PDA

View Full Version : You Can Keep Your Healthcare?



AJBIGJ
11-13-2013, 11:53 AM
This is not another attempt to simply slam the President for misspeaking... a few times, about grandfathering of previous healthcare plans, it's honestly not.

However, I am sure even the most progressive among our ranks who are probably not that interested in rollout difficulties at the moment are probably acquainted with this development:

Clinton says President should honor his statement to let people keep their healthcare plans:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57611993/bill-clinton-says-obama-should-honor-health-care-promise/

This title of this thread was written in a deliberate fashion to catch the attention of Democrats on the defensive though. I'm actually playing the devil's advocate to myself here and offering suggestions that may be costly to my desires.

What are your thoughts on the bill in the house to allow people to keep their healthcare plans?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/11/12/democrat-barrow-endorses-house-gops-keep-your-health-plan-act/

I do not have all of the numbers in front of me, but I am under the distinctive impression that the arithmetic won't play out very well if this law passes, effectively making the cost untenable if additional revenues are not acquired somehow.

How to go about that? Well I see a couple of methods, the default go to one seems to be adjusting tax rates, which is questionably effective depending on how it's implemented. I do know that will not help these PR issues the Democrats are encountering with the rollout. Another method is just to let the extra debt build, I do not think that will go over well. One additional method is to leave it to the free market, that will essentially allow the ACA approved plans to adjust their pricing to accommodate the lack of revenues. Of course this simply means the prices will rise to handle the additional cost burden, by how much is to be seen.

If I were a savvy progressive who wishes to at least retain political share in government, I would definitely consider the third option as a viable method. This bill has a high probability of causing the ACA to tank disastrously, if the Democratic PR network managed to convince the average American that the shutdown was a Tea Party shutdown, placing blame on Republicans this time should be childplay by comparison. This is also, in my perspective, the ticket to get the single payer system many of you desire. When the average voter sees the prices rise on this level, it will not be difficult to convince them the pricing can be set lowest with government at the helm and that the single payer system will be the solution to this rise in prices. Will it work? It depends where the voting numbers lie.

I do think this is Clinton's angle in all of this, he may be distancing himself from Obama to usher in Hillary and single payer healthcare. The timing would workout well, if Democrats can hold the Senate and maybe gain some positions in the house in 2014 and 2016 the timetable would probably work out very well for it. Obviously there's a certain amount of risk-taking involved here, and obviously the question of whether Reid would cooperate and the President would use his veto authority. Much like the fracturing of the "Right" in October, we are beginning to see similar things now with the "Left".

Should Democrats stand behind this healthcare law, or is it time to allow the transition many of you seek?

imnohero
11-13-2013, 12:17 PM
I've seen this in the news, and I'm left with 2 questions:

1) What insurance is being dropped and why? I've seen a lot of rhetoric but few facts on this point. (e.g. are the policies being dropped ones that don't meet minimum standars under ACA)

2) Did the President make a "promise" he had no ability to keep? If so, this is a political mistake, not one in the law...does it really need "fixing"?

imported_WILDJOKER5
11-13-2013, 12:27 PM
I've seen this in the news, and I'm left with 2 questions:

1) What insurance is being dropped and why? I've seen a lot of rhetoric but few facts on this point. (e.g. are the policies being dropped ones that don't meet minimum standars under ACA)Yes, thats a reason the insurance is being dropped. The 40 y/o males with no kids or wife who never wanted Maternity care or pediatric dental on their plans are being dropped. Women who dont need prostate coverage are being dropped.


2) Did the President make a "promise" he had no ability to keep? If so, this is a political mistake, not one in the law...does it really need "fixing"?
Yeah, I guess he should have read the bill before he made those promises. But then again, no one read the bill before it was passed.

AJBIGJ
11-13-2013, 12:29 PM
I've seen this in the news, and I'm left with 2 questions:

1) What insurance is being dropped and why? I've seen a lot of rhetoric but few facts on this point. (e.g. are the policies being dropped ones that don't meet minimum standars under ACA)

2) Did the President make a "promise" he had no ability to keep? If so, this is a political mistake, not one in the law...does it really need "fixing"?

The answer to your second question is obviously yes, based on the information referenced below, the question being more of whether he knew it or not at the time he was making the promises, I'll leave that to speculation.

Here is the basis of the former, which is not all right-biased information sources:
One can pick and choose what they believe, but it is not even an argument whether some plans are being lost or not at this time.

People losing Insurance Plans:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/11/12/the-obamacare-exchange-scorecard-around-100000-enrollees-and-five-million-cancellations/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/north-dakota-35-people-sign-obamacare-and-35000-lose-health-insurance_766531.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-obama-apologizes-to-americans-who-are-losing-their-health-insurance/2013/11/07/2306818e-4803-11e3-a196-3544a03c2351_story.html
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013/11/12/calif-insurance-commissioner-more-than-1m-californians-having-insurance-cancelled-due-to-obamacare/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/01/health-insurance-cancellations_n_4192079.html

Absinthe Anecdote
11-13-2013, 01:21 PM
I'll never forget Pelosi saying that we have to pass the bill to find out what is in it.


http://youtu.be/QV7dDSgbaQ0

Absinthe Anecdote
11-13-2013, 01:28 PM
This is an interesting excerpt from a Q&A article:

Q: But now I keep hearing horror stories about people whose insurance is being canceled because of Obamacare - what's that all about?

A: OK, here's where it gets even more complicated. Remember the folks who aren't insured through their job and are too well-off for Medicaid but not old enough for Medicare? It's estimated that 14 million Americans purchase private individual insurance. Some of these plans work well but others are what experts call "junk insurance" - policies that might cost as little as $50 a month but cover few costs of a major illness.

Many of these plans run year to year, and they are often radically changed or even canceled by insurers - especially since some large companies don't find this market very profitable. Now, "junk insurance" won't even meet the mandates for comprehensive coverage under the law. (The measure allowed for "grandfathering" of some insurance plans, but ultimately very few qualified.)

Officials say as many as 7 million or more of those with private insurance are learning their policies have been canceled. And at least a few million are expected to pay more next year - although often for better coverage; many are expected to qualify for affordable policies, often subsidized, but it's hard for them to know how that will work out with all the startup glitches.

So you can understand why some folks are furious. "The transition to a much better health-insurance system is going to have a disconcerting effect on some people in the beginning," acknowledged Sara Rosenbaum, professor of health law and policy at George Washington University.

Also, experts say many of the same issues are going to affect small-group policies used by small businesses, although that impact won't largely be felt until next fall at the earliest. Rosenbaum also noted that a lot health insurance at small businesses disappeared in the Great Recession.

Entire Article: http://www.philly.com/philly/health/healthcare-exchange/20131111_Obamacare__A_Daily_News_Q_A_to_help_you_s ort_it_out.html

CYBERFX1024
11-13-2013, 01:53 PM
This is an interesting excerpt from a Q&A article:

Q: But now I keep hearing horror stories about people whose insurance is being canceled because of Obamacare - what's that all about?

A: OK, here's where it gets even more complicated. Remember the folks who aren't insured through their job and are too well-off for Medicaid but not old enough for Medicare? It's estimated that 14 million Americans purchase private individual insurance. Some of these plans work well but others are what experts call "junk insurance" - policies that might cost as little as $50 a month but cover few costs of a major illness.

Many of these plans run year to year, and they are often radically changed or even canceled by insurers - especially since some large companies don't find this market very profitable. Now, "junk insurance" won't even meet the mandates for comprehensive coverage under the law. (The measure allowed for "grandfathering" of some insurance plans, but ultimately very few qualified.)

Officials say as many as 7 million or more of those with private insurance are learning their policies have been canceled. And at least a few million are expected to pay more next year - although often for better coverage; many are expected to qualify for affordable policies, often subsidized, but it's hard for them to know how that will work out with all the startup glitches.

So you can understand why some folks are furious. "The transition to a much better health-insurance system is going to have a disconcerting effect on some people in the beginning," acknowledged Sara Rosenbaum, professor of health law and policy at George Washington University.

Also, experts say many of the same issues are going to affect small-group policies used by small businesses, although that impact won't largely be felt until next fall at the earliest. Rosenbaum also noted that a lot health insurance at small businesses disappeared in the Great Recession.

Entire Article: http://www.philly.com/philly/health/healthcare-exchange/20131111_Obamacare__A_Daily_News_Q_A_to_help_you_s ort_it_out.html

I really hate hearing all this bullshit with the "junk insurance" crap. The only time I have ever heard this is when the policies started getting cancelled and the Democrats are trying to play it off like "it's ok you are losing your insurance, it was a pos policy anyway". But honestly most people like me when I was single only got insurance that covered some catastrophic stuff and a few preventative care items. That's all I needed and that's all I wanted. Now if I get insurance from Obamacare, I am having to pay for maternity care and contraception for myself. Why the hell would I need insurance that covers contraception or maternity care if I were a single guy?

But I am happy married and I have kids, so I have to buy the health insurance for the whole family. Even then I weigh the options of the different plans and what they cover. I have a mid range plan under the FEHB and I like it for the most part, and I am paying $300 a month out of pocket for it. But the same plan under the ACA would be slightly more a month and it would cover less. My current plan I pay a $20 copay every time one of my family goes to the doctor, but under the ACA Bronze plan I would pay a $40 copay out of pocket EVERYTIME one of my family goes to see a doctor.

The policies are being dropped because under the Obamacare mandate and rules the administration made it next to impossible to be "grandfathered" in, so the insurance companies are FORCED to drop your policy.

imported_WILDJOKER5
11-13-2013, 02:22 PM
The government will crap in their hand and sell it to the public as "gold" and the sheep will believe what they are saying. Its sad so many people put so much faith into an elected official that continues to lie, and they all know politicians lie.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-13-2013, 02:25 PM
I really hate hearing all this bullshit with the "junk insurance" crap. The only time I have ever heard this is when the policies started getting cancelled and the Democrats are trying to play it off like "it's ok you are losing your insurance, it was a pos policy anyway". But honestly most people like me when I was single only got insurance that covered some catastrophic stuff and a few preventative care items. That's all I needed and that's all I wanted. Now if I get insurance from Obamacare, I am having to pay for maternity care and contraception for myself. Why the hell would I need insurance that covers contraception or maternity care if I was a single guy?

But I am happy married and I have kids, so I have to buy the health insurance for the whole family. Even then I weigh the options of the different plans and what they cover. I have a mid range plan under the FEHB and I like it for the most part, and I am paying $300 a month out of pocket for it. But the same plan under the ACA would be slightly more a month and it would cover less. My current plan I pay a $20 copay every time one of my family goes to the doctor, but under the ACA Bronze plan I would pay a $40 copay out of pocket EVERYTIME one my family goes to see a doctor.

The policies are being dropped because under the Obamacare mandate and rules the administration made it next to impossible to be "grandfathered" in, so the insurance companies are FORCED to drop your policy.

I think the government knows what is best for you; plus, that extra twenty bucks copayment will help an undocumented new American get the health benefits they deserve.

This new healthcare program is about diet, not diabetes! So you better start eating right and don't be a burden to the system.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-13-2013, 02:25 PM
I really hate hearing all this bullshit with the "junk insurance" crap. The only time I have ever heard this is when the policies started getting cancelled and the Democrats are trying to play it off like "it's ok you are losing your insurance, it was a pos policy anyway". But honestly most people like me when I was single only got insurance that covered some catastrophic stuff and a few preventative care items. That's all I needed and that's all I wanted. Now if I get insurance from Obamacare, I am having to pay for maternity care and contraception for myself. Why the hell would I need insurance that covers contraception or maternity care if I was a single guy?

But I am happy married and I have kids, so I have to buy the health insurance for the whole family. Even then I weigh the options of the different plans and what they cover. I have a mid range plan under the FEHB and I like it for the most part, and I am paying $300 a month out of pocket for it. But the same plan under the ACA would be slightly more a month and it would cover less. My current plan I pay a $20 copay every time one of my family goes to the doctor, but under the ACA Bronze plan I would pay a $40 copay out of pocket EVERYTIME one my family goes to see a doctor.

The policies are being dropped because under the Obamacare mandate and rules the administration made it next to impossible to be "grandfathered" in, so the insurance companies are FORCED to drop your policy.

I think the government knows what is best for you; plus, that extra twenty bucks copayment will help an undocumented new American get the health benefits they deserve.

This new healthcare program is about diet, not diabetes! So you better start eating right and don't be a burden to the system.

imported_WILDJOKER5
11-13-2013, 02:28 PM
I think the government knows what is best for you; plus, that extra twenty bucks copayment will help an undocumented new American get the health benefits they deserve.

This new healthcare program is about diet, not diabetes! So you better start eating right and don't be a burden to the system.

I just believe the politicians are in bed with someone raking in the cash while staying in power by enacting new laws that they feed the population as "good for you" and try to curve the outrage over the unintended consequences.

71Fish
11-13-2013, 02:48 PM
It will be interesting to see how the Dems in the Senate run on the ACA during the 2014 elections. They voted for it without reading it. To be fair, the Reps voted against it without reading it.
Nancy Pelosi was right, but they should have read it anyway.

CYBERFX1024
11-13-2013, 03:43 PM
It will be interesting to see how the Dems in the Senate run on the ACA during the 2014 elections. They voted for it without reading it. To be fair, the Reps voted against it without reading it.
Nancy Pelosi was right, but they should have read it anyway.

I really can't wait to see what they run on actually. It's kind of hard to reason with someone about how their healthcare is better for them when they are on average going to be paying 40% more with a higher deductible for healthcare.

Try telling people that they are better off with less money in the bank due to paying more for insurance.

CYBERFX1024
11-13-2013, 03:48 PM
I think the government knows what is best for you; plus, that extra twenty bucks copayment will help an undocumented new American get the health benefits they deserve.
This new healthcare program is about diet, not diabetes! So you better start eating right and don't be a burden to the system.

I know you are just trolling to get a response out of me but I ain't fooling for it. Illegal aliens don't "deserve" any kind of healthcare, let alone anything else. I already do eat right, and exercise everyday out here in the civilian world. I can think of a lot of other things that the extra $20 could go for than for paying for ACA.

grimreaper
11-13-2013, 04:04 PM
I think the government knows what is best for you; plus, that extra twenty bucks copayment will help an undocumented new American get the health benefits they deserve.

This new healthcare program is about diet, not diabetes! So you better start eating right and don't be a burden to the system.

The funniest part about the illegal immigration angle of this is that the government just incentivized companies to hire illegals even more so than they do now. Illegal aliens are not subject to the ACA, so employers do not have to offer them insurance...i.e. cheaper for employers. On top of that, illegals will still simply use ER's for their healthcare, while we continue to foot the bill on top of the increased costs due to the ACA. Awesome.

AFcynic
11-13-2013, 04:48 PM
All of you are making excellent points for a single payer system.

imported_WILDJOKER5
11-13-2013, 04:54 PM
All of you are making excellent points for a single payer system.

Why is that? So we can pay for more stuff we dont want or need? How does a single payer system equate to better prices or service? What typically happens in a monopoly? How well does social security work as a single payer system?

grimreaper
11-13-2013, 05:01 PM
All of you are making excellent points for a single payer system.

Actually, we are making the point that the ACA sucks and the people responsible for its passage should be held responsible for the damage it has caused and the damage it will continue to cause without major changes.

Single payer is not even part of this discussion, but if that's the end goal, it should be put out there without the lies, without the gimmicks that the proponents ofthe ACA put out there and we'll see if it passes.

imported_WILDJOKER5
11-13-2013, 05:15 PM
Question. Will there be people becoming doctors or nurses if the government takes over health insurance totally for a single payer system. Doctors already refuse to take medicare and medicaide because the government wont pay the prices the doctors price for their services. Doctors fees are set by the price the have for their malpractice insurance, labs, equipment and most importantly, their college loans. Malpractice insurance will still be going up. Labs and equipment are going to be more expensive because ACA puts a tax on those items. And the most ironic thing of all, college tuition keeps going up exponetially because of the government backing of college loans through Sally Mae. My college alone has gone up $175 a class in the past 3 years and that is just for an associates. How do we ever expect doctors to pay off their $200k-500k student loans when the government will stiffle their pay? The only other thing a doctor can do will be to take 10 mins with each patient and turn them out as fast as possible. Who really believes that is a good thing?

grimreaper
11-13-2013, 05:23 PM
Question. Will there be people becoming doctors or nurses if the government takes over health insurance totally for a single payer system. Doctors already refuse to take medicare and medicaide because the government wont pay the prices the doctors price for their services. Doctors fees are set by the price the have for their malpractice insurance, labs, equipment and most importantly, their college loans. Malpractice insurance will still be going up. Labs and equipment are going to be more expensive because ACA puts a tax on those items. And the most ironic thing of all, college tuition keeps going up exponetially because of the government backing of college loans through Sally Mae. My college alone has gone up $175 a class in the past 3 years and that is just for an associates. How do we ever expect doctors to pay off their $200k-500k student loans when the government will stiffle their pay? The only other thing a doctor can do will be to take 10 mins with each patient and turn them out as fast as possible. Who really believes that is a good thing?

Nobody. Not even the people pushing it. Just another way for people to give themselves another pat on the back because they can say they gave everyone "healthcare", no matter how bad it is.

USAF-Controller
11-13-2013, 05:29 PM
I think the ACA is a good law and most of you are so far to the right you will never admit it. Your bias and hate for president Obama is so great that if he says the sky is blue you'll call him a liar.

imported_WILDJOKER5
11-13-2013, 05:38 PM
Nobody. Not even the people pushing it. Just another way for people to give themselves another pat on the back because they can say they gave everyone "healthcare", no matter how bad it is.

The old saying goes, Socialism is for the people, not the socialist.

It doesnt work for any where in the world, unless "working" means that everyone is dragged down and put in extremely long waiting periods for a doctors visit, 40% higher chance of dying in a Hospital, or an economic burden on the private sector to tax enough to pay for the services, then yeah, its great. But in all actuality, the vilification of the rich as a reason to tax them to provide everyone else health insurance is a fable as well. They will never be truly affected by a single payer system because they will still have their own private doctors, as will the politicians, to which they will still be treated as needed. These will be the only doctors that will be able to pay off their student loans by the way, and be able to provide their kids with the ability to follow in their parents footsteps. The next arostocracy will be born.

imported_WILDJOKER5
11-13-2013, 05:40 PM
I think the ACA is a good law and most of you are so far to the right you will never admit it. Your bias and hate for president Obama is so great that if he says the sky is blue you'll call him a liar.

And how do you measure the ACA as a good law?

I think your assumption that people would call him a liar even for saying the sky was blue is pretty hyperbolic. They call him a liar because of everything else he has lied about. One truth out of hundreds of lies does not make him an honest man.

grimreaper
11-13-2013, 05:45 PM
I think the ACA is a good law and most of you are so far to the right you will never admit it. Your bias and hate for president Obama is so great that if he says the sky is blue you'll call him a liar.

Actually, I call him a liar because he lied about the ACA. That is a fact.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpa-5JdCnmo&feature=youtu.be

grimreaper
11-13-2013, 05:48 PM
I think the ACA is a good law and most of you are so far to the right you will never admit it. Your bias and hate for president Obama is so great that if he says the sky is blue you'll call him a liar.

Even Democrats are calling him out. It would be nice if you could actually be honest too. Problem is that you've spent so much time defending it, your own ego won't allow you to admit when you are wrong.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwXYTcDVYlk

USN - Retired
11-13-2013, 05:55 PM
What was the problem with "death panels", i.e. a panel of bureaucrats who would decide whether a person is "worthy of medical care"? (and I am serious about this) More medical care should be given to a person who takes good care of himself or herself, e.g. maintain a healthy weight, exercise often, eat healthy food, no smoking, no drinking alcohol, no illegal drugs, etc. Less medical care should be given to a person who does not take good care of himself or herself. Death panels would give people an incentive to live a healthy life. I don't see any purpose served by giving a liver transplant to a meth user . Socialized medicine would be workable if we had death panels. The name "death panel" is too dramatic, but the idea is good and solid.
(and I am serious about this)

AFcynic
11-13-2013, 06:06 PM
Why is that? So we can pay for more stuff we dont want or need? How does a single payer system equate to better prices or service? What typically happens in a monopoly? How well does social security work as a single payer system?

We (people) do indeed need health care. Why should Kaiser Permanente, Blue Cross, or any other health insurance provider profit on my or your health?

Single payer would mean that if you are currently uninsured and cannot afford healthcare, you could see a doctor for free. If you want to pay for better coverage or more personal care, go for it. Single payer would drive down the costs that are currently associated with healthcare coverage. Companies wouldn't need to try to recoup costs from the paying customer because the uninsured wouldn't be on their dime anymore.

I think social security works great. Hell, Ron Paul accepts it, so it can't be that bad...

USN - Retired
11-13-2013, 06:12 PM
Single payer would mean that if you are currently uninsured and cannot afford healthcare, you could see a doctor for free.

As long as we have "death panels", then I will agree with you.

grimreaper
11-13-2013, 06:21 PM
We (people) do indeed need health care. Why should Kaiser Permanente, Blue Cross, or any other health insurance provider profit on my or your health?

Single payer would mean that if you are currently uninsured and cannot afford healthcare, you could see a doctor for free. If you want to pay for better coverage or more personal care, go for it. Single payer would drive down the costs that are currently associated with healthcare coverage. Companies wouldn't need to try to recoup costs from the paying customer because the uninsured wouldn't be on their dime anymore.

I think social security works great. Hell, Ron Paul accepts it, so it can't be that bad...

Now explain how we pay for it. Remember, Obama already said he wouldn't sign a healthcare bill that adds a dime to the deficit (even though that promise was already broken).

The problem with the ACA, and single payer for that matter, is that it does NOTHING to reduce the cost of healthcare. Cutting the amount that doctors and hospitals are paid to treat Medicare/Obamacare patients only accelerates the rise in prices and the decline in doctors that will even accept it.

AFcynic
11-13-2013, 06:23 PM
@ USN - Retired - I'm at that awkward stage where I'm not sure if you're serious, or if you're trying to poke fun or make a bigger statement.

I mean, technically, if Old Man Jenkins is dying of XXX illness, the doctors always give you the "We've done everything we can..." speech before he's put into hospice care. So "death panels" already exist. Kinda...

Either way - Hunger Games is opening on the 22nd.

USN - Retired
11-13-2013, 06:25 PM
The problem with the ACA, and single payer for that matter, is that it does NOTHING to reduce the cost of healthcare. .

But death panels would reduce the cost. (seriously)

USN - Retired
11-13-2013, 06:27 PM
@ USN - Retired - I'm at that awkward stage where I'm not sure if you're serious, or if you're trying to poke fun or make a bigger statement.



I am serious, I am trying to poke fun, and I am trying to make a bigger statement.

grimreaper
11-13-2013, 06:29 PM
As long as we have "death panels", then I will agree with you.

It's a harsh truth, but it is the truth. The whole concept behind the ACA is that the young, healthy people are paying for the sick and the elderly who utilize the healthcare system alot more than the healthy folks. It is yet another ponzi scheme that will only work if the young, healthy people actually sign up. People are figuring out that it is cheaper to go without since the only way that the goverment can collect any fines for not purchasing healthcare is if that person gets a income tax refund. You can setup your withholdings so that you do not get a refund and the government can't do anything about it. This spells doom for the whole law since its funding source is crippled.

71Fish
11-13-2013, 06:45 PM
It's a harsh truth, but it is the truth. The whole concept behind the ACA is that the young, healthy people are paying for the sick and the elderly who utilize the healthcare system alot more than the health folks. It is yet another ponzi scheme that will only work if the young, healthy people actually sign up. People are figuring out that it is cheaper to go without since the only way that the goverment can collect any fines for not purchasing healthcare is if that person gets a income tax refund. You can setup your withholdings so that you do not get a refund and the government can't do anything about it. This spells doom for the whole law since it's funding source is crippled.

And that's the problem "they" are running into, young people don't want and most don't really "need" healthcare. Almost none can afford it.

grimreaper
11-13-2013, 06:55 PM
But death panels would reduce the cost. (seriously)

You are correct, but try selling that to public.

AFcynic
11-13-2013, 07:03 PM
Now explain how we pay for it. Remember, Obama already said he wouldn't sign a healthcare bill that adds a dime to the deficit (even though that promise was already broken).

The problem with the ACA, and single payer for that matter, is that it does NOTHING to reduce the cost of healthcare. Cutting the amount that doctors and hospitals are paid to treat Medicare/Obamacare patients only accelerates the rise in prices and the decline in doctors that will even accept it.

We can always close tax loopholes that allow the wealthiest Americans to hide their money overseas. You can create an involuntary deduction like social security or Medicare. Hospitals charge a lot of money because they need to make up for losses they've incurred due to the uninsured. Medication costs more because pharmaceutical companies need to profit on doctors prescribing X pill. Capitalism shouldn't play a role in how you or I are taken care of medically.

Health insurance companies and big pharma are all making a profit off of how we are medicated and cared for. I would rather give an extra $50 a month to ensure that ALL Americans are cared for than allow the healthcare industry to profit on anyone's good or bad health.

Raising taxes and paying for the less fortunate with government funds may not be the popular choice, but it's part of being in a society. I'm sure a homeowner with no kids doesn't like paying for public schools, but it happens. I don't like paying more for car insurance in TX because of the uninsured, but it happens, and I accept it. Some taxpayers don't like having their tax funds pay for military spending, but it happens. We have a responsibility to take care of each other as human beings and fellow countrymen. I'm sure that there is a social security recepient somewhere that hates atheist, liberal, mixed race people like me, but he's still getting paid with some of my money, and I'm good with it.

grimreaper
11-13-2013, 07:17 PM
We can always close tax loopholes that allow the wealthiest Americans to hide their money overseas. You can create an involuntary deduction like social security or Medicare. Hospitals charge a lot of money because they need to make up for losses they've incurred due to the uninsured. Medication costs more because pharmaceutical companies need to profit on doctors prescribing X pill. Capitalism shouldn't play a role in how you or I are taken care of medically.

Health insurance companies and big pharma are all making a profit off of how we are medicated and cared for. I would rather give an extra $50 a month to ensure that ALL Americans are cared for than allow the healthcare industry to profit on anyone's good or bad health.

Raising taxes and paying for the less fortunate with government funds may not be the popular choice, but it's part of being in a society. I'm sure a homeowner with no kids doesn't like paying for public schools, but it happens. I don't like paying more for car insurance in TX because of the uninsured, but it happens, and I accept it. Some taxpayers don't like having their tax funds pay for military spending, but it happens. We have a responsibility to take care of each other as human beings and fellow countrymen. I'm sure that there is a social security recepient somewhere that hates atheist, liberal, mixed race people like me, but he's still getting paid with some of my money, and I'm good with it.

There is no way simply closing tax loop holes (which I'm in favor of) even comes close to paying for single payer and if your only other avenue of getting the money to pay for it is to continue to raise taxes on the people who already bear the brunt of the tax burden, then good luck trying to sell that.

IMO, the confusion created by the ACA was by design by the Administration. People were so confused at what the ACA actually was (combined with the lies they were told), many people actually believed that they were going to basically get "free" healthcare. Sticker shock is what we now have.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-13-2013, 07:18 PM
I know you are just trolling to get a response out of me but I ain't fooling for it. Illegal aliens don't "deserve" any kind of healthcare, let alone anything else. I already do eat right, and exercise everyday out here in the civilian world. I can think of a lot of other things that the extra $20 could go for than for paying for ACA.

Not illegal, just undocumented!

Remember that couple that "crashed" the state dinner for the Indian Prime Minister at the White House a few years ago? Well, they didn't really "crash" the party, they where just undocumented guests.

If you get on an Amtrak train headed to Philadelphia with out a ticket, and tell the conductor that you are an undocumented passenger, they make you buy a ticket for some reason.

I suspect that making undocumented withdrawals from the bank is also frowned upon.

CYBERFX1024
11-13-2013, 07:42 PM
We can always close tax loopholes that allow the wealthiest Americans to hide their money overseas. You can create an involuntary deduction like social security or Medicare. Hospitals charge a lot of money because they need to make up for losses they've incurred due to the uninsured. Medication costs more because pharmaceutical companies need to profit on doctors prescribing X pill. Capitalism shouldn't play a role in how you or I are taken care of medically.
Health insurance companies and big pharma are all making a profit off of how we are medicated and cared for. I would rather give an extra $50 a month to ensure that ALL Americans are cared for than allow the healthcare industry to profit on anyone's good or bad health.
Raising taxes and paying for the less fortunate with government funds may not be the popular choice, but it's part of being in a society. I'm sure a homeowner with no kids doesn't like paying for public schools, but it happens. I don't like paying more for car insurance in TX because of the uninsured, but it happens, and I accept it. Some taxpayers don't like having their tax funds pay for military spending, but it happens. We have a responsibility to take care of each other as human beings and fellow countrymen. I'm sure that there is a social security recepient somewhere that hates atheist, liberal, mixed race people like me, but he's still getting paid with some of my money, and I'm good with it.

First off the Feds have been closing the loopholes and clamping down on individuals that have money in foreign banks, they are also clamping down on the banks as well. All because they want to know how much Mr. X has in that Swiss bank account, so that they can tax the hell out of it. That's why foreign banks are becoming increasing hostile to American Citizens that bank with them, even going as far as closing people's accounts. All because they don't want to be held liable to the US Government.

I totally understand how hospitals charge more from the insured because the uninsured are taking up the resources and medications of hospitals. When in reality is that they (hospitals) only receive a percentage of what's actually spent on the uninsured from the Feds. Of course insurance companies are out to make a profit because that's how they make their money. I don't want to pay extra to cover someone who won't even take care of themselves. I would rather keep that in my pocket and spend it as I see fit.

I don't want to pay healthcare for someone who smokes a pack a day or is very obese and don't want to help themselves. I weigh alittle more than I should but I pay for my own healthcare. I also am working my ass off to lose the weight. But too many people are complacent and lazy, and don't want to do anything for themselves.

grimreaper
11-13-2013, 07:57 PM
First off the Feds have been closing the loopholes and clamping down on individuals that have money in foreign banks, they are also clamping down on the banks as well. All because they want to know how much Mr. X has in that Swiss bank account, so that they can tax the hell out of it. That's why foreign banks are becoming increasing hostile to American Citizens that bank with them, even going as far as closing people's accounts. All because they don't want to be held liable to the US Government.

I totally understand how hospitals charge more from the insured because the uninsured are taking up the resources and medications of hospitals. When in reality is that they (hospitals) only receive a percentage of what's actually spent on the uninsured from the Feds. Of course insurance companies are out to make a profit because that's how they make their money. I don't want to pay extra to cover someone who won't even take care of themselves. I would rather keep that in my pocket and spend it as I see fit.

I don't want to pay healthcare for someone who smokes a pack a day or is very obese and don't want to help themselves. I weigh alittle more than I should but I pay for my own healthcare. I also am working my ass off to lose the weight. But too many people are complacent and lazy, and don't want to do anything for themselves.

What do you mean you don't want to pay for others lifestyle choices? Prepare to be called names...you heartless bastard!!!!! j/k

CYBERFX1024
11-13-2013, 08:47 PM
What do you mean you don't want to pay for others lifestyle choices? Prepare to be called names...you heartless bastard!!!!! j/k

I understand that. Call me an asshole I don't care trust me, I have been called it alot when I was a P. I. M. P. HAHAHAHAHA. But seriously I don't want to pay for other people's bad mistakes. My own parents smoke almost a pack a day right now. Do you think I want to pay for them, or wonder why my mom's health insurance is so high? NO!!!!!!!
I believe that everyone should be left to their own devices and consequences, and the only people we should help subsidize or take care of are those that are legitimately disabled.

AJBIGJ
11-14-2013, 12:56 AM
I feel it would be pointless to lament the fact that my thread was derailed from the outset, sometimes it's just nice to see you've gotten people discussing things. I do lament that it is more partisan, less ideologically based discussion, but I would be remiss to expect that to disappear entirely.

imnohero
11-14-2013, 01:18 AM
I feel it would be pointless to lament the fact that my thread was derailed from the outset, sometimes it's just nice to see you've gotten people discussing things. I do lament that it is more partisan, less ideologically based discussion, but I would be remiss to expect that to disappear entirely.

AJ, we are pretty short on facts about the actual number of people impacted both by being dropped and who would be affected the the proposed "keep your insurance" change/law. I spent more than a few minutes looking for actual facts (numbers, economic impact, $ costs, like that), and they are all of the "best guess" variety. No one even really knows for sure how many people are in the "below minimum standards" group. No one knows if the insurance companies are only cancelling those policies or they are cancelling all their cheap policies just to increase revenues. For that matter, I'm not even sure how a person would be able to tell if their policy met standards or not...have you tried to decypher insurance coverage lately?

This makes the entire mess a target of political rhetoric, because anyone can claim anything and there's no way to tell who is telling the truth, ya know? So yeah, they pass a law change that says "you can keep your policy"...to what end other than political theater. If no one knows the truth of who is affected and how, they can't possibly know the impacts of the change either or how much it will cost.

CYBERFX1024
11-14-2013, 02:37 AM
I feel it would be pointless to lament the fact that my thread was derailed from the outset, sometimes it's just nice to see you've gotten people discussing things. I do lament that it is more partisan, less ideologically based discussion, but I would be remiss to expect that to disappear entirely.

Good try though.

AJBIGJ
11-14-2013, 11:25 AM
AJ, we are pretty short on facts about the actual number of people impacted both by being dropped and who would be affected the the proposed "keep your insurance" change/law. I spent more than a few minutes looking for actual facts (numbers, economic impact, $ costs, like that), and they are all of the "best guess" variety. No one even really knows for sure how many people are in the "below minimum standards" group. No one knows if the insurance companies are only cancelling those policies or they are cancelling all their cheap policies just to increase revenues. For that matter, I'm not even sure how a person would be able to tell if their policy met standards or not...have you tried to decypher insurance coverage lately?

This makes the entire mess a target of political rhetoric, because anyone can claim anything and there's no way to tell who is telling the truth, ya know? So yeah, they pass a law change that says "you can keep your policy"...to what end other than political theater. If no one knows the truth of who is affected and how, they can't possibly know the impacts of the change either or how much it will cost.

I similarly lack accurate numbers, those with access to that data are generally playing it fairly close to the chest, and I think it will continue absent "better" news about the rollout. Hypothetically though, this bill going through, are you opposed to it going through or would you support it based on principle alone?

imported_WILDJOKER5
11-14-2013, 12:41 PM
We (people) do indeed need health care. Why should Kaiser Permanente, Blue Cross, or any other health insurance provider profit on my or your health? Why should a doctor? The point of insurance is to pay a third party who will invest that money in a way that is the most profitable so they can turn around a pay your doctor when you are sick or injured. Otherwise, how else are you going to pay for your medical cost?


Single payer would mean that if you are currently uninsured and cannot afford healthcare, you could see a doctor for free. Making a doctor a slave? What do you get when you force someone to produce for nothing?
Or do you mean putting the bill onto those people who actually have a job and pay for their own healthcare, now they have to pay for the lazy and irresponsible people as well.

If you want to pay for better coverage or more personal care, go for it. Single payer would drive down the costs that are currently associated with healthcare coverage. Companies wouldn't need to try to recoup costs from the paying customer because the uninsured wouldn't be on their dime anymore. Again, how are the doctors going to be paid? How do you figure the price of healthcare goes down when a service is preformed yet no one is paying for it? Or do you just want more people to be paying higher taxes to cover those people that chose not to get healthcare because they were young and felt like they didnt need it? But hey, if I can not spend money on my own insurance and the government will pay for it, what could possibly go wrong with that thought process?


I think social security works great. Hell, Ron Paul accepts it, so it can't be that bad...
He accepts it because he paid into it for so long. Doesnt mean that it works well. Its the biggest ponzi scheme ever, one which the money you paid in you most likely will never see again and cant pass on to family when you die.

imnohero
11-14-2013, 12:53 PM
I similarly lack accurate numbers, those with access to that data are generally playing it fairly close to the chest, and I think it will continue absent "better" news about the rollout. Hypothetically though, this bill going through, are you opposed to it going through or would you support it based on principle alone?

I am opposed to the bill being passed because:
-I haven't read it
-I have no idea what it changes (as we know, the title of a bill is not always reflective of it contents)

imported_WILDJOKER5
11-14-2013, 01:00 PM
@ USN - Retired - I'm at that awkward stage where I'm not sure if you're serious, or if you're trying to poke fun or make a bigger statement.

I mean, technically, if Old Man Jenkins is dying of XXX illness, the doctors always give you the "We've done everything we can..." speech before he's put into hospice care. So "death panels" already exist. Kinda...

Either way - Hunger Games is opening on the 22nd.

Im sure he is talking about the scenario of a 12 yr old girl needing a lung transplant but there are no kid lungs availible. The doc says she would be fine with adult lungs, but the beurocracy says she isnt enough of a producer to recieve adult lungs when they can go to an older person who works. The same would be true with a person over the age of 60, even though they have insurance, and the doctor says they will live longer, the beurocracy can deny the treatment because they weigh the cost vs benefits instead of the patient.

AJBIGJ
11-14-2013, 01:08 PM
I am opposed to the bill being passed because:
-I haven't read it
-I have no idea what it changes (as we know, the title of a bill is not always reflective of it contents)

We can rectify the first one here and now if we like:
Bill Tacker: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr3350#overview

AJBIGJ
11-14-2013, 01:09 PM
I am opposed to the bill being passed because:
-I haven't read it
-I have no idea what it changes (as we know, the title of a bill is not always reflective of it contents)

We can rectify the first part here and now if you like:
Keep Your Health Plan Act:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr3350#overview

TJMAC77SP
11-14-2013, 01:13 PM
AJ, we are pretty short on facts about the actual number of people impacted both by being dropped and who would be affected the the proposed "keep your insurance" change/law. I spent more than a few minutes looking for actual facts (numbers, economic impact, $ costs, like that), and they are all of the "best guess" variety. No one even really knows for sure how many people are in the "below minimum standards" group. No one knows if the insurance companies are only cancelling those policies or they are cancelling all their cheap policies just to increase revenues. For that matter, I'm not even sure how a person would be able to tell if their policy met standards or not...have you tried to decypher insurance coverage lately?

This makes the entire mess a target of political rhetoric, because anyone can claim anything and there's no way to tell who is telling the truth, ya know? So yeah, they pass a law change that says "you can keep your policy"...to what end other than political theater. If no one knows the truth of who is affected and how, they can't possibly know the impacts of the change either or how much it will cost.

So that would make the claim "you can keep your health insurance" subject to the same fog?

This seems to have been the situation from the beginning with the ACA. No one (even those that should know) have ever seemed to be able to provide definitive information in a clear and concise manner. It has all been political rhetoric from all sides.

imported_WILDJOKER5
11-14-2013, 01:23 PM
We can always close tax loopholes that allow the wealthiest Americans to hide their money overseas. You can create an involuntary deduction like social security or Medicare. Hospitals charge a lot of money because they need to make up for losses they've incurred due to the uninsured. Medication costs more because pharmaceutical companies need to profit on doctors prescribing X pill. Capitalism shouldn't play a role in how you or I are taken care of medically. So instead of the hospitals incuring the cost of the uninsured, the public will. Tell me, what changes here? The people will still be paying the unisured if not through higher costs at the hospital, then through higher taxes.

Freemarket should play a role, because if you want better healthcare for you and your family, you go out and make your self marketable to get a better job, either through better work ethic and/or education. And no, not everyone needs a 4 yr college degree, trade schools work just fine.


Health insurance companies and big pharma are all making a profit off of how we are medicated and cared for. I would rather give an extra $50 a month to ensure that ALL Americans are cared for than allow the healthcare industry to profit on anyone's good or bad health. Health insurance companies are the bottom 4% of their economic field when it comes to profit. They have just been demonized to the point where you actually think they are making insane profits. Just like thinking oil companies are bad when the government takes $.18 per gallon of gas and the oil company gets $.8 per gallon.


Raising taxes and paying for the less fortunate with government funds may not be the popular choice, but it's part of being in a society.Taking care of yourself is part of being in a society. Look at a football team. The line has their function, the running back his and so forth. There is nothing about the center picking up him man AND the guards man because the guard is less fortunate all the time. There are few times where one covers the other person, but its temporary. The successful teams strive to be good at their own productive positions.

I'm sure a homeowner with no kids doesn't like paying for public schools, but it happens.And public schools are failing. "More money" is always screamed from progressives to improve the schools, yet schools never improve. So no, the single, childless home owner is paying for a failing system, and you want the same type of thinking applied towards health insurance?

I don't like paying more for car insurance in TX because of the uninsured, but it happens, and I accept it. You dont have to buy a car either.

Some taxpayers don't like having their tax funds pay for military spending, but it happens.That is laid out in the constitution that funds will be raised to support armies and navies.

We have a responsibility to take care of each other as human beings and fellow countrymen. We have a responsibility to only take care of ourselves. To provide for other people is to make them lazy and unwilling to help themselves.

I'm sure that there is a social security recepient somewhere that hates atheist, liberal, mixed race people like me, but he's still getting paid with some of my money, and I'm good with it.
He is getting paid the money he paid into the system for hiself. The ACA forces you to pay for things like pediatric dental care when you are 65 and have no kids. You dont see a return on this money.

imnohero
11-14-2013, 01:41 PM
We can rectify the first part here and now if you like:
Keep Your Health Plan Act:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr3350#overview

Thank you for the link. Let's see:
- grandfathers current health plans in effect on 1 Jan, until the end of 2014 as allowable under the ACA. So we'll be doing this all again in a year?
- Insurers may continue these plans...note the word "may", this is permissive, not regulatory (such as must, shall, or will). This basically puts it in the hands of the insurers whether to cancel plans or not. If they can sell higher cost plans, you can bet they will continue to cancel existing plans.

So, basically, the bill doesn't nothing to solve the problem.

imported_WILDJOKER5
11-14-2013, 02:02 PM
Thank you for the link. Let's see:
- grandfathers current health plans in effect on 1 Jan, until the end of 2014 as allowable under the ACA. So we'll be doing this all again in a year?
- Insurers may continue these plans...note the word "may", this is permissive, not regulatory (such as must, shall, or will). This basically puts it in the hands of the insurers whether to cancel plans or not. If they can sell higher cost plans, you can bet they will continue to cancel existing plans.

So, basically, the bill doesn't nothing to solve the problem.But it is after the mid term elections which is what the dems really want.

AJBIGJ
11-14-2013, 02:52 PM
Thank you for the link. Let's see:
- grandfathers current health plans in effect on 1 Jan, until the end of 2014 as allowable under the ACA. So we'll be doing this all again in a year?
- Insurers may continue these plans...note the word "may", this is permissive, not regulatory (such as must, shall, or will). This basically puts it in the hands of the insurers whether to cancel plans or not. If they can sell higher cost plans, you can bet they will continue to cancel existing plans.

So, basically, the bill doesn't nothing to solve the problem.

Ever wonder why McDonalds even runs a $.99 menu? After all they can just sell Big Macs for $3!

imnohero
11-14-2013, 02:58 PM
Ever wonder why McDonalds even runs a $.99 menu? After all they can just sell Big Macs for $3!

The economics answer is because they can't sell them for $3. But insurance is not a competative market the way fast food is. In most places there are only 1 or 2 health insurance companies. In my state Blue Cross controls like 70% of the market, Humana has most of the rest, and there are one or two companies that control <1% in various local markets that are not state wide. That's why I argued in the past that the insurance exchanges should be national level, not state.

AJBIGJ
11-14-2013, 03:13 PM
The economics answer is because they can't sell them for $3. But insurance is not a competative market the way fast food is. In most places there are only 1 or 2 health insurance companies. In my state Blue Cross controls like 70% of the market, Humana has most of the rest, and there are one or two companies that control <1% in various local markets that are not state wide. That's why I argued in the past that the insurance exchanges should be national level, not state.

Using the Fast Food analogy, would it be preferable for a Restaurant to sell a cheeseburger at $.99 (at a profit) instead of no big macs at $3?

imnohero
11-14-2013, 03:34 PM
If you want to stick with fast food, OK. Here's the analogy:
McDonalds is the only restaruant in your state. The government passes a law that says what a big mac must have as minimum content AND that everyone must eat a big mac every day.

Now does McDonalds charge $3 a big mac, or do they still sell if for .99?

AJBIGJ
11-14-2013, 03:50 PM
If you want to stick with fast food, OK. Here's the analogy:
McDonalds is the only restaruant in your state. The government passes a law that says what a big mac must have as minimum content AND that everyone must eat a big mac every day.

Now does McDonalds charge $3 a big mac, or do they still sell if for .99?

Now we're just discussing monopolies, even under the assumption this is universally the case, which in fact it is not. Which would be smarter for McDonalds, to sell only $3 Big Macs, or $3 Big Macs and $.99 Double Cheeseburgers?

imnohero
11-14-2013, 06:00 PM
Now we're just discussing monopolies...

Not really, it's just a bad analogy. Is your point that insurance companies won't necessarily drop profitable policies? That may be true. My point is that the verbage of the law doesn't stop them from doing it. It just says they don't have to for the next year. In other words, the "keep your insurance act" doesn't really let you keep your insurance. If the bill passes, people don't have any more choice in whether they get to keep their policy than now. The best case is that a policy gets extended for a year and then gets cancelled.

grimreaper
11-14-2013, 06:04 PM
The economics answer is because they can't sell them for $3. But insurance is not a competative market the way fast food is. In most places there are only 1 or 2 health insurance companies. In my state Blue Cross controls like 70% of the market, Humana has most of the rest, and there are one or two companies that control <1% in various local markets that are not state wide. That's why I argued in the past that the insurance exchanges should be national level, not state.

And Congress could have changed all that. An idea that was noticeably left out of the healthcare bill was allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines...something they cannot do right now, thus, less competition. When that and tort reform were not part of the equation, those were telltale signs that there was nothing being done to try and control costs. And now we have the ACA which forces people to buy a product where the costs are just going to keep rising.

AJBIGJ
11-14-2013, 06:05 PM
Not really, it's just a bad analogy. Is your point that insurance companies won't necessarily drop profitable policies? That may be true. My point is that the verbage of the law doesn't stop them from doing it. It just says they don't have to for the next year. In other words, the "keep your insurance act" doesn't really let you keep your insurance. If the bill passes, people don't have any more choice in whether they get to keep their policy than now. The best case is that a policy gets extended for a year and then gets cancelled.

I can't speak to re-issue of policies and how or whether that is supposed to work, but for policies not yet cancelled it probably would result in far less of that, because the policies are grandfathered they would not have to be cancelled. Kind of like selling the $.99 Double Cheeseburger in lieu of nothing.

Point being, there would be an effect on the number of cancellations, probably a substantial amount, because the only reason a company would have to drop the policies that were previously issued was because they no longer continued to be profitable. That's just common sense.

imported_WILDJOKER5
11-14-2013, 06:15 PM
I can't speak to re-issue of policies and how or whether that is supposed to work, but for policies not yet cancelled it probably would result in far less of that, because the policies are grandfathered they would not have to be cancelled. Kind of like selling the $.99 Double Cheeseburger in lieu of nothing.

Point being, there would be an effect on the number of cancellations, probably a substantial amount, because the only reason a company would have to drop the policies that were previously issued was because they no longer continued to be profitable. That's just common sense.

Its a way to stop the bleeding instead of having even more than 5 million people lose their insurance, just like why Obama unilaterally gave businesses a year before they are mandated to follow the law. Its all about the votes, and this is a thought that will keep people voting for dems before they are dropped from the insurance and have to see the price of their new plans. Its what Ted Cruz was filibustering for and why the house passed all those bills that Harry Reid didnt allow to be voted on in the senate.

AJBIGJ
11-14-2013, 06:21 PM
Its a way to stop the bleeding instead of having even more than 5 million people lose their insurance, just like why Obama unilaterally gave businesses a year before they are mandated to follow the law. Its all about the votes, and this is a thought that will keep people voting for dems before they are dropped from the insurance and have to see the price of their new plans. Its what Ted Cruz was filibustering for and why the house passed all those bills that Harry Reid didnt allow to be voted on in the senate.

You're confusing me in your wording (aka use of pronouns) a bit here, when you say "it" are you referring to the Republican coordinated bill itself?

imported_WILDJOKER5
11-14-2013, 06:31 PM
The new bill is a way to stop the bleeding instead of having even more than 5 million people lose their insurance, just like why Obama unilaterally gave businesses a year before they are mandated to follow the law. Its all about the votes, and this is a thought that will keep people voting for dems before they are dropped from the insurance and have to see the price of their new plans. Its what Ted Cruz was filibustering for and why the house passed all those bills that Harry Reid didnt allow to be voted on in the senate.
You're confusing me in your wording (aka use of pronouns) a bit here, when you say "it" are you referring to the Republican coordinated bill itself?

Yeah, sorry. Dems are on board with the new bill to save their arse before mid terms.

AJBIGJ
11-14-2013, 06:34 PM
Yeah, sorry. Dems are on board with the new bill to save their arse before mid terms.

Some are certainly walking back a few things based on their party line certainly. I think that's what the Clintons are doing for 2016 at the very least.