Health care summit

[SEC=UGA]

I've never understood fully the idea of an insurer having to cover a pre-existing condition. Tell me, why would I have health insurance if I knew I didn't need it until I got sick? So, I break my leg, I have no health insurance... THe day i break my leg I call up the insurance company and say hey, I want insurance, i broke my leg and can't afford to pay for it, so I'll pay you a premium for a month and you pay to fix my leg and then I'll let it lapse... How much sense does that make for an inusrer? Further why would anyone ever buy insurance in the first place.

 

In the broader spectrum of things, I can see that if you disclose on your app that you had cancer in 96, you get your coverage in say 10 and are paying your premiums every month, quarter, whatever. Then in 2013 you get the same type of cancer again, yes they should probably cover it and in every group plan I know of they will. But the language, my understanding of the language, in the legislation states that the former is the case rather than the latter.

[Perchoutofwater]

As Robert Byrd, (D-W.V.), one of the original authors of the reconciliation rule, explained, “Reconciliation was intended to adjust revenue and spending levels in order to reduce deficits...it was not designed to... See More…restructure the entire health care system.” He warns that using reconciliation for health care would “violate the intent and spirit of the budget process, and do serious injury to the Constitutional role of the Senate.” In fact, in 1985, the Senate adopted the “Byrd rule,” which prohibits the use of reconciliation for any “extraneous issue” that does not directly change revenues or expenditures. Clearly, large portions of the health care bill, ranging from mandates to insurance regulation to establishing “exchanges,” do not meet that requirement.

[Perchoutofwater]

 

Have any of them been passed with out being attached to a larger budget bill?

[bushwacked]

Have any of them been passed with out being attached to a larger budget bill?

 

I don't know, but you can probably find out yourself if you google hard enough.

 

In the meantime, this is the third time Wiegie's question is relevant for you today:

 

Why can't you just admit that you were wrong rather than trying to change your argument?

[bpwallace49]

I've never understood fully the idea of an insurer having to cover a pre-existing condition. Tell me, why would I have health insurance if I knew I didn't need it until I got sick? So, I break my leg, I have no health insurance... THe day i break my leg I call up the insurance company and say hey, I want insurance, i broke my leg and can't afford to pay for it, so I'll pay you a premium for a month and you pay to fix my leg and then I'll let it lapse... How much sense does that make for an inusrer? Further why would anyone ever buy insurance in the first place.

 

In the broader spectrum of things, I can see that if you disclose on your app that you had cancer in 96, you get your coverage in say 10 and are paying your premiums every month, quarter, whatever. Then in 2013 you get the same type of cancer again, yes they should probably cover it and in every group plan I know of they will. But the language, my understanding of the language, in the legislation states that the former is the case rather than the latter.

 

Are you kidding? It has much more to do with ongoing issues that cannot be cured like Diabetes, autism, and a myriad of other long-standing semi-permanent conditions. NOT a broken leg. when people change jobs they ahve to switch insurances, and often insurers with not cover anything until they get at least a year's worth of premiums (profit) in first.

[Perchoutofwater]

I don't know, but you can probably find out yourself if you google hard enough.

 

In the meantime, this is the third time Wiegie's question is relevant for you today:

 

If you have something substantive to say, please do so, otherwise get out of the way and let the grown ups talk.

[evil_gop_liars]

If you have something substantive to say, please do so, otherwise get out of the way and let the grown ups talk.

 

You sound like a broken record "budget bill" "budget bill". I can guarantee you this health care bill will have an impact on the budget, therefore it is attached to the "budget bill."

[bushwacked]

If you have something substantive to say

 

[SayItAintSoJoe]

As Robert Byrd, (D-W.V.), one of the original authors of the reconciliation rule, explained, "Reconciliation was intended to adjust revenue and spending levels in order to reduce deficits...it was not designed to... See More…restructure the entire health care system." He warns that using reconciliation for health care would "violate the intent and spirit of the budget process, and do serious injury to the Constitutional role of the Senate." In fact, in 1985, the Senate adopted the "Byrd rule," which prohibits the use of reconciliation for any "extraneous issue" that does not directly change revenues or expenditures. Clearly, large portions of the health care bill, ranging from mandates to insurance regulation to establishing "exchanges," do not meet that requirement.

 

I agree with this, but I also agree that the misuse of the filibuster has done serious injury to the constitutional role of the Senate. The Senate rules stink. The Supreme Court can hand down major legal decisions that can have a major impact on our country as a whole with a simple 5 to 4 majority (9 unelected people deciding this), but 59 out of 100 senators, elected to office by the public, isn't enough to bring a bill up for a vote. Not pass the bill, mind you. Just bring it up for a vote.

[Perchoutofwater]

You sound like a broken record "budget bill" "budget bill". I can guarantee you this health care bill will have an impact on the budget, therefore it is attached to the "budget bill."

 

Nice spin, but it is not a budget resolution, and based on the Senate's definition should be applicable for reconciliation. Also based on the comments of one of the original authors of the reconciliation process who just happens to be a democrat, it was never intended for passing this kind of bill. You can not factually argue for the use of reconciliation for the health care bill. Trying to do so is intellectually dishonest and spin. I'm not saying that it won't be passed by reconciliation, but it will set a very dangerous precedent as reconciliation has never been used in this manner before. Even Obama, Reid, Pelosi and H. Clinton acknowledged that previously.

[Perchoutofwater]

It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

[bpwallace49]

It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

 

Its funny . . when I worked for Paul Ryan a looong time ago, his health care staffer was one of the weakest links in his staffer chain. Strongest was defense and foreign relations, who has now moved to be his Chief of Staff . . .

[westvirginia]

I've never understood fully the idea of an insurer having to cover a pre-existing condition. Tell me, why would I have health insurance if I knew I didn't need it until I got sick? So, I break my leg, I have no health insurance... THe day i break my leg I call up the insurance company and say hey, I want insurance, i broke my leg and can't afford to pay for it, so I'll pay you a premium for a month and you pay to fix my leg and then I'll let it lapse... How much sense does that make for an inusrer? Further why would anyone ever buy insurance in the first place.

 

In the broader spectrum of things, I can see that if you disclose on your app that you had cancer in 96, you get your coverage in say 10 and are paying your premiums every month, quarter, whatever. Then in 2013 you get the same type of cancer again, yes they should probably cover it and in every group plan I know of they will. But the language, my understanding of the language, in the legislation states that the former is the case rather than the latter.

 

BINGO! Why would you pay for insurance in the first place? Would anyone expect to be able to call Geico and get insurance to fix a wreck you had yesterday?

[Ursa Majoris]

I agree with this, but I also agree that the misuse of the filibuster has done serious injury to the constitutional role of the Senate. The Senate rules stink. The Supreme Court can hand down major legal decisions that can have a major impact on our country as a whole with a simple 5 to 4 majority (9 unelected people deciding this), but 59 out of 100 senators, elected to office by the public, isn't enough to bring a bill up for a vote. Not pass the bill, mind you. Just bring it up for a vote.

I'd never really thought of it in those terms but you make a very valid point.

[bpwallace49]

BINGO! Why would you pay for insurance in the first place? Would anyone expect to be able to call Geico and get insurance to fix a wreck you had yesterday?

 

Maybe because the broken leg premise is completely flawed? Speaking of someone has has a child with autism, they consider that a "pre-existing condition" and do not cover things for a year . . .

[bpwallace49]

Senator Dikembe Mutombo Blocks Record Amount Of Legislation

February 26, 2010 |

 

The 7-foot-2 senator, who broke the record previously held by Sen. Shawn Bradley (D-NJ), Rep. Arvydas Sabonis (D-OR), and current Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), batted away legislation left and right, sometimes swatting bills so hard that they were sent flying all the way back to committee.

 

Mutombo punctuated his final block, a clean rejection of the Criminal Justice Reinvestment Act, with his signature finger wag.

 

"He stuffed the new jobs bill right back in Harry Reid's face," Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told reporters. "And then when Reid tried to put the bill back up for consideration, Sen. Mutombo blocked it a second and then a third time. That's when I knew he had a chance at the record."

 

"He just completely dominates the Senate floor," McCain added.

 

His biggest rejection came 20 minutes into the first half of the session when 5-foot-10 Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) had his Peace Corps Improvement and Expansion Act emphatically slapped away by a leaping Mutombo. Following the rejection, Mutombo glared at Dodd from the Senate podium and said, "Get that weak-ass legislation out of my house," in a yell that was reportedly heard in the top rows of the Senate Chamber.

 

"You don't mind giving up the blocks record to a talent like Mutombo," said Sen. McConnell, who is still considered the Republican floor leader. "Some say he's too centrist, and he may take that position at times, but the fact is he can get stuff struck down like nobody's business."

 

Mutombo, who has been called a "force" by his Republican colleagues and is a key player in their legislative game plan, had a career-best nine blocks during the first half of Thursday's session. He easily rejected several appropriations bills, barely even getting off the Senate floor on two of them. For his 10th block of the day, he also got a piece of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act.

 

"He's like a brick wall out there," a visibly tired and sweaty Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) told reporters. "Sen. Mutombo's arms are so long that if legislation is introduced anywhere in his vicinity, he's probably going to knock it away. There's no way we are going to get health care through with Mutombo out there."

 

"You can try and alter your legislation or fake him out by attaching a rider to a bill, but in the end he's just too big," Kerry continued. "And fast. He's got surprisingly quick footwork."

 

Dikembe Mutombo Mpolondo Mukamba Jean-Jacques Wamutombo started his political career as a city councilman in Denver, quickly gaining a reputation as an elected official focused on getting that stuff out of here. Campaigning on a platform of defense, defense, defense, the popular Mutombo was elected to the State Legislature in 2002 and then to the U.S. Senate in 2006. According to Senate sources, the rookie lawmaker came out of nowhere to stuff Ted Kennedy's Vaccine Access and Supply Act "so far down the late senator's throat" that he easily won the respect of his Republican colleagues.

 

"He reminds me of myself out there, just rejecting stuff left and right," said former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), who retired in 2007. "Even when he gets called an obstructionist, or for goaltending, he's established psychological dominance and made his point: You don't come through his part of the floor."

 

Though many Democratic senators have called Mutombo's legislative style extremely partisan, one-dimensional, and completely unfair, some of his colleagues across the aisle have praised Mutombo's willingness to assist them in getting their legislation through Congress.

 

"The thing about Mutombo is that, for a big man, he can actually pass bills really well," Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) said in reference to their bipartisan work on the Trade Act of 2007 and the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008. "Because he's so tall, he sees the perimeter of the entire Senate floor and knows when a senator from the left or right might offer some weak-side help."

 

"Reminds me of a young Bill Bradley," Baucus added.

 

Such praise from Democratic lawmakers is rare, however, with many saying that Sen. Mutombo is directly responsible for the gridlock currently facing Washington.

 

"Sometimes I get the impression that he'll block something just because it's introduced by a Democrat or, quite frankly, just because he's taller than the rest of us," Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) told reporters. "Why else would he reject a resolution supporting stability in Sudan?"

 

Specter went on to express concern for the future of his party, saying that the only hope for getting meaningful legislation passed through Congress is to make sure Rep. Greg Ostertag (D-UT) is elected to the Senate during November's midterm electio

 

I diont even know Dikembe was a Senator . . can Lady hawke please verify his birth certificate?

[Perchoutofwater]

I diont even know Dikembe was a Senator . . can Lady hawke please verify his birth certificate?

 

I love The Onion

[Big John]

I diont even know Dikembe was a Senator . . can Lady hawke please verify his birth certificate?

 

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/senat..._mutombo_blocks

[Perchoutofwater]

 

I beat Big John

[Big John]

I beat Big John

[bpwallace49]

I beat Big John

 

I love the Onion too . .

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klei...got_51_vot.html

 

Judd Gregg: 'If you've got 51 votes, you win'

"The point is this," Sen. Judd Gregg says in this 2005 defense of the Republicans’ use of the budget reconciliation process. "If you've got 51 votes, you win."

 

The idea "that it is outside the rules to proceed within the rules," Gregg laughs, "is a very unique view on the rules." He's right! Sadly, he has now adopted that unique view on the rules, complaining that reconciliation is "running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River."

 

Obviously, Democrats were similarly hypocritical at the time, arguing that reconciliation was a terrible abuse of power. And so it goes: People start from their preferred outcome and then make up principles that support it. But at all times, the most convincing argument is the one Gregg uses above: Elections generally work on the principle that if you have 51 percent of the vote, you win. That's how we ratified the Constitution at the Massachusetts Convention. That's how we elected Scott Brown and Ronald Reagan. That's how the House of Representatives passes legislation. And it's how the Senate should work.

 

Reconciliation is a limited and strange process with problems of its own, however, and it would be far better for Democrats, Republicans and the country if we just dismantled the filibuster. Instead, we're left with a situation in which the minority uses a rule that wasn't supposed to be the way the Senate generally votes to impose a 60-vote requirement and the majority uses a process that wasn't meant to be the way the Senate debates to restore a 51-vote rule. Loser? The country, which gets worse policy made under worse circumstances.

 

By Ezra Klein | February 26, 2010; 1:33 PM ET

[Perchoutofwater]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klei...got_51_vot.html

 

Judd Gregg: 'If you've got 51 votes, you win'

"The point is this," Sen. Judd Gregg says in this 2005 defense of the Republicans’ use of the budget reconciliation process. "If you've got 51 votes, you win."

 

The idea "that it is outside the rules to proceed within the rules," Gregg laughs, "is a very unique view on the rules." He's right! Sadly, he has now adopted that unique view on the rules, complaining that reconciliation is "running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River."

 

Obviously, Democrats were similarly hypocritical at the time, arguing that reconciliation was a terrible abuse of power. And so it goes: People start from their preferred outcome and then make up principles that support it. But at all times, the most convincing argument is the one Gregg uses above: Elections generally work on the principle that if you have 51 percent of the vote, you win. That's how we ratified the Constitution at the Massachusetts Convention. That's how we elected Scott Brown and Ronald Reagan. That's how the House of Representatives passes legislation. And it's how the Senate should work.

 

Reconciliation is a limited and strange process with problems of its own, however, and it would be far better for Democrats, Republicans and the country if we just dismantled the filibuster. Instead, we're left with a situation in which the minority uses a rule that wasn't supposed to be the way the Senate generally votes to impose a 60-vote requirement and the majority uses a process that wasn't meant to be the way the Senate debates to restore a 51-vote rule. Loser? The country, which gets worse policy made under worse circumstances.

 

By Ezra Klein | February 26, 2010; 1:33 PM ET

 

Refresh my memory, but did Republicans actually use the Nuclear option, and what did Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, and Hillary say about it back then?

[wiegie]

BINGO! Why would you pay for insurance in the first place? Would anyone expect to be able to call Geico and get insurance to fix a wreck you had yesterday?

And this is EXACTY why the current bill has mandates that basically force people to buy insurance.

Edited March 1, 2010 by wiegie

[wiegie]

Refresh my memory, but did Republicans actually use the Nuclear option, and what did Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, and Hillary say about it back then?

the GOP did use reconciliation to pass both of George W. Bush's ill-advised tax cuts.