About Me

My photo
Nazareth, Pa., United States

Thursday, December 24, 2009

Dent:Senate Health Care Bill a Lump of Coal in Christmas Stocking

By the time you read this blog, it's likely the Senate Health Bill will have been adopted, with the reconciliation between Pelosi and Reid versions to take place after Christmas. When it was just Pelosicare, or the House version, it was a left v. right debate, with moderates scratching their heads. With Reidcare, or the Senate version, it is now a left v. left v. right debate, while moderates are getting a headache.

It's a jumbled mess requiring an M.B.A. to understand. That's as it should be because our elected representatives are screwing around with 1/6th of our economy. No matter what they decide, we will almost certainly be wrong. You can take that to the bank, and then bail it out.

My father was a WWII vet. Like most people in his generation, he never discussed the horrors he witnessed. But when drinking, he liked to recount the story of a surly old Wehrmacht soldier, missing both a leg and eye. My father and writer Kurt Vonnegut conducted an extensive tour of German bars twenty years after the war, where they befriended this Superman.

This sullen dude had fought everywhere, from Africa to Russia. He was among the Panzer divisions who spearheaded the Bulge, where my father and Vonnegut were captured. But he was in no mood for talking, at least not until they were all loaded.

Then it started. First, this old soldier flatly denied Germans were anti-Semitic. "We hated everybody," he insisted.

Then, in response to prodding and lots of German beer, he started rating soldiers from different countries. He like the British, who were very professional. He was scared to death of Australians, whom he claimed fought like wildmen. He derided the French as cowards who ran. He had no respect for Russians as fighters, but claimed that eventually, you just run out of bullets.

"What about the Americans?" my dad kept asking.

Finally, he had an answer, and it's a revealing commentary.

"We had a saying about the Amerikaners. Leave them alone, and they'll manage to screw things up all by themselves. But don't put them in a corner or they'll fight like hell."

If you take this old soldier's story, and apply it to the healthcare debate, it's pretty evident what is going on. We're in the screwing up stage. Despite the wide consensus that we desperately need health care reform, we're incredibly busy right now making matters even worse.

Health insurance companies that were supposed to be part of the problem may very well come out ahead. One Nebraska Senator traded his vote in exchange for giving that state a favored status with Medicaid funding. LV Congressman Charlie Dent calls this "flabbergasting," sand flatly states that "[t]his kind of backroom deal-making is not only an affront to the democratic process, but it may violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution."

Dent also observes that the Senate deal exempts some union plans from a tax on Cadillac insurance plans that are supposed to help pay for this reform. "[P]olitical connections were more important than other considerations in crafting this legislation," claims Dent, who contends that the Senate bill would never pass on its own merits.

"This unwelcome intrusion, and the political engineering behind it, is a lump of coal in the stocking of working Americans.”

Leave it to Congress to take an immensely popular idea - doing something to reform our expensive and unfair medical care system - and come up with solutions that are now opposed by a majority of Americans.

We're still in the screwing up stage.

In the meantime, now is a good time to buy health insurance stock.

120 comments:

Anonymous said...

So true. The Germans and Japanese, Canadians, Austrailians, basically everyone involved in that war must be laughing at us. THey all have had universal healthcare for decades and spend a lot less for better care and we're farting around wasting money. We are #1 in cost and #37 in care. It's embarrassing. I just saw a special on Denmark, rated by scientists as having the happiest people on Earth, partly because of their healthcare system. When some citizens were asked if they felt they were socialists compared to the United States because everyone in Denmark had affordable healthcare, they responded, "no, civilized."

Anonymous said...

Of course Denmark and the others dont have illegal comes in by the millions who will suck the system dry, while Joe Blow works and pays for it. I would be happy too!

Anonymous said...

Of course Rep. Dent has taken the intelligent, moral and politically brave stand of sitting on his hands and letting the Republican National Committee write his responses. Thanks for the leadership.

Sad day for the Lehigh Valley. The first truely historic time in Charlies career and he took a pass.

Ryan O'Donnell said...

Let's see.

- 31,000,000 more people insured.
- Insurance companies not being able to deny people for pre-existing conditions.
- Women finally being charged the same as men for health insurance (instead of up to 48%) more.
- $100 billion in subsidies for poor and sick Americans.
- The creation of health-insurance exchanges.
- Lower family premiums.
- Tax credits to small business.
- Closing the Medicare Part D donut hole.
- Reducing the deficit by $132 billion in the first 10 years.
- Reducing the deficit by over $650 billion in the second 10 years.
- No more lifetime or annual caps on insurance coverage.
- No longer allowing insurance companies to drop you when you get too sick.

Holy shit, you're right. That sounds awful.

Bill said...

Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities.[Winston Churchill]

Bernie O'Hare said...

Dent took a stand on the Senate version, something he could easily duck. Callahan is hiding in his office, decorating his CVhristmas tree.

Anonymous said...

"Of course Denmark and the others dont have illegal comes in by the millions who will suck the system dry, while Joe Blow works and pays for it. I would be happy too!"

First, your remark is biased and you are scapegoating illegal aliens, something I expect from a bigot.

Second, it is apparant that you never visited Denmark. Northern European countries have been inundated with immigrants, that even tolerant countries like Denmark and the Netherlands, are reexamining their policies on immigration.

Third, I thought there was language in the bill regarding illegal immigrants.

Dave said...

Is it perfect..no. Could they have compromised and had a better bill..probably. I got up early to watch the vote because it is historic. Civil rights legislation began on a low level and rose thru ensuing years to get the thing RIGHT! This is the starting point and for that I am glad my Senators voted for the people of America to be able to improve their lives and their childrens lives. God bless us every one! Merry Christmas!

Bernie O'Hare said...

There is nothing remotely bigoted about that remark. It is a factualy accurate description of a serious problem presented by undocumented workers, many of whom do place a drain on our human services. It matters little whether they are from South America or France. Bigotry happens when we look at someone differnt and then assumes, just for that reason, that this is a person who is sucking the system dry.

Of America's uninsured, roughly 1/3 are here illegally. They are still human beings and must be treated when ill. Their children, especially, should not suffer. But to deny that this imposes a hardship on overworked ERs is to deny reality.

Anonymous said...

Bernie,

This bill and the process that led to it are the epitome of awful and all that is wrong with Washington. I dare anyone with integrity to be proud of this legislation.

In the meantime Merry Christmas

Scott Armstrong

Anonymous said...

Integrity? Politics is a dirty and messy affair and it's all about power..who has it and who wants it! The end justifies the means.

Anonymous said...

If the 30 million who stand to finally get health care go to the polls next time..the R's are gonna feel the pain.

Anonymous said...

8 years of Bush and the R's made no attempt at HC reform! Now they scream they are excluded from the process..BS! Obstuction is not acceptable!

Anonymous said...

OBSTRUCTION! Dem's caved on several key issues and still no compromise from the R side of the aisle. Incredible! History will judge them soon enough.

Anonymous said...

Anon 911,

Wow! What ignorance.

Scott Armstrong

Anonymous said...

Anon, 8:59,

So you and those who think like this have no integrity.

Scott Armstrong

Anonymous said...

"It is a factual(l)y accurate description of a serious problem presented by undocumented workers, many of whom do place a drain on our human services."

I disagree. The bill has language that does not support medical coverage for illegal immigrants. The problem of health care for undocumented residents is a separate issue, unrelated to this historic legislation. To distort and misrepresent the facts, by playing upon peoples timorous opinions on illegal immigration, takes away from the legitimacy and content of the legislation. The contributor pointed out a target population that will not receive any benefit from this particular legislation. Saying such is scapegoating, exacerbating and provoking, which in turn embitters people, wrongfully so, against this important bill.

Anonymous said...

I realize that the insurance industry is 1/6 of our economy. How is it that the rest of the industrialized world doesn't have insurance companies and they beat us economically? Maybe because universal healthcare allows small businesses in other countries to flourish and grow instead of burdening both small and large businesses with excessive costs? During the Civil War did we argue that slavery was 1/6 of our economy? Not a good argument.

Anonymous said...

Let's see. The govt. cannot stop party crashers from infiltrating the White House, yet they want to control 1/3 of the economy?!!!

Anonymous said...

The Dems “caved” on themselves, the Republicans were only welcomed to the process if they would be completely compliant to the majority. This is never the mission of any minority. The process was so extreme even Snow couldn’t stomach it. Yes history will judge this action but the voters will have first crack next year. The arrogance and one party autocracy on display in Washington is not sitting well with the public, on this there is no doubt. A major correction will occur in the next general election.

Scott Armstrong

Anonymous said...

The fact that we would be discussing more government regulation/or eventual take over of a business that bases its operation on actuarial tables is mind boggling. When did profit become evil in America?
The government’s role in Health care should be limited to taking care of people who can’t take care of themselves. That has always been the essence of the Republican position. Why is it more compassionate to provide “GOVERNMENT” health to people to people who are happy with what they are purchasing on the free market.
Why isn’t the press posing this question?

Scott Armstrong

Looking To Escape said...

When did profit become evil in America?


Since 1932.
.
The Democrats are conformist at heart and resent anyone that does well.
.
Of course, like Congress, they exempt themselves.

Anonymous said...

Can someone explain to me why all the politicians who are against healthcare aren't trying to get rid of Medicare then? I don't understand that. The Republicans were very against Medicare in the 60s when it was passed. What changed?

Looking To Escape said...

Can someone explain to me why all the politicians who are against healthcare aren't trying to get rid of Medicare then? I don't understand that. The Republicans were very against Medicare in the 60s when it was passed. What changed?


Too many Americans think there is a thing called a free lunch. Once people get used to it, the best Republicans can hope to do is control the serving size (it's easy to be a glutton when you're not picking up the tab). Europeans are learning this now, the question is, how long will it take Americans to?
.
That is why the Democrats call the healthcare bill a "gift" to the American people. Only the Democrats can call something you pay for a gift to you.
.
And only a Democrat can see it as "gift".

Ryan O'Donnell said...

"When did profit become evil in America?"

It became unacceptable for the insurance industry when their profit margins rose by 428% from 2000 to 2007.

Your obvious response: "But this is America!! CAPITALISM, BABY! People should not be punished for profits."

Sure. I'm ok with that. However, the insurance industry makes their profit by not covering and dropping coverage for sick people. I don't care what side you're on. You can't agree with the ways they made their money.

Some of this legislation may have been motivated to take away profit margin from insurance companies - and some of it still intends to (like the provision to force them to pay 85 cents on every premium dollar on health care), but although I don't think it's as much of a handout as everybody thinks it is (about 3.6% of the total subsidies), if anything, the insurance companies stand to gain profit from this legislation.

I feel that this is unfortunate. But, like I've said many times before, if we can get all of the things in the legislation that we currently have (my earlier comment) and that makes the insurance industry go from the 86th most profitable industry, to the 53rd, or something, I'll still take it.

At least steps were taken in this legislation to try and stop or largely slow down a lot of the terrible ways they've made their money in the past.

Looking To Escape said...

Some of this legislation may have been motivated to take away profit margin from insurance companies


On an old board I was on a poster was screaming about the outrageous profits a health insurance company made.
.
I looked up their financials and reviewed their data. Essentially the company made 6%, an okay (but not great) return. They also built up their reserves to cover future policy services, leaving less money.
.
I pointed out to him the stockholders could have dissolved the business and put their money into long term CD's (paying 5% at that time) to make as much back without the headaches of running a business.
.
The Democrats can make their arguments because the American people are just so ill informed and worse yet, do not wish to inform themselves.

Jon Geeting said...

Jesus how lazy are you Bernie? Rather than actually learning information yourself (abundant on the Internet) to explain to your readers what's in the health care bill, or link them to some blog that's actually interested in helping readers understand the topics they're writing about, you accept Dent's lazy, ignorant whining that the bill is just too complicated at face value. Dent has agency - he's the representative, and despite playing dumb, he knows exactly what the bill does (see Rylock above).

But instead of using his position of power to better inform his constituents about transformative legislation whose passage now appears inevitable, he throws up his hands like a baby, pleading too dumb, too ignorant to understand the relatively simple policy changes. Yes, there are many reforms. Yes, it's a lot of reading. But none of them are especially complicated. A problem like this that doesn't lend itself to technical fixes requires a lot of pilot programs and trial-and-error in reforming the payment system, moving away from fee-for-service medicine, etc. If Dent doesn't want to do his job, the Lehigh Valley will gladly send someone who's willing to work. You'd think being a backbencher who never writes legislation, Dent would have plenty of time on his hands to read the bill.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Hey Jonathan,

I've read quite a bit in the past few days and weeks, and the more I read, the more confused I get. Everyone seems to be so sure of themselves, but my sense is that everyone is full of shit.

What you've just read is not a product of laziness, but an actual original essay from a person who is trying to make sense of this mess.

Original thought. Ever hear of that, Jonathan?

My view is that the Senate bill is flawed, the House bill is flawed, our Health system is flawed, the Republicans are flawed, etc. Basically, it's just like the old German says. Leave us alone and we'll somehow manage to screw things up.

We're not sick enough to stop this insane partisanship and sit dfown and do the right thing, which is LISTEN to each other. And by the way, Dent's statment about both Nebraska and Cadillac union plans is dead on.

Instead of looking for every opportunity uoui can find to slime him, why don't you come up wth a few original ideas of your own?

Anonymous said...

“Anonymous said...
Can someone explain to me why all the politicians who are against healthcare aren't trying to get rid of Medicare then? I don't understand that. The Republicans were very against Medicare in the 60s when it was passed. What changed?”

Republicans want to reform Medicare and get cost under control. This bill does neither. Instead it uses an accounting gimmick(Doctor fix) to claim it will reduce expenses. Democrats won’t follow through on the cuts and the results will be further massive federal deficits and increase costs to every state except Nebraska.

Scott Armstrong

Anonymous said...


Sure. I'm ok with that. However, the insurance industry makes their profit by not covering and dropping coverage for sick people. I don't care what side you're on. You can't agree with the ways they made their money.”

Oh boy right from the talking points. Actually insurance companies make their money on centuries old sound business practices, unless of course the government intrudes with regulations that preclude the use of market and actuarial based business methods.
The government should confine their health care efforts to those who cannot find relief in the private sector. No one would have a problem with that. Again, why is it right, altruistic, or humane for the government to force those of us who are happy with our free market health care options into a more regulated and in short order more restricted government program?

Scott Armstrong

Ryan O'Donnell said...

"Original thought. Ever hear of that, Jonathan?"

HA! You going after somebody for not having original thought? That is awesome.

I'm excited for your next Dent press release post!

"Instead of looking for every opportunity uoui can find to slime him, why don't you come up wth a few original ideas of your own?"

Also, you have no idea that Jon doesn't come up with ideas on his own. You're assuming that you're always right about your assumptions of other people... again.

And, come on, Jon is not an elected official. Dent is. An extremely worthless, useless elected official. I'm not attacking him personally. I'm attacking his performance as an elected official. Again, something that Jon, you, and I are not.

I, as I'm sure Jon does as well, have many ideas to fix things in our society (especially with regards to health care). Things that I have discussed with Dent. Things that Dent was so hyper-partisan on that he refused to even discuss policy with me and would constantly divulge into pointless diatribes about the "history of Medicare" and other nonsense.

Maybe you should give it a shot to not rely on attacking people that comment on your blog, because you have no real defense for Dent's worthless and flat-out awful career as a congressperson.

(And, remember: not personal. Charlie and I get along very well.)

Anonymous said...

Ryloc,

Do you think that your choice of words and style of argument may be working against furthering your point of view?

Scott Armstrong

Anonymous said...

This mess of a bill which is despised by the left and the right alike has come about because the Republicans wouldn't give it one vote ( even the much better ideas like expanding medicare) That party is a waste. They were in charge for 6 years and did nothing on health care. They are bought and paid for by the industry. As pitiful as the bill turned out, at least they've done something to help millions of uninsured Americans and Seniors dealing with that donut hole crap..Also the expansion of medicaid will help unemployed workers get health benefits. I have a client that had no heat for Christmas but her $1000. monthly unemployment benefit ( her rent is $900) disqualifies her for medicaid...The new bill would cover her and her kids and also millions like her. I guess Charlie didn't think about that..

Looking To Escape said...

As pitiful as the bill turned out, at least they've done something to help millions of uninsured Americans and Seniors dealing with that donut hole crap..


The doughnut hole was the deductible moved up. The lead "designer" of the bill thought it was a good idea to give low income seniors some benefit even if they were not using a large amount of drugs. The hole was actually a little bit of thoughtfulness.
.
Your better than nothing attitude towards the health "reform" act is why we have distorted markets, a declining economy and an ever growing federal government.

RS said...

Let's see, during the Bush admin the Rs controlled the White House and Congress for a few years. During that time, were they actually doing anything about health care reform? Did they work really hard to reduce costs? Did they push tort reform? Did they try to help the uninsured and the poor? Well, no they didn't to any great degree. Now that they are a minority party, did they present a number of meaningful bills that would accomplish any of this at least as a PR gesture? Did they present any viable alternatives? Well, no and no is the word the Rs seem to know. The Rs got creamed in the last election round because they had no good ideas on this issue and many others. Anybody seen any WMD in Iraq lately? While not the only movers causing the economic meltdown, they were in the driver's seat during the years leading up to it, so they got legitimately blasted for that.

Do I like this health care bill, no I don't. However, the Rs sure didn't offer me much of an alternative, so we are stuck with this plan until we're broke. The Rs can scream and condemn, but if they'd shown any leadership on this issue in the years past, we wouldn't be here.

Anonymous said...

Americans are always slower and stupider than other nations. This will be passed and then more will catch on that insurance companies are useless paper pushing middlemen sucking out profits and they'll be pushed out to make the system more economical for the nation.

Ryan O'Donnell said...

"Do you think that your choice of words and style of argument may be working against furthering your point of view?"

Maybe!

Why don't you throw some sound advice my way?

Anonymous said...

"The new bill would cover her and her kids and also millions like her."

The new bill would cover her and her kids and millions like her by MANDATING that they get coverage or else face enormous tax penalties and, under some versions, potential jail time! Now that is change you can believe in.

Anonymous said...

"Also the expansion of medicaid will help unemployed workers get health benefits."

You forgot to mention that it will place an unsustainable burden on all state budgets...well, nearly all. "Cash for Cloture" was good for some states, too bad not ours.

Ryan O'Donnell said...

"The new bill would cover her and her kids and millions like her by MANDATING that they get coverage or else face enormous tax penalties and, under some versions, potential jail time! Now that is change you can believe in."

Ok, first of all, all children should have health insurance. It should certainly be mandated that they have it. It is insane and inhumane to suggest otherwise. Thank god the Senate bill expands CHIP.

Also, the mandate is only in effect for people that can spend 8% or less of their income on health insurance coverage. Anybody who it would be more expensive for is excluded from the mandate.

Have you even looked at the numbers that are being predicted for a family trying to purchase health care (including max out-of-pocket costs and cost-sharing) will be spending $10,000 a year less by 2016 if this bill is passed?

Doesn't sound like they'd be complaining too much about that.

Have any of you read the Senate bill? If your state (or our state) doesn't like the mandate, they can drop it. That is, of course, contingent on the fact that they will have equal or better outcomes than they would with the mandate with regards to costs and coverage.

And the Senate bill has no jail-time for people that don't comply with the mandate. And I will also give you a 99.9% guarantee that there won't be jail-time in the final legislation.

And the fines are a max of 2% of your monthly income. And if you pay those two percent fines, you'll actually be allowed on the insurance roles later on if you choose to -- unlike now. The individual mandate is a better deal for people, not a worse one. This isn't even to mention that it will keep costs from rising substantially. Ask any respected health economist.

Why do I even try sometimes?

So many people obviously don't give a shit about what's actually in this bill.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Rylock,

Is your name Jonathan? My comment was directed at him, not you. When I take the time to compose my thoughts and prepare an original post for Christmas Eve, I tend to get pissed when I'm tagged as lazy. Your last post was on 12/17, consisting of little more than a lino to something else. Jonathan's blog consists of 0 posts. And you call me lazy?

What's worse, unoriginal? There are times when I'll post a reference to something or a news release, but I don't think Charlie Dent sent me a news release about Vonnegut and my dad. I don't think Dent told me to tell everyone I'm confused.

Did you or Jon actually read what I wrote, or just the two sentences from Dent? Did either of you get my point - that we'll eventually get it right - or are you too busy being sure about everything?

And no, Jonathan has not been terribly original here. He's good at calling people "shitstains", as he did on my blog about a week ago, but that's about it.

He saw the name Dent so he freaked out. Maybe he should read an entire post before flying off.

Ryan O'Donnell said...

"Is your name Jonathan? My comment was directed at him, not you. When I take the time to compose my thoughts and prepare an original post for Christmas Eve, I tend to get pissed when I'm tagged as lazy. Your last post was on 12/17, consisting of little more than a lino to something else. Jonathan's blog consists of 0 posts. And you call me lazy? "

Firstly, I never called you lazy. And, I can't speak for Jon, but I think Jon was more referring to you constantly taking Dent's positions, rather than your "laziness" as a blogger. I don't think anyone would call you lazy in that regard when you post an average of probably 12-15 articles a week.

"Did you or Jon actually read what I wrote, or just the two sentences from Dent? Did either of you get my point - that we'll eventually get it right - or are you too busy being sure about everything?"

I did read it! Did you read anything I wrote?

I continually try to argue the policy of the bill. Which is what people like Dent try so very hard to stay away from.

And I did get your point. And I agree -- just in a different way. I believe this bill is the first step to getting it right. You can even call it a limp; I don't care. It's certainly in the right direction.

Finally, I am not certain. Nobody's certain. Not me, you, Jon, Harry Reid, Obama, or Dent. But I feel that me, Jon, Harry Reid, and Obama have the facts on our side, while Dent complains about anything to get him out of a policy discussion.

This bill is certainly flawed; it could be a thousand times better; but it is absolutely necessary.

I'm with Paul Krugman: "My view is that it's a disappointing, flawed bill -- but it is also a progressive triumph. Pass it now."

Looking To Escape said...


This isn't even to mention that it will keep costs from rising substantially. Ask any respected health economist.
.
So many people obviously don't give a shit about what's actually in this bill.



I was watching a Frontline story on derivatives and the economic crash. The show sounded thoughtful, authoritative and was certainly designed to produce a certain conclusion. Who could argue with PBS? I could. Many others can. But to the average PBS viewer, they sounded spot on.
.
The numbers in this bill were rigged to produce a certain result. Sure the CBO said this bill would save money, they had to go by the bill supplied to them by the Democrats and rate as is.

Anonymous said...

"Civilized?" What do those Europeans know? Real Americans die of scurvy, diarrhea, scarlett fever, and gout like our forefathers! USA! USA!

Bernie O'Hare said...

"Firstly, I never called you lazy. And, I can't speak for Jon"

No, you did not. that was Jonathan. And no, you can't speak for Jonathan, which is why you should not have interjected yourself into a comment directed at him.

"I did read it! Did you read anything I wrote?"

You know I do and have complimented you in the past.

"Finally, I am not certain. Nobody's certain. Not me, you, Jon, Harry Reid, Obama, or Dent. But I feel that me, Jon, Harry Reid, and Obama have the facts on our side, while Dent complains about anything to get him out of a policy discussion"

Agreed. Nobody is certain, but lots of people think they are. Dent complains about a bill that you yourself recognize is flawed. If you took the time to engage him, you'd find that he and the Dems agree on about 85% of what is needed for health care reform, including tougher insurance industry regulation and coverage f pre-existing conditions. But instead of getting a piece of consensus legislation, as Obam promised, we have a flawed bill opposed by every Republican.

You may call it a "progressive triumph." I believe it will fail because it has attempted to do too much with too little support.

The Central Scrutinizer said...

Bernie O'Hare, Merry Christmas. Keep up the good fight, even if you are wrong half the time. :)

Anonymous said...

Let's boil this down to a basic fact - if this were such a good bill, why did Harry Reid have to bribe so many to get their votes?

$1.2 billion combined to Louisiana, Nebraska, Vermont and Massachusetts for Medicaid benefits.

$100 million to Connecticut for construction of a hospital.

Nonprofit insurance companies exempt from costs of Obamacare - pushed by Ben Nelson and Carl Levin.

$10 billion for health clinics for Bernie Sanders, Vermont.

This is just a sample, the list goes on and on.

So I ask those who are defending it, why the need for bribes if the core legislation is so wonderful?

The Banker

PS - Merry Christmas Bernie, my best to you and yours.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Central, Banker, Jonathan, Rylock, Scott, Bill, Dave and everyone else,

Merry Christmas! Hope that you and your families all have pleasant holidays.

Anonymous said...

I'd like to business with rylock. I'd have him naked, homeless and penniless in about five minutes because I'm certain he'll believe anything; especially if his government tells him it's so. P.T. Barnum was so right.

Anonymous said...

And a blessed Christmas, Bernie.

Dave said...

A peaceful day is my wish for you Bernie. Let's call a truce and enjoy HIS birthday. God bless all this Christmas day.

Anonymous said...

Ohare you are a miserable bastard! You lie through your nicotened yellow teeth. You write opinionated bullshit in your alcoholic mancrrush haze.

But once a year even you deserve the Peace of Christmas. Merry Christmas you prick.

Ryan O'Donnell said...

"Dent complains about a bill that you yourself recognize is flawed. If you took the time to engage him, you'd find that he and the Dems agree on about 85% of what is needed for health care reform, including tougher insurance industry regulation and coverage f pre-existing conditions. But instead of getting a piece of consensus legislation, as Obam promised, we have a flawed bill opposed by every Republican."

Totally with you on the flawed part. But Dent and I feel it's flawed in very different ways. Much like Kucinich and Dent feel it's flawed in different ways.

And I have talked to Dent about these issues! Over an hour once in his office. That's when I was saying that he refused to talk policy with me and would constantly just rant on about worthless pieces of information like "the history of Medicare."

I personally think that there should have been no bipartisanship on health care, because I think that a for-profit health insurance industry is the large part of the problem. I think that lives are too important to be risked on somebody's profit margin. Dent does not think that. I think that the federal government should offer a plan to every American. Dent does not think that.

While I think that, obviously Obama did not. Did we all forget about the gang of six? While I basically hated him for it, Max Baucus tried desperately to garner people like Enzi and Grassley's support. The Finance Committee gave Republicans a seat to actually writing the legislation. But they chose obstructionism.

Hell, Chuck Grassley is on record in the late summer as saying the individual mandate is necessary to move this country forward, now he's running around, not only saying that he doesn't support it, but that it might be unconstitutional.

How the shit is their supposed to be bipartisanship if one party's platform is to completely shut out the other?

Don't get me wrong. All the way over here on the left, I'm into it. I think that means that their behavior doesn't warrant them a seat at the table and we should move on without having to cater to politicians that seem to solely care about destroying Obama.

You know damn well that even if the bill was full of tort reform, buying insurance across state lines, etc., the Republicans would still find away to oppose it.

They are obsessed with filibustering. Over 100 times in one year.

That shit is unheard of.

Ryan O'Donnell said...

Looking to Escape,

I really don't mean to be rude right now, but I never have any idea what your comments are supposed to mean.

I don't know if it's just the linguistics or what. But I try to read and respond to them -- it just doesn't work.

Ryan O'Donnell said...

"I'd like to business with rylock. I'd have him naked, homeless and penniless in about five minutes because I'm certain he'll believe anything; especially if his government tells him it's so. P.T. Barnum was so right."

Is this the shit that you have to put up with all the time, Bernie?

People spouting off about how you don't know what you're talking about, but don't cite any policy or reasoning for why?

Must be real annoying.

Anonymous said...

Bernie,

Merry Christmas to you and all of the readers of this blog.
I found bourbon and some good cigars under the tree. These I will enjoy.

Scott Armstrong

Anonymous said...

OHare... I agree with the German Soldier 100 percent. We do screw up stuff, period. This healthcare fiasco is nothing more than that. The next election will see a sweeping out of the Democrats like no other time in history. Since when does the Constitution require me to pay for and have health care insurance or face imprisonment!!! What next, mandatory life insurance?

Anonymous said...

Remember, Obama says the Constitution is a flawed document. He and his ilk have found the right to kill babies buried in there, so there is one part he can live with.

But, save that, teh One would just as soon burn the whole document, so he can make everyone live as he, the smartest crackhead ever to serve as POTUS, would have them live.

Ken Matthews said...

Using Denmark as a comparison to America for anything is silly. Denmark's population is under 6 million. The US has twice that in illegals. Legal Americans are now over 300 million. Canada has 34 million people and an active military of 70,000. Thank God for America, it's military AND it's healthcare. As far as Canada's healthcare: Michael Moore and Oliver Stone are not doctors or historians-bummer doods- neither is Al Gore. More Research.

Regarding Germany & Japan; Even they can figure out that Obama can't explain what's in that Healthcare bill and that we're getting punked.(remember his big Munich speech ?) They're not stupid. There are people old enough to remember that we beat the crap out of them in 2 wars (Germany 2) and then Rebuilt their countries' infrastructure and are still paying and protecting them today. As opposed to rolling into their country and TAKING over- more left wing jibberish-you know America wants to take over zee world. If we wanted to we would of- Instead America feeds and protects MOST of it. research. (MSNBC doesn't count).

Speaking of Jibberish. 428% profit on insurance companies ??! somebody's been reading Obama's talking points.That's up there with 45 million inisured, then it was 40 mil, then 38, now it's 31 ? ok stay with us. Does that include me ? Or someone that just crossed the border last night ? NOT SURE. It's such a big challenge. It makes everyone's brain hurt so bad- THE TAXES MUST GO UP! Government is already THE LARGEST EMPLOYER IN THE U.S. (next is Wal Mart-who Obama just met with 3 days ago- loved to have been a fly on that wall)

Just like with the one pager list of "good things" that keeps going around. What get's ignored is the 2000+ pages of scam and control. Where did anyone actually see 8% mandate exclusion- NOT IN the bill(s) that I read.Please name the page so I can find that nugget. The recent bills. The ones that were changed last Saturday and Sunday when the bill was augmented by 340 + pages then Debate was stopped Monday morning at 1am- I watched it - Yes it was History in the making to see the senate blow off the Public...with that bill(s) you need an attorney to plow through it. simple questions like HOW MUCH. WHOS' COVERED. WHEN DOES IT START. 2014 ? 2015 ? well those answers are all different depending on what Dem you talk to. So the fall-back postion is. If you ask Obama a question about it-you must not care about the people.
If you have a question about doctors-you must not care about REFORM(newly tested buzz word to replace HOPE & CHANGE). Nobody can explain the 12 million to 15 million illegals with anything relating to this or any other Obama policy. This is a power grab- If it wasn't, they would fix the problems FIRST, And not burn the system to the ground and take it over- But Obama needs some kind of win- or people are going to figure out that 66 million people voted for an awesome teleprompter reader that can rock a rally.THAT's why Germany, China, Pakistan, Iran, Canada, Bora Bora, Utah...are laughing. It's not the fact that 59% of the American don't want any MORE socialism in America...It's that Obama has moved this agenda as far as he has without anybody having much of a clue to what's going on.

Chris Casey said...

Some people also believe that they see the figure of Jesus/Virgin Mary/Muhammed/ you name it in their toast. People look at things and see what they want to see.
That's what is happening with this health care bill.

I hope all of you had a great Christmas. I am going back to watching the Titans/Chargers now.

Anonymous said...

Hopefully this is the start of American's understanding how the robber barrons have profited off the pain and suffering of its children and elderly for decades. The ignorant still sing and dance for the "bossman" but more and more intelligent people are saying no more.

One day we in America will have a modern person centered health system of care. This is only a start. A new generation has grown up seeing how the "market" treated their fathers and grandfathers like disposable ligters. They have seen how the gap between the obscenely wealthy and most working Americans has widened. The era of the Capitalist bullshit is ending. The kids have no loyalty to it, since it showed it had no lyalty to the people.

This is only the beginning of the end of an era of unbridled greed and avarice that unchecked would have resulted in a society that would have embarresed Dickens England. America is growing up. God Bless us all everyone

Anonymous said...

anon 2:22,

Your romantic view of big government is scary, really scary.

Scott Armstrong

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:22...

Big Brother is watching you.. and your medical records.

Ryan O'Donnell said...

Ken,

Dude, you want to work in politics, right? You've got a lot of work to do.

"Speaking of Jibberish. 428% profit on insurance companies ??! somebody's been reading Obama's talking points."

I've actually never heard that talking point! I'm glad they're using it, though. It's a good one. Your profits shouldn't be allowed to rise 428% in seven years primarily for denying people needed care. Call me crazy.

"That's up there with 45 million inisured, then it was 40 mil, then 38, now it's 31 ? ok stay with us. Does that include me ? Or someone that just crossed the border last night ? NOT SURE."

Follow along, big guy! I'll try to talk slowly. There are approximately 45 million uninsured in the country. The last time I checked, I believe there were approximately 11 million illegal immigrants in the country. That's about 34 million uninsured Americans. This (Senate) bill is estimated to cover in between 30 and 31 million Americans. These numbers don't change. It just seems like you're really not paying attention.

"THE TAXES MUST GO UP! Government is already THE LARGEST EMPLOYER IN THE U.S."

And the taxes are only going up in one of two ways. (1) A tax on cadillac health plans [The Excise Tax] or (2) A tax increase on the wealthiest Americans. The excise tax is what John McCain proposed during the campaign -- did you vote for him? And taxes on the wealthy would simply be rolled back to rates that they were under Reagan. How'd you feel about that guy? Big fan?

And just so I don't leave anything out, the Senate bill also puts a 10% tax on indoor tanning.

"Where did anyone actually see 8% mandate exclusion- NOT IN the bill(s) that I read.Please name the page so I can find that nugget."

I don't think anybody (besides you, apparently) is disputing the fact that some employers (under the House's legislation) are exempt from the 8% payroll tax. If you really want me to waste my time and find you a page number, I guess I can, but I promise this is right:

Employers face a much stricter mandate under the House legislation, which would require companies with a payroll of more than $500,000 to provide insurance or pay a penalty of up to 8% of their payroll, any employer making less than 500K would be excluded from the mandate and therefore excluded from the tax.

The Senate bill doesn't even really have an employer mandate. They would require companies with more than 50 employees to pay a fee of up to $750 per worker if any of its employees rely on government subsidies to purchase coverage. (Which I think is an awful idea.)

(Cont.)

Ryan O'Donnell said...

..."Debate was stopped Monday morning at 1am- I watched it - Yes it was History in the making to see the senate blow off the Public"

You do realize that it was Republicans that forced those start times, right? Democrats consistently asked for their three cloture votes to go one-after-another, and every time, there was Republican opposition. So, since the Republicans forced the maximum 30 hours of debate between each cloture vote, Democrats had to put them at crazy hours, so they could all make it home by Christmas.

If you watch C-SPAN, you'll see Dems constantly asking for unanimous consent to vote on the bill at that moment -- with a Republican always shutting them down.

"simple questions like HOW MUCH. WHOS' COVERED. WHEN DOES IT START. 2014 ? 2015 ? well those answers are all different depending on what Dem you talk to."

Dude. I don't want to be rude, but you should really look into things before posting. You seem to be really reaching for arguments.

And you are right on this point, but it's only different because there are two very different bills. So if you ask a Democrat in the House what the details are, they will tell you something very different than a Democrat in the Senate. CRAZY! Just to help:

House: $1.1 Trillion. 96% of Americans are covered (not illegal immigrants). And some regulations start immediately and mostly everything kicks in on 2013.

Senate: $894 Billion. 95% of Americans covered (not illegal immigrants). And some of the regulations start immediately and mostly everything kicks in on 2014.

"It's that Obama has moved this agenda as far as he has without anybody having much of a clue to what's going on."

I will agree that Democrats lost the message war, because most people do really not understand what is in this bill. You are 100% proof of this assessment.

Ryan O'Donnell said...

Also, Bernie, I apologize for not going after the specifics in your post.

"Despite the wide consensus that we desperately need health care reform, we're incredibly busy right now making matters even worse."

This statement is way too broad and incorrect for my to refute it substantively, so if you want to discuss this, I'll need some actual specifics on how this bill is making things worse. I think it's an absurd thing to say. Especially given the list I initially commented with.

"LV Congressman Charlie Dent calls this "flabbergasting," sand flatly states that "[t]his kind of backroom deal-making is not only an affront to the democratic process, but it may violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution."

I agree with Dent that this shit is really stupid, counter-productive and overall fucked up. So I don't want it to seem like I'm defending this kind of behavior, but Reid was right that it really does happen all the time. Literally every congress. Republican or Democrat. I'm just asking for some consistency. Republicans shouldn't be able to attack Democrats for doing the same things that they do -- and vice versa.

"Dent also observes that the Senate deal exempts some union plans from a tax on Cadillac insurance plans that are supposed to help pay for this reform. "[P]olitical connections were more important than other considerations in crafting this legislation," claims Dent, who contends that the Senate bill would never pass on its own merits.

100% of unions are fighting this excise tax provision tooth-and-nail. And all of them are spending money and fighting to get the overall reforms passed. If they were catering to union interests completely, don't you think they would have just removed the excise tax?

"Leave it to Congress to take an immensely popular idea - doing something to reform our expensive and unfair medical care system - and come up with solutions that are now opposed by a majority of Americans."

So you don't think that most of this opposition is because Republicans were screaming about how this legislation's going to kill their grandparents? And how the government is somehow going to ration their care more than the private insurance industry already does? And the lie that it's going to cut billions of dollars out of patient care in Medicare? If it did those things, why in the hell would the AARP have so heavily endorsed it?

Also, let's not forget that about 20-25% of people in these polls that "oppose the legislation" oppose it because they don't think it goes far enough. These are the Dennis Kucinich-style voters that are puritan single-payer advocates and want all-or-nothing, so don't try to play it off like 60% of America things that this bill is too crazily progressive.

"In the meantime, now is a good time to buy health insurance stock."

Yea? Did you buy some? Looks like that investment would have went to shit as soon as the bill was passed on the 24th.

Anonymous said...

Rylock, since you have all the answers, please answer my previous question - why all the bribes to get this passed?

The Banker

Anonymous said...

And why if the lefts aim was to provide coverage to those who don't have it remains unmet? All this bill succeeds in doing is inserting the government into every American's health care whether they want it or not.

Scott Armstrong

Ryan O'Donnell said...

"Rylock, since you have all the answers, please answer my previous question - why all the bribes to get this passed?"

Because the Senate is completely dysfunctional and Senators can take advantage of being the "60th vote," therefore demanding whatever they want.

I think that's the major problem. Obviously people are going to have disagreements on certain provisions of the bill, but are you suggesting that this bill isn't good because of the concessions to individual states that Harry Reid had to make? It's an interesting take. Especially since I would guess in about 98% of any significant legislation that you like, there were just as many, if not more, "bribes" to individual Senators and individual states.

This practice is as old as the congress itself. And I'm not defending it. It should be completely done away with. But that's the reason. Because it's standard, idiotic political practice.

The filibuster should be removed completely. There's no reason for it. It was originally created because, decades ago, it would take congressmen days to weeks to get back to DC from their home states. So the filibuster was created to stall until those politicians could make it back to Capitol Hill.

It's solely for the purpose of obstructionism now.

And, yes, I would still advocate for the filibuster to be completely removed if there was a Republican majority.

Works in the House!

Ryan O'Donnell said...

"And why if the lefts aim was to provide coverage to those who don't have it remains unmet?"

Democrats unfortunately gave up on "universal coverage" even before this debate started. Too much drama with regards to illegals (as you can see by Ken's post) -- even though there's an argument to be made that covering illegal immigrants would actually save America money, because we're the ones paying for it when they use the ER -- and they decided to exempt anybody who would have to pay more than 8% of their income to health insurance from the mandate, because they must have figured that it would be too expensive for that individual to have coverage and it would be too expensive for the government to cover that person if they don't meet the Medicaid eligibility requirements.

I wish they hadn't of given up on universal coverage, though. They, unfortunately, knew it wouldn't get passed if they tried.

"All this bill succeeds in doing is inserting the government into every American's health care whether they want it or not."

Exactly! You know, the government doing terrible things like making insurance companies compete with each other? Not allowing people to have their coverage dropped for being too sick? Enforcing that women won't have to pay up to 48% more than men anymore? Providing subsidies for poor families to purchase insurance? Not allowing insurance companies to place arbitrary annual or lifetime caps on your plan? And forbidding insurance companies to deny you because of a pre-existing condition?

OH MY GOD, YOU'RE RIGHT!

That sounds awful!

Anonymous said...

What I'm saying Rylock is that Ben Nelson, Nebraska, may know more than you or I do about what is going on with this bill, and he wouldn't sign off until his state's excess Medicaid exposure was covered by the Federal government.

And this was after he went to great lengths to say "His vote was not for sale."

Care to try again about the 60th vote? In other situations you are correct, but not here. All good intents aside, this is bad legislation. I agree we need to reform our healthcare system, but not like this.

The Banker

Anonymous said...

Oh, and one more thing Rylock - if you truly want insurance companies to compete with each other, eliminate interstate restrictions on insurance companies. Let them all compete for everyone instead of giving states the ability to restrict competition. The only people that helps are the bureaucrats in each of the state insurance commissions.

The Banker

Anonymous said...

To de Bunker and Scooter, you attack rylocks facts? At least he is rational and uses facts. de Bunker you ask rhetorical questions as though you were Socrates and Scooter always makes some inane point about how inane evertyone else is.

If even one Republican Senator had said I will support the Bill if the deals stop and we have interstate competetion between Insurance Companies the power of the greedy 60th vote would have evaporated. Problem is Republicans live and die by herd instincts. The fact that every single Republican Senator had exactly the same objections does lead someone to logically coinclude that the order was given and the troops obeyed. The lure of the 2010 elections was more powerful than the health of a nation.

Big Pharma spent $199 million in less than a year to assure their loyalty.

Remember boys, this is not the death of democracy. Great Britian is far more open in its freedom of expression than America and somehow they survived to remain as free if not more free. The Patriot Act would have gotten a Prime Minister's party booted over there.

Just one vote, one Republican vote could have ended all the deal making. Independent thought, it is not in the Republican DNA. Without a memo they have no response.

Oh and to Anon 2:22, Big Brother in the form of Corporate America has been pouring over your meidcal records for decades. Long before Government got involved.

Anonymous said...

Anon 604pm, you lost me - what's rhetorical about asking about the fact that Ben Nelson held out his vote until he got bribed? Sorry buddy, that's not rhetorical, that's fact.

It's also fact that all Americans will be paying higher taxes for this plan, through costs that are being passed to the states and have to be covered there. Whether I'm paying federal taxes or state taxes, it's still $$ out of my pocket.

Nelson knows that and got Nebraska covered at our expense. And that sucks.

Again, sorry if facts confuse you.

The Banker

And by the way - The Patriot Act was reactionary legislation passed at an incredibly volatile time in our history. It was well-meaning but bad legislation. Same applies to this Healthcare debacle. Maybe we can learn from the past instead of repeating it?

Ryan O'Donnell said...

"What I'm saying Rylock is that Ben Nelson, Nebraska, may know more than you or I do about what is going on with this bill, and he wouldn't sign off until his state's excess Medicaid exposure was covered by the Federal government.

And this was after he went to great lengths to say "His vote was not for sale."

Care to try again about the 60th vote?"


Ok! I'll give it one more shot. (Although, I still feel that my first assessment of this situation [filibuster] is correct.)

Now, let's actually look at what happened. I never want to defend Ben Nelson (and in the end I'm not), but he actually didn't ask for his state to be completely covered for Medicaid funding.

He actually asked that states be able to opt-in to expanding Medicaid, rather than it expanding by default. I think this would have been a terrible idea, because we wouldn't have covered half as many poor people this way.

Instead of straight-up ruining the bill by adhering to Nelson's request, Reid told Nelson that the federal government would pay for 100% of Nebraska's Medicaid funding, instead of the normal 60%.

So, I think it was actually a pretty smart move on Reid's part, because now the bill isn't shot and Nelson's happy.

I personally think that Medicaid should be funded 100% by the federal government, so that's why I'm actually excited about this provision, because it might lead to complete federal funding for Medicaid of all the 50 states.

Giving states federal dollars to plug their budget holes: (1) allows states to keep up with growing enrollments (2) injects more money into the health care system (3) ensures that states aren’t forced to increase taxes or cut other essential services.

The point of all of that was just to show that Ben Nelson didn't actually ask for his state to receive 100% of Medicaid funding; he just got it.

But even with all of that said, I really still believe that the main problem with all of this is the 60-vote-threshold. One single senator should not have this kind of power.

If the filibuster is removed, both parties will actually become able to govern when their party's in power.

Ryan O'Donnell said...

"if you truly want insurance companies to compete with each other, eliminate interstate restrictions on insurance companies. Let them all compete for everyone instead of giving states the ability to restrict competition. The only people that helps are the bureaucrats in each of the state insurance commissions."

I think we actually partially agree on this!

I am by no means opposed to allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines. And we also agree, surely, that there's not enough competition in this legislation. (But then we should also agree that there is far more competition because of this bill than without it.)

I'd hope that we can agree the exchanges are a good thing. I think they're one of the most vital parts of the legislation. Forcing insurance companies to directly compete with each other. Freaking finally.

Now, it should be expanded. It's far too small in this legislation to make a substantial difference. But it's a great start, and almost every health economist believes that the exchanges will continuously grow.

Also, then you should like the House's national exchanges way more than the Senate's state-based exchanges, right? If so, then we agree again! I really hope that the national exchanges come out of conference.

Now, on to insurance across state lines: Again, I am not opposed to this. I think the national exchanges could cover this, but the reason why I don't support the Republican version of buying insurance across state lines is that, at least in the Republican's House HCR legislation, it was a complete deregulation of the health insurance industry.

We saw how well that worked out with the banks, right?

In order for insurer's to sell across state lines, there has to be significant federal government regulation, or it will be a race to the bottom.

Look at credit card companies! They're all in Delaware! Because Delaware has the loosest regulation and no sales tax!

If there were federal government regulation on allowing insurer's to buy across state lines, then it would help solve the problem, because there wouldn't be a race to the bottom and there would be increase competition.

If you're into that assessment, then we can agree again.

For now, though, the national exchanges are a great start. And everybody's going to be very happy when they expand.

Anonymous said...

Rylock,

Your response is incomprehensible. Anger alone does not make right and rarely makes sense. Granting the government the power to intrude on everyones health care choices is a huge mistake. It diminishes liberty.That is a worthy consideration, one that should not be rushed for a holiday or a speech.

Scott Armstrong

Anonymous said...

Wow, more insults from the left, what a surprise.Boring.

Scott Armstrong

Anonymous said...

Once again, unable to compete in the marketplace of idea's, Scotty does his standard speech.

Leftists......blah blah....bad.....blah blah...Liberty.....blah blah......Republican.....blah blah....Freedom......blah blah...I'm so smart!

Bernie O'Hare said...

Rylock,

In answer to your comments to me, be advised as follows:

1)Health insurance stocks. If I had money, I'd invest there. They went uo 5% plus leading up to the vote, and the big insurers will do well on Monday. Of course, the smaller companies will be squeezed out.

2) Unions. The reality is that the excise tax on Cadillac health insurance plans is not spread evenly among unions. Longshoreman, construction, mining, electrical line repair and some other unions are exempted.

3) Popular Idea now opposed by majority. You claim this is bc of all the misinformation coming from Rs. Frankly, it's bc House Dems shoved everything down outr throats, with no willingness to seek a consensus. That's when people started getting angry. I'm sure that both sides are guiltyu of misinformation.

4) The Moral equivalence argument. When Dent notes the lack of transparency, your response is that the Rs did it, too. That's true. What you apparently don't know about Dent is that he has always detested this lack of transparency, and has for years been saying that is why Washington is broken. Obama, when he ran for office, promised to change this lack of transparency. Its the main reason why I voted for him. I think it's safe to say he broke that promise. Finally, as a logical matter, moral equivalemce is a self-defeating argument.

5)We are making things worse. You respond by claiming this argument is absurd, but I failed to make myself clear. My point is not limited to health care reform, but the entire idiotic agenda of ther Obama administration.

We are in a resession so we passed the stimulus, which was supposed to have an impact right away. It did not. We were then told it will have an impact sometime next year. So far, that's a failure.

In addition to the stim, we have a cap-and-trade energy bill that will screw Pennsylvanians. many of them are seeing rate caps come off, and this bill will cost nearly $2,000 per household per year. In addition, pennsylvania will lose (net loss) 66,000 jobs. That's just great in a recession.

Now we have health care "reform", which affects 1/6th of our economy. Instead of approaching it a little at a time, to see how the economy responds to each change, we want to do a million things at once. And I'm sure you're well aware of Murphy's law.

Of course, we also have Son of Stimulus.

In the meantime, we remain in a recession.

6) No Republican alternatives. That's simplyu untrue. Dent has cosposnsored numerous bills that address health care reform in a more measured, piecemeal approach. De,s and Rs afgree on 85% of the changes needed. there is a consensus that pre-existing illnesses need to be covered, that people should be able to pick their own doctors, that medical insurance needs tighter regulation. If they worked together, they could adopt some changes that everyone will support.

Ryan O'Donnell said...

Bernie,

First of all, thank you for answering with some substance. Far more than I can say for a lot of other people that address issues on here.

1) Health Insurance Stocks: We've agreed before that this is legislation is more of a handout to the insurance industry than we'd like. My point has always been that it's not as bad as people make it seem. If it was so great for them, AHIP wouldn't be fighting it privately and publicly.

And my simple point when I brought this up was that stocks in total (UnitedHealth, WellPoint, Cigna, Aetna, Humana, and Coventry Health) went down -1.03% when the bill passed. Weird, right? For something that they're dreaming of?

2) Unions: And I'm still saying that if Dems were ceding to unions on all counts, they would strip the excise tax entirely. Which they haven't done.

3) Popular Idea now opposed by majority: Ok. I don't even think you think you're right on this one. You really claim it was unpopular because the House "shoved it down our throats?" Come on. You have to know that's not true.

The Senate HELP Committee was far faster than any of the House committees when drafting legislation. And the HELP Committee accepted over 150 amendments.

But that's not even the argument. You know as well as everybody else does that the Republicans strategy from day one was to block this bill, no matter what was in it. They saw an opportunity to recreate 1994 and they're vehemently chasing it. I do not believe that you're dumb enough to think that there could have been consensus found. So I have no idea where this argument is coming from you, because I don't believe that even you believe it.

4) The Moral equivalence argument: I do think all back room deals, lobbying, etc. should be done away with and there should be far more transparency in all of DC than there is today.

My argument was not that it's okay for Democrats to do it since Republicans also do it. I was just asking for consistency. If you're a Republican and you're really pissed about a Democrat striking a backroom deal, then you should be just as pissed as when another Republican strikes a back room deal. Same for Democrats. But that doesn't happen.

And Dent hates broken Washington, huh? He's sure doing a lot of good to fix that. Playing a pawn in the overall GOP strategy of block anything that comes out of anywhere from the Democratic-controlled congress. Where's the legislation that he wrote to bring more transparency to government? You think he's done more than Obama?

I'm not happy with Obama's transparency report yet either. As we talked about before, transparency was one of the things I liked most about him as well. But he's certainly more transparent than any other President thus far, especially with regards to the transition. That process was open almost 100% of the time. The transition team transparency really impressed me.

Also, check out http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/subjects/transparency/ for a non-partisan rating of Obama's transparency. He's broken 2/35 promises on transparency. Now, those are two things that I would have liked to see him keep his promise on, but still, I haven't completely given up.

Ryan O'Donnell said...

5) We are making things worse: I still think this is absurd -- especially with regards to health care. When you look at this entire bill, the good outweighs the bad by such extreme measures that the only way to describe an argument like this is "absurd."

The only reasons why people like Dent propose a bill split up into pieces is that they know a process like that would take forever and it would never get done. And that is their major goal. To stop Obama from his initiatives. I'm not saying it's a bad political strategy. It's just bad for the country.

Also, 99% of this bill is contingent upon itself for it to work. We have a much better chance of succeeding with the policy linked to all of health insurance than just parts of it. If you split it up, you'd be leaving way too much out, and you would almost have to purposefully leave out sections of the bill that related to other sections, simply because you wanted to do a bill that was solely "Insurance reforms," but not "Delivery reforms," for example.

With regards to the "failed" stimulus, I don't think it did what it should have done either. The fact is that, in a recession, the government needs to spend money, because people aren't. The compromises by conservatives on the stimulus (much like in the health bill) made it severely weaker. They cut many projects that certainly should not have been cut and replaced them with tax cuts. Tax cuts! Some tax cuts, I agree, are a good thing in a recession. But can somebody tell me how they create jobs? Also, if I received a tax cut in a recession, does anybody think that I'm really going to run out and buy a new stereo, because of that extra $20 each month? Hell no. Most people would put that in the bank.

Finally, I would love for you to explain to the 600,000-1.6 million saved jobs that the stimulus didn't work.

And we'll talk about energy some other time. It looks like the Senate is going in a completely different direction. Also, these "killing job" numbers from the House bill are completely inconsistent. The CBO says that the effect-loss on jobs would be negligible. But we could talk about that for days.

But is your point that Obama is supposed to be able to get us out of the worst recession since the '20s in a year? This takes time, man. Read a book about it. What does Dent we suggest we do? Cut more taxes?

6) No Republican alternatives: Where was the Republican alternative HCR bill in the Senate? Oh, shit! There was none. There was one in the House, I agree. Did Dent have anything to do with that? No, no, he did not. That's lucky for him, too, because the CBO tore the GOP "health plan" to pieces. It covered basically nobody. Lowered costs, at most, by 0.3%, or something, reduced the deficit by $64 billion less than the Democrats' plan, and was a complete deregulation of the insurance industry. They didn't even have a provision to stop insurance companies from dropping people with pre-existing conditions! All they did was set up "high-risk pools," which are extremely expensive. It was a complete joke.

And again, the bottom line with this is that Republicans #1 strategy is stopping anything that goes through on the Democrats' watch with regards to health care reform. They see that being their way back into power in 2010-2012, and I can't blame them for their political strategy. But I can blame them for making a country impossible to govern -- and making it worse.

And since you love to always bring it back to him, Charlie Dent does exactly what the Republican leadership wants him to do, so he should be held to the same standard as all of the other do-nothing obstructionists in Washington.

Looking To Escape said...

rylock. said...
Looking to Escape,

I really don't mean to be rude right now, but I never have any idea what your comments are supposed to mean.

I don't know if it's just the linguistics or what. But I try to read and respond to them -- it just doesn't work.



Some of my comments are additional observations or experiences (like my comment on the PBS Frontline show).

Looking To Escape said...

Bernie O'Hare said...

In answer to your comments to me, be advised as follows:

1)Health insurance stocks. If I had money, I'd invest there. They went uo 5% plus leading up to the vote, and the big insurers will do well on Monday. Of course, the smaller companies will be squeezed out.



The Democrat's prime intent is to drive the health insurance companies out of business. The bounty these companies get under the reform (so-called) bill is limited.
.
I'd ask people who work for these companies, how does your long term career prospects look right about now? I see a lot of job cutting taking place. I see a lot of people regretting pulling the "D" lever on November 2008.
.
Along similar lines is drug reimportation. Once again, while the Democrats cry on about jobs, they support a bill that cuts American workers out of the picture. Getting your drugs from Canada helps the pharmacist at Rite Aid how?

Bernie O'Hare said...

Rylock, I don't hae time to go into each of your points right now, but you've got some of your facts wrong. I never said Dent cosponsored a mega health reform bill. I said he cosponsored a number of smaller bills that address medical issues, one at a time, giving Rs and Ds room to agree about 85% on all issues. I have links to them elsewhere on this blog.

Anonymous said...

anon 11:22,

Believe it or not I have better things to do than to suffer blind partisans gladly.
I have written my thoughts regarding this legislation. Many of the responses that have appeared only amplify my concerns.Your resort to insult is typical of the cowardly and lowbrow behavior that sullies too much of the left's political thought.

Scott Armstrong

Anonymous said...

Rylock, we have a fundamental disagreement - you are a fervent supporter of bigger government, and I am not. There is no way to reconcile those positions.

We could spend days going back / forth on the details. For example, you cited the 10% indoor tanning tax, but forgot to mention that tax went into place so that a 5% tax on plastic surgery (the "Botax") could be eliminated - the AMA's bribe for their support of this travesty.

I think the exchanges are a lousy idea as we already have it - it's called the market. Eliminate competitive restrictions and let the insurance companies compete for business on a national level. You don't need to spend billions on yet more government agencies to recreate this. Your analogy that we need federal standards for plans doesn't hold up - competition breeds opportunities for people to buy the coverage they want (Yugo to Cadillac) as opposed to being crammed into a bad plan because they had no other choice. Look at all other businesses that compete nationally (auto, appliance, tech, etc.) and you'll see what I mean.

I would just ask that you be careful in what you believe - be critical and challenge the assumptions and results. You've obviously done alot of research - do some more on what government programs have actually cost vs. what the CBO projections were. Look at the huge number of examples where future 'savings' never materialized because the $$ were spent elsewhere.

Politicians of all stripes, Ds and Rs, are as addicted to tax revenue as a crackhead needs his next fix. And this plan is filled with crack.

The Banker

Anonymous said...

Banker,

It is worth reminding our friends on the left that conservatives live in an adverse environment. We can't escape the Democratic point of view and are in fact immersed in it. Conversely those on the left can exist in a media bubble that constantly re-enforces the liberal thinking.
I challenge those who think the government is the answer to do what conservatives must do, listen to the other side. Understand our concerns as legitimate, look at the history of previous reforms to judge how the current plan is likely to pan out.

Not looking for symphathy here but understand this, it would be a lot easier to be a liberal.

Scott Armstrong

Bernie O'Hare said...

I just listened to David Brooks of the NYT explain his reeasoned opposition. he notes that, not too long ago, our health care was 1/10th of our economy. it is now 1/6th of our economy, and nothing in the Senate Bill will change that increasing trend. In fact, he'd actually prefer the single payer bc it's cheaper.

Paul Krugman, for his part, just attacked those who oppose this bill as coming from one of three schools: (1) whacky right; (2) whacky left; and (3) curmudgeons.

Actually, those who oppose this Bill make up the nation's majority. Given the fact that we are in a recession and are spending too wildly, I share Brooks' concerns.

Ryan O'Donnell said...

Banker,

You're right. We can go back-and-forth on health care policy all day, but if it comes down to government-involvement ideology, there's no way winning that debate one-way-or-another -- it would just go on forever.

I'll just try to justify the liberal sentiment for federal government involvement in health care, because I think that people's lives are too important to be left solely to a deregulated for-profit industry. And that I believe I am healthily skeptical of government, as is everybody, but I am more so skeptical of industries that make substantial profit from literally letting people die.

I don't feel the federal government should be involved in every aspect of our lives, but there are some things that are too vital to leave up to states or private industry doing things out of the kindness of their hearts.

Ryan O'Donnell said...

"Not looking for symphathy here but understand this, it would be a lot easier to be a liberal."

Cause we've got all those facts!

Didn't mean to make light of your "liberal bias" point, but when another other "liberal" news network gets the kind of ratings that Fox does, then we'll talk.

Even MSNBC's -- that clearly has a strong left tilt the later you get into the night -- highest rated show is the conservative Morning Joe.

But I do agree with you, it is easier to be a liberal. Got this barrage of science and rationality on my side!

Ryan O'Donnell said...

Bernie, if you're saying that we should have a single-payer system, we certainly should! It's the only true cost-effective, universal coverage mechanism.

And the bill wouldn't even be close to 2,000 pages! Republicans could finally stop complaining about having to read legislation that's shorter than Sarah Palin's book.

I do think that it's funny when people talk about how we're "spending too much" in a recession. I literally just laughed a little when I wrote it. How else do we expect to get out of the recession? And, furthermore, prevent it from becoming a depression? Tax cuts?

I do agree that the spending should be more pointed and specific. But, according to most economists, the stimulus bill should have been more, not less.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Rylock,

Although ideological differences between left and right may prevent complete agreement, I do think there is room for consensus on most of what is needed.

Nobody, not even Rush Limbaugh, wants people to die because they can't get adequate medical care. All of us, even Nancy Pelosi, would agree we need to do something about out of control costs.

I am deeply concerned about those spiralling costs, which grow larger all the time and are unchecked. That concern is magified by the fact that we are in a recession and the stimulus has largely failed, especially in the view of most Americans. Whaqt was supposed to have an immediate impact, we are now told, will start working sometime next year.

And no, you do not spend your way out of a recession. You certainly don't flush money down the toilet, as is done in the stim package. Needy Americans are ignored while cops and union construction workers are hired.

Also, no government program has ever been able to succeed without the support of a majority of Americans. That's just the way it is. Anything that results from partisan actions has failed. That's the interesting analysis in "When Government Works and When It Doesn’t," by William Eggers, and interesting lecture broadcast on C-Span radio today.

I'll be picking up his book. http://williameggers.com/#/books/4536390210

Ryan O'Donnell said...

Bernie,

With Regards to the stimulus, I'm as skeptical about it working (the way it should have worked as you are). The government does need to spend money to get us out of a recession. But we both agree that it needs to be more pointed. I don't believe that it was money thrown away. (For references, ask those, at least, 600K people that got to keep their jobs and our rising GDP.) But it should have been bigger. There should have been less tax cuts and more job-focused spending. How else would we get out of it? A spending freeze? Give me a break.

And back to health care, I do think their could be consensus found in health care reform. I think 85% is stretching it, but maybe 50% (mostly because I've never seen nor heard of a recent Republican platform that would result in universal coverage, which is one of the trademarks of the Democratic agenda).

But not in this congress. I hate to have to repeat myself every comment, but Republicans are completely unwilling to find consensus. They have made their decision to work politically, instead of constructively. It's not a bad political move. Worked pretty well 15 years ago.

Seriously, though, you need to stop giving Obama and the Democrats shit for "shutting out Republicans" when you know for a fact that no matter what Dems did, Repubs would have found something to oppose, because they know that they need to kill Obama's first major initiative. Specter was just talking today about this strategy, because he said he sat in on the talks with Republican leadership before he switched parties.

Obama met with Republicans to discuss ideas more times in his first month as President than Bush did with Democrats in his first year.

The Republicans made their decision. And there will be no consensus.

If the filibuster were removed, Republicans wouldn't have been able to use this strategy and they might have actually tried to help shape the bill.

Obstruction is no way to help govern. From the left or the right.

Anonymous said...

rylock,

""Not looking for symphathy here but understand this, it would be a lot easier to be a liberal."

Cause we've got all those facts!"

This sort of comment speaks to the ignorance of the writer.

Scott Armstrong

Ryan O'Donnell said...

Come on, Scott.

It was your fault to leave me a wide-open comment like that.

Anonymous said...

rylock,

Again this sort of comment speaks to the ignorance of the writer.

Scott Armstrong

Ryan O'Donnell said...

Scott,

While I appreciate you continually calling me ignorant, I think that this is more a situation of you not getting a joke than it is me being stupid.

Anonymous said...

Scotter, your ignorance is only surpased by your arrogance.

rylock speaks to eloquent logic and facts, while you and de bunker use the Fox talking points of twisted statistics and glib generalizations.

Keep fighting the good fight rylock. It is good to know that some young minds are out there refusing to let the light of reason and intelligence be extinguished by fear and hate.

God Bles you rylock, our country needs more young people like you.

Old Liberal not afraid to fight for America.

Bernie O'Hare said...

"Seriously, though, you need to stop giving Obama and the Democrats shit for "shutting out Republicans" when you know for a fact that no matter what Dems did, Repubs would have found something to oppose, because they know that they need to kill Obama's first major initiative."

I know nothing of the sort. A year ago, presidet Obama promised that historic health care reform would include Republicans and C-Span cameras. Instead, he's huddled in some back room at Capital Hill with Senate Dems, hammering out the final bill. Obama broke his word, and very nearly from the onset. When Rs refused to jump on the stim bandwagon, he ignored them. As Dems continued to ram last-minute legislation down the throats of Republicans, like cap-and-trade, the Republicans became obstructionist, but it is a justified reaction.

The reality is that sweeping changes like medical care reform demand bipartidan support, a consensus. In 1935, Social Security attracted 69 Republicans. Medicare attracted 70.

When Obama spoke of a new approach of pragmatism, as opposed to ideology, I bought into it. I happen to believe that in this sort of pragmatic approach to issues, which really is an outward manisfestation of America's erstwhile "can do" attitude.

Obama has been anything but pragmatic.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30957_Page2.html

Anonymous said...

rylock and "Old liberal,"

Your commentary serves the useful purpose of pointing out what is too often wrong with today's leftist thinking. It is arrogant, ignorent and insulting.

Scott Armstrong

Anonymous said...

How's the Hope and Change going?

Where's all the transparency?

Aw shucks.

Obama is just another hustling politician???

Who would have guessed.

I mean, he went to Jeremiah Wright's church and all...

Anonymous said...

hmm heehhehe, mirror mirror! Scott
I wonder about your sanity?

Wow, more insults from the left, what a surprise.Boring.

Scott Armstrong

7:14 PM

Anonymous said...

anon 3:15,

Do you know how to use quotes?

Scott Armstrong

Anonymous said...

Anon,

No side holds a monopoly on decency or respect when it comes to political exchanges, that being said I think a perusal of leftist political sites commonly reveals rhetoric that is visceral and at times contemptuous and ugly.I think one may read through the commentary on this blog and note, in general, a marked difference in approach between the right and left's approach to discourse.

Scott Armstrong

Ryan O'Donnell said...

Bernie,

Holy shit, man! Really? Some honest Republicans even acknowledge that leadership decided that they're going to try and stop all Republicans from working constructively with Obama and the Democrats on any major issue.

Before Republicans outright "proposed" it, I guarantee that Obama could have said that the two major components of his health reform bill would have had to be (a) tort reform and (b) buying insurance across state lines and we would have the same exact results that we do right now.

On January 20th, 2009, the Republicans started their strategy to make the Democrats seem like, when they're in power, they are unable to govern. All Republicans have to do is obstruct everything that comes through. Like I've said many times before, not a bad strategy. But it is 100% with certainty their strategy. We can't pretend like it's not. They've made their decision that politics is more important than helping to govern a country. No matter how much Obama wants it, bipartisanship is almost impossible when this is the tactic that Republicans have taken to.

I still think you're smarter than what you're writing on this topic, because you're completely ignoring the Republican strategy that Obama can literally do nothing about.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Rylock,

You're not getting it. there is a group of moderate Republicans with whom Obama could have worked. He did try to get their support for his stimulus package, inviting Charlie Dent over to watch the Superbowl and things like that. There is actually a caucus of moderate Republicans, The Tuesday group, co-chaired by Dent.

After being rebuffed on the stim, no additional attempts have been made to reach out.

Now the person who claimed he wanted to be bipartisan, was Barack Obama. The person who claimed a year ago that the final package would come out under C-Span camera and with R support, was Barack Obama.

He failed to keep his word. After having legislation rammed down their throats, i do not blame Republicans for being obstructionist.

I am sure a year ago, some Rs stated they would never work w/ Obama. Charlie Dent was not one of those Republicans. He was decrying the partisanship, and I have a link to a video of him making a speech on the House floor about our "broken" system.

There is a fairly large group of centrists from both parties. Thoase peopleappeal to the views of most Americans. So long as they are ignored and shut out, you might pass some bills, but you won't get anything done. This is still a democracy.

Anonymous said...

Fiscal conservatives would work with anyone on a plan that would provide health insurance to the poor.

Scott Armstrong

Ryan O'Donnell said...

I'm not one to normally quote Arlen Specter, but:

"I'd like to pick up on what Sen. DeMint says about the process. I think the process was very bad. But the process was really caused, in large measure, by the refusal of the Republicans to deal in any way," said Specter.

"Sen. DeMint is the author of the famous statement that this is going to be President Obama's 'Waterloo,' that this ought to be used to break the president," said Specter, referring to the political battle over health care. "So that before the ink was dry on the oath of office -- and I know this, because I was in the caucus -- the Republicans were already plotting ways to beat President Obama in 2012."

Obviously, Bernie, you're the one that's not getting it.

Ryan O'Donnell said...

It would be a complete and utter waste of time for Obama to work with a party that has stated that its platform is basically nothing anymore but killing his initiatives.

I would imagine that even the most ardent supporters of bipartisanship would understand that it is impossible to work under those circumstances.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Rylock,

You are taking the words of one Republican Senator from South Carolina, who holds no leaderrship position, and from there are concluding this is how all Repubican legislators feel. What you said earlier, incidentally, is that this was the Republican leadership. Now we find out otherwise.

Contrast that with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who in her stimulus speech, blamed all Republicand for putting the country in financial distress.

No Rylock, I hold my ground. You don't get it. There are partisans on both sides, to be sure. Obama promised to end this partisan nonsense. As a member of the same party that controls both Houses, he could have done more to make this a bipartisan effort. That was his promise.

Bernie O'Hare said...

And Rylock, in answer to your second comment, what's really ridiculous is taking the words of one South Carolina Senator, as repeated by Arlen Specter, and going on from there to conclude that this must be how the entire party feels. That is total nonsense. Read the Politico report, my friend, for something a little more balanced.

Ryan O'Donnell said...

Honestly?!

Have you been watching the Senate?

You really believe that this is solely how Jim DeMint feels? No freaking way.

He's just the only one to let it slip.

Think about the politics behind their decision. The politics are sound. It's a good decision if they want to get the Democrats out of power as quickly as possible. They are making it look like the Democrats take forever and are almost unable to govern.

They did almost the exact same thing when the circumstances were similar in 1994 (except to a lesser extent)! I can't believe we even have to debate this issue.

I refuse to believe that you are this politically inept.

But, fine, dude. Stay mad at Obama for consistently trying to forge a bipartisan consensus with a party who solely wants to see his demise as president.

Sounds like some sound reasoning.

Ryan O'Donnell said...

(Ah, there should be a "not" between "for" and "consistently.")

Bernie O'Hare said...

Rylock,

No questrion that Republicans are obstructionists now. That's what happen when the door is slammed in your face. But I do believe that if Obama the President had reached out the same way that Obama the candidate did, he would have both the country and congress behind him, instead of the sharp divide we now see.

In other words, insterad of playing politics, he should have governed. Good government requires a bipartisan approach and transparency.

That was his promise, and yes, I hold him to it.

He might have been able to sell some of his health care reform proposals had he been willing to listen to Republicans like Dent, who were outraged by cap-and-trade. now Senate Dems are telling Obama to hold off on that because they know they've gone too far.

Bipartisanship. Transparency. Obama failed on both counts. It's not entirely his fault, but he's the one who promised it. It's no excuse to claim now that those mean Republicans refuse to play nice. And why should they with a government that shoves everything down their throats?

Ryan O'Donnell said...

Bernie,

I don't disagree that Obama campaigned on a platform of transparency and bipartisanship.

Like I said before, (the non-partisan) Politifact.com has Obama breaking two of his transparency promises since the campaign. I wished he would have kept those two promises. But he's currently working with a 5% broken-transparency-promise record. That's got to be an achievement for most politicians.

And he also campaigned on bipartisanship. Mostly because he was so effective with it during his time as a state senator and US senator. However, things are very different now. There is literally no way the Republicans "changed their course" because they felt that things were being rammed down their throats.

They had their strategy mapped out since November 5th, 2008. The fact that you think since DeMint is the only one that let their plan slip publicly that he's either one of the few or even in the minority can't be described as anything but naive. (Even though I hate using that word to describe people that I don't think are stupid.)

If you truly don't understand the unfortunately-too-common political games being played by the Republicans at the federal level, maybe this blog should stick more to discussing the Lehigh Valley, which you clearly know more about than I do.

The Republicans won't "play nice." You're right. It'd be politically stupid of them to. They would inadvertently make the Democrats look like they were able to govern, whether they agree with what's happening or not, and they cannot do that if they want to pick up a healthy number of seats in 2010 and regain the majority in 2012.

You getting mad and holding Obama to his promise of bipartisanship accompanied with this Republican strategy is like if I offered to wash your car last year, but every time I came over with a washcloth and soap, you would take your car and quickly drive away, then after I finally gave up since there was never any car to wash, you would get pissed at me for rescinding my offer.

Anonymous said...

Bernie,

Wasn't it the president who told Republicans in early health care meetings that they lost the election? Obama could have moved the country far to the left if he still had some of the grace he displayed during the campaign.

Scott Armstrong

Ryan O'Donnell said...

"Wasn't it the president who told Republicans in early health care meetings that they lost the election?"

I haven't heard this particular quote. But I do agree with the President when he said something like, (paraphrasing) "I am a proponent of bipartisan consensus. I want Republicans at the table. I believe that the best ideas come from a politically diverse group. But what I don't want are the same people, suggesting the same old, tired ideas that got us into these messes in the first place."

Lighthouse said...

There has been so much hyperbole on both sides of the isle that I find myself waiting "until the dust settles" to see what the truth is.

However, I found Senator Spector's comment noteworthy, yet left out of the above:

"If some of the Republicans would come forward with suggestions, offer a vote or two, or three or four, to take away the need to have every last one of the 60 Democrats, you'd have a much better bill in accordance with the tradition of the Congress, especially the Senate, on bipartisanship,"

Lighthouse said...

meant, Senator Specter