House pulls health care vote for second time

[The Barbarian]

The ACA actually got no Republican votes.

Arlen Specter voted for it, but he became a democrat during the debate, so that doesn't actually count.

So you're right. They voted for some amendments that were placed in it, but none actually voted for the bill other than Specter.

Obama didn't whine about the republicans "obstructing" the bill as Trump has done, but then he and the democrats were competent to govern.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes. a lot of us want single payer. That does not fix the glaring flaws with the plan as you presented it.

Just like the VA system. That's what single-payer looks like.

 

[Aldebaran]

Exactly WHEN could she have voted on it, eh? It never came to the floor for a vote!

They find out who is going to vote yes or no before they take the official vote. But if the Republicans would have simply said that we'll have to just pass the bill to find out what's in it, don't you think we would have had a better chance at getting a "yes" vote out of Pelosi?

 

[Aldebaran]

But we both know the republicans idea of decreasing premiums is just going back to allowing insurance companies to offer bare bone policies.

That would at least give people an affordable choice if a bare bones policy is all they needed.

 

[Aldebaran]

Republicans said they didn't need the democrats. They removed every amendment offered by democrats. Said they had a big majority, and didn't need to cooperate with democrats. So the democrats sat back munching popcorn as the whole fiasco collapsed in bickering and excuses. Next time, maybe Ryan will have learned from the experience. But I doubt it.

Guess it was a big mistake not bringing them into the process, um?

They're part of the Congress, and therefore part of the process. They were going to take part in the process by voting "No". That was their contribution.

 

[Belk]

Just like the VA system. That's what single-payer looks like.

Single Payer
Single-payer healthcare - Wikipedia

Hybrid Single payer
Single-payer healthcare - Wikipedia
Single-payer healthcare - Wikipedia
Single-payer healthcare - Wikipedia
Single-payer healthcare - Wikipedia


Those are what single payer looks like. Despite of the pathetically poor treatment in our country for the soldiers it claims to revere.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Republicans said they didn't need the democrats. They removed every amendment offered by democrats. Said they had a big majority, and didn't need to cooperate with democrats. So the democrats sat back munching popcorn as the whole fiasco collapsed in bickering and excuses. Next time, maybe Ryan will have learned from the experience. But I doubt it.

Guess it was a big mistake not bringing them into the process, um?

They're part of the Congress, and therefore part of the process.

Would have been, if the republicans were willing to compromise. But they simply refused to allow any amendments offered by a democrat, saying they could do it on their own. Turns out, they can't do it on their own. Big mistake shutting democrats out of the process.

They were going to take part in the process by voting "No".

The problem for the republicans was that even with a majority, they couldn't work together to get a bill passed. And now, they're whining that the democrats are to blame. They have no one to blame but themselves.

When Obama and the democrats got their healthcare plan passed, they compromised with republicans and accepted republican amendments. And they didn't whine about republicans not helping them. The problem is, we don't have adults running the process now. They mess up, fail to get things done, and then blame everyone else.

Welcome to the Trump era.

 

[The Barbarian]

They find out who is going to vote yes or no before they take the official vote. But if the Republicans would have simply said that we'll have to just pass the bill to find out what's in it, don't you think we would have had a better chance at getting a "yes" vote out of Pelosi?

I'm surprised that anyone still thinks that's what she said. Amazing.

 

[Aldebaran]

Would have been, if the republicans were willing to compromise. But they simply refused to allow any amendments offered by a democrat, saying they could do it on their own. Turns out, they can't do it on their own. Big mistake shutting democrats out of the process.

Again, they were part of the process.

The problem for the republicans was that even with a majority, they couldn't work together to get a bill passed. And now, they're whining that the democrats are to blame. They have no one to blame but themselves.

When Dems were in the majority and bills were passed along party line votes, did you think the Republicans "weren't part of the process"?

When Obama and the democrats got their healthcare plan passed, they compromised with republicans and accepted republican amendments. And they didn't whine about republicans not helping them.

Why would they? They got what they wanted. They even passed the bill to find out what was in it, which seems to be the democrat way of doing it when they're in power.

 

[Aldebaran]

I'm surprised that anyone still thinks that's what she said. Amazing.

Pelosi defends her infamous health care remark

 

[DaisyDay]

They find out who is going to vote yes or no before they take the official vote. But if the Republicans would have simply said that we'll have to just pass the bill to find out what's in it, don't you think we would have had a better chance at getting a "yes" vote out of Pelosi?

Ha, ha, no.

That would only be the first part because whatever the House voted on would still have to be reconciled with whatever the Senate would write up and vote on. That's just the way the process works, so pretending that it's peculiar to Pelosi or the Democrats because she spelled it out, is dumb.

 

[The Barbarian]

Pelosi defends her infamous health care remark

You didn't read it?

You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.


The key line is the first one. It’s easy to forget the tumult of that time. There was a lot of frustration with the Senate version of the health care reform bill and consternation over the proposed process to get it through the chamber with minimal Republican votes, reconciliation.


“In the fall of the year,” Pelosi said today, “the outside groups...were saying ‘it’s about abortion,’ which it never was. ‘It’s about ‘death panels,’’ which it never was. ‘It’s about a job-killer,’ which it creates four million. ‘It’s about increasing the deficit’; well, the main reason to pass it was to decrease the deficit.” Her contention was that the Senate “didn’t have a bill.” And until the Senate produced an actual piece of legislation that could be matched up and debated against what was passed by the House, no one truly knew what would be voted on. “They were still trying to woo the Republicans,” Pelosi said of the Senate leadership and the White House, trying to “get that 60th vote that never was coming. That’s why [there was a] reconciliation [vote]” that required only a simple majority.


“So, that’s why I was saying we have to pass a bill so we can see so that we can show you what it is and what it isn’t,” Pelosi continued. “It is none of these things. It’s not going to be any of these things.” She recognized that her comment was “a good statement to take out of context.” But the minority leader added, “But the fact is, until you have a bill, you can’t really, we can’t really debunk what they’re saying....”
Pelosi defends her infamous health care remark

Makes perfect sense. No one knows for sure what's going to be in it until it finally passes. She was talking to reporters, and was simply saying what is always true. No one can be absolutely sure what the bill has, until it's voted on and passed. Then she could show them what it in it.

That, BTW, was true of the republican bill, too. It's true of every bill that goes through Congress, unless there's no controversy at all about it. FOX merely took one sentence out of context, and fooled the gullible.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

That would at least give people an affordable choice if a bare bones policy is all they needed.

So you only deserve good healthcare if you can afford it? Can't afford it? Here is a bare bones policy. If you get sick, hopefully you die quickly. Gotta make sure these insurance companies can make billions in profits off the bare bones policies, right? Gotta make sure they can collect all these premiums and then never have to cover anything. I don't want a healthy, productive population anyway.

 

[The Barbarian]

Ha, ha, no.

That would only be the first part because whatever the House voted on would still have to be reconciled with whatever the Senate would write up and vote on. That's just the way the process works, so pretending that it's peculiar to Pelosi or the Democrats because she spelled it out, is dumb.

What FOX was trying to do, was suggest that she meant that congressmen wouldn't know what was in the bill until they voted on it. For all I know, the FOX anchors might have actually believed that is how it works.

 

[Aldebaran]

So you only deserve good healthcare if you can afford it? Can't afford it? Here is a bare bones policy. If you get sick, hopefully you die quickly. Gotta make sure these insurance companies can make billions in profits off the bare bones policies, right? Gotta make sure they can collect all these premiums and then never have to cover anything. I don't want a healthy, productive population anyway.

People generally have what they can afford. Does anyone deserve to live in an old house built over 100 years ago if that's what they can afford (I fit that description) while someone else is living in a house that costs over $200,000 in a nicer neighborhood? Is that fair? Who knows? But that's my situation and I've learned that people have what they can afford to have. Being envious of others doesn't help.

 

[Aldebaran]

What FOX was trying to do, was suggest that she meant that congressmen wouldn't know what was in the bill until they voted on it. For all I know, the FOX anchors might have actually believed that is how it works.

If you were around and paying attention at that time, they were making changes to the bill and then wanting to vote on it before everyone had a chance to read it. Remember how Obama said he would require a 72 hour waiting period to allow Congress to be able to review bills before voting on them? The bills could have been as long as a phone book, but they weren't even given that much time to read them before voting.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

People generally have what they can afford. Does anyone deserve to live in an old house built over 100 years ago if that's what they can afford (I fit that description) while someone else is living in a house that costs over $200,000 in a nicer neighborhood? Is that fair? Who knows? But that's my situation and I've learned that people have what they can afford to have. Being envious of others doesn't help.

This doesn't compare to healthcare at all. We're talking about people's lives. Lets play out a hypothetical situation. I make an above average income and can afford the best healthcare plan imaginable. You can only afford a bare bones plan. You and I both get the same life threatening illness. I am covered and get my treatment and return to my normal life. You get to choose to go bankrupt or die because your bare bones plan doesn't cover the treatment. Am I more deserving to live over you because I make more money? Yes or no?

 

[Aldebaran]

This doesn't compare to healthcare at all. We're talking about people's lives. Lets play out a hypothetical situation. I make an above average income and can afford the best healthcare plan imaginable. You can only afford a bare bones plan. You and I both get the same life threatening illness. I am covered and get my treatment and return to my normal life. You get to choose to go bankrupt or die because your bare bones plan doesn't cover the treatment. Am I more deserving to live over you because I make more money? Yes or no?

That sounds like a question a liberal would ask because they're all about "fairness, equality, etc" in their own view of what they define those words to mean. But back to my original questions about the houses--they compare very well. It may not be about lives, but it does relate to the quality of a person's life. Those things are determined by what a person can afford, what decisions he makes, and so forth. But if I have a life-threatening illness, it would be something covered in a "bare bones" plan because that is what insurance is for. It's NOT for extra things like sex changes, plastic surgery, and things like that. A plan that would include extra things should cost more, and isn't necessary to life.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

That sounds like a question a liberal would ask because they're all about "fairness, equality, etc" in their own view of what they define those words to mean.

It's actually a question someone with empathy would ask. It's not a liberal or conservative question. I guess my quality of life is more important than yours since I make more money in this scenario.

But back to my original questions about the houses--they compare very well. It may not be about lives, but it does relate to the quality of a person's life. Those things are determined by what a person can afford, what decisions he makes, and so forth

I don't see how they compare at all. Are you saying that since I live in a nicer house I also deserve better health coverage than you? You're essentially admitting that my life is more important than yours since I make more money.

But if I have a life-threatening illness, it would be something covered in a "bare bones" plan because that is what insurance is for

LOL, the freedom caucus thinks otherwise. They wanted to pull requirements for insurance companies to cover doctor visits, emergency room visits, substance abuse care, mental health, maternity care, prescription drugs. Lets get rid of those yearly and lifetime limits too in your bare bones plan. Sure, i'll cover your cancer treatment a little bit but after your lifetime limit is up (Don't worry, it won't take long), then hopefully you die quickly.

It's NOT for extra things like sex changes, plastic surgery, and things like that. A plan that would include extra things should cost more, and isn't necessary to life.

Should we adopt a public health care system where everyone can receive healthcare? If people want extras like you listed they can buy additional coverage? Or are you still on the "Oh you're poor? Too bad" idea?

 

[Aldebaran]

Should we adopt a public health care system where everyone can receive healthcare? If people want extras like you listed they can buy additional coverage? Or are you still on the "Oh you're poor? Too bad" idea?

Then let's try this for an idea. You make more money than the next guy. Maybe you went to college and paid for that and you work 12 hour days to make more money, and you put more effort into your job in order to keep it. Should you now be penalized for that by being required to pay multiple times the amount that someone who sits at home and doesn't do anything and still gets the same kind of coverage as you do?