The health-care reform bill ISN’T enough pages!

A constant whine of congressional Republicans about health care reform is that the legislation is just too long and too complicated. “All you need to know is there are 1,990 pages,” griped House Minority Leader John Boehner about the House bill. “It is longer than ‘War and Peace’ and not near as funny,” said Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX). As the Washington Times has noted, Republican senators have “rotated three other copies of the bill among their desks so a giant stack is never more than a desk or two away from any senator who wants to thump it, poke it, or heft it for viewers to see.” But today, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) opened the 11th day of Senate debate by arguing that the bill is not long enough:

And we talk about 2,074 pages, which seem like a lot, and it would be for a normal bill that you could debate in a limited period of time, which is what we’re being asked to do. But 2,074 pages isn’t nearly enough to cover health care for America. So why is it only 2,074 pages?

Watch it:


Filed under Healthcare, Republicans, Wingnuts!

13 responses to “The health-care reform bill ISN’T enough pages!

  1. Do you suppose as a group they’re bipolar?

    Or did they just run out of ways to be obstructionists?

    I don’t care much for the proposed legislation either, but I can come up with several ideas and alternatives. These guys just sound childish and petty!

  2. It’s a good thing we have those blue-dog democrats — at least someone is both functional and in opposition.

  3. I guess the bill that would actually make sense would be waaaaay too short, since it would read:

    Medicare For All!

  4. I am now firmly of the opinion the Democratic Party members who sit in the majority of both the Senate and the House can’t govern, probably can’t tie their own shoes.

    I don’t feel the Republican Party members of either chamber have enough sense to come in out of the cold.

    The Republicans are being morons and the Democrats are allowing joining them.

    They should simply close shop and go home. That might save us money and prevent further damage.

  5. No matter what form our health-care reform ultimately takes, it seems likely insurance companies won’t be able to turn people down for pre-existing conditions (as often or as easily!). They’re going to have to cover everyone who applies without regard for their health history.

    This won’t actually cost them anything and their obscene profits will continue if that’s the only improvement we get. By reducing their underwriting departments where armies of employees work to find out what will be considered pre-existing and the second army of employees in rescission departments who dig through records looking for grounds to cancel policies and deny coverage once an insured does get sick, they’ll save more than it costs.

    Probably these savings the insurance companies realize will mean premium increases for us. That’s how the dishonorable insurance companies do business. Unless we get serious competition we won’t see costs controlled.

  6. How can we label ourselves civilized until we do solve this problem?

    And can you imagine the difference it would make to our troubled economy to have the advantages of healthier, more productive citizens?

  7. lilacluvr

    When I heard about the proposal of extending Medicare to 55 to 64 yr olds – I thought it was a good idea. But now, as I understand it, these people will be paying the entire premium which is roughly $7,600 per year for single coverage.

    My husband and I are both 56 yrs old and we currently have insurance through his job. We pay $6,000 per year for the both of us combined.

    So, how do they come up with this $7,600 per year amount? I understand that there is no subsidizing from the government for these people but really – $7,600 per year?

    And if one has been laid off at this age with very little real hope to find another job that offers health insurance, where is that person going to come up with $7,600 per one person’s coverage – let alone their spouse’s coverage?

    • Of course, the $6000 annual cost of insurance for you and your husband is the employee’s portion, with the company paying what is probably a greater share as a benefit of your husband’s employment.

      But you are right on that few will be able to afford the premiums of Medicare. The people it will help are those who can afford to retire early but stay in their jobs only for the insurance benefit. The insurance companies will continue to reap huge profits and for those of means there will be another option.

      • lilacluvr

        My husband was told yesterday that the company is changing to Blue Cross Blue Shield and the lifetime maximum benefit has been raised back up to $2 million (so that is good news for us) and the premium went up only by $20 a paycheck (which is not bad).

        My question then is – if Blue Cross Blue Shield can do this, then why did Harrington Health slash our lifetime benefit from $2 million to $500,000 while charging the same premiums for the same health care coverages?

        This is just one example as to how these insurance companies can manipulate people so much. And there is no chance of real reform as long as these companies are allowed to do whatever they want and it is up to the employers to pick the best plan out there?

        But, once the employer picks a plan, it is their plan for the remainder of the year – as I understand it – is that correct?

        There is no changing of plans in mid-contract is there?

        I just want people to be able to get health insurance at an affordable premium – is that too much to ask?

  8. 6176746f6c6c65

    Absent extraordinary circumstances, once a plan is adopted by an employer, it continues through the coverage period – one year.

    The question re: Blue Cross vs. the other provider could boil down to mutual (BC/BS) v. stock company.

    As to your last question, apparently so.

  9. Do we need any additional proof that health-care reform isn’t on the agenda!

    The White House, aided by Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), is working hard to crush an amendment being pushed by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) to allow for the reimportation of pharmaceutical drugs from Canada, Senate sources tell the Huffington Post.

  10. PrairiePond

    “The White House, aided by Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), is working hard to crush an amendment being pushed by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) to allow for the reimportation of pharmaceutical drugs from Canada”

    As Tracy would say… “Pitiful. Just pitiful.”