|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 12:51 AM
Posts: 475,
Visits: 484
|
|
Reporting from Washington - The House of Representatives on Saturday approved the most sweeping healthcare legislation since the creation of Medicare 44 years ago, giving a boost to President Obama's campaign to guarantee health coverage to almost all Americans.
The gargantuan Democratic measure passed 220 to 215, with a single Republican vote, capping a contentious daylong debate that underscored the ideological divide separating the two parties over healthcare.
The narrow Democratic victory underscored the difficult road ahead as the issue moves on to the Senate. But it also meant that the party had reached a historic landmark: It has been trying since the Depression to win a vote to extend the government's social safety net to include healthcare.
The House plan would cover an additional 36 million people by 2019, leaving 4% of the nation without coverage, compared with the estimated 17% who do not have insurance now, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
Google News
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, March 19, 2010 11:12 AM
Posts: 679,
Visits: 1,074
|
|
tLIB (11/8/2009)
Reporting from Washington - The House of Representatives on Saturday approved the most sweeping healthcare legislation since the creation of Medicare 44 years ago, giving a boost to President Obama's campaign to guarantee health coverage to almost all Americans.
The gargantuan Democratic measure passed 220 to 215, with a single Republican vote, capping a contentious daylong debate that underscored the ideological divide separating the two parties over healthcare.
The narrow Democratic victory underscored the difficult road ahead as the issue moves on to the Senate. But it also meant that the party had reached a historic landmark: It has been trying since the Depression to win a vote to extend the government's social safety net to include healthcare.
The House plan would cover an additional 36 million people by 2019, leaving 4% of the nation without coverage, compared with the estimated 17% who do not have insurance now, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
Google News I'm curious about their math again.
This bill, if passed and signed into law, will leave 4% of Americans uninsured according to Gollum Pelosi: 4% of 300,000,000 = 12,000,000, right?
In the President's state of the union address, he cited "...46 million uninsured..." under the current system. But the bean counters then went to work on that number and found that of that 46,000,000, some don't want insurance (prefer to manage that risk themselves), some aren't eligible for insurance (e.g. aren't American citizens), and some are already elibigle for government insurance (e.g. medicare, medicaid, etc.). The remainder are what are called "chronically" uninsured and number somewhere around 8 million.
So this healthcare bill leaves roughly 4 million MORE people uninsured than if we'd just left it the way it is?
Now that he's president, if you question his tax policies, energy plans or health-care ambitions, you are “hoping he will fail” — and that, with the help of roundabout reasoning, is tantamount to hoping we cannot transcend race. -Jonah Goldberg, 8/20/09
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 4:56 PM
Posts: 1,
Visits: 26
|
|
I have problems with this healthcare legislation. If you're "for" a public option, you praise the likes of Medicare, Medicaid and the VA. If you're "against" the public option you talk of the near bankrupt state of the programs, the fraud and waste. And let's not even get into the "funding of abortions" - should it be included or excluded.
I would like to know what people on both sides think of another government program - the Indian Health Services. For decades, the American Indians and Alaska Natives have been receiving government run healthcare. These groups of citizens are to date, the only people that the government *must* provide healthcare to.
I don't know allot about the program, but would appreciate thoughts - and facts - if the public option is in healthcare reform legislation, the IHS could be a harbinger of what we get.
To be clear, I personally am against the current legislation, not just the public option, for many reasons. I do believe that healthcare needs reform, but I am against the wholesale remaking of the entire system.
Thanks in advance for your thoughts and insights.
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 12:51 AM
Posts: 475,
Visits: 484
|
|
I doubt the public option will be in the bill. The Senate will knock it out.
But what will happen is everyone will be forced to buy private insurance. There will be a minimum premium for benefits - from what I hear. That minimum premium will be over $15 per family (the article did not specify how many kids).
I have not read this bill yet, but I have a question. Let's say you get cancer; can you jump to the premium plan that pays everything? Wow what a deal...
Personally, I don't think this is a good plan. Two of my favorite politicians, Kucinich and Ron Paul, both voted against it.
|
|
|
|
