Cheat Sheet
The Best In Brief
The GOP's Lone Health-Care Vote
The passing of the health-care bill in the House has given one politician a bit of instant celebrity: Rep. Joseph Cao of Louisiana voted a quick and decisive “yes” on the bill, the only Republican in the house to do so. "I have always said that I would put aside partisan wrangling to do the business of the people. My vote tonight was based on my priority of doing what is best for my constituents," said Cao, who represents areas around New Orleans with the highest rates of poverty in the U.S. and which were hit hard by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Cao isn’t the only one in D.C. in the spotlight after yesterday’s vote: Harry Reid is now under pressure after changing positions to support the controversial public option, and faces an uphill battle to bring together moderate and liberal Democratic senators to combine a Senate version of the bill with the one from the House. “No one was going to be perfectly happy with anything done—stronger public option, no public option, no one was going to be completely happy,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in support of Reid’s efforts. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) summed up the coming negotiations, saying, “I think a showdown is going to happen no matter what.”
Partner Sites: Expedia| Hotels| Hotwire| Urbanspoon| Vimeo
To truly bring down costs, we need single payer and a spreading of the risk amongst the entire population.
The fact that 39 democrats voted against Obamacare is far more interesting then one republican who voted for it.
The bi-partisan opposition to Obamacare is growing.
Surprised you are even showing up today, guess you always hope their are new suckers on here to ply your bs to. The Republicans are oppositional and defiant, Pres. Obama does not take it personally. Go back to staring at you navel.
They weren't needed and they weren't pushed so they could kowtow to conservative voters in next year's election.
plant must get dizzy from all the spinning.
Plant just doesn't know what a big party tent looks like. Funny isn't it, that Democrats can make room for blue dogs, moderates and progressives. On the other hand you have a small tent party. No room for moderates, people of color, pro choice, gays or anyone else except teabaggers. Thats why you guys will be spending a lot of time out in the weeds.
Plant: I don't know how else to say this, YOU'RE AN IDIOT.
jojo,
There are a million ways to say it, but you said it best.
Either you are on the side of the Insurance Companies and their Monster Profits, or you are on the side of the American People, who with the more affordable public option, can more readily build a better life for their families. Pick One.
Cao will be the new Dede in 2010 now.
Thanks for making the bill Bipartisan Cao!
/passes the popcorn
You obviously don't know Cao's district. Cao voted this way in the desperate hope that it might make him look liberal enough to keep his job. This seat was held by William Jefferson before Cao, so the only reason a Republican won it was because of massive corruption. It will swing back blue.
Just another Republican trick, Cao is a devout Catholic and a yea vote on the Stupak Admendment along with the other 126 Republicans. In no way did he betray his party.
I should also point out that 64 dems also voted yea, with 194 dems voting no.
Correction 175 republicans voted yea with Cao., 64 dems yea---194 Dems NO.
At least one republican rose above the insanity that has become the Republican party. Agreed, a single payer system will be best for American- but there is an awful lot of money flowing out of the medical insurance companies to Republicans and tv ads, scaring the public silly. If they manage to get anything significant passed it will be a miracle.
At least 39 democrats rose above the insanity that has become the Democrat party. Agreed, most Americans are happy with their current insurance- but there is an awful lot of money flowing out of the trial lawyers and Wall Street to Democrats and tv ads, scaring the public silly. If they manage to stop Obamacare and defeat the BOers it will be a miracle.
How do you know that most people are happy with their current health insurance? Most people have insurance threw their employer's, but when they lose or change jobs they don't seem to be to happy. Also, when people get a catastrophic illness they become less happy with their health insurance. As long as you stay healthy you are right, most people are happy.
I think you're the one scared silly, plant.
At least there was one decent Repub at the end of the day. I used to vote Republican but never again, not after the implosion of the Bush years--the economy, the war, the needless spending. I'm an independent and I agreed with Obama on the stimulus plan and I agree with him on healthcare. Enough delay. Get it done, Senators.
that republican is not alone
I am an overly taxed (40% FICA\Fed\NY\NJ plus $11,000 property tax) NJ republican, and I can liver with this bill because the public option is going to be funded through premiums charged and not tax dollars.
If it were going to be funded by premiums instead of taxes, why would the government need to be involved?
Do you really believe that the government can produce something more efficiently than the private market?
I think that could be another "Jeff Foxworthy moment":
If you believe that the government can produce something more efficiently than the private market ... you MIGHT be a loonie leftie!
Lol did you just call laughorcry loonie LEFTY? LMAO just when I think I've seen it all. You just outdone maryfrost in being completely stupid and clueless, Laugh whines about taxes on such a daily bases that anyone can tell he's not leftwing, pay attention.
I found a new favorite idiot poster. Congrats romeo.
I did not call "laughorcry" a loonie leftie.
Because he seems to think that the "public option" will be paid for purely by premiums (a truly loony notion), I asked him if he seriously thought that government can produce something -- in this case, health care insurance -- more efficiently than can the private sector. He can decide whether he's in the Jeff Foxworthy moment.
I'm sure YOU don't think the public option will be paid for purely by premiums, do you, Progressive2? Or that the government can provide a good or service more efficiently than the free market, do you, Progressive2?
If so, then you are in a Foxworthy moment.
Btw, I know you won't answer the questions (as the answers would make my case), so please don't bother to respond with your predictable name-calling.
Ditto for SocialSecretion.
THIS HAS LITTLE TO DO WITH GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY. We do not pay government bureaucrats salaries like those listed below.
Ins. Co. & CEO With 2008 Total CEO Compensation
Aetna, Ronald A. Williams: $24,300,112
Cigna, H. Edward Hanway: $12,236,740
Coventry, Dale Wolf: $9,047,469
Health Net, Jay Gellert: $4,425,355
Humana, Michael McCallister: $4,764,309
U. Health Group, Stephen J. Hemsley: $3,241,042
Wellpoint, Angela Braly: $9,844,212
I am reasonably happy with my health insurance. Why? Because we have Medicare, a government, single payer plan. Because we have Tricare for Life, a government single payer plan for retired military. Because I can go to the VA if I wish, a government hospital system, and sometimes I can go to a military medical facility if one is nearby and they have room for retired people.
I cannot believe that those who are paying thousands and thousands of dollars a year for a private plan that turns down so many claims, boots out those who get sick, finds that beiing female and getting pregnant is a pre-existing condition, people with those plans are happy.
I'd love to know how many of the loudmouth Obama haters and anti-government posters in this page are Medicare recipients, and how many have turned down Medicare benefits because they come from the government.
My husband and I are on Medicare, which we contributed to in the form of FICA taxes throughout the years of our employment, and we still continue to pay into Medicare, which is deducted from our Social Security payment every month. Also money is taken our of our accounts every month for the prescription drug plan. We also pay for the supplemental every month.
What has been reported is that there is a large unfunded liability with Medicare, something that many feel should have been addressed a long time ago by both parties. None of us know how this is going to play out in the Senate, but it would seem that any program is going to mean higher taxes for the working people. I don't see that a 5% raise in taxes on the wealthy will cover the amount needed to fund a new program, when the funding for Medicare seems to be at risk.
The cost of insurance for working people has gotten extremely high; there's no argument there. But many have suggested that if health insurance could be pruchased the same way we buy car insurance, making it protable, and HSA's were encouraged, and large pools created for people with pre-existing conditions, that would help to lower the cost of private insurance. Hell, for all we know, this may be part on health insurance reform when it is finalized.
Questioning and suggesting shouldn't translate into love or hate for a leader. Never had either of those feelings for this President or any of his preecessors. They do the best they can, given the circumstances they find this country to be in. Some do it better, and some, not so good...........
The public option is funded by premiums, just like any other insurance plan. The difference is that you take away the billions of dollars of overhead that all the insurance execs take and boom, you have a cheaper insurance plan. That is the public option, and I don't know why it is so hard for people to understand. It could also be called a non-profit insurance company if that is easier to picture. A great idea to lower costs and enourage competition.
First of all you DIDN'T pay for Medicare through FICA. Medicare is it's own tax.
Next. HSAs are a fraud. It's been shown over and over again that they do nothing to help low and middle class people who aren't covered by an employer plan.
People with high deductible plans simply don't have enough "disposable" income to cover the deductible in addition to premiums BEFORE the health insurance company pays a dime.
Two or so years ago, at a healthcare forum in D.C. the HSA proponetn was booed off the stage.
We need to get profit out of healthcare. Many states have tried creating insurance pools for those with pre-existing conditions. A friend has life long kidney disease. His state pool insurance premium is $1,000 a month. He doesn't know how long he can keep up the payments.
It's perfectly OK even encouraged that we, the citizens of this country, should question our leaders. But few do any critical thinking. Just toss "bombs" that create false images and belief, but rile the masses into hysteria.
Only when this country INSISTS that patients are more important than profit will we really see change.
Medicare won't be at risk when fraud and abuse are eliminated or severly curtailed which is a priority of this administration.
Why don't we "take the profit out" of housing? Don't people need housing? Shouldn't housing be guaranteed to all?
Why don't we "take the profit out" of food? Don't people need food?
Why don't we "take the profit out" of shoes? Don't people need shoes?
Oh Hell, why not make it simple (and just!) and just "take the profit out" of everything? That way everyone will have what they want and there will be no more suffering.
You dope, it's not taking the profit out of healthcare. Only the profit of the billionare insurance exes. Those billions of dollars that a few executives skim off the top would then be freed up for the people to stimulate the economy in ways that would benefit themselves as well. And the healthcare industry will be getting just as much money. Plus, this option would be used primarily by people who curently have no insurance. Most people would keep their current insurance, including you, so why are you so upset? Hopefully people like you will snap out of it eventually.
Mix; In our case, we had a HSA, and it worked very well. It put us in control of our medications, by instructing our docs to pick substitutes for the expensive medication we were prescribed. They did, and the meds for both of us actually worked better than the original prescriptions, and at about 3 quarters of the cost. When we saw our docs, we had to pay $20.00 for the office visit, and the rest was paid from the savings account. Fortunately, we're in reasonably good health, and had money left over in the account, which was added to the following year's account. When we retired, the money in the account was refunded. All that I am saying is that it was a cheaper policy, it put us in control, and saved us money. This isn't "bomb throwing" but my experience.
Carole65, stop making sense. Take the SocialSecretion pill and believe that government control of your health care decisions will result in a better outcome for you and your family.
Is this surprising? Cao was merely voting in an attempt to keep his job. He represents a overwhelmingly democrat district, which he was only able to win because: (1) William Jefferson was about to be convicted, and (2) the election was delayed until after the presidential election by a hurricane. Talk about a perfect storm, this district had not been represented by a republican since 1891.
Somehow because there is no flame or billowing smoke, people miss the terrible crime, the slow-motion, silent massacre of 122 Americans a day who die only because of a lack of health coverage. ( http://tinyurl.com/l7cy8u )
7000 cherished Americans perish by Christmas. 19,000 fallen by Easter. If you do have health care to be happy with, you're lucky. Do unto others, say.
Well-said.
My God............if your statistics are correct all 40,000 uninsured will be dead by summer and there will be no one left to cover. Does your tinyurl site tell you how many with insurance are dying every day? Pardon my glibness, but those kind of statistics don't move me anymore than the Rep. and Dem. who showed up in Congress yesterday with their respective Grandchildren to make a point.
that number comes from people who's illnesses would have been caught and cured IF they were able to come in for routine check-ups. If they had affordable insurance they could have done that. Sure, some of them would still not have come in for routine check-ups, but that doesn't change the argument.
also, carlole65, it is over 40 MILLION uninsured, not thousand, geez... quit telling lies.
SocSec: An error in typing doesn't change the debate. I won't hold you responsible for the spelling of my name, either.
One thing I know for sure is that we're all going to die someday, whether we're insured or not. I consider it to be a false argument. One could ask how many insured die every year from treatment. That, too, would be a false argument.
The issue is that many can not afford health insurance. The remedy for people obtaining health insurance is the debate. Many of us simply don't think that the government can make it any more afforadable than private companies, because health care will not get any cheaper. Taxes will necessarily have to rise and rationing will be in place to try to keep the cost down.
It will, however, be interesting to see what the final bill is, if the Senate can reach consensus.
This is the now-discredited claim that "45,000 Americans die every year from lack of health insurance". Even Obama says it's only 18,000. Are you calling him a liar?
Two million, four hundred twenty-six thousand, two hundred sixty-four (2,426,264) deaths were reported in the U.S. in 2006 according to the U.S. government. If Obama is right that "18,000 died for lack of health insurance", that's 0.7% of the total. And some loons want to destroy the health insurance system over 0.7%?
I wonder if the Heritage Foundation or Cato Institute could give us a figure on how many Americans die due to high taxes....
Wow that's a ridiculous arguement. So, terrorism has killed far fewer Americans than those that die each year to lack of health insurance, so why fight terrorism? Does that make sense to you? And nobody has died fom paying too much taxes. Nobody gets poor by paying taxes.
If the Democrats responded to terrorism the way they responded to the health care insurance problems -- problems which are caused by the government itself -- they would advocate drafting us all into the Army.
Out of that vast collection of Republicant low-lifes, only ONE could summon forth a tiny bit of human decency to vote for a life-saving bill. Just ANOTHER appaling act of right-wing cowardice.
What was interesting was Mr Cao was a sane minority in a party of ****teabaggers****
social,
the big thing for me was funding the public option with premiums, that's NOT how medicare is run. I have nothing against Bezvodka or carole65 but their medicare has a $45 trillion dollar unfunded liability because it is funded by deficits instead of by premiums. Medicare is projecting deficits for the next 70 years because it is funded byt deficits.
The original HR bill did not force medicare to be funded by premiums. Thanks to vigorous national debate they woke up and forced it to be funded by premiums. If we rolled over in august we would have had a deficit funded public option, nancy, harry and obama actually wanted that... they are fiscally dangerous and we must keep on reading the details and debating the substance.
It is my understanding that the public option always was going to be funded by premiums. It was the Single Payer system that would have been funded by the government. And Obama didn't even push for that one, yet they still call him a socialist?
FINALLY an UNSELFISH politician who thinks of his people other than himself,and does'nt care about his next term ,but cares about the health of america , God Bless him.
" NOW " thats a real Re-publican unlike the rest of the PHONYS,FAKES and FRAUDS in his party ,who say I am christian ,But I don't want to help out the poor and needy as jesus the christ did....! you been mormonized by Glenn Beck
i understand why some republicans are skeptical... I mean the medicare deficit $45 TRILLION and they are projecting deficits for 70 years.. that is absolute madness that could ruin the nation.
I respect those who oppose this even while I support the compromise of forcing the public option to be funded by premiums
it has nothing to do with christianity
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
The Teabagging Media (TBM) gives a pat on the head to the one Republican who voted for Pelosi.
How about some fawning coverage on the 39 Democrats who voted against? Yeah, like that will ever happen.
Earth to you.
Cao is important because the bill passed. IF the bill failed the people who voted AGAINST it would be important.
The only teabaggers are the ones who called themselves that before knowing what the term actually meant.
No, silly. First, Cao is not important because the bill passed. It would have passed WITHOUT his vote. The corporate-owned Teabagging Media (TBM; formerly the MSM) is just giving him a pat on the head as a way of encouraging other Republicans to do their bidding. The TBM gives the 39 Democrats the cold shoulder as punishment for not obeying them.
As for "teabagging", the Tea Party protestors did not come up with that term. As you aptly point out, almost none of them would know that it is a reference to a parculiar sexual practice, so why would they choose that strange name? No, it was the TBM that started using the term (I first saw it on CNN).
Now that the old, elite forms of media are wasting down to nothing, many people have said we need to find a new term because "Mainstream Media" clearly no longer applies. I think "Teabagging Media" is apt. After all, we saw how the WH press corps jumped to their feet when Obama entered the room, after remaining seated every time Bush came. And we know given their 96% Dem loyalty that it would have been more appropriate for them to have fallen to their knees and opened their mouths. They're "Teabaggers For Obama".
Obama knows this. It's not a secret, crymeariver. At an address to the White House Correspondents Dinner he said, "Many of you covered my campaign; all of you voted for me." Laughter followed by rapturous applause. (He did then add, "Apologies to the Fox table.")
So they're now the TBM. And always will be. You can google the term "teabagging media" and see it's already spreading throughout the world wide web.
Barack Obama must be trying to post his comments in
The Daily Beast.This must be why The Daily Beast has been
removing 7 or 8 comments in a row.
" This comment has been removed by the The Daily Beast "
The Daily Beast,can you please,let Barack Obama post his
comments.Barack Obama is the only hero the USA taxpayers
have.
At least the Beast editors are honest enough to let you know they exercised their prerogative. Their web site; their option.
I saw a map recently that highlighted minimally insured states - most of which were Republican.
Since health-care is good for people and Republicans vote against it are the residents of these states exceptionally healthy or exceptionally dumb (for voting Republican)?
DakLak asks, "Since [government] health-care is good for people and Republicans vote against it are the residents of these states exceptionally healthy or exceptionally dumb (for voting Republican)?"
Good question -- after we add "government", since, obviously, no one is "voting against health care per se".
So, what kind of people would be least likely to buy health insurance? You suggest two possibilties, the "exceptionally healthy or exceptionally dumb".
Bingo, you nailed it, sort of. The number one group of people least likely to buy health insurance are what the insurance industry itself calls "the Invincibles". These are young, healthy adults who would rather spend their limited funds on things other than health insurance.
(I used to be an Invincible. As a young healthy adult I didn't buy health insurance until I was about 37 or so -- about the time my first child was born. I am very glad that I was not forced to buy health insurance when I was a poor struggling college student. And even after waiting until my late-30s, it's been a huge waste of money for me so far. I only bought it so that SHOULD something bad happen to my health, my children won't be impoverished by it.)
But back to your point. I suspect if you compared a map of the states with the highest percentages of people in their 20s -- the "Invincibles" who are most likely to be "exceptionally healthy" -- you would see that it matches almost exactly with the map of the lowest rates of insured people.
Btw, it's smart not to buy something you're unlikely to need. So the Invincibles are both exceptionally healthy AND smart.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.