For those that want to kill the bill, what makes you think we would ever get anything better?

[BzaDem]

I really want to know. Here is how I see it.

Harry Truman fought hard for universal healthcare in 1948. He failed.

LBJ fought hard for Medicare in a 50-vote environment that was the Senate at the time. He succeeded. But he didn't even propose single payer for non-retired people, even though he only needed 50 votes in the Senate. Because he knew he didn't have close to the number of votes. This was in a much more heavily Democratic Congress than we have now (68 Democrats in the Senate, 294 Democrats in the House), though to be fair, the makeup of the Democratic party was different.

Nixon proposed a MUCH more progressive plan than even the current House plan in the early 70s. Ted Kennedy unfortunately did not work with Nixon on a deal; Kennedy later said that he has regretted this for the rest of his life.

Clinton fought for a plan that was much less progressive than the Nixon plan. After a long battle that spanned 2 years, he failed.

We are now fighting for a plan that is less progressive than the Clinton plan. We will probably succeed here.

But for those who want the current plan to fail, what in the past 60 years makes you think that it will be EASIER to pass a better bill LATER? If the current plan fails, in the BEST case scenario is that the next time we control both houses of Congress by a workable margin and the Presidency (probably in another 16 years), we will be fighting for the CRUMBS left by the current plan. A plan MUCH less progressive than the current plan.

Year after year, and decade after decade, more and more people become uninsured. Yet this does not increase the number of people in Congress that want single payer. The uninsured will never outnumber the insured, and those that are uninsured are less likely to vote. What makes you think that anything about this dynamic is going to change in FAVOR of single payer? The easiest option by Congress is always to do nothing.

If you think there will be a health "meltdown" that will force single payer, then

a) Why do you think there will be a meltdown, as opposed to just more misery shared by a growing minority of people that can't do anything about it
b) Why do you think that we will enact single payer in response to a hypothetical meltdown?

With regards to b, look at TARP. Did we demand accountability from financial institutions? Or did we just bail them out without any conditions? The latter. Because it was a crisis that demanded immediate action. If we have a similar healthcare meltdown (say tons of insurers are about to go bankrupt because people drop coverage due to high premiums), what makes you think that we won't have a TARP redux for the health industry? A real bailout? (As opposed to the current bill, which subsidizes private insurance but demands plans that provide 80%+ of people's healthcare costs in return?) If there is a real crisis, I think it is much more likely that Congress will simply shovel money to health insurers to keep them alive without conditions, than it is that we immediately get single payer. Just based upon the history of TARP.

Where am I going wrong here in looking at the history?

[aquart]

1. Peonage to the insurance industry is an acceptable outcome to you?

We're idiots if we accept this. This bill is a rape.

[BzaDem]

2. Do you want to cancel the food stamp program because it is "peonage" to the private agriculture

industry?

Seriously. If the only two options now or ever are to help 30 million people buy private insurance through good subsidies, or to let them go uninsured, what would you choose? Is your (much deserved) hatred of the health insurance industry really more important to you than reducing real human suffering through helping them afford insurance that will be required to pay for 80%+ of their healthcare?

[FBaggins]

8. If it cost five times as much as it did? Yeah... I'd kill it.

You entirely ignored "cost" in your post.

Having a worthwhile purpose is useless if the benefits are tiny compared to the cost.

Worse then useless.

[BzaDem]

12. No one will be required to pay more than 9.8% of their income for premiums

and those who make less than 300% of poverty will have to pay an even lower percentage of their income.

900 billion to cover 30 million people is actually really cheap.

[FBaggins]

13. It isn't how much it costs a particular individual

We can provide every household with a brand new $50,000 luxury sedan if we want to... but it would cost five trillion dollars. When you weigh the costs to the benefits you can't defend the program by saying "well... no household would have to pay anything for the car"

IOW "something" is NOT always better than "nothing".

[BzaDem]

14. How is 900 billion a lot of money to cover 30 million people?

It is actually not that expensive. Sure, something is NOT always better than nothing. I am not arguing that something is ALWAYS better than nothing. I am arguing that in this case, this bill is much better than nothing, and it is really not much of a close question. It is FAR from what many thought we would get, but it is still FAR better than nothing.

If the bill cost 5 trillion to cover 30 million people, that would be a different question entirely.

[FBaggins]

20. You can ask that with a straight face?

First of all... let us not pretend that it will cost anything like that little... or cover that many. There hasn't been a single far-reaching government program that has come in anywhere near what it was projected to cost (or, frankly, provided as many benefits as anticipated). That's the nature of the beast and we all understand that. And without some form of government-managed option (regardless of what you call it), it's VERY likely to cost FAR more.

Just as importantly... we don't get unlimited attempts at this. Like spending a trillion or so on a "stimulus" that doesn't appear to "stimulate" very much and then going back to the public wallet telling them we'll get it right this time.

[BzaDem]

21. Budget projections are far more refined now than they were back then.

But more importantly, it is much easier to estimate subsidies than it is to estimate the cost of a guarantee to cover everyone in a certain group through the government.

As for your unlimited attempts logic, we will get many opportunities to refine this legislation. For example, once we pass the ban on discrimination based upon pre-existing conditions, we can enact the public option by reconciliation in current or future Congresses. Medicare has been changed many, many times, as had Social Security (which was shockingly inadequate at the beginning). But if we dramatically fail now, no one will even attempt this until the next time we have a different Democratic president and a working majority in both houses of Congress. You seem to be aware of history. When do you think that will happen next?

[FBaggins]

23. "no one will even attempt this "? WE are no longer attempting "this"

What we are attempting is to pass something that we can CALL "this"... regardless of cost and/or how very far from "this" it is.

[dorkulon]

38. You're kidding, right?

That's 30 thousand per person, even if it were that many people.

[treestar]

63. This is health care

There is no down side to a person having that when they didn't before.

[FBaggins]

65. Of course there is... don't be ridiculous. There's PLENTY of downside.

There's a finite amount of "stuff" in the world. If you dedicate ten times too much of it to one thing (and do THAT poorly) then you won't be able to do OTHER things.

[treestar]

66. If you are sick with no treatment you can't do anything else

there's that saying, if you have your health, you have everything.

I don't get what could be a better thing, except for terminal cases where the treatment would just be painful and interfere with the quality of those last few months.

[FBaggins]

69. So let's spend 100% of GDP on it, right?

and the current option isn't "no treatment"... so that's a non sequitor.

I don't get what could be a better thing,

A simply stunning statement. If you can't even think of a "better thing" why are you on DU? What's wrong, for instance, with single payer? It isn't my prefered ideal, but it's certainly a "better thing" than this.

Only a SMALL part of the current problem is that some people aren't buying insurance.

[treestar]

72. Now you're complicating the issue

Single payer may be better, but that's idealism for now. You're saying there is a downside to someone having health insurance when they didn't before. That's the stunning statement. Maybe it would be more fun to have a Cadillac or an ipod, but it wouldn't be a better choice of use of funds.

[FBaggins]

73. Not complicating... simplifying

You're saying there is a downside to someone having health insurance when they didn't before. That's the stunning statement.

I'm saying that there IS a downside OVERALL (not to the recipient) of crafting BAD law. You can't say "someone was helped... so it's worth supporting" without entering the ridiculous.

There's a whole range of costs from zero to every single dollar earned... and a range of possible benefits from nothing to 100% coverage of every possible need. Your argument boils down to "as long as anyone has anything they didn't already have... it's a good bill regardless of cost".

And THAT, my misguided friend, is the stunning statement.

[MNDemNY]

31. No, much closer to 17% but it's just a number. right?

Family of 4 54000 income would have to bay as much as 17000.

[BzaDem]

33. 9.8% for premiums is in the bill. Read it. I got my numbers directly from the bill.

[MNDemNY]

42. Family of four is a COUPLE !!!!!!

Sorry you FAIL again. Keep shilling this turd, You must work in the industry, seeing how hard you are pressing for this dog.

[BzaDem]

50. Why the hell would I be here if I worked for the industry?

Honestly, the industry is spending millions to lobby Congresspeople. If the industry wanted to influence the bill, DU is the last place they would go.

[MNDemNY]

57. Then why do you shill such a lousy bill???

[BzaDem]

70. Maybe because I think the bill is better than the status quo? Maybe because it will help my family?

Maybe it will help millions of other people with pre-existing conditions as well? Oh no, that couldn't be it. I must be a shill for the insurance companies.

[MNDemNY]

78. Yup, that is more likely.

This bill does more harm than good, sorry if it may have helped you as an individual, but the greater good must prevail.

[MNDemNY]

43. FOR SINGLE COVERAGE !!!!

oops, left that out, didn't you?? Quit shilling for this crap bill. What motivates you? you work in the industry?????

[Le Taz Hot]

59. WHAT INCOME???????

WE DON'T HAVE JOBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[democrank]

3. Maybe you like politicians who fight for insurance companies

instead of citizens, but I have a different opinion.

[BzaDem]

4. How is my post related to what I would like?

I re-read it just to make sure, and it seems much more related to history and political possibilities (past, present, and future) than it is to what type of politicians I like.

[kaffy4x4]

5. The Mandate Has to Go, or no deal

Plus there is a guarantee to the industry to be able to obtain up to 15% of your gross pay in premiums. I can't see that as "affordable"..sorry.

[BzaDem]

6. If the mandate goes, so does the ban on discrimination on pre-existing conditions.

There is no way to have one without the other, and everyone educated about healthcare economics knows it.

If you want to make an argument that people should be able to be gouged for pre-existing conditions, fine. Make that argument in an open and intellectually honest way. But don't pretend that you are just against the mandate but not the ban. Every single country in the world that has a ban on pre-existing condition discrimination (including single payer systems and systems where the government is not an insurance company at all) ALL have a mandate. Every single one of them.

[PassingFair]

60. Yes there is. Public Option.

You talk like a Spanish Prisoner of the insurance companies.

Or an employee of the DLC.

[FBaggins]

7. Oh I don't know... what makes YOU think

that this is better than nothing?

[BzaDem]

10. Good question.

First, the bill means anyone with a pre-existing condition will not be charged a penny more than someone without one who is the same age/location/etc. I think it is very hard to overstate the benefit of this.

Second, the bill means 30 million people who literally cannot go see a doctor will be able to see a doctor. It does this by providing 900 billion to help 30 million poor and middle class people purchase health insurance. This insurance will be MANDATED by the government to cover a whole slew of health benefits, including all essential costs and many elective costs. The plans will also be mandated to pay 70-80%+ of peoples' healthcare costs no matter what, so they cannot arbitrarily deny claims like they can now. This will literally be the difference between being able to go to a doctor to get diagnosed and treated and a longer life, and not being able to go to the doctor and dying earlier (or going bankrupt).

Third, the bill will most likely require that all insurance companies pay 85% of their revenues to medical providers (leaving 15% for profit, administrative costs, marketing, etc.) This is huge.

There are plenty of other benefits. Those are 3 huge ones.

[lapfog_1]

18. As has been pointed out many times already.

They will still exclude on pre-existing conditions. Only now it will be credit score. Most people (in the current system) that have had issues with health care (serious medical things) also have items reported in their credit history. I, for an example, had a good (but not great) health insurance, and an undiagnosed birth defect called WPW (a heart condition). My cardiologist scheduled me for surgery. He negotiated with my health insurance just what would happen and how much the charges would be. After I'm in the operating room and already given knock out drugs, he mentions that he brought in another surgeon to "help". I'm out of it. The day I got home there was two pieces of mail waiting for me. The first was a letter from my insurance company telling me that they are dropping everyone in my "class" in California. The second was a bill from the hospital for $10,000 (give or take). The insurance had paid what the cardiologist agreed to, but that didn't include the second surgeon. So they didn't pay. And even after I was well enough to go fight the hospital and the cardiologist over the charge, they had given it to a collection agency. I eventually worked out a deal where I could pay over time, but my credit has NEVER been the same since then.

Under this current bill, no insurance company will HAVE to take me once they see my credit score (mid-500s now).

And I suspect they won't.

And I think you need to read the fine print. Apparently Howard Dean seems to feel that they CAN charge up to 50% more for people with certain pre-existing conditions. Blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc. Just like they can charge older people (like me) up to 4 times as much as younger people.

And mandates suck. We didn't scream about mandates because there was going to be a public option.

And then there is the list of other problems, such as insurance companies moving to states with the least regulation and most friendly insurance commission... and still doing business in your state.

And on and on and on.

If the only thing this bill does is subsidize some fraction of those 30 million (remember that the vast majority will have to pay some part - up to 9% of their GROSS income - or 11% if you believe Dean, and even if their premiums are covered, there will be co-pays and medicine and other stuff like some medical devices that are not covered at all). But we can cover these people other ways, with little pieces of legislation, just like we already did with SCHIP.

Without doing a huge insurance industry giveaway.

There is NO cost containment in this bill. ZERO.

We can't even order drugs online from Canada. For up to 10 times less than prescription medicine here.

No, there isn't anything to love in this bill, and to keep painting it as some sort of reform and a "once in a lifetime opportunity" is just being disingenuous.

[BzaDem]

19. Under the current bill, every insurance company will HAVE to take you regardless of credit score.

I don't think you understand how this would work. There is a finite, small list of things that insurance companies will be able to vary premiums by (for example, age 2-1, Tobacco use 1.5-1, location, etc). Credit score isn't one of them.

The health exchange websites (run by the government) will allow you to sign up and won't allow any insurance company to refuse you for any reason. Every single insurance company will have to take you, and can only charge you more due to the few factors specifically outlined in the law.

The mandate really isn't that bad. It is a 700 dollar tax if you don't get health insurance. That tax allows you to wait to sign up until after you are sick. That is a huge benefit to many people (or depending on how you look at it, a loophole that actually helps people for once).

Insurance companies can only move to states with least regulation if a state with more regulation enters into an "interstate compact" with a state with less regulation. For example, if New York (heavily regulated) enters into an interstate compact with Nebraska (not heavily regulated), then companies in Nebraska will be able to sell to people in New York with Nebraska's regulations. But if New York doesn't enter into such a compact with Nebraska, this won't be allowed. So it is still up to the host state (New York) to decide whether or not to effectively gut its own regulations. Just like it is today.

This bill really is a "once in a lifetime opportunity." You may not call it reform; reasonable people can definitely disagree about that. But whether or not it can be called "reform" has nothing to do with how likely another opportunity will arise where we can pass something this expansive in our lifetime.

[lapfog_1]

26. I think you trust people waaay too much.

And I am beginning to wonder which insurance company you work for.

First off, yes, they CAN deny you coverage if you don't have credit worthiness and you are NOT covered by the government assistance plan (too much income). There have been multiple sources to this point.

The exchanges won't be set up until, what, 2014. What are the chances that the Dems will hold Congress till then? And the Presidency? Watch these things get watered down when the repukes get back in charge. And a mandate to purchase with no good options on what to purchase will be the fastest way I know for the Repukes to take over again. Faster than dog snarkel. I'm predicting right now that if this passes as is, we lose the House in 2010. And the Senate margin will be under 55 - 45. Biden better start practicing jogging over to the Senate chamber so he can cast tie breakers.

Oh, so the mandate (which is really a regressive income tax of up to 11% of your gross income) isn't that bad? Who gives a damn about the penalties. It's the premiums that people will kill you over. Most people really DO want health insurance. They just want affordable health insurance without the hassle factor.

Where is the cost containment? How do we stop the drug manufacturers from continuing to rip off the American people?

And it's up to the states about whether to accept an insurance company from another state. Ah no, not anymore. This bill currently before the Senate removes that. Not only that, but they get to keep their monopolistic exemption. Other than organized professional sports, the ONLY industry that has this.

Expansive? I think you mean Expensive.

[BzaDem]

28. Provide me ONE source. Put up or shut up.

If you claim there are "multiple" sources that say that you can be denied healthcare in the exchanges due to credit history, put up one of them. That is bullshit and you know it. They cannot deny you and will not even be able to deny you. The government will inform them that you are a customer and that will be that. It has nothing to do with trust. It has nothing to do with how much income you make. Your income determines your subsidy level (if any), but it does NOT affect the guaranteed issue provisions AT ALL.

Yes, the exchanges cannot be set up until 2014. The chances of having a Republican president, a majority in the house, and 60 votes in the Senate are close to nil.

And the mandate could not possibly be a tax of up to 11% of your gross income, because it does not apply to people if premiums exceed 8% of one's income. If premiums are less than 8% of one's income, there is no way they are going to pay an 11% penalty -- they would just pay the less than 8% premium.

[lapfog_1]

36. You conveniently left out the co-pays (not part of the premiums)

and the items not covered by insurance.

Dean did not, and his number is 11%. I will believe him (an expert in the field of health care reform) and not you.

The discussion on credit scores has been held here more a few times already. And the same bullshit you are putting up was put up before, and knocked down. Do a search.

And they don't need 60 votes in the Senate to undo. They didn't need 60 Republicans to do any of what they did in the Bush years. There are always a few, more than a few, blue dog Dems ready and able to do their master's bidding less they wet themselves from fear. Nelson, Baucus, Landrieux, Lieberman, and probably 1 or 2 others. So all they really need is 54 or maybe 55 Senate seats. And that's something they'll have by 2012. Plus Speaker Boehner. And, god help us, President Palin.

Laugh all you want, it's not just a remote possibility at this point.

Attacking the left is NOT what you want to be doing right now.

Passing this bill, as is, with the mandate, will end the Democratic Party for 8 to 12 years. The Supreme Court will be in play. Abortion rights destroyed. Gays??? They will be screwed under the coming near theocracy. Climate Change... well, given the Obama track record, it's probably screwed anyway. Education? Energy? All dead.

Without the left, you can't do anything. And you are losing the left. Just freakin look around you here at DU.

[BzaDem]

40. I am on the left, so I don't see what you mean by "losing the left."

I think you equate the "left" with the majority of the people here. Obama has a 93% approval rating among Democrats. He could not have such a high approval rating among Democrats without a huge majority among the left part of the Democratic party. The fact that the remaining 7% are overrepresented here doesn't really say a lot about the "left."

If you want to throw a tantrum and throw away the Supreme Court, Abortion rights, etc, then you obviously have the right to do that. But I am not going to cater my views about policy so that you don't throw a tantrum and kill all of those things. It is your business if you want to do that.

[lapfog_1]

45. Wait for the new polling data that will be out next week.

It will scare the shit out of you.

I'm not part of the Kucinich left. I'm about as middle of the road mainstream Democrat as you can get.

I'm not against the surge in Afghanistan (check my posts on the topic), though I have reservations. Any sane person would have reservations.

I have been a HUGE Obama supporter here. Check with Grantcart or other people that were here in the primary wars. I was one of his more prolific supporters. And I sent him a *lot* of my money.

And he is losing me. And a lot of others. Stick your head in the sand and call us names or whatever, but that doesn't change the fact that he is losing us. And if he is losing me, he is losing a lot of people just like me that don't post here at DU.

You need to quit attacking the left. Just stop. It's not helping. If you don't agree that this is a bad bill, fine, but STFU about it. You're wrong, and the more inane things you post trying to polish this turd, well, the more you alienate those of us that are a bit more reality based. It sucks. It needs to die. You want to help Obama, then you need to tell him the truth... he is losing this one, it's either the bill or his Presidency. Even if you don't agree.

[BzaDem]

48. "If you don't agree that this is a bad bill, fine, but STFU about it."

:rofl:

If you don't want to hear people who disagree with you, you are on the WRONG board. I don't give a rats ass if I hurt your feelings by posting something that you don't agree with.

[lapfog_1]

51. It's not about me pal,

it's what is best for your position and for the President.

You're continued idiocy on about a dozen threads is just pissing off a *lot* of DUers. Not just the "single payer or nothing crowd". Look at the push back you get on almost every thread you start.

People are out and out accusing you of being a paid shill of the insurance industry.

[BzaDem]

53. Why should I care that other people disagree with me?

You are saying that anyone who supports this bill should sit down and shut up, because it would piss off people who are opposed to the bill.

Who the hell are you to say that? Isn't that the point of debate on a message board? This isn't Democratic Echo Chamber. If you want to talk with people who agree with you, this is not the place.

I do not care how many people are offended by my support for this bill. Maybe if they had someone in their family that has a pre-existing condition and would be dramatically helped by this bill, they would think differently. I am trying to correct a lot of blatant disinformation out there. If that makes you or other people angry, I couldn't care less.

[lapfog_1]

54. No you are spreading disinformation

And you have been repeatedly slapped down by the rest of us.

Go spread your lies elsewhere.

[BzaDem]

62. Like what?

Thought so.

[Le Taz Hot]

61. You are NOT on the left.

You are part of the Corporate Wing of the Democratic party. You're not even going to get apologists to agree that you are "on the left." Honest to goddess, you insult our intelligence.

[BzaDem]

71. Just because you say that doesn't make it any more true.

You could even repeat it 3 times, and it won't make it 3 times as true.

There is going to be a time where liberals who were opposed to this bill are going to be embarrassed by their former opposition. The MA healthcare reform has almost a 90% approval rating.

[FBaggins]

74. Can you prove it?

The MA healthcare reform has almost a 90% approval rating.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/02/mass_healthcare_reform_is_failing_us/

The first poll I found (admittedly, from Rasmussen)... said only 26% of MA voters consider it a success while 37% say it's a failure. Only 21% say it has made healthcare more affordable (27% said less). I've seen better polls, but all older and none of them even approaching 90% approval.

Just a couple years after it started, the annual cost has already doubled.

[rockymountaindem]

76. Man, I'm sorry you got the shaft like that

The strange thing is not that those in Washington think we can make real reform by dealing with people who would pull that kind of crap on someone ALREADY IN THE OPERATING ROOM. The strange thing is that people around here believe them.

[LastNaturalist]

9. Some of these people live in La-La Land. They have zero idea how difficult obtaining just this was,

[BzaDem]

11. +1.

[LastNaturalist]

15. Amen, my realistic Democratic brother or sister.

The real world sucks, but it is the only real world we have.

[FBaggins]

52. Awww... poor babies.

So we should accept an unacceptable bill because someone tried weeely weeely hard?

[LastNaturalist]

79. Don't know if you noticed, but we're not the Democrats whining!

[WeDidIt]

16. The status quo is better than this piece of shit,. n/t

[BzaDem]

17. WeDidIt to those with pre-existing conditions: "LET THEM EAT CAKE!"

Thank you for making your position so clear.

[lapfog_1]

22. Hey *&$%^#...

I'M ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITION.

A big one.

The last quote that I got (now almost a decade ago) from BC was $1200 a month with a $10,000 deductible and a $1M lifetime cap. Because of my heart. Even though it's been fixed by surgery.

So I've been without insurance for the last decade.

I'd love to have Medicare or something I can afford. But you will never get me to trust the insurance industry again. Never. Forcing me to buy their overpriced crap. No thanks.

Don't do this on my account. I'm going to die someday anyway. Nothing that the most expensive medical plan will ultimately be able to prevent. So maybe I get another 10 years with great medical care. Is it worth it to bankrupt the nation and turn us into a total fascist state (where state interests are the same as corporate interests)?? No and hell no. To me, this is just as important as fighting the Germans in WWII. Give me a gun and I'll start shooting the bastards. And I'll die doing it. So I might as well die from no health care as die on some battlefield somewhere. It's the SAME FIGHT.

[BzaDem]

25. So because you don't want private insurance, you will deny it to 30 million people

many of whom would love to go to the doctor tomorrow.

You may not care when you die. But there is a large portion of the 30 million people who actually care when they die. They want to prolong their life. A subsidy that helps them buy private insurance would allow them to see a doctor and prolong their life. They don't think a 700 dollar annual tax for not having insurance that allows them to wait to sign up for insurance until they are sick (otherwise known as a "mandate") is that bad a tradeoff. They don't care what you think about it at all.

You keep going on and on about your hatred for insurance companies. And they absolutely deserve to be hated. But you seem to think that you can actually do something about it. Your rhetoric aside, you really can't. There is NOTHING you can do about it. The private insurance industry isn't going ANYWHERE. This is just as unfortunate and wrong as it is true. Saying you want to destroy them might very well be therapeutic, and might very well make you feel better, but it doesn't actually hurt them one iota. If you think that the defeat of this bill would somehow be a "shot" in a "battle" with the insurance companies, you are deluding yourself.

Given that the above is true (and unfortunate and wrong, but still true), most people who are uninsured and have pre-existing conditions probably couldn't care less about what you think.

[lapfog_1]

29. You're a quisling.

An appeaser.

I don't care if private insurance goes away or not. I just don't want them to always be the only option. Because they are monopolies. If there were hundreds of health insurance companies, maybe I wouldn't care. Maybe they would treat customers as, well, customers. But there aren't. And this legislation ensures that too. So, my rhetoric won't get rid of them... and who said I wanted to. If the die, I won't shed one single tear, but that's their decision.

We can still expand Medicare via reconciliation. There are the votes in the Senate to do that. And we can even rescind the Reagan era tax cuts via reconciliation too, which would pay for it and then some. As for the rest of this bill that can't be done via recociliation... chop it up and introduce 3 or 4 pieces of legislation. Let the Leibermans throw a tantrum. We did it for SCHIP earlier. And that worked. We can do the reform one piece at a time.

You claim to speak to those with pre-existing conditions. I piped up that I'm one of those people and YOU don't speak for me. I have every right to speak for them that YOU do. Maybe more so. But certainly not less so.

Why don't we wait another day or so and see what the polls say. I bet this current bill has less than a 35% approval rating from the public by Monday. Care to wager?

[WeDidIt]

67. I Have Pre-existing conditions

So don't get all self righteous on me.

[katkat]

24. the current bill is worse than nothing

Every glimmer of it's being helpful has been gutted and the giant giveaway to BigInsurance and BigPharma remain, along with the unaffordable to individuals mandated insurance.

We may never get anything better, but the current bill is worse than nothing.

I haven't given up all hope that we may have a decent President at some point, along with enough non-bought Congress people to get something through eventually, although that hope is flickering pretty low.

I plan to do my part by working to get any candidates like that elected, although with the Obama disaster in view, I will demand track records in the future.

[BzaDem]

27. Yeah. I guess "no pre-existing condition discrimination" and "30 million more insured"

are not helpful to people.

:sarcasm:

[MNDemNY]

30. But that simple is not the case.

good line though.

[MadHound]

32. Let's get this straight,

The only reason that thirty million more people will be insured is because they will be forced to buy insurance from the insurance industry. How many of these people do you think can actually afford that insurance? There's a reason that these people haven't bought insurance, they simply don't have the money, yet under this bill they will be forced to make more tough decisions, between food and insurance, rent and insurance, etc. etc.

That's some real change there.

As far as doing away with pre-existing conditions, well that could easily be dealt with as a separate stand alone bill. We don't need to give the insurance industry a mandated monopoly as a trade off, or more apt yet, a bribe.

This bill is worse than doing nothing, it's going to destroy the middle, working and poor class in this country. Best estimates are saying that within eight years from now, health insurance premiums will take up 27% of the average family's income. Can you afford that? I certainly can't, and I don't know very many people who can.

This bill needs to die, and we need to start all over again. Otherwise we're consigning tens of millions of people to poverty and worse.

[BzaDem]

34. That is BULLSHIT

I am SO SICK of the outright bullshit that is peddled here.

"The only reason that thirty million more people will be insured is because they will be forced to buy insurance from the insurance industry"

That is NOT the only reason, or even the main reason. The 30 million people does not come from the mandate. The 30 million people comes from the large subsidies that will be given to poor and middle class people to buy health insurance. Many thousands of dollars per person who qualifies. THAT is where the 30 million figure comes from. NOT the mandate.

If you think we will ever start over again in the next decade, you are delusional. You will be consigning tens of millions of people to poverty and worse if this bill is killed.

[MadHound]

39. No, it isn't

The subsidies provided for the poor are weak, and won't cover those making 150% of the current poverty rate or above (oh, and there is a movement currently afoot in Congress to lower the poverty rate from it's current $22,050 level). That means that a family of four, making 33,075 in income is going to be screwed. That means that these people will be paying out $8,930.20, leaving them with $24,144.75 to live on, and once you take out taxes, boom, they're under the poverty level. The trouble is, their "official" income is too large for them to qualify for various anti-poverty measures, so they're left to cope on their own, as best they can.

By taking out twenty seven percent of people's income for insurance (and it could very well be much more, remember there are no cost controls in this bill) you are going to be wrecking this economy. People will have less money to spend on housing and consumer goods, and in an economic system that is designed to run on consumers spending, when they don't, we're all screwed.

And yes, we can start over again, but it will take strong political leadership, something which we obviously don't have currently.

[BzaDem]

49. Won't cover people making 150% or above? Where are you getting this utter BS?

The subsidies cover people up to 400%. Not 150%. I have argued with 3 people who were against this bill today and they all admitted that it was 400%.

[MadHound]

56. From the Senate bill.

Your four hundred percent figure is only for the House bill, not the Senate. In the Senate right now, the figure that they're kicking around is 150%, going down as low as 133%. Now which one do you think will prevail in conference committee, especially since it is already public knowledge that the Senate is going to ram their bill through conference or nothing will get done. About the only thing they'll keep out of the House bill is the Stupak amendment, which Chris Van Hollen (chairman of the DCCC, fourth most powerful Democrat in Congress) has already conceded.

Really, you need to educate yourself on this issue, you're allowing this POS to be rammed through, cheering it along all the way, and don't seem to realize that it will destroy this country, the middle class, the working class.

Oh, and chew on this, even if we have subsidies of up to four hundred percent, who is funding those subsidies? Oh, yeah, we the the people, the taxpayers in this country. That means our wealth will continue to be transferred up the ladder, with just a slight detour through the government so they can skim their cut off the top. Either way though, we're going to continue to make the rich richer. Get it?

[BzaDem]

64. You have NO IDEA what you are talking about. Here is a summary of the Senate bill's subsidy section:

"Sec. 36B. Refundable credit for coverage under a qualified health plan. The premium assistance credit amount is calculated on sliding scale starting at two percent of income for those at or above 100 percent of poverty and phasing out to 9.8 percent of income for those at 400 percent of poverty."

on http://stabenow.senate.gov/healthcare/Patient_protection_section.pdf

How is that in any way ambiguous? It says 400 percent of poverty. Not 150 percent. 400 percent. You should edit out your bullshit.

[lapfog_1]

41. And where does the money to pay for those 30M people come from

if not at least in part, from them.

How much is the subsidy, on average, for those 30 million people?

Is it $10K, $15K, $20K a year. $10K a year X 30 million is $300 BILLION every year. Now let's suppose that this isn't a number for an individual (though I submit, I think it's more for a lot of individuals like me... older and with a pre-existing condition, both cases where I can be charged more, possibly 6 X as much as a younger person with no pre-exiting condition... 4 X for age, 50% on top for the pre-existing. And yes, both of those are accurate and in there).

So where is this magic $100 Billion coming from. Medicare savings? Maybe, but "saving" money out of Medicare is what the Repukes have been calling "cutting Medicare" and that's a third rail in American politics. They are winning that debate.

The Senate bill call for an excise tax on certain employer paid health care plans (the so-called Cadillac plans), except wait a minute... those aren't just for corporate big wigs, there are a *lot* of rank and file union workers that have those plans and they spent years negotiating for them when management wasn't giving in on wage hikes or contract extensions or whatever. So we are going to impose a tax on union workers to pay for part of this subsidy. The unions are already unhappy over EFCA. Now they get a tax increase too. This is a repuke dream. The Dems are screwing their own base. How many people of the base do you think the Dems can afford to screw over. The GLBT folk feel they've been screwed. The progressives feel they've been screwed (and on a long list of items now), and now you go after the unions? Hell, might as well lose everyone and put Joe Arapio in charge of Border Patrol.

This is a bad bill, and it's costing the Democrats everything that I and a lot of others worked so hard for over the last 5 years now. I wish I had every dime of money that I donated back (Al Franken can keep what I gave him, as can Keith Ellison).

[katkat]

46. "30 million more insured"

Try 30 million more forced to either buy insurance at high rates they can't afford or go to jail. As in, gift to BigInsurance.

Good luck hoping the pre-existing condition thing stays in, my money says it will go the way of the lifetime cap in some dark corner when Reid gets his hands on it.

[Geek_Girl]

35. I think you make some interesting point about health care reform proposals getting less progressive

throughout history. I'm not sure that we ever will see something better.

But right now In my opinion this bill is worse than the current system.

[sendero]

37. You again..

... here's the thing. The insurance companies are doing to health care delivery exactly what the bankers did to home mortgages. They are killing the golden goose with their greed.

Forget piddle incremental "reforms" like this one. Just let the WHOLE DAMN THING COLLAPSE OF ITS OWN GREEDY WEIGHT, and then we can deliver health care the way EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED DEMOCRACY IN THE WORLD DOES IT, SINGLE PAYER.

[bdamomma]

44. well this is what the Senate is doing today, shoving the health care issue aside for this

http://www.c-span.org/Topics/Health-Care-Insurance-Reform-Legislation-Town-Hall.aspx

Health Bill Set Aside As Senators Consider Defense Spending


crap.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

47. If this piece of garbage passes, the Dems will say, "We've already done health care"

The Republicanites will say, "See? We told you that 'socialized medicine' (which of course, this bill ISN'T) was a bad deal."

I'm sure this was the plan?

1. Bail out your corporate contributors while claiming to help "the people"

2. If the people think the bill is insufficient, tell them that you've already taken care of health care with this bill and nothing further is needed

3. If the people think this bill is affecting them adversely, tell them, "See, we told you health care reform would be a disaster."

What's not to like--if you're a corporate stooge from either party?

[FBaggins]

55. Can you imagine? They'll actually try to run on the theory that they kept their promises? n/t

[Odin2005]

58. If slavery to the insurance companies is the best we can do then fuck it!

[Ganja Ninja]

68. I object to the mandates.

We are essentially making private companies an arm of the government. Their fees will essentially be a tax enforced by law.

It's one thing to take government services and privatize them to contractors but we're taking a private, for profit company's services and codifying them into a law that requires everybody to pay up or pay a penalty. That's just wrong I don't care how you rationalize it. If we're going to ram this down the throats of the American people (and force them to pay for it) then it should be a non-profit public system.

[Skittles]

75. we fucking deserve better than this fucking scam

[Forkboy]

77. I'd ask for a raise if I were you.