At last the 'REAL DEBATE' begins in earnest!

[ASPCA4EVER]

Senate Votes to Open Health Care Debate

Luke Sharrett/The New York Times
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, right, and Senator Chris Dodd after the 60-39 passage of the cloture vote on health insurance reform legislation.

Senator Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana arrived Saturday at the Capitol.



"Tonight we have the opportunity, the historic opportunity to reform health care once and for all," said Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, and a chief architect of the legislation. "History is knocking on the door. Let's open it. Let's begin the debate."
The 60-to-39 vote, along party lines, clears the way for weeks of rowdy floor proceedings that will begin after Thanksgiving and last through much of December.
The Senate bill seeks to extend health benefits to roughly 31 million Americans who are now uninsured, at a cost of $848 billion over 10 years.

<for the rest of this story>
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/health/policy/22health.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

********************************************
This is be mandatory viewing for all of Americans {IMHO} and I hope that more then just CNN/CSPAN will carry the entire debates!

 

[top gun]

Yes it was a HISTORIC moment.

Major change is sometimes slow... but when a problem exists eventually enough good people stand up to address it.

Can't wait to see a Bill on President Obama's desk!

 

[Little-Acorn]

At last the 'REAL DEBATE' begins in earnest!

You mean the Republican bills for permitting insurance competition across state lines, reducing frivolous lawsuits, etc., that the Democrats have been keeping bottled up in committee for months, have finally been released? And we can finally debate BOTH sides???

That's terrific!

What, they haven't been?

Then what "earnest debate" are we able to engage in, really? When only the Democrat side (i.e. big government, high taxes, more socialism) side is presented, and the Republicans are left only with the choices of voting to pass it or voting to stop it, their own bills being denied ANY floor debate?

 

[Pandora]

At last the 'REAL DEBATE' begins in earnest!

You mean the Republican bills for permitting insurance competition across state lines, reducing frivolous lawsuits, etc., that the Democrats have been keeping bottled up in committee for months, have finally been released? And we can finally debate BOTH sides???

That's terrific!

What, they haven't been?

Then what "earnest debate" are we able to engage in, really? When only the Democrat side (i.e. big government, high taxes, more socialism) side is presented, and the Republicans are left only with the choices of voting to pass it or voting to stop it, their own bills being denied ANY floor debate?

The debate THEY WANT will begin, anything they dont want will be shut down. Harry Reid said yesterday that he will find a way to make all democrats happy in the final bill.

He has no interest in making the people happy or all of congress happy.

But yeah they as in democrats finally get to debate what they want to talk about.... whoot!

 

[PLC1]

Yes it was a HISTORIC moment.

Major change is sometimes slow... but when a problem exists eventually enough good people stand up to address it.

Can't wait to see a Bill on President Obama's desk!

Health care reform is a complex subject. Let's hope that it gets done right, not just quickly. That 2,000 page document that has come up for final debate could wind up being worse than the no plan health plan we have today.

Health insurance competing across state lines? Why not? What is controversial about that?

Tort reform? Sure, lets discuss that one, too.

Public option? We have public options now. Why wouldn't we talk about a public option?

My fear is that the Democrats will do what is best for Democrats, the Republicans will do what is best for Republicans, and no one will do what is best for the country.

Compared to the US, very other advanced nation in the world has a better system and pays less. If our government can't do what everyone else has been able to do, then it's time to replace our public employees in Washington and start over. That would take some time, but it would be better than replacing our most expensive #37 health care non system with something that is even more expensive and worse yet.

Let the debates begin, but let's not have any nonsense about death panels and killing gramma this time around. Instead, let's put in place a workable system that helps the average citizen, not the special interests or the party.

To hell with the Democraps. To Hell with the Repugnicans. Let's forget our stupid party system and meet the challenges of the 21st. century before we find ourselves a third world nation.

But, alas, I'm dreaming. Bring on the new US as a third world nation, no longer relevant to the 21st. century, still stuck in the 19th.

 

[GenSeneca]

Health insurance competing across state lines? Why not? What is controversial about that?

Tort reform? Sure, lets discuss that one, too.

Those reforms do nothing to centralize greater levels of power in Washington.

Public option? We have public options now. Why wouldn't we talk about a public option?

We should talk about them... specifically about how they are all bankrupt and doomed to failure.

Compared to the US, very other advanced nation in the world has a better system and pays less.

You mean they have socialized systems. They don't "pay less", the cost is simply hidden by way of being subsidized by the taxpayer, which adds to their debt and is unsustainable. Their systems do nothing to actually reduce the cost of providing care and their only means of controlling costs is through the rationing of care.

 

[PLC1]

Those reforms do nothing to centralize greater levels of power in Washington.

And are therefore not really a part of the agenda of the statist Democrat party, nor of the statist Republican party. If such reforms could bring down the cost of health care, then they would be a good thing for the country, but not necessarily for the party. Remember, the party of choice is everything, and gaining or keeping power for the party is paramount.

If tort reform and competition across state lines is really the Republican agenda, why didn't they pass those reforms when they were in power? Could it be the same reason that they passed a proposal for a balanced budget amendment when they weren't in power, then shoved it under the bed when they were? I think the answer is yes.

We should talk about them... specifically about how they are all bankrupt and doomed to failure.

OK, let's do so. Let's discuss why Medicare is "doomed to failure." That is quite an important issue, since most senior citizens would have no coverage at all without it.

You mean they have socialized systems. They don't "pay less", the cost is simply hidden by way of being subsidized by the taxpayer, which adds to their debt and is unsustainable. Their systems do nothing to actually reduce the cost of providing care and their only means of controlling costs is through the rationing of care.

Spain has a socialized system in that the doctors are actually government employees. Canada does not, as the hospitals are private, and only the insurance coverage is provided through taxes to the provinces, and I suppose the federal government as well. Why couldn't we look at the systems in other countries and see what works and what doesn't without simply labeling their systems as "socialized" and therefore bad? The fact remains that we pay 17% of our GDP for health care, while Canada pays 10% and France pays 7%. We pay more, but we don't get more. As an American, I find that unacceptable.

As for "rationing" of care, that has become a buzz word. If we have "socialized" medicine, meaning any sort of public option at all, then we will have "rationing."

Do we have unlimited health care now?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

you want the republican bill debated? Win the house , senate, or white house maybe and you can...but the american public said no to Republicans on all 3...so suck it up and enjoy being powerless. You had 8 years to debate it...you did not do it...

 

[GenSeneca]

OK, let's do so. Let's discuss why Medicare is "doomed to failure."

Sure thing, lets start with the receipts and outlays of the program and the unfunded liabilities of the program. Once we put the facts out on the table, you won't be able to argue against the conclusion that such programs are doomed to fail.

Why couldn't we look at the systems in other countries and see what works and what doesn't without simply labeling their systems as "socialized" and therefore bad?

Name one of those systems which you so admire that do not subsidize healthcare through taxes. You can't, can you?

The fact remains that we pay 17% of our GDP for health care, while Canada pays 10% and France pays 7%.

Did you have a source for those "facts"?

Taxation as a percentage of GDP:
United States - 28%
Canada - 33%
France - 48%

French government to tackle surging health care deficit
Mon Sep 7, 2009

PARIS (Reuters) - France's health system is largely financed by the state and has been hailed as the best in the world by the World Health Organization. It is also one of the most costly and the government constantly struggles to control spending.

They have fooled you with a shell game by shifting costs onto the taxpayer and hiding the healthcare expenditures in the general budget. As I have said, subsidizing healthcare on the taxpayers dime doesn't lower the cost of providing healthcare, it only hides the true cost.

We pay more, but we don't get more.

Says WHO?

As an American, I find that unacceptable.

Is it unacceptable that as "the only industrialized nation without socialized healthcare", we're also responsible for the majority of new medical breakthroughs including medications, treatments and medical devices?

As for "rationing" of care, that has become a buzz word.... If we have "socialized" medicine, meaning any sort of public option at all, then we will have "rationing."

We have public options, like medicare, and they are deeply in debt.

Do we have unlimited health care now?

The premise of such a rhetorical question is that private insurance companies already ration care based on cost, so whats the problem with letting government ration our care? ...after all, those evil private sector insurance companies only cares about mega-profits (2.2-3.4% margins) but our generous and benevolent government cares about its people (as long as they vote correctly and are part of specific demographics).

 

[Little-Acorn]

you want the republican bill debated? Win the house , senate, or white house maybe and you can...

Thanks for conceding the point that earnest debate is impossible, and is being held hostage by the Democrats who gained power by stealth and deceith and are now trying to impose their socialistic version of Health Care on an electorate who does not want it.

 

[PLC1]

you want the republican bill debated? Win the house , senate, or white house maybe and you can...but the american public said no to Republicans on all 3...so suck it up and enjoy being powerless. You had 8 years to debate it...you did not do it...

See what I mean? It isn't a debate about what is right for the country. It is a power struggle between the Democraps and the Repugnicans. We would be so much better off without the partisanship.

 

[PLC1]

Sure thing, lets start with the receipts and outlays of the program and the unfunded liabilities of the program. Once we put the facts out on the table, you won't be able to argue against the conclusion that such programs are doomed to fail.

They do it in every other industrialized nation. If we can't, then it's time for revolt.

Name one of those systems which you so admire that do not subsidize healthcare through taxes. You can't, can you?

Of course not. government programs are supported by taxes, aren't they? does that make them somehow evil?

Or is it better to support the government by borrowing as has been done for the past 9 years?

Did you have a source for those "facts"?

Taxation as a percentage of GDP:
United States - 28%
Canada - 33%
France - 48%

So, the US taxes 28% of the GDP, and spends an additional 10% for health care (17% overall, less 7% Medicare/Medicaid) for a total of 38% vs Canada's 33%. That's a real bargain, sure.

They have fooled you with a shell game by shifting costs onto the taxpayer and hiding the healthcare expenditures in the general budget. As I have said, subsidizing healthcare on the taxpayers dime doesn't lower the cost of providing healthcare, it only hides the true cost.

So, all of the nations of Western Europe, along with Australia and Canada, are lying to the world about how much they spend on health care? Why?

Says WHO?

Exactly. Of course, some politicians and pundits disagree.

Is it unacceptable that as "the only industrialized nation without socialized healthcare", we're also responsible for the majority of new medical breakthroughs including medications, treatments and medical devices?

Can you back up your facts?

We have public options, like medicare, and they are deeply in debt.

Medicare is in financial difficulty due to the increased number of seniors plus the soaring cost of health care. The cost is increasing dramatically for private insurers as well. Does that prove that the public option is not viable?

The premise of such a rhetorical question is that private insurance companies already ration care based on cost, so whats the problem with letting government ration our care? ...after all, those evil private sector insurance companies only cares about mega-profits (2.2-3.4% margins) but our generous and benevolent government cares about its people (as long as they vote correctly and are part of specific demographics).

The premise is that we have rationing now, so saying that we will have rationing is nothing but a talking point. Of course there will continue to be rationing.

There really is no such thing as unlimited health care.

Nor are there going to be panels deciding on an individual basis who gets what based on what "demographic" they represent. We don't have that happening now with the public option we have currently, do we?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

See what I mean? It isn't a debate about what is right for the country. It is a power struggle between the Democraps and the Repugnicans. We would be so much better off without the partisanship.

well as a non Dem, the Republicans have not shown any interest in real debate...so they can shut up and sit and watch for all I care...

They did nothing for 8 years under Bush

They have not pushed a real plan, they have just yelled no at the Dems all year since the debate started...and while they claimed to be working with the Dems...they would say to there own people that they would do evrything they could to stop the health care plan ...they did not talk about reworking it or reforming ideas that they had....They just said we will stop what ever they want to do.

I could give a flying F what party did something , its about time one party did it and stepped up to the plate..

When you have lost all 3 branches, and don't even have enough to stop the Senate as they have 60 votes....you get 2 choices ...you can just say no, and sit back and play no part ( republicans choose this) or you can work with the ones in power and try to get some of yoru ideas used....

But there is a reason the public voted the way they did...they did not agree with republican ideas .

 

[GenSeneca]

They do it in every other industrialized nation. If we can't, then it's time for revolt.

Move to Canada if you want to live in a more socialist society. There is no place for me to go in order to live in a more capitalist society.

It's not that we "can't" mortgage the wealth, liberty and prosperity of future generations, its that up to now, we've been smart enough to avoid doing so.

Of course not. government programs are supported by taxes, aren't they? does that make them somehow evil?

In a word, yes. But a more accurate word would be Unconstitutional.

Or is it better to support the government by borrowing as has been done for the past 9 years?

Taxes and borrowing will greatly increase with the advent of Universal Healthcare.... I don't understand how you can look at governments abysmal fiscal record and think Healthcare will be the program they finally get right.

So, the US taxes 28% of the GDP, and spends an additional 10% for health care (17% overall, less 7% Medicare/Medicaid) for a total of 38% vs Canada's 33%. That's a real bargain, sure.

So you don't have a source for your numbers?

BTW, how many Canadians come to the US for healthcare and how many Americans go to Canada for healthcare? If their system is such a great bargain, why do so many come here?

So, all of the nations of Western Europe, along with Australia and Canada, are lying to the world about how much they spend on health care? Why?

WHO is lying.

Exactly. Of course, some politicians and pundits disagree.

WHO is lying to push an agenda.... Just as the IPCC lies to push their agenda.

Can you back up your facts?

Yes.

Medicare is in financial difficulty due to the increased number of seniors plus the soaring cost of health care. The cost is increasing dramatically for private insurers as well. Does that prove that the public option is not viable?

YES!!! Have you ever looked at the historic chart comparing third party spending to out of pocket expenses for healthcare?

If we created Food Insurance and ran it on the same premise and at the same level as HC insurance, you would notice that the price of food would quickly skyrocket out of control as insurance, rather than the consumer, took over the role of paying food bills. This isn't coincidence, its causality in action.

The premise is that we have rationing now, so saying that we will have rationing is nothing but a talking point. Of course there will continue to be rationing.

So you'd simply prefer government to be in charge of rationing services.

Nor are there going to be panels deciding on an individual basis who gets what based on what "demographic" they represent. We don't have that happening now with the public option we have currently, do we?

On an individual basis? No... but certain groups will get preferential treatment. HC rationing will impact the young and the elderly the most... those paying little to nothing in taxes and therefore of little to no value to a Collectivist society that runs on the taxation of its working age citizenry.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Originally Posted by pocketfullofshells you want the republican bill debated? Win the house , senate, or white house maybe and you can...

Thanks for conceding the point that earnest debate is impossible, and is being held hostage by the Democrats who gained power by stealth and deceith and are now trying to impose their socialistic version of Health Care on an electorate who does not want it.

Ok, super whiner 'LITTLE ACORN' then when it comes your time for SOCIAL SECURITY...please step right on up there and tell them that you don't want it, you don't need it and it's unconstitutional and you just send each and every check back!!! Because you'll be getting money for something that you really, truly didn't pay for and it's coming right off of the backs our our children's generation blood/sweat & tears

STEALTH & DECEIT...for Christs SAKE...you republicans rolled over and went belly up and just turned you backs and walked away from the 2008 election...now man up about it or STFU

If for any reason the elected officials can't sit down and pan out the bumps in the Healthcare Bill then they need to pack their collective A$$'s up and GO HOME...either do the job that you were elected to do or just get out of the way...there is much work that needs to be done and the constant 'SCREECH of the MONKEYS' is getting OLD!