But why bother mentioning that?

If you don't know, what's your point?

And if you know please post some credible inks.

Thanks.

I like prefer hard facts over election campaign rhetoric.

take your word for it. Geesh.

PTxS

Do you disagree with my statement that there was no limit on profit/administrative costs before the Affordable Healthcare Act?

Stating something doesn't make it so, even if you believe it does.

PTxS

I don't understand your point. What evidence are you seeking?

Read again: THERE WERE NO PROFIT LIMITS

It's not a belief. It's a fact. If you want to disprove that, find the law. I challenge you. There isn't one.

You aren't making sense

It's that you provide no evidence to your claims.

PTxS

there was no regulation of the amount of profit a health insurer could make?

In other words, insurance companies always had to spend *something* on care, or no one would have bought insurance. So it's not really a limited amount that they can keep under the ACA vs. the unlimited amount they could keep before, it's one limited amount vs. another. It makes sense to ask what they were keeping before.

"Overall, the profit margin for health insurance companies was a modest 3.4 percent over the past year, according to data provided by Morningstar. That ranks 87th out of 215 industries and slightly above the median of 2.2 percent. By this measure, the most profitable industry over the past year has been beverages, with a 25.9 percent profit margin."

Isn't that right?

Let's not play with words or respond in a way that could appear to be evading an answer to a very simple and direct question.

OK?

So once again, was the average medical/loss ratio higher or lower than it is under the current health insurance industry law or not?

If you don't know the answer to that question or would rather not answer it just say so!

That's nothing to be ashamed of. If you don't know, you don't know for sure.

Thanks.

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2011/12/01/225685.htm


I'm wondering if the effect of institutionalization won't be to drive smaller players out of the market, as it's they that seem to have the most trouble meeting the standard.

The competition aspect seems to be the concern in states that have applied for exemptions. This is my uneducated guess, however.

"Seventy-seven percent of insurers in the large group market and 70 percent of small group insurers would have met or exceeded the new standards, the GAO found."

In addition, deductible executive compensation is limited to $500,000, a marked decrease from present averages.

would have met or exceeded the standards lends to the assumption that on AVERAGE, insurers were already meeting the new standard.

http://www.ehow.com/info_8010716_issues-health-care-insurance-costs.html

Thanks.

will continue to live in denial. Obama has made mistakes, even he admits it. And yes, he's better than all GOP candidates.

The point is, the Affordable Health Care Act has some good provisions but it's not the panacea some make it out to be.

It won't address long term costs. That's the point here. And it may be better than before, but I have yet to see conclusive evidence one way or another.

PTxS

won't take effect until 2014.

Don't know where you get your info from, maybe more than just Obama supporters live in denial.

I saw those cost curves, and those are mostly projections, like you comment to me. There is no cause and effect evidence for anything claim that ACA is affecting prices, yet.

PTxS

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=492625

And nothing was ever done by the Dems to enhance support ...

in fact the Dems blocked discussion once again, as they did under Clinton, and distracted people with "the public option" while having no clue how many people would be eligible and how it it would work. It was a scam to pull people away from a national, not for profit HC system that would benefit our country. Look at the contributions to candidates from insurance and drug companies in 2008.

Did you watch the 2008 Democratic debates, this is Not just about Obama, not one candidate had a follow question on a not for profit system. No discussion allowed! There surely were many irrelevant follow up questions from the top three candidates about some trivial issue, who said what to you yesterday about ... nothing. Frankly it was embarrassing at times.

Then they all signed onto some watered down version of the Jacob Hacker public/private system of HC. Hacker envisioned rolling the public programs (Medicare/Medicaid etc) into the public option, although that was never mentioned by the top three. Clinton was at least smart enough to realize that you needed a mandate if you were going to do away with pre-existing conditions and remove the life time cap, I'll give her that. Then again the truth does not always pay off.

They have such "god awful small brains", they are easily confused and the only direction they are programmed to go is ahead, if they stop forward movement they suffocate in their own gases.

The shark is a very old species with good maiming adaptations,
but just not smart enough to have evolved very much in over a million years.

Best to you

No surpise that the Obama administration would be timid about doing so, but if the legislation survives, future Democratic administrations could make good use of these provisions.

Even when you're reaching for hate. Unfortunately single payer never had a chance...less than 10 votes. So either we keep "Obamacare" which has proven to do a lot of good considering the 70 to 80% of monies that doesn't go to profits or we stick to the same old which was bleeding us out. I see you prefer no.2.

Do you have any hard facts on what percentage of insurance industry premiums went for profits, executive compensation and administrative costs prior to passage of the "Health Insurance Industry and Big Pharma Protection Act"?

Additionally...you might want to clarify your statement from the President to the Senate and Congress since they voted and wrote the bill since that is their bloody duty as the Legislative Branch.

Would you like me to repost the articles that documented that?

were not even close to being there.

from the very beginning.

Even his personal physician of 20+ was suddenly uninvited to the televised WH town hall meeting, but there was Ron Williams from Aetna being able to ask a question.

No discussion allowed.

MDs I know agree with you. And so do I since I had to drop health insurance last year. Nothing in the ACA of 2010 will make me able to afford health insurance.

The law doesn't say that "administrative costs" will counted as part of the 80% that must be spent on patient care. This fear-mongerer is just assuming that they will be -- even though that goes against both common sense and any factual information that is out there.

Under group policies, the law allows only 20% for the combination of administrative costs, profit, and anything else that doesn't pay for actual patient care. That's why insurers weren't happy with it.

http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill05.pdf

Sec. 2718. Bringing down the cost of health care coverage. Health insurance companies will be required to report publicly the percentage of total premium revenue that is expended on clinical services, and quality rather than administrative costs. Health insurance companies will be required to refund each enrollee by the amount by which premium revenue expended by the health insurer for non-claims costs exceeds 20 percent in the group market and 25 percent in the individual market. The requirement to provide a refund expires on December 31, 2013, but the requirement to report percentages continues.

Doctors' staffs spend a lot of time wrestling with insurance companies.

Insurance company executives gotta live too, how can they hold their heads up among their peers if they don't have car elevators like Willard Romney?

Once an industry has become established it is owed an income, even if the government has to force people to buy their product.

Private insurance companies - those leaches who've been responsible for $380 billion in wasted healthcare dollars on bureaucracy and paperwork - are looking to be the beneficiaries of the $447 billion in taxpayer money for the mandate.

President Obama received a staggering $20,175,303 from the healthcare industry during the 2008 election cycle, nearly three times the amount of his presidential rival John McCain. McCain took in $7,758,289, the Center for Responsive Politics reported. Dave Levinthal, the Center's communications director said, "When you raise $20 million from one group, obviously they've curried some favor with you and you have a lot of people in that sector who support you." suppose?

Live on a mere seven hundred million bucks like some insurance executives do.

So many Cariter baubles to purchase. So many fourth and fifth vacation homes to select. So many varieties of yachts to choose from!

There aren't enough servants in the world to help a person keep up with the demands on one's time.

And no lower paid employees.

There are many many more other employees whose livelihoods are involved.

What exactly? That we need to have the folks inside the insurance companies who are basically paid to deny us our benefits so that they have jobs and their Big Executives can live like Pigs at the Troughs?

I went through a medical bankruptcy. It will still be possible for my family to be hit by another Medical Bankrupcy - on account of the fact that even with the ACA - there are co-pays etc.

One of the most vivid parts of the nightmares of what my family suffered in 2005 and 2006 was arguing with employees at the health Maintenance company that was not only our "health Insurer" but also our health care org.

They should have been happy to streamline things for us -after all, it was their mis-diagnosis that put us in this fix.

I think any one who works at a health insurance company should be having a hard time sleeping. People who have sick family members who're very ill need to be spending time with those family members and not on the phone trying to argue with these people.

I used to work for a Big Insurance company. I enjoyed my job. Back in the seventies, most banks and most insurers were basically honest companies. But these days 60% of the activities related to the the Health Insurance industry are fraudulent activities. And activities that end up denying care to the very people who are paying high premiums! My family could not even sue these people who screwed us over - as our computerized records relating to the mis-diagnosis were simply erased.

Are you saying claims adjusters must just grant all claims, covered by the policy or not? Why should people not sleep at night because they work for an insurance company? Just how high do you want to see unemployment go?

And before you start on the personal attack (since your personal anecdote is meant to guilt me into accepting your absurd premise) I just had to pay a lot out of pocket, since I have a high deductible, for some tests. Then I had to pay the premium for the quarter on top of that. I know the insurance does not cover the tests. So I'm to condemn the secretaries and janitors at the insurance company? It's their fault I chose I high deductible?

I know it's there in case of a big disaster that costs more than the deductible. That's the whole point of it.

If they really deny a covered claim then find a lawyer to go after them. They have deep pockets so lawyers love to go after them. There are laws in most states and "bad faith" insurance doctrines for where they truly don't pay claims they should.

They deleted our records.

Sometimes if the person dies, it is possible, but M. survived. Which is pretty amazing.
Let me repeat the following - I guess you missed it in my first post.

They deleted the records pertinent to the days of our visits when the mis-diagnosis occurs.

In other words, it would be our word that we went in on those days and were told that my spouse did not have diabetes, against their statement that we were never there.

And as far as this item you post:

Are you saying claims adjusters must just grant all claims, covered by the policy or not? Why should people not sleep at night because they work for an insurance company? Just how high do you want to see unemployment go?

Yes I am saying that all requests for care should be granted. After all, people do not just call up their insurers and say "Gee I feel like having an appendectomy to day. How about it?" The insurance client has a doctor who states they require the procedure.

Or in other words, what I am saying is that we as a nation need to do what every other civilized country does:
[h2][font color=red]
"Single Payer Universal Health Care!"


[/h2][/font color=red]

And as far as jobs - if people were given the go ahead, as they recently had been in the state of California, to grow medical marijuana, there would be jobs. Plenty of jobs. Likewise if people were given the ability to grow hemp.

Are you aware that there is a man who was living in the tremendously destitute areas of the Lakota reservation, and he had started supplying the public with hemp, as well as employing other Native Americans, and our beloved Federal government made a stink about it? He ahd to close down the operation and use the money he had made to fight for his freedom so he wouldn't end up in jail for "illegal growing." Even though there is no way at all that anyone can get high off Hemp.

there would be plenty of jobs, if we could get the noose that is the Huge Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Insurers and Financial People off our damn throats, let us get off the pavement and get to work!

can they explain how ANY business can pay salaries, phone bills, rent, billing, security, and whatever else they have to pay on just 15% of the gross?

I spent over 20 years in the casualty end of the insurance business and there were times when we thought an underwriting profit three years out of five was good. We also had lines where we aimed at a loss ratio just under 110%. There were reasons for that, and reasons why other insurance lines over the years have had to have underwriting profits to stay in business. But, never let facts stand in the way of a good rant, especially when reasonable explanations will be ignored anyway.

There are structural changes that will save a lot of money, such as uniform claim forms. Even more structural changes about how care is delivered will be of greater help, and that is where PNHP should have some expertise, but they don't talk much about that. Why don't they talk about that when such changes could be put in place now with without single payer, Obamacare, or anything else being changed?

Under the bus with them!

Health care business belongs to insurance, not those nurse and doctor posers!

Life cheer leading.

All the many things it has done, and only deliver a five percent profit.

We had this intensely passionate young black man, running for the US Senate seat out of Illinois, back in 2004. He understood that one way to help the nation was for a version of MediCare for all. He called it: Universal Single Payer HC.

And he stated that this could be done for the nation, as it was the most logical and best way to reform the Health Care system. And it would be done, he promised, as soon as we had a Democratic majority in both Houses, and a Dem in the WH.

Haven't seen that young passionate guy in many years.

and will do it again, but it's pretty clear at this point that it doesn't help...much

I sort of believed him.

you should have taken a longer/closer look at the expense for salaries that you mention.

I've written frequently in recent weeks about the eye-popping profits the big publicly traded health companies have been reporting. Last year -- as the number of Americans without health insurance grew to nearly 51 million -- the five largest for-profit insurers (Aetna, CIGNA, Humana, UnitedHealth and WellPoint) had combined profits of $11.7 billion.

But that was so 2010.

If the profits those companies made during the first three months of this year are an indication of things to come, 2011 will more than likely be the most profitable year ever...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wendell-potter/blue-cross-blue-shield-ge_b_856207.html

Anyway, you should just shush until the campaign is over...oh, wait..the campaign is never over.

It appears that postings by BBI negative about Obama. I don't trust his motive.

His issues have not changed, he simply will not change his values 180 degrees when "a Democrat does it".

It is called having a moral compass as opposed to shifting views to match those of the personality one idolizes.

There's another name for it too: thinking for oneself.

Sid

rather than insurance that is known more for medical bankruptcy and refusing procedures while skimming billions in profit for doing so. (I would recommend the documentary "sicko" by Michael Moore, as you appear to not know much about the issue)


I rather like his crystal clear agenda.

+1000000000000000000

Do you remember a few short years ago, when we were all so amazed at the Bushbots' ability to dismiss arguments and data that didn't mesh with the things they wanted to believe? They used the same little mental technique you just alluded to-- "I believe that person/outlet is a part of the conspiracy against my side, so I won't let their words in".

around here or have they simply been too busy to get to them yet?

false. I suspect that those who continue to downplay the good things in the law by trying to portray them as actually bad things are more afraid that people will like the bill.

The Bomb Buried In Obamacare Explodes Today-Hallelujah!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/12/02/the-bomb-buried-in-obamacare-explodes-today-halleluja/

Wendell Potter Agrees: Big-Profit Health Insurance Almost Dead
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002390746

Notice how the massive expansion of Medicaid gets little attention:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002495928

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002496395

you still miss the more important point.

Before the AHCA the Federal Government had zero power to enforce any MLR ratios.

Your emphasis on the waivers is odd. The operative agency OPM currently enforces MLR ratios for all federal employee plans and they average 18%. That would cut in half the MLR of the current system. If they can do it with federal employees then it is fairly safe to assume that they will achieve a similar result under the AHCA.

The first step is to establish federal authority and then to work to improve the ratios rather than have no power at all.

This is how Canada effected its single payer system, in small incremental steps.

Your inability to grasp the basic strategy here is consistent with your continuing inability to understand that legislation in the Senate requires a majority of 60 votes to invoke cloture.

Just a conintuing stream of misunderstanding, facts out of context and an absence of understanding how federal programs from Social Security to Medicare have all evolved, from simple basic plans to ones of increasing breadth and complexity.

To continue to bang the drum for 'all or nothing' is actually nothing more than a prescription to achieve nothing.

You're absolutely correct, between that damned filibuster and the likes of Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and others single payer didn't have a chance. So yes, while what we got wasn't all we wanted, it was a step in the right direction. And thankfully President Obama was wise enough to shepherd a bill through congress which at least made many improvements to the current system instead of walking away with nothing. Vaccinations are now covered with no co-pay as is much routine preventative testing. And of course insurance companies can't discriminate against those with pre-existing conditions. My kids will now have insurance while they're in college without it costing extra. And on and on. As you point out, the all-or-nothing mentality would have resulted in none of these improvements.

I don't think progressives won anything we wanted.

We didn't even get a public option!

But the insurance industry got a lock on the health care system.

That's a huge win for them!

Thanks for putting it together.

significant change, and the only reason to claim otherwise is to distort the impact of the legislation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002500237

Op-Ed Contributors
A One-Track Senate
By BARRY FRIEDMAN and ANDREW D. MARTIN
Barry Friedman is a vice dean at New York University School of Law. Andrew D. Martin is the chairman of the political science department and a professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis.
March 9, 2010

During the 1960s, the Senate was frozen by lengthy filibusters over civil rights legislation. When, in the mid-’70s, that tactic once again threatened to bring the Senate to a standstill, Robert Byrd, the West Virginia Democrat who was the majority whip, invented a dual-track system. This change in practice allowed the majority leader — with the unanimous consent of the Senate or the approval of the minority leader — to set aside whatever was being debated on the Senate floor and move immediately to another item on the agenda.

The result of tracking? No more marathon debate sessions that shut down the Senate. While one bill is being “filibustered,” business can continue on others.

Because dual-tracking is a Senate practice, not a formal rule, the majority leader, Harry Reid, could end tracking at any time. By doing so, the Democrats would transform the filibuster and recover their opportunity to govern effectively.

After all, filibusters historically broke when public opinion went against the Senate minority. If the Democratic leadership eliminated the dual-track system, serial, single-issue filibusters would give us an opportunity to see where the country actually stands on issues like health care reform and financial regulation — and where the Senate should stand.

Read the full article at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/opinion/10martin.html?_r=3


Filibuster in the United States Senate
From Wikipedia

"After a series of filibusters in the 1960s over civil rights legislation, the Senate put a "two-track system" into place in the early 1970s under the leadership of Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield and Byrd, who was at that time serving as Senate Majority Whip. Before the introduction of tracking, a filibuster would stop the Senate from moving on to any other legislative activity. Tracking allows the majority leader — with unanimous consent or the agreement by the minority leader — to have more than one bill pending on the floor as unfinished business. Under the "two-track system", the Senate can have two or more pieces of legislation pending on the floor simultaneously by designating specific periods during the day when each matter or measure will be considered."

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate


-----------------------------------------------------

ritique of the Senate Filibuster
By Roy Ulrich
Roy Ulrich is a researcher at Demos, a New York-based policy and advocacy organization
May 5, 2009

The extended speechifying made famous by Strom Thurmond and Huey Long before him has been replaced by what legal scholars Erwin Chemerinsky and Catherine Fisk have dubbed the "stealth" filibuster. Its genesis was the early 1970s, when it became apparent to then majority leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT) that delaying tactics such as objections to unanimous consent motions; forcing the previous day's journal to be read aloud in its entirety; suggesting the absence of a quorum; and -- of course -- extended periods of time holding the floor were causing the Senate to fall behind in doing the people's business. (Contrary to popular legend, the workload of the modern-day Senate is substantial. Most members could make a convincing argument for the proposition that they really don't have time to wait out a filibuster.) In response, Mansfield devised a "two-track" system where the mornings were devoted to filibustering and the afternoons to pressing business. With liberal Democrats taking the floor to argue against further funding of the Vietnam War and in favor of stripping right-to-work provisions out of federal labor laws, there was bipartisan support for his efforts. While this dual system may have solved Mansfield's problems over the short term, over the long term it has proved to be disastrous. An explanation for this statement is in order.

Rather than dividing mornings and afternoons between filibustered bills and other matters, over time the Senate has come to a point in time where it seldom takes up legislation unless the majority leadership has counted sixty votes. In other words, a credible threat that 41 senators won't vote for cloture is enough to keep a bill off the floor on most occasions. Boston College historian Julian Zeliger puts it this way: "Mansfield's measure, which was intended to promote efficiency, inadvertently encouraged filibusters by making them politically costless and painless."

One way for a senator to let her colleagues know that she intends to pursue a filibuster is to place a "hold" on a bill, thereby letting her colleagues know she will not accede to unanimous consent. Congressional scholar Norman Ornstein has noted that in the modern Senate holds "are routinely employed -- often anonymously -- against bills or people the senator has nothing against, but wants to take as hostages for leverage on something utterly unrelated to the hold itself."

If members actually had to hold the floor as in the days of Senators Long and Thurmond, most filibusters would end quickly. The reason is that we live in an age where this public disgust over partisan gridlock. Public airing of the old-fashioned filibuster on C-Span and elsewhere would not be something most Senators would want the public to see. In the current climate, it would be sound political strategy for Senate Majority leader Harry Reid to force the Republicans to engage in extended debate on a major issue such as health care reform. Best of all, no change in Senate rules would be required.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roy-ulrich/a-critique-of-the-senate_b_193221.html


----------------------------------------------------



Reid triggers ‘nuclear option’ to change Senate rules, end repeat filibusters
By Alexander Bolton
October 6, 2011

In a shocking development Thursday evening, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) triggered a rarely used procedural option informally called the “nuclear option” to change the Senate rules.

Reid and 50 members of his caucus voted to change Senate rules unilaterally to prevent Republicans from forcing votes on uncomfortable amendments after the chamber has voted to move to final passage of a bill.

Reid’s coup passed by a vote of 51-48, leaving Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fuming.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/186133-reid-triggers-nuclear-option-to-change-senate-rules-and-prohibit-post-cloture-filibusters


----------------------------------------------------

Dick Durbin: Let GOP filibuster
By MANU RAJU
March 4, 2010

Senate Democrats may be ready to actually make Republicans carry out filibusters. Basking in their political victory over Sen. Jim Bunning’s (R-Ky.) blockade of an extension of unemployment insurance, Democrats say that they may force Republicans to talk endlessly on the floor in the months leading up to November’s elections.

For months, House Democrats — and liberal activists — have implored Senate Democrats to let filibusters unfold over hours on the Senate floor, rather than try disposing of Senate business with cloture votes and unanimous consent requests.

Asked Thursday why Senate Democrats don’t force Republicans to carry out filibusters, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said, “We may.”

“When we think the Republicans are being unreasonable — we’re going to consider our options under the rules of the Senate, I think there is a feeling after what we went through with Sen. Bunning’s blockage and unemployment benefits that we need to stand up more and make it clear what this obstruction costs,” Durbin said.

In the past, Democrats have hesitated to employ the tactic, fearing that it would serve only to bottle up the agenda further and create even worse perceptions of the Democratic-led Congress. Instead, when Republicans have threatened to filibuster, Democrats pull the legislation from the floor if they lack the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

Read the full article at:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33920.html

discussion is unlikely to have any impact.


Let's back up a little.

In a related thread you said

"News flash! It only takes 51 votes to pass legislation in the Senate, not 60."

This was shown to be nonsense and so you moved to post threads that make it appear that Reid has used the rules to 'suspend' the filibuster.

That simply is not the case.

In the thread that you refer where Reid used the 'nuclear' option, he in fact did not use the nuclear option to 'suspend' the filibuster;

He used the 'nuclear option' to curb additional ammendments to a bill that had already passed colture and therefore was instituting an interpretation to the rules (not a new rule) that you could not have repeated flilibusters after a vote for culture had been passed.



The Nuclear Option is not a motion to change the rules on cloture. To ammend the rules on cloture you would have to have two thirds of the Senators Present

quote

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%26%2A2%3C4QLS%3E%0A

However, invoking cloture on a measure or motion to amend the Senate’s rules requires the votes of two-thirds of the Senators present and voting, or 67 votes if all 100 Senators vote.

Unquote

If you had 10 Senators present then you could change the rules on Cloture with only 7 Senators.



Let's be clear on the fact so far;

1) You have to have 60 Senators to invoke Cloture

2) You have to have Two thirds of the Senators present to change the rules of Cloture.


You have moved from the silly ""News flash! It only takes 51 votes to pass legislation in the Senate, not 60."

to the somewhat more reasonable but still eroneous assertion by implication that by using 51 votes you can change the rules of the Senate.

This is simply NOT TRUE. Quoting other equally uninformed sources that it is, doesn't change the fact that it is not true.


Please read this carefully so that you don't continue to misunderstand and mistate this on a daily basis;

The 'Nuclear Option' is not an attempt to change or ammend a Senate Rule.

The 'Nuclear Option' is a procedure where the procedure of the filibuster is FOUND TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IT IS THEN APPEALED AND AFFIRMED BY THE MAJORITY AND THEN IS ESTABLISHED AS A PRECEDENT. IF PASSED BY A MAJORITY THEN IT WOULD BE HELD AS A PERMANENT PRECEDENT AND THE FILIBUSTER, OR SUPER MAJORITY FOR CLOTURE COULD NEVER BE USED AGAIN.

As evidence I now cite this explanation from the Wikipedia page





The Nuclear Option has never been used, because if it had been then the filibuster would be finished. As the same article explains;




So in the article that is quoted above the writer is completely incorrect that the 'nuclear option' was used to stop a filibuster. In that case the filibuster was already ended and Reid used the same procedure above to find that parlimentary moves after the vote for cloture was taken was unconstitutional.

Summary

We have no proven that;

1) Senate Rules for Cloture require 60 votes

2) Senate Rules for Changing the Rules for Cloture require 2/3rds of the Senators Present.

3) The so called 'nuclear option' would not close debate on a particular bill but it would raise the issue of the filibuster as unconstitutional and after a ruling from the Chair could be decided by 51 Senators. It would however become a precident and forever eliminate the filibuster on all bills.

To continue to post multiple posts suggesting that the President could have passed single payer or the public option with 51 votes is nonsense.

I have now proven this in detail. To continue to do so really calls into question your ability to understand the basic issues at hand.

I don't know about quantity but the quality is downright exemplary.

Thank you.

You seem to be confusing ending debate (cloture) which needs 60 votes unless the Senate leadership decides to bypass or change Senate rules with 51 votes needed to actually pass legislation.

It's really not all that complicated or difficult to understand.

The incremental part was province by province. Which is the way it will have to be done here.

Eridani, do you think the health insurers and the hospital medical corporations will ever let us have universal health care?

I'm despairing because I have studied the system long enough to know huge profits are driving it.

It's even possible that some people on this very board who are satisfied with ACA2010 and defend it may be invested in healthcare related stocks, iykwim.

Nationally--no way.

The insurers , pharma and hospital corporations as well as the politicians who depend on their money will never let single payer happen. Canada did not do it like this.

Sid

each year because they have no coverage.

How does posting an erroneous article further the cause?

He has yet, even tho I have asked several times, to answer the question, "how is the fight going in your country to replace your health care system with an ACA controlled by insurance as you push so hard for in the US"

He answers only with a laughing smiley, he is here it would most certainly appear, only to laugh at us from the sidelines with no skin in the game, from the laughy responses, and no attempt to discuss whatsoever, I can only conclude that he comes here merely for amusement at our expense (those that die from spreadsheet etc,). I don't think people dying is funny. he appears to.

The only other possible conclusion I can reach is, the argument to replace Canadian Health Care With Newt Care that he loves so much is not going very well and he is embarrassed and thus refuses to discuss it.

He is here to laugh, not reply, if he replies, mark my words, it will be with a no word post that has a laughing smiley in the body, that appears to be the extent of his discussion abilities.

This is OUR business and as I just told him, we WILL keep trying and fighting for a national healthcare system and I am grateful to people like BBI who refuse to be intimidated into remaining silent when so many American lives have been lost tragically, because we in this so-called first world country refuse to treat people who are sick and are willing to let them die in order for the Predatory Health Insurance Corps to profit from sickness.

How much more ghoulish can it be and what does it say about a country that will not provide the basic right, because it is a right, to healthcare that every other civilized nation provides, putting People first, rather than the bottom line of an unnecessary and useless entity that exists purely to suck up funds, now from the public trough.

I sincerely and I mean this, hope that Cid never experiences what most of us here have experience, the tragedy of watching a loved one die for lack of health care. Maybe if ever did, he would not find it all so amusing. As you say, there is nothing amusing about people dying, especially when they do not have to.

Get the Corporations out of our HC system and the money out of our Government.

I loathe to do this and have yet to actually do it, but do you think that if I posted a picture of my wife that died from spreadsheet (we were well covered and insurance companies delayed care until it was too late).

Do you think he would somehow get that here it is no joking matter, here insurance companies kill real people?
I would only do such a crass thing if it would have an effect. Do you think it will?

Personally, from what I have seen of people who were willing to go along with no public option, who make excuses as to why it was never even an option, they know that people are dying and have died as a result of our shameful excuse for a HC system. For some reason even when the figures were released, over 44,000 people a year, it did not move them one bit. Some I know truly believed we were getting the best we could, but many cared only about our team winning.

I am certain that Cid knows the numbers, has seen the stories, and if he still thinks it's a laughing matter knowing these things, then I doubt anything will change that. But who knows, anything is possible. But is it worth it? I am not personally interested in the opinions of people who 'have theirs' but who have the gall to work against us 'having ours'. It really is none of their business unless they support the majority of Americans who DO want Medicare for All. If not, then they can laugh all they want, but they can expect to be told to 'mind your own business'.

I would think it would be an emotional thing for you to do, and I do not think it is worth risking the reaction. Although writing an OP about what you experienced would be a good thing imo, and in that OP, where you would be assured of a more respectful reaction, you could consider posting the picture. What do you think your wife would want you to do? That's what I consider first and foremost. Do not allow people who are so cavalier about the lives of other people, to influence you, is how I feel about it.

Again, I am truly sorry for your loss.

by showing her in such a shape, it is not that she was overly prideful of her appearance so much as she tried to keep her problems and the effects on her body private. She would understand but would prefer of course only to be shown as herself, before her illness. A girl likes to look pretty even if not overly prideful of appearance.

I may write an OP.
Because the truth should be known about each and every victim of the insurance cartels that I consider to be murderers (I can't help but say that of them, I know one should not in a PC world but can't help it).

If I do, it will be very emotional and will take some time and many breaks to endure the feelings.
I may not in replying to responses be very forgiving of those that would dismiss her and others because of cult of personality issues.

It may be what gets me finally banned.
I have to sleep on it.

PS You give good advice.

That's why I asked

Alan Grayson asked people who had suffered losses such as yours as a result of the Insurance run HC system we live under to write their stories to him. He posted those stories, many of them, in fact most of them, absolutely heart-breaking. I doubt Republicans even read them. So heartless are they.

I guess I feel that if people find our system that kills tens of thousands of Americans each year, amusing, there is simply no reaching them and as we move forward, it is not worth wasting important and needed energy attempting to do so. Just leave them behind, if they won't help, push them out of the way.

Only do what is best for you considering all of that. I can understand completely why you feel that the Insurance Corps are murderers. Too many stories of people who were deliberately refused coverage and died as a result, to not conclude that life means nothing to many of them. My sister worked for Aetna for a while, which is where she learned just how bad it was. Eg they were trained to only give a certain number of minutes to people calling to get information on their policies. Many elderly people were confused eg, and she found it impossible to hang up on them as required by the company.

Cold, calculating, profit driven, heartless entities. In a just society they would have to answer in court for their decisions. I mean criminal court.

Take it easy and know that a lot of people agree with you, and if we're talking globally, a huge majority.

Sid

is just not funny enough anymore.

There are a few jokes for you guys right there! Find a Homeless American they are probably an endless source of comedy gold for comedy connoisseurs such as yourselves.

I believe that you can get them to fight each other for food!

Now it's your misfortune to be covered by insurance.

We get that you'd prefer single payor - so do we. We just wonder how to get that passed and your whinging does not do a thing to met that goal.

To advocate more of that for us (but not himself) while laughing at such results, what sort of man does that make him?

Insurance will not help me, health care will.
Insurance kills, it is how they make money, by denying health care.

I'm sorry that some here think that other people's personal tragedies are something to laugh at.

I went to a breast cancer fundraiser so a friend could pay her 800 dollar co pay for her chemo treatment last week. That is a disgrace that we in America have to do that.

dozen times and he only answers by laughing at our plight.
One wonders why someone that only laughs at us yet will not respond has somehow avoided a granite pizza.

November 2011, our government spent over 255 Billions of dollars "modernizing" our military equipment. And of course, giving away military equipment to the UAE and Israel.

Why? So that we will now have spent more than the next 35 other top military-spending nations combined? Rather than just the top 25 nations?

Either that or they know and are lying to get another anti-Obamacare talking point for folks that won't bother to educate themselves. The 80-85% MLR requires that companies spend that much of the premium on CARE. It doesn't include any administrative fees. I have worked for a health plan and operated under a 85% MLR required by the State for Medicaid business. Our health plan which was a publicly traded company was profitable. Insurance companies will make money under the new 80-85% MLR rules but they may not be able to hand out the kind of multi-million dollar bonuses to their CEOs that they currently do.

If they don't find a way to get around it, it will reduce their profits.

Regardless, it will prove a stupid way to try to control costs. Were it to work as planned, the best way to expand the bottom line is simply to allow more of the charges, which in turn would motivate providers to up charges.

The measure is also rather toothless as the only hammer to drive the nail is access to the exchanges, which are willfully sequestered from most people and the cartel is allowed to collude, they could decide that none of them are going to comply and HHS can sit and spin because they have to have carriers to make the deal work, there is no one else to provide coverage.

I don't see "the hand" that some keep going on about, in fact it seems more like the whole deal depends on the willing compliance of the cartel to work where the rubber mets the road at all.

The government isn't controlling the cartel, it is partnering with it. Without them the whole effort is nothing.

As you said, Insurance companies will make money, that is what this is all about in the end isn't it.

and i got that from somone inside the industry

I was beginning to think I had woken up in a system where MediCare was not operating with that five percent profit!

I believe you and I are the only ones bringing up that point.