Just PM Rand Rover. In typical republican reversal fashion they will now take credit for health care reform, decry the partisan politics of the Democrats and begin immediate implementation of death panels for anyone who (God forbid) voted with a conscience.
No. Some of the content of the bill becomes effective immediately, mostly the coverage limits and things, IIRC. Some of it will be within the next 60 days to 6 months.
Make no mistake, the bill/soon to be law starts changing things the day after it gets signed.
PDF detailing “immediate” (within the first six months) benefits of the Senate bill.
This was created back in December so while I don’t think the reconciliation bill should affect it, I just wanted to make that clear.
Edit: A lot of those are things that are easily digestible, popular initiatives (free wellness exams for Medicare patients, children staying on parents’ insurance until 26, banning pre-existing condition exemptions, etc) and will be rolling out in September/October. Nice timing, right before the elections.
Here’s a list of ten things that go into effect within six months of the bill being signed: Ten Immediate Benefits Of HCR | Crooks and Liars
You had me at muppet fisting.
No, that comes after single-payer and when the government starts running out money…which it always does (thanks to a preponderance of Democratic control of Congress the last eighty years). It will also be around that time when government starts denying coverage for lifestyle-created ailments, telling people they can’t get treatment if they weigh too much, drink too much, smoke, have high cholesterol, don’t exercise, don’t eat enough fiber, go to bed too late, take the car without permission…you know, the kind of shit you get from your parents, only they don’t withhold your health care over it.
It is also likely that at that point there will be a lot more people dying as a result of government actuarial tables and decisions made by “death panels” than the 45,000 that allegedly die each year now for lack of having somebody else pay for their health care.
And you know what else? You won’t give a shit either, because as long as it’s the nanny-state withholding treatment instead of some evil corporation, all those lost lives you’re so outraged over now will simply become deaths necessary for the “greater good” of society.
1984 looms closer by the day, though given that I have at best around 20 to 25 more years left I likely won’t have to be around to see what has become of this once great country once it finally arrives. But I have family who will, and that’s what disturbs me the most about the direction this country is heading. And government health care, if and when it becomes single-payer, is another big step in that direction.
As far as the bill passed today, you can gloat all you like to whatever degree you think I’m having to take it up the ass, but I would have largely supported the current bill had it been preceeded by a Constitutional amendment to the effect that a.) it will never go any further, and b.) that Congress and the president were forced to live under and participate in the same programs they decree for everyone else.
(Emphasis mine)
This was an interesting choice of words. Care to explain the thoughts behind choosing it, if you had any specific ones?
you do realize that single payer doesn’t mean “you aren’t allowed to pay for your own care”, right?
One of the most useful things about a government is that it can print more money. So we’ll never run out. Ever.
The more you know.
Is this serious, or a brilliant parody of crazy militia people? I can’t tell.
Also, in amusing news, the health care exchange is pretty much exactly what our elected officials already use. So I guess part b above is already done.
I used the word allegedly because I’m not convinced that it’s accurate, and even if it is I’m not sure it’s germane. In a country of 300 million people, a certain number are going to die, and I happen to think that if a country of 300 million people has developed its health care to the point that less than two one-hundredths of one percent die for lack of it, that country does not need to be turning its health care over to a hugely inefficient, uncaring and hidebound government to make it better.
The current private bean counters that deny care do so to get a profit. Even if it is a profit comparable to other businesses, it is still profit based on denying care to many. Under a public system less would be denied.
Even better! My friends and I substitute whatever we want in that Homer Simpson phrase, but when it’s tears, it does bring to mind the episode where Cartman feeds Scott his own parents in the chili. . .plus, Cartman’s voice is so much better for gloating.
GLOATING I SAY!! GLOAT GLOAT GLOAT!
(Snoopy Dance)
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Sucks to be you!
Seriously, without the budgets sought by Ronnie Raygun, Poppy and W, our national debt would be trivial. Get a Republican in the White House and Republicans in Congress spend far more wildly than any Democrat could imagine. Republicans in the executive office waste trillions and don’t give a damn about deficits even in good times. The only conditions that Republicans are against deficits are when they are not in the White House.
I’m a Democrat against large deficits in a good economy, and the best medicine for that is ensuring that Republicans are out of power.
Because that worked so well for Zimbabwe and Germany.
But they didn’t run out of money.
Yes, but the eventual result of single payer will be that it will become the de facto only resort. Private companies who have to rely on profits to stay in business cannot compete with a government who has no such concerns. Plus, in order to make the single-payer system work, everyone will be forced to participate. So any private care would have to be paid for over and above the cost of whatever the government is forcing you to pay for its program, which has the effect of making private care more expensive than most people could afford even at a relatively affluent level of income, and shrinking the pool of potential customers, thus making it difficult for private care facilities to find a large enough customer base to stay in business.
And then there is the question of what will be allowed in the way of private coverage once single-payer becomes a reality. In Canada, or at least in some parts of Canada, it is against the law for private care facilities to treat ailments covered by the government plan. And IIRC, Hillary Clinton’s plan just plain outlawed private care and made it a crime for a physician or clinic or hospital to treat people outside the government plan. So it isn’t like there’s no reason to think that governments are hostile to private care options. So you have a one-two punch when it comes to private care as an alternative to government care: unworkable economics, and government interference or outright prohibition.
I love the taste of Rand Rover’s money!
I’m going to the doctor’s tomorrow, not because I’m sick, just because I want to spend his money! 
I concur.
This is pretty silly. Which of the other first world countries that have had public health care for decades are running out of money specifically because of the cost of health care?
But they will, though, right? At some unspecified future date.
As far as democratic control of the congress - really? This is just silly ideology over facts. Republicans say they’re the ones who keep an eye on the budget and practice restraint, but the actual history of what they did does not bear this out. What’s more important, what they tell you they do, or what they actually do?
So just so I have this straight - you would’ve supported the things they actually passed into law today because you think they are good things in and of themselves… except OMG IT’S THE END OF AMERICA. Right?