Can I get a DU Health Care Bill Head Count? (Poll)

[Liberation Angel]

Poll question: Can I get a DU Health Care Bill Head Count? (Poll)

I am frankly in a quandary...

I support single payer

I supported the medicare opt in (or whatever it was called)

But I am not that astute on the details and wondered whether there was any consensus here or whether we are sharply divided on whether we should celebrate or not that SOMETHING positive got done despite the fact that it is nowhere near what we on the far left really support

so...

CAN THOSE WHO SUPPORT OBAMA SIGNING THIS BILL WEIGH IN AND PROVIDE A RATIONALE FOR SUPPORTING IT

AND

CAN THOSE WHO OPPOSE IT SAY WHY IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION?

Don't just vote in the poll

PLEASE Tell us why we should be positive or negative right now about what the Senate appears about to have done.

On Edit: I just read an interview with Al Frankem explining why he is happy with it. I tend to trust him on this and the provisions he discusses seem revolutionary to me in terms of what I know about the law. A tax on the wealthy helps fund this bill and 80-85% of insurnce cost must go for care as I read this piece in the Huffington Post...


so

I suggest you read this before you vote as I did...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/19/franken-dems-unified-behi_n_398183.html

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. I want it fixed before the President signs it into law.

[Shagbark Hickory]

2. OPOSE REASON: Never believe a word a politician says. Guar. eternal profits for health denial cos.

And they will be able to sculpt the healthcare system in a way that prevents reform from ever happening. Unless I am able to somehow get free insurance, I'm so outta here.

[shadowknows69]

3. If there are no immediate cost controls on insurance companies

Then people will be gouged past the point of bankruptcy. Veto this shit bill Mr. President.

[NJmaverick]

4. I can't tell you until we see what comes out of conference

although I do support the Senate passing it so it can be taken to conference.

[CTyankee]

9. That's the ONLY reason I now grudgingly "support" it.

I can barely type the words, this is so upsetting to me.

I want to scream. Do you want to scream, too?

[NJmaverick]

12. I'm dissappointed, but not angry.

In some ways I look at the passage of a bill like a ball game. There are disappointments and celebrations and lead changes but there is not point in getting too worked up until the final score.

There is a lot of good still left in the bill. A few tweaks and it will be alright and I suspect trying to get the house and senate bill to match will require quite a few tweaks.

[Liberation Angel]

19. good point

thanks for that perspective

[elocs]

5. "Tell me why..." Ahhh, you forgot the "p" word.

Of the thousands of DUers, even only the active ones, how many do you reckon will respond to this poll or any poll for that matter that will actually give any kind of accurate picture?

[Liberation Angel]

13. I changed it to say Please...

think that might help?

[elocs]

16. Couldn't hurt. n/t

[BP2]

24. LOL - more study?

Hell, in 120 hours, it'll be passed.

There's no time to even read the bill and all amendments for the typos that we know will be there because it's so rushed.

Unintended consequences are the scariest thing about this HCR bill.

[elocs]

34. Ahh yes, the Law of Unintended consequences that comes back to bite you in the ass.

Well, life goes on, or it doesn't.

[grantcart]

6. There appears to be more good in the bill than previously advised

it still requires more study.

[Mind_your_head]

10. There appears to be more bad in the bill than previously cautioned

it still requires "more study" (and thought)!

[PassingFair]

7. Mandates + No Cost Controls = Disaster

[glen123098]

54. You nailed it

Thats the reason Im against the bill.

[Hepburn]

65. +1

[BzaDem]

8. You should add a qualification

that assumes the bill cannot be changed at all. That isn't entirely accurate (some changes will be made in conference). But many people don't want this to pass because they believe there is still a way to change the core of the bill.

[Liberation Angel]

15. that is why I said vote on it as is or say "I don not know"

I frankly voted "I don't know" because of this point you made.

On reading the article/interview with Franken i tend to support it despite many many reservations.

The new tax on the wealthy makes a huge difference as does the language regarding making sure the insurance actually pays for medical care and not just profits...

I can generally support that stuff and find it a great improvement.

I wonder (which is why I posted this) how many here at DU really understand what this all means...

IS IT revolutionary

or not...?

[BzaDem]

33. Yet some people will say "no" to as is because they think we can get something better

who would probably say "yes" to as is if they knew we couldn't.

[Liberation Angel]

37. And can't future legislation improve it???

I mean - this is NOT forever the way it will be.

It CAN be improved

[shadowknows69]

40. Sure, but I doubt most of us will live long enough to see that day.

[Liberation Angel]

45. why?

I mean, really!

Why won't we stay ON this and make it better and get more progressives elected and make it EVEN better?

Why not do that?

Or at least try...

[pscot]

11. Since it looks like a done deal

I don't see any choice but to sign it. If we lose this one the Republicons will be back in charge of the Senate in 2011. You think they're a pain in the ass now? Give 'em the gavel and they'll be investigating Acorn and the President 24/7.

[yourout]

17. If we sign this Republicons will be back in charge of everything in 2012

[Liberation Angel]

18. why?

Maybe these changes are better than what was under republicans and people will appreciate that

[DrDan]

14. mandates without a public option

[sunwyn]

20. one word....mandates

[glinda]

21. I am screwed. We are above poverty level and buy insurance for me which I cannot afford

to even use let alone barely make payments on. I am not working and most likely could not get a job due to needing surgery as is. Husband is retired and on Medicare. So as it looks right now.....I get NO breaks at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In fact, they can raise my rates which will cause me to not have insurance and then I will have to pay a fine as we are too poor to buy it yet have apparently too much money to qualify for any other option. I hate this damned Country.

[Liberation Angel]

31. Are you certain?

If in fact you make too much money to qualify yet have insurance MAYBE the legislation will ultimately reduce your rates.

Are you really sure or are you just believing the hype?

I worry about the hype...

[BzaDem]

36. I don't think you understand the bill.

Anyone who makes 133% of the poverty level will now qualify for Medicaid. Anyone who makes 150% of the poverty level will only have to pay 3% of their income for health insurance. Anyone who makes 300-400% of the poverty level will get subsidies so that the cost of health insurance doesn't exceed 9.8% of their income. Between 150 and 300, the percentage of your income required increases roughly linearly.

You might very well get thousands of dollars of help from the government due to this bill.

[Liberation Angel]

38. Thousands in subsidies for the underinsured?

This bill sounds better and better.

I am afraid the fear here at DU is overwhelming the facts on this bill

Or maybe it is the right making us fight via disinformation...

[freddie mertz]

22. Don't sign it now. Fix it, like Dean suggested.

Then sign it.

[FrenchieCat]

23. What’s In The Manager’s Amendment on this Bill. Do You know?

What’s In The Manager’s Amendment
By: David Dayen Saturday December 19, 2009 9:38 am


So I’m frantically trying to read the manager’s amendment (turn on CSPAN-2 and you can follow along yourself) and all the supplementary information that’s out there on just what’s now in this health care bill, and here’s what I’ve got so far:


• The CBO score is out. The top line numbers? The bill costs $871 billion and would save the federal government $132 billion over the next ten years. The changes in the manager’s amendment amounted to a net $2 billion dollar savings. The bill would cover 31 million people and leave 23 million uninsured by 2019.

• On the abortion issue: states could prohibit abortion coverage in the exchange if they passed a law. This basically punts the Stupak issue to the states, and if the exchanges expand over time as expected, essentially end abortion services coverage in states that pass a law. This becomes a huge culture war battle in states for years and years to come. Good for pro- and anti-abortion groups’ fundraising coffers, bad for women.

• The CLASS Act, the federally managed, voluntary long-term care program, is still in the bill. Lieberman may have mentioned it on Face The Nation, but he didn’t kill it.

• The public option is replaced with the OPM-managed multi-state plans in the exchanges. Not all of them have to be non-profits; in fact, only one of them has to be.

• The individual mandate penalty actually looks a little higher here, although it’s phased in over time. It would be the “greater of a flat dollar amount per person or a percentage of the individual’s income,” up to 2% by 2015.

• Apparently Nebraska and maybe a few other states get more money for Medicaid funding. I can’t get entirely worked up over a legislator securing more money for poor people in their own state. It beats kickback deals for local defense contractors of developers. I think Paul Wellstone would have done no less.

• Small business tax credits to purchase insurance have been expanded by $12 billion and phase in immediately, and are eligible to companies that pay higher wages. Every bill in Congress has to include small business tax credits, it’s the law.

• The medical loss ratio, which was floated to be at 90%, had to be dropped down because of a nakedly political act by the CBO, which said that a 90% MLR would have amounted to nationalizing the insurance industry. So the MLR is now 85/80%, but that apparently does not include the money insurers get through risk adjustment, which means that in practice it’s actually higher.

• They’ve banned pre-existing conditions for children immediately, starting in 2010.

• There are new insurance regulations, including the ability to ban insurance companies from the exchange if they raise their rates above a certain amount. And if an insurer denies a claim, there will be an independent board to which customers can appeal. The design of that board is crucial.

• The nationwide plans, which could have gutted state-level insurance regulations, have been dropped. This is a good thing.

• There are $1.25 billion in new resources for community health centers in the bill, totaling $10 billion overall (there’s $14 billion in the House bill). I’ve written about community health centers before, which could provide a base of low or no-cost primary coverage for all low-income Americans in communities throughout the country. I actually think this is the best thing in the bill. Bernie Sanders is actually talking about this now on CSPAN. He says that 10,000 more communities will have access to community health centers with this legislation.

• Increased debt forgiveness for medical students to work at community health centers.

• The “doctor’s fix” was removed (probably to improve the CBO score) and will be dealt with in separate legislation.

• There’s an increase to the payroll tax for high-income Americans to pay for the bill. Before the increase was 0.5% for individuals with income above $200,000 and for families with income above $250,000; now it’s 0.9%.

• They traded the Botax for a Boehner tax; there’s now a 10% excise tax on indoor tanning.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2009/12/19/whats-in-the-managers-amendment/

Just like the Right Wing Loonies, folks against this bill don't even know what is in it, and what isn't. I'm frankly embarrased by the lack of knowledge here at DU. It appears that the "I'm mad as hell" herd mentality that prevails in the world of Teabaggers and Republican elected officials has also found a home at DU.

[pscot]

28. I did a little reading there earlier today

In 2010 the bill puts $600,000,000 into public health clinics. By 2016 that number grows to $2.6 billion. That's money that will provide walkin health care for poor Americans in inner cities and rural areas. It's a huge deal. There's lots more to like in this bill. If the bill fails, that all goes away. There won't be a better deal just around the corner, and the Democrats will get slaughtered in the midterms. There's an old saw in football; never take points off the board. I'm not happy with the way this went down. But we're nuts if we walk away from it with nothing.

[Liberation Angel]

35. $2.6 BILLION for Public Health Clinics? THAT ALONE makes it better! Thanks!

I think it is not nearly enough.

But it is REALLY WAAAAY better than NO Billions for public health care clinics

[pscot]

49. Apparently Bernie Sanders deserves credit

for getting that into the bill. He says it will ultimately amount to more than $10 billion for public health.

[CTyankee]

25. Did everyone read THIS in the Huff Post article?

"In order to win the vote of Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson, the bill includes extreme restrictions on which private health insurance plans can cover abortion. It also picks up Nebraska's tab for expanded Medicaid coverage forever." Well, well, conservadems wouldn't want socialism now would they?

It's interesting. Joe Lieberman got ZILCH for Connecticut in return for HIS big favor to Obama!

I'm really mad at about 5 different levels. Pick one: U.S.Citizen, CT resident, abortion, coverage for children, enrichment of an insidious industry that shouldn't even EXIST in a civilized society...maybe even more, once I get REALLY started!

[debbierlus]

26. That is such bullshit - why the hell does one state get more benefits then another?

Disgusting.

[Jamastiene]

50. Special rights for right wing Democrats

Rights are an infinite commodity EXCEPT when it comes to women and GLBT people.

[bigwillq]

27. That's reason enough to kill it

They continue to play games with our lives and our rights.

[Liberation Angel]

29. I disagree

Frankly it is not a good enough reason for me to see it killed.

The tax on the wealthy to pay for it is actually more than I ever hoped for.

[bigwillq]

30. Cool.

:hi: Nothing wrong with disagreeing.

[Liberation Angel]

32. cool back...

As much as it pisses me off I can see Al Franken saying "pay off the anti-abortion bastard and lets get this done!"

The bill is a compromise for him.

He needed to get some grease for it

That was the grease...
maybe it was worth it

[CTyankee]

39. Why do I still want to throw up? nt

[Liberation Angel]

42. you live...

too near Millstone

that's be my guess

[robinlynne]

41. If they could at least remove the clause that says you HAVE TO BUY insurance

from a private company, which is absurd and will actually take us back wards, then I could see it as something somewhat positive for the good things it has. which doesn't mean I would give my full support, but does mean I could stop hating all politicians for a day or two. Right now I am simply disgusted. And for those with pre-existing conditions, if insurance companies must take everyone, but with NO PRICE CAPS, what good is that? Do you actually believe the insurance companies will agree to break even or take a loss to give you health care? I don't. They will give some form of health care which nets them a profit. Will it cover your needs? no.

[Liberation Angel]

43. But subsidies will kick in for those who cannot afford it

so I guess it is the middle that gets screwed.

But the rich pay more taxes...

since I am pretty poor it will help my family

[robinlynne]

52. subsidies for all of us? I dont think so.

[Liberation Angel]

57. Subsidies for the poor, not the rich

I do not know about the middle or where the middle really is.

But I trying to figure it out

[robinlynne]

68. The only reason I have health insurance is because my mother pays for it for me.

It is a terrible burden on her at 350 per month. With this new bill it will shoot way up. Anyone, like me who has at least 2000.00 in the bank or savings is not eligible for help, like food =stamps. I tried but am not eligible. I do not own a home, or any assets like that, for example. I rent. Without a public option there is nowhere but down for us to go.
the government does not have the means to provide for all of us. they said 30 million people max. That is 5& of the population. Probably 50% of the population in the country is in trouble, even if they are not starving....There will be subsidies for a very small group of people.

[prolesunited]

70. If you have at least $2,000 in the bank

why are you making your mom pay your insurance if it is such a burden on her?

[robinlynne]

72. I'm not making her do anything. I would never. Why do you ask that?

The reason she pays for (us all the kids) is because I was hit by a car once, and we found out things like that happen. I couldn't walk for 7 years. Now we all have health insurance no matter what. 2000.00 wouldn't cover even half a year of the cheapest insurance available (which is the insurance we use.)

[girl gone mad]

44. I just don't understand the urgency..

when so many of the provisions won't even take effect until 2013.

I agree with others. Mandates forcing people to buy private insurance, with no means of controlling price inflation is a dumb move. Enshrining the erosion of woman's rights is just wrong. This bill gives far too much away to the private health insurers, while asking for far too little in return. With the majority opposed to this reform, I fear Democrats are setting themselves up for big losses in 2010. The more people learn about what's in the bill, the less they like it.

[Liberation Angel]

46. I am not sure I agree: doesn't the provision for profit restrictions...

factor in to cost and care?

I mean it may be slippery as a slope, but if profit percentages are restricted can't that help?

And aren't the women's rights issues being addressed by protections put in the bill by Boxer and others?

Correct me if I am wrong...

I honestly am not sure..
Could NOW be wrong and Boxer and Pelosi right?

[girl gone mad]

51. Why would profit restrictions help?

If I run a business and my margins are low, but I want to make more money, I raise prices. In a free market, people can just choose not to buy when the prices go up, which limits how much I can raise my prices and still come out ahead.

If I am selling a product which people will now forced to buy, that's one huge market control that's been completely removed. I am free to raise prices at will, without concern over losing customers.

This is a big wet kiss to the private insurance industry.

[Liberation Angel]

55. Don't the other provisions balance against that though?

if not

why not?

[girl gone mad]

62. What provisions balance against it?

If anything, this bill incentivizes insurers to raise rates.

[robinlynne]

69. NO. That is how halliburton's government contract in Iraq worked. the more they spend, the

more money they receive. All they have to do si spend. In Iraq they embroidered the soldiers' towels, and sent trucks to ride up and down empty because they were paid by how much they spend....

[Laelth]

47. It would be better to do nothing.

I honestly believe that the Senate bill is the best that Congress can do. Frankly, I don't think the Federal Government is capable of reforming the system right now. If this bill is the best the Federal Government can do, then the Federal Government should do nothing. It's time to let the states try.

Passing this bill will prevent the states from addressing this issue.

Kill the bill.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the answer to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Liberation Angel]

56. Don't the state provisions kick in or apply anyway?

Federal restrictions strengthen the states position don't they?

[Laelth]

59. The Kucinich Amendment would have allowed states to adopt single-payer systems.

Nancy Pelosi stripped out that amendment in conference (probably on direct orders from the White House). If the current bill passes, states will be prevented from adopting single-payer systems.

However, they do get to keep their own insurance regulations, I believe.

Kill the bill.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the answer to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Jamastiene]

48. If he signs this, it will be a nail in the coffin of the Democratic Party.

It's a lose/lose situation. This situation is not winnable now.

[Liberation Angel]

53. why?

why ?

[glen123098]

60. Polls show the vast majority of americans oppose the current bill

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/12/10/cnn-poll-61-of-americans-oppos


This bill lacks the public option which people wanted.

[Liberation Angel]

58. Well 75% oppose it here at DU. 13 % support it and 12% do not know.

That says a lot.

Frankly I am in the do not know category and glad of it

but the more I hear the more I like.

It seems to get better the more I hear.

But I may be listening to what I want to.

I WANT this to be better than what we have had my whole life...

[girl gone mad]

61. You are in the minority here, and among the general population.

Polls have very consistently shown that the more people read and hear about this reform, the less they like it. Mandates are hugely unpopular, as are the Medicare reductions, bureaucratic changes to current policies, and tax increases.

[L0oniX]

63. SPHC or nothing.

[depakid]

64. Kill this travesty- and take the two bit extortionists out of the equation with reconciliation

[BlueCollar]

66. It's still corporate welfare

no matter how many ribbons get put on it. If a program ever needed a sunset clause this would be it.

[swilton]

67. Oppose signature - pouring good money after bad

Mandates require purchasing of insurance w/o providing cost or quality controls on insurance companies. The exercise is a process of subsidizing a system that is already faiing - pouring good money after bad.

[fiorello]

71. Purely selfish: it saves me $10,000 and provides a better life for my daughter

The bill extends the cutoff for family health care coverage from age 24 to age 26. Without it, we are looking at payments of $5000/year for her to keep her covered. Two years of that = $10,000.

Plus, my daughter has a pre-existing condition. She can never get insurance on her own... and is not on track for a good profession with likely health insurance benefits. (Fewer and fewer people are.) Unlike many 20-somethings, she cannot do without health insurance. The family will pay for it, whatever it takes... and it might take quite a lot. Whatever happens, we would be paying her medical bills on our own. Unless this passes. Then she gets health insurance at the same rate as everyone else.

I'm sorry that a slice of my health care premiums will continue to go to insurance company profits and lobbyists whose job it is to screw me over. I'm sorry that many young women may lose abortion coverage. I know that some of them will face circumstances that effectively make abortion impossible, even though it is legal.

But this is one time when I have to be selfish. Especially when all I am asking for is a fair deal for myself and my family.