Rate the Chances Health Care Bill Passes Senate

[basketballdad]

House Speaker Pelosi has the votes to pass the House version of the Health Care reform rather easily. She can let almost 40 democrats vote against it and it will still pass. However, in the Senate Reid made the smart choice to include a public option to in the Senate version to appease his base. Now if it fails he can say he tried and it was in there. With Lieberman and Snowe not in favor of the Senate version how does Reid get the 60 votes he needs to pass it? Will the Democrats go to nuclear option if it falls shot by one or two votes? It makes for interesting times. Not really interested in the merits of the bill or not as this question is more about the political process and machinations than the actual bill. Already probably know what everyone thinks about the bill but want to know about the process.

[EWSoccer64]

I think that the Dems will go will go with the "nuclear option".   And I think that this will further greatly erode the chances of future political compromise.   You might end up seeing a filibuster of every single judiciial nominee by Obama as part of the response to this.   

On the other hand, gridlock by congress has been beneficial to the country in the past....

[Left Foot]

I think that the Dems will go will go with the "nuclear option".   And I think that this will further greatly erode the chances of future political compromise.   You might end up seeing a filibuster of every single judiciial nominee by Obama as part of the response to this.   

On the other hand, gridlock by congress has been beneficial to the country in the past....

Yeah, grown men and women reacting like kids to some slight in the school yard. Real statesman or perhaps just lobbyist lackeys......?

[EWSoccer64]

I think that the Dems will go will go with the "nuclear option".   And I think that this will further greatly erode the chances of future political compromise.   You might end up seeing a filibuster of every single judiciial nominee by Obama as part of the response to this.   

On the other hand, gridlock by congress has been beneficial to the country in the past....

Yeah, grown men and women reacting like kids to some slight in the school yard. Real statesman or perhaps just lobbyist lackeys......?

Didn't see you writing that when the Dems were blocking everything the Reps were trying to do when Bush was Prez.

[Left Foot]

I think that the Dems will go will go with the "nuclear option".   And I think that this will further greatly erode the chances of future political compromise.   You might end up seeing a filibuster of every single judiciial nominee by Obama as part of the response to this.   

On the other hand, gridlock by congress has been beneficial to the country in the past....

Yeah, grown men and women reacting like kids to some slight in the school yard. Real statesman or perhaps just lobbyist lackeys......?

Didn't see you writing that when the Dems were blocking everything the Reps were trying to do when Bush was Prez.

Both sides act like that. Allows them to look like they are doing something while they take big money from the lobbyists. Do you mean Bush or Cheney? 

[EWSoccer64]

To get back on topic, tonight the chances of Obama-care passing just decreased dramatically.

[Trackside14]

The Bill should easily pass the house.  It will be much more difficult to pass in the senate.  It would be nice if they actually read the bill.  Here is the link to HR3962 if anyone would care to actually start reading it:  http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf
Jump to page 268 and look at the damage that it will do to small business.   They require among other things that the employer pay 72.5% of a single employee's premium or if an employee has a family plan the employer is required to pay 65% of it.  Of course the plan has to be the "qualified plan" so if your plan does not include everything they say it must include, then you will have to get a new one and when you cover more things guess what?  It costs more.  I am sure the 10-12 million younger people who can afford health insurance but choose not to purchase it are going to love paying 2.5% of their income or the public option premium, whichever is less.  What really cracks me up is the Hardship study that they are going to pay for to determine what businesses will be harmed by this and to further determine who should get a hardship waiver.  So I guess they are already planning that it is going to screw over small business.

[basketballdad]

Now that it passed the House all eyes will go on the Senate. I do agree with my conservative friends on one thing. None of this matters if no one has a job. As much I think everyone should have health insurance and that the environment matters the government needs to get their eyes on the main component that pays for all of this and that is jobs. With unemployment over 10% and climbing what is going on now is not working. I have students whose parents have lost jobs and been looking for some time. These are not deadbeats. These are good people out looking and applying anywhere they can. I do not have the answer but I know we can't afford any increase in the amount of jobs lost period.

[Left Foot]

Now that it passed the House all eyes will go on the Senate. I do agree with my conservative friends on one thing. None of this matters if no one has a job. As much I think everyone should have health insurance and that the environment matters the government needs to get their eyes on the main component that pays for all of this and that is jobs. With unemployment over 10% and climbing what is going on now is not working. I have students whose parents have lost jobs and been looking for some time. These are not deadbeats. These are good people out looking and applying anywhere they can. I do not have the answer but I know we can't afford any increase in the amount of jobs lost period.

What more do you suggest be done re job creation?

It took about 20 years and 300 million dollars of bank industry lobbying money to get rid of Glass-Steagle and ensure abdication of any regulation over the derivatives market. It is gonna' take more than 9 months to get out of the mess this has caused.

I might have read somewhere that the rise in unemployment is slowing which is what one would expect. Still tough times though.

Unfortunately, without campaign finance reform, we will still be left with a system largely run by corporations whose interests may or may not align with what's best for average Americans. It does feel better to think that things would get better if only one party or the other was "in charge".

 

[basketballdad]

Some ideas of I have about job creation would include the following:

1. Reduce the unemployment tax insurance in our state. (one of the highest in the nation probably due to highest minimum wage)
2. Reduce the L&I tax on business. (once again one of the highest and not sure why-do we just get in more accidents on the job here?)
3. Instead of giving tax incentives and subsidies to big corporations why not give them to those who create more jobs. (small business)
4. We would have to make up the money somewhere but I would suggest gradually changing the B&O tax from being on gross sales to one on profits. Even though I am not against taxes by any means I have never undestood the idea of taxing a business who may already be losing money into failing.
5. Health Insurance Option: Most small business  can't afford to provide health insurance to their employees,especially at first. I have not read all of any of the health care bills but there has to be a way for all small businesses to be pooled into one large group and work with providers to negotiate better pricing for basic health insurance. My conservative friends don't even tell me about health savings accounts, etc for individuals to buy insurance. I have a brother who has to pay for his own health insurance. Luckily he is successful enough to be able to do it. However, my wife and I pay about $2500 a year for everything for health insurance. We both have coverage through work. (this includes premiums, copays, eye, vision, dental, etc) He pays around $20,000 to do the same thing for his family which has one less kid.

I will have more as I learn more and talk with more people.

[Trackside14]

BBdad- In the house bill businesses that have a total payroll under $500,000 do not have to provide insurance as I understand it.  This is where it talks about fines for not providing health insurance.  From $500,000-$575,000 the fine is 2% of payroll and it goes up to the top fine of 8% for businesses with a total payroll over $750,000 of more.  How many businesses would be slightly over any of the listed brackets and cut one or two employees to lower their payroll? (The law of unintended consequences?)  My brother-in-law's employees could not agree on a plan so he just gives them money toward purchasing their own plan or to put in in a health savings acct. etc.  For businesses that do that they would be required to take 8% of their payroll and divide it up to give to their employees. So if your payroll was a million dollars which is not a big business, that could be a business with 15-20 employees, that would cost $80,000.  To me, that says that their goal is to force employers to buy health insurance which would be cheaper. (no wonder a lot of insurance companies are on board-more people forced to buy insurance) I think they obviously don't like health savings accounts and flexible savings accts either.  With regards to the HSA and FSA accounts the FSA had no cap but in the house bill it is capped at $2500 and you can no longer use these accounts to by over the counter medicine.  When you make certain things more expensive and put limitations on things it is an attempt to change behavior or "nudge" people in a certain direction.  The bottom line is we are broke and can't afford any of this.  When you are broke personally you come up with creative ways of improving things without spending money like rearranging your furniture and finding some paint in your garage to repaint your living room.  You don't go spending money that you don't have and have little chance of paying back, just to do some remodeling.  There are lots of good "no cost" solutions that would help lower the cost of insurance.  At the bare minimum expand medicaid to cover the uninsured and require that people with just a cold go to the local public health clinic so as to take some of the burden off hospitals.  And leave the people that can afford insurance but choose not to buy it alone.  So if there are so many good solutions out there( I have seen several on this site alone) that don't cost anything or cost much, much less,and yet those in Washington are choosing to ignore them, what does that tell you?  After all, these people are suppose to be sooooo smart with their Harvard educations and everything.  Common sense says it is not really about solving the problem.  It is about expanding government power by making more people dependent on the government thereby expanding the politician's personal power.  There are 2 senate bills so now I guess I will have to do some more reading.  My eyes are tired... maybe I should go to the opthamologist... while I can still afford my health insurance.

[EWSoccer64]

That is a good start. 
I agree that taxes are a necessary evil.  One suggestion that I woud offer for discussion is state sales tax pegged towards consumption.  Let's exclude gas and basic food.  Prepared food, (including frozen items like TV dinners), candy, alcohol, soda pop and such would be taxed at the normal rate. A side effect would be a sin tax on foods that are not so good for you.   Taxing consumption would also be taxing imported consumer items more heavily than they are now.   By removing fuel and basic food (if the money matters, learn to cook!) the rise in sales taxes will be felt disproportionately more by the more well off that buy more of the discretionary items. 

Another job creation item would be greater enforcement of rules and laws against hiring illegal aliens.  Most people do not realise just how hard it is for kids to get work in jobs that you and I used to be able to get in summers or part time when we were teenagers.   Nothing wrong with a teenager doing hard, manual labor.  Helps encourage them to get a good education, if nothing else!   And there are many adults who could happily accept $10 an hour jobs right now.

A better regulatory climate eminating from Olympia would be a great help as well.   There is the old joke:
One guy sees a second guy hitting himself on the head with a 2x4. 
 First guy asks"  Why are you hitting yourself on the head with a 2x4?"
Second Guy Responds "Because it feels so good when I stop."
That describes, in large part, the flight of business, capital and people from California to Washington over the past decade.   But Washington is kicking in the shins, instead of being hit over the head with a 2x4.  Sooner or later, people notice the lesser pain and want to go where they will have even less pain or no pain.
Start decreasing the number of beaurocrats in Olympia and Seattle instead of increasing them annually.


Insurance -The State of Washington has a decent barebones health care "public option" system in place, I forget what it is called.  Because it is state run, it likely costs twice as much as it should.  Still, it might serve as a model for the BBB to create a group insurance program.   There are "catastrophic care" policies available fairly cheaply, policies that pay zero for the first $5,000 a year but 80% on everything over that.

One of my favorite all time ever economists was Colbert of France.  Doubt he even understood himself as an economist.  But he was able to vastly increase the tax revenue to the Kingdom of France while at the same setting in place policies that caused the greatest % increase in the French economy in history.   he must have been good, because as a general rule, I do not like France or the French!

Some ideas of I have about job creation would include the following:

1. Reduce the unemployment tax insurance in our state. (one of the highest in the nation probably due to highest minimum wage)
2. Reduce the L&I tax on business. (once again one of the highest and not sure why-do we just get in more accidents on the job here?)
3. Instead of giving tax incentives and subsidies to big corporations why not give them to those who create more jobs. (small business)
4. We would have to make up the money somewhere but I would suggest gradually changing the B&O tax from being on gross sales to one on profits. Even though I am not against taxes by any means I have never undestood the idea of taxing a business who may already be losing money into failing.
5. Health Insurance Option: Most small business  can't afford to provide health insurance to their employees,especially at first. I have not read all of any of the health care bills but there has to be a way for all small businesses to be pooled into one large group and work with providers to negotiate better pricing for basic health insurance. My conservative friends don't even tell me about health savings accounts, etc for individuals to buy insurance. I have a brother who has to pay for his own health insurance. Luckily he is successful enough to be able to do it. However, my wife and I pay about $2500 a year for everything for health insurance. We both have coverage through work. (this includes premiums, copays, eye, vision, dental, etc) He pays around $20,000 to do the same thing for his family which has one less kid.

I will have more as I learn more and talk with more people.

[basketballdad]

Thanks for the information Trackside. Good to know.

[Trackside14]

More info-I wondered how they were going to enforce making people who choose not to buy insurance buy it.( which by all accounts is 10-12 million people).  In the house bill everyone will be required to submit proof of insurance along with your tax return. 

[HandBall]

More info-I wondered how they were going to enforce making people who choose not to buy insurance buy it.( which by all accounts is 10-12 million people).  In the house bill everyone will be required to submit proof of insurance along with your tax return. 

[basketballdad]

I was under the belief that the anlaysis of the cost of the bill assumes that a certain number of people won't get insurance and thus the government would collect so much money in fines. What happens if people do get insurance. The costs will rise. (costs of the government I mean)

[Trackside14]

I was under the belief that the anlaysis of the cost of the bill assumes that a certain number of people won't get insurance and thus the government would collect so much money in fines. What happens if people do get insurance. The costs will rise. (costs of the government I mean)

First of all, they have already said that 15-20 million will still be uninsured. ( So why do this then? I have always thought they should just address those people that need it and quit trying to overhaul everything--you don't get rid of your car and get a new one if all you need is new tires.)  It is my understanding that if you make above $44,000  year you will be required to buy health insurance or face a fine or jail time which is why they will know by your tax return what you should be doing.  This will force more people to buy insurance which is why a lot of the insurance companies are on board.  What business wouldn't love a government mandate that everyone had to buy your product?  Isn't it funny how the politicians vilify the insurance companies to us and behind our backs are actually helping them out in the guise of helping us out?  But not so fast.  Those insurance companies better not get too comfortable.  If indeed all these taxes and mandates are put on the businesses of this country what do think will happen?  First of all make no mistake,  if this passes your insurance premiums will go up.  Reason number one is that there is a mandate that your insurance policy had better cover what the govt. says they should cover and if yours doesn't then you will have to pay more for your policy.  Reason #2- Everyone just loves the idea of covering people with pre-existing conditions.  Well, folks, that costs money and of course since they want to spread the wealth and make us all equal we will all have to pay the same rate.  I think it is fine for someone to get insurance with a pre-existing condition as long as they are paying higher rates than me.  How expensive would your car insurance be if your car insurance company had to insure everyone regardless of their driving record and everyone had to pay the same rate?  I saw one estimate that said our private insurance premiums would rise to over 3,000 dollars a year per family.  Employers and people that buy their own insurance will not be able to afford all the taxes and premium increases which will force people to go to a public option if one is in place, and if one isn't in place then I am sure Nancy Pelosi will claim that private insurance is out of control and call for a public option and now you  will have millions more people dependent on the govt. for health care.  And yes to finally answer your question BBdad- it is a flaw in logic and in the plan to claim that you are going to help pay for this plan with fines when what could happen is that people would get insurance and then where is the revenue from the fines?  Remember they are already lying about the cost per year when they spread the cost over ten years but only dole out 7 years of services.  They did that little trick to try and make the numbers look better. The more you read , the more you realize that it a job killing bill and has very little to do with health care and more to do with government controlling everything in our lives.