Why do so many people keep saying "health insurance is not health care" as if this is breaking news?

[BzaDem]

Many people who are opposed to this bill will constantly say things like "health insurance isn't health care", or "if you want the people to have health care, GIVE them health care," or other similar phrases.

Do you really think that this is breaking news?

Of course insurance isn't health care. I don't think anyone is claiming these two words somehow mean the same thing, or that their dictionary definitions are remotely similar.

Just because the two concepts don't have the same dictionary definition doesn't somehow mean that health care isn't financed through health insurance in this country, or that this was EVER going to change.

Many "health insurance isn't health care" people who opposed the bill supported the House bill with a public option. In other words, the same system of community rating/mandated insurance/subsidies. Except instead of all options being private insurance companies that would now be required to pay 85% of all revenues to medical care providers, one of them is a public insurance option that probably would have paid 96% of all revenues to medical care providers (as Medicare does). This public option would otherwise be functionally similar in terms of premiums and benefits. The premiums might have varied from private insurance by 10% or so.

If you want to kill the bill and see everyone with pre-existing conditions continue to go bankrupt under the current system because you want 96% of your premiums going to medical care instead of 85%, you should honestly put forth that argument. Explain why this 11% difference justifies telling those with pre-existing conditions to shut up and eat cake. Don't pretend that the House bill (with a public option) is ANY DIFFERENT than the status quo in terms of having health care paid in this country through health insurance.

There are also some people who opposed the House bill because it wasn't Single Payer. At least this is more ideologically consistent. But even that argument assumes that Single Payer is in fact an achievable alternative (as opposed to the political fairy tale that it actually is). It is hard to argue that Single Payer is achievable in this Congress when corporatists in the pocket of the insurance companies like John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich have the following to say about a vote on Single Payer:

"Many progressives in Congress, ourselves included, feel that calling for a vote tomorrow for single payer would be tantamount to driving the movement over a cliff. The thrill of the vote would disappear quickly when the result would be characterized not as a new beginning for single payer but as an end." (from http://kucinich.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2837&Itemid=1)

At some point, people need to accept that however horrible the policy, that health care in this country is financed through health insurance and that changing this was never on the table and won't be for the foreseeable future. People who want to screw others with pre-existing conditions by killing the bill should articulate more honest arguments in favor of this position.

[Skittles]

1. because too many DUers do not fucking understand

[2 Much Tribulation]

41. I'll take a test on health business understanding and knowledge against you any day. n/t

[2 Much Tribulation]

55. And, having kicked this poor OP about a dozen times I'm signing off now with an UNREC. Seeya. n/t

[Skittles]

74. you know shit if you support this so-called "reform"

[girl gone mad]

68. +1

And actually, financing health care through alternative means will absolutely be on the table in a matter of years if this reform bill is allowed to die the death it so clearly deserves.

Too many people are boycotting the insurers product, either because they simply can't afford it or because they think it isn't cost effective for them. With millions of Baby Boomers shifting to Medicare, insurers will be in trouble. If they don't get this bailout, the system is in for a serious shake up over the next few years.

As for pre-existing conditions, this bill is not in any way a game changer. Those with pre-existing conditions will be no better off. If the OP would use a modicum of logic, I'm certain s/he could ascertain the reasons why.

[ShortnFiery]

2. As long as our Congress serves CORPORATIONS, the American People are better off with GRIDLOCK

with regard to any major initiatives bill.

It won't matter if your covered for a pre-existing condition if you can't afford the damn premiums and/or must go bankrupt to recover from a major illness.

Yes, there are good parts to this bill but remember those MANDATES and the fact that the old adage is true: The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

[stray cat]

4. I'm voting republican in 2010 to achieve such helpful gridlock!

many other DUers are proudly stating they will not support dems presumingly to achieve the same objective

[ShortnFiery]

16. Bunk! As saddened as we are with our corporate democrats, we know that GOP

rule would be "horrific." However, don't EVER ask me to canvass for a corporate democrat nor give them money. Our only hope is to change the system from within but it will take YEARS if not a GENERATION.

Those of us with liberal perspectives will not lie down in the interim. :patriot:

[BzaDem]

19. I guess that's what it really comes down to.

Some people want to achieve the best possible outcome now (where doing nothing to help those in need for 20 years is NOT an option, even if it means working through corporations), while others are willing to live with the status quo if it means a chance for a better outcome in "YEARS if not a GENERATION."

[2 Much Tribulation]

25. Freedom begins when one starts questioning the structured choices they're presented with!

It's my hope that people will start questioning structured choices whenever both choices appear bad, not just accepting it "as is" and without question. That's where freedom of thought begins, otherwise we're just cattle responding to stimuli presented to us and asked to "choose"

[BzaDem]

29. Your statement makes perfect sense in a fantasy world

but not so much in the actual world we live in.

You can "question" the "structured choices" you are "presented with" for your entire life, but "questioning" these choices doesn't provide any path to chance the choices. Meanwhile, while you and other philosophers spend time questioning various things, people with pre-existing conditions are left to go bankrupt and die. Have fun with your brooding.

[liberal_at_heart]

43. I'm glad civil rights and women's rights advocates didn't think like that

[BzaDem]

62. The civil rights movement is a PERFECT example.

Every part of the civil rights movement came incrementally. For example, in the case of segregation, the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision was a calculated multi-decade effort by the NAACP and other groups. They filed case after case to gradually (over a long period) build up jurisprudence that could be used by the eventual 1954 Court to decide Brown. There are many, many other examples of this.

Did they fight for incremental progress for two decades because they WANTED it to take twenty years? NO. They fought for incremental progress because that was the only option. They knew that if they went right for a Brown vs. Board of education decision a decade earlier, they would lose and it would set back the movement for a generation.

[2 Much Tribulation]

44. Ideas and thoughts are not "fantasy world" You wouldn't FIRE ON people by saying there's "no choice"

if you had thought through the implications of structured choice. You'd realize on some important level that we're all hostages to the structured choice. You might still advocate the same basic course or path but you wouldn't be such a good slave, on your knees, insisting on the insanity of anybody who questions the structured choices they're presented with.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

47. No, Bza, what you lockstep DLCers don't understand is that

real health care reform is "politically impossible" because the Democrats refuse to PUSH for it. They allow the insurance companies to bribe them. They believe the Republicans' propaganda.

What if Obama had said, "I will not sign any bill unless it contains a non-profit public option with no deductibles and copays geared to income, open to any American who chooses it"?

What if Obama had NOT met behind closed doors with the insurance companies and Big Pharma? What if he had said, "No one else gets to write the laws that affect them. Get the hell out of here"?

You guys are so eager to have something-anything for Obama administration to brag about that you don't realize that you've just tossed the insurance companies AND the Republicans into exactly the briar patch that they wanted.

What you have is

1) A bill that requires every American to buy private insurance and has odd ideas about what is affordable. Many people will be in the same position that I am now, unable to afford decent health care because my insurance premiums and my high deductible are too expensive.

2) A bill that subsidizes premiums for those who cannot afford insurance. In other words, as health care costs continue to rise, more people will become eligible for the subsidy for their useless insurance. Pure corporate welfare!

3) A bill that not allow the government to negotiate drug prices or place anti-trust restrictions on the insurance companies

4) A bill that bans discrimination based on pre-existing conditions BUT allows the companies to charge up to three times as much in premiums. Whoopee. Such insurance might still be unaffordable, but people will be required to buy it--with taxpayers' money going to the vultures in the insurance companies. Such a deal--if you're an insurance company executive.

5) A bill that allows insurance companies to charge higher premiums to older people, something they do already.

6) A bill that guarantees that the companies can spend 15% of premiums on whatever they feel like.

7) A bill whose major provisions don't even go into effect until 2013 or 2014. So much for all the people waiting for help, whom the DLCers claim to care so much about.

The only decent thing in the Senate bill is Bernie Sanders' funding for additional public health clinics, but who knows if that will survive conference?

Now, what's going to happen when Obama goes on TV and talks about the Health Insurance Profit Assurance Act as if it's the greatest piece of legislation in American history, and then people start getting their letters telling them that they're required to sign up for insurance whether they can afford it or not. (And the definitions of "affordability" in the bill are some millionaire's idea of affordability.) What if they find out that, like me, paying for insurance means that they can't afford actual CARE?

You know who's going to take the blame, don't you?

The Republicans are laughing into their martinis over this one.

If the Dems wanted to, if they weren't totally corrupted by bribes from the corporate world, they would do some really helpful things, such as

1) Set up a public option open to any American who wanted it, with premiums and copays based strictly on income and NO DEDUCTIBLES, to go into effect in 2011, OR, open up Medicare first to people over 60, then over 55, etc.

2) Make the insurance companies subject to anti-trust laws

3) Use the money that would have gone for premium subsidies and open up public clinics in every neighborhood, with a minimum of one per county

[dflprincess]

60. +10000

[BzaDem]

61. If Obama had said "I will not sign any bill unless..."

then he would get his wish and not sign any bill. I don't see why this is SO HARD for some people to understand. This is exactly what Clinton did. He set conditions, and said he would not sign a bill if those conditions were met. He got his wish. No bill.

Let's look at your points, and compare each to the status quo.

1) A bill that requires every American to buy private insurance and has odd ideas about what is affordable. Many people will be in the same position that I am now, unable to afford decent health care because my insurance premiums and my high deductible are too expensive.

As you well know, it provides subsidies to make this affordable, AND has caps of out of pocket expenses and deductible for people under 300% FPL. This mandate allows Congress to ban insurance companies from discriminating on health status without premiums jumping 10-20 times what they would be without a mandate.

2) A bill that subsidizes premiums for those who cannot afford insurance. In other words, as health care costs continue to rise, more people will become eligible for the subsidy for their useless insurance. Pure corporate welfare!

Just because you call insurance useless doesn't actually make it useless. With the subsidies and out of pocket caps, insurance would actually be useFUL (as opposed to useLESS) to millions of people who would be receiving it under the bill. While there still may be some who can't afford to use their insurance, that doesn't mean EVERYONE can't afford to use their insurance. Most liberal healthcare economists believe that tens of millions of people will be able to afford (and will be able to use) the insurance they get under this bill.

3) A bill that not allow the government to negotiate drug prices or place anti-trust restrictions on the insurance companies

Compared to what? Now? Where the government can't negotiate drug prices or place anti-trust restrictions on insurance companies? Or compared to your political fairy tale single payer solution?

4) A bill that bans discrimination based on pre-existing conditions BUT allows the companies to charge up to three times as much in premiums. Whoopee. Such insurance might still be unaffordable, but people will be required to buy it--with taxpayers' money going to the vultures in the insurance companies. Such a deal--if you're an insurance company executive.

This is just false. The bill does NOT allow companies to charge up to three times as much in premiums for pre-existing conditions. You are thinking of age. It does allow companies to charge three times as much for older people, but NOT for two people of the same age if one of them has a condition. Currently, insurance companies can and do charge 5-10 times more for older people, so this is a massive improvement for the elderly.

5) A bill that allows insurance companies to charge higher premiums to older people, something they do already.

See above.

6) A bill that guarantees that the companies can spend 15% of premiums on whatever they feel like.

As opposed to the status quo, where they can spend 100% of premiums on whatever they feel like.

7) A bill whose major provisions don't even go into effect until 2013 or 2014. So much for all the people waiting for help, whom the DLCers claim to care so much about.

As opposed to the status quo, where help for the uninsured/those with pre-existing conditions goes into effect NEVER.

If the Dems wanted to, if they weren't totally corrupted by bribes from the corporate world, they would do some really helpful things, such as (blah blah blah)

So what? If the Democrats wanted to, they could give every person in America 100,000 a year. Who cares about what might or might not happen in your make-believe fantasy world? What does this have to do with real life? There are enough corporate Democrats that don't want to do any of the things you suggested, and in our system of government, that is enough to kill the bill. Absent a coup installing a dictator, what you just suggested is not going to happen. "Fighting" for single payer doesn't actually change this calculus. When John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich both say that a single floor vote on single payer would kill the whole movement, you either have to accuse Conyers and Kucinich of being corporate democrats or you have to admit that they are right and you are wrong.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

73. Still big whoop

300% of poverty is just plain lower middle class in areas that have high costs of living.

The caps are unrealistically high for someone in those income brackets. $5000 out of pocket at that income level? I'm about at that 300% of poverty most years (self-employed), and $5000 out of pocket (avg. $416 a month) is greater than any of my monthly expenses except rent.

You're double-talking here. It's outrageous that the ins. companies are allowed to charge higher premiums for ANYONE. In other countries--the humane ones--if there is a difference in premiums, it's on the basis of INCOME, not age or pre-existing conditions.

Why are deductibles still permitted? The theory is that they prevent frivolous doctor visits, as if there are vast armies of people who just LOVE to go to the doctor, or that they turn patients into "better consumers," even though, when you're having a heart attack or something, you're not going to say, "Take me to the cheap hospital." Nor do you have the medical knowledge to know whether the cheap option is any good, nor is it always possible to state a list price.

(Have you ever had a doctor explain how services are priced and why? The insurance companies tell providers what percentage of "customary charges" they will pay. For one it may be 50%, for another it may be 35%. In order to make sure that they can stay in business, the doctors set the "customary charges" artificially high.)

Have you ever asked a middle-income (say $40,000 a year) person with a high deductible ($5000 to $10,000) health plan what they do for health care? Mostly nothing. The system of high deductibles is nothing but the American form of rationing.

And what form will the subsidies take? Will they go directly to the insurance company? ("My God, how the money rolls in...") Will they go to the insured? In what form? A tax credit (that favorite out-of-touch Republican proposal)? What if the insured doesn't pay income tax? A lump sum? A monthly check? There you have a whole new layer of bureaucracy just to administer the subsidies.

As a self-employed person, I already get a tax credit for my health insurance premiums, but since I'm not a country club Republican, it doesn't help me one bit when I've had a slow month in my business and the premium is about to be withdrawn from my bank account. (The insurance company won't let me pay by check unless I pay the whole year's premium in one lump sum. Nice, huh?)

Who decides if the premiums are justified? They're supposed to spend 85% on patient care? You can bet that their lawyers will come up with new weasely ways to define patient care.

And for all your snide remarks, we do not know what would have happened if Obama had floated the idea of single payer and rallied the people who voted for him to flood their Congress critters' voice mail and e-mail and post boxes with messages in support. If he had started from single-payer, we might have gotten a public option or a Medicare expansion as the compromise position.

But no, we are getting an expensive, unhelpful piece of tacked-together, favor-filled legislation that doesn't cover everyone, won't cover the people it does cover till 2013, has no cost controls, forces people to buy a private industry product or face fines enforced by the IRS, whether they can afford it or not, whether it's actually useful or not.

What kind of world do the Congresscritters live in? What kind of world do the people who are cheering this legislation live in? They either have not thought this through or they have real contempt for the American people.

[BzaDem]

6. Would you still hold that position if (for the sake of argument) this was NEVER going to change?

In other words, we have the choice right now between someone with pre-existing conditions paying (say) 8,000/year for insurance, and them paying 50,000 or more. So anyone who could afford 8,000 but not 50,000 would avoid going bankrupt.

You would really be fine with telling those who can afford 8,000 but not 50,000 to go to hell, forever? Or is your position contingent upon a fantasy world in which all Congresspersons come to their senses and vote for Single Payer some time in the next 20 years?

[2 Much Tribulation]

28. Bankruptcy is a constitutional right, it's always necessary/good sometimes, not always to be avoided

It's a false premise to imply, without stating it, that avoidance of bankruptcy at any possible reasonable cost is a good thing. It's not. People coming out of bankruptcy get a fresh start overall and are very happy in my experience (less so after bankruptcy deforms around 2005)

[BzaDem]

38. In other words, Bankruptcy is a good thing, and doing what we can to keep people out of it is bad?

What a joke. OBVIOUSLY bankruptcy is not something to be avoided once you have staggering debt you cannot pay. In that case, having a fresh start is a good thing.

But wouldn't preventing the staggering debt in the first place be a GOOD thing (as opposed to a bad thing)? How is bankruptcy ever a good choice compared to not being in debt due to 100k medical bills in the first place? Are you joking?

[2 Much Tribulation]

40. In other words, don't hold out bankruptcy as something ALWAYS TO BE AVOIDED; only sometimes true.

When somebody is really ill -- and I can see you're naive on bankruptcy and its circumstances - they not only have medical bills but lost income and ALL KINDS OF BILLS pile up. So preventing the medical bills doesn't prevent the need for bankruptcy. So both your scare crow premise of avoiding bankruptcy and its implied result (no bankruptcy) are a pile of steaming rhetoric.

[BzaDem]

46. You are either ignorant or purposely misleading.

In case you are the former, I will attempt to explain the obvious. People every day file for bankruptcy that WOULDN'T have to file under the current bill.

Sure, there are people who might have to file due to medical or non-medical debt under this bill (and people who wouldn't have to file today or under the bill).

But there are absolutely people (many, many people) for which a SINGLE medical bill is the difference between having to file for bankruptcy and not having to (or wanting to) file for bankruptcy. That's it. One single medical bill. That is obviously the group of people I am talking about.

In fact, I have yet to meet anyone on this board at all who didn't get this. Most people either support the bill or admit that their opposition to the bill will in fact cause more people to have to file for bankruptcy (that wouldn't otherwise would have). They don't try to hide behind it by moving the conversation to some other group of people that would have to file for bankruptcy even if it weren't for the medical bill.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

As one who would be bankrupt if I actually had to use my worthless insurance,

I agree that bankruptcy is NOT the worst of all possible outcomes.

I'm hoping that this bill fails so that I can drop my worthless policy and sign up with one of the local physicians who specializes in treating the uninsured. He tells me that he can negotiate better deals for the uninsured than for the under-insured, because the companies require providers to charge a certain rate for services when treating their clients.

[2 Much Tribulation]

53. NOte that the bill attempts to criminalize parts of the area you mention

See today's post by LandShark on Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements being criminalized to a large extent. (MEWAs) The post is at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7428936

[stray cat]

3. Alot of posters are not too big on deep, logical or rationale thoughts; angry outburst are popular!

[bluestateguy]

5. Medicare is insurance, so is SCHIP

They are good programs too.

[Raineyb]

7. Because apparently this needs to be explained ad nauseam.

Health insurance doesn't you treatment by a doctor. The health insurance company doesn't draw blood, it doesn't do physicals, it doesn't treat anyone. Yet people keep talking about health insurance as though it's the end all to be all of getting health care.

Most of the people who file for bankruptcy do so for medical reasons. Most of them have/had health insurance. That doesn't mean they get the care they need.

This OP is evidence of why it needs to be said yet again.

Health insurance does NOT equal health care!

[BzaDem]

9. Again, why do you think that having health care provided through insurance is EVER going to change?

You can obviously repeat the distinction ad nausium (as your post is evidence of). But why do you keep talking as if there is some sort of magical alternative where health care is provided to all in this country without paying premiums for insurance?

[2 Much Tribulation]

54. Because politicians MUST represent the people (not INS) to be legitimate. Can't be illegit forever.

[Raineyb]

56. Because you can have health insurance and still not get health care.

What part of that are you having difficulty with?

It is entirely possible to get access to a doctor without having an insurance company play gatekeeper. A single payer system can easily eliminate the need for insurance companies when it comes to primary health care. It's what other countries have. Why are you acting as though there are no examples of health care systems that don't depend on for profit insurance companies then get annoyed at people getting annoyed at having to repeat what you could easily find out by looking at other systems?

Does England have all their citizens paying Blue Cross for insurance? Or does the government pay the doctor (who in the case of England happen to also work for the government) out of tax dollars? The answer to your question is a Google search away yet you act as though you haven't heard of and are incapable of getting the answer. It's only been answered ad nauseam.

[BzaDem]

66. I think it is you that is having difficulty

not me. I stated fully in my post that there are people with insurance and still don't get care. (While this number will certainly be reduced by the current bill through the premium and deductible subsidies, there will still be some people that are not helped.)

But YOU are the one making the logical leap from

"You can have health insurance and still not get health care"

to

"Therefore, we will get a single payer system enacted."

I am explaining to you how that logical leap is bullshit, and it is YOU that is having the difficulty understanding that. The idea that everyone in this country is going to get healthcare under any bill passable by this Congress is a fantasy. You argue against this by saying "well that sucks," but saying that doesn't make it ANY more likely that single payer is going to be enacted. You are conflating something being a really, really good idea with the idea that that thing will actually become reality (or has any chance of doing so).

[Raineyb]

72. If you understand that people can have insurance and still not get care then your question is

pointless unless your purpose is to pick a fight.

So I'll just scratch this off as another disingenuous bit of nonsense from someone who is more interested in getting a win for the party than in doing what's right for people and call it a day.

[liberal_at_heart]

8. I don't care how rediculous some claim it is to support single payer is. I will always support it

What would have happened if we had just given up becuase civil rights were impossible? What if we had just given up becuase women's right to vote was impossible? BTW President Wilson himself openly opposed the women's vote until they started participation in more radical protests. Telling me it is impossible is not an argument I am willing to accept. And bullying people and telling people if they don't support this bill they don't care about the sick is not going to work either.

[BzaDem]

11. Stating the truth of the matter is not "bullying."

Some people prefer to live in a fantasy world, but please don't expect others to indulge this fantasy. John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich say that even having a SINGLE VOTE on the issue would be tantamount to an END to the movement. So are John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich now corporatists to you?

[liberal_at_heart]

14. I'm not going to get in an argument with you

I am not afraid to support Single Payer. I will always support Single Payer and if any politician has the guts to stand up for it I will vote for them. I will not vote for any politician who supports the bill that is being written right now.

[2 Much Tribulation]

48. NO, they are strategists giving an opinion, and a potentially flawed opinion at that.

Frankly, the Congress is hostage to insurance companies and we need to deal with that "reality" which is the source of the problem. It's not an insurmountable reality even though it's not easy. DO you think we should get insurance companies out of their highly influential/controlling position in politics, or not?

[BzaDem]

58. Of course I do!

Though I don't think it is as surmountable as you proclaim. It would require a big change on the Supreme Court (with one or more conservatives retiring).

[Captain Hilts]

13. If Ins. Cos. were at the bargaining table, single payer advocates should have been. Deck was stacked

before 'negotiations' began.

[BzaDem]

17. That's like saying that management wasn't represented at a labor negotiation

because there wasn't anyone in the room arguing for a salary of one penny an hour for all employees.

In any negotiation, there is a window of possible outcomes that the negotiators work within. Single payer was obviously not in that window of possible outcomes (in terms of passing both houses of Congress). It is not just me who is saying this. John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich both said that even having a SINGLE VOTE on the issue in the HOUSE would turn out so badly that the movement would be driven off a cliff and come to an end. That's not even to mention the Senate.

[Captain Hilts]

27. Ted Kennedy took single payer off the table because he had faith in his own ability

to negotiate toughly...he died and a Blue Cross Blue Shield Democrat, Max Baucus took his place.

Single payer is the system used commonly in the 'western' hemisphere.

Instead, insurance companies' stocks are going up and they've retained their anti-trust exemption. Fuck that.

[liberal_at_heart]

33. We are too isolated which is how they want us

We are the odd man out being the only industrialized country not using nationalized healthcare and somehow we are in a fantasy land for advocating for single payer. Like I said I refuse to buy into the lie.

[BzaDem]

34. Max Baucus did not take his place.

Max Baucus was on the finance committee, not the HELP committee which Kennedy chaired. Chris Dodd nominally took Kennedy's place, though the HELP committee bill was written primarily by Ted Kennedy's staffers (who knew what Ted Kennedy wanted out of a bill). Yet the HELP committee bill still got nowhere. This wasn't because Ted Kennedy (or his staffers or Chris Dodd) were bad negotiators. It was because that bill didn't have the votes to pass even after the most optimal negotiation possible.

The sentences "Single payer is the system used commonly in the 'western' hemisphere" and that "Single payer is not going to happen in this country for at least two decades" are not contradictory at all. Just because a system is commonly used in one part of the world does not mean it is politically even possible to use it in another.

[Captain Hilts]

36. True, but he took the senate lead on the debate Ted would have had. What Ins. Co. do you work for?

[BzaDem]

39. I have a question. If I were the CEO of an insurance company

why the HELL would I want to pay one penny to send an employee here? Wouldn't I get much more bang for my buck by sending them to lobby Congress?

Aside from being laughable on their face, people who say things like "what ins company do you work for" should really think through the logic of their own arguments before pressing "Post message."

[2 Much Tribulation]

52. ... you would send some lobbyists to Congress and lower-paid people for PR purposes

including but not limited to places like DU. It's possible, I'm not saying it's happening. But public opinion has power in all forms of government, as Jefferson observed, even a monarch cannot rule with the public firmly allied against. SO THERE REMAINS GOOD REASON TO INFILTRATE BOARDS LIKE THIS. Is it actually happening? I don't know, all I know is that there's good reason for them to do it. It's up to them if they think the bang is worth the lower bucks for insurance lobbying via blogs.

[liberal_at_heart]

20. exactly

We have been told from the very start that we could not have single payer and single payer advocates were never at the negotiating table. They had this decided before they ever talked to the American people. But that is not surprise. The insurance companies were never going to allow single payer to be part of the discussion. But I will not give up. I will not give in. We have to work on getting the corporations out of our government and then we need to work on getting real healthcare reform. I refuse to be told that we can't do it.

[bluestateguy]

22. I support single payer too

but it is also what is: insurance.

[Captain Hilts]

31. Worked for me through the USN and in Ontario. nt

[laughingliberal]

49. Yes, single payer is insurance. But it is not for-profit insurance through publicly traded companies

who have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and a CEO with a penchant for multiple homes, Gulfstreams, and a new yacht. If I am ordered to spend my money by law, someone needs to insure (sic) that my money is going to provide what I am paying for.

[Land Shark]

10. On important things "Sometimes people need to be reminded more than they need to be Informed."

That's why we keep saying the important things like all people "are created equal," many of us recite various creeds and pledges and oaths, we keep on saying again and again that the core aspect of Freedom is the right of dissent, and so on.

If anybody wants to apply the thought in the title of the OP and discriminate against things they've heard before as not being "news," the direct effect is to greatly diminish the power of the most important things. With such a rule, editors can (and sometimes wrongly do) say that they're not going to publish another letter to the editor on any given subject like the First Amendment, because they've already published one before, and it's therefore not "news" and not "original." It's a form of censorship in the end.

[Captain Hilts]

12. Health 'care' is not being changed. Health 'insurance' is. nt

[BzaDem]

15. In terms of care being provided through insurance, that is my whole point.

The idea of having access to care through insurance is not changing and changing this was never on the table. That is why it is pointless to argue for killing the bill as if there is some fantasy alternative where this DOES change.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Captain Hilts]

30. I'm kicking the bill because there is no means for cost controls and no 'choice'.

NOT because it's not single payer.

The anti-trust exemption survives despite all the talk in Congress about retaining 'choice'. Truth is, most people have no choice.

[2 Much Tribulation]

18. Calling Bullshit on last paragrah: "health care in this country is financed {privately, etc}..."

This is misleading at the very best, and worse than bullshit at the worst:

"At some point, people need to accept that however horrible the policy, that health care in this country is financed through health insurance and that changing this was never on the table and won't be for the foreseeable future."

Health care is by no means "private" it's very close to 50/50 public/private in terms of expenditures, with last year having private pay being 52.7% and public pay being 47.3%. See http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/tables.pdf

If it's true, and it may be, that "changing this was never on the table" then it's an extremely good, logical and necessary question to ask "WTF, why is that???" If we are at 47.3% public pay right now, why is a public pay option not "on the table" and why won't it be on the table "for the foreseeable future" -- especially since it has successfully gotten up to 47.3%?

You closed the last paragraph of the OP asking for "more honest arguments." The close of the OP is not an honest argument itself, it's misleading at the very best.

P.S. I have pre-existing conditions myself, perhaps the author of the OP does as well, but I oppose the bill, so don't claim to represent a class of people that includes me and then put words in my mouth.

[BzaDem]

23. Maybe you should ask Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers.

When both of them say that even having a SINGLE VOTE on Single Payer in the House would be tantamount to an end of the movement, it is hard to argue that changing the way health care is financed (through something other than insurance) is on the table.

The reason has nothing to do with policy, and everything to do with politics. Just because we were able to get a single-payer like system for those over 65 and children (and the other groups who have it) does not mean it is politically easy or even possible to extend it to everyone. Again, if it were even possible to do it, why would having a SINGLE VOTE on the issue in ONE HOUSE end the movement entirely, in the words of two of the movement's heroes?

[2 Much Tribulation]

32. It's not addressing strategy of a vote, it addresses false facts in the last paragraph. n/t

[BzaDem]

64. You asked "why" this had to be the case, and I answered you.

As for your 50% argument, obviously I was talking about those who do not have Medicare/SCHIP/etc. This was so obvious that it seems that every other person on this thread (who obviously knew about the existence of Medicare) knew what I was talking about.

[liberal_at_heart]

24. Thank you very much for refuting the claim that those who oppose this bill don't care about

pre-existing conditions. It's a bull*** claim and I refuse to be bullied.

[BzaDem]

26. Again, under the status quo (which you support over the current bill), what is someone with a

condition to do? Go bankrupt? Go to the emergency room and then go bankrupt? What?

[2 Much Tribulation]

35. For INS Co Lawyers, drafting around this provision shifting it to others is CHILD'S PLAY

Assuming the pre-existing provision is airtight, it HAD TO BE AIRTIGHT so they could order everyone to buy the corporate insurance. You can't order people to do an impossibility. See?

[liberal_at_heart]

37. I don't buy your lies so don't even try

The insurance companies are going to have plenty of loopholes to raise premiums and deny care, so that person you talk about is still in for the scenario you play out. You can't bully me, and I hate getting in these back and forth snide arguments so I will wish a good day and move on to another post.

[BzaDem]

42. If you don't want to argue, you shouldn't post in the first place.

You may think the world caters to you, and that you can just post wherever you want and say "DON'T RESPOND TO ME." But please don't expect others to indulge your wishes. If you don't want an argument, no one is forcing you to come to DU or reply to posts.

[2 Much Tribulation]

45. You think the only reason to come to DU is "argument"??? You've revealed yourself. n/t

[BzaDem]

50. No, nor did I say that.

Plenty of people come to DU and don't post, and many others come to DU and post in ways that are not argumentative.

What I did say was, if you respond to a post in a way that starts an argument, you should probably expect the original poster to reply (and if you don't want "argument," you probably shouldn't try to start one and then complain when the original poster actually does reply).

[2 Much Tribulation]

51. YOu said "if you don't want to argue, don't come to DU" denying that non-argument has a place

[LWolf]

57. Because the supposed purpose of this bill is to increase access to care,

and it rests on a false premise: that people with insurance get care.

[BzaDem]

59. 50%+ of this country needs insurance to get healthcare

and I don't think you could credibly argue that 50%+ of this country does not actually get healthcare. While having insurance is not a sufficient condition to get healthcare, it is certainly a necessary one, and many people who have insurance do get healthcare. Should we not help anyone because some people who have insurance can't afford care?

[dflprincess]

63. If you haven't seen "Sicko"

I urge you to rent it. If you have seen it, rent it again and this time pay attention.

The leading cause of bankruptcy in this country is medical bills and most the people declaring bankruptcy because of medical debt had insurance.

45,000 people die every year because they have no insurance. What we don't hear about is how many underinsured people die every year because they still couldn't afford to go to a doctor.

If the government wants to force people to pay for "coverage" then it should be a tax that covers a single payer system that actually gives access to care. Just like people in civilized countries have.

[BzaDem]

65. Everything you just said is true, but none of it contradicts what I said.

The leading cause of bankruptcy in this country is medical bills and most the people declaring bankruptcy because of medical debt had insurance.

This is true. The bill will help in that regard (with its subsidies and out of pocket and deductible caps for those with subsidies), though there will still be some people (though fewer in number) who will go bankrupt due to medical expenses.

45,000 people die every year because they have no insurance. What we don't hear about is how many underinsured people die every year because they still couldn't afford to go to a doctor.

Again, just because this is true for some people doesn't mean it is true for EVERYONE. While insurance is inadequate for some people (and will remain inadequate for some smaller number of people under this bill), no reasonable person would argue that insurance is inadequate for EVERYONE in preventing bankruptcy. You are arguing that we shouldn't help millions of people because there will still be some people left out who aren't helped. I disagree.

If the government wants to force people to pay for "coverage" then it should be a tax that covers a single payer system that actually gives access to care. Just like people in civilized countries have.

This is also true. But you are arguing over what the government "should" do. That is not the conversation I am having. I am arguing over what the government will actually do. Just because an idea is really, really good (really) doesn't mean it has any more than a 0% chance of becoming reality.

[dflprincess]

67. I imagine the 30 million who currently don't have insurance

and will supposedly have "coverage" if this scam is made law won't be able to buy plans that cover much. All they'll be doing is contibuting money to an insurance company's profits and still not getting care.

This bill does nothing but expand the number of underinsured. I seriously doubt it will have much of an effect on the numbers who go broke because of medical expnese, nor will it make much difference in number who die becasue they could not get timely care.

And don't forget, per the CBO, by 2019 there will still be about 19 million uninsured.

[BzaDem]

70. No, I won't forget. If we have 49 million insured now, and we insure 30 million of them,

there will be 19 million uninsured remaining.

49 - 30 = 19.

I don't see how that is an argument for not helping the 30.

And while you may "imagine" that the 30 million who don't currently have health insurance won't be able to buy plans that cover much, that is nothing more than your imagination. Most of the 30 million who will be insured will qualify for subsidies for both premiums and out of pocket expenses. All plans on the exchange (where they will buy their policies from) will have mandated benefits packages and mandated actuarial values. Insurance companies won't be able to use more than 15% of their revenue for profit/compensation/marketing/administrative expenses.

It isn't just me who is saying this. It is the CBO, as well as liberal economists like Paul Krugman (and many others). I hope you will forgive me for believing their solid analysis over your guesses and anecdotes.

[dflprincess]

71. Unless your income is so low you'll qualify for Medicaid the subsides will only cover premiums

not any of the out of pocket expenses. It doesn't matter who pays all or part of the premium if you still can't afford to see a doctor. Keep telling yourself that paying premiums and getting nothing helps people.

Wendell Potter pointed out that the insurance companies will find plenty of creative ways around the 15% limit especially as there is no real enforcement of that limit written into the bill.

This bill is designed to protect the status quo and does nothing but prop up the the for profit insurance companies with tax money and forced premiums. Better to let it collapse of its own weight because then we might get actual reform.

[LWolf]

75. I KNOW you can't argue that insurance is the same thing as care.

There are plenty of us, myself included, that can't afford the deductibles and copays after the premium is paid...so, no care.

I can't argue how many people in this country don't get care; I don't know the percentage.

I know that there are plenty of people who can't afford insurance at all, and I don't know that this bill will subsidize ALL of them.

I know that there are plenty of people who can't afford to use the insurance they've got, and I don't think this bill will change that.

[treestar]

69. The whole thing is about how to pay for health care

The health care and not insurance is no difference at all. Anyone can get health care. It's a matter of how to pay for it. They don't explain how they want it paid for. It's meaningless.

[TCJ70]

76. Because the general public only hears "healthcare reform"...

...when the bills really deal with "health insurance reform". This leads to confusing and misleading statements from the right regarding "Obamacare" and the fictitious "government takeover of healthcare".