Reconciliation

[Lurker]

Do you ever dodge questions, Embar?

What does my responses have to do with your responses? Are you saying that I dictate your response by my response?

In other words, "Yeah, all the time! See, I just dodged another one!" Amusing.

=========

I'll take the bet if Ddrak agrees and as long as the charity isn't a political one. Hope this one works out better than my bet with Walrus.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Do you ever dodge questions, Embar?

What does my responses have to do with your responses? Are you saying that I dictate your response by my response?

In other words, "Yeah, all the time! See, I just dodged another one!" Amusing.

=========

I'll take the bet if Ddrak agrees and as long as the charity isn't a political one. Hope this one works out better than my bet with Walrus.

Ok, done. My charity is PAWS San Diego. Link is here: http://www.pawssdc.org/

Ok as a non-political org? And what's yours?

[Lurker]

I don't know. That cat looks awfully conservative.

My charity will be Doctors Without Borders. If that's deemed political then Feeding America.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Doctors without Borders is good with me. Great organization.

[Lurker]

Cool. This will take some of the sting out of the drubbing the Democrats have coming on November 2nd, which I assume is the cutoff date for the bet.

[Ddrak]

I can arbitrate, but I don't think I'll need to do much.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

Cool. This will take some of the sting out of the drubbing the Democrats have coming on November 2nd, which I assume is the cutoff date for the bet.

Yeah, Nov 2

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/85693 ... ealthcare-

The Hill has 34 votes identified as likely to vote no. The bill will fail if 38 vote no. So there are four Congressman out there that swing some heavy weight right now. THe count is updated daily. Of note, the no count has been going up.

[Ddrak]

No Democrat is going to campaign on repealing health reform

Ok - just to be fair (and allow people to back out in the case of conflicting meanings):

What precisely constitutes "campaigning on repealing health reform"?

Specifically:

• If a candidate says they would "consider voting for a bill that repealed it"?
• If a candidate says they would "vote for a bill to amend it into something different"?
• If a candidate refuses to answer whether they would vote for/against a repeal bill?
• Is it "campaigning against" if they respond to questions about health care negatively, or does it have to be a declared part of their platform?

I'm just worried the whole thing is going to descend into the grey area of definitions and I find I'm adjudicating on something you didn't really agree on to begin with. If it ends up that way, I'll call it a draw and you can both donate $50. :p

Dd

[Lurker]

Excellent question.

To me, more is required than a vague response to a reporters question or a parsed quote in a newspaper article.

While I don't think repealing reform needs to be a centerpiece of their campaign, it has to at least be mentioned on their website, or talked about on the campaign trail, or contained in a stump speech. Failing that, it would need to be a strongly worded public pledge to work towards repeal if elected or re-elected. Pledging to repeal part of reform or to alter it is fine as long as it's a significant part and the alteration makes the bill less progressive. I don't think Dennis Kucinich vowing to repeal reform and replace it with single payer and a pony was what Embar had in mind.

That said, Embar can give his view of the conditions and I'll go along with them.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Im ok with what Lurker said. And Dd can apply those standards in his best judgement. Also, it probably goes without sayng that the bet is off if healthcare doesn't pass, since there wont be anything to repeal.

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/85693 ... ealthcare-

The Hill now has the probable no vote count at 36. Assuming these are all a lock (they aren't, but we also can't assume all the undecideds will vote yes), Pelosi can lose one more and still pass the bill. She loses two more, and the bill fails. To sweeten the pot, she's going to include student aid in the health bill, or more accurately, in the reconcilliation language that will become the reconcilliation bill. Which may just cause the Senate to turn their backs on the reconcilliation language, forcing the House members to swallow the Seante version without modifications. And that will cost many House members their seats in November.

[Freecare Spiritwise]

I know I'm just a typical ignorant constituent, but from my uninformed perspective it doesn't seem like healthcare reform is going address the really deep issues that are affecting so many people. I have what I'm told is good coverage, i.e. a PPO plan. The wife and I have recently had some very serious health issues, and now we are being billed separately by what is probably dozens of providers. For example, not only is the hospital I stayed at billing me separately for the ICU and the neurology department where I stayed, but I'm also being billed by individual doctors and labs where those doctors ran their tests. This is in addition to the dozen or so specialists we're both seeing and their labs, techs, and so on...

Now, each separate bill is an opportunity for the insurance company and/or the entity billing me to screw up, and what-do-you-know, the screwups are never in my favor. There's no incentive for anyone not to screw up ($$$$$), and no consequences (other than through litigation) when they do screw up. What's worse is that it's so easy for all these people to find out my income so of course I'm being sued by some of them, and some of those for trivial amounts like $50.

So phase one of my illness was my illness. Phase two of my illness is having my attorney tear these motherfuckers new assholes. But I'm torn because these are the people who saved my life. Or rather the healing portion (doctors,nurses,etc.) saved my life while the administrative portion will serve me papers on my doorstep for money I don't owe. Most people don't fight, so they get default judgments and some people ironically aren't in good enough shape financially or physically to fight. They heal you so that you're alive then they kick you when you're down.

Now this is WITH what is supposedly good coverage.

So we have the best health coverage in the world. I don't see that changing. But we probably have the worst financial management of healthcare in the world, and unfortunately I don't see that changing either. I just don't see any politician (I had hope for Obama) kicking the big insurance companies out of bed.

[Kulaf]

No one is going to sue anyone for 50 bucks. Are you sure they are not just threatening to send the bill to collections? It would cost them thousands to sue you for 50 dollars.

[Freecare Spiritwise]

No one is going to sue anyone for 50 bucks. Are you sure they are not just threatening to send the bill to collections? It would cost them thousands to sue you for 50 dollars.

You obviously don't know much about lawsuits, but that's ok neither did I before any of this. And yes, I was sued for $50, and I'll tell you how that works. And yes, I know what it means to be sued, and there is absolutely zero confusion over what does and what doesn't constitute a lawsuit. When somebody knocks on your door and hands you a court summons that says you're being sued (they usually say "good luck" just like you were in Vegas) and an itemized list of for what and how much, you're being sued.

Here's how it works:

(DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY SO I AM/COULD BE FULL OF SHIT)

You owe some company $50 (or they say you do). That company doesn't think it's going to get its money so it sells that debt to a debt collector for pennies on the dollar, sometimes in bulk.

Now if it's an attorney who buys the debt (or they hire an attorney), they can only legally come after you for what you supposedly owe, which in this case is $50. But that's not their primary motivation because the real goal is inflated attorney's fees. So a $50 lawsuit might show a total that adds up to $2,000. So in reality you're being sued for $2,050 or whatever the number is. They might (out of the kindness of their heart) settle for a lower number, but it'll never be the original amount you supposedly owed. Whatever number they get will be worth their time or they won't settle - they'll proceed with litgation.

EDIT: Oh and as far as I know (again, not being an attorney) it is illegal under the FDCPA for a debt collector to threaten to sue somebody as a means to coerce them into paying up. There's lots of stuff they can't say, but debt collectors are pretty brazen these days because most people are either scared/ashamed to fight back so they get away with lots of stuff they shouldn't get away with.

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/85693 ... ealthcare-

Now up to 37 likely no votes. Pelosi can't lose anymore and pass the bill. She's lost 3 since Friday, from 34 to 37.

[Freecare Spiritwise]

Any linkage for someone who wants to be more informed on healthcare reform issues?

I just this very second got an email from Obama warning me that the big insurance companies are lobbying against healthcare reform, but it seems to me that lots of their interests are being well served. It's hard to know what's what, so any links to make a brother better informed would be appreciated. Thanks!

[Partha]

http://www.kff.org/

[Freecare Spiritwise]

Thanks, Partha.

Slate has a cool looking "whip-o-meter" that's currently in the yellow range:

http://www.slate.com/id/2247673/

[Ddrak]

When we were in the US, almost all of our medical bills ended up going to collections before the insurance paid their portion to the hospital (which typically took between 15 and 18 months). I can't understand how a hospital can continue to function with that sort of financial disaster going on around it.

Over here the health insurers are electronically linked to the hospitals so they pay directly when you settle the bill on the way out. Surely that sort of thing is creeping in over there too?

Dd