TimesArgus.com - We Are Vermont

Health care bill clears Senate hurdle



Toolbox

By DAVID ESPO The Associated Press - Published: November 22, 2009

WASHINGTON — Invoking the memory of Edward M. Kennedy, Democrats united Saturday night to push historic health care legislation past a key Senate hurdle over the opposition of Republicans eager to inflict a punishing defeat on President Barack Obama. There was not a vote to spare.

The 60-39 vote cleared the way for a bruising, full-scale debate beginning after Thanksgiving on the legislation, which is designed to extend coverage to roughly 31 million who lack it, crack down on insurance company practices that deny or dilute benefits and curtail the growth of spending on medical care nationally.

The spectator galleries were full for the unusual Saturday night showdown, and applause broke out briefly when the vote was announced. In a measure of the significance of the moment, senators sat quietly in their seats, standing only when they were called upon to vote.

In the final minutes of a daylong session, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., accused Republicans of trying to stifle a historic debate the nation needed.

"Imagine if, instead of debating whether to abolish slavery, instead of debating whether giving women and minorities the right to vote, those who disagreed had muted discussion and killed any vote," he said.

The Republican leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said the vote was anything but procedural — casting it as a referendum on the bill itself, which he said would raise taxes, cut Medicare and create a "massive and unsustainable debt."

For all the drama, the result of the Saturday night showdown had been sealed a few hours earlier, when two final Democratic holdouts, Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, announced they would join in clearing the way for a full debate.

"It is clear to me that doing nothing is not an option," said Landrieu, who won $100 million in the legislation to help her state pay the costs of health care for the poor.

Lincoln, who faces a tough re-election next year, said the evening vote will "mark the beginning of consideration of this bill by the U.S. Senate, not the end."

Both stressed they were not committing in advance to vote for the bill that ultimately emerges from next month's debate.

Of particular contentiousness to moderates is a provision for the government to sell insurance in competition with private companies, subject to state approval — a part of Reid's bill expected to come under significant pressure as the debate unfolds.

Even so, their announcements marked a major victory for Reid and the White House in a year-end drive to enact the most sweeping changes to the nation's health care system in a half-century or more.

At the White House, press secretary Robert Gibbs issued a statement saying the president was gratified by the vote, which he says "brings us one step closer to ending insurance company abuses, reining in spiraling health care costs, providing stability and security to those with health insurance, and extending quality health coverage to those who lack it."

The legislation would require most Americans to carry insurance and provide subsidies to those who couldn't afford it. Large companies could incur costs if they did not provide coverage to their workforce. The insurance industry would come under significant new regulation under the bill, which would first ease and then ban the practice of denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.

Congressional budget analysts put the legislation's cost at $979 billion over a decade and said it would reduce deficits over the same period while extending coverage to 94 percent of the eligible population.

At its core, the legislation would create insurance exchanges beginning in 2014 where individuals, most of them lower income and uninsured, would shop for coverage. The bill sets aside hundreds of billions of dollars in tax credits to help those earning up to 400 percent of poverty, $88,200 for a family of four.

The House approved its version of the bill earlier this month on a near party line vote of 220-215, and Reid has said he wants the Senate to follow suit by year's end. Timing on any final compromise was unclear.

All 58 Senate Democrats and two independents voted to advance the bill. All 39 votes in opposition were cast by Republicans. GOP Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio was the only senator not to vote. Montana Sen. Max Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee who has labored on health care for more than a year, flew in from his home state on a government plane for the vote and was returning afterward to be with his ailing mother.

While timing made Landrieu and Lincoln the final two Democrats to announce their intentions, Sen. Paul Kirk of Massachusetts had a clear claim as the 60th vote.

Appointed to office this fall after the death of Kennedy, who championed health care issues for decades, Kirk said he spoke for those "who for so many years revered and loved and elected and re-elected (him) ... that I think they're all — they all, as we do, have him in our minds and our hearts tonight. ..."

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., echoed those sentiments later in the evening when he referred to Kennedy's "lifelong quest" for national health care and said "tonight and in the days to come we will pay him the highest compliment by fulfilling that" goal.

At a post-vote news conference, Reid said he had telephoned Kennedy's widow, Vicki, with the news.

In hours of debate before the Saturday evening vote, a few Republicans piled copies of the 2,074-page bill on their desks while others criticized it as a government takeover of health care and worse.

"Move over, Bernie Madoff. Tip your hat to a trillion-dollar scam," said Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., likening the bill's supporters to the imprisoned investor who fleeced millions.

In her remarks, Landrieu said, "I've decided that there are enough significant reforms and safeguards in this bill to move forward, but much more work needs to be done." She also touted the $100 million included in the legislation to help her state cover its costs under Medicaid, the state-federal health care program for the poor.

Lincoln referred repeatedly to the political controversy surrounding the issue. She said $3.3 million has already been spent by outside groups advertising either for or against health care legislation in her state, and said, "these outside groups seem to think that this is all about my re-election. I simply think they don't know me very well."

To finance the expanded coverage, Reid proposed higher taxes as well as cuts totaling hundreds of billions of dollars in projected Medicare payments. Hardest hit would be the private insurance Medicare plans, although providers such as home health agencies would also receive significantly less in future years than now estimated.

The bill raises payroll taxes on incomes over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. Reid eased the impact of an earlier proposal to tax high-value insurance plans, which has emerged as one of the principal methods for restraining the growth in health costs.

The bill includes tax increases on insurance companies, medical device makers, patients electing to undergo cosmetic surgery and drugmakers.

———

Associated Press writer Donna Cassata contributed to this article.








READER COMMENTS


"Mr. Shapiro Your math is about the same as Obama's job creations. How do know that 85%of the 85%? of the insured are disatisfied with their present coverage?"

Mr. Kuban,

One more time. When I said that 85% of the American people don't even have health insurance- its because they don't. Only about 84% of Americans are covered. Only about 85% of that 84% is happy with their coverage. Once again, that makes for about 28% of the population that is either not covered or not happy.

You accused me of saying something very different- what I quoted you saying above. I never said that. Please re-read our entire dialog, I'm sure things will be become clear. Sorry we've had this confusion. Have a great holiday.

.
-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, 9:56 pm EST

report this comment



Mr. Shapiro, Me again. Your post of Sun. 11-22 @8:57 "85% of the American people don't even have health insurance,"
Then at 11:41 same day, "I said 85% aren't insured" These are your posts no one else's unless there's another Bennet Shapiro running trying to make you look bad. Also all of my posts pertain to the 85% not having insurance not whether or not they are satisfied or not.
-- Posted by Ed Kuban on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, 7:15 pm EST

report this comment



Here is the difference between democrats and republicans:


I paid my 8 year old to help me rake leaves. I put a $20 on the table in front of him at dinner time. I said "here is your pay for raking leaves". He replied, kool, thank you!

I asked him what made that money his. He replied "I dunno" (give him a break, he's 8). I told him it's his because he earned it. He replied "kool".

I asked him if I could take half and give it to his brother who cried instead of helping to rake leaves. He replied "NO!!".

I gave him a grin and a nod of approval.


Dems want everything handed to them for free!!!!
-- Posted by Proud Republican7 on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, 6:47 pm EST

report this comment



Mr. Kuban,

What are you talking about? I never said that 85% of ANYONE was dissatisfied with their insurance. If I did, please point it out to me, because its a mistake.

What I've been referring to this entire time is the initial post by carl None at the bottom of this thread. carl says that "85% of Americans feel their insurance is great." Since only about 85% of Americans HAVE insurance, that would make 28% that are either unhappy or uninsured... I've been working with carl's numbers for this entire thread- giving him the benefit of the doubt for the last few posts... where did you get that I said 85%?
-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 11:56 pm EST

report this comment



Mr. Shapiro Your math is about the same as Obama's job creations. How do know that 85%of the 85%? of the insured are disatisfied with their present coverage? This isn't just splitting hairs it is downright foolish amd typical beaurocratic B S.
-- Posted by Ed Kuban on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 5:10 pm EST

report this comment



IS it legal is a major question. Perhaps, all insurance companies in all states should operate equally and all states control state subsided care. The first part could be handed by Congress and the 2nd part could be handled by the states. Lastly, then we the people would be free to by the best policy at the best price anywhere in the country.

All this without a federal mandate. Imagine that.

Douglas Duprey
Marshfield, Vt
-- Posted by Douglas Duprey on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 4:54 pm EST

report this comment



ML,

And that $200 billion covers over 100 million Americans. The uninsured (47 million) cost ANOTHER $150 BILLION. About 50% MORE PER CAPITA. And they are getting crappy care, presently. The reason they are so much more expensive is because Emergency Room medicine is a STUPID way to treat people. Insuring everyone SAVES $. Its that simple.

.
-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 3:32 pm EST

report this comment



We spend over $200,000,000,000.00 a year now on Medicaid and care. Why can we not just use that money, redirect it and help more people. I think it is not one bit about the money for these folks but for the power over our well-being they will have. Think about the symbolism of that and what the founding fathers would say, the government in charge of our physical well-being. Yikes it gives me the heebie-jeebies just talking about it.

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 10:16 am EST

report this comment



Carl, just in case your not really done, I have one last word and then I'm done. I don't know if government can solve this problem or not, but corporate America surely isnt going to do it without some sort of intervention by someone. I certainly don't think this bill will solve the problem but its a start. My personal opinion on this bill is that without the repeal of the antitrust exemption for the health insurance industry and without a very robust public option, this bill won't do much of anything to cut healthcare costs. But it will put more Americans on the insurance rolls and thats a start. It is better, Carl, than sticking our heads in the sand and expecting the problem to solve itself.
-- Posted by AJ None on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 9:36 am EST

report this comment



ML,

Sorry, I don't have $800-1200 bucks a bottle to drop on booze. I would never spend that kind of money on alcohol. I keep some around for guests, now- but I don't even drink myself anymore. If its any consolation, I think the guy who bought me the snifter made his money as a drug dealer, but this was in the Virgin Islands, where every third guy looks like a drug dealer- so who knows?
-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 9:32 am EST

report this comment



By the way Done posting here as I said my opinion and Im done. Have a nice day
-- Posted by carl None on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 9:08 am EST

report this comment



AJ and you believe this Govt health bill will solve the problem. Dam I have a Bridge for sale in NY you might be interested.
-- Posted by carl None on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 9:07 am EST

report this comment



Carl, you are amusing. Its interesting that you attempt to come accross as rational but seem to be able to do nothing but chant the same mantra over and over again "can't afford, taxes, cant afford, taxes." It's the same old tired song. And over and over again we (meaning those of us looking for a solution to the problem) have said that we as taxpayers pay an incredible amount every year for medical care for uninsured Americans due to the current inefficient system for caring for them. Now I'm sure you would like to see these people kicked to the curb like dogs, but we as Americans at least attempt to appear civilized. On top of that our health insurance premiums are unregulated and we pay dearly for the antitrust exemption given to the health insurance industry via the 1945 McCarran Act. We Americans pay for an unregulated pharmaceutical industry who, contrary to their hyperbole, spend more on marketing than they do on research and development.Our lawmakers have closed foreign drug markets to us, places we could purchase our prescriptions at a fraction of the price we are forced to pay in the US. This is nothing but a give away to the pharmaceutical industry, but one that we pay dearly for.
On another note, we pay over 16 billion a year in farm subsidies, even paying Carolina tobacco producers not to produce. We all pay the price for the unnecessary child tax credit. A trillion dollars has been spent on the war in Iraq and Afganastan (reorted figures vary so this is not an exact figure.) Given all of these unnecessary expenses that we as Americans are forced to pay and you're up in arms about the cost of universal health care? Grab you wallet and run Carl, the sky is falling.
-- Posted by AJ None on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 8:38 am EST

report this comment



"85% of the Americans feel their insurance is great."

carl and company,

Are you guys missing my whole point? Even if 85% of the people who HAD insurance were happy with it (a number I dispute), that would be a lot less than 85% of AMERICANS feeling their insurance is great. 85% of 85% is only 72%. That leaves 28% or about 3 in 10 Americans unhappy or uninsured with the current system. Add to that the people who feel they are being over charged, the people who's deductibles are too high, the people who lose coverage for pre-existing conditions when they change jobs, and the people who are denied coverage for the array of "reasons" that the insurance routinely give for denying coverage to people who actually have insurance when they need it, and its EASY to see why we need reform.

Does it bother any of you that 62% of the 1.5 million annual bankruptcies are now due to medical bills, and that most of these are happening to middle class homeowners?

.
-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 8:15 am EST

report this comment



I find I must apologize to Ben: Census: Fewer Americans lack health insurance Overall, 45.7 million people, or 15.3 percent of U.S. residents, did not have health insurance in 2007, the bureau said in releasing reports on poverty, income and insurance. That represents a decrease from the 2006 level of 47 million, or 15.8 percent. It is closer to 84% not 85% . My BAD
-- Posted by carl None on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 6:44 am EST

report this comment



A J : I will say it once again so you will understand. It has absolutely Nothing to do with Left or Right , Dems or Repubs. So get over that crap. It has EVERYTHING to do with finances. We as Americans cannot afford to continue at this pace. At this rate we will be broke and expecting a handout from the GOVT. But then where will the Govt get the money to pay me. No matter how I look at it we are heading to Financial ruin. This Health bill will put us there even quicker.
-- Posted by carl None on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 6:15 am EST

report this comment



And the right wing yha hoos go running for cover aain! The sky is falling...
-- Posted by AJ None on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 6:13 am EST

report this comment



...."Yeah, I've only had the Louis XIII when someone else was buying. Its pretty special, though.
-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 11:43 pm EST "..............

Typical liberal statement, words written so true..." when someone else was paying"

The truth always reveals itself...LOL


Someday Benny, your gonna run out of other peoples money
-- Posted by Are You Kidding? on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 12:03 am EST

report this comment



This bill is a sham, it is not insurance. Insurance is when a person pays premiums to a private sector company then it pays the doctors

This so-called govt option, is the Govt is calling itself an insurance company, which it is not, the bills will be submitted to govt and bills paid by taxpayers fluff option. it is wrong and deceptive for the govt to be advertizing this as anything but medicare for all essentially.

The reason for building up govt coffers for 4 years is to create a fund to pay out the money to the doctors which is completely paid for by taxpayers. This is a whole new system to redistribute wealth.

What goos is this grand plan if it isnt helping the dead and the dying (in libs words) for 4 more years?
If this is so important, and hurry hurry hurry....what are the libs to do about the peopleon death's door until 2013?
-- Posted by Are You Kidding? on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 12:00 am EST

report this comment



ML,

Yeah, I've only had the Louis XIII when someone else was buying. Its pretty special, though.

.
-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 11:43 pm EST

report this comment



Mr. Kugan,

Please. You read what I wrote again. carl None wrote that 85% of Americans thought their insurance was great. I said 85% of Americans aren't even insured. (As you point out- its 84%, not 85.) Are you guys really not getting this?

.
-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 11:41 pm EST

report this comment



"there are 46,081,818 uninsured." '

In countries that have single-payer programs there are 0 uninsured. And they do it with spending much less of the GDP than we do with these 47 million (rounded off) uninsured under our free-market system. Do you have a problem with trying to make it so that these 47 million can be insured?
-- Posted by Watercloset on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 11:37 pm EST

report this comment



$1,499 in FL, sorry I try to be accurate.
http://www.eastlakewineandliquor.com/brandy__cognac
ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 11:04 pm EST

report this comment



I love "Remy Louis". I only splurged a few time when I lived in the FL. IT was only $1,200 or so there, its over $1,800 here I think at the state run stores and I think you have to order it. In conservative states they expect people to have the money to afford it, not so in the liberal states I guess...

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 11:01 pm EST

report this comment



Mr. Shapiro, I got the 85% from what you wrote not what Carl wrote. Read your post again. Now for the math,you divide 304 into 47 and you come with 16% not 85%. Eighty five percent 304 million is 258 million.
-- Posted by Ed Kuban on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 10:59 pm EST

report this comment



Oh and BS, Libs are only 35% or the 307,212,123 which is only 107,524,243. Assuming that 85% is the going rate today for insured, there are 46,081,818 uninsured. I am willing to bet that about half of all liberals would benefit from this. So, to ensure 46,081,818 we are going to spend an ESTIMATED $1,200,000,000,000.00 in ten years which is collected for the whole 10 years while the services don't start until 2013ish (6 years-ish of service). So we are going to pay $4,340.10/year which only $200 cheaper than the average person pays a year now. It does not make Healthcare cheaper though, as it adds taxes to the equipment which will increase taxes and cost alike for everyone. So assuming it barely can fund what it claims to today (or cover more as you argue "more would need the service with the recession"), they idiots, or they vastly underestimated the cost intentionally. And these figures do not account for the continued and arguable increased cost of healthcare in the next 10 years. Are we together on the math?

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 10:55 pm EST

report this comment



"And where do you get 85% from?"

The 85% is what carl None claims in his post is the percentage of Americans who think their insurance is great.

You have to read all of the posts for the later ones to make sense.

.
-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 10:38 pm EST

report this comment



"BS, I dont have any pre-existing conditions, I don't smoke, I eat well and exercise. America is one of the most "obese" countries in the world. Now, why should I pay for lard A**es to be fat and unhealthy. Ill be willing to pay for other peoples healthcare when other people start paying for my Hennessy VSOP."

ML,

The whole point about having people have access to healthcare BEFORE they get sick, is to save money. Its much less expensive to both prevent problems and treat them early than it is to treat them later. Your taxes are going to be paying to treat these people one way or the other (as emergency rooms don't turn people away.) Why would you pick the more expensive route?

P.S. Ever tried the Remy Louis the XIII? Delicious.

.
-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 10:35 pm EST

report this comment



The govt healthcare programs are paying for everything now. i just found out last week the public schools bill MEDICAID for IEP programs for kids that have teacher aids for every excuse under the sun to need a Sped teacher.

So instead of the schools chopping some budgets, they whack the taxpayer via medicaid now. What on earth does not being a bright child have to do with soaking the medicaid system?!

Then the State of Vt whines wbout their medicaid costs?
I thought medicaid was for the snotty noses and free trips to the ER and free ibuprofen for the cheap parents that wont even buy a bottle of advil at Riteaid, but rather get an Rx for advil so medicaid pays for it

Where and when is there going to be any personal responsibility? No wonder they have money for beer and cigarettes, freakin state pays for everything else, they have more available cash at teh endof the week than anyone else
-- Posted by Are You Kidding? on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 10:27 pm EST

report this comment



And where do you get 85% from?

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 10:22 pm EST

report this comment



307,212,123 July 2009. Ed is technically more correct.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

The above site is actually a really helpful one. CIA World Fact Book. Its handy for most on the Right, not many Lefties know of it. ;)

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 10:20 pm EST

report this comment



Mr. Kuban,

I believe that since the housing and credit crisis', the number's gone way up from 47 million. I meant that the number of Americans WITH insurance is less than 85%. I was using 300 million as my number (where do you get 312?). Even using 47 million (which seems very conservative, now) 47 from 300 is 253. 85% of 300 is 255. 253 is less than 255. Even if you use the U.S. Census Bureau's ESTIMATES for 2008 (of 304 million,) its still less than 85% of Americans who have health insurance. Are we together on the math?

.
-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 10:10 pm EST

report this comment



BS, I dont have any pre-existing conditions, I don't smoke, I eat well and exercise. America is one of the most "obese" countries in the world. Now, why should I pay for lard A**es to be fat and unhealthy. Ill be willing to pay for other peoples healthcare when other people start paying for my Hennessy VSOP. Is being a Lard A** a pre-existing condition? What about having cancer from smoking your whole life, wouldn't that be a "pre-existing" condition? What about if I am a drunk, start a fight and end up in the hospital for a week with no insurance? Why should I pay for that?

In a dream world, there would be no worries, everything would be free, houses, food, clothes, cars, healthcare, jobs, and well.... everything. There would be no hate, no violence, no "needs" as they would all be met always. But, well that is just not reality. Life is not fair, perfect, simple, or cheap. That is why you had better make damn sure your not the one who ends up on the Government brea*t.

When you subsides something, you get more of it, right? And when you restrict something you get less of it, right? I mean, that is the whole point right? So what do you get when you subsidies poverty and restrict wealth? What happens then? I mean, logically you would get more poverty and less wealth, but I am guessing that is just not the case according to you and your infinite wisdom..... It rarely involves logic but rather tons of entertainment (sorta like Hollywood).

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 9:56 pm EST

report this comment



Mr. Shapiro, When did 47 miilion(uninsured) become 85% of 312 million(population)?
-- Posted by Ed Kuban on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 9:33 pm EST

report this comment



Obama wants to control us through more taxes. Dems and Liberals do not understand the tax consequences. The issue is premiums and services are too expensive, and these things must be corrected. But, to put healthcare under the control of the government is disgusting.

IMPEACH Obama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-- Posted by Proud Republican7 on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 9:31 pm EST

report this comment



Carl - My post was pretty clear as to where the data came from. You on the other hand spouted what the right wing always spouts, inflamatory rhetoric that has little basis in fact, just emotional nonsense. This is an issue that transcends political philosophy, its a matter of basic humanity. And its obvious that it will do little good to cite facts and figures as to the current cost of healthcare for the uninsured. Its clear that you can't get past the conservative babble and take a look at the broader picture. Whatever. Its always good to read the posts of the right wing loonies, it gives some balance to the left wing loonies.
-- Posted by AJ None on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 9:24 pm EST

report this comment



"But for the life of me I do not understand this health care issue. 85% of the Americans feel their insurance is great. They do feel it is to expensive. So someone please explain to me why we are changing this system and not correcting it."

carl None,

Calling this healthcare bill "changing the system" is a serious reach. The reason you don't understand this healthcare issue, is because it appears you're a little misinformed on some of the facts about what's happening. 85% of the American people don't even have health insurance, let alone "feel their insurance is great." Of those that do, OVER 1 in 3 are on either medicare or medicaid already. I doubt all of them think their insurance is too expensive, but you could be right- I haven't spoken with all of them. (As the number of people living in poverty steadily increased throughout the Bush presidency, so did the number of people on government assisted insurance.)

The current healthcare bill as it exists should do NOTHING to adversely change your private coverage. Hopefully, it will correct some problems with the system, like stopping your insurance provider from denying you coverage for what they deem to be "pre-existing" conditions.

Liberals are really upset with this bill because they understand that the Democrats have pretty much given in to the Republicans at almost every turn. The "public option" (which is what was wanted by about 70% of Americans and is just Medicare, a little expanded,) seems less and less likely with every step taken. Liberals wanted a single-payer system that would have covered everyone for about half of what we're paying now. They're not going to get it.

The system isn't being changed (much to liberals' dismay.) Its barely being corrected. The only people that might be adversely affected MIGHT be a few insurance companies, but I have serious doubts that the Republicans will let that happen. Don't worry.

.
-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 8:57 pm EST

report this comment



Gee, the teabaggers seem less than pleased by this development. Gee, that's a shame.
-- Posted by None None on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 8:40 pm EST

report this comment



Almost forgot the rest Carl's inquiry. Correcting the present problem would take some use of common sense. Need I say more.
-- Posted by Ed Kuban on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 8:09 pm EST

report this comment



In the first post Carl hit the nail on the head. I'll just add my theory as to why the congress and the rest of the present aministration want this health care b s. This is a democrat heavy government and their supreme leader in his campaign speeches made the idiotic promise of health care for all. Because the supreme leader is a democrat no matter what stupid bill he introduces these mindless left wingnuts will ride it to the end.
-- Posted by Ed Kuban on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 8:05 pm EST

report this comment



This entire Special Ed agenda sure looks like another liberal fluff approach to infiltrating the schools.

The Sped teachers out number the normal teachers.

This has got to be an area the State needs to make some cuts on. Who exactly funds all tehse SPeds. What exactly do these Speds do? Is it only reading wrting and arithmatic...OORRR do they also include all taht other crap that parents need to be doing, paying for and spending time with their own kids.

If parents need this much help parenting, perhaps adoption and foster homes is a better option, If teh school has kids with loser parents, call SRS have the kids removed and put in foster homes, If the kids cant keep up, put them in the class that they can do the work in, I sure hope the smarter kids arent being held back and bored to accomodate the ones that dont belong in the group they are tagging along in.

Sped teachers, a new beauracracy, they probably look for excuses and make up reasons to look for problems with kids, when in fact if the kid did his homework and got grounded or a kick in the arse once in awhile, bet ya wouldnt need all this special ed BS.
Pretty sad when the Sped teachers out number the real teachers
-- Posted by Are You Kidding? on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 7:53 pm EST

report this comment



Carl None:
Very Rational thinking on your part. Unfortunately, those in power (AKA Congress live in a Fantasy World). Many of these "leaders????" have never held a position in the REAL WORLD, nor could they. They are philosophers who dream up these outlandish bills and push them through to the general public without regard to the consequences their actions have on people. If what they want to accomplish costs more than anticipated, what do they do? RAISE TAXES. They don't care, they've written the tax code so they can take advantage of loopholes they write for themselves or they just "forget" to pay them. When they get caught they just pay them then, with no interest or penalties (same for us, right?).
This health care bill is filled with so many hidden taxes that they thought we'd never find out about. Thank goodness we are learning about these taxes through the "radical" media. Congress doesn't like us knowing what is going on and they try to hide all the pertinent information until after its voted on. So much for "TRANSPARENCY"!!!
People should read the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. They would be shocked to see how Congress is far overstepping its duties. In the Declaration of Independence there is a sentence that was written by Thomas Jefferson that reads "People shall not be taxed without their consent". Are we going to stand by and allow these 535 delegates, who are supposed to represent us, put the financial screws to us so they can develop a system where those who choose not to be viable members of society can obtain everything that those who worked hard for obtain.
It also says in the Constitution that "All men are created equal". I think that this is true, but, there comes a time when a person decides what they want to do with their life. When that decision is reached and one decides to reach for the stars and better themselves and another decides to go in the opposite direction and live off of others, then it is up to the working people to decide how much they want to help others, not the governments responsibility. American people are the MOST generous in the world. We willingly help those who can't help themselves. Why should we let government burden us with their idealistic philosophy that we have to help everyone, even those who don't want to help themselves. You and I will willingly take care of those who truly can't take care of themselves.
I was brought up to have pride in myself and actions. Work to get ahead. If one job couldn't do it, then work other jobs. Early in my career I worked one job full time and at the same time I worked 3 part time jobs, none of which was a high paying job. I did what I felt I had to do to support my family. I didn't look to anyone else to to what was my responsibility. Unfortunately, personal responsibility is no longer a part of our society. People always look to find fault for they way they live. How often do we here "Its not my fault, its....fault. NO PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY.
Carl, I commend you for your ability to rationally look at what is about to take place. I like you, try to rationalize what is before us. I just wish more people would try to do the same thing instead of just blaming one side or the other. What this country truly needs now more than anything else is COMMON SENSE THINKING, not name calling. This once great, and could be great again, country would be well served by relearning the skill of honest debate and compromizing instead of voting on issues by strict party affiliation. We've seen this at both the state and federal levels. It stinks, but its true at both levels, party first, people last. Sorry I rambled, but, what I see happening really disgusts me.
-- Posted by Peter Everett on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 7:52 pm EST

report this comment



http://www.shsbtc.org/faculty.htm#Faculty

This is only Spaulding, but oodles of helpers


And looking at Calais, Berlin, Doty, etc They all have at least 5-10 helpers in each school too.

This is the problem with our high taxes. All parents taht have kids in tehse IEP programs need to volunteer their time at school to help fray the costs....maybe the parents will learn something too, and help kids at home. Maybe then, when the parents are inconvenienced and have to help out at school , their kids suddenly wont need to suck anymore taxpayer money
-- Posted by Are You Kidding? on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 7:32 pm EST

report this comment



In the Montpelier School District, 11% of students have an IEP (Individualized Education Program). An IEP is a written plan for students eligible for special needs services
-- Posted by Are You Kidding? on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 7:13 pm EST

report this comment



Go to
http://www.u32.org/v2files/staff.html

Whats wrong with this list of personnel?

The largest dept in teh school is the SPECIAL ED!!!!
there are 31 Sped teachers in thsi school, more in Sped than in any other Dept!

Gee, do all these people get our property tax money or medicaid?
-- Posted by Are You Kidding? on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 7:01 pm EST

report this comment



This may be a good time to re-vamp all of the current entitlement programs such as medicare and medicaid now

For instance:
Why is medicaid being used to give to schools for kids with IEP programs!!?? Is this the reason there are now so many so called sped students? Clever, tehs chool lable kids with ADD ADHD AHHD Oppost Defiance and who knows what else....so why are we teh taxpayers being lead to believe taht our property taxes being raised to pay for special ed, when in fact teh money comes from medicaid.

Even if u have a kid, 1-1, that sped teacher gets between $8-$10/hr,,,so maybe $1000-$1300 month for a 1-1 in a classroom with a real teacher already bought and paid for.
I want to know how much medicaid is billed for these sped teachers, how much Dept Of education send to the school for same sped teacher and teh grants given?? I would be willing to bet, teh schools are charging and getting double or triple for 1 kid

And I would bet, if the govt said medicaid no longer paid for Sped teachers, teh schools would miraculously have all these smart kids again and a suddenly no need for SPed.
-- Posted by Are You Kidding? on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 6:50 pm EST

report this comment



JOBS JOBS JOBS first

If this administation was to give more tax cuts to small business, thus creating more jobs, people with more jobs could buy their own health insurance. This adminstration is creating its own problems by putting their donkey before the cart. and creating a crisis which could be avoided with some JOBS.

Whos paying for this boondoggle? Whos gonna be left with any money to pay for this healthscare bill?

Whya re they making cuts to medicare, our grandparents....but not to medicaid the young and useless able-bodied???
The elderly are on fixed incomes, physically cant do odd jobs for extra money, yet the Obama killers want to charge our grandparents more, and not charge the young welfare rats, who already deal drugs on the side and can at least volunteer their time for welfare to work, and can do work crew when DOC tells them they have to work in cemetary. With no physical limitations, everything is 100%
-- Posted by Are You Kidding? on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 6:38 pm EST

report this comment



Hey "Twinkies" there is a big difference between $88,400 and a Vermont deficit of presently of $88 million aka comment by Shumlin the Senate leader soon to be $230 million. A hole is a hole, is a hole! Let's see Vermont fill this hole off the backs of the residents of "Gold Towners" from Act 68 $'s. Vermont land owners are presently twisting in the wind! For some unknown reason the Vermont Senate and House members do not choose to understand or want to deal with this budget deficit. a REALISTIC THOUGHT : YOU CANNOT SPEND MONIES YOU DO NOT HAVE.
-- Posted by None None on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 6:34 pm EST

report this comment



A.J.: Your facts and figures must come from Keith Olbermann along with your entitlement attitude. I have yet to find any data that states those figures WITHOUT fracturing those that do not to want the insurance and Illegal immigrants. Whether I am a conservative or liberal has no bearing on this issue. It is the mind boggling ignorance of people like yourself that cant see the financial ruin of this country because you want to feel good. Expense is the issue so why dont you give 75% of your endeavors to help those unfortunates.25% you can keep to feed your family. Sheese cant you see what is happening?
-- Posted by carl None on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 2:21 pm EST

report this comment



According to the census bureau 47.5 million Amerincans were uninsured in 2007. During the past two years that number has grown and over 86 million Americans have been uninsured at some point since 2007 (according to a study commissioned by Families USA.) Four out of five of the uninsured were from working American families. More than 60% of the 1.5 million bankruptcys in 2009 were attributable to medical expenses. It's intresting that Conservatives like Carl None find this to be an acceptable situation and not worth the time or expense it would take to rectify the situation.
-- Posted by AJ None on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 1:34 pm EST

report this comment



Here we go.The gov. can't even manage social security,but,they expect to be able to run something as big as this?I wonder why there is such a rush to push this bill through?There are no honest politicians anymore and these lawmakers are looking to stick it to ya!Get ready for higher taxes and the end of your freedom as an American.This is just the start of it.
-- Posted by Jeffrey lyons on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 1:08 pm EST

report this comment



Because its a give me give me world. It is also a redistribution of wealth.
-- Posted by None None on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 8:32 am EST

report this comment



I believe I am a logical thinker and have compassion for the people of this world. I give to charities and donate my time to needy causes . But for the life of me I do not understand this health care issue. 85% of the Americans feel their insurance is great. They do feel it is to expensive. So someone please explain to me why we are changing this system and not correcting it. The Govt has no place in this venue accept to curtail the excessive abuses. With this Govt health care I find no matter how I look at it , the cost will be astronomical and at this time with no money and loss of jobs hitting new highs the American people cannot afford it. I do not care if your a liberal or conservative this is financial suicide. How can People of all races and denominations accept this.
-- Posted by carl None on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 7:43 am EST

report this comment


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout