House passes the Health Care Bill

[Anonymous]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nancy-pelosi-democrats-pass-sweeping-health-care-reform/story?id=9027367

[Anonymous]

Sad day.

[Anonymous]

Great Day.

[Anonymous]

I hope both parties are ashamed at their lack of communication. I know it's their fault, but maybe if we had tried harder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Great Day.

I hope you enjoy the medical rationing that this will inevitably result in. The system needs reform, but this is an absolute boondoggle. How about tort reform? Oh no, can't do that since they are such a strong lobby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great Day.

I hope you enjoy the medical rationing that this will inevitably result in. The system needs reform, but this is an absolute boondoggle. How about tort reform? Oh no, can't do that since they are such a strong lobby.

OMG this medical rationing thing is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great Day.

I hope you enjoy the medical rationing that this will inevitably result in. The system needs reform, but this is an absolute boondoggle. How about tort reform? Oh no, can't do that since they are such a strong lobby.

OMG this medical rationing thing is ridiculous.

Actually, if you think about it, it isn't ridiculous - it is basic supply and demand. Fewer doctors (who wants to go to med school for $400K and have salaries dictated by the government?) + more people to see = rationing. Government is incapable of running much of anything, let alone something as complex as health care. I can't believe how many people have their head in the sand about this.

Read something other than the NYT and CNN to educate yourself about this issue.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Read something other than the NYT and CNN to educate yourself about this issue.

This is good advice. So good, in fact, that you might take it yourself.

The government isn't going to dictate salaries. The government is not going to "run" health care.

If you are happy with your insurance, you will keep it. If doctors are not willing to work for the payments your insurance provides, that's a problem between you, your insurance, and your doctor. That doesn't involve the government.

Today, a lot of people show up at emergency rooms and are unable to pay for their care. If, in the future, those individuals have insurance, payment to doctors will be much more likely than it is today. That will attract more doctors to the field.

It's interesting that you are surprised that others have their heads in the sand about healthcare reform, yet don't even understand the basics of what is happening yourself.

[Anonymous]

I heard a great, simple analogy for health care, it is like having your Thanksgiving dinner completely planned for the number of guests you have invited and someone suddenly say, "OK, you're going to have six more people coming to Thanksgiving, but it's not going to cost you more and in addition you will be able to provide everyone with a better dinner than you had planned." It wouldn't work for Thanksgiving and it will not work for health care either.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I heard a great, simple analogy for health care, it is like having your Thanksgiving dinner completely planned for the number of guests you have invited and someone suddenly say, "OK, you're going to have six more people coming to Thanksgiving, but it's not going to cost you more and in addition you will be able to provide everyone with a better dinner than you had planned." It wouldn't work for Thanksgiving and it will not work for health care either.

This analogy could only make sense to somebody who had no idea what is included in the health reform bill.

Here is a better analogy.

One group of people eats Thanksgiving dinner, consuming as much food as it desires. Out on the street, another group of people goes hungry. Eventually, the hungry group of people goes to a restaurant that is required by law to serve them. As it happens, the restaurant is one of the most expensive in town. Since the restaurant knows it won't be paid by the hungry group, it has increased the prices charged to others, such as the first group. Also, some of the hungry arrive at the restaurant too late and starve to death. A third group is capable of buying its own food, but refuses. Instead that group also dines at no charge on the expensive restaurant food paid for by higher fees paid by the first group. The first group seems blissfully unaware that it is paying more than necessary for its food.

Healthcare reform would change this so that the group that gets to eat Thanksgiving dinner would continue eating the same food, but would pay lower prices because their fees would no longer subsidize the unpaid food provided to the hungry and those who refuse to buy food. The hungry would be fed before reaching the state of extreme hunger through mechanisms that are more efficient and cheaper than the most expensive restaurant in town. The third group would no longer exist because everyone would be required to buy food (at subsidized prices when necessary). There is one group for whom this would suck. That is the less than 1 percent of the population that eats gold-plated turkeys. That group would be charged an excise fee that would be used to help pay for the subsidies.

What is missing from the first analogy is an understanding that while resources are always limited, more efficient utilization of those resources results in a de facto increase in the resource.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great Day.

I hope you enjoy the medical rationing that this will inevitably result in. The system needs reform, but this is an absolute boondoggle. How about tort reform? Oh no, can't do that since they are such a strong lobby.

OMG this medical rationing thing is ridiculous.

Actually, if you think about it, it isn't ridiculous - it is basic supply and demand. Fewer doctors (who wants to go to med school for $400K and have salaries dictated by the government?) + more people to see = rationing. Government is incapable of running much of anything, let alone something as complex as health care. I can't believe how many people have their head in the sand about this.

Read something other than the NYT and CNN to educate yourself about this issue.

Nice try, hon. I don't watch CNN, and NYT is only on Sundays.

Any statement which starts from "Actually, if you think about it" is not much of an argument. You might have said "just supposin'".

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard a great, simple analogy for health care, it is like having your Thanksgiving dinner completely planned for the number of guests you have invited and someone suddenly say, "OK, you're going to have six more people coming to Thanksgiving, but it's not going to cost you more and in addition you will be able to provide everyone with a better dinner than you had planned." It wouldn't work for Thanksgiving and it will not work for health care either.

This analogy could only make sense to somebody who had no idea what is included in the health reform bill.

Here is a better analogy.

One group of people eats Thanksgiving dinner, consuming as much food as it desires. Out on the street, another group of people goes hungry. Eventually, the hungry group of people goes to a restaurant that is required by law to serve them. As it happens, the restaurant is one of the most expensive in town. Since the restaurant knows it won't be paid by the hungry group, it has increased the prices charged to others, such as the first group. Also, some of the hungry arrive at the restaurant too late and starve to death. A third group is capable of buying its own food, but refuses. Instead that group also dines at no charge on the expensive restaurant food paid for by higher fees paid by the first group. The first group seems blissfully unaware that it is paying more than necessary for its food.

Healthcare reform would change this so that the group that gets to eat Thanksgiving dinner would continue eating the same food, but would pay lower prices because their fees would no longer subsidize the unpaid food provided to the hungry and those who refuse to buy food. The hungry would be fed before reaching the state of extreme hunger through mechanisms that are more efficient and cheaper than the most expensive restaurant in town. The third group would no longer exist because everyone would be required to buy food (at subsidized prices when necessary). There is one group for whom this would suck. That is the less than 1 percent of the population that eats gold-plated turkeys. That group would be charged an excise fee that would be used to help pay for the subsidies.

What is missing from the first analogy is an understanding that while resources are always limited, more efficient utilization of those resources results in a de facto increase in the resource.

Steele, I think you are soo smart, I want to date you. Actually I am happily married, but you get the point.

[Anonymous]

Jeff, any opinion on what's going to happen with this in the Senate? From what I understand it doesn't have much chance, the biggest road block being the Government offering a plan at all.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, any opinion on what's going to happen with this in the Senate? From what I understand it doesn't have much chance, the biggest road block being the Government offering a plan at all.

Harry Reid is in the process of consolidating the three Senate plans. The House bill will actually never be dealt with in the Senate in its current form. Rumor has it that Reid will include a public option in his plan. Joe Lieberman says he will filibuster any bill that includes the public option, as will all Republicans. As a result, the public option will either have to be removed or neutered, or Reid will have to strong-arm Lieberman. If Reid allows Lieberman to block the public option, it will make him look very weak. It will raise the question as to why Lieberman is allowed to caucus with the Democrats and chair an important committee if he does not support their agenda. If Lieberman is successful in blocking the bill, and he is not punished, it will probably cost Reid his own re-election next year. So, I expect that Reid will pull out all stops to get a bill with the public option passed by the Senate. Reid also has a hole card to play: reconciliation. If he can't get 60 votes, he can just say "screw it' and use the reconciliation process to pass the bill with a simple majority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great Day.

I hope you enjoy the medical rationing that this will inevitably result in. The system needs reform, but this is an absolute boondoggle. How about tort reform? Oh no, can't do that since they are such a strong lobby.

OMG this medical rationing thing is ridiculous.

Actually, if you think about it, it isn't ridiculous - it is basic supply and demand. Fewer doctors (who wants to go to med school for $400K and have salaries dictated by the government?) + more people to see = rationing. Government is incapable of running much of anything, let alone something as complex as health care. I can't believe how many people have their head in the sand about this.

Read something other than the NYT and CNN to educate yourself about this issue.

Nice try, hon. I don't watch CNN, and NYT is only on Sundays.


Any statement which starts from "Actually, if you think about it" is not much of an argument. You might have said "just supposin'".

Give me an example of what the government runs well and efficiently.

What about tort reform? Why isn't that being addressed?