Bringing 30 million people into a failed system is not a victory.

[Political Heretic]

Its not about 30 million people getting insurance.

It's about bringing 30 million people into a quality health care system that prioritizes health and wellness services ahead of multi-billion dollar profits.

It's about bringing 30 million people into a system that's affordable now, and stays affordable in the future - something the senate bill far from guarantees. In fact CBO projects a ridiculous rise in costs to consumer.... just not as much as they are expected to rise now. That's what its come down to. Our major victory is that insurance reform will cause health care costs to consumes to skyrocket....less.

See, better is not always "good enough." Sometimes it is. But in this case, all this insurance reform does is lock 30 million new customers into an industry that is still wildly de-regulated, without clear, clean, simple cost containment absolutes or clear cut, loophole free consumer protections.

It brings 30 million new people into a failed system. That's not a victory. What's worse is that it kills all political will for further health reform anytime in the forseeable future. Congress and administrations don't have the stomach to tackle health care more than once a decade; sometimes once a generation, history tells us.

And what's even worse than that - is that this bill does not even serve as a foundation. If we were to come back to health care in the near future, much of what is in this Senate version of the bill would have to be undone to make progress. That's not a foundation. That's backwards.

There's still hope that conference will improve the bill. But my hope on that is slim, very slim.

[G_j]

1. "the bill would have to be undone to make progress"

this is exactly why I think it should be killed.

[Avalux]

2. At least you're not screaming to repeal it before it's signed into law.

That's something I guess! :shrug:

[Political Heretic]

10. I'm arguing against what I believe to be bad policy. I could be wrong.

Always, in any arguments I make is the implicit acknowledgment that I may be wrong. Policy Analysis is part of my career and professional development, though I am at the beginning not the end of a career - not a seasoned "expert" on all things.

But I do my best to read and study the bills, major research organizations analysis of the fiscal, heath, and family impacts of the bill, read opinion maker commentary (less frequently, but I still read people like Paul Krugman - in favor of passing - and the National Nurses United professional nursing organization - opposed to passing)

Then I apply my own limited skillset to do my own policy analysis based on a theoretical framework for interpreting social policy (post-modern feminist critical theory, if you care)

Having stay up far to many nights for months and months..... these are the opinions I came up with.

But the thing is, people who disagree with me, many of them have the same stories of excruciating hard work put into trying to understand and analyze the bill. But certain variables lead them to conclude that the bill is worth passing. I can respect their opinion while still disagreeing and advocating my own opinion.

That's what I try to do. Not perfectly, but I try to keep it civil.

[Avalux]

12. I applaud you for that.

Even given the same information and the same knowledge base, it is possible for individuals to have varying, often disagreeing opinions. I have no problem discussing the issues with someone like you, someone who recognizes we don't all think alike. We don't. :hi:

[liberation]

86. Fishing for red herrings is neither civilized nor a proper aproach to debating any issue

So don't pat yourself on the back too much.

In the end, who cares if we have one of the worst price/performance ratios regarding our health care system among industrialized nations. Actually, scratch that we actually have the VERY worst return in health care investment among all industrialized nations, we should ever be so proud right? Who cares if thousands of people die due to lack of health care access, or if even orders of magnitude more have to experience all sorts of sacrifices and hardships to be able to afford said care. What is important, to people like you, it is that your pretty minds don't have to deal with strong opinions and being reminded of the reality of the situation. That would be really awful... and unfair, wouldn't it?

[GA_ArmyVet]

29. I would relish having a long discussion with you over issues

I too try to do my research and develop my own opinions and far to often anyone who disagrees spouts rude comments and insults instead posting supporting arguments for their opinion. Unfortunately on this idea, I can not argue with you because I tend to agree, I do not like this bill and believe it will do more harm than good.

[2 Much Tribulation]

3. And it will teach the false lesson that health care reform is EVEN MORE expensive. ugh. nt

[pundaint]

66. And reinforce the too true lesson that money to bribe congress is returned manyfold!

[Greyhound]

81. I wouldn't mind that "our representatives" are for sale so much if only

they weren't so damn cheap.

It only costs a hundred mill or so to buy legislation that will yield tens of billions! The worst prostitute on earth would get a better deal than that.

[rollingrock]

4. But it's a huge victory

for the insurance cartel racket.

[Echo In Light]

5. And that's exactly what "reform" was all about from the get-go

[rollingrock]

16. No doubt

Elizabeth J. Fowler, a former Wellpoint VP, was appointed the Senior Counsel to Max Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and leading opponent of the "public option" in healthcare reform. “People know when Liz is speaking, she is speaking for Baucus,” said Dean Rosen, the health policy adviser to former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.). (if you open the bill and look under document properties, it lists her as author).

With Fowler as author one might say that Wellpoint and Anthem BlueCross (a Wellpoint subsidiary) wrote the bill.
-------


could the corruption be anymore blatant? with the Senate and WH in your pocket, and your VP literally writing the legislation? the insurance cartel makes the mafia look like amateurs!

[LibDemAlways]

6. My understanding is it forces 30 million people to buy insurance

from for-profit companies or face a fine. That is hardly "bringing them into the system." If Congress was truly interested in providing healthcare for the uninsured they would have provided an affordable public option. I sincerely doubt that many of the people who lack insurance because they can't afford it are going to magically be able to afford it once it's mandated.

I suspect the outcry over this will be so loud and furious it will cost the Dems dearly in the next two elections, and the R's may yet undo it, leaving us back at square one.

[evan2]

9. Should all unemployed people be forced to engage the services

of a firm that specializes in helping people get jobs? After all, getting them off unemployment compensation as soon as possible,
IS a good thing, right?

[toadzilla]

61. thats pretty much exactly what happens

I'm not sure what your point is.

[liberation]

84. I take logic and common sense to your average libertarian is like

... garlic holy water and sunshine for a vampire. Right?

Are you such a monumental douche that you think people do not have access to health care, in this country, simply because they chose not to? Good grief...

[newspeak]

100. the government provides a service to help people

get off of unemployment. I may or may not chose to go to a for profit employment agency to attempt to find a job. It is my choice--I may scan the papers or go online on employment sites to attempt to find a job. So, what's your point? The government actually offers an employment service to aid you in finding a job for no fee!!!!

[Political Heretic]

17. Ok to be fair, that is some misinformation. And I want to stay accurate in my criticism

It's not as simple as get insurance or face a fine.

First, if all insurance that would be available to you is more than a certain percent of your income, you are exempt from paying any fine.

Also, I believe that if you are below a certain income level, in addition to qualifying for subsides you are also (I think) exempt from fine.

So there's some nuance to the whole "mandate" think.

But there are also major problems with the subsidies which don't go far enough in addressing the cost of health care for low income families - since subsidies don't do anything for co-pays and deductables; just premiums. And even those take the form of a tax credit.

[LibDemAlways]

19. The problem is the government will be coming up with the income

figures that will supposedly determine who qualifies for a subsidy and who does not. Makes no sense in a country in which the cost of living varies so much from place to place. Each person's circumstances and financial obligations are different, as well, and it would be impossible for the government bean counters to generalize about what any one person or family could afford.

It's a nightmare in the making.

[Political Heretic]

43. That's absolutely right - a much greater problem with all of our social investment programs

The federal poverty measurement is grossly inadequate and inaccurate.

[LibDemAlways]

54. I'm thinking that there are untold numbers of families who look

pretty good on paper in terms of annual income who would not qualify for a subsidy and would be expected to pay full fare. What's not taken into account is that perhaps those people are footing the bill for grandma to be in a nursing home or are struggling to finance a couple of kids' college education. Maybe they live in a state with an exceptionally high property tax eating into their income or they have expensive home repair bills. It's not for the government to judge what anyone can or cannot afford in terms of health insurance. That mandate, if it goes into effect, is going to piss off people big time and the blame is going to rest squarely on the Dems. It has the potential for being a total disaster.

[grantcart]

91. your facts are not correct

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

7. It's even simpler than that. It's about providing a system they can actually

use. The premium may be affordable but once deductables and co-pays are added, whooosh! - there goes the afforability.

There's a thread floating around here with someone from Norway who has to have the terms "deductable" and "co-pay" explained to him!

This bill does nothing to lower cost. It has just shifted a portion of the cost from the individual to the government, so we are ultimately all paying for it anyway. We are paying in order to enshrine the profits of the privates into law. We are forcing citizens to underwrite those profits with their private dollars as well as their tax dollars as well as their fine dollars as well as their borrowed dollars.

This is a Democrat only bill, crafted by the House, the Senate, the White House and the President and this is what they came up with. In later years, people will shake their heads and ask, What were they thinking?

What they were thinking is, How can we create reform that is not reform, but rather entrenches a failed system and preserves my political ambitions/coffers?

[Fumesucker]

13. We can't have people running to the doctor for every litte tumor and fracture..

It's overutilization of health care that drives up the costs, exorbitant co-pays and deductibles will help curb medical spending.

We all need to be more like Monty Python's Black Knight, that will help keep medical spending in check.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Knight_%28Monty_Python%29

[Political Heretic]

15. Almost nowhere in health care discussion have the words "deductable" or "co-pay" come up.

It's all "premiums."

Which is curious, because even when it comes to premiums, the news really isn't that good. Under the Senate bill or the House bill, premiums rise. They just are projected (that's called a guess, by the way) a bit less than they would without any change.

But that's the only good news there is. When it comes to deductibles and co-pays, or the cost of medical procedures, there's nothing there.

Doesn't really matter if someone has health insurance if it still costs him $3,000 dollars out of pocket for an accident, trip to the emergency room, brief hospitalization and treatment.

I don't know if people remember what being poor means or what, but that kind of cost is severely damaging.

So why not get 100% coverage and eliminate the co-pay? Because that would be called a "Cadillac plan" and those are going to disappear under the Senate's proposal to tax them. That's pretty simply business math. Government going to tax you for a product you provide? Stop providing that product and instead offer something else. In this case the something else will be more options of lower quality.

[jtrockville]

108. "Pre-existing conditon", "deductibles", "co-pays"...

These terms have no meaning in civilized/developed nations.

[freddie mertz]

8. Agreed, and Rec'd. Very well stated too.

[doc03]

11. And taxing the hell out of benefits won through

collective bargaining is not a victory either. Well on second thought it is for the Republicans. Now we know what Obama meant by "spreading the wealth around", we just didn't know we were the wealthy.

[nashville_brook]

14. once 30 million people realize they're captive customers, perhaps the political will

will be found. that's really our only hope here.

[inna]

27. except that they won't realize that until well into 2014.

Medicare kicked in within the same year after the passage of the bill (in the pre-computer times, too); this piece of turd of a bill won't even go into effect for 5 years.

I mean, they really take us for fools - and if we continue to put up with this crap, it proves that we are.

[tom_paine]

63. Oh, we are fools, the biggest fools since the 1933 Germans

each and every one of us and I most definitely include myself in that assessment.

We can blame the stupefying effects of TV, or the massive progress that has been made in professional lying and psychological manipulation, but in the end, "The fault lies not in our stars but in ourselves".

Of course they take us for fools. We ARE fools. Sadly, human nature is to take advantage of fools and human nature hasn't changed at all in 10,000 years. (we just got a bigger energy budget)

And it's our own fault.

[bvar22]

76. No accident that implementation is delayed until 2014....

That puts it on the other side of the elections.
The Democrats KNOW that this bill is a dog, and WILL cost them at the polls.

Our Democrats may be thoroughly corrupt,
but they aren't stupid.

[Demeter]

18. Agreed. And Isn't It Convenient How a Depressed Young Man with Hot Pants

a plane ticket and a load of brainwashing can totally wipe this discussion off the public forum?

[tom_paine]

65. Just think of him as Corporate Media Synergy

like McDonald's serving drinks in Avatar-movie coffee cups to promote the movie Avatar.

[depakid]

20. It's certainly not a sustainable situation over time

nor is it going to do much if anything to reduce the rate of medical bankruptcies in America- or its attendant drain on the economy.

[Edweird]

21. The whole "it's a start" nonsense kills me. No, it isn't. It's a big move deeper into an exisitng

problem. It is regression, not progression. And given that single payer is preferred by a 2-1 margin, it is also against the collective will of the people. Something is seriously wrong with our political 'leaders'.

[chimpymustgo]

56. +1.

[stopbush]

22. The same "failed system" argument could be made against bringing more people into the US

to become citizens.

After all, for all our self-congratulation, we still don't have equality for gays, blacks and other minorities in this country. Our health care system sucks compared to most of the Western world, our good-paying jobs are all being exported elsewhere, our labor unions have lost power and many people think the people have lost their democratic voice to the corporations.

We'd be much better off telling people who want to become US citizens today that they'd be better off waiting until we have all the bad stuff I mentioned worked out.

See, it's not about what they think they want. It's about us knowing what's best for them.

[Political Heretic]

44. Except, in this case, I am them.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

23. In retrospect I was completely wrong about one thing.

I truly believed that we WOULD have a public option, as that was the major mechanism for holding down costs and I completely bought all the pre and post campaign rhetoric.

I thought that the very "pragmatic" Obama had looked around and decided that if you had to pick between Pharm and Insurance as to which was the most likely to emerge from reform, it would be Pharma. You will always need drugs - they will never go away, nor should they. Insurance, on the other hand adds no value to the healthcare equasion and actually takes money in profit that could be invested in more and better care and prevention, etc. So, I thought he was cutting deals with Pharma to buy their support for the reform which would include a public option and provide the seeds for real, huge, meaningful reform which would inevitably erode the insurers and cause them to downscale, sell accessory coverages, etc. as gradually more and more people would be on the public option.

That's what I thought. I NEVER envisioned reform that gave away the store in terms of negotiation with Pharma AND carved the profits of the insurance companies into law as well through mandates. I lacked the vision to see HOW MUCH the public could be fleeced with a two pronged attack. Another giant wealth transfer of citizen and public dollars to private industry.

This is Reaganism, this is corporatization, this is privatization, this is legalized graft. The more I look, the more I want to look away.

[inna]

35. i actually expected "public option" (in its almost worthless, bait-and-switch form)

to be passed, just to symbolically throw a few crumbs to the peasants.


apparently, the PTB decided that the peasants didn't even need those few crumbs, after all.

[pattmarty]

88. It's bush's (shit) Medicare reform X100.

[Dr.Phool]

24. I think the proper term is "clusterfuck".

[inna]

25. absolutely right on. KR+13

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

26. Is there some gigantic brainless robot somewhere producing these posts?

This place is unreadable any more because of this repetitive shite.

[inna]

28. then please go away. i doubt anyone will miss you.

[Uncle Joe]

31. It only seems that way because so many people believe this bill is FUBAR on multiple levels.

Whether you're referring to functionality, efficiency, economical, systemic, moral or political, other than that, I don't have any problems with it.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

33. A pity so many of these posts don't contain any original thought. n/t

[Uncle Joe]

37. They are original for those people, there just happens to be a bunch of them, but I believe

"originality" in people expressing their judgment/opinions regarding a policy as being bad or worse to be of secondary or even lower importance than the lending of their voice.

People come to their conclusions at different times and it's like they say, "All that's necessary for evil to triumph is for good men (people) to do nothing" and I believe this bill is highly immoral at best. All the people have when compared to the might of super citizen corporations are their voices so if the voices sound redundant to you, take serious heed of the message.

I also believe the response here at D.U. will only be a micro-ism compared to public reaction nation wide should this bill in it's current manifestation of feudalizing the American People's common interests to cold blooded corporate profits be signed in to law.

[grahamhgreen]

39. The truth is simple, it's the lies that take 2,000 pages.

[pundaint]

68. Hey kids, lets have a strike. Those cheese-eating-surrender monkeys know what

to do when their government runs too far astray of their wishes. Let's all be as tough as a surrender monkey, instead of just bitching. Let's start with a Sunday first as a demonstration. How about January 17. Nobody spend any money on-line or in person on January 17 as a demonstration of dissatisfaction with for-profit health insurance, and those who allow it to continue. We can pick another date, but it will be more effective if the bill is not yet signed, and before the State of the Union would make for a more interesting speach.

Surely, or whatever your name is, we can show as much resolve in this as a surrender monkey.

[glitch]

36. FYI I read your post as entirely self-referential. nt

[havocmom]

49. Brilliant!

Thank you for the best response to the 'arrogant dismissal or ridicule as a means of intimidating dissent' tactic. I am so stealing that one.

[glitch]

50. For you havocmom (I always think of my own mom when I see your username)

:hug: and a wish for a Happy New Year! :party:

[havocmom]

52. Thanks, glitch

Happy New Year to you too! :hug:

now, on with the battle for truth, justice, and the American people!

[Warpy]

30. What do you call keeping them locked out of it completely?

Victory?

Sorry, bud, but try living with nothing as long as I have before you tell me nothing is better.

[Political Heretic]

45. I have, and I do.

And it is.

It is because the shape of this bill will make things worse in the long run for you and me.

"Having" health insurance does not equate to having quality health care. "Having" health insurance doesn't matter of the cost of medical care is so extreme that co-pays can bankrupt a family, or when deductibles can be so high that the prevent people from seeking out needed care. And "having" health insurance does not matter if insurers are able to charge people with preexisting conditions three times as much (which they are,) effectively preventing some people from access.

And "having" health insurance does not matter if the framework for regulating and mangaging for-profit insurers is minimal and weak, with most decisions being left to states and not managed by the bill - meaning millions upon millions of people in conservative states are left to be screwed by the same exploitative companies that have been gaming the system we currently have and who will most certainly game a sytem with no strict federal regulation in critical areas.

[Warpy]

55. You're missing the point entirely

Having insurance as it now is run means being able to see the doctor when you're sick, getting routine checkups, and getting very basic medical care.

That's an improvement for the vast majority of the people who are uninsured in this country, people who haven't been able to see a doctor in years.

Yes, they'll continue to stiff people on the truly catastrophic stuff.

However, it's like the difference between the medical systems in Somalia and Cuba, nothing versus bare bones.

Again, if you haven't experienced nothing for many years, don't try to tell me or anyone else it's better than getting bare bones care.

[Political Heretic]

57. And again, I have experienced nothing for many years.

Bare bones isn't what's important. As a poor person without access to health insurance, I could either do without or scrape up enough one time money to afford "bare bones care" at costs cheaper than paying an insurance premium.

Health care is needed explicitly for substantial care. And that exactly what this bill fails to adequately provide.

Again, "routine" check-ups are typically once a year or once every six months. It's cheaper to just pay for them than pay for an insurance premium / deductable / co-pay.

"Very basic medical care" is not what health insurance is about.

It's not a "vast improvement" for many people, because scraping up seventy bucks one time to see a doctor for preventative care, when you can plan ahead for preventative care, is not the biggest challenge facing poor individuals and families. It may sometimes mean going without preventative care, as it did when I went through bankruptcy, but ultimately access to a doctor for routine measures isn't the problem.

Right now I can go to a free clinic and see a doctor for routine, basic care. The real problem, the deepest, comprehensive problem is access to critical care, to long term care, to care for particular chronic or ongoing illness that requires more than a mere check-up.

What does this bill do to bring affordable health care to the millions of people who need that kind of care? Little.

I understand your point, its just that your point is wrong. Our health care crisis is not about millions of people not getting routine check-ups from a generic doctor. Our health care crisis is about the out of control costs of serious and ongoing care, treatment, medication, etc.

[Warpy]

60. It's both, actually

which is why all measures of health nationally are declining. That bare bones care and follow up catches a lot of problems early, when they're easy to treat.

Unfortunately, what has really happened is that wages haven't kept up with the real rate of inflation as measured by inflation in items made in the US like health care, housing, and even cars, since 1969.

That's 40 years of depressed wages and it's finally caught up to us, creating everything from the debt crisis to health care no one with less than a million bucks in the bank can really afford without insurance.

However, yes, the cost of private insurance itself has become runaway, thanks to both their need to generate profits and support fat executives and their increasingly unwieldy bureaucracies. An accessible and robust public plan would have given them the incentive to tighten all this up.

However, don't expect tightening in other areas of health care, from facilities to equipment to hands on personnel. All those areas have been squeezed by the profit motive for decades and they're nearly at unsafe levels now.

This is not a good bill. It's a timid bill that will do little to address any of the very real problems in this country. However, to suggest nothing would be better is both disingenuous and cruel.

[Political Heretic]

94. Except that no one is suggesting that "nothing" would be better.

People are, however, suggesting that real reform would be better than this bill, which takes us in the wrong direction, and will actively make things worse - not marginally better - for poor and working class individuals and families in the long run.

[bertman]

106. Replying to #45 by Political Heretic, thank you for what you just said. I have insurance, make

good money, and try to see my doctor regularly since I have some physical ailments that need to be monitored. Even with my income and my insurance, I find that I have to forego visits because of the copays and the deductible ($2500 for me). It's nothing life-threatening for sure, but I would be in a major financial bind if it were.

Given the fact that I have insurance and a job and a decent, steady income and STILL have to watch my pennies, I can't imagine how this "reform" is going to help someone who is at or near the lower end of the income scale.

[salguine]

32. I'd love to see what would happen if everyone in the country suddenly stopped sending any

money whatsoever to health insurance companies after January 1. Just stopped paying their premiums. It would be bad for people if individuals tried it, but what if tens of millions of people just turned off the money flow? I'm not sure what would happen, but I'd sure as hell stick around to find out.

[ipaint]

34. That is exactly what is going to happen beginning in 2011 with 65 million baby boomers

moving to medicare. Hence the insurance industry desperately needs a mandate. We are saving them.

This isn't about access to health care and never was. It's about saving an industry that is looking towards a two decade hemorrhage of 170 million americans onto medicare.

[glitch]

40. Exactly -- and Zeke Emanuel (WH HCR advisor) has a solution for that.

In his own words courtesy Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zeke-emanuel/sustainable-health-care-r_b_114788.html?view=print

...
A good test of reform proposals is whether they address both sets of problems. If a reform addresses either financing or delivery system problems but not both, it is not credible or sustainable. Incremental changes will not fix these problems and are not sustainable.

The Guaranteed Healthcare Access Plan proposes to repair the health care system by giving all Americans a voucher to select a standard benefits package offered by insurance company. In most areas, American will be able to choose between 5 and 8 insurance companies. And the insurance companies will be required to enroll anyone who wants and cannot exclude coverage for pre-existing conditions. The standard benefit package is based on what Congressman and Senators receive, and is more generous than what most Americans currently have through their employers or government program. Americans will also decide if they wanted to buy additional services, say wider selection of doctors and hospitals, more mental health benefits, or coverage for alternative medicines.

The Guaranteed Healthcare Access Plan will be administered by a National Health Board and regional boards modeled on the Federal Reserve System with fiscal, administrative, and political independence to make tough decisions based on the merits, not special interest lobbying. There will also be an Institute for Technology and Outcomes Assessment to assess the effectiveness of new drugs, devices, procedures, and other interventions. It will also assess and make publicly available data on the clinical outcomes of patients in different insurance companies. This will permit comparative shopping based on real quality results.

No one receiving Medicare, Medicaid, or any other government program will not be forced out, but there will be no new enrollees. People who turn 65 will simply stay in the Guaranteed Healthcare Access Plan. The special tax benefits related to employer based coverage will be eliminated and most employers will stop offering health insurance.

[inna]

41. omg. i really have to digest this a litle bit.

please consider making this an OP, perhaps with additional documentation?

[glitch]

47. These are his own words, and it is common knowledge that he is a health care reform advisor to WH

and Rahm Emanuel's brother.

The only additional documentation will be in the eating of the pudding they are now baking.

Guess who will be eating it?

[change_notfinetuning]

96. But Rahm's brother even says it would be "based on the merits, not special

interest lobbying". He'd even bet your life on it.

Here again is the fact that the standard, basic insurance will still be through for-profit insurance companies and its massive overhead. Every dollar spent that is going to administrative costs, advertising, profits etc. is a dollar that could be going to provide medical care or treatment, or to fund medical research, perhaps. It could even be a dollar saved and used to pay down the national debt. As it is now, it's not much different than a mafia protection racket.

If it came from someone like Dr. Quentin Young, instead of the Zekester, I would have a more favorable opinion going in. However, I've not heard of this approach before and am going to try and find out more about it.

[newspeak]

99. So, Zeke is wanting the same thing as *

Fade away medicare towards corporate owned services, like * wanting to give SSA to Wall Street. I am against privatizing certain services--it is not good for the well being of the American people. Look what happened when * privatized part of the military services. Soldiers were served tainted food, tainted water and bathed in tainted water--a few soldiers died from electrocution--just so private corporations could make a buck. These corporations could care less about our soldiers as long as they profit. How about corporations bringing in slave labor by gun point to build Iraq?

I still trust our government, since we still have a voice (although it's getting smaller) over a corporation that can literally get away with murder. Yet, our government wants to give corporations more control over us! So, we get to pay for insurance that we may not get to use (because of a high deductible) and we get to furnish these corporations subsidies that we pay for through our tax dollars. Medicare for all is the rational solution, with those who want additional insurance going to private providers. And, some of us have been paying for years into Medicare, would Zeke's plan give our money over to the insurance vampires and leave some of us prisoners to a greedy system that I chose not to participate in?

[pattmarty]

89. Very interesting point.

[maryf]

53. They'd be fined most likely...

That's what the mandate is about...hey, but, so fine me; if everyone refuses then to pay the fine, then we got a protest action...

[bvar22]

79. They've got THAT covered.

The IRS will be the new Collection Agency for the Health Insurance Cartel.

This is INDEED an "Historic" Bill.
A "Uniquely American Solution".

[maryf]

112. Dang, you're right

General Strike then...and don't pay taxes...

[blackbear79]

59. Interesting act of civil disobedience

Many states have a 31 day grace period for paying premiums. (PLEASE CHECK YOUR STATES LAWS) If everyone waited the grace period before paying in the same month the result would be attention getting and people would not risk their coverage.

[grahamhgreen]

38. If the bill passes, tirllions will go to big insurance to crush any real reform - it's a no-brainer

[cali]

42. but bringing 20 million+ primary care, is.

And that's what the CHCs do.

[Little Star]

73. How many people have access to CHCs?

I've never known anyone who has used them and I think it may be because they are not available to a lot of people. Will they grow in number? If so, any idea when or how long before most people have access? Do they even have them in every state? If not will they?

[Political Heretic]

46. I'll tell you something else: this bill does lay a foundation - for killing medicare/medicaid

And privatizing it, making it part of the commemorative co-opt where people get the "privilege" of shopping for their own plan.

[leftstreet]

48. That's what this is all about

79 million boomers will start turning 65 in 2011.

That's a massive shift from for-profit to medicare

[amborin]

51. K&R

[earth mom]

58. Let's face it. The health care mandate is ENRON ON STEROIDS.

The sooner people realize this, the better.

Though they will know soon enough when they start paying through the nose in jacked up premiums and co pays. :grr:

[tom_paine]

62. Of course it's a victory: for the wealthy aristcoracy and the corporations that advance backdoor

feudalism for them.

It's a victory for advertisers, PR Men (and women), and everyone else in America's largest industry, The Lie Industry.

For the American Subject Populace...a few crumbs which won't even be allowed to fall off Master's Table by the time the "reform" begins, I prophesy.

[Armstead]

64. Exactly

[invictus]

67. K&R

[defendandprotect]

69. This health care farce has to be overturned .. . and we have to keep at it... single payer, public

option -- Medicare for all -- CHOICE . . .

make the Repugs filibuster health care reform --

that's how the public figures out what's really going on --

however, the public seems to be quite clear on this even now --

And, Catholics -- despite the lies of the US Catholic Bishops -- want a government

run plan --

and they want contraception and ABORTION to be covered!!!

[David Zephyr]

70. K&R. It's not only not a victory, it's complete abdication of any power the people ever might have.

.

[JDPriestly]

71. Agree, Political Heretic.

The only hopes in the bill are the community health clinics, and they aren't anywhere near adequately funded to help most of us.

[Faryn Balyncd]

72. K and R. Thanks for great post.

[grantcart]

74. The OPM system is a proven system

Too bad people don't actually read the bill and understand what is in it.

[bvar22]

77. The OPM System?

Other People's Money ?

[grantcart]

90. OPM Office of Professional Management

OPM will have DICTATORIAL powers over plans in the exchanges, including premium, coverage, medical loss ratio, and PROFITS.

OPM currently controls the FEHB (Federal Employee Health Benefit) for all federal and postal employees. The system that the OP says is broken is working just fine.

Here is a link to OPM http://www.opm.gov/

Here is a link to the OPM health benefit comparison exchange, you can pretend your a federal employee, put in your zip code and see the plans that federal employees in your area now get.

http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/search/plansearch.aspx

Last year private insurers who participated in the federal market made 1.7% profit.

When the OP states that people are being put into a system that doesn't work it simply means that they haven't read the bill nor do they know what OPM is.


Here is a link to my OP that explains the details http://journals.democraticunderground.com/grantcart/256

Here is the section of the Senate bill that gives OPM absolute power to control the exchanges.

This is why every progressive Senator is for the bill:
23 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.— The Director of the Office
24 of Personnel Management (referred to in this section
25 as the ‘Director’) shall enter into contracts with

snip

7 (at) least 2 multi-State qualified health plans through
8 each Exchange in each State. Such plans shall pro9
vide individual, or in the case of small employers,
10 group coverage.
11 ‘‘(2) TERMS.—Each contract entered into
12 under paragraph (1) shall be for a uniform term of
13 at least 1 year, but may be made automatically re
14 newable from term to term in the absence of notice
15 of termination by either party. In entering into such
16 contracts, the Director shall ensure that health bene
17 fits coverage is provided in accordance with the
18 types of coverage provided for under section
19 2701(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Public Health Service Act.
20 ‘‘(3) NON-PROFIT ENTITIES.—In entering into
21 contracts under paragraph (1), the Director shall
22 ensure that at least one contract is entered into with
23 a non-profit entity.
24 ‘‘(4) ADMINISTRATION.—The Director shall im25
plement this subsection in a manner similar to the
56
BAI09R08 S.L.C.
1 manner in which the Director implements the con
2 tracting provisions with respect to carriers under the
3 Federal employees health benefit program under
4 chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, including
5 (through negotiating with each multi-state plan)—
6 ‘‘(A) a medical loss ratio;
7 ‘‘(B) a profit margin;
8 ‘‘(C) the premiums to be charged; and
9 ‘‘(D) such other terms and conditions of
10 coverage as are in the interests of enrollees in
11 such plans.

[Political Heretic]

114. It works "great" for federal employees because federal employees aren't poor.

And because federal employees aren't subject to the same variance from state to state that this bill allows. You yourself write in your own journal about the significant portions of oversight that are punted to states to deal with.

Now try making below a median income and experiencing a catastrophic health crisis, or being in need of long term substantial care. Unless you're denying that co-pays exist, and that there's nothing in the bill guaranteeing that out of pocket expenses will never exceed x amount tied to income, then we have problem, one of many problems.

This is your major talking point - "omg the OPM works amazing for federal employees and it will now be exactly the same for all Americans thanks to this bill." But your justification and evidence that this is true is quite full of holes and fraught with problems.

That statement right here:

OPM will have DICTATORIAL powers over plans in the exchanges, including premium, coverage, medical loss ratio, and PROFITS.

Is categorically false, and shame on you for saying something so deceitful. The OPM's involvement is far, far from dictatorial as exemptions, exceptions and oversight limits are written right into the senate bill when it comes to premiums, coverage and profits.

Unlike the coverage federal employees receive, coverage through this bill contains numerous, major concessions to private insurance and pharmaceutical companies, including the omission of key oversight responsibilities - where those responsibilities are left to the sole discretion of states.

Last year private insurers who participated in the federal market made 1.7% profit.

When the OP states that people are being put into a system that doesn't work it simply means that they haven't read the bill nor do they know what OPM is.

The critical flaw in your argument is that the Senate Bill in no way sets up a system identical to what federal employees participate in right now. Just because the OPM is involved - in ways far more restricted and conditional than your baseless rhetoric about "Dictatorial Power" implies - does not mean it is involved in the same way, or involved free of limit or exception.

It's supposed to be my damn holiday, but obviously I'm going to have to plow through the bill again and start detailing all the ways that this bills exceptions and allowances set up an entirely difference system than what federal employees currently enjoy.

So I'll start doing that. It's 2000 pages so, it'll be awhile. In the meantime, I'll post the link to a rebuttal I've already made to your argument previously...

[leftstreet]

93. LOL

:thumbsup:

[Political Heretic]

115. Rebuttal to your OPM journal argument:

This is connect to my response post to you below.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7352106&mesg_id=7352692

[katty]

75. K&R - we have mandatory car insurance in CA, but

but we have many choices.

[zalinda]

82. But, not everyone owns or drives a car

That is the major difference. It is the same with Homeowners Insurance, not everyone owns their own home, and if it is paid in full, it is not even required.

Mandating health insurance is only the answer when their is a public option. There is not, as yet. And even with a public option, people can still lose everything, just take a look at the movie "Sicko".

zalinda

[change_notfinetuning]

102. Many choices, indeed. My last car insurance quotes ranged from $1400 to

$4800. We were actually paying about $750 with insurance through AARP. Then our teenage daughter got her license, and AARP basically said that's not their cup of tea, but would continue us for $3000, so we shopped around. We got half a dozen quotes which, even with our good driving records, topped out at $4800 with Allstate. Thanks to competition, we got a good policy with a good company for $1400.

On the other hand, when we were self employed and shopped for a health insurance policy, there was very little differentiation in cost for like plans. When we finally chose one, we'd get annual increases ranging from 10% - 33%, at which point we were forced to go without. The health insurers are definitely in "good hands" with that anti-trust exemption, which will continue on under the current Senate deform plan.

[femrap]

78. May the House

remember who they serve....you know, those silly little 'We, The People.'

[LouKneeLib]

80. No victory?

This is certainly a victory for the h8care industry.

:cry:

[era veteran]

83. Nationalize health care now

What about the other 13 million plus who will die for profit from the health industry bund/gang? This bill sucks.

[xchrom]

85. Recommend

[johnaries]

87. But that is NOT what is happening.

"an industry that is still wildly de-regulated, without clear, clean, simple cost containment absolutes or clear cut, loophole free consumer protections."

But there are many, many provisions that address those directly. Here, read this summary:
http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill04.pdf

[grantcart]

92. They would rather remain in their anger than actually learn what is in the bill

The OPM system is working very well.

Details here http://journals.democraticunderground.com/grantcart/256

[Political Heretic]

104. That IS what's happening.

*Critical regulating decisions are punted to states.

*Large numbers of regulation entries in the bill don't outweigh exceptions and exemptions to those regulations, or key areas where regulation is needed by not provided (example: deductibles, co-pay costs, prescription coverage, standards of care, coverage limits, variance in costs based on health, essential vs. non-essential service definitions.)

* Again, regulations that exist in legislation are easy to get around, or mitigated by exemptions or qualifiers.

*Insufficient cross-state competitor regulations exist, and thus millions of people living in less than progressive states will have health care options of dramatically less quality.

[midnight]

95. I second your opinion...... Bringing 30 million people into a broken

health care system is not a victory...

[KittyWampus]

97. It is when you can't get enough votes to build a new system from the ground up

[change_notfinetuning]

98. Oh c'mon. Throwing trillions of dollars to insatiably greedy, amoral bastards,

who make life and death and quality-of-life decisions on our behalf, seems like the perfect solution.

[Cronus Protagonist]

101. "Bring" = FORCE

Even the detractors are being propagandized.

[Kid Dynamite]

103. You left off a zero

It's about bringing 300 million people into a quality health care system that prioritizes health and wellness services ahead of multi-billion dollar profits.

[Political Heretic]

116. Thank you.

I stand corrected. :)

[truedelphi]

105. Quality - now you want quality? You think you were

Promised a pony, and now you wanna win the damn Kentucky Derby on that nag as well!

Anyway, a big K & R!

[bertman]

107. Recommend. Excellent post. nt

[nightrain]

109. knr. fabulous post. very informative. It's terribly unfortunate that

we never got the open transparent national debate about the directions we wanted health CARE changes to go. No Zeke vs Baucus vs PNHP vs Dean vs any other proposal. Instead, what we got is a version of "moving in the direction of a modified Zeke". And many of us are dead set against that approach.

[Vinca]

110. I'm kind of sick of hearing that 30 million people will be getting insurance.

They won't. 30 million people will be getting orders to buy private insurance or face a penalty. Many won't be able to afford the insurance and will opt for the fine. I know it's happened in Massachusetts.

[Little Star]

111. That line "30 million people will be getting insurance" is what

makes those who support this HCR feel good saying. It helps them convince themselves that they are right. They stick their heads in the sand and block their ears when anyone mentions that those 30 million people will be forced to buy private insurance or face a penalty. They are party above democratic principles people imho.

[Political Heretic]

113. That's not true

I oppose this bill, but let's keep the facts straight. If insurance you can buy in your area is more than 8% your income, then you are exempt from penalty. You are also (I think) exempt from penalty if you are a certain level of poverty.

Quite honestly the "mandate" is about the least significant reason to be critical of this bill.

[bvar22]

117. Thanks for your excellent work!

Well Done.

Bookmarking for future reference!
:patriot: