Why Progressives Are Batshit Crazy to Oppose the Senate Bill

[dtotire]

Why Progressives Are Batshit Crazy to Oppose the Senate Bill
by Nate Silver @ 3:42 AM


Pick your subheadline:

a) It's time to stop being polite and start getting real.
b) Here's hoping a picture is worth 1,000 words.



Go to the link to see his figures.


Link:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/why-progressives-are-batshit-crazy-to.html

[ananda]

1. The bill is worse than nothing.

What's batshit crazy is that liberals are not in charge
so that we could get a decent bill.

[gcomeau]

2. It clearly isn't worse than nothing.

As the numbers show. Unless you think Silver got the math wrong? If so, do illustrate.

[WeDidIt]

6. Silver got his base assumptions wrong. n/t

[anigbrowl]

18. A meaningless statement unless you identify which ones and how.

There's several hundred words explaining his methodology, while you offer a 6 word rebuttal with no detail. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt until you offer a more specific objection.

[gcomeau]

19. Fascinating!

Now how about we try this? Tell us which ones, and illustrate how so?

[damntexdem]

17. I'm still guano oppose it.

;-)

[Unvanguard]

3. This is why I love Nate Silver. n/t

[Fading Captain]

4. LOL. The Dittocrats are still sucking corporate tit and loving it.

Go away.

[Unvanguard]

7. I think you should call Tom Coburn's office. Hell, call ALL the Republican senators.

Thank them for heroically standing up to the evil corporations!

[rucky]

5. This is the first and only item that's really convinced me. n/t

[AndyA]

8. The current Senate bill fails to meet most of the big objectives stated at the beginning.

1. No public option.

2. No caps on coverage (annual caps are still in the bill to keep premiums down).

3. No competition.

4. No cost controls.

They gave up all this and got nothing for it in return. It's a bad bill. Whether it's better than nothing remains to be seen, but it falls far short of what the American people were promised.

Pre-existing conditions cannot be used as a reason to exclude someone, but the premiums for that person can still be so high they can't afford insurance. (Some of this may have changed at the last minute, but as of last night that was the deal.)

[sandnsea]

9. It's all about the subsidies,

and the House subsidies are even better. We've got to get people health care. Period.

[tomm2thumbs]

10. his numbers & backup say it all - 'Affordable coverage for everyone: FAIL.'

'The latest CBO estimates for the Senate bill say that a family of four with a household income of $54,000/year should expect to pay 17% of their gross income on healthcare - about $9,000/year. (And that was when there was a public option to hold down costs!) That's more than they'll spend on federal taxes. That's more than they'll spend on food.'

[dtotire]

13. The Premium is $4000

Out of pocket costs are another $5000. Usually, out-of-pocket costs aren't that high. If something serious happens, then they will be higher. But the insurer will have to cover everything over that. It would be good to have this insurance.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

11. I think it proves the opposite.

Is a family of four paying 17% of their income out of pocket the best we can do in REFORM? Really? And if they can't afford that, they get fined? This is what the best and brightest in our Senate have come up with?

[Kansas Wyatt]

12. Well if you think all Hell is breaking loose on the DU....

Just wait until 2010 & 2012.

The same people who think this SHIT Bill is so great, will be scratching their heads wondering why so many people would vote against their alleged best interests. It's Batshit Crazy to keep scratching your head and never figuring it out.

[hfojvt]

16. according to Krugman

Romneycare is pretty popular in Massachusetts.

One good thing though is that we can do what the Republicans used to do. We push the legislation our way in conference. The Senate bill is not the end of it. It goes to conference and gets modified.

[Jim Sagle]

14. Moderatist hogwash!

[liberalhistorian]

15. There's nothing to prevent financial ruin

due to a major illness/injury; as, even WITH insurance, the bills can be far higher than people can afford and yet medical collectors are permitted to harass people and take their assets. And having insurance is no guarantee that it will cover what needs to be covered or that you'll get needed care without financial ruin. And it does NOTHING to prevent medical bankrupties.

And that's just the start. There are so many things wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin. It's the exact opposite of what needs to be done. We need the for-profit insurance companies OUT OF IT. And fines for people who don't have enough money afford required insurance, especially if they have a condition that insurance companies are permitted to charge astronomical rates for? PLEASE. This bill needs to be KILLED. NOW. It's far worse than nothing at all.

[Bluenorthwest]

20. Nate's good with numbers

but this is a words and numbers thing, and he's starting with false assumptions. No offense Nate, but this problem was made by those who count beans when deeper issues are at hand. I'm sure he has a chart, and a graph, and an envelope filled with cash. More beans to count.