Posted on 01/20/2010 11:01:28 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
The president said he would be open to scaling back health reform legislation in order to salvage it.
President Barack Obama suggested he's open to Congress passing a scaled-back health-care bill, potentially sacrificing much of his signature policy initiative as chaos engulfed Capitol Hill Wednesday.
Top Democrats said they would press ahead despite growing doubts among rank-and-file members that they can pass a bill they've been laboring over for nearly a year. A host of ideas offered in recent days have lost favor.
One day after losing their filibuster-proof Senate majority in a Massachusetts special election, exhausted Senate Democrats looked downtrodden as they filed into their weekly lunch in a second-floor room at the Capitol. "People are hysterical right now," said one Senate aide.
Party members clashed openly over what to do next. Sen. Max Baucus, a top Senate Democrat, appeared to throw cold water on a bill that would focus only on stiffer insurance regulations. Rep. Charles Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, scotched another idea, a complicated parliamentary maneuver to usher a bill quickly to the president's desk.
In an interview with ABC News, President Obama said he would be open to scaling back the legislation in order to salvage it. "I would advise that we try to move quickly to coalesce around those elements in the package that people agree on," Obama said. White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said later the president would prefer Congress to pass the comprehensive package, and hasn't given up on that option.
A pared-down bill could still restrict insurance companies
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“If Obama had a clue he’d lock Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Boxer and every last one of them in their office and deny any out going calls.”
LOL...is he going to get desperate after 1 short year of socialist revolution? They *all* must be stopped.
1. Create high Risk pools, for the hard to insure, so that they can find affordable insurance. High risk pools for the large claims (i.e. $250,000 +)
2. Standardize Provider Discounts so that more than a handfull of companies can monopolize the pricing.
3. Let small affinity groups pool their risk together and buy insurance on a multi-state multi-business basis.
1. Create high Risk pools, for the hard to insure, so that they can find affordable insurance. High risk pools for the large claims (i.e. $250,000 +)
2. Standardize Provider Discounts so that more than a handfull of companies can monopolize the pricing.
3. Let small affinity groups pool their risk together and buy insurance on a multi-state multi-business basis.
I do. Meddling with private industry is a very bad thing. Has anyone tried the spell checker today? Just DAMN!
“All they need are 218 fanatics.”
All Hell needs is a little water and a few good people. :>)
Forcing private insurance companies to insure pre-existing conditions will eventually bankrupt them. My understanding is that the penalty for not purchasing health insurance will be a fine of $750 per year. That’s not enough incentive for the young healthy people who could afford insurance, but currently choose not to, to get insurance. They’ll simply pay the fine each year, and then get insurance when they get sick. So what you’ll have is mostly older and sick people paying the premiums.
The solution to this problem would be to massively increase the penalty for not purchasing health insurance. But I don’t not see how the federal government can constitutionally force a citizen to purchase health insurance.
I most certainly want people with pre-existing conditions to get some kind of coverage (after all, I might be in that situation one day). But someone much wiser than I will need to find the solution. Flushing the Constitution down the toilet is not a solution.
“Oh, the tears of unfathomable sadness! My-yummy!”
Not a problem.
I'm aware of the tricks and tactics they have available. But that's the thing. I (or anyone) need them to say I (we) owe them something solely due to a clause in ObamaDeathCare (ODC). That's step one in getting them in Federal Court over the unconstitutional 'Fines' due to a 'Bill of Pains and Penalties' (1) which ODC is(2).
(1) US Constitution; Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3
(2) an act of the legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial.
Exactly what I said yesterday:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/77289-pelosi-house-lacks-votes-to-pass-senate-bill
No doubt. We must crush them expose them and drive every Communist out of the country.
Because that is effectively the same thing as requiring them to cover "pre-existing conditions". And don't forget that typically that exclusion only applies to illnesses that occurred within the last 12-18 months.
Seriously, that idea is one of the worst of the bunch. You could run around without a policy, then develop liver cancer, buy a policy, pay a few hundred bucks, and easily run up $500,000 in expenses within a year or two. That would bankrupt the system, which is why the dems want it. They want to destroy private insurance, and that is how they were going to do it.
‘House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) told reporters Thursday that the House is unlikely to pass Senate health-care legislation without changes’...
If they make any changes, the Bill has to be revoted for in the Senate.
‘However, numerous House Democratic members are already on the record saying the Senate bill is a nonstarter.’
I think you’re exaggerating the effects. Employees with health insurance at these companies will still want to keep their health insurance.
If insurance goes away, people will be self-insuring.
I understand what you’re saying, it’s a valid argument. But we were very close to “go to jail if you don’t buy health insurance”, and that was far worse. Big companies won’t remove health insurance. Governments will still insure their employees.
If people dropped their health insurance, they probably wouldn’t go to the doctor for stuff they don’t need, which would be a good result.
I’m just not that concerned about the health insurance industry. I’m not arguing FOR this new law. I’m saying that requiring coverage is not nearly as bad as “buy health insurance or go to jail”. I’m not going to get worked up about the defending the interests of the health insurance industry.
Did I make a number of typos? The Federal Government has been meddling with private industry for years and years. There is likely a whole big thick book of regulations surrounding the health insurance industry.
There isn’t anything on the books now that forces people to buy anything, and there shouldn’t be.
I’m not FOR these new regs, I just don’t think it’s anywhere near as bad as forcing people to buy health insurance.
The Dems wanted to force people to buy health insurance. That’s what I had the problem with.
I now agree. It is finally over. Health Care is DEAD! Hot Damn!
Employees will WANT to keep insurance - but will they be able to afford it?
You rightly understand that “buy coverage or go to jail” is wrong. (Individual mandate)
But you don’t see a problem with “go bankrupt or get sued into it anyway”. (cover all preexisting conditions)
Your position on the two is incoherent.
The logical result of the preexisting rule change is to drive insurers out of business through bankruptcy or through their own choice (to avoid bankruptcy). Welcome to the public option.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.