Universal Healthcare

Remove all ads!

My in-laws have several rental properties, all of which require home-owners insurance, though they have no liens against them. Maybe that is Illinois law, not sure.

 

It may also be because they are rental properties. If there is a fire, or other catastrophic damage to the property, and a renter gets injured/killed, you may need the insurance for that alone.

 

That's was my 1st thought as well Aldeth. I do believe I heard my in-laws say they don't need it on their home, as they own it out right, but carry it anyway, again, as a just-in-case option to cover their butts, you never know who will get hurt on your property.

On another note, my State Farm agent has told me that home-owners can help protect you against lawsuits from car accidents that you are at fault in. Or better put, the other person can go after a lump sum from your homeowners insurance, if a sum bigger then what your car insurance coverage handles is awarded. It helps absorb some of the bang against your personal financials/assets. Again, maybe that is an Illinois law, not sure though.

 

Wow, did anyone else look at the bag of poo that Senator Baccus is calling the Senate Finance Committee's version of health care reform? It does not have a public option, it does have a personal mandate, and it does absolutely nothing to place limits on health care insurance companies other than not allowing them to disallow coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

I am of the opinion that there were two principal goals of health care reform: Allow more people to get coverage, and control the runaway costs of rising coverage. This bill seems like a gift to insurance companies. Millions of Americans will be forced to buy coverage*, but there's nothing in place to control costs. All it does is give the insurance companies tons of new customers.

*There is a financial hardship clause that states if your income is within 300% of the poverty level you will not be required to purchase insurance. To put that in perspective, you won't be forced to buy coverage if you are single making less than $31,000 per year, and a family of four would not be forced to buy coverage if you're making less than $67,000 per year. Otherwise you must buy insurance or pay a fine.

One thing I found really odd was that the plan also states that illegal aliens are ineligible. Why are we preventing illegal aliens from purchasing health care insurance?!?!

 

Aldeth, I think they can purchase it from any company that sell health care insurance. I think the financial hardship clause is the key -- many illegal immigrant have no documented income and would therefore not have to buy coverage. I haven't read through everything yet, but don't those people with financial hardship get coverage of some kind at no cost?

 

Looks like the fight is still to be fought. That plan is definitely NOT what Obama wanted to see. This could be his defining moment here, I sure hope he comes thru. Fixing healthcare is definitely going to cost us with the political in-fighting that is about to erupt.

 

The big problem is that the Senate is not longer filibuster proof. It will be interesting to see if they use reconciliation to get around that.

 

Some of us were suspicious of this guy from the start, but Obama went out of his way to reassure us that Baccus was "da man." Yeah, he's da man for the insurance companies. It's because of guys like Baccus that I'm not a Democrat. There are a lot of Democrats who are politicans and not representatives. In other words, what you see is something different than what you get, in the end.

 

Well, I'm not sure there was ever a filibuster proof majority to begin with. There were a few (maybe 4-5) moderate Dems (commonly referred to as Blue Dogs) that were not keen on what has been proposed up to this point.

What the Dems are hoping for is to get Olympia Snowe, the moderate Republican Senator from Maine, along with the Blue Dogs who are on the fence to vote to end the filibuster, so that they don't have to pass this through reconciliation. Snowe and the Blue Dogs would not be asked to vote for the bill itself - just allow it to come to the Senate floor for a vote. Once the filibuster is broken, you don't need 60 votes to pass the bill - you just need 50 (in the case of a tie Biden would cast the deciding vote). So if Snow and the Blue Dogs vote to break the filibuster and then vote against the actual bill, it would still pass.

The Democrats are really against using reconciliation as anything other than a last-ditch effort, because it is likely that the resulting reform will look like Swiss cheese.

I do not think there is any government program to provide insurance to adults. Medicaid and the S-CHIP program allow for people with disabilities and children, respectively, to get coverage if they face financial hardship, but I don't think there's anything for adults between the ages of 18-64. One other thing on illegal aliens - while it does prevent illegal aliens from participation, it does state that children of illegals born within the US can be covered if the parents apply (because children of illegal aliens born within the US are US citizens).

As Keith Olbermann is fond of saying, in regards to Baccus receiving over $3 million in campaign donations from health insurance companies over the years, "We already know what you are Senator Baccus, now we're just arguing over the price."

 

Truly what a waste of time and effort this Senate bill has become.

Hmm why would the bluedogs and Ms. Snow vote to end a filibuster on a bill they wouldn't vote for anyway? It seems like inconsistent reasoning.

 

It certainly does. And there is a slightly different reason in each case. In the case of Snowe, she really does support health care reform, but is getting a lot of pressure from the Republican party to vote against it. If she votes to end the filibuster but against the legislation itself, she can keep her word to the Republican party while still allowing the bill to pass.

The similar but slightly different motivation with the Blue Dogs is they feel that many of their constituents are against health care reform, and so if they just vote to end the filibuster, but against the legislation they can say to their constituents that they voted against it, despite being instrumental in the bill's passage. It's a case of having your cake and eating it too.

 

Hmmm, I'd be very interested to see if that actually happens. One would think that their constituency would be smart enough to see through such a ploy, and at least the rightwing press and pundits would attack and expose them if the constituents missed it.

 

OK, I have a slightly off-topic diversion into the actual process of how a bill becomes a law. (And no, I don't need that silly cartoon of the bill sitting out in front of Capital Hill - I understand the general rules here - my question is about specifics.) :

As it currently stands, there are no fewer than five versions of the health care reform bill out there. I know that at least three different House committees and two different Senate committees have come out with a bill, and they are all different.

However, everyone says it is the version put out by the Senate Finance Committee that is the one that is being looked at most seriously, and the one that will likely emerge from the debates. Considering no one I have talked to (either Democrat or Republican) particularly likes the bill, I'm wondering why this is so.

Does the Senate Finance Committee's version supercede the other version based on the cost of the program? Does it even supercede the House Finance Committee's version? It just seems strange to me that what is apparently the least popular of the five (or possibly more) bills is the one that's being worked the hardest. At first glance, it would appear that the Senate HELP Committee would be just as relevant a player as the Senate Finance Committee. (HELP stands for Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, which emphasis on the "H" part of the acronym as it concerns healthcare reform.)

 

I don't think it's a matter of superceding anything so much as the players involved supporting it. Remember, while all senators get the same number of votes, they aren't all really equal in the political scheme. Also, just because there are other bills doesn't mean they're any better. Ultimately, though, the House and Senate bills will have to enter negotiations and they'll try to make some kind of mix that suits everyone. That may well fall on it's face, as there are so many comprimizes in each bill, and scratching any one of them may end up killing the bill when it comes to a final vote.

 

Aldeth - These bills will be merged. There are already 500 different amendments being offered to the Baucus bill. Obama's big pipe-dream is bi-partisan support, and he saw the most likely spot for that in Sentate Finance. That's why it has been given so much weight. The question is, now that we have the bill, where's the bi-partisan support?

Obama seems desperate for the support of those who will never offer it. All this hand-wringing over Republican support is killing Obama with his base. He's been playing a fool's game. Now, if there is a public option, the base will stick with him; if there isn't one, he risks losing the support of his base and will more than likely be a one term president.

 

Not only that but a lot of independents may not vote Democratic in the congressional elections, cauing a loss of seats.

 

Enlightenment for Lou Dobbs...Can the rest of America be far behind?



Show some courage - America CAN learn from Europe.

 

Good. They've earned their place in the wilderness.

Also,

Point being, don't fret about the Baucus bill. It is not the final bill and, in all likelihood, will not look anything like the final bill. As best I can tell, the plan has always been to get something passed and then make the real bill in reconciliation. Not that they're going to admit to that.

 

Chandos,
no. All Danes are communists. End of story.

 

Honestly, I think this is a catestrophic mistake. First off, you've guaranteed there will be conservative uproar no matter what comes out, because you've excluded them from the process. Secondly, historically, any single-party decision is, well, not encouraging.

Honestly, I see this as even less encouraging.

Before anything passes: "Oh, no problem. We'll just pass a piss-poor whatever bill and then fix it afterward when we have time and less pressure."
After anything passes: "What? Health-care reform? Who cares, who's watching the Nix game?"