My party is poised to ram this health insurance bill down my throat

[bigtree]

. . . and I'm just exhausted with outrage over the fact that I'll be FORCED to buy into a system which I'm not convinced I can afford. Not a thing has been done about the high deductibles which make every policy I'm privy to just a facade of coverage. Yet, it appears that I'll be forced to come up with money I don't have for even my present collection of obligations - in a decade of economic downturn and upheaval - for coverage that I'll end up paying out of pocket for in the end if I use it and pay for even if I don't want it. The kicker is that the IRS will be the ones I'll be indebted to in the end. All of this after Congress works to pare the benefits and price controls in the bill down just to pass it. I never asked for this.

Completely messed up that Democrats' opposition to provisions in these bills is being lumped in with republican obstruction and dismissed as just another obstacle to these elites' political victory. They don't have a thing to lose financially and are determined to pass this thing and proceed to tell us how much better off we all are. I wonder what the economic effect will be from folks who are forced to add these costs to their family budget? Where's this money going to come from??!!

Well, for the folks who say they'll benefit from this legislation, congratulations. I probably won't see a dime of health care out of it, but after it passes. "It's not all about me," but I'm sure I'll be paying for those who will benefit. I sincerely hope their high expectations pan out. Me? They're going to MAKE me pay for lousy health insurance that I don't want and can't afford right now. I'll probably never get over that. I'm sure they'll tell me from their elevated, subsidized perches that I should be just fine. I guess they'll all huddle together and decide that we'll all be just fine with whatever they finally pass. We've been lied to all the way along and compromised down to the point where most folks accept that this is the best they can do for us. What a joke. Billions for war, billions for banks and a miserly pittance for public health care. I know, I know . . . just shut up and fall in line while our Democratic leadership bulldozes this thing through.

[nightrain]

1. knr. Disgusting isn't it?

[Crzyrussell]

139. I would have never thought that

the Democratic leadership would attack union health plans like they are.

[nightrain]

152. yeah. I know. I think the corporate Dems, including Obama, are

just desperate to pass something/anything.

The betrayal is enormous.

And they do the negotiations behind closed doors when Obama promised they wouldn't.

There will be legal challenges to any mandate to purchase a private corporation's product. I can't imagine that precedent will fly. These bills are totally unaffordable for middle income people.

[Skittles]

2. you know it bigtree

[ixion]

3. yeah, it's very disappointing...

and depressing and frustrating and infuriating. :grr: :argh:

[amborin]

40. +100000

[Better Believe It]

4. K & R

[kelly1mm]

5. Yeah Team! Oh, can you remember to send in some campaign $? nt

[WestSeattle2]

147. LOL.....never again. NEVER. No phone banking, no knocking

on doors, no volunteering at campaign events, NADA. ZIP. ZERO.

[BeFree]

6. Well

When we get our draft notice (IRS draft) lets gather in the square and burn them.

That is if it as bad as they say.

[stray cat]

7. I don't think you are the only one they are thinking about.....

[blues90]

8. It is so SICK I can't even laugh it off.

None of this is what we were promised or wanted and yet the reps come together like so many buzzards and pick off the people who can't afford some crap swill that in the end will do nothing other than enhance the medical ins industry and the medical industrial complex.

Aren't you just sick to death of complexes?

[Odin2005]

9. We have been betrayed.

[quiet.american]

10. I'm so sick of this kind of self-absorbed, ignorant whining.

Yes, ignorant.

You don't know jack about the health bill, except what LaRouchies, Greenies, Nader-ites, Hamsher-ites et al. have spoon-fed you about it.

If it saves ONE LIFE, is it worth it?

If it didn't exist, and you still had to pay health insurance companies with no PROTECTION THAT THE BILL DOES PROVIDE, how does that help you?

So sick of this whiny B.S.

(Yes, my post probably does deserve to be deleted, but I've had it with this kind of crap.)

[dkf]

11. It will save the lives of people that get covered because they are poor.

It will still be unaffordable for many, and they will simply pay their fine and be worse off period.

[quiet.american]

12. Bullshit. nt

[dkf]

24. Anyone who pays the fine gets no coverage.

They get no benefit. None.

[quiet.american]

25. If they're paying a fine, they obviously don't want coverage.

They want me to pay for their healthcare, while they shoot off their mouths about having to pay $95 (Senate bill) four years from now.

I'll cry tomorrow.

[dkf]

26. Or they can't afford it. Its still not cheap you know.

Hell, if you think its cheap, then sponsor someone from this board and pay for their share of the premium. I'm sure they would appreciate it.

[quiet.american]

28. I don't need to sponsor anyone to do that. I'm my own "needy case."

I've run the numbers and my premium, according to what the conference works out between the two bills, will run anywhere from $70-$100/month, w/an out-of-pocket of between 5-6k annually. Doable. And a hell of a lot better than the current situation -- no health insurance.

[dkf]

31. Its a sad day when you are thrilled to be paying $5800 to $7200 a year

without unexpected costs.

That is not doable for a lot of people you know.

[quiet.american]

32. No -- if I get cancer or have a heart attack, that's my maximum out of pocket expense. nt

[thereismore]

117. I think you're wrong. That's just your premiums. Deductibles must be added if you get sick.

Granted, I can imagine people in a catastrophic situation that this bill actually helps, but to others it comes at a great cost.

[quiet.american]

134. No -- that's not just my premiums.

Premiums would top out at about $900-$1200 a year, depending on the final merged numbers in the bill.

[Knight Hawk]

140. Increases

In my humble opinion the chances of the premiums Not increasing above the rate of inflation are probably about one in a hundred.In order for there to be reasonable,sane reform the entire structure of how we deliver and pay for health care has to be changed.Otherwise it is just window dressing.The fact of the matter is there are too many rich influential,powerful people and corporations,which are simply people bound together with vested interests in the status quo for there to be major changes.Obama went to the mountain with a lot less troops than he thought he would have with him and the mountain won.

[totodeinhere]

138. And you think that's good? How many people can afford to pay the max?

Most average people just live from paycheck to paycheck, that is if they're lucky enough to even have a paycheck. There is no way that they could afford several thousand dollars. If you can afford it, congratulations, but many others can't.

[quiet.american]

154. So how would having to pay $50k+ for those scenarios make my life easier?

I can make arrangements to pay an out-of-pocket max of $5k-$6k -- would it be easy? No. But it would not be impossible, as would be the case with no caps.

And I'll add that I'm sick of the constant implications around here that I'm rolling in dough, because I'm not. I happen to make a decent living at the moment (and decent means I can pay the rent/utilities/internet and carfare to get to work, plus buy a new sweater, skirt or pair of pants three times a year. That's barely being "comfortable."

[proudohioan]

51. Very sad day indeed!

I remember a time (many eons ago....)when $5800 to $7200 per year was UNHEARD of for an ENTIRE insurance policy PLUS the unexpected costs! Come to think of it, the total bill for my first child back then was around $2400, including monthly OB visits. That was back in 1987, when I was earning $24,000 a year. Earnings for 2009? I'd be surprised if I broke $13,000........

[JoeyT]

48. So your

argument is that because it helps you, who cares if it helps anyone else. And that's why the OP is selfish.
Good argument.

[fascisthunter]

56. .

[amandabeech]

29. The poster can sponsor me.

At my age, there's no way that I could afford more than a catastrophic plan, but no such plan will be available.

Even with the percentage of income limit, I won't be able to afford it.

I don't think that I'm alone. Many older people will see little benefit from this bill because they will pay much more for insurance but receive the same subsidy or percentage of income limit as younger people who will pay much less for the insurance.

[Ladyhawk]

143. I'd like to be sponsored, too, please. I gross under $10,000 a year. nt

[tekisui]

58. Those paying the fine will have likely done a cost comparison.

They are mostly poor in that situation and will choose what will cost them less.

[quiet.american]

61. The fine is for those who can afford coverage and opt not to have it.

As has been said over and over and over and over and over and over and over:

If you are poor, you will either be eligible for Medicaid, or you will have over 80% of your premium subsidized and your out-of-pocket, if there is one, substantially reduced and capped.

Those who will be subject to the fine are those who can afford it and refuse to have any coverage -- that means they don't want it through their employer, they don't want it from the Exchanges, they don't want it through a state-based single-payer program, they don't want it through either of the two national plans OPM will be managing -- they don't want any coverage from any source.

[tekisui]

69. It does not necessarily mean they do not want coverage.

I just means they would rather pay the fine than buy coverage. You are making assumptions on their motivations. It could be because they by-god just don't want any coverage. Or it could be that they are poor, not by the Medicaid definition, but poor nonetheless. There is a large class of working poor. It is still about the bottom line for them. They may make the choice to pay the fine because it is cheaper and risk their health.

[quiet.american]

72. Look, I make a fairly decent living, and my premium would still be less than the lowest fine.

And the less you make, the higher the subsidy.

[Kansas Wyatt]

76. Will you please post the website where you did your calculations?

That may clear this matter up for ALL of us, if we could use the same calculations you did.

[quiet.american]

80. Okay.

This was based on the House bill. The Senate bill numbers would be higher. Links for all my resources included at the link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6913410

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[quiet.american]

91. Since you can't access it, here's a re-posting of what's at the link.

(And although you can't fathom how someone may actually benefit from this bill, and hold a different view of it, and be a proud Democrat -- it is possible.)

I also said UPFRONT that the Senate numbers would be higher.

My original post when the House bill was released.

---------------

SUBJECT: Crunched the #s, & it looks like by Jan/2010 I'll have health insurance for $80 or less/month.

Thought I'd take a look at the numbers to get an idea of just how "affordable" this would be in the real world. Hopefully, I've interepreted the legalese and summaries correctly -- has anyone else tried this?

Downloaded the bill and combed through the Affordability Credits section, as well as various summaries; here's what I'm basing my conclusion on:

Eligibility

HCR 3962:

Page 16:
TITLE I—IMMEDIATE REFORMS
SEC. 101. NATIONAL HIGH-RISK POOL PROGRAM.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this section referred to as the ‘‘Secretary’’) shall establish a temporary national high-risk pool program (in this section referred to as the ‘‘program’’) to provide health benefits to eligible individuals during the period beginning on January 1, 2010, and, subject to subsection (h)(3)(B), ending on the date on which the Health Insurance Exchange is established.

(c) ELIGIBILITY.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘eligible individual’’ means an individual—

(there's more at the link - skipping to what would be applicable in my case) --

Page 18: -- who has not had health insurance coverage or coverage under an employment-based health plan for at least the 6-month period immediately preceding the date of the individual’s application for high-risk pool coverage under this section.


The numbers:

According to the table on Page 252:

The percentage of the affordability credit I'd qualify for, according to my modified adjusted gross income (expressed as a percentage above the Federal Poverty Level -- the table ranges from 133% to 400% -- my income falls in the 250%-300% category) is a percentage credit of 78% towards my premium. The percentage of my income I would be charged as an annual premium would begin at 8% and on a sliding scale, increase to 10% *after* the first year. (I used the 10% number for my figures.)

(The premium range may end up being less because I've used my gross income as a basis for the figure -- that was easier to figure out since my income this year is very different from what was on my tax return last year).

Okay, for the purpose of how I arrived at my figures -- let's use a household income of $40,000/ 2 people and this would be for an individual policy for one person --

Gross income, $40,000 is 275% of the FPL (2009 Federal Poverty Level, $14,570); which would place one in the "250%-300%" category for the purpose of determining what percentage of the affordability credit one is eligible for.

If one calculates according to 2010-Year 1/ 8% "initial premium percentage":

8% of $40,000 = $320/month

The affordability credit = 78% of $320 = $249.60

$320-$249= $71/month


After Y1, sliding scale to:

10% "final premium percentage" of $40,000 = $400/month

The affordability credit = 78% of $400 = $312

$400-$312=$88/month;

Additionally, maximum out-of-pocket for Year 1 is: $4,000.

Through all the noise, and the "best of intentions" passionate criticisms -- this is something that would truly be welcome to me - namely, premiums I can afford that are vastly lower than anything I could get now.

(Links didn't transfer from original post -- you can copy/paste to Google to find) or search for my original post directly on DU):
Links used:
H.R. 3962 Bill -
2009 Federal Poverty Guidelines (scroll down to the table)
Online Percentage Calculator

[HBravo]

96. Thanks for the info.

I am still out on this as I do not think that anyone who pays the fine for not getting the plan will ever be turned away from a ER room. That will be a problem. More people will pay the fine (roll the dice)causing those of us who pay and play with a higher burden in the long run.

[quiet.american]

101. You're welcome. Granted, interesting point. nt

[Kansas Wyatt]

97. You are still using the House of Reps bill to pay for it, which is not going to happen.

Great big difference between the House and Senate bill. And Obama and the Senate have already told the House that they are going with the Senate version, which taxes those middle (cadillac) class plans.

[quiet.american]

102. I'll say it again: I've already said the Senate numbers would be higher.

That's why I've estimated between $70-100/month for my premium, but, bottom line, I would still have an affordable premium.

And I've just come across an error in my initial calculations that look like my House bill premium would have been even lower in Y1:

8%/40,000 = $3200 divided by 12 months =

$266.66/month x 78% = $208.00/month

$266-$208=$58.67/month premium

(For some reason, I based my initial Y1 calculation on a 10-month year -- must have been tired.)

So, with the Senate subsidies being lower (I don't have the percentages at hand), I'll probably actually end up back where I started out with my initial calculations, at about $70-80/month.

[Kansas Wyatt]

106. Have you deducted the tax on 'cadillac' plans yet?

Nope, because it doesn't affect you, so fuck those who sacrificed for it.

[quiet.american]

109. Conversely, in your world, f*ck anyone who could be helped.

Because you're stuck on the "Cadillac" tax.

How is that better?

[Kansas Wyatt]

112. I've already listed how unions get hammered for fighting for health care....

Only to be penalized for it with your Obama/Senate HCR/SHIT Bill, by being TAXED for it. Guess that's why you provided the House's version for PAYING for it.

I've also told you that it has cost me employment trying to compete against those who don't provide health care and I am doing without health care now. But oh fuck no, as long as you get yours without any sacrifice for it. My sacrifice has been 28 years with pre-existing conditions, only to see DLC motherfuckers throw the American Worker under the bus, while rewarding fucking Death Merchants.... What is your sacrifice again?

[quiet.american]

116. You're way off base on two things:

First, you assume I'm for union health insurance being taxed -- I'm not.

Second, you keep saying I've provided the House version of how they're going to pay for it -- what I provided is the SENATE version. I don't know why you keep insisting it's the House version.

As for sacrifice, I hear you about your sacrifice and again, I firmly believe union health insurance should not be taxed.

[Kansas Wyatt]

123. See post #121

I followed your links that YOU provided, which led to the HOUSE bill and listed how it was to be paid for in the HOUSE bill.

You will find out exactly where your link went in post #121.

And yes, you ARE for union insurance being taxed!

[quiet.american]

127. Well, since you're speaking for me, I'll now just sit back & watch you talk to yourself. nt

[Knight Hawk]

141. Your Premium?

What would the premium be if you had a spouse the same age as you and a set of 10 year old twins,and your spouse made 60 % of what you made?

[inna]

90. Projection.

[Hissyspit]

13. Calling people "whiners" is crap.

[quiet.american]

14. So what? I'm no saint. And I've had to take my licks, too. nt

[slipslidingaway]

15. Nice associations you listed ...

"...You don't know jack about the health bill, except what LaRouchies, Greenies, Nader-ites, Hamsher-ites et al. have spoon-fed you about it..."

:thumbsdown:

[quiet.american]

16. Didn't take you long to show up. nt

[slipslidingaway]

21. Hamsher - LaRouche did not take you long. n/t

[quiet.american]

23. Oh, I'm sorry -- are they out of favor around here, now? nt

[freddie mertz]

64. Simply charming, isn't it? And note the personal attack in the "spoon-fed" line.

There may be some reasonable arguments to be made for this bill (I have yet to be impressed, I admit).

But this sort of insulting crap is not only pitifully unpersuasive, it's positively polarizing.

Maybe that is the intention?

[slipslidingaway]

151. Yes, must marginalize those who no longer comply :( n/t

[kelly1mm]

17. One life? 900 billion over 10 years for 1 life? Nope not worth it

under your own conditions.

[quiet.american]

18. Color me surprised - not. nt

[kelly1mm]

20. Can you explain why ONE LIFE (your condition) is worth 900 billion

tax dollars over 10 years? How much education assistance could that provide? Housing for the homeless?

[quiet.american]

22. Why don't you explain why reducing the deficit by 1.3 trillion over 20 yrs. is not worth one life?

Why don't you explain why relieving someone of the burden of literally praying to die is not worth it?

[kelly1mm]

27. If you will try to answer my question and justify your comment I will

try and answer yours. See, you asked was it worth it to save one life. I answered no and gave my reasons. Instead of countering my argument with reason you both try to change the subject and use an emotional argument that does not address my reasons. Query: which is the greater suffering, the ONE PERSON that we will relieve the burden of praying to die with $900 billion over 10 years or the millions of homeless we could help with those same dollars?

[quiet.american]

30. Whatever on your preamble. To your second point:

The president's budget is capable of doing both. They're not mutually exclusive.

And with people losing their homes due to medical bankruptcy (which this bill ends) where do you think so many of the homeless are coming from.

You cite the $900 billion figure as though it adds to the problem; w/o this bill, the costs would spiral into the trillions and add to the deficit. With this bill, it brings the costs down and CBO has confirmed reduces the deficit. That means more money available for dealing with other pressing issues.

[kelly1mm]

34. Your still not answering the question. You used hyperbole (if it saves

one person is it worth it) and I called you on it. Lets go with your numbers though to further my point. Over the next 20 years how much money is going to be raised by 1) the tax on Cadillac plans (I will even discount this # to those earning less than 250K) plus 2) the money raised from those who, for whatever reason chose not to purchase insurance and are fined? Since you seem to know what the CBO says about the bill(s) this should be easy for you to find. I don't think those BILLIONS of dollars of new taxes and/or fees on the working and middle class are worth one life, as was the premise of your comment.

As to the costs v. deficit you and I are talking about two different metrics. I am talking about dollars spent and you are talking about dollars spent over and above dollars (taxes) taken in.

I believe this bill will help many more than one person. I still don't believe it should pass as I think it will entrench the insurance companies in our health care for decades more than without the bill.

[quiet.american]

36. If one life is not worth a savings of $1.3 trillion to you - -what's to talk about?

As for your questions -- if I can find it in the CBO reports, so can you. When you find the answer, let us know. I'm done doing the foot-work for those who place $ values on human lives, and have nothing to say about the things in the bill that will ease suffering and save lives, but just whine on and on and on about MONEY.

Bottom line, the bill saves MONEY and saves LIVES.

[kelly1mm]

37. Of course we put $ values on lives. Is one life worth $14 trillion?

That is the approximate GDP of the US (2007). Is one life worth that? Just think about how much mental energy you me and the readers of this subthread could have used in far more useful ways if you would just drop the hyperbole!

Look, like I said, I agree that this bill will help more than just one person. I just disagree with your assessment of the overall good or bad of this bill. That's cool and with reasonable arguments I (and others) may be swayed toward your position. Hyperbolic, non-rational arguments are not the way to do it though IMO.

[quiet.american]

38. You made your position clear -- one person is not worth it. We disagree. nt

[kelly1mm]

39. OK, thats cool too. I still am reading as much as I can about the

HCR bill and look forward to making my final decision on it when it is finalized. You definitely have some good points that I will ponder. Have a good night!

[quiet.american]

41. Alright -- you, too! :) nt

[Crunchy Frog]

132. Not even Bill Gates's life is worth 900 billion.

:shrug:

[KharmaTrain]

46. Shhhhh...

You're obviously a "cheerleader" or "DLC" or some other evil... :sarcasm:

Yes, there's a lot of disinformation about what's in the bill...as well as many frustrated people who aren't getting their ponies. Thus if it's not their way, then all the walls need to come down. Cast blame...stomp feet...promise to go third party or stay home...they're gonna show us.

It's easy to say this won't be the bill a majority of us hoped for a year ago...and this process has exposed how disconnected to the voters our legislators are and connected to the big money that pays for their campaigns and feeds their egos. Voters be damned as it's the lobbyists money that pays for their re-election.

[bkozumplik]

131. anyone who talks about people wanting "ponies"

can go F themselves.

[Hello_Kitty]

52. Those are some STELLAR talking points you got there!

The OP is expressing opinions that are held by a lot of Americans about this health care bill. If you think calling people ignorant self-absorbed whiners is going to persuade them you need to think again. The only response supporters of this bill seem to have to criticism is insults and guilt trips.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. Well, be happy. Obama is spending 10s of billions to take lives in Afghanistan.

Which is apparently "worth it" to the apologists.

[freddie mertz]

62. Then consider not reading or commenting on it.

Honestly, if you have nothing but insults to contribute, maybe it is best you keep it to yourself.

[h9socialist]

71. I agree!

Whiney crap!

[BlueJac]

92. You are ignorant to post that.

[Xenotime]

95. Thank you. Excellent post.

[kjackson227]

107. Thank you, ITA.

[Ignis]

135. Stay classy!

:hi:

[pundaint]

136. How many time will you allow yourself to be fooled smart guy?

This bill locks in 20% of healthcare spending all over America as the insurers cut. There is no limit on dollars, only on percentage. These insurers have lied and cheated for 5 decades, and have grown so big that they now own Congress. The only way for them to increase their take under this legislation is to increase the total dollars medical care costs Americans. These proven manipulators, will just raise the total medical expenditure until they squeeze every last cent out of the economy. Whatever short term benefits may be available through this legislation, they will soon be unaffordable, and the insurers will still be running the show.

Because you are manifestly by self proclamation not ignorant, what in this bill refutes my analysis?

[tnlefty]

148. I know a little bit about those 'cadillac plans', one from BCBS

almost bankrupted my family a little over a decade ago, provides shit coverage for me and my kids, but you just keep calling people like me who wanted better for EVERYONE whiners.

Actually, I've had it with the crap the insurance companies dish out and there is no day of reckoning for them, nor will there be one...I'm not whining, actually I'm mad as hell, thank you very much.

[HughMoran]

19. SSDD

yelling at DU for the thousandth time isn't going to change anything

[jgraz]

33. Couldn't disagree more.

It's going in the other end.

[grahamhgreen]

43. Nice

[FarLeftFist]

35. If you can't afford it....

You get a hardship exemption. Make under $30,000/year? Get medicaid with no annual premiums.

[Skittles]

44. WHY CAN'T WE GET A PUBLIC OPTION???

[TheKentuckian]

113. That's with a family of four

and a hardship exemption misses the point of expanding access and increasing affordability of care.

You also ignore the out of pocket beyond premiums, I guess once you've set up some bootstraps you're done.

[Faryn Balyncd]

42. K&R.Time for Nancy to drag the bums into the sunlight (CSPAN) & ram the Pub Opt down Harry's throat:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7402961

[chimpymustgo]

45. Damn straight.

[mochajava666]

67. It's our only hope to avoid disaster in 2010

This bill will represent the Democrats' inability to lead, which will alienate the independents, while also shitting on the base, which is critical in midterm elections.

For Democrats to pass bad legislation that benefits corporations more than ordinary people is always a bad thing. People have to stop blindly spinning for the Obama presidency before they can realize this. I wish this guy in the White House was half the man that candidate Obama was. Just a few months ago, I was planning on being very proud of this country after one year under Obama's leadership. Now I'm just even more cynical and disillusioned.

It's also hard to have a lot of faith in "impeachment is off the table" Pelosi, but that's all I have now. Go Nancy!

[Vinca]

47. As one of the lepers on the outside looking in, I was counting the days

until Democrats took over and everyone would get access to decent health care they could afford. Now I'm grateful I only have 4 more years to wait until I'm eligible for Medicare. Hope I live to enroll in it.

[Jamastiene]

49. K&R

I don't know how they expect to get money from us. The banks and corporations already have it all. That's why we are in another Depression now. It is like they are sending out the full force of the IRS to collect gallons of water to go into their already full ocean while they leave the rest of us dry.

"Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?" - Johnny Rotten

[nightrain]

50. I look forward to the challenges to a bill that legislates the necessity for

everyone to purchase a private corporation's product.

I don't think this can fly. It's unaffordable for middle income people and is a huge transfer of our wealth to corporations, which is unethical AFAIK.

[CanSocDem]

103. Yeh...

...that sticky wicket isn't getting much attention. And if people think that 'medical insurance' means good health, that "product" is probably more scam than actual benefit.

.

[kenny blankenship]

53. Americans will continue to be bankrupted by insurance scams, Americans still will not be covered

America will continue to pay far more than other countries for their health care "system". Costs will continue to spiral. And now Americans have to worry EACH YEAR that they will find themselves on the wrong side of the law.

This "reform" merely rewards the rent-seekers who drove our system from first to worst and only cements their private lock on what is PROPERLY a public policy matter of the first order.

Only America post-Reagan could envision a national health care system that is patterned on jailhouse labor, has the courts and slammer waiting for the average citizen who slips up, and in which in fact only those who do get sent to prison can be assured of health care as a right.

Any "Democrat" who thinks I'll be voting for him or her to thank them for passing this act of armed robbery is out of their fucking mind.

[CoffeeCat]

54. Even if it passes, it won't be implemented...

If this healthcare bill passes, many of the particulars don't kick in for four years.

Don't worry, if this bill passes--we will lose--big time--in 2010 and in 2012. Republicans
loathe this bill. Half of the Democrats hate it. I'm a Democrat and I hate it.

Dumbest frickin piece of legislation EVER to be passed by a Democrat. Yeah, let's
promise health-care reform, and instead deliver a big giveaway to the health-insurance
industry that places government enforced mandates and fines on us---while doing NOTHING
about the broken healthcare system and need to control costs. Yeah, that's exactly
what we meant by "change" and "give us healthcare reform." :eyes:

This entire bill will be a disaster. You won't ever have to worry about paying
a thing or participating. This bill will sink the Dems in the near-term and sink
any meaningful healthcare reform for the long term.

Every corporatist hack, neocon and conservative will point to this debacle and
say, "See! We told you that the government shouldn't run healthcare!".

[Generator]

70. Best, most concise health care "reform" post yet on DU

And I agree. The Democrats are TOAST. The legislation will never be implemented as the Dems want it. The Republicans will build on all the worst of it and pass something much worse in a few years while claiming "half of what the Dems wanted is in it." HA.

[GreenArrow]

73. "See! We told you that the government shouldn't run healthcare!"

Maybe that's the ultimate point of this joke of a health "reform".

[dgibby]

153. If this POS passes, get used to saying President DeMint,

because that's where we're headed.:scared: :grr: :nuke:

[invictus]

55. K&R

[salguine]

59. You know, I wonder about the feasibility of having some kind of a

class action suit undertaken to scuttle this disaster of a bill, on the grounds that you can't force someone to purchase a blatantly inferior, defective product. Any lawyers out there? Anybody know?

[bullsnarfle]

60. Wow

Wow. quiet.american is certainly jazzed by this plan. Must have stock in Health Insurance Industries; they are the real (BIG) winners here. Sure, some really poor people could be covered...you know, the ones already getting Medicaid? As for the rest of us...just bled dry (drier).

My coverage now is through my employer. The only plan I can afford has such high deductibles that if I do get sick I won't be able to pay them anyway...no-way, no-how.
So, why you might ask, do I even pay for the coverage? Because I consider my insurance card the "Golden Ticket". You know, the one that at least gets you in the front door of a hospital if you get hit by a bus? At least with a Golden Ticket there is a chance that someone may get to you before you croak. Afterward, however I am going to pay (or more accurately, not be able to pay) the obscene deductibles, at least maybe I will be ALIVE to declare bankruptcy.

I guess I am just a self-absorbed, ignorant whiner, but I have seen NOTHING so far that will rein in Big Insurance from frog-marching us into paying whatever they want, from higher premiums right on through to even higher obscene deductibles; and if I won't (or, more to the point, CAN'T) cough it up, I am considered a criminal.

Well, it's all probably for naught anyway...plenty of folks from both sides are all lined up to take this crap to court before BO's signature is dry. Which means WE THE PEOPLE will have to shell out a WHOLE SHITPOT of money for the inevitable legal battle. Nothing ever changes...

[quiet.american]

66. No, I don't have stock.

But you know what, if I wanted to get stock in the public insurance companies, there would be nothing stopping me. Why not buy a share every two weeks for the next four years, UNH is currently at $31.80/share, that's a movie for two with popcorn; by the time this thing really kicks in, I'd probably have enough in profits to completely subsidize my premiums for one or two years. Let the insurance company's money pay for my health insurance!

Why not even form an investment group that invests in insurance company stock? Use the profits to file your lawsuits or pay your premiums or deductibles or whatever the hell you want. Put their money to work for yourself.

Just because you, yourself, haven't seen the new restrictions against insurance companies jacking up premiums, or charging whatever they want, doesn't mean those restrictions don't exist in the bills. I see so many posts in here claiming nothing in the bills would help them, when I know there are things in the bill that address many of the very issues people are bitching about.

Every single Senator and Representative has said the bill is not perfect. I agree. I would like to see the amount of the subsidies increased, as well as the income level subsidized raised, and the anti-trust exemption repealed, for starters.

Bottom line is, I can't get the healthcare stories out of my mind where people are praying to die and begging for this legislation to be passed so that they can get some relief. This bill will help them -- eliminating co-pays on preventive services, covering their kids, eliminating the ridiculous "pre-existing conditions" scam, etc. and keep others in the future from praying to die because they don't have healthcare. I look around at my friends and family, and there is something in that bill that would help most of them by the end of next year. That's why I'm for HCR.

[Kansas Wyatt]

74. I've waited 28 years with pre-existing conditions....

I do not have ANY health coverage now or anytime in the near future.

This HCR/SHIT Bill is NOT Health Care Reform, it is Insurance Care. I waited 28 years (mostly without coverage) and the fucking Death Merchants are going to be the winners of this alleged 'reform.'

Oh, and this HCR/SHIT Bill was designed for the Republicans to exploit later, when they regain power in either the House, Senate, or White House, and yes, they will regain power in one soon. Especially when the American People finally see what the 'New Democratic Party' (DLC) gave them, without lube or a reach around.

When the Republicans do retake one, they will immediately CUT & GUT funding to what little it does help and they will JACK-UP the taxes on the middle (cadillac) class plans with it, while giving further tax cuts to the rich.

Oh well, it's not like you had to sacrifice for those plans, so who gives a shit... Right?

This is not a Democratic Bill to help Americans, it is a DLC gift to the Republican Party.

[quiet.american]

75. ? I don't even know what to say about that theory. Except it takes the cake. nt

[Kansas Wyatt]

78. Was NAFTA a theory to the American Worker?

How did that 'New Democratic Party' (DLC) reform work out for you or do you just not care?

[quiet.american]

83. Apples to apples, or apples to oranges. What does trade agreement have to do w/healthcare nt

[Kansas Wyatt]

94. Same deal for the American People.

Now list your calculations on how you claim it is better for you, since you previously listed the House of Reps bill as being the one they will use to pay for this reform, because it is going to be the Senate bill, not the House of Reps bill. In the Senate bill, they are going to tax all those middle (cadillac) class health care plans.

You see, I'm unemployed now and lost my health coverage, because NON-union contractors under-bid my contractor, and pocket the difference on that so-called 'cadillac' health care plan for union workers. Now you are telling me to take it up the ass again, because I made the sacrifice! And you are using the House of Reps HCR bill as justification for passing the Obama/Senate HCR/SHIT Bill version.

[Kansas Wyatt]

81. The website where you allegedly made your own calculations please?

By all means, you want others to know how good it is... So post it.

What's the matter, afraid it may be tied to an Insurance Company?

[quiet.american]

82. O, ye of little faith. I posted it the first time you asked -- upthread. nt

[Kansas Wyatt]

85. One doesn't lead anywhere and the other is from the House.

You know damn good and well that they are not going to get anywhere close to the House Bill and Obama will only want his Senate HCR/SHIT Bill.

Please walk us through the calculations you made, to make you think this is such a great deal for you, when you already said you do well now. You did come prepared with an online calculator didn't you?

[quiet.american]

86. What post are you reading? Because the l link I gave walks you through. nt

[Kansas Wyatt]

89. Your link claims it is being paid through the House of Reps bill, not the Senate Bill.

They have already announced on the news that it will basically be the Senate bill and the House will have to get used to it.

But since you are so sure of yourself, can you provide a link where it is paid for with the Senate bill, since that is the one that Obama wants?

[quiet.american]

93. Where what is paid for?

And I already said the Senate numbers would be higher than the House bill.

You don't need me to do it, either. You can Google HR 3590 and take a look for yourself.

[Kansas Wyatt]

98. The 3rd link you provided...

Had a questions section, which also mentioned how it was being paid for, and guess what?

It was using the Surtax on Millionaires to pay for it from the House bill... Maybe because it was from a House website.

Gee, how is the Senate version paying for theirs?

[quiet.american]

104. Since you asked:

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm

Impose a tax on individuals without qualifying coverage of the greater of $750 per year up to a maximum of three times that amount or 2% of household income to be phased-in beginning in 2014.

Impose an excise tax on insurers of employer-sponsored health plans with aggregate values that exceed $8,500 for individual coverage and $23,000 for family coverage (these threshold values will be indexed to the consumer price index for urban consumers (CPI-U) plus one percentage point). The threshold amounts will be increased for retired individuals age 55 and older who are not eligible for Medicare and for employees engaged in high-risk professions by $1,350 for individual coverage and $3,000 for family coverage. In the 17 states with the highest health care costs, the threshold amount is increased by 20% initially; this increase is subsequently reduced by half each year until it is phased out in 2015. The tax is equal to 40% of the value of the plan that exceeds the threshold amounts and is imposed on the issuer of the health insurance policy, which in the case of a self-insured plan is the plan administrator or, in some cases, the employer. The aggregate value of the health insurance plan includes reimbursements under a flexible spending account for medical expenses (health FSA) or health reimbursement arrangement (HRA), employer contributions to a health savings account (HSA), and coverage for dental, vision, and other supplementary health insurance coverage. (Effective January 1, 2013)

Exclude the costs for over-the-counter drugs not prescribed by a doctor from being reimbursed through an HRA or health FSA and from being reimbursed on a tax-free basis through an HSA or Archer Medical Savings Account. (Effective January 1, 2011)

Increase the tax on distributions from a health savings account or an Archer MSA that are not used for qualified medical expenses to 20% (from 10% for HSAs and from 15% for Archer MSAs) of the disbursed amount. (Effective January 1, 2011)
Limit the amount of contributions to a flexible spending account for medical expenses to $2,500 per year increased annually by the cost of living adjustment. (Effective January 1, 2011)

Increase the threshold for the itemized deduction for unreimbursed medical expenses from 7.5% of adjusted gross income to 10% of adjusted gross income for regular tax purposes; waive the increase for individuals age 65 and older for tax years 2013 through 2016. (Effective January 1, 2013)

Increase the Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) tax rate on wages by 0.9% (from 1.45% to 2.35%) on earnings over $200,000 for individual taxpayers and $250,000 for married couples filing jointly; funds deposited into the Medicare Part A Trust Fund. (Effective January 1, 2013)

Impose new fees on segments of the health care sector:
$2.3 billion annual fee on the pharmaceutical manufacturing sector (effective for sales after December 31, 2008);

$2 billion annual fee on the medical device manufacturing sector increasing to $3 billion after 2017 (effective for sales after December 31, 2009); and

Annual fees on the health insurance sector of $2 billion in 2011, $4 billion in 2012, $7 billion in 2013, $9 billion in 2014-2016, and $10 billion in 2017 and thereafter (effective for net premiums written after December 31, 2008 and third-party agreement fees received after December 31, 2008).

Limit the deductibility of executive and employee compensation to $500,000 per applicable individual for health insurance providers. (Effective January 1, 2009)

Impose a tax of 10% on the amount paid for indoor tanning services. (Effective January 1, 2010)

[Kansas Wyatt]

108. Why did you claim in your links that they were using the House Bill to pay for it?

They are not taxing millionaires to pay for it in the Senate bill, so why did you list a House link to pay for it?

[quiet.american]

110. Can you please be clearer. I don't know what you're talking about.

I used the House bill for my calculations, because at that time the finalized Senate bill was still just a gleam in Harry Reid's eye. There was no passed Senate bill yet at that time, if that's what you're talking about.

[Kansas Wyatt]

121. You provided the following links:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Which provided these links:

Links used:
H.R. 3962 Bill
2009 Federal Poverty Guidelines (scroll down to the table)
Everything You Wanted to know about HCR But...(fill in the blank)
Online Percentage Calculator

Now if you follow the 'Everything You Wanted to know about HCR But... (fill in the blank) link, it will take you to:
http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2009/10/affordable-health-care.shtml

Now if you go down to "Key Provisions" and click on "Paying for Reform" it will say this:

SURCHARGE ON MIILLIIONAIIRES & OTHER REVENUE RAIISERS
Roughly the remaining half of the cost of the health reform bill is paid for by a health care surcharge on
millionaires and certain other revenue raisers, which are relatively small.
SURCHARGE ON MILLIONAIRES
„X Under the bill, the wealthiest 3/10ths of one percent of Americans would pay a surcharge on the
portion of their income above $1 million for couples and $500,000 for singles to help make health
insurance affordable for the middle class and small businesses.
„X These top earners received a disproportionate share of the tax cuts over the last decade and also
saw a large jump in their income and overall wealth. Indeed, the gap between the income of the
top 1 percent and the rest of us has grown significantly in recent years.
„X This provision ensures that middle-class Americans will see no tax increases.
„X Some opponents have asserted that this surcharge will burden many of America¡¦s small business
owners. This is simply not true. The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has found that only
1.2 percent of ¡§small business owners¡¨ would pay the surcharge. A small business owner is defined
as anyone with as little as $1 of business income.
„X Indeed, the wealthy business owners who will pay the surcharge are not what you would consider
to be ¡§small business owners¡¨ ¡V they include hedge fund managers, private equity fund managers,
owners of privately held multinational companies, and lawyers and lobbyists making millions of
dollars a year. The average annual income of these wealthy business owners paying the surcharge
is nearly $3 million.
„X Of the 1.2 percent who pay the surcharge, half derive more than two thirds of their income from
non-business sources.

Printed at the bottom:

OFFICE OF SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI
NOVEMBER 4, 2009

You are using the House bill for proof, to fool people into accepting the Senate/Obama Version.

[quiet.american]

125. How many times do I have to say the Senate bill wasn't around then & --

See my post #104 for the answer to your question.

[Kansas Wyatt]

128. No, because you are FOR taxing union insurance.

As long as you get yours, fuck them is your only solution.

I am done with someone who doesn't know what sacrifice means, besides I've got other shit to do, and I'm not making your paycheck any bigger with your posts for the DLC/Insurance Industry.

[quiet.american]

130. ?

You really are making some way off-base assumptions. No, I don't wear "sacrifice" on my sleeve, but that doesn't mean I don't know about hard times, service or yes, sacrifice.

You assume you know better than me what my life has been, what it is, and what I'm for.

And you're dead wrong, but obviously nothing can make you stop and think that you could be.

[bullsnarfle]

77. What a revolting thought

#1) I'd as soon kiss Ann Coulter right on the mouth than to get into bed, monetarily or otherwise, with the slimy bottom-feeding-scum health insurance companies. Some of us still have a couple principals left, believe it or not.
I especially would never have jack shit to do with them after the way that Double-Cross/Blue Shield treated my grandmother when they found out she had Alzheimer's. I won't go into details here; let's just say they did their dead-level best to screw her over 16 ways from Sunday. And she had what was supposed to be really good coverage too, haha.
Please, be my guest and buy their stock...there is not enough Purell in the world to scrub you clean, though.

#2) You are missing what is probably the main point, which is that this piece of legislation is going to be tied up in the courts for a long, long time. I predict at the end of it all that there ain't nobody gonna see nothin' outta this POS.

Just sayin', fella...

[quiet.american]

79. Truly sorry to hear about how your grandmother was treated - and I'm not a fella.nt

[bullsnarfle]

88. No offense

No offense intended on the "fella" thing, it's just a manner of speaking; like "y'all" or "you'se guys", etc., depending on where you hail from...

[Hoyt]

129. Actually, the requirement that insurers spend at least 80 to 85% for benefits will help put a cap

on what you pay. That can and should be tightened further.

I think there are also provisions that limit deductibles. There is money for community health centers. There is money to improve primary care. There are limits on premium differentials based upon sex, age, etc. The pre-existing restrictions are very important to people who change or lose their jobs and are (or become) sick.

I think the bill does a lot of good over what we have right now.

Yes, there are people who will choose to go uninsured when they can afford coverage, but those people don't really care about improving our society beyond their won pockets.

I am ticked we couldn't get a PO or single payer, but if you think the Republicans have a leg up because of the proposed Senate Bill, think what it would be if a PO or single payer were enacted at this point in time. I'm also concerned that not enough attention was spent in pursuing ways to curb health care expenditures, but the moment someone starts that the charges of "death panels" and "rationing" arise. It's a tough and frustrating situation, but I don't think we can afford another collapse like under Clinton in 1994. A lot of people will really be hurt if this thing is scraped at this point to await another 20 years of status quo and gang rapes by insurers without any restrictions.

[ChiciB1]

63. What I DON'T Understand Is This... Won't Those People Who Can't Afford

to buy, and won't get much benefit depending on WHAT they buy, just get turned off to Democrats who passed this bill?

It seems now that what came out of the Senate will be about what is going to get signed, so WHY DO THE DEMOCRATS want to risk becoming so very unpopular because of it? Is it money or what?? It seems to me that they are destined to lose in the end, and it only give Repukes something to use AGAINST them!!

Let me say, I haven't read all the particulars and don't know everything in it, but what I DO KNOW makes me very upset!! This IS NOT Universal Health Care that seems to be that beneficial to the citizens of this country!

I just don't know WHY Democrats are crowing about "passing HCR" just to say THEYDID IT!!

Enlighten me if you can, I just don't get it!

[Dr.Phool]

65. They had a chance to get this thing right at first.

Anybody remember H.R. 676? Single-payer?

It put the health insurance companies out of business, but fuck them, they're lower than parasites anyway. If there's anybody who deserves to lose their job during this recession, it's the asshole sitting in an office trying to figure out how to cheat you out of a claim. I've had it happen to me several times in the past. The last time was a $2k colonoscopy. They claimed anesthesia was unnecessary and then denied the rest outright. On my wifes policy, that it cost me over $700 a month to be on.

H.R. 676 would have had no co-pays or deductibles. And was a lot cheaper than this insurancesteins monster they've created.

Give 'em all French Revolution Severance Packages!

[Vidar]

68. K&R.

[BzaDem]

84. You are really overstating the negative impact of this bill.

Let's assume for a minute that you are correct, and that you still won't be able to afford health insurance (with government mandated benefits and actuarial values) after the hundreds of billions of subsidies. (I'm not sure this is correct, but for the sake of argument, let's assume it is.)

The mandate fine for not having health insurance is currently the greater of $700 or 2% of your income. Say you made $60k/year. In that case, the fine is $1200/year. If you made less, the fine would be less (down to $700/year).

In return for this additional fine/tax/whatever you want to call it, you get a benefit. Let's say you don't buy health insurance for years, and then in several years you either get into an accident and need surgery or get cancer. You will then be able to sign up for health insurance THAT DAY for the same rate as you could when you were healthy. If you make 60k, you would be somewhat subsidized. If you made less, you would be even more subsidized. The point is that if insurance is too expensive, the "fine" allows you to not have insurance until you need it (and then get insurance at the same rate as you could when you were healthy).

Compare that to how it is now. If you can't afford insurance with the hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies, you probably can't afford them now. The difference is that should you get sick and actually need health insurance immediately, the cost will be 10-20 times GREATER than it would be under this bill. It's the difference between bankruptcy and not bankruptcy.

And what if you can't pay the fine (which is FAR less than the cost of an unsubsidized health insurance plan)? The IRS is prohibited from charging you with tax evasion or seizing any of your assets if you don't pay.

It is essentially a small tax increase for you that they can't really collect on, in exchange for the huge benefit of being able to get insurance at a healthy-person's price when you get sick.

[Capn Sunshine]

99. Gee, YA THINK!!??

They act like this is the fucking Patriot Act (About which there has been zero of these kind of threads)
It's landmark legislation that has never been accomplished before, EVER, in the hundred years they have tried. It's a nice start. It's not a finish. Work for what you want and stop bitching about what you have.

Get it? Don't "fall in line" , get off your ass and WORK for something better. In the meantime, this is a great first step in the thousand mile journey.

[bigtree]

115. I won't imagine that any of my objections actually interest you

But, I think it's a lousy 'start' with a predictable end. We're being told by the Democratic leadership to fall in line behind whatever they ultimately produce - and they will produce something. You tell me where to influence THAT process. It's a crock to be told to just sit back and marvel until they unveil their 'landmark' compromise. And, I don't need to be reminded that there will still be a struggle for adequate health coverage when this process plays itself out. YOU get off of YOUR ass and press these legislators to make this bill better NOW, not whenever they can manage the time and will in the future.

[Capn Sunshine]

120. You see, that's where we're different

I already HAVE pressed the legislators in question. I regularly meet with my senators people to express the desires of the progressive coalition. But I'm not seeing the tea-party style acttion from all you keyboard commandoes.

I'm left with polling data and perhaps some funding trends that don't bode well for the next general. Not anything concrete.

The main issue is that people like yourselves are actually a minority, albeit one I am sympathetic with. But in this system, majority rules.

Plus many are neophytes in the political system and don't seem to grasp the actual realities. But no matter, keep complaining, all of you. Seriously. Just do it in person, in large groups, with media exposure. Until that happens, you have to be happy with the change that is forthcoming.

[bigtree]

145. you assume I haven't?

. . . that where we differ. I wouldn't be so arrogant as to call you names like 'keyboard warrior' and assume that everyone who complains is just sitting on their ass waiting for some manna from heaven. Talk about projecting from behind a keyboard . . . It's funny how you both advocate activism, yet, insist that there's nothing we can do about the present bill because we've a minority opinion.

But I get it . . . we're all neophytes to you who only have ourselves to blame for the politicians' broken promises. Brilliant.

[Capn Sunshine]

150. Tell you what...Next Time you're in the Capitol Mall, look me up

Just PM me for contact info. I apologize if you really ARE an activist, but many on DU are completely naiive about the ways of the world or the process, or the fact that 40% of the people do not really share your worldview, yet still pay taxes and all, and your rants fall into that category, friend.

Your negative attitude is really helpful though, especially where you project your take onto my posts. I'd appreciate it if you took a look at what I'm saying , rather than what you can twist into a justification to continue ranting.

[bigtree]

105. you just don't get it

No matter how you slice it, I'm being made to pay for something I'm not asking for. I understand that you believe I need what this bill is offering. I don't want it and I can't afford it, no matter how 'small' you consider the cost.

What's more, I don't think the country can long afford to be mandated into the crooked insurance system, and I don't believe that it's been reformed in this legislation to significantly or effectively address their profit at our expense.

[truedelphi]

114. The 82 members of the Progressive Caucus feel as you do.

Read my post abt the Honorable Barbara Lee below this one.

And Keith Olnbermann feels we have been swindled as well. So you are in some very good company.

[newtothegame]

100. We like the IRS. They collect taxes so we can pay for the programs we want out there. n/t

[truedelphi]

111. All this bill does (Senate version, anyway) is to mandate

That we citizens pay for the insurance premiums. Those of us in the fifty to sixty two yr old category will still be unemployable if out looking for work - employers will not touch us as they do not want to have to pay for the large premiums that those in this age category bring to their firms.

Congress could have insisted on rolling back the inflated prices of the services that the Big Medical Interests provide.

And although those with pre-existing conditions will be put on the rolls, the Big Medical Interests will still see to it that their treatments are stalled, and that they linger and die.

Rep Barbara Lee of the East Bay, San Francisco area, still says that it is criminal that the Senate wants this done quickly. She knows it is a giveaway to the Corporations.

[thereismore]

119. It does help with preexisting conditions. It's still very expensive for someone above poverty

line, as subsidies drop.

[truedelphi]

124. All that will happen is that the health care services will be "Kaiser-ized"

yes you will get to see a doctor (or more likely a nurse practitioner.)

But state of the art services will only go to the rich who have the boutique insurance policies.

The rest of us will be told about inappropriate treatments, that won't address the causes or treat the problem. And stalled and stalled.

Just like with Kaiser right now. It's affordable but!!! You get to see a health practitioner, but you have to fight huge obstacles to get real treatment!

[change_notfinetuning]

118. Thrill of victory. Agony of deceit. n/t

[fascisthunter]

122. stupid political move

unless you want your opponent to win.

[krkaufman]

126. The "tea parties" are all the rage, however disconnected from the original ...

... but this legislation really echoes what the original Boston tea partiers where protesting... corporatism.

[FDR_Democrat]

133. They don't care if they get reelected in 2010 and 2012

I'm sure all the Senators and Congressmen (their wives and kids too) will all find themselves with six and seven figure jobs in the health insurance industry when they get voted out of office. We all know who their "Daddy's" are.....

[bigwillq]

137. Hello.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[KoKo]

144. It's possible that NONE of THEM CARE....but then what do WE DO ABOUT IT?

If they don't care about our vote...then why do we vote? If they don't care about our small donations that are equal for Obama to the Wall St. and Rest Crowd in numbers....then WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? If Small Donations were equal to Lobbyists and Obama still went with the Lobbyists for legislation after Bail Outs then what does that mean for those of us who donate small amounts out of our shrinking pocket books...but that we still in numbers can't compete with the Thousands that Big Donors are allowed to Pool from the BIG BUSINESS that runs AMERICA?

Maybe this whole election was a TRUTH TELLER so that WE COULD SEE ...we DO NOT MATTER...no matter how our small donations pool into big matching numbers with LOBBYISTS...WE STILL DO NOT MATTER!

How can this Be? How can it be.........

[KoKo]

142. Yes...OUR PARTY IS RAMMING DOWN OUR THROAT...What DO WE DO ABOUT IT?

To move FORWARD...WHAT? :shrug:


And, that's the horrible question we are faced with. Are we out of options at this point? What cards do we hold? What do we have that can hold anyone accountable except our VOTE which is QUESTIONABLE as we know from past Experience!

SO......What do we do and where do we go from here. I honestly don't know ...but we need some FRESH IDEAS... :shrug:

[femrap]

146. Just another policy that reduces

the middle class...just like NAFTA.

[anachro1]

149. We've been punked

I don't believe it was ever the intention to dismantle the insurance stranglehold and provide people with a 'public option.' Barack promised something he had no intention of delivering- look how quickly he's said he never ran on the public option. Why would he be any different from other politicians?

We were NEVER going to get "change"...

[woo me with science]

155. Thank you K&R. nt

[deaniac21]

156. Everyone should just take a chill pill and watch how the 2 bills

get resolved on CSPAN before getting upset. When government is transparent, like it is now, we will have plenty of time to persuade the party leadership to do the right thing.