What Would It Take To Repeal The Health Care Bill

Here's what Stephanie Condon at CBS new blogs said today, "Repealing the health care bill, however, would take more than winning back a few congressional seats. Just as the Republican minority in the Senate has stalled the current health care debate, a Democratic minority could do the same to any repeal measure unless Republicans were able to pull together at least a 60-vote majority. The GOP would also have to overcome the strong majority Democrats now have in the House. Even if they were to win both chambers back, President Obama could veto any repeal measure at least through 2012."

So it is essential that we defeat the health care bill before it can pass. The Republicans would have to win enough seats in the House and Senate to OVERRIDE a presidential veto. Or, persuade enough Democrats to help repeal a bill that is a disaster to the US economy, health care, and more. Or, hoping against hope, maybe enough Democrats will have a blinding flash of the obvious - this health care reform bill is a total disaster and vote it down.

That's the bottom line.

Repeal The Health Care Bill - What Will The Final Bill Look Like?

Most agree the final version of the bill will look more like the Senate Bill than the House version. But what main elements will be there? Public Option? 55 to 64 Medicare? Fed funding for abortion? Who knows.

But what we do know is that it will cost way more then anyone will ever predict. Congress has never come "under budget" on anything. Ever. Have they?

And what about Medicare cuts to balance the bottom line? How deep will those cuts go? Medicare Advantage? Will it be totally cut out?

Then there's the aspect of the spiraling national debt, congress raising the debt ceiling, questions of health care rationing, health care access, diminishing payments to doctors and the list goes on.

Now, what is hidden in the bill that no one is talking about?

Pork time for Congress. Not to mention what may be going on behind the closed doors, secret meetings with Obama, Dems, dollars for a vote, corruption, greed, and basic stupidity.

That's not change we can believe in.

Wake up America!

Who Voted Yay and Nay on the Senate Bill Ending Debate

Here's a link to the official Senate record of how they voted.

Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---60


Akaka (D-HI)  Baucus (D-MT)  Bayh (D-IN)  Begich (D-AK)  Bennet (D-CO)  Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)  Brown (D-OH)  Burris (D-IL)  Byrd (D-WV)  Cantwell (D-WA)  Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)  Casey (D-PA)  Conrad (D-ND)  Dodd (D-CT)  Dorgan (D-ND)  Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)  Feinstein (D-CA)  Franken (D-MN)  Gillibrand (D-NY)  Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)  Inouye (D-HI)  Johnson (D-SD)  Kaufman (D-DE)  Kerry (D-MA)  Kirk (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)  Kohl (D-WI)  Landrieu (D-LA)  Lautenberg (D-NJ)  Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)  Lieberman (ID-CT)  Lincoln (D-AR)  McCaskill (D-MO)  Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)  Mikulski (D-MD)  Murray (D-WA)  Nelson (D-FL)  Nelson (D-NE)  Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)  Reid (D-NV)  Rockefeller (D-WV)  Sanders (I-VT)  Schumer (D-NY)  Shaheen (D-NH)
Specter (D-PA)  Stabenow (D-MI)  Tester (D-MT)  Udall (D-CO)  Udall (D-NM)  Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)  Whitehouse (D-RI)  Wyden (D-OR)

Following a strict party line vote, the Senate voted to end debate on the Health Care Reform Bill. Once they vote to approve it, they will send it to be combined with the House version. Nobody really knows what will be in the final bill and whether or not the final version will ever make it to the President to sign.

Some on the fence were paid off to get their votes. Most of the negotiation never involved any Republican Senators. Neither was it transparent like Obama promised.

This bill does not accomplish what the President said it should. It will cost way too much, drive doctors and hospitals out of business, increase wait time to see a doctor, diminish the quality of care, delay care, and increase premiums for everyone.  I know that is contrary to what the President promises, but based on what we have all seen so far, his promises cannot be believed.

Democrats Win Over Nebraska Senator with $100M

Great for Nebraska. What about the rest of us?

Here's how the Dems got Nelson to go along with the Senate version of the bill:

"Nelson secured several other concessions from Reid, including a guarantee that the federal government will fully cover the cost of expanding Nebraska’s Medicaid program. All other states have to partially pay for a Medicaid expansion to admit all adults earning up to 130 percent of poverty level, if they haven’t done so already. Aides said the deal was worth under $100 million for Nebraska over the next decade - not much in the context of an $900 billion bill. But at a time when most state budgets are deep in the red, it’s a huge political coup for Nelson." from the Boston Globe.

Is the word "honor" in the oath these knuckleheads take?

So it is looking like the Senate version of the bill will pass. Next, combining the House version and the Senate version.

The final redaction will look like neither. Again, the Frankenstien bill.

Tricare And The Health Care Bill - Veterans Alert!

Obama and the Dems have said all along that veterans and military retirees' Tricare would not be negatively impacted by the health care reform bill. At least, they've said that their care would not be hurt. But what will happen to the premiums we pay for the insurance? No mention of that.

I received a letter from the MOAA (Military Officers Association of America) warning me that under the current bill Tricare premiums would increase as much as two to three times!  Plus, doctors would be receiving another decrease in pay for their services.  Is this a hoax or is it buried in the lawyerspeak of that 2000 page blob called the health care reform bill?

Meanwhile, the bill keeps getting mutilated turning into a Frankenstein of a piece of legislation. It will cost too much, not do what it says, push the deficit higher, and ultimately raise everyone's taxes. Use the links on this page to contact your congressman and senator and urge them to say NO to this bill.

I hope the bill does not pass. But, if it does, Repeal the Health Care Bill.

"Buy In" and Public Option are "OUT" ?

So the exact language of a Public Option is out. So is the buy in for Medicare for 55 - 64. Another failed amendment was the one that would allow us to buy prescription meds from other countries. But what is buried in the language of this zillion page bill? For sure we know that these three elements remain:

1. You cannot be rejected for health insurance because of pre-existing conditions. And,

2. Your insurance company cannot drop you out of the blue. And,

3. You will be charged a fine if you do not carry health insurance.

Obama and the Dems still claim the bill will be deficit neutral, will result in lower premiums for all, and will lower costs.

This does not compute. The numbers I mean. For example, why have health insurance companies rejected people for pre existing conditions? Cost. If the insurance companies were required to cover those who already have costly conditions, they would have to . . . . . raise the premiums to cover the anticipated costs. So who will help with those costs? Taxpayers. Will the already ill be able to afford those premiums anyway? Likely not. If you think $500 or $600 monthly premiums are high, just imagine what my health insurance premium would be if I tried to go out and buy a policy today (Stage 4 Renal Cell Carcinoma). Since they would not be able to reject me, they would have to charge thousands of dollars a month to cover a small part of my medical bills.

And what about healthy 20 and 30 something people? Probably would rather pay the fine than pay premiums. So they are still not covered. Right?

Still not adequately addressed are Tort Reform, buying health insurance across state lines, and cost control.

This bill is too costly, will drive more Doctors out of practice, and will result in less available care. Don't pass the bill.

Great video interview with Steve Forbes:

The Mother of All Public Options

Heard that phrase this week? It was spoken by Rep Anthony Weiner when describing the buy in option to Medicare for those aged 55 to 64.

That option was introduced this week by Sen Reid as the solution to getting the public option out of the bill and getting more people covered. But. At what cost? What would those premiums be? How much would be subsidized by we the tax payers?

You can give a pig a bath, put him in a nice suit, but, the rascal is still a pig and will look and smell like one before too long. Such is this bill. They (Democrats) can disguise it, perfume it, and appeal to our "moral core" but their deal still smells.

Folks, don't let them pass this stinker. Call your congressman and senator and let them know this is a bad deal for everyone.

Here's a link to the contact information for your Senator, Congressman, Governor, State Legislator, and Twitter links!

Senate Health Care Reform Debate - Harry Reid (D) NV

So if you can't beat them with the facts, sling mud that's irrelevant. That's what Mr Reid from Nevada did on the Senate floor today. Chastising the Republicans for what he said was their call to "slow down" he compared it with to civil rights/slavery and women's right to vote.

Will this kind of rhetoric get any Republicans to vote the Democrat's way?  Will it sway moderate Democrats to abandon their committments to refusing tax payer dollars for abortion? Will it convince anyone that a public option is in the country's best interest?

Amendments to the bill keep coming up and getting defeated. Yesterday the Ensign Amendment - putting limits on lawyers' fees on contingency cases - failed. Even the Lincoln Amendment, proposed by a Democrat, failed. It would have limited the ability of insurance companies to deduct executive pay from their taxes. That was a move designed to punish the private insurance sector and pave the way for a total government takeover of the insurance industry. Surprised the Dems could not get that one passed.

Here's the clip of Sen Reid's lame argument:

Democrats and the Health Care Debate - What to Believe?

This weekend the Democrats are saying on the one hand - $400 billion in Medicare cuts to pay for the health care reform bill, and on the other hand - These cuts will strengthen Medicare by eliminating waste, overpayments, and inefficiency.

Is it just me or is there a total lack of logic and reason in this approach? Haven't we been trying to reduce waste and overpayments for years? How will cutting $400 Billion from Medicare make it more efficient? How will cutting Medicare by $400 Billion make it less wasteful or prevent overpayments? Maybe there will be less money in the system to waste in the first place but in the end, there will be less money to go around for an already strained program. That translates into longer waits for patients, higher copays, less care, fewer diagnostic tests, denied coverage, and fewer doctors.

Health Care Reform and MediCare

Senior Citizens should keep an eye on the debate and the bill. The bill presently cuts many areas of Medicare. One of the cuts includes payments to doctors. Some amendments are in the works to postpone the cuts to doctors providing care to Medicare patients. But if payments to doctors are cut, the unintended consequence would be an exodus of doctors providing care to seniors. Fewer doctors, longer waits for appointments and more out of pocket expenses for those who can least afford it.

The Medicare Rights Center, a non-profit consumer service organization, has reported that eight states are having a tough time finding doctors who will accept Medicare patients. This started in 2002 when payments to doctors were cut by 5.4 percent. Those states include Texas, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Arizona, Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia, and New Mexico. The survey done by the Center said that the reason doctors gave the patients for not accepting them was the lower payments.

What If The Government Ran Health Care?

Plenty of pundits are predicting what our nation's health care system would be like if the government was in charge of it.

In this brief note, just consider our government's track record of running other public services. And consider their cost.

Amtrack? United States Postal Service? Military procurement?

No matter what costs are forecast, they have always cost more when the government does it. Way more. Health care would be no different. Instead of a flu shot at the local drug store costing you $10 to $20 - by the time the multi layered system delivered it to you it would cost you $100 in taxes.

Why did that famous $800 hammer cost $800? Production limits, tough specifications, hundreds of people developing, producing, administering, and delivering the hammer, accounting for the hammers, analyzing the hammers, hiring a staff to study the hammer performance, commissioning a panel to see if we really need the hammer, conducting a congressional investigation into the waste fraud and corruption in the hammer development cycle, and more.

Maybe we should just buy each doctor a hammer and have them hit everyone in the head in the fall.

Would Universal Health Care in the US be . . . NICE?

NICE, also known as National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, is the UK's system for determing the guidelines for medical practitioners as to how various conditions should be treated and whether or not a particular treatment should be funded. This layer of government decides if your medical condition merits treatment and what kinds of treatment. If they decide you get the treatment, it is given to you by the government system, paid for by the taxes you'd pay as a citizen of the UK. Yes, to be eligible you must be a citizen.

Up until very recently, the cancer drug Sutent, was prohibited by NICE. If you had renal cell carcinoma or other cancers, you were not allowed to take Sutent - the "gold standard" for treating RCC. Previous to Sutent, patients with kidney cancer had no hope. Traditional chemo is not very effective against it and Sutent is a kidney cancer patient's best hope of surviving.

What if? What if our government takes over health care management and decides that Sutent is just too expensive to provide to those in the public option?  That would be a swift death sentence for those who, like me, are a Stage IV cancer patient.

I hope the health care reform bill being debated soon in the Senate gets the swift death it deserves.

Remember the Clinton Health Care Reform Bill?

It failed too. And thanks for the comment on the last post. The Clinton Health Care bill failed with a greater majority in congress (I think) and less popularity in the White House. Hopefully this bill will not make it out of the Senate. Then, a repeal of the health care reform bill would not be necessary.

Clinton's 1992 campaign did focus on universal health care, and he never delivered. Sound familiar yet?

Senate Votes to Move Ahead to Debate

Tonight the Senate voted to move ahead to debate the Health Care Reform Bill - S. 1728 by a vote of 60 Democrats to 39 Republicans. Get the full story here: "Senate votes to bring health care bill to the floor."

With any luck the debate in the Senate will be well publicized and reason will prevail.

Here's What Scares Me About the Health Care Bill Being Considered in 2009

In a word, cost. I do not want the government to interfere with my cancer treatments. Given the high cost of my medications and my low copays I don't want anything to change. I am afraid that my cancer medication (Sutent) will become unaffordable, or as in the UK, deemed unaffordable by the government.



You also have to consider the "unintended consequences" of the bill. In just one isolated example, Tricare, underwritten by Humana, has been said by the administration to be safe from any changes. BUT, what if, because of a mass exodus out of Humana, Tricare has to undergo a massive change. Raising premiums, denying coverage, limiting diagnostics, etc..?? The president has said that Tricare would not change, but he cannot promise something he has no control over. True?

Why would Humana fall apart? If tens of thousands of Humana's other customers opt for the "government option" Humana would not be able to continue as normal. The same holds true for all other insurers. If there is a mass exodus out of traditional health insurance to a government plan, they would not survive. The only thing left would be the government run and government administered program. That would not be pretty.