Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 19 Dec '09 18:04 / 2 edits
    As I predicted, Senator Ben Nelson has agreed to the new NHC today. The Dems now have the 60 votes needed. So what did Senator Nelson get in return? He has won fresh concessions to limit the availability of abortions in insurance sold in newly created exchanges, as well as tens of millions in federal Medicaid funds for his home state. However, it will set up a mechanism to segregate funds that would be used to pay for abortions from federal subsidy dolars flowing to health plans, thus federal money will still go to abortions. Sorry Ivan. The article states that it is forcasted that the bill will expand to roughly 94% of eligible Americans under the age of 65, a total that excludes illigal immigrants. So the question begs, what will be done with illegals coming to hospitals for help? Of course, the biggest win for the voters in Nebraska, is that the federal government will pick up Nebraska's entire cost of Medicare expansion in the bill. Other states will have to begin picking up a portion of the added expense beginning in 2017!!

    And to think that my Senator could have done the same for the people of my state. Instead, the smuck voted for this dribble free of charge when he could have asked for anything in return for voting for this bill. My state could have been the one to pass the bill to the rest of the states to pay for our medical expenses.

    On the Republican side, they all oppose the plan, however, what will they do about it? Assuming they regain power once again my guess is nothing. However, if they practice what they preach, they will seek to overturn the bill. Otherwise, they are of little use to those who oppose this bill which includes liberals who desire the publica option and conservatives who oppose the expansion and, at the same time, rationing of medicare to those already covered.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121657896&ft=1&f=1014
  2. 20 Dec '09 01:28
    Ya, you're right. A vote can bring some extra $$ to your state.
    Now we just have to hang on and see what comes around the next corner. seems like we get a new health care plan for Christmas. Check out my post from the white house talking head, nancy-Ann DeParte
    Never in my wildest dreams did I see something like this happening
  3. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    20 Dec '09 02:54
    Originally posted by whodey
    As I predicted, Senator Ben Nelson has agreed to the new NHC today. The Dems now have the 60 votes needed.
    Americans who want to see health care reform will breathe a sigh of relief. They may be dissatisfied with this particular package but the desire for reform is steadfast nevertheless and I suppose many will think that this Heath Robinson outcome is better than nowt. If it now goes ahead and gets passed and enacted it will certainly be a milestone in U.S. history.
  4. 20 Dec '09 04:12
    ya, I actually think we should just wait and see, move to something else on the agenda. This president has a huge job ahead.
  5. 20 Dec '09 06:03
    Originally posted by FMF
    If it now goes ahead and gets passed and enacted it will certainly be a milestone in U.S. history.[/b]
    A milestone around their respective necks perhaps. For the life of me, I can't figure out how if Medicare/medicaid is going belly up, they can afford now to ensure millions more. So how do you see this being done FMF?
  6. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    20 Dec '09 06:15
    Originally posted by whodey
    So how do you see this being done FMF?
    It's just a question of politics. I think the U.S. can tackle and solve its problems if it has a mind to. But the likes of you, with your "death panels" and "Obama wants to kill my granny" stuff, may succeed in derailing it. The National Health system was a triumph in British 20thC political history, broadly supported on both sides of the aisle. I don't see why the U.S. cannot achieve what the U.K. managed to acheive.
  7. 20 Dec '09 06:24 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by FMF
    It's just a question of politics. I think the U.S. can tackle and solve its problems if it has a mind to. But the likes of you, with your "death panels" and "Obama wants to kill my granny" stuff, may succeed in derailing it. The National Health system was a triumph in British 20thC political history, broadly supported on both sides of the aisle. I don't see why the U.S. cannot achieve what the U.K. managed to acheive.
    ONe mans death panels is another mans rationing. To get costs down, which is something they presumably have to do because the other entitlement system is bankrupt, you either have to ration or reduce costs. The baffling part is that they will be covering millions more at the same time. So do you deny that rationing must be part of the equation, or do you proport they can reduce costs enough to get the numbers down? If so, how?
  8. 21 Dec '09 00:48 / 9 edits
    I have to ask, is anyone else outraged that Ben Nelson managed to finagle 49 other states to pay for Nebraska's Medicaid program simply so he would vote for the NHC bill? I believe the abortion provision objections to be smoke and mirrors. The medicaid issue is the heart and soul of what went on here and I think they wish to hide it. Now that good old Ben has demanded national attention, he's got it. Down with Ben Nelson!! Every conservative on the globa should make him a target to go afer come next election

    Edit: So what exaclty does having 49 states paying for Nebraska's health care have to do with the NHC plan being good enough to vote for? Is the plan so weak that Ben felt it was unaffordable had the other 49 states not payed for their sorry arses, or is this blind extortion? This is a good example of what is wrong in Washington and those agreeing to this should all be held accountable.
  9. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    21 Dec '09 01:04
    Originally posted by whodey
    ONe mans death panels is another mans rationing. To get costs down, which is something they presumably have to do because the other entitlement system is bankrupt, you either have to ration or reduce costs. The baffling part is that they will be covering millions more at the same time. So do you deny that rationing must be part of the equation, or do you proport they can reduce costs enough to get the numbers down? If so, how?
    There's rationing now. There's always been rationing. Your faith in the fantastically expensive, fantastically profitable, fantastically small print driven insurance company system is touching.
  10. 21 Dec '09 02:14
    Originally posted by FMF
    There's rationing now. There's always been rationing. Your faith in the fantastically expensive, fantastically profitable, fantastically small print driven insurance company system is touching.
    You are right. There has always been rationing. Now there will be even more.
  11. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    21 Dec '09 02:21
    Originally posted by whodey
    You are right. There has always been rationing. Now there will be even more.
    Well, there're going to be even more people covered. Congratulations to the U.S.A. At last you have started to catch up with the rest of the developed world in respect to health care for your citizens.
  12. 21 Dec '09 02:44
    You know, apparently Ben Nelson played his hand right. he got what he wanted for his state, and more than likely will keep his job if he runs again.
    Didn't the same happen in La? She got an extra 300 milllion for her vote?
    I have a keen interest in how this plays out. Kind of between a rock and a hard spot with insurance, and don't want to spend the future for my kids either.
  13. 21 Dec '09 03:25 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Hugh Glass
    You know, apparently Ben Nelson played his hand right. he got what he wanted for his state, and more than likely will keep his job if he runs again.
    Didn't the same happen in La? She got an extra 300 milllion for her vote?
    I have a keen interest in how this plays out. Kind of between a rock and a hard spot with insurance, and don't want to spend the future for my kids either.
    He could have gotten more if you ask me. Of course, he may have played his cards right regarding the voters in Nebraska, but not the rest of the 49 states who have to pay for the dead beats in Nebraska. If you ask me, the other Dems in the other 49 states who apporved an already unpopular bill will have a lot of double talk to do. Ben should be the poster child for what is wrong in Washington. I hope the conservatives make him as such.
  14. Standard member telerion
    True X X Xian
    21 Dec '09 03:32
    Well, I better start up a new bank account to save for my future taxes. Then again, looking at the projections for the federal debt over the next 7-10 years, I should have started one a long time ago.
  15. 21 Dec '09 05:26 / 7 edits
    Originally posted by telerion
    Well, I better start up a new bank account to save for my future taxes. Then again, looking at the projections for the federal debt over the next 7-10 years, I should have started one a long time ago.
    Not to worry, after you are forced to give up your big house and car because you can no longer afford to fuel them and afford taxes on them, I'm sure Big Brother will provide you with public housing, at tax payer expense of course, that is close to your work place. Then you will use public transportation to arrive there. That is all you need really....or I should say that is all Big Brother needs from you. Then when you are too old to work your health care will be rationed for an early exit to the great beyond....unless you can provide some other unforseen usefulness to Big Brother.

    Edit: This socialistic utopia has been provided to you by Whodey!!!

    Now back to work slave.