The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

Brown vrs Coakley = Obamacare "dead"?
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1480		 Page 1 of 4
Author:  Dash [ Tue Jan 19, 2010 11:34 am ]
Post subject:  Brown vrs Coakley = Obamacare "dead"?
I assume people have been hearing about the Senate race in Massachusetts. Basically, if Brown beats Coakley the Dems no longer have 60 votes to pass this. That changes things drastically.


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31647.html

Quote:
Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) is the latest pessimist on the Democratic side of the aisle, saying health care may be “dead” if Republican Scott Brown wins the Massachusetts Senate race.

“I think you can make a pretty good argument that health care might be dead,” Weiner said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

Weiner, one of the House’s more progressive members, said “it’s going to be very hard” to ask members of the House to vote for the Senate bill – what some believe would be a likely scenario if Democrats lose the Massachusetts Senate seat. …

“I’d have a very difficult time doing that,” Weiner said about voting “yes” to the Senate’s bill.



[youtube]yAkfHb5M8SU[/youtube]
Author:  Rafael [ Tue Jan 19, 2010 11:37 am ]
Post subject: 
Since I haven't been following the senatorial races state by state, let me ask something that may be obvious.

Are there any other states which are being relistically contested where the incumbent may lose the seat to the other party? Why is Mass. such a big deal? Surely, there are other senate seats that will also come into play.
Author:  TheRiov [ Tue Jan 19, 2010 11:40 am ]
Post subject: 
its Kennedy's Replacement
Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Tue Jan 19, 2010 11:48 am ]
Post subject: 
Yeah, this is a special election to replace Ted, effective pretty much immediately.

Thus, it's a bit of a preview of November's wider elections, and that this non-Democrat guy has this tight of a race in *Massachusetts* is being viewed as pretty telling of the political climate.
Author:  Dash [ Tue Jan 19, 2010 11:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re:
Yeah Massachusetts is huge for a few reasons, it's a special election for Ted Kennedy's seat. It's absurdly skewed Democrat and a Republican is tied or leading in most polls. Mass already has a form of socialized healthcare on which the Obama model is based. It puts the 60th vote off the table. All that and it's coming out of nowhere.

Democrats have flooded their candidate with money and flew in Obama to campaign for her, Ted Kennedy's widow endorsed her (but I think called her the wrong name), and the story is dominating the blogs for the past week or so. The vote is today so we'll see what happens.
Author:  Rafael [ Tue Jan 19, 2010 11:58 am ]
Post subject: 
It was my understanding that the governor typically appointed a replacement for an "unforseen" vacancy be it due to death, inability to continue to serve, election to other office etc. but I guess that depends state to state?

I don't have much feeling one way or the other - I think this shitty bill is going to go through because the people crusading for it are too blinded by their righteousness to actually stop and contemplate the consequences of what they are doing. That and they possess a gross inability to do so.

For instance, this bill purports to place additional taxes on so-called "Cadillac" health care plans; higher premium plans with inclusion of somewhat elective procedures with higher deductibles but proportionally (for the inclusion of services and procedures) better value. i.e. the plan costs roughly the same or more but with higher deductibles and includes a wider scope of covered services. Which is great for younger, healthier people.

The reason these plans are so desirable is because they are subsidized in the first place as what is essentially a tax write-off for employers. Wouldn't it make sense to just remove the subsidy instead of adding a tax to offset it? No, I guess that makes too much sense.

This is what gives little hope for the future.
Author:  Uncle Fester [ Tue Jan 19, 2010 12:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
Actually in a bit of historic funny. Normaly the Governor calls the replacement. Ted himself got the Mass Law changed while a Republican was Governor and Kerry was running against Bush, to prevent a R being named. In a fit of "how big are my balls now!" as he was dying he tried to have the law changed back to the old way fearful that the vulgar masses would elect and R to follow him. Oh the funny's just tickle me.
Author:  Dash [ Tue Jan 19, 2010 12:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Rafael wrote:
For instance, this bill purports to place additional taxes on so-called "Cadillac" health care plans; higher premium plans with inclusion of somewhat elective procedures with higher deductibles but proportionally (for the inclusion of services and procedures) better value. i.e. the plan costs roughly the same or more but with higher deductibles and includes a wider scope of covered services. Which is great for younger, healthier people.



That part of the bill has run them against unions who are a reliable democrat voting bloc and financial supporters. Yet without it they cant pay for healthcare. So you're right they'll just ram something through and try to fix it after the fact. What could go wrong!?! ;)
Author:  Khross [ Tue Jan 19, 2010 12:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Brown vrs Coakley = Obamacare "dead"?
I already posted the skinny on "Cadillac" plans. Since everyone missed it, apparently, a "Cadillac" plan is any policy with $8500 or more per annum in total premiums. Total premiums include employer paid portions for group policies. Or, to put this in perspective for everyone ...

$8500 a year includes the policies that minimum wage full time workers at McDonalds can opt into.
Author:  Rafael [ Tue Jan 19, 2010 12:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
I thought it was $8000 total premiums for individual plans and $21000 for family plans. Either way, it's not that much. And either way, the additional proposed 40% tax (or whatever the number is going to be) will get paid by the worker.
Author:  Corolinth [ Tue Jan 19, 2010 1:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Brown vrs Coakley = Obamacare "dead"?
Khross wrote:
$8500 a year includes the policies that minimum wage full time workers at McDonalds can opt into.
So basically what you're saying is the "Cadillac" label was slapped on to prevent stupid people from realizing that they would be the ones being taxed when they voted Democrat?
Author:  Sasandra [ Tue Jan 19, 2010 1:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
Actually $8500/year is a hell of a lot of money for an individule insurance plan, this is including how much your company pays for towards it, I went onto the MA health connector web site to see how much it costs for inssurance plans which you pay 100% yourself, no company subsidation, the absolute top of the line plan available was $570/month or $6840/year which is still well under the level to be a "Cadillac" plan, even for someone 50 years old I could only fine one plan that went over $8500/year.
Author:  Müs [ Tue Jan 19, 2010 1:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
MA is a special case.
Author:  Uncle Fester [ Tue Jan 19, 2010 1:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Brown vrs Coakley = Obamacare "dead"?
http://www.thefoxnation.com/entertainme ... -mass-race


Funny, stewart shows his bias pretty well. Completly ignores that the politcs are also sinking the Dem's not just an idiot candidate.

Quote:
It's not that the Democrats are playing checkers and the Republicans are playing Chess, it's that the Republicans are playing chess, and the Democrats are in the nurses office for once again gluing their balls to their thighs.
Author:  Uncle Fester [ Tue Jan 19, 2010 1:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Brown vrs Coakley = Obamacare "dead"?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... model.html

And wonderful editorial from Olbermann
Author:  Elmarnieh [ Tue Jan 19, 2010 2:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Brown vrs Coakley = Obamacare "dead"?
Khross wrote:
I already posted the skinny on "Cadillac" plans. Since everyone missed it, apparently, a "Cadillac" plan is any policy with $8500 or more per annum in total premiums. Total premiums include employer paid portions for group policies. Or, to put this in perspective for everyone ...

$8500 a year includes the policies that minimum wage full time workers at McDonalds can opt into.



It has been amended to $8800 as of Friday.
Author:  Uncle Fester [ Tue Jan 19, 2010 2:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Brown vrs Coakley = Obamacare "dead"?
http://www.thefoxnation.com/justice/201 ... sachusetts

and some voter fraud
Author:  Uncle Fester [ Tue Jan 19, 2010 6:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Brown vrs Coakley = Obamacare "dead"?
http://bigjournalism.com/fross/2010/01/ ... kley-wins/


Boston globe calls it 8 hours before the poll closes!
Author:  Rorinthas [ Tue Jan 19, 2010 6:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Brown vrs Coakley = Obamacare "dead"?
I dont know. No matter who wins the senate seat the house could just approve as is the senate version and avoid a revote.

However the closeness of this race might have some people wondering if voting for this is a good idea, assuming they still care about reelection.
Author:  DFK! [ Tue Jan 19, 2010 6:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Brown vrs Coakley = Obamacare "dead"?
Uncle Fester wrote:
http://bigjournalism.com/fross/2010/01/19/boston-globe-posts-election-results-eight-hours-before-polls-close-and-coakley-wins/


Boston globe calls it 8 hours before the poll closes!


Considering there are no exit polls in operation, how the **** do they make that call??
Author:  Xequecal [ Tue Jan 19, 2010 7:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Brown vrs Coakley = Obamacare "dead"?
Khross wrote:
I already posted the skinny on "Cadillac" plans. Since everyone missed it, apparently, a "Cadillac" plan is any policy with $8500 or more per annum in total premiums. Total premiums include employer paid portions for group policies. Or, to put this in perspective for everyone ...

$8500 a year includes the policies that minimum wage full time workers at McDonalds can opt into.


I pay $137/month for health insurance. That's not through any employer. How does McDonalds make it up to $8500?
Author:  DFK! [ Tue Jan 19, 2010 9:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Brown vrs Coakley = Obamacare "dead"?
Xequecal wrote:
Khross wrote:
I already posted the skinny on "Cadillac" plans. Since everyone missed it, apparently, a "Cadillac" plan is any policy with $8500 or more per annum in total premiums. Total premiums include employer paid portions for group policies. Or, to put this in perspective for everyone ...

$8500 a year includes the policies that minimum wage full time workers at McDonalds can opt into.


I pay $137/month for health insurance. That's not through any employer. How does McDonalds make it up to $8500?


You're young and on an individual plan.

Presuming Khross is correct, they're higher because of risk sharing via group insurance.
Author:  Rorinthas [ Tue Jan 19, 2010 9:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Brown vrs Coakley = Obamacare "dead"?
Sounds like Coakley has conceded the race. As for what tomorrow holds, only God knows.
Author:  Micheal [ Tue Jan 19, 2010 10:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
Obama realy wants this health deal. He's going to go down the list of Republicans and find one who is ready to retire and offer him something to make it worth his while. If that one flips him the bald eagle, he will keep on going until he finds one who will.

Do any of you truly doubt that somewhere among the 41 senators there isn't one who would sell his party out for a cabinet seat or a plum diplomatic assignment?

If you do, please send me one of those brownies.
Author:  Rorinthas [ Tue Jan 19, 2010 10:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Brown vrs Coakley = Obamacare "dead"?
I was thinking about the same thing Micheal, especially with Lame Duck George (Voinavich R-Ohio). I was just afraid to say it aloud.
Page 1 of 4 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/