Is the House Healthcare Bill Dead On Arrival in Senate?

It looks that way.

Democrats need to overcome GOP filibusters.

“The House bill is dead on arrival in the Senate,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said.

Democrats did not line up to challenge him. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has yet to schedule floor debate and hinted last week that senators may not be able to finish health care this year.

Comments

[Mike]

And they say only the Good die young........

[Charles]

To quote author David Swanson, "...this pathetic scam of a healthcare plan is plastered like lipstick on a pig to a bailout for the health insurance corporations. (Sure, the bill contains some reforms to the insurance corporations' practices, but that's like trying to reform piranhas.) And when the healthcare crisis continues to worsen in the coming years, the blame will be placed on the nearly nonexistent public option, thus justifying making things even worse, if possible. And the same bill goes out of its way to prevent states from solving the problem on their own, allowing them to opt out of the perverse public option (opting into which would hardly be noticeable anyway) but denying states the ability to create real healthcare funding for their residents...

Why is a bill that funds absolutely useless parasites like health insurance companies at the expense of our grandchildren's unearned pay better than nothing? Why -- when blocking a bill would almost guarantee a better debate in round 2 -- is it more important to pass the bill and close off the opportunity for valuable reform? "

And from Arthur Silber, "...the bill's primary purpose has absolutely nothing to do with providing 'affordable health care.' The purpose is to extract as much money as possible from 'ordinary' Americans -- and to do so at the point of a gun (what do you think those financial penalties and even possible prison time are, if not a gun pointing directly at your head?) -- and shovel it directly to already-engorged insurance companies. Americans will be forced to buy insurance, which as we all know, many of us through deeply painful personal experience, has nothing whatsoever to do with health care. And Americans will be forced to spend money for largely useless insurance -- which insurance will often be entirely useless just when they need it most critically -- in amounts that may devastate them and their families."

[Mike]

Thank you Nancy P, and Harry R.

[StephC]

Nothing like passing the buck, is there? The House palmed it off on the Senate because they knew it was unpopular with the majority of the electorate. They voted for it to make it look like they were doing something when they know it's an abject failure and will never make it past the Senate. Or so they say.

What if they're wrong and we get stuck with this thing?

It really shouldn't matter that they are depending on the Senate to kill the thing. If they wanted it dead, they should have voted it down themselves. Some leadership!

[Steve and Suni]

The angry rhetoric of people who know nothing about the insurance industry (other than what they've been pabulum-fed by E Rahm and company, who don't know all that much either apparently) really does nothing to enhance or otherwise add to the discussion Chuck. ANYONE who can, in a succinct manner, explain the true purpose of medical insurance, and how the actions of the insurance industry (not the few people who misrepresent it with bad behaviors) have detracted from that stated purpose, then THOSE people can participate in the discussion. Otherwise, as we say in the old country, shut up. (Actually we add a couple of words between shut and up - but no need to go into that.)

I happen to work for an extremely large insurance company that is not publically traded, with over 8K employees that processes aver 26 million claims annually for the military, and 150 million claims a year for Medicare recipients, not to mention all the private policy claims. I am also a professional in the Academy of Healthcare Management, so I know a couple of things about the industry –

Yes a few sensational cases have given rise to placing a great big target on us, but you'll find if you shoot at this target all you'll hit is air, because it is a smoke screen to justify putting more of your money in the government's hands through a government health care option.

So, if you're still reading, I do hope the plan is dead in the Senate, but not for the reasons you might think. (Because, if there is a public option, there are very few companies in the country with the government claims processing capabilityand experience we have; so, job security-wise, we'd probably be in better shape - this issue transcends job security though.)

[Charles]

Steve and Suni, the real purpose of the health insurance industry is to make profit - as much as possible. Even the allegedly not-for-profit insurance companies strive for excess revenue, pay their executive exorbitantly, and work as hard as their for-profit competitors to deny coverage. It's nice that you support your employer, but your employer does not add value to the health care system and costs a lot of money.

[Steve and Suni]

Thanks for playing Chuck, there are some nice parting gifts waiting at the door. Medical Insurance (the purpose which I said you didn't know, not the industry) as originally devised was not for day to day doctor visits people make - it was established to cover catastrophic events -something a couple of chicken, or bushel of apples couldn't cover. When used PROPERLY, it in fact does control medical costs. If the only kind of health insurance available was High Deducitble (say starting in the 2000-3000 range) where those first costs are covered out pocket, people might be a bit more discriminating about making these capricious dr visits, making the demands on a doctor's time less considerable, and driving costs down.

[StephC]

Steve and Suni, I bet I know which company you work for and if I'm right, you have a huge target on your back and the bullseye has been made especially large and easy to hit.

[mack]

Charles,
I realize that capitalism is bad and statism is good in your ethos. But if your facts were correct that insurance companies were greedy profit machines, I'll bet you would be heavily investing in them. Their modest earnings per share are the measure of your repeated claims.

[StephC]

mack, Charles doesn't look at percentages as profit margins. He sees on $ and cents.

Of course, he must also overlook all the rich in Congress made so by our tax dollars for little to nothing that benefits the people who pay their salaries, but that's beside the point, isn't it? I suppose the fact that they can vote themselves in a raise whenever they wish is beside the point, too.

Perhaps taking this quiz would open his eyes. Nah... he'd swear it was all a lie anyway.

[Charles]

Look S&S, there once was a time when health insurance was designed to cover catastrophic costs only. That was a time when non-catastropic care was within the realm of affordability for the average American family. That time has, thanks in large part to the inefficient private insurance system, long passed. My father had a major heart attack in 1950 and with all the hospitalization and long recuperative period, our family - which was wholly dependent on his self-employment income - kept our home and car and made it through because the costs were minimal. These days, such a catastrophe would make a family like ours homeless and destitute and probably cost my father his life.

The idea that anyone should, in their ignorance of medicine, make decisions about whether to go to the doctor or purchase a drug based on cost is beyond ridiculous - it is patently immoral. Health care consumers are not operating in a marketplace like that for breakfast cereal. We don't know how sick we are, we don't know whether our doctor is really any good, we don't know what tests we need, or what drugs to take. More importantly, the consequences of choosing to forego medical care because we can't afford it are far more dire than choosing not to buy a box of Frosted Flakes.

Let me ask you, S&S, would your company welcome operating by the rules for private health insurers in Germany? - German private health insurance companies are not allowed to cancel your policy; There may be no set upper limits on reimbursement levels and there may be no annual out-of-pocket deductibles higher than 5,000 Euros ($7500); and companies must provide choice of doctors and hospitals , payment of alternative/natural remedies, higher reimbursements for dental work, reimbursements for vision products. Claims cannot be denied. Those who can't afford private insurance are covered by a public plan or subsidized in a private plan.

My guess - no way. Not because every one of these rules would not greatly benefit the citizens of the USA but because they would reduce the profit (oops, I mean excess revenue) of your company.

It's time we realized that the accessibility of affordable quality health care is a basic human right. When we start from that basic premise, we can work toward a solution. It can be a socialist solution or a capitalist solution, but it isn't a solution if it doesn't solve the problem.

[Steve and Suni]

Chuck - In a word - re: operating on Germany's rules: No. Socialized medicine is why; which is also why this healthcare bill is DOA. As you say, accessibility to healthcare may be a moral right. That however never has been the question. Who should pay for it is.
(Revenues go into a mandated reserves account. Given the size and scope of our foot print as a company, our reserves are very high. Yet go take a look at United Healthcare or Aetna, and they dwarf our firm.)

StephC - Not sure about the target on our back as a company - each state organization is a separate licensee to the larger Association. And as the largest processor of government claims, aiming for that target may be chopping off the nose to spite the face, as they say.

[Charles]

S&S, how is it that we can provide the moral right to accessible quality health care if people can't afford to pay for it? Magic? Other than labeling this "socialized medicine" what's wrong with it? If we label something socialist is it automatically wrong even if it is the only solution to our problem? That's a convenient way to avoid grappling with the issues, and I can understand why insurance companies are eager to Red-bait any idea that threatens their bottom line.

[Mike]

Charles, Insurance cards for the poor we should do that, all the rest of the junk forget it. It is a very scary thing when we claim a moral perogative to do for others and recuse them from responsibility for themselves. Lincoln had a word for that.

[Foxx]

Health care as a moral right? I may offend some people sensebilities, but lets be clear. Health care is something you work for and purchase yourself. Thats the extent of your so called 'rights'. Poor people can get health care in some form or anther in which ever state they can get it or they can cut deals with doctors to get those goverment mandated cost operations they need.

Go after the insurance companies who are forced to dance to the government whims is stupid (= chalres). If you got rid of the damn regulations and mandates on price then the price of health care would fall drasticlly. Even poor people would be able to afford it. Even more so if you add tort reform, which would drop the premiums doctors would have to pay in order to avoid frivilous lawsuits by people (Charles) playing the lawsuit lottery.

Yes, i'm more an expert in violence and mayhem then insurance, so thats my uninformed opinion.

[Foxx]

As i think about it now. Charles, whts your thoughts of this your government putting people in jail if they won't or can't afford your precious government healthy care? I mean they lose their health care, for a lot of reasons, and dn't want the goverment care and/or can't pay the damn fines they face prosecution and jail time.

I know this goes against the right vs. ..., but whats your stance on it?

[Tim]

Charles, to claim something is a basic human right there has to some type of authority behind that statement. Exactly what makes quality healthcare a human right? What about being a member of the human species entitles you or anyone else to cheap healthcare at someone else's expense?

[Charles]

Foxx, I am opposed to the idea of mandating the purchase of private insurance coverage as I have stated many times here.

Yes Tim, there must be some morality here. The idea that one has to have an authority in order to be moral is not one I share, but I would say that many people here talk a lot about their respect for human life but when it comes to keeping people from dying because they can't afford proper health care, well that's apparently not a moral imperative. Strange logic. The very fact that you and I are human gives us a right to have decent affordable health care. The fact that we are both citizens of this great country means that we owe a debt to the nation and to one another that can easily pay for decent health care.

[Rex]

Charles,

Aside from the humanatarian aspect that you deftly describe, and Tim is seemingly oblivious to, there are also the indirect economical benefits of having a sound medical system that is functional for everyone. These benefits should be rather obvious to most of us.

[Tim]

Sorry charles, but you're statement is an impossibility. To have a moral obligation, there has to be a ,moral law behind it and then a moral law giver behind that. Its a simple fact. To suggest that merely being human gives me a right to cheap healthcare requires some verification other than "Charles said so". Having respect for human life and requiring everyone to pay for a ridiculous, inefficient, over-priced healthcare simply so we can claim we have everyone covered are two vastly different things. If we're going to talk morality, it is morally reprehensible to state that all have a right to work hard for their money and then to forcefully take that money to cater to those who have elected not to. The onus is on you to show why I'm morally obligated to pay extra tax so that those that don't have health insurance.

In any case, no one is dying because they don't have coverage. Sorry, that's just more spin. The fact remains that every single one of our 50 states has programs to insure those who can't afford their own insurance. We have CHIP programs that cover children with full coverage even if the family brings in up to 80k per year, and able bodied 18 year olds can walk into a welfare office and walk back out with full medical coverage on their ACCESS cards.

[Charles]

Tim, who makes moral laws? Humans do. Who changes moral laws? Humans do. You like to believe that no one dies because of a lack of health coverage, that's nice for you - makes it easier to hold your position that keeping a bit more of your money is a good enough reason to let someone else die. Of course, this is a case where there are well-researched academic studies that prove you are wrong so it is necessary to stay in denial or your own lack of morality will be evident.

If you have money to deny to others, that is because you have reaped the benefits of living in the USA where the government has provided so many services to enable you to have that money. You drive on government-paved roads, fly through government funded airports, go to government funded schools, are protected by government funded police and fire departments, look forward to a government provided pension, and succeed because government policy (up until a few years ago) created the economic conditions you needed to succeed. Now you want a free ride. You want to deny others benefits they need so you can keep a bit more of your money. You want to continue to put yourself above your country.

[StephC]

Charles, you're still as full of crap as always. More nonsensical ramblings.

Government funded = funded with our money. Our money is finite. You sound like we're slaves and the government owns the fruits of our labor. I thought we fought a civil war to end that.

[Foxx]

I'm indebted to this nation? For what exactly? To always be here to feed the human parasites and looters who continue to take from me at the leisure of the government things that I have worked for with my two hands? I server my country already and now I wish to be left a lone. I will help whom I choose to help when i wish to help them. I choose not to help those on government welfare because I choose not to help self-inflicted victims of their own greed and stupidity and do mean those who been on government assistance for two or three generations cheating the system and burdening the rest of us with their laziness, moral corruptions, and offering the rest of us crime.

So who is more indebted to this nation? The guy who already served his nation by choice or the so called politically made poor people who choose to get by on other peoples money because they know they never will have to work again? I'm supposed to be morally responsible for these? I have to deal with the moral decline of this country every night I go to work. Let me tell you something, these aren't nice people who live off the working people of the US; they are vile and despicable persons who been fucking brought up thinking that the world owes them something that the rest of us are 'indebted' to help them because we simply have to because we're born in this rotting body of a country. I almost had to kill a fucking marine who was cracked out of his mind and decided it was a good idea to attack the medical people who were trying to help him.

And I'm suppose to be indebted to help him? Why exactly? I'm indebted to help a government take away my freedoms so they can control more and more power and money so they can finally run this country into the ground? Its coming and let me point out when all those parasites no longer have government money coming to them anymore, what the hell do you think they are going to do next? Help rebuild?

No, they won't. They will be out there looting, killing, and doing whatever the hell they please because that the world they come from. One where morality had withered and died, but the rest of us simps have the fucking moral obligation to be enslaved to this people.

So, no. I have no debt with this nation. I already paid my time now I darely wish to stop wasting my money people I have no respect for and no aim to help.

[StephC]

here are also the indirect economical benefits of having a sound medical system that is functional for everyone. These benefits should be rather obvious to most of us.

Yeah, the benefits would be obvious IF there was such a system, but there isn't.

I'm not going to knock Canada around like others do but it's not functional for everyone and in some places it's more broken than anything we have in the states. However, the majority of Canadians it works are happy with it and that's okay with me. It's their country and their decision.

But don't claim it's perfect like you just did in the quote above because that's a lie.

Here, it is our country and our decision. The majority don't want what the government is selling so they're going to try to force it on us anyway.

[Mike]

StephC, Really the last time I was in Montreal (Lovely city by the way) the people I spoke to there were complaining about how much it sucked, and some told me candidly that they paid a Doctor at home on the sly. Capitalism at work.

[StephC]

Mike, I hear both good things about it and bad things. Which is okay. We hear good things about our system and bad things. What bugged me was the way Rex was trying to portray it as working for everybody when I know it doesn't via my own Canadian contacts.

If I thought the government could successfully run anything, healthcare or otherwise, I wouldn't be so against it but their track record to date is abysmal failure and their only excuse is they need more money.

Nothing they've done, not one government program has run as promised... ever. The poverty rates stands now where it has stood for that same amount of time with only the slightest of variations.

Now, government has changed hands many times over that more than a century and nothing seems to change except the growth of government. That's the insanity. Not one of those government creatures ever give liberty and free will and consequences a chance. Now, it looks like we're all to become slaves.

Every race on this earth has been enslaved at some point in time, often by those of the same race. So many wars have been fought to cast off that yoke over the centuries to still have most of the world's populace to end up right back in the same situation.

[Mike]

Well being yoked is not on my list, and we are living like in a period of time now that feels like a window. People like Charles would never fought the British, or freed the Slaves as it involves War. The Government is good at creating paperwork, and that is already 30% to 40% of the cost of Health Care. Give everyone a Debit card and let them pay thier own bills with lifetime credits. That won't happen as the Charles's of the world want to make sure that you live according to thier way of thinking. Eat only what is allowed, never drink, or have a smoke, never drive over 55 in the tiny car, the Government will tell you when you can have a baby, and State forbid there is anything wrong we the State will abort it. We will all march to the Pelosi beat, except Pelosi....That's how it works.