For the first time in generations, the US Congress has passed a bill reforming our nations health care system.
Historical Attempts
This lofty goal has eluded reformers ever since Teddy Roosevelt attempted it during his 1912 run for president. A national health insurance program was proposed by FDR as part of Social Security, and the effort was continued by his successor Harry Truman in the 1940s, but stiff opposition by conservatives derailed the effort. Lyndon Johnson managed to get limited reforms enacted with the passage of Medicare in 1965, although this national health insurance program is only available to those over 65 years old (and a few others in certain circumstances). Despite nearly universal support today, conservatives vehemently opposed Medicare at the time, claiming it would be the start of government takeover of the health care system. In fact, Sarah Palin almost quoted verbatim the fear mongering speech by Ronald Reagan to the AMA in 1961 that opposed the creation of Medicare.Rep. John B. Larson (D-CT), the Chairman of the Democratic Caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives writes that the top 10 immediate benefits of the bill will be:
Prohibit pre-existing condition exclusions for children in all new plans;
Provide immediate access to insurance for uninsured Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition through a temporary high-risk pool;
Prohibit dropping people from coverage when they get sick in all individual plans;
Lower seniors prescription drug prices by beginning to close the donut hole;
Offer tax credits to small businesses to purchase coverage;
Eliminate lifetime limits and restrictive annual limits on benefits in all plans;
Require plans to cover an enrollee’s dependent children until age 26;
Require new plans to cover preventive services and immunizations without cost-sharing;
Ensure consumers have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to appeal new insurance plan decisions;
Require premium rebates to enrollees from insurers with high administrative expenditures and require public disclosure of the percent of premiums applied to overhead costs.The health care reform expert Karoli adds:
1.Adult children may remain as dependents on their parents’ policy until age 26
2.Children under age 19 may not be excluded for pre-existing conditions
3.No more lifetime or annual caps on coverage
4.Free preventative care for all
5.Adults with pre-existing conditions may buy into a national high-risk pool until the exchanges come online. While these will not be cheap, they’re still better than total exclusion and get some benefit from a wider pool of insureds.
6.Small businesses will be entitled to a tax credit for 2009 and 2010, which could be as much as 50% of what they pay for employees’ health insurance.
7.The “donut hole” closes for Medicare patients, making prescription medications more affordable for seniors.
8.Requirement that all insurers must post their balance sheets on the Internet and fully disclose administrative costs, executive compensation packages, and benefit payments.
9.Authorizes early funding of community health centers in all 50 states (Bernie Sanders’ amendment)
As much as I think that Bart Stupak’s hold out over abortion was a red herring, the dirty dog who called out that he was a baby killer on the house floor is just a nasty person. What horrible behavior. That’s as low as the spitting and the N-word.
Stupak has strong convictions on the subject of abortion. I don’t agree that his convictions should be public policy but I respect his convictions. To call him a baby killer just goes beyond the pale.
Yeah, shame on calling someone a “baby killer.” Hear that, Vietnam vets? Now they tell us.
I thought that was horrible also, at the time. re viet nam vets. Remember, I am a contemporary.
Where are they going to find the family practice physicians to do all that? I’ve got three in my family, and they are already swamped out of their minds. I am willing to bet that one of them will retire sooner rather than later. And he is rated as one of the very best at his craft in the whole state.
Just read an article about the owner of a business which sells off the equipment from medical offices which are closing. Can’t remember the specific area. He said his business has already begun to expand far beyond normal expectations and he is getting more inquiries every day. I think he said he was handling 37 separate sell offs at that moment. Health insurance sure isn’t going to help if you can’t get in to see a doctor.
Flags should be flown upside down to show the distress we are in. For 219 members of the house to have raped the Constitution…. I just hope Idaho and Virginia begin the lawsuits.
Today was a great day for our nation. Healthcare will now be available for those who do not have it. I salute the Congress and President Obama for standing up to the haters and special interests.
And for everyone dooming and glooming over the passage there are probably an equal number cheering because the bill passed.
Starryflights–about 10 people have asked me if you are the starryflights on the dark screen. I told them I didn’t know. Thought I would finally just ask you. I am tired of saying I don’t know. So are you the black velvet Starryflights?
Wolverine, do your family members who are physicians favor a single payer system? Would that eliminate much of the paperwork?
I’ve wondered if family practices that operate out of several offices are cost effective . More rent, more overhead, usually more staff. Maybe with the slowdown in the economy, fewer people are visiting their doctors and that means less revenue. Some offices may be consolidating.
There’s definitely no excuse for that – that’s a horrible thing to call someone.
I read in several places that healthcare reform is going to cause a shortage of doctors. Wait times may increase for doctor services. It may be negative unintended consequence of healthcare reform.
I also read that some doctors will indeed perhaps retire sooner as some things about healthcare reform don’t necessarily work in the doctor’s favor.
These are just things I’ve read – I am not saying 100% that they are true – but when I read them, the explanation as to why these things would happen, made logical sense to me. Unfortunately, I don’t at the moment remember the details of the explanations, or I would share them here.
Some of those practices that operate out of several offices – I guess so as to make it convenient for people to pick on that they are close to – it did always make me wonder the economics of it (for the practice – not for the patients). That is, as you say, more rent, more staff needed as far as the front office staff. Seemed like in some cases some of the doctors split their time between two offices.
To me, it seemed inefficient, and definitely seemed to incur extra costs to the practice. It made it more convenient for the patients though. But SOMEHOW, those costs had to get passed down to the patients obviously – either directly or indirectly. By indirectly – I mean insurance might pick up the extra cost, but that just drives up insurance premiums.
It might be worth having to drive an extra 5 or 10 miles to go to the doctor – if a practice consolidated and its costs went down. Of course some of the front office people would lose their jobs, unfortuntely. You wouldn’t need the same amount of staff making appointments, signing people in, and taking their payments at the end of the their visit obviously.
But, it might help make costs go down for both the patients and for those family practices with offices in 3 or 4 places.
I can’t argue with that. For me though, I am wondering what my health care plan will look like a year from now. I have a very excellent one at work – that so far for routine prescriptions and doctor’s visits – has cost me $0 out of pocket the past few years, and the premiums are low. I have a feeling it may fall by the wayside. If so, I’ll be pretty angry about that.
However, I’m glad a lot of people are happy healthcare passed.
I heard some states may consider lawsuits in regards to suing the gov’t over healthcare reform. I didn’t realize Virginia might be one of those states considering doing that.
I have a lot of thoughts on this.
It is disgusting to me the way the Obama Administration and Democratic Party (leadership) rammed this through by force rather than winning popular support.
It is most disgusting to me the corrupt deal made with the pharmaceutical companies whereby drug reimportation was thrown away for giveaways to the poor, ensuring that working Americans will continue to pay 2-3 times more than other countries for drugs developed here. Inexcusable.
The whole thing is short-sighted. Without popular support, this whole thing’s built on sand and almost certainly there’ll be political backlash and much of the bill will be undone over the next few years. And who among us can dount that 20-30 years from now at the latest someone will win office promising to get us better results (more coverage, cost containment) by privatizing health care? There’s no sense of the long view here.
Obama’s a terrible, novice President who doesn’t stand for anything real. He’s like a mirror image of the previous President. They coast by on charm and lead nowhere real. They fiddle with pet issues while Rome burns. They have nothing to offer us, can’t “lead” us out of a paper bag.
Meanwhile, our premiums will go up. Eventually, drug prices will rise and will remain higher than anyone else’s, at taxpayer expense. Economic growth will be stalled. The short term probably won’t be good.
The ease with which Obama ignored a core constituency, women’s rights advocates, and sold them out for this, should distress anyone. Another prediction : back alley-abortions make a comeback. However one feels about abortion rights, they should be concerned about a President who has no core values and who abandons his supporters for short-term “success”.
It’s the next fake issue for the two sick parties to fight about. Nobody will address cost issues driven by end-of-life care. No one will even talk about it. The GOP will fight to undo this and restore privitization, trhe Democrats will fight to keep it, the fight will go on as a defining issue for the next generation or so, and the sheep will move to one stall or another and pretend that the party they vote for is worth voting for, pretend that either party really cares about what’s best for America or Americans.
Republican lawmakers stir up the ‘tea party’ crowd
By Dana Milbank
Monday, March 22, 2010
The Democrats were blamed for many horrible things — tyranny! socialism! corruption! — as they marched toward Sunday night’s passage of health-care legislation, but nobody ever accused them of making health reform look easy.
It was one of the ugliest and strangest periods the American legislative process has ever experienced. And Sunday was no different. The day’s debate on the House floor was in its early moments when two men, one smelling strongly of alcohol, stood up in the public gallery and interrupted the debate with shouts of “Kill the bill!” and “The people said no!” As the Capitol Police led the demonstrators from the chamber, Republicans cheered — for the hecklers
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/21/AR2010032103484.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR
Rick,
How did the president sell out women? The Hyde amendment which has been in place for decades will remain the precedent in this health care bill. This isn’t perfect, and I agree with you on several points, the drug company influence being one of them, but I am hopeful that this is the first step to ensuring that Americans don’t watch their loved ones suffer or have to declare bankruptcy due to lack of coverage. What do you think the best solution was to cost contain and offer wider coverage?
Pardon me, sir, but the bill was enacted by both chambers of the United States Congress. It will be signed by the President of the United States. This is in accordance with the Constitution of the United States.
If you believe that the bill was unconstitutional, you may take your claims to the United States Supreme Court. You may also register your displeasure during this year’s election.
There was nothing unconstitutional about what just occured.
Just read the wash post article by Dana Milbank, thanks for posting it Starry. There has been more outrage over healthcare than the war in Iraq. I find that interesting. Even after so much information regarding so many debacles there was never this outrage as our young men and women fought, day after day, in a place we had not business being in.
I for one do NOT believe that these protestors represent the majority of America. I may not agree with the entirety of this bill, but it’s the beginning of ensuring better healthcare for all.
“What do you think the best solution was to cost contain and offer wider coverage?” discrete measures, one at a time, made without acceptance of ad money or promises from lobbyists – starting wth allowing drug reimportation so as to reduce drug prices for Americans. Another item which could probably be implemented sans “comprehensive” approach would be to create a coop for people who can’t get insurance elsewhere.
An idea I like is to subsidize health insurance costs in the tax code for working poor and middle-class, not to just give money to half the population without requiring them to insure their kids.
“How did the president sell out women?”
By any account he wants many millions of Americans to move to this government-subsidized system, and if in it abortions won’t be covered. So either individual women will cover the full cost of the abortion, or organizations like Planned Parenthood will pay. Certainly we will see a return of poor desperate women to back-alley abortions and those devices people used to use (that I’ve seen in “Alfie” and “Revolutionary Road”). Obama owed it to many of his supporters not to bargain that away.
The original rationale for “comprehensive” legislation was that it could implement some cost containment, that some “tough choices” could be made – that might stop us from spending most of our money on the last year of life. That dissipated almost immediately. “Comprehensive” became code word for a boondoggle that will institutionalize large profits at all sectors of the industry while actually physically forcing everyone into the system who isn’t in it already. Cost containment went out the window. The only nod to cost containment was pretense – floating CBO estimates that knowingly leave out portions of the actual plan. By the CBO’s own estimates we end up paying significantly more from this.
There’s a better way to do this, obviously. This was more about politics than about helping working Americans, obviously. Am i expecting too much when i expect a President who doesn’t lie to our face and sell trillion-dollar plans the way used cars are sold (“act now, or you can’t get a deal for at least 20 years”).
@Rick Bentley
Don’t worry, Rick. The vote was so close, the plan will be overturned (is that the right word?) probably before we see the effects.
Why aren’t the wealthy paying for this?
I don’t think abortion should be covered by public monies. Invest in education and prevention? Absolutely.
BTW, can someone tell me where the Vets=Baby Killers came in? I missed that somehow.
Babies are killed in war. So are soldiers and brothers and sisters and children and grandparents. That’s why war isn’t the answer and we need to move away from our dependence on it to solve problems. Hopefully, the human race will evolve at some point, sooner than later.
The plan will be overturned or abandoned, either quickly or after decades. But meanwhile – real improvement won’t happen.
We spend as much on the last year of life as everything prior to it. We all die bankrupt on morphone drips. It’s absurd.
“Why aren’t the wealthy paying for this?”
Because there’s more money to be made bilking the middle class.
Let’s revolt against the upper class–have a real but unbloody French Revolution. Let THEM eat cake for once.
While they are at it, let them lick the bottom of a peanut butter jar.
Too late PAP. We the people just undertook a massive bailout to ssubsidize the wealthy’s stock values. Both parties agreed that we had to do it ASAP, with little discussion or examination. The chicken coop has already been raided. That nice Mr. Obama has already presided over a massive transfer of wealth from the middle classes to the wealthy.
Now we can get back to the more mundane business of Democrats throwing bits of money at the poor, and the wealthy begrudging it, and pretending each party has one or more “ideology”s behind them.
Time to form the groups in front of the corporations. How about a march through some ultra-rich Falls Church neighborhoods? How about some flag waving in front of Sallie Mae and Eli Lilly? Come on Rick. You would be a great leader for this kind of thing.
Forget government. Let’s go to the source of the money.
(I’m in a mood. Can you tell?)
I havent seen the American people bail out of medicare yet. Everyone I have ever known loves it.
Rick, what we just saw is pretty much how legislation works on deeply divided issues.
And Rick, your last comment is probably very true.
Are you handling the movie thread? I have to be out this morning.
Prohibit pre-existing condition exclusions for children in all new plans;
Provide immediate access to insurance for uninsured Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition through a temporary high-risk pool;
(temporary high risk pool? Then what? automatic inclusion for everyone? Everyone’s rates now go up. Or the companies go broke.)
Prohibit dropping people from coverage when they get sick in all individual plans;(THIS ONE I LIKE……)
Lower seniors prescription drug prices by beginning to close the donut hole;
(More subsidies with money we DON’T HAVE)
Offer tax credits to small businesses to purchase coverage; (NO TAX CREDIT WILL COMPENSATE FOR THE INCREASED RATES COMING)
Eliminate lifetime limits and restrictive annual limits on benefits in all plans;
(MORE REASONS FOR RATE INCREASES OR BROKEN COMPANIES – REMOVES RISK ANALYSIS)
Require plans to cover an enrollee’s dependent children until age 26;
(NO SUCH THING AS DEPENDENT 26 YEAR OLD CHILD)
Require new plans to cover preventive services and immunizations without cost-sharing;
(WILL CONGRESS FORCE GROCERY STORES TO PROVIDE FREE FOOD NOW?)
Ensure consumers have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to appeal new insurance plan decisions;(WHAT INSURANCE PLANS? THE NEW “IMPROVED” OR THE SINGLE PAYER BECAUSE THE COMPANIES WILL BE GONE)
Require premium rebates to enrollees from insurers with high administrative expenditures and require public disclosure of the percent of premiums applied to overhead costs. (CAN WE GET THIS FOR THE FED, CONGRESS, AND ANY OTHER COMPANIES? HOW ABOUT UTILITY COMPANIES?)
The health care reform expert Karoli adds:
1.Adult children may remain as dependents on their parents’ policy until age 26 (SEE ABOUVE
2.Children under age 19 may not be excluded for pre-existing conditions (NO MORE RISK ANALYSIS, WHY HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE? WAIT UNTIL THEY GET SICK….)
3.No more lifetime or annual caps on coverage
4.Free preventative care for all (NOT FREE. INCREASED TAXES. LESS DOCTORS WHO PAYS?)
5.Adults with pre-existing conditions may buy into a national high-risk pool until the exchanges come online. While these will not be cheap, they’re still better than total exclusion and get some benefit from a wider pool of insureds. (HIGH RISK POOL MAKES SENSE. NATIONAL EXCHANGE WITH REQUIREMENTS MANDATED IS WRONG.)
6.Small businesses will be entitled to a tax credit for 2009 and 2010, which could be as much as 50% of what they pay for employees’ health insurance. (SOO, TELL ME AGAIN HOW THIS SAVE MONEY? TAXES WILL PAY FOR IT)
7.The “donut hole” closes for Medicare patients, making prescription medications more affordable for seniors. (SAME HERE, OH WAIT, THERE ARE PRIVATE SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAMS OUT THERE)
8.Requirement that all insurers must post their balance sheets on the Internet and fully disclose administrative costs, executive compensation packages, and benefit payments. (WHEN WILL CHARLIE RANGEL AND CHUCK SCHUMER DO THE SAME.)
9.Authorizes early funding of community health centers in all 50 states (Bernie Sanders’ amendment) (LET THOSE COMMUNITIES BUILD THEM IF THEY WANT THEM)
There is NO constitutional authority for any of this. Show me in the Constitution where it authorizes Congress to control health care. Or for that matter, Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security.
How will the government control costs with this boondoggle? Wasn’t that the whole idea? We just increased the cost of health care by TRILLIONS and that’s just what the CBO states. Of course the costs will be much higher. Congress can’t control the costs and spending of what they do now.
We are screwed. See ya in the waiting line at the local “free” clinic.
Moon I’ll try to check in on the movie thread, but I may be away for hours at a time today.
This is a very scary situation to me for several reasons. I’ll acknowledge that reform is needed. Preventing insurance companies from booting policyholders as soon as they start making claims, and some of the other provisions along those lines are fine and warranted. However, the long-term financial consequences and the impact on the availability of health care imbedded in the bill that passed yesterday could be disastrous.
On March 5th, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that excess long-term spending obligations (unfunded liabilities) increased by 21.5 percent in just 9 months to $76.4 trillion. This staggering amount is not reflected in official government financial statements.
If anyone in the private sector tried to apply the same accounting rules the government uses, they would find themselves in a cell near Bernie Madoff very quickly for fraud. According to private accounting rules, businesses must show any long-term liabilities on their balance sheet so investors and creditors can get a full picture of their financial health. The government does not do this, although GAO estimates and publishes those liabilities apart from the official budget statements. Politicians are able to gloss over these uncomfortable truths in the rubbish they tell constituents.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) warned today that debt in the developed economies, including the United States, will rise from 75 percent of GDP in 2007 to 110 percent in 2014. They are advising “a return to prudent policies as a necessary condition for sustained economic health.” The IMF used to issue such warnings only to countries such as Argentina, Russia, etc. that we considered developing or unstable. Now the United States is being put on notice. In addition, the ratings agencies are warning that the United States might loose the AAA rating for its debt.
The Health Care legislation passed yesterday compounds and accelerates all of these debt and financial problems.
I work with doctors in my business and have taught workshops in investment management for Johns Hopkins University’s continuing education program for medical professionals. The doctors have been saying for years that the profession is no longer as rewarding as it once was because of malpractice insurance costs and increasing government regulation of their practices.
Many doctors are planning their finances now to retire as soon as they possibly can. Some have told me that they are discouraging their children from entering the field.
The legislation passed yesterday does nothing about tort reform or malpractice insurance costs. It makes worse the problem of government interference in doctors’ practices.
We’re going to hear a lot of high sounding rhetoric in the coming days from supporters of this bill. However, in the coming years we might very well see inflation and interest rates rising to levels that dwarf the stagflation of the 1970s as the bill’s provisions add to our already bad debt and financial situation. In addition, regardless of government programs to subsidize or provide health care services, we will see increasing shortages and rationing of those services as doctors exit the profession.
Wolverine and others highlight a major challenge – this bill rapidly increases the
demand for, but not the supply of medical care. Medicaid is and will be
underfunded and Medicare is now only a few degrees better. Try getting
an appointment with a Dr. in PWC with either one of them. Great to have
insurance, but if nobody takes it – then you might as well give folks Monopoly
money. (Without the “Dr. fix”, Medicare, which many of us have paid for through
payroll taxes for decades, becomes almost useless).
And the Republicans have failed the American people by not having a viable
affordable real-world plan to offer as a reasonable alternative.
Screaming NO, kicking and spitting, and shouting the equivalent of
“Do-Do head!” are the tactics of unruly toddlers, not national leaders.
Well, seems to me there’s potential for a real backlash, and the undoing of many forms of welfare for the poor. The GOP has been after an end to “entitlements” for many years and they may have some success in the wake of this.
Change is scary, and I’m right there with you. But I’ve also seen and read some innovations that will improve how health care is delivered. Centering health care involves assessment, education and support in a group setting with health care providers and facilitators. Say you have 12 clients with diabetes. Instead of 12 separate appointments, you see everyone together. They feel listened to. They don’t feel alone. They feel peer support to make healthier changes.
Centering pregnancy is out of VCU in Richmond, it’s practiced in DC and Northern Virginia is beginning to catch on. Manassas Midwifery just got a $20K grant from the March of Dimes to deploy it this spring.
And the future– imagine a birthing center in Manassas/PWC where you could give birth without the medical intervention in a hospital setting that drives up the costs.
I really think this scary stuff is going to push the innovation.
Why waste all this energy on fighting change — put it towards solutions and common sense.
There’s been plenty of outrage over the past 8 years over the war in Iraq. I’m not really sure you can say there’s been more outrage over healthcare than the war in Iraq. Depends on how you measure it, I suppose. But the outrage over the war in Iraq has been pretty high and constant for the last 8 years. That’s why I have a hard time believing there’s been more outrage over healthcare than the war in Iraq.
I would agree with all of this. They give lip service to making the wealthy pay for things, but then turn around and do things like what Rick describes above.
My parents do seem to do well with medicare. Although, my father still has insurance from the federal gov’t so just I think has that medicare gap insurance. Anyway, even when they’ve been in the hospital, everything has been paid for – their out of pocket costs have been something like $50! So, obviously they are very happy with medicare, but maybe aren’t on full medicare like some people. I think what they have is called “medicare gap” insurance. I will freely admit, I don’t know a lot about medicare – just from what I’ve obsreved that my parents end up with virtually no out of pocket costs. But, they may not be on “full medicare” I guess, so it may be an apples to oranges comparison.
From what I’ve heard it will raise the deficit greatly. Now, one can argue the deficit has been greatly raised for lots of other things, and I won’t disagree. But, at some point we have to draw the line at all this deficit spending.
Finally, there are definite worries about the long term impact of the availability of healthcare. Just ask anyone who lives in Canada for example – about many hour waits at doctor’s offices for routine stuff.
There is a theory that this healthcare reform bill will ultimately lead to a huge huge shortage of doctors, and wait times at emergency rooms and even regular doctor’s offices will increase dramatically. I sure hope none of those theories are accurate and none of it comes to pass.
But, if it does, we’ll know who to blame. I hope it won’t come to that though – that those theories are all wrong somehow.
Yes, I think this may become the biggest problem of healthcare reform – the demand for healthcare is going to rise – but there’s no provision made to increase the supply. That may become disasterous in the years to come. I hope not, but we could really end up with huge wait times for even routine appointments, not to mention more emergency type things. That would be bad, very bad, if it comes to pass. Hopefully someone will recognize this now and fix that – so the supply increases. However, it may not be able to be increased fast enough (getting more doctors through the schools, etc.) to make a difference in the short run.
Cindy, it is a nice thought but how many people would sign waivers to allow this through HIPAA? Most people are pretty private about their medical needs. And if the shortage of doctors force people to sign waivers for group examination, I think the dismantling of HIPAA in this way would be wrong.
There are already group settings for these things I agree but when it involves a doctor and “assessment”, it is pretty close to an examination and most people would not want to be assessed by a doctor in front of others.
“Say you have 12 clients with diabetes. Instead of 12 separate appointments, you see everyone together. They feel listened to. They don’t feel alone. They feel peer support to make healthier changes.”
I would NOT want to share my doctor visit, that’s crazy….
Lots of scary what if going around. Lots of doom and gloom.
Medicare Gap is a supplement to medicare. It is strange and takes a ph.d to figure out. What is available varies from state to state. (maybe region to region also) However the services on each scale are standardized.
One of the goals of this bill was to make us more like Europe. You know, the countries that have even worse economic problems than we do……
During our times of 5% unemployment, the average unemployment there was what we have now.
I’m afraid that our unemployment level is now the new normal. This bill will harm the economy so badly that the middle class will become permanently dependent on government largess.
In addition to this bill, we have cap and trade and the amnesty bills coming up. Lets see, more taxes, regulation, and cheap labor without jobs. More voters for the Democrats.
OK, maybe that’s not what my parents have then. I’m not sure – I thought they were referring to having medicare gap coverage. My father still gets health insurance from the Federal Gov’t (that he pays for) under his retirement plan. Then, somehow on top of that, he gets some form of medicare – such that between the two, they rarely have any out-of-pocket costs. Maybe it is just regular medicare then.
Let’s just hope that none of that gloom and doom talk comes true. However, some of it seems to have some good rational explanations to it (such as the predicted doctor shortage).
I was told that if I voted for John McCain we would have bipartisanship in Washington! And they were right!
Democratic 219 34
Republican 178
Notice that the press hasn’t mentioned “bipartisanship” in this context.
Sorry, the formatting changed the roll call
Dem 219 yes
34 no
Rep 178 no
It was right along party lines for sure….well except for the defecting dems.
GR, not sure I understand the doctor shortage having a cause/effect relationship with the new HCR. ARe they quitting in droves because they won’t get as much money? It is all confusing since I read that the AMA supported it.
We shall see. What are all the docs going to become? Stock brokers or plumbers?