Nelson and Reid Reach a Deal: Game Over

[Brittain33]

Did anyone else notice that Pat Toomey's primary challenge effectively negated the impact of Lamont's failed primary challenge as far as getting this bill across the finish line?

I, for one, am damn glad that Arlen Specter wasn't in line for his pound of flesh among the compromisers.

[Sbane]

     So this bill makes it a crime to not have health insurance? Can't say I like that idea much, though I guess it makes practical sense.

Yeah but I don't think anyone is getting put in jail for this. They will just be taxed more and if they don't pay that they will face the same consequences you face anyways today for not paying taxes. And I must say this is one of the bills I really approve of. I am much more apprehensive about mandates on small businesses.

     Even if they are merely taxed at a higher rate (nevermind the tax load already suffered by the lowest earners) rather than prison time, isn't that still just punishing someone for a victimless crime?

This is not punishment, rather incentives. If we are going to force insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions, we must make sure people can't just not have insurance until they need it. If we did that the sick would have to pay extremely high premiums. Individual mandates are the right and fair thing to do and it exists in most western countries. And means tested subsidies will be available to those who can't afford it so it's not as if people would have to choose between health insurance and other necessities.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     So this bill makes it a crime to not have health insurance? Can't say I like that idea much, though I guess it makes practical sense.

Yeah but I don't think anyone is getting put in jail for this. They will just be taxed more and if they don't pay that they will face the same consequences you face anyways today for not paying taxes. And I must say this is one of the bills I really approve of. I am much more apprehensive about mandates on small businesses.

     Even if they are merely taxed at a higher rate (nevermind the tax load already suffered by the lowest earners) rather than prison time, isn't that still just punishing someone for a victimless crime?

This is not punishment, rather incentives. If we are going to force insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions, we must make sure people can't just not have insurance until they need it. If we did that the sick would have to pay extremely high premiums. Individual mandates are the right and fair thing to do and it exists in most western countries. And means tested subsidies will be available to those who can't afford it so it's not as if people would have to choose between health insurance and other necessities.

     A negative incentive perhaps, but it's not like rampant tax cuts are acceptable without rampant spending cuts. Tort reform would also be important to help control health care costs, though I don't know if that's being addressed.

[Franzl]

Question: Now that it seems highly likely that Democrats have all 60 votes, what are the odds Olympia Snowe votes in favor of cloture?

[cinyc]

     So this bill makes it a crime to not have health insurance? Can't say I like that idea much, though I guess it makes practical sense.

Yeah but I don't think anyone is getting put in jail for this. They will just be taxed more and if they don't pay that they will face the same consequences you face anyways today for not paying taxes. And I must say this is one of the bills I really approve of. I am much more apprehensive about mandates on small businesses.

     Even if they are merely taxed at a higher rate (nevermind the tax load already suffered by the lowest earners) rather than prison time, isn't that still just punishing someone for a victimless crime?

This is not punishment, rather incentives. If we are going to force insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions, we must make sure people can't just not have insurance until they need it. If we did that the sick would have to pay extremely high premiums. Individual mandates are the right and fair thing to do and it exists in most western countries. And means tested subsidies will be available to those who can't afford it so it's not as if people would have to choose between health insurance and other necessities.

Call it what it is - a poll tax for something of dubious value (government-mandated insurance that covers unnecessary things like mammograms and pregnancy coverage for men - no sex discrimination in policy pricing, remember - that's good enough for health insurance, where young men would otherwise be better off, but not for car insurance, where young women would be unjustly penalized - natch) that might better be served by saving plus owing a non-government sanctioned catastrophic insurance policy.

[Sbane]

     So this bill makes it a crime to not have health insurance? Can't say I like that idea much, though I guess it makes practical sense.

Yeah but I don't think anyone is getting put in jail for this. They will just be taxed more and if they don't pay that they will face the same consequences you face anyways today for not paying taxes. And I must say this is one of the bills I really approve of. I am much more apprehensive about mandates on small businesses.

     Even if they are merely taxed at a higher rate (nevermind the tax load already suffered by the lowest earners) rather than prison time, isn't that still just punishing someone for a victimless crime?

This is not punishment, rather incentives. If we are going to force insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions, we must make sure people can't just not have insurance until they need it. If we did that the sick would have to pay extremely high premiums. Individual mandates are the right and fair thing to do and it exists in most western countries. And means tested subsidies will be available to those who can't afford it so it's not as if people would have to choose between health insurance and other necessities.

     A negative incentive perhaps, but it's not like rampant tax cuts are acceptable without rampant spending cuts. Tort reform would also be important to help control health care costs, though I don't know if that's being addressed.

I wish they took on tort reform, but the democrats won't since they are beholden to their lawyer donors. But then again they are also beholden to drug companies, insurance companies, doctors, hospitals etc etc. Maybe if Republicans take over congress, Obama and them can get some tort reform done. It's not a very large part of the costs in the system, but it is something that needs to be tackled.

[Sbane]

     So this bill makes it a crime to not have health insurance? Can't say I like that idea much, though I guess it makes practical sense.

Yeah but I don't think anyone is getting put in jail for this. They will just be taxed more and if they don't pay that they will face the same consequences you face anyways today for not paying taxes. And I must say this is one of the bills I really approve of. I am much more apprehensive about mandates on small businesses.

     Even if they are merely taxed at a higher rate (nevermind the tax load already suffered by the lowest earners) rather than prison time, isn't that still just punishing someone for a victimless crime?

This is not punishment, rather incentives. If we are going to force insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions, we must make sure people can't just not have insurance until they need it. If we did that the sick would have to pay extremely high premiums. Individual mandates are the right and fair thing to do and it exists in most western countries. And means tested subsidies will be available to those who can't afford it so it's not as if people would have to choose between health insurance and other necessities.

Call it what it is - a poll tax for something of dubious value (government-mandated insurance that covers unnecessary things like mammograms and pregnancy coverage for men - no sex discrimination in policy pricing, remember - that's good enough for health insurance, where young men would otherwise be better off, but not for car insurance, where young women would be unjustly penalized - natch) that might better be served by saving plus owing a non-government sanctioned catastrophic insurance policy.

I am perfectly fine with women paying the same as men in regards to health insurance, but your point about auto insurance is well taken. I can't disagree with you there. That being said just buying catastrophic insurance isn't always enough. What if you come down with cancer, or your kidney stops functioning. What happens then?

In addition there are checkups like prostate screenings that apply only to men so its not as if women cause much higher costs than men. Pregnancies seems to be one of the main reasons health care costs more for them.

[Sam Spade]

Sam Spade, premiums for individuals at the moment are substantially less than the premiums in a group plan (in my case about half as much), if the individual got individual coverage while healthy. Will that change?

In NY, individual plan premiums are roughly double group plan premiums for the same health insurance coverage unless you qualify for state reductions. 

Of course, you can only get the same health insurance coverage as a individual that you can get as a group with a couple of rather useless exceptions.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     So this bill makes it a crime to not have health insurance? Can't say I like that idea much, though I guess it makes practical sense.

Yeah but I don't think anyone is getting put in jail for this. They will just be taxed more and if they don't pay that they will face the same consequences you face anyways today for not paying taxes. And I must say this is one of the bills I really approve of. I am much more apprehensive about mandates on small businesses.

     Even if they are merely taxed at a higher rate (nevermind the tax load already suffered by the lowest earners) rather than prison time, isn't that still just punishing someone for a victimless crime?

This is not punishment, rather incentives. If we are going to force insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions, we must make sure people can't just not have insurance until they need it. If we did that the sick would have to pay extremely high premiums. Individual mandates are the right and fair thing to do and it exists in most western countries. And means tested subsidies will be available to those who can't afford it so it's not as if people would have to choose between health insurance and other necessities.

     A negative incentive perhaps, but it's not like rampant tax cuts are acceptable without rampant spending cuts. Tort reform would also be important to help control health care costs, though I don't know if that's being addressed.

I wish they took on tort reform, but the democrats won't since they are beholden to their lawyer donors. But then again they are also beholden to drug companies, insurance companies, doctors, hospitals etc etc. Maybe if Republicans take over congress, Obama and them can get some tort reform done. It's not a very large part of the costs in the system, but it is something that needs to be tackled.

     FWIW, I don't think that health care reform is a hill worth dying on, though I think that things can & should be done to make the process more libertarian, such as making any public option that may be created function as a genuine competitor & pushing tort reform.

[Ronnie]

Question: Now that it seems highly likely that Democrats have all 60 votes, what are the odds Olympia Snowe votes in favor of cloture?

She said multiple times that she won't vote for it.

[Psychic Octopus]

Ah, well, I expected this would happen in the end.

[Franzl]

Question: Now that it seems highly likely that Democrats have all 60 votes, what are the odds Olympia Snowe votes in favor of cloture?

She said multiple times that she won't vote for it.

Really? I haven't heard anything from her about the compromise bill.

I know she said many times she opposed the public option. Are you sure?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In most respects this is an even more conservative reform than Lloyd George's ambulance wagon. Worse, it seems to miss the point - and had the point been grasped the politics of this would look better as well.

[nhmagic]

It's not quite game over yet in the senate.  Webb's still undecided and he always has been the undecided one.  Nelson was going to fold from the beginning.  Reid's filing for cloture, but no one really knows how Webb's gonna vote.  He voted in favor of all six failed republican amendments to the bill and has said he was very upset about the medicare money not being restored.  He will surely be the one that's going to sink cap & trade when it comes to the senate.  So, who knows, we could get lucky and have Robert Bird go to his KKK in the sky or someone going home and getting snowed in.  Webb could sink this thing.  Any day that keeps this evil from passing is a good day. 

And as far as game overs, the democrats are going to have a hellish election come next November no matter how hard they try to win.  I mean when both hard liberals like Dean and hard conservatives like Coburn are united in opposition to the bill, Obama surely doesnt have the mushy middle.  The only remnant of support left in the polls for the bill is those who dont really pay attention or are Obama-sycophants.  6-7 senate seat pickups by republicans and the possible loss of the house.  It will be a pyhrric victory for dems if they pass this.

[Sbane]

Question: Now that it seems highly likely that Democrats have all 60 votes, what are the odds Olympia Snowe votes in favor of cloture?

She said multiple times that she won't vote for it.

Well she has always been against the public option. And with the public option jettisoned, who knows what will happen. Remember she voted for it in committee once.

[nhmagic]

Question: Now that it seems highly likely that Democrats have all 60 votes, what are the odds Olympia Snowe votes in favor of cloture?

She said multiple times that she won't vote for it.

Well she has always been against the public option. And with the public option jettisoned, who knows what will happen. Remember she voted for it in committee once.

She's piss & vinegar right now about the timetable dems have placed on debate.  She's not voting for cloture.

[Vepres]

     So this bill makes it a crime to not have health insurance? Can't say I like that idea much, though I guess it makes practical sense.

Yeah but I don't think anyone is getting put in jail for this. They will just be taxed more and if they don't pay that they will face the same consequences you face anyways today for not paying taxes. And I must say this is one of the bills I really approve of. I am much more apprehensive about mandates on small businesses.

     Even if they are merely taxed at a higher rate (nevermind the tax load already suffered by the lowest earners) rather than prison time, isn't that still just punishing someone for a victimless crime?

This is not punishment, rather incentives. If we are going to force insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions, we must make sure people can't just not have insurance until they need it. If we did that the sick would have to pay extremely high premiums. Individual mandates are the right and fair thing to do and it exists in most western countries. And means tested subsidies will be available to those who can't afford it so it's not as if people would have to choose between health insurance and other necessities.

Call it what it is - a poll tax for something of dubious value (government-mandated insurance that covers unnecessary things like mammograms and pregnancy coverage for men - no sex discrimination in policy pricing, remember - that's good enough for health insurance, where young men would otherwise be better off, but not for car insurance, where young women would be unjustly penalized - natch) that might better be served by saving plus owing a non-government sanctioned catastrophic insurance policy.

I am perfectly fine with women paying the same as men in regards to health insurance, but your point about auto insurance is well taken. I can't disagree with you there. That being said just buying catastrophic insurance isn't always enough. What if you come down with cancer, or your kidney stops functioning. What happens then?

In addition there are checkups like prostate screenings that apply only to men so its not as if women cause much higher costs than men. Pregnancies seems to be one of the main reasons health care costs more for them.

Perhaps I misinterpret the meaning of "catastrophic", but I would consider those to be catastrophic illnesses.

[Sbane]

     So this bill makes it a crime to not have health insurance? Can't say I like that idea much, though I guess it makes practical sense.

Yeah but I don't think anyone is getting put in jail for this. They will just be taxed more and if they don't pay that they will face the same consequences you face anyways today for not paying taxes. And I must say this is one of the bills I really approve of. I am much more apprehensive about mandates on small businesses.

     Even if they are merely taxed at a higher rate (nevermind the tax load already suffered by the lowest earners) rather than prison time, isn't that still just punishing someone for a victimless crime?

This is not punishment, rather incentives. If we are going to force insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions, we must make sure people can't just not have insurance until they need it. If we did that the sick would have to pay extremely high premiums. Individual mandates are the right and fair thing to do and it exists in most western countries. And means tested subsidies will be available to those who can't afford it so it's not as if people would have to choose between health insurance and other necessities.

Call it what it is - a poll tax for something of dubious value (government-mandated insurance that covers unnecessary things like mammograms and pregnancy coverage for men - no sex discrimination in policy pricing, remember - that's good enough for health insurance, where young men would otherwise be better off, but not for car insurance, where young women would be unjustly penalized - natch) that might better be served by saving plus owing a non-government sanctioned catastrophic insurance policy.

I am perfectly fine with women paying the same as men in regards to health insurance, but your point about auto insurance is well taken. I can't disagree with you there. That being said just buying catastrophic insurance isn't always enough. What if you come down with cancer, or your kidney stops functioning. What happens then?

In addition there are checkups like prostate screenings that apply only to men so its not as if women cause much higher costs than men. Pregnancies seems to be one of the main reasons health care costs more for them.

Perhaps I misinterpret the meaning of "catastrophic", but I would consider those to be catastrophic illnesses.

Then what's the difference between that and normal insurance? Doctor visits and blood tests don't really cost that much you know and it seems like that would be the only thing "extra".

[Vepres]

    So this bill makes it a crime to not have health insurance? Can't say I like that idea much, though I guess it makes practical sense.

Yeah but I don't think anyone is getting put in jail for this. They will just be taxed more and if they don't pay that they will face the same consequences you face anyways today for not paying taxes. And I must say this is one of the bills I really approve of. I am much more apprehensive about mandates on small businesses.

     Even if they are merely taxed at a higher rate (nevermind the tax load already suffered by the lowest earners) rather than prison time, isn't that still just punishing someone for a victimless crime?

This is not punishment, rather incentives. If we are going to force insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions, we must make sure people can't just not have insurance until they need it. If we did that the sick would have to pay extremely high premiums. Individual mandates are the right and fair thing to do and it exists in most western countries. And means tested subsidies will be available to those who can't afford it so it's not as if people would have to choose between health insurance and other necessities.

Call it what it is - a poll tax for something of dubious value (government-mandated insurance that covers unnecessary things like mammograms and pregnancy coverage for men - no sex discrimination in policy pricing, remember - that's good enough for health insurance, where young men would otherwise be better off, but not for car insurance, where young women would be unjustly penalized - natch) that might better be served by saving plus owing a non-government sanctioned catastrophic insurance policy.

I am perfectly fine with women paying the same as men in regards to health insurance, but your point about auto insurance is well taken. I can't disagree with you there. That being said just buying catastrophic insurance isn't always enough. What if you come down with cancer, or your kidney stops functioning. What happens then?

In addition there are checkups like prostate screenings that apply only to men so its not as if women cause much higher costs than men. Pregnancies seems to be one of the main reasons health care costs more for them.

Perhaps I misinterpret the meaning of "catastrophic", but I would consider those to be catastrophic illnesses.

Then what's the difference between that and normal insurance? Doctor visits and blood tests don't really cost that much you know and it seems like that would be the only thing "extra".

Eh, you got me

Also, upon some thought, I think you may be right about the individual mandate (though I'd prefer positive incentives), though I hope nobody is sent to jail for it

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Depressing

[War on Want]

     So this bill makes it a crime to not have health insurance? Can't say I like that idea much, though I guess it makes practical sense.

Yeah but I don't think anyone is getting put in jail for this. They will just be taxed more and if they don't pay that they will face the same consequences you face anyways today for not paying taxes. And I must say this is one of the bills I really approve of. I am much more apprehensive about mandates on small businesses.

     Even if they are merely taxed at a higher rate (nevermind the tax load already suffered by the lowest earners) rather than prison time, isn't that still just punishing someone for a victimless crime?

This is not punishment, rather incentives. If we are going to force insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions, we must make sure people can't just not have insurance until they need it. If we did that the sick would have to pay extremely high premiums. Individual mandates are the right and fair thing to do and it exists in most western countries. And means tested subsidies will be available to those who can't afford it so it's not as if people would have to choose between health insurance and other necessities.

Call it what it is - a poll tax for something of dubious value (government-mandated insurance that covers unnecessary things like mammograms and pregnancy coverage for men - no sex discrimination in policy pricing, remember - that's good enough for health insurance, where young men would otherwise be better off, but not for car insurance, where young women would be unjustly penalized - natch) that might better be served by saving plus owing a non-government sanctioned catastrophic insurance policy.

I'm pretty sure that penalizing people for not buying health insurance by forcing them to pay a tax is not a poll tax, it is being responsible so that we can rid ourselves of Government MIA programs but whatever continue with your outraged, teabag hero, hyperbole.

[Sbane]

     So this bill makes it a crime to not have health insurance? Can't say I like that idea much, though I guess it makes practical sense.

Yeah but I don't think anyone is getting put in jail for this. They will just be taxed more and if they don't pay that they will face the same consequences you face anyways today for not paying taxes. And I must say this is one of the bills I really approve of. I am much more apprehensive about mandates on small businesses.

     Even if they are merely taxed at a higher rate (nevermind the tax load already suffered by the lowest earners) rather than prison time, isn't that still just punishing someone for a victimless crime?

This is not punishment, rather incentives. If we are going to force insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions, we must make sure people can't just not have insurance until they need it. If we did that the sick would have to pay extremely high premiums. Individual mandates are the right and fair thing to do and it exists in most western countries. And means tested subsidies will be available to those who can't afford it so it's not as if people would have to choose between health insurance and other necessities.

Call it what it is - a poll tax for something of dubious value (government-mandated insurance that covers unnecessary things like mammograms and pregnancy coverage for men - no sex discrimination in policy pricing, remember - that's good enough for health insurance, where young men would otherwise be better off, but not for car insurance, where young women would be unjustly penalized - natch) that might better be served by saving plus owing a non-government sanctioned catastrophic insurance policy.

I am perfectly fine with women paying the same as men in regards to health insurance, but your point about auto insurance is well taken. I can't disagree with you there. That being said just buying catastrophic insurance isn't always enough. What if you come down with cancer, or your kidney stops functioning. What happens then?

In addition there are checkups like prostate screenings that apply only to men so its not as if women cause much higher costs than men. Pregnancies seems to be one of the main reasons health care costs more for them.

Perhaps I misinterpret the meaning of "catastrophic", but I would consider those to be catastrophic illnesses.

Then what's the difference between that and normal insurance? Doctor visits and blood tests don't really cost that much you know and it seems like that would be the only thing "extra".

Eh, you got me

Also, upon some thought, I think you may be right about the individual mandate (though I'd prefer positive incentives), though I hope nobody is sent to jail for it

Well if you don't pay your taxes, you go to jail (although I am sure the government has other ways of getting the money. As you may imagine their real goal is to get your money, not send you to jail). If you don't like that you are more than welcome to go live on the numerous uninhabitated islands of the world and create your own libertarian commune.

[cinyc]

I'm pretty sure that penalizing people for not buying health insurance by forcing them to pay a tax is not a poll tax, it is being responsible so that we can rid ourselves of Government MIA programs but whatever continue with your outraged, teabag hero, hyperbole.

It's a tax on someone by virtue of breathing.  You can't alter your behavior to avoid it - except to die.  Therefore, it IS a poll tax, by definition.

Then what's the difference between that and normal insurance? Doctor visits and blood tests don't really cost that much you know and it seems like that would be the only thing "extra".

The point is that the House bill (and I assume the Senate bill) essentially kills the "Whole Foods" high-deductible catastrophic health insurance with medical savings accounts model - which is the model that we SHOULD be gravitating toward, not away from because it increases consumer choice, lowers costs, and gets the government and insurance companies the hell out of most medical decisions.  "Insurance" that covers routine costs that should be borne out-of-pocket, like routine doctor visits and blood tests, isn't really insurance - it's a system that makes those of us who aren't hypochondriacs that run to the doctor at the sign of any sniffle subsidize those who are.  You MUST buy a policy that the government approves because we say so!  If the government determines that all policies MUST provide botox to Nancy Pelosi - you must subsidize her!  Heil government!

Your car insurance doesn't cover routine auto maintenance - nor should it.  Why should I be required to buy medical "insurance" that does?  (Or ANY insurance, for that matter).

[War on Want]

I'm pretty sure that penalizing people for not buying health insurance by forcing them to pay a tax is not a poll tax, it is being responsible so that we can rid ourselves of Government MIA programs but whatever continue with your outraged, teabag hero, hyperbole.

It's a tax on someone by virtue of breathing.  You can't alter your behavior to avoid it - except to die.  Therefore, it IS a poll tax, by definition.

Actually you could buy health insurance to avoid it. Therefore technically it isn't a poll tax.

[Ronnie]

Question: Now that it seems highly likely that Democrats have all 60 votes, what are the odds Olympia Snowe votes in favor of cloture?

She said multiple times that she won't vote for it.

Really? I haven't heard anything from her about the compromise bill.

I know she said many times she opposed the public option. Are you sure?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/20/olympia-snowe-will-vote-a_n_398557.html