presented as a fait accompli in the form of a conference report. Everything else is mere sound and fury signifying nothing until Harry and Nancy do their thing in the dark.

1 Reply

Here's a tip for everyone whose eyes are watering from reading wildly colored text; highlight the whole thing and you can read white text on a blue field, just like the old WordPerfect.

Sorry, guy, but that just hurts.

1 Reply

@roger,

I would apologize for your eyes hurting, but I happen to think colored text emphasizes the main points I am making. It forces cyclops to read the evidence that primarily debunks his arguments, I hope.

1 Reply

@okie,

It does, I suppose. I sometimes use blue to separate my comments from quoted material. Style, I suppose.

1 Reply

@roger,

Maybe blue is more pleasant? I also use bold to distinguish a quote from a source, as opposed to words that I write, I think it makes it more obvious to be as a quote from the link. Some people I guess take this as shouting or something, but it is merely common sense methods as far as I am concerned, for the purpose of distinguishing where the words are from and emphasizing the main points that I am trying to get across.

All of this relates to the fact that cyclops told me that I didn't know what I was talking about when I said that Snowe probably did not even have access to reading the final legal language of the legislation that she voted for, and that future negotiations will most definitely change the legislation into something different, likely with provisions slipped in there, possibly in the dead of night and pushed for a vote before the American people have adequate chance to find out what is actually in it. I have challenged him to come up with evidence to prove that my evidence is wrong, and so far he hasn't produced it. I don't expect to see any, and if he does, it probably won't be valid.

Cyclops is mostly hat and no cattle. Example, he told me I was wrong when I said Obama lied when he said his daughter had meningitus or was diagnosed with it. He either lied intentionally or out of ignorance, we could debate which one. This should be a simple matter to determine if she ever had it. Michelle said she did not. Apparently cyclops cannot even determine the simplest of matters such as this, so I doubt he can sort out the complexities of legislation.

2 Replies

@okie,

Bold is good. All caps is shouting.

0 Replies

@okie,

Okie, damn. Seriously.

Quote:

Again, cyclops, I think you are wrong. I quote the following, which supports everything that I said in my post. If you have any information to disprove it, be my guest, but you probably won't because I don't think the facts will allow you to do it. To elaborate, not only the CBO, but I don't even think what Snowe voted for was in the final legal wording, that comes in further steps. Please provide evidence if I am wrong here.

She didn't vote on the 'final legal language,' because the Baucus bill in the Finance committee isn't going to be the final bill. Nobody thinks it is, nobody ever has. She voted a bill out of committee which will be MERGED with the Senate HELP bill - and that's before it even has to be reconciled with the House bill.

That's why I wrote this on the last page - did you even read it?

Quote:

No matter what the Finance committee passes, it must be merged with the HELP committee bill before it is brought to a vote on the Senate floor. This is why nobody is placing much stock in what the Finance bill says; it won't be the actual bill. Reid could ignore the entire Finance bill and just go with the other one - though he won't. Instead some sort of compromise will be made, and a unified bill will be voted on.

You don't understand what you are talking about. You use terms without knowing what they mean, based on little gleamings you get from the attack websites and emails that you cruise around, looking for something negative about Obama and the Dems.

Your link above doesn't understand the issue either, and it presents the weakest analysis possible. It's a political scare document, not a sober reading of the bill.

This paragraph -

Quote:

Reading further, other yellow flags were present in the CBO analysis. As The Examiner's Susan Ferrechio reported Friday, enactment of the Baucus approach will add approximately $900 billion to the federal budget. That money will have to come from somewhere. Half of it will come from massive cuts in Medicare Advantage, while the other half will be generated by new taxes on high-end insurance, higher income taxes, and new levies on drugs and innovative medical devices. We will address these additional yellow flags on this page on Tuesday in Part 2.

Those aren't 'yellow flags,' those are INTEGRAL parts of the plan. Everyone knows that this is where much of the money comes from. This has been the plan all along. You don't know what you are talking about, haven't researched the bills, haven't followed the debate, don't know the details, and are frankly not worth my time discussing this issue with.

As for the other thing, I have already told you clearly that I won't indulge your bottom feeding. If you can't come up with something more meaningful than trying to attack Obama over a comment he made about his kid, I'm not interested in talking to you. Do you understand that?

If you keep it up, I'll just start ignoring you, and I'm sure you don't want that.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

All of this relates to the fact that cyclops told me that I didn't know what I was talking about when I said that Snowe probably did not even have access to reading the final legal language of the legislation that she voted for, and that future negotiations will most definitely change the legislation into something different, likely with provisions slipped in there, possibly in the dead of night and pushed for a vote before the American people have adequate chance to find out what is actually in it. I have challenged him to come up with evidence to prove that my evidence is wrong, and so far he hasn't produced it. I don't expect to see any, and if he does, it probably won't be valid.

Okie; it's not that your evidence is wrong, it's that you are finding significance in stuff that has no signficance. It was obvious all along that Snowe voted on what would be PART of the overall bill, not the entire thing; so your whole 'no legal language!' breathlessness is like running into the room, frantically waving your evidence that the world is round and that the sky is blue.

No ****, sherlock. If you bothered to read my posts, before posting yours, you would actually learn something, and would know better than to try and instruct me on how the Senate works.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Okie; it's not that your evidence is wrong, it's that you are finding significance in stuff that has no signficance. It was obvious all along that Snowe voted on what would be PART of the overall bill, not the entire thing; so your whole 'no legal language!' breathlessness is like running into the room, frantically waving your evidence that the world is round and that the sky is blue.

No ****, sherlock. If you bothered to read my posts, before posting yours, you would actually learn something, and would know better than to try and instruct me on how the Senate works.

Cycloptichorn

To clarify, I realize the thing Snowe voted on will undergo more merging and back room alterations, that is what I said, and that is what you agreed with after you told me I didn't know what I was talking about. Beyond that, I am also saying that I think what Snowe voted on also was not in legal language even as it currently is before the merging process and negotiation process. If the Senate took exactly what Snowe voted on, I think even this would have to be interpreted and rewritten into legal language in a final bill. Now, can you refute that statement and refute me as being wrong on that count as well? If you can, I will retract my statement, but I think I am also right on this count. I admit I am not totally familiar with how these guys operate, but I believe I am right about this as well.

The importance of my point here is that Snowe and the others are largely clueless about exactly what they voted for.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Okie; it's not that your evidence is wrong, it's that you are finding significance in stuff that has no signficance. It was obvious all along that Snowe voted on what would be PART of the overall bill, not the entire thing; so your whole 'no legal language!' breathlessness is like running into the room, frantically waving your evidence that the world is round and that the sky is blue.

No ****, sherlock. If you bothered to read my posts, before posting yours, you would actually learn something, and would know better than to try and instruct me on how the Senate works.

Cycloptichorn

To clarify, I realize the thing Snowe voted on will undergo more merging and back room alterations, that is what I said, and that is what you agreed with after you told me I didn't know what I was talking about.

Well, I stated that in a post which preceded yours by several days. So I hardly was 'agreeing' with you.

Quote:

Beyond that, I am also saying that I think what Snowe voted on also was not in legal language even as it currently is before the merging process and negotiation process. If the Senate took exactly what Snowe voted on, I think even this would have to be interpreted and rewritten into legal language in a final bill. Now, can you refute that statement and refute me as being wrong on that count as well?

No, dude, you aren't wrong; but it's a 'No ****, Sherlock' moment again. What you are describing is how EVERY bill in the Senate works. It isn't a revelation or some sort of nefariousness on the part of the Democrats or anyone. It's standard procedure. If you had been paying attention to what has been going on, and done research, you would realize this isn't anything worth getting breathless about.

Quote:

If you can, I will retract my statement, but I think I am also right on this count. I admit I am not totally familiar with how these guys operate, but I believe I am right about this as well.

The importance of my point here is that Snowe and the others are largely clueless about exactly what they voted for.

You are wrong about that; I'm sure that Snowe and the others knew very well what they are voting for. They have been working on this for months, discussing the details, haggling. I guarantee she has a better idea what she voted for than you do!

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Beyond that, I am also saying that I think what Snowe voted on also was not in legal language even as it currently is before the merging process and negotiation process. If the Senate took exactly what Snowe voted on, I think even this would have to be interpreted and rewritten into legal language in a final bill. Now, can you refute that statement and refute me as being wrong on that count as well?

No, dude, you aren't wrong; but it's a 'No ****, Sherlock' moment again. What you are describing is how EVERY bill in the Senate works. It isn't a revelation or some sort of nefariousness on the part of the Democrats or anyone. It's standard procedure. If you had been paying attention to what has been going on, and done research, you would realize this isn't anything worth getting breathless about.

So now you admit I am right, thats a big accomplishment for you cyclops. Perhaps its the way other bills also go through, but face it, this legislation is riddled with claims and counter-claims of what it will be, and I am not as trusting as you are, I do not think anybody should vote for something that can literally be interpreted into different language depending upon which lawyer does it. Sort of like the meaning of the word "is." I am not at all convinced that legal legislative language would be exactly the same in all points according to everyones interpretation as the plain english text that was voted on. These guys are about as intellectually honest as a pit full of snakes.

Quote:

Quote:
If you can, I will retract my statement, but I think I am also right on this count. I admit I am not totally familiar with how these guys operate, but I believe I am right about this as well.

The importance of my point here is that Snowe and the others are largely clueless about exactly what they voted for.

You are wrong about that; I'm sure that Snowe and the others knew very well what they are voting for. They have been working on this for months, discussing the details, haggling. I guarantee she has a better idea what she voted for than you do!

Cycloptichorn

This is a matter of opinion, you are entitled to yours but I am also entitled to mine. I simply do not think some of these people actually know what they are voting for. Evidence buttressing my opinion is the fact that they do not actually vote on the bill as it would be written in legislative language, and given the wide diversity of disagreement about interpretations of what is meant by a statement, it is entirely logical that many of these people don't know the entirety of what they actually voted for, by virtue of the fact that they do not vote on the actual legal legislative language, they vote on a plain english text that will be interpreted. We all should know that "interpretation" is what it is; it can vary depending upon who does it. And I am not even sure they read the plain english version and comprehend it very well, thats another big part of the point I am making here.

2 Replies

@okie,

Which is a bit like saying that the bill is passed solely for the purpose of having a bill passed which can then be presented to the public in a variety of ways.

Which is a bit like saying that your political system is incapable of anything remotely connected to universal healthcare.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

This is a matter of opinion, you are entitled to yours but I am also entitled to mine. I simply do not think some of these people actually know what they are voting for. Evidence buttressing my opinion is the fact that they do not actually vote on the bill as it would be written in legislative language, and given the wide diversity of disagreement about interpretations of what is meant by a statement, it is entirely logical that many of these people don't know the entirety of what they actually voted for, by virtue of the fact that they do not vote on the actual legal legislative language, they vote on a plain english text that will be interpreted. We all should know that "interpretation" is what it is; it can vary depending upon who does it. And I am not even sure they read the plain english version and comprehend it very well, thats another big part of the point I am making here.

God damn, you are frustrating to discuss things with, because you don't understand this **** at all.

They didn't vote on the 'legal language,' because that's what you vote on in the final bill. Every single time a bill is passed, which comes out of committee, this is how it works. Always has. You are complaining that they didn't do something that they aren't supposed to do at this point.

Every single bill ever passed is subject to interpretation. All of them. This idea that people shouldn't vote, unless the language is so plain as to be devoid of the ability to be interpreted differently, betrays a profound ignorance on your part as to how the legislative process works. You literally don't know what you are talking about.

The ironic part is, you display such foolishness in a post where you accuse those in the Senate of not knowing what they voted on. It's unbelievable.

Quote:

So now you admit I am right, thats a big accomplishment for you cyclops.

Do me a favor. Quote where I said you were wrong. I think if you look you will find that I didn't say you were wrong, I said you didn't understand what you are talking about. You are describing events which took place accurately, but your analysis is deeply flawed and rather infantile.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

They didn't vote on the 'legal language,' because that's what you vote on in the final bill. Every single time a bill is passed, which comes out of committee, this is how it works. Always has. You are complaining that they didn't do something that they aren't supposed to do at this point.

Not true. It has not always been that way. Certainly the practice has become the norm, as you say, during the past few decades as the body and complexity of existing law grows and the potential for unforseen interaction or contradiction with other existing laws grose apace. It is also true that legislators on both sides of the aisle have learned how to manipulate that requirement to serve their own political ends. Thus the CBO doesn't score many committee drafts for their budget effects because however "plain" their language, they are simply too vague and imprecise. Instead they wait for the final language. That in turn enables a good deal of manipulation of the public and legislative debates by both protagonists and antagonists of the legislation in question, with various parties claiming things they know aren't true, comfortable in the knowledge that they won't be contradicted by an authoritative source in the case of budget issues.

The system is badly broken and needs reform

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Every single bill ever passed is subject to interpretation. All of them. This idea that people shouldn't vote, unless the language is so plain as to be devoid of the ability to be interpreted differently, betrays a profound ignorance on your part as to how the legislative process works. You literally don't know what you are talking about.

Cycloptichorn

True enough. However you are ignoring the well developed political art of slipping earmarks and contentious provisions into the final legislation. This, of course is in addition to the various "gotcha" games both parties play both in committee and in the legislature as a whole with various amendments, some intended only to make the opposing party look bad to one faction ort another.

It isn't a pretty picture, and many thoughtful people are reluctant to see the power and intrusiveness of this kind of govermnment expand further into their lives.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

It isn't a pretty picture, and many thoughtful people are reluctant to see the power and intrusiveness of this kind of govermnment expand further into their lives.

It is infinitely prettier, Infinitely, than the Profit motive and private industry controlling all aspects of health-care - with no recourse for the consumer.

Right now, if your insurance company decides to **** you over, what can you about it? Very little. At least with government you can elect replacements for the bastards. You have no representation at all within private industry - and before you give me any guff about the market being self-correcting, please remember that the health-care market clearly is NOT in fact self-correcting.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Which is a bit like saying that the bill is passed solely for the purpose of having a bill passed which can then be presented to the public in a variety of ways.

Which is a bit like saying that your political system is incapable of anything remotely connected to universal healthcare.

Yes, and this relates to the idea or mantra that "we have to do something." I think that is the reasoning of Snowe, and frankly it is silly, especially when doing "something" might be ten times worse than nothing.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

It isn't a pretty picture, and many thoughtful people are reluctant to see the power and intrusiveness of this kind of govermnment expand further into their lives.

It is infinitely prettier, Infinitely, than the Profit motive and private industry controlling all aspects of health-care - with no recourse for the consumer.

Right now, if your insurance company decides to **** you over, what can you about it? Very little. At least with government you can elect replacements for the bastards. You have no representation at all within private industry - and before you give me any guff about the market being self-correcting, please remember that the health-care market clearly is NOT in fact self-correcting.

Cycloptichorn

Again, baloney. You can change insurance companies. I have. You cannot change bureaucrats, you are stuck with the losers. Electing different people, sounds good, but individuals cannot do that, it is not a personal choice because it depends upon what everyone else votes for. We have basically lost personal choice, which we still have with our own insurance companies, our own doctors, etc., we don't need to rely upon the entire country voting for our doctors and insurance companies in terms of what they do and how they are run.

Also, please keep your sewer language to yourself please. I like my insurance agent alot more than I do the government, and just so you know, based upon your attitude I would not buy anything from you, including insurance.

And I happen to like the profit motive, and I can't help it if you and your fellow Marxists despise it.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It is infinitely prettier, Infinitely, than the Profit motive and private industry controlling all aspects of health-care - with no recourse for the consumer.

Right now, if your insurance company decides to **** you over, what can you about it? Very little. At least with government you can elect replacements for the bastards. You have no representation at all within private industry - and before you give me any guff about the market being self-correcting, please remember that the health-care market clearly is NOT in fact self-correcting.

Cycloptichorn

Your assertions are simply untrue. I and my health insurer are equally bound by the contract establishing our relationship. If I don't like their actions, I can sue - and many have done so. Government cannot be sued at will as can private entities. In addition, I can switch to another of my employer's plans; or simply buy another policy myself. If you get your way we will all be "taken care of" by some government agency that will impose very severe restrictions on our ability to contest its actions and which will eventually deprive us all of any alternative to it.

2 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Again, baloney. You can change insurance companies. I have.

Not if they decide to screw ya. If you have a so-called 'pre-existing condition,' just try changing insurers. For those who get their insurance through their employer, just try changing outside of the one month per year they allow it. By that time it is usually far too late, and you are stuck with huge bills.

Quote:

You cannot change bureaucrats, you are stuck with the losers. Electing different people, sounds good, but individuals cannot do that, it is not a personal choice because it depends upon what everyone else votes for.

Pfff, how anti-American of you. If you don't believe in Democratic representation, find another place to live, buddy.

Quote:

We have basically lost personal choice, which we still have with our own insurance companies, our own doctors, etc., we don't need to rely upon the entire country voting for our doctors and insurance companies in terms of what they do and how they are run.

Bullshit! You are trying to tell people that your insurance company doesn't tell you which doctors you can see, or what the doctor can prescribe you? Ridiculous!

Private insurance LIMITS your options and gives customers very little recourse when they decide to cancel your coverage in the middle of your illness. You seem to believe - as many Republicans do - that because the system has worked well for you, that it works well for everyone. It clearly does not.

I do believe that you believe there is no real problem, because you don't have a problem, and you don't give a **** about anyone else's problems, if it costs you a single dime.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It is infinitely prettier, Infinitely, than the Profit motive and private industry controlling all aspects of health-care - with no recourse for the consumer.

Right now, if your insurance company decides to **** you over, what can you about it? Very little. At least with government you can elect replacements for the bastards. You have no representation at all within private industry - and before you give me any guff about the market being self-correcting, please remember that the health-care market clearly is NOT in fact self-correcting.

Cycloptichorn

Your assertions are simply untrue. I and my health insurer are equally bound by the contract establishing our relationship. If I don't like their actions, I can sue - and many have done so.

Sure. But what happens when you are sick with cancer, or some other expensive disease, and your care is cut off in the middle?

This is exactly the situation that thousands if not millions of Americans have found themselves in. They don't have time to sue. They don't have money to sue. They are busy dying from lack of care. Your answer is rather flippant and ignores the reality of the situation for those who have been screwed by their insurers.

Quote:

Government cannot be sued at will as can private entities. In addition, I can switch to another of my employer's plans; or simply buy another policy myself.

At pre-determined times of year, you can switch; correct? And if that's not convenient for your illness, that's just too bad. Right? In fact, once you are ill, you likely cannot switch in many cases - you are too big a risk for the new group. Pre-existing illnesses also make individual insurance grossly expensive.

Once again, this does not reflect the reality of dealing with insurance companies for huge numbers of Americans. You are describing options which are available for healthy people who haven't been in conflict with their insurers over their conditions.

Quote:

If you get your way we will all be "taken care of" by some government agency that will impose very severe restrictions on our ability to contest its actions and which will eventually deprive us all of any alternative to it.

NOW you have accurately described the modern private insurance market! Took you long enough, and you managed to put the word 'government' in when you meant 'insurance agency.'

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know