DeletedUser
I see that Congress passed Obama's health plan. Will it make it through the senate and how will the actual package change things in the US?
DeletedUser
ooo, I missed that. Interesting. It has been a hard-fought battle, and I understand the Republicans in the Senate intend on trying a filibuster. With Lieberman showing himself to be turncoat, they may very well keep it from ever coming to a vote.
DeletedUser
A filibuster eh?
Good to see Democracy works
How likely is this to happen?
Personally, and I've said this on other threads pertaining to this issue, we in the UK struggle to understand how your health care system can work as it currently stands. It seems brutally uncivilised for one of the worlds major and most developed economies, and the claims of the anti reform lobby in regard to the UK health system arn't based in fact.
If they ever took the NHS away from us there would be riots nationally.
Good to see Democracy works
How likely is this to happen?
Personally, and I've said this on other threads pertaining to this issue, we in the UK struggle to understand how your health care system can work as it currently stands. It seems brutally uncivilised for one of the worlds major and most developed economies, and the claims of the anti reform lobby in regard to the UK health system arn't based in fact.
If they ever took the NHS away from us there would be riots nationally.
DeletedUser
Same thing with the Australian Medicare system, although our last government did succeed in eroding it, and making it much more inefficient, while increasing subsidies to private health insurance companies.
The worst part of that is that the insurance companies spent it all on advertising, and private patients still go to our now dangerously underfunded public hospitals.
DeletedUser
I don't approve of them leaving out abortions as being covered, but I have a hope that one of the changes in the upcoming review will be that it will be included.
Also, correction, it passed the House of Representatives. It is in Congress's hand now, and if they pass it, the president will sign it. The checks and balances can be confusing, I had to be corrected earlier as well today.
Also, correction, it passed the House of Representatives. It is in Congress's hand now, and if they pass it, the president will sign it. The checks and balances can be confusing, I had to be corrected earlier as well today.
DeletedUser
I said Congress because I thought you referred to that chamber as Congress. i.e. Congressman Brown. Whereas Senator Smith sits in the senate. I know it's the House of Representatives but what do you call them then? Representatives?
DeletedUser
And Then Who Would Deal With The Injuries From The Riots?:laugh:
No, I Agree That Would Be Terrible.
I Visit The Hospital About Once A Month And There Are A Few Others Who I See There Regularly.
What Would We Do?
I Have No Money.
DeletedUser
I think a lot of people (from the US and elsewhere) get confused on that issue. Congress consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Members of the House are called Congressmen and members of the Senate are Senators. The bill has been approved by the House, and now has to be voted on by the Senate.
DeletedUser
Actually, they're all Congressmen/Congresswomen. The House of Representative is comprised of Representatives, Delegates, and a Resident Commissioner. Those are official titles. The Senate is comprised of Senators, with the Vice President presiding but otherwise having not authority or voting power (and is thus firmly within the Executive Branch).
The confusion arises from the use of Congressman and Senator. A Senator can, and has been, called Congressman, but it has become the mainstay to address a Senator as Senator, and address a member of the House of Representatives as a Congressman.
Right, returning to this particular bill, passed by the House of Representatives, I am not keen with their inclusion of anti-abortion context, not merely because existing laws already address this, but because this particular inclusion has a far more nefarious intent. It is written in such a way as to penalize any medical institution (or private practice) by preventing that institution from receiving payments for services rendered on ANY OTHER medical care if, at any time, they provide abortion services EVEN IF they do not bill through this proposed program. The most nefarious of this clause, is that the government doesn't even pay for any services, it would be paid for by private insurance. It is geared to force all private insurance providers, through government sanctions, to refuse to pay ANY bills presented by doctors or institutions that provide abortion services. And again, to clarify, EVEN if the doctors or institutions don't even bill the insurance companies (or government) for these services, they will not be allowed to payments from government subsidized private insurance for ANY medical services. Basically, it's a proposal for blacklisting, and would be deemed unconstitutional if the bill were to become law.
The confusion arises from the use of Congressman and Senator. A Senator can, and has been, called Congressman, but it has become the mainstay to address a Senator as Senator, and address a member of the House of Representatives as a Congressman.
Right, returning to this particular bill, passed by the House of Representatives, I am not keen with their inclusion of anti-abortion context, not merely because existing laws already address this, but because this particular inclusion has a far more nefarious intent. It is written in such a way as to penalize any medical institution (or private practice) by preventing that institution from receiving payments for services rendered on ANY OTHER medical care if, at any time, they provide abortion services EVEN IF they do not bill through this proposed program. The most nefarious of this clause, is that the government doesn't even pay for any services, it would be paid for by private insurance. It is geared to force all private insurance providers, through government sanctions, to refuse to pay ANY bills presented by doctors or institutions that provide abortion services. And again, to clarify, EVEN if the doctors or institutions don't even bill the insurance companies (or government) for these services, they will not be allowed to payments from government subsidized private insurance for ANY medical services. Basically, it's a proposal for blacklisting, and would be deemed unconstitutional if the bill were to become law.
DeletedUser
For a thoroughly modern and progressive society, you guys sure do like to live in the Stone Age sometimes. :sad:
DeletedUser
Its baffling.. I live a country that stilll has a Queen and your whole system seems more and more archaic to me.
Plus for a nation founded on secularism, allowing one religion to dominate the debate (the abortion dealings) to such a degree is frightening. We have the head of state as the head of the traditional religion and no one gives a hoot (including the clergy) most of the time.
So it makes it quite obvious after reading the couple of threads on American Democracy.. and putting it in the context of this particular debate that is going on currently that you guys need big changes (removal of the electoral college - replacement with direct proportial representation and a direct vote for the presidental elections - for starters) as at the Federal level the debate appears to be dominated by the dollar, where it should be dominated by the health and wellbeing (and the pursuit of happiness?).
Plus for a nation founded on secularism, allowing one religion to dominate the debate (the abortion dealings) to such a degree is frightening. We have the head of state as the head of the traditional religion and no one gives a hoot (including the clergy) most of the time.
So it makes it quite obvious after reading the couple of threads on American Democracy.. and putting it in the context of this particular debate that is going on currently that you guys need big changes (removal of the electoral college - replacement with direct proportial representation and a direct vote for the presidental elections - for starters) as at the Federal level the debate appears to be dominated by the dollar, where it should be dominated by the health and wellbeing (and the pursuit of happiness?).
DeletedUser
Indeed there are gross flaws. Lobbying should be outlawed, and especially gifts. Campaigns should have set advertising limits, it should be illegal for private entities to advertise for campaign groups, and media outlets should be required to provide 'equal time' for all campaign persons (including 3rd party presentation, such as talking about persons who are presently in office, just to expand their exposure time). Electoral college should be abolished and performance (voting track record, etc) should be made readily available, instead of buried behind pages of crap.
As it is, you go to a voting booth, or you receive information about candidates, and all you get is a blurb, or nothing at all. No vitae', no voting record, no indications of productive service, etc. So, because of this, people vote because they like the "sound of a name," because they have "seen that person in movies," because they are "charismatic," or because they collected more campaign money and thus advertised far more than the opposition.
This refers to bills and propositions as well. Private groups pour billions into doing smear campaigns against/for various bills and propositions, the vast majority of which is just outright lies. This should not be allowed, they should not be allowed to financially participate in providing false information about various bills or propositions. Laws need to be enacted that make such actions a crime. Facts only, no doomsaying, no false or unsubstantiated claims, etc.
Pipe dream. Easier to create your own country elsewhere.
As it is, you go to a voting booth, or you receive information about candidates, and all you get is a blurb, or nothing at all. No vitae', no voting record, no indications of productive service, etc. So, because of this, people vote because they like the "sound of a name," because they have "seen that person in movies," because they are "charismatic," or because they collected more campaign money and thus advertised far more than the opposition.
This refers to bills and propositions as well. Private groups pour billions into doing smear campaigns against/for various bills and propositions, the vast majority of which is just outright lies. This should not be allowed, they should not be allowed to financially participate in providing false information about various bills or propositions. Laws need to be enacted that make such actions a crime. Facts only, no doomsaying, no false or unsubstantiated claims, etc.
Pipe dream. Easier to create your own country elsewhere.
DeletedUser
I wasn't making a critique on the US political system (how can I when we have a House of Lords!) more the fact that America continually tries to endanger women and victimise them for abortions. I think Obama said that "we should work to reduce the number of abortions". Abortion is a tragedy but reducing the need for them through improved education and distribution of condoms to avoid teenage pregnancy for example, is surely the way forward. "Prevention rather than cure" (sic)
DeletedUser
Undoubtedly the senate is going to be the real challenge, especially considering how close the House vote was. I would have personally liked to see a single-payer bill, but I don't see that happening at this point in time.
As for the anti-abortion Stupak amendment, it's bound to face further criticism, as it should, for hijacking the bill. The healthcare reform that the people mandate is to expand coverage, not limit it even further, which is exactly what this amendment will do. Simply put, the Stupak Amendment goes far beyond the abusive Hyde Amendment and as such needs to be omitted.
To be honest, at the moment I'm uncertain whether to celebrate the passing of the bill or to mourn for how little it offers in terms of reform, if not making matters worse by actively strengthening the private insurance powerhouses. The following quote by Congressman Kucinich(voted against the bill because of lack of real progress) sums up how I feel at the moment:
“We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem."
Finally, there's no doubt that the electoral college, as well as election campaign laws, are heavily flawed to benefit the two parties currently in power and as long as the people remain uneducated and ignorant on the matter, we're bound to never see a third-party gaining any real leverage in the political system.
As for the anti-abortion Stupak amendment, it's bound to face further criticism, as it should, for hijacking the bill. The healthcare reform that the people mandate is to expand coverage, not limit it even further, which is exactly what this amendment will do. Simply put, the Stupak Amendment goes far beyond the abusive Hyde Amendment and as such needs to be omitted.
To be honest, at the moment I'm uncertain whether to celebrate the passing of the bill or to mourn for how little it offers in terms of reform, if not making matters worse by actively strengthening the private insurance powerhouses. The following quote by Congressman Kucinich(voted against the bill because of lack of real progress) sums up how I feel at the moment:
“We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem."
Finally, there's no doubt that the electoral college, as well as election campaign laws, are heavily flawed to benefit the two parties currently in power and as long as the people remain uneducated and ignorant on the matter, we're bound to never see a third-party gaining any real leverage in the political system.
DeletedUser
This is a summary of what the plan would do according to the White House. How many believe that's all there is to it? http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/obama_plan_card.PDF
T H E O B A M A P L A N
Stability & Security for ALL Americans
If You Have Health Insurance
More Stability and Security
• Ends discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions.
• Prevents insurance companies from dropping coverage when people are sick and need it most.
• Caps out-of pocket expenses so people don’t go broke when they get sick.
• Eliminates extra charges for preventive care like mammograms, flu shots and diabetes tests to improve health and save money.
• Protects Medicare for seniors and eliminates the “donut-hole” gap in coverage for prescription drugs.
If You Don't Have Insurance
Quality, Affordable Choices for All Americans
• Creates a new insurance marketplace – the Exchange – that allows people without insurance and small businesses to compare plans and buy insurance at competitive prices.
• Provides new tax credits to help people buy insurance and to help small businesses cover their employees.
• Offers a public health insurance option to provide the uninsured who can't find affordable coverage with a real choice.
• Offers new, low-cost coverage through a national “high risk” pool to protect people with preexisting conditions from financial ruin until the new Exchange is created.
For All Americans
Reins In the Cost of Health Care for Our Families, Our Businesses, and Our Government
• Won’t add a dime to the deficit and is paid for upfront.
• Creates an independent commission of doctors and medical experts to identify waste, fraud and abuse in the health care system.
• Orders immediate medical malpractice reform projects that could help doctors focus on putting their patients first, not on practicing defensive medicine.
• Requires large employers to cover their employees and individuals who can afford it to buy insurance so everyone shares in the responsibility of reform.
It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance to those who don't. And it will lower the cost of health care for our families, our businesses, and our government.
For more information, visit
WWW.WHITEHOUSE.GOV
T H E O B A M A P L A N
Stability & Security for ALL Americans
If You Have Health Insurance
More Stability and Security
• Ends discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions.
• Prevents insurance companies from dropping coverage when people are sick and need it most.
• Caps out-of pocket expenses so people don’t go broke when they get sick.
• Eliminates extra charges for preventive care like mammograms, flu shots and diabetes tests to improve health and save money.
• Protects Medicare for seniors and eliminates the “donut-hole” gap in coverage for prescription drugs.
If You Don't Have Insurance
Quality, Affordable Choices for All Americans
• Creates a new insurance marketplace – the Exchange – that allows people without insurance and small businesses to compare plans and buy insurance at competitive prices.
• Provides new tax credits to help people buy insurance and to help small businesses cover their employees.
• Offers a public health insurance option to provide the uninsured who can't find affordable coverage with a real choice.
• Offers new, low-cost coverage through a national “high risk” pool to protect people with preexisting conditions from financial ruin until the new Exchange is created.
For All Americans
Reins In the Cost of Health Care for Our Families, Our Businesses, and Our Government
• Won’t add a dime to the deficit and is paid for upfront.
• Creates an independent commission of doctors and medical experts to identify waste, fraud and abuse in the health care system.
• Orders immediate medical malpractice reform projects that could help doctors focus on putting their patients first, not on practicing defensive medicine.
• Requires large employers to cover their employees and individuals who can afford it to buy insurance so everyone shares in the responsibility of reform.
It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance to those who don't. And it will lower the cost of health care for our families, our businesses, and our government.
For more information, visit
WWW.WHITEHOUSE.GOV
DeletedUser
Unfortunately, the Executive Branch (White House) has little control over what the House and Senate make and pass. We'll just have to see if the Senate removes the crap from the House Bill and institutes more of what Obama was hoping for.
My sadness in this, is that no matter what passes through the Senate, Obama will be forced to sign it lest this be, as Republican Senator DeMint's posed, Obama's Waterloo. Problem is, signing something that is crap will still serve as Obama's Waterloo. I am so disgusted that the Republicans are more interested in their party's war against Obama than they are in what's beneficial to the American people as a whole. Of course, I lost faith in things here in the U.S. when they voted in Bush Jr. for a second term.
My sadness in this, is that no matter what passes through the Senate, Obama will be forced to sign it lest this be, as Republican Senator DeMint's posed, Obama's Waterloo. Problem is, signing something that is crap will still serve as Obama's Waterloo. I am so disgusted that the Republicans are more interested in their party's war against Obama than they are in what's beneficial to the American people as a whole. Of course, I lost faith in things here in the U.S. when they voted in Bush Jr. for a second term.
DeletedUser
The health care bill needs to call for a single-payer, or at the very least a very good public option for the people to be satisfied(since most Americans currently favor such changes). If the Democrats choose to continue with such a weak and watered down version of the bill now, their failure to create any real progressive health care policy will not only affect the future of their own party, but it'll also kill most calls for reform for at least another decade(as we have seen before)!
DeletedUser
Our second chamber is pretty toothless and in effect we have a uni-cameral system. Also, by having the executive and legislature linked there is much more power to enact policy. The downside of this is of course is that checks and balances via the opposition are very weak, but it does provide for strong government. This is also due to our "first past the post" system. A PR system would provide chaotic coalitions seen in many European countries. Should we have an elected second chamber? IMHO yes. But that's because I abhor the hereditary principle, not for any longing for a balancing 2nd chamber.
DeletedUser
I think one of the greatest problems is the ability to filibuster in the Senate. Filibustering, for those of you who don't know, is the means for the opposing side to delay a vote "FOREVER." Unless a 3/5ths vote is made to end the debate and vote, the debate can continue, despite it taking a majority vote to put something into effect. This effectively makes it so that it requires a 3/5ths vote to pass any bill.