Senate set for historic Health Care debate Monday

"If the wind continues to "blow at their backs" Congress will have an even more liberal makeup after this major achievement,"

Agreed, I think we're more likely to gain a Senate seat or two then any seats in the House.

"This bill is but a milestone on the path to that goal."

Again, I find myself in agreement with you. Progress takes a long and arduous march, but it happens, step, by step, by step. And when I find myself becoming cynical and bitter I think of this quote

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends
towards justice." (MLK)

Teddy watchin alright, but he aint lookin down, hes lookin UP

he said "the costs would be more than offset by new taxes and fees and by reductions in the growth of Medicare."

New taxes, bad.
New fees, bad.
reductions in the growth of Medicare, how can that be done?

I agree with this guy. Privatized health insurance is a fraud by definition.

Yet the plan requires it on threat of imprisonment. It is not a health care bill. It is an insurance industry bailout bill.

samesixth, you wouldn't be for the solution, anyway.

You can't bail out a business that isn't struggling.

An "insurance industry bailout bill" is the status quo.

Privatized insurance is the problem, at the very least this takes a step towards mitigating that if it has a public option.

Very interesting analysis. You are right on most points, except that the farm industry gets subsidized... a whole different issue altogether.

EVEN IF the profit margins are marginal in insurance companies, that doesn't explain the whole picture, and it doesn't say anything about excess overheads. Lest we forget that those come out of the profit margin that you quoted. The overheads don't just come out of the insurance company's profits, either. There are entire departments in hospitals dedicated to figuring out what insurance companies will and will not reimburse.

I wonder why anyone invests in these companies with such a low yield...

Healthcare is expensive. Any waste is a lot of waste, 6% of 1/6th of the economy is a lot of money. That being said, I have heard that the overheads are as high as 30%. The problem isn't necessarily the waste, it's the conflict in interest and the resultant abuse of those paying for it.

There is a problem anytime the government privatizes a system that is a public service. I happen to think that healthcare is a public service, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that I am right.

The health insurance industry has a 30% overhead compared to the health insurance programs regulated in other countries as well as Medicare which all fall around 3% to 4%, as further evidenced by the fact that on average Americans have to pay $6000 more per year in premiums. The article states, "Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues...." So then revenues would include the huge multi-hundred million dollar upper management salaries as well as advertising, $1 to $2 million per day lobbying costs, slush funds, and other "expenses." This article is total right wing propaganda.

What debt? The plan is projected to reduce the budget deficit by over $127 billion over the next ten years.

And on the issue of the government "forcing this on the American people" you have to remember that in the end, the Republicans have to deal with the fact that 72% percent of Americans want government to intervene in healthcare... If anything, they are carrying out the will of the people.

You are really talking nonsense, AS.

"You are really talking nonsense, AS."

What a common substitute for a rebuttal when one has no rebuttal.

I missed that, but everything they brought up is correct. They didn't bring up the fact that many (like 30-45%) of doctors said that they would leave their field if socialized medicine is in America. The bills say that they get less and less than the payment that they were getting for Medicare & Medicaid. As it is the difference in the payment falls to us to pay. If our other insurance pays part, then that is great, and anything else is a bill to you or me.... and if they cut that out, then the doctors make not enough to keep their doors open.

WTF is Obamacare? Can anyone answer that question with intelligence?

They would leave their field and do... what exactly?

ibrake4rappers13 - I said with intelligence

thats basically it i dont know what else u want me to tell you

you want some sort of mathematical equation?

i totally agree with the student at the end

"Not enough time to read it and debate."

Did you read the article? Because they are voting on whether to debate it or not and it will probably be a month before they vote on the bill itself, plenty of time to read it. Also that "its too big to read" argument doesn't fly. If the font size was reduced to that of what you would find in a book. It would only total around 500 pages.

but have you listened to the senate debates? They speak, there are awesome ideas and new things brought to the floor, then the yeas and nays are strictly partition, and all the ideas that could save the bill from being something that more than half the country thinks is dangerous, something that they don't want to saddle their future generations with... the ideas are gone just because of "who" said them. That is bullshit.

arcticspirit, I don't know where you get the numbers to make the statement that government healthcare is "something that more than half the country thinks is dangerous"...

All the polls show overwhelming numbers of Americans for it. 72% of Americans are for it. Saying that half the country is against it is misleading... the only ones against it is the 28% Conservative base.

Current,

What do you have to say now? They are voting on the bill Saturday after debating it for that day only. No time to hear from the people after the debate and before the vote. I want health care reform. This is not it. It is a bailout bill for the insurance company. Most of my friends without health care are progressive people who choose not to purchase it for their own reasons. Will this bill require the fining and jailing of my free choice friends like the Pelosi bill will?

"What do you have to say now? They are voting on the bill Saturday after debating it for that day only."

What are you talking about sam? they AREN'T voting on the final bill. They are voting to debate the bill at approximately 8PM on Saturday night.

"The Senate is expected to vote Saturday evening on whether to take up the legislation."

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/

Voting on whether to debate or not is as crucial as voting on the bill itself. If the vote is nay then the bill is done, is it not? It is critical to make points for and against the bill before this vote, and it is questionable that anyone has time to read it, except for the health insurance industry lobbyists who wrote it.

There are many progressives who question whether this is the right time to pass insurance reform. All the bills coming out that are agreeable enough to pass are so badly compromised that they will likely make things worse overall while appearing to make things better with a few crumbs of reform.

The question of whether people will be fined for refusing health coverage (as they would for refusing car insurance) is a very viable one to consider. You can chose not to drive if you don't want to pay car insurance. But what must you do to not have health insurance? Die?

This complex legislation is being rammed down our throats and even if we (and Congress) had the time to read it, it probably wouldn't be clear what the hell it does without a team of lawyers to decipher it.

Sure, but this is the real vote. If Reid can gather 60 here, then the vote on the actual bill is a foregone conclusion. That is why he worked so hard on Landrieu.

it's shorter than palin's book.

Yep, that would strip Lieberman of any power in the Senate... and the people of Connecticut won't like a Senator who has no power. Lieberman knows this...

I really wish they would take his Committee chairs away. He is like the guy on the football team that runs the ball to the incorrect inzone, but does it like every game. This guy is beyond useless in the caucus.

While I support a woman's right to choose I realize it's a compromise to bring conservatives on board. The amendment still allows for coverage in cases of rape and threat to the mother's health or life. Women can still purchase insurance to cover the other cases.

While it's a hard pill to swallow, some concessions must be made if this bill is to be passed into law... and it's now or never. This bill MUST be passed.

Failure to do so by the Democratic Senate will propel more conservatives into that chamber and women's rights will regress further.

Not all progress runs in a straight line. Sometimes you need to take a step back in order to leap forward.

How magnanimous of you. Have you considered how a poor woman might think?

I do consider how "poor women" will think: they have no insurance otherwise and need this bill to pass.

If a woman can't afford extra insurance to cover the other reasons for abortion, then they likely have no insurance at all now and will benefit from this bill being passed.

The cold hard truth is that without the amendment, the Health Care reform bill would not have passed the House and poor women (and men and children) would continue the status quo of being uninsured and not covered for abortion anyway.

Like I said, you have to take a step back to leap forward... and this wasn't even much of a loss to women's rights. They still have the right to choose and in the most important cases, are covered.

I'm sure those women will be comforted to know people like you are thinking of them.

Why is this a cold hard truth? Who says it is? You? You just want to lay down and accept whatever crumbs of reform they toss your way? You're not even going to stand up and question them, not even going to call your Senator and demand this provision be removed? It's spineless wimps like you that made America the poor excuse of a third world country that it is.

Now that you've started calling me names, you've lost any credibility with your arguments. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt but you just turned out to be an ignorant rant artist living in an ideal world that only exists in your head.

Without the amendment, the bill would not have passed. It's a >>FACT

It's hypocritical of you to say that I'm making a complex bill appear simple. Excuse me? You're making the passing of this legislation seem as simple as lobbying your senators.

The current makeup of the House of Representatives wouldn't have the support to pass the bill.

So without the amendment, the bill would not have gone to the Senate. Where would that have left women without insurance?

Now it's in the Senate: the closest a Health Care Reform bill has come to being passed and there is a very good probability that it will be signed into law by this President.

I find it odd that you're arguing with me considering we're on the same side: I support women's right to choose and I think that passing this bill will support America's uninsured women to get help on that front. Not getting it passed will leave them in the status quo: no support when it comes to abortion (or any other health issue for that matter).

As far as calling me a "wuss" for accepting the amendment, maybe you're not intelligent enough to understand the difference between a tactical strategy and whimpering. The "right" thought they were getting their way and killing the bill, but instead, they brought on support from the more conservative Democrats and got the bill passed.

I realized it said Stupak. I thought it said Tupak. I was like "What's a dead rapper got to do with it. . . ?"

Well, I perceive you as an inconsiderate, uncivilized schizophrenic living in an alternate reality.

Calling me a wuss because I support the strategic acceptance of a compromise to allow the bill to pass the house is uncalled for and not true, given the argument I've made.

When you start off a discussion by calling people names, your entire argument goes out the window because you lose credibility. If you think the bill would have passed without that compromise, you're living in an alternate reality. The bill barely squeezed by and several congressmen only voted for it after the amendment convinced them to do so.

The bill has cleared the house by strategically using an amendment that for all intents and purposes doesn't change the status quo. Once the bill is passed and signed into law, popular confidence in the Democrat lead Congress will likely surge allowing for a more progressive and liberal Congress after the upcoming elections. Congressmen and Senators on the Nay side of the bill will be more likely to clear their offices. That Congress will have the ability and liberal support to improve on the bill with future amendments, including repealing this amendment.

Not all progress runs in a straight line. There's going to be a lot of zigging and zagging to reach an ideal version of Health Care reform. The first steps have been successfully taken for the first time ever. You'd rather it be stuck in the House without support like every other time it's been proposed?

In the meantime, what are you so worried about? The most important aspects of a women's right to choose are protected in this bill: coverage in the case of rape or danger to the mother. Other cases, where a woman is inconvenienced because she accidentally got pregnant are not. Well, I'm fine with that compromise. Use birth control. If you got pregnant because you weren't careful, it is your responsibility to deal with it.

You really have a problem with anything or anyone outside of your narrowly defined perimeters of whatever it is that is acceptable to you, i.e., you're a snob. Oh sorry, I labeled you again, I mean, called you a name. What are we here, in grade school? A freaking Senator called Obama a liar. Did Obama say that that Senator's arguments from that point one are not credible? People call people names all the time. Any anchor on FOX or MSNBC does it as a matter of policy. So what? It's a way to tell someone what you think, short and simple. Anyway you just returned the favor calling me a name so by your own standard you are not credible. Every argument you just made is meaningless.

Grow up.

Although I would agree with you that you are not credible, I will address your point repeatedly made that I thought I cleared up. This is a mis-communication. I don't fault you or anyone for making a compromise to get HR3962 passed in the house. I agree with you on that point. But that is now ancient history. The bill is in the Senate and we have a renewed opportunity to once again fight whatever we don't like about it. This abortion issue is that, big time.

You say you support women's rights but with every breath you prove that's a lie. Support means you do something, even if nothing more than to agree that this abortion measure is wrong. You did that but in the same breath you say it's over. There's no point to fight it. Compromise must be made.

I hope you aren't anyone's lawyer, because you may as well tell the other attorney he can win, case closed.

At least over 80% of employed women will EFFECTIVELY lose abortion rights despite the wording of the spinsters who you listen to. That is an erosion of rights. NOW has made a cry to members to fight this. Being that NOW is by and for women, and you are obviously nothing of the kind, I defer to their judgment.

The fact is we all conjecture on what we think the bill may or may not do, for women and everyone else. It is so complex we just don't know. But we can make demands on congress to protect what we do know about.

You have stooped to bring this conversation down to the level of personality. That is a cool way of avoiding the real meat of the debate. But I will not let you get away with it. It is imperative that everyone fights for real healthcare reform, not this watered down insurance industry authored tripe.

In any case whether the bill passes or not, this fight will continue. Passage of a bill in what ever form is a way for the insurance industry to say OK we gave you reform, now lets move on. But we don't buy it. This is not reform. This is a bailout. Passed or not the single payer fight lives on. I believe enough people in this country are on to this rouse, especially when you consider that 100,000 doctors want single payer and will continue to fight for it. The right can white wash the minds of a few hillbillies in the bible belt. But that's where their power ends.

People aren't buying this bill anymore than they buy Sarah Palin.

" Anyway you just returned the favor calling me a name so by your own standard you are not credible. Every argument you just made is meaningless."

I did so to allow you the opportunity to confirm my proposition that insulting the person you're arguing a point with dilutes your argument. You've just agreed.

"Grow up." Learn to debate without name calling and perhaps I'd take you more seriously.

You called me a "wuss" for agreeing to the amendment in order to pass the bill in the house yet you now also say that you agree that it was necessary. So by definition, you're calling yourself a "wuss" as well.

It's now off to the Senate and we'll see when the scissors and the glue come out what we end up with. I'm being realistic here: Our Congress is far from 100% liberal. The nature of the final proposed bill will reflect the ideals of those that populate the US Senate.

If that doesn't please you, then go out and get more liberal Senators and Congressmen elected. The US is a democracy: one person = one vote. People who voted for the conservatives are getting what they want out of the Senator that they elected as we are getting what we want out of the Democrat Senators that we elected. It's a tug of war and one we've never been this close to winning.

I didn't say it was childish to call names. I said it was childish to get upset over it.

Divided we fall...

Failure may be the better option for now.

And what about those of us who have been updating important developing stories for the past year and a half or more here? Doesn't that count? Why is it always the same people here who get the mention? It couldn't be favoritism could it?

@janforgore If you check out the blog post, you'll see that Developing Stories is something new that we're trying out, and it's a very recent development. (No pun intended.) If you add a story you think should be considered as a developing story, use the developing story tag to help bring it to our attention.

Steph

Great. Will most certainly do that. Though I'm pretty sure by now most here know what developing story I have been trying to bring to your attention without a tag.