"Did Firedoglake Take Out Vic Snyder?"

[Clio the Leo]

Well, this ought to be fun....

Did Firedoglake Take Out Vic Snyder?
By DAVID WEIGEL 1/15/10 6:34 PM

Rep. Vic Snyder (D-Ark.) announced his retirement today, mixed–but mostly dire–news for Democrats, who were hopeful that he could hold on and defeat his likely, scandal-tainted GOP opponent Tim Griffin. One of the possible reasons for the retirement? A poll conducted by SurveyUSA, paid for by the progressive blog Firedoglake, which tested negative messages about the health care reform bill and whether it made voters sour on Snyder. A sample question:

Under one proposal, if a person does not carry health insurance from a private insurance company, they would be fined up to 2% of their income. Is this fair, or unfair?

The poll found that Snyder, already losing badly to Griffin, was four points further behind if he backed the bill.

The question, raised by Nate Silver and others: Is Firedoglake trying to scare vulnerable Democrats into retirement in order to kill health care reform? All indications point to “yes.” I’m hearing that FDL will conduct more polls in vulnerable Democratic districts, based largely on this chart of the “top 20 Democrats who could lose their seat over health care vote. Snyder was at the top of that list, posted by FDL’s Jane Hamsher on Jan. 6. (One irony: Snyder is a fairly progressive member of Congress, and not a member of the Blue Dogs.)

Tension between FDL and some other progressive sites has increased since the Senate’s health care compromise took shape–Hamsher has campaigned aggressively to “kill the bill.” A month ago she predicted that “left/right populist outrage” would do so, and she hasn’t slowed down since.

http://washingtonindependent.com/74105/did-firedoglake-take-out-vic-snyder

Nate Silver expounds upon this here (essential reading to help you understand why Polls are only worth the validity of the questions in them) ...
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/liberal-website-helpfully-tests.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[Jennicut]

1. She is becoming nuttier and nuttier. I don't get it at all.

[jaxx]

2. I think it's called being vindictive.

Doesn't say much for the woman, does it?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. I don't usually make these sort of suggestions...

but I wonder if Jane Hamsher's on the insurance companies' pay roll.

[Junkdrawer]

4. Let me get this straight....

Jane commissions a poll...

The poll shows that mandates are unpopular...


Vic Snyder drops out...

Ergo: It's all Jane's fault.

[aquart]

8. Noticed that, did you?

The Democrats are, of course, completely unable to find and support a candidate for that district who does support what the people want. Dire, indeed.

[quiller4]

10. It was a push poll read 538 . The poll really tried to show that mandates

were unpopular. It actually showed that health care reform is unpopular and that mandates make it slightly more unpopular

[bemildred]

5. Another pantload from the "Washington Independent".

:puke:

[KoKo]

6. Jane and others at FDL have had arguments with Nate Silver's reporting in the past months.

Nate's protecting his "Turf" and whoever funds him. Need to look at this in that context.

[Nikki Stone1]

7. This is wakeup call, boys and girls. Health insurance giveaways will destroy our party.

I'm tired of people trying to explain this crap away. It's forced servitude to a completely uncontrolled industry. Any Dem backing it right now will lose.

[jbnow]

9. That is the crap: "forced servitude to a completely uncontrolled industry"

Completely uncontrolled?
The bill puts in controls of all sorts.
You know the countries with universal health care mostly go through private insurance companies? Even France, considered the best.
And that they started with much less perfect plans that covered fewer people.
They started and they they kept improving and they became the plans we now envy.
Yet too many want to reject our start because it is so imperfect.

Screw that, really. This is nothing like the plan that I would have picked but what a change with just these things
Drop preexisting condition clauses
Some people say no, they still use age or whatever, though age is of course a community standard and not a condition. The age thing is a problem though. The house allows 2:1, the Senate 3:1.
Currently there is no limit so this is a big improvement. I know CA is over 9:1. This will still be difficult for people just over the subsidy level. Since it could well be above the cap on premium % of income they'll be excused from the mandate- and still have no insurance.
For those getting a subsidy this means a huge expense for taxpayers.
For instance if the older person is low income but just over the expanded Medicaid coverage limit they would pay just 2.8% of their income toward their share of insurance premiums and the taxpayer would cover the rest
That percentage goes up with income...4%, 6%, maxing out at 9.8%...and the taxpayer covers the rest.
It's an expensive deal even though it is a huge improvement. Also raises the cost for everyone on the exchange (as it would for the public option) because older people tend to have much higher medical costs, increased premiums on younger people make up for this.
I am pretty sure one of first changes will be letting that group buy into Medicare. It will save money all around...and because of big tax cost savings should be able to get through via reconciliation.

No rescission
The complaint here is there still being language about "no rescission except in cases of fraud". But now the only fraud would be around the standards set for determining prices...age, location and possibly smoking. (1.5 to 1 in Senate bill)
It can't be about "oh you had this condition or treatment before so you're closed" because preexisting conditions no longer determine acceptance or rates.

No annual/lifetime cap on treatment
Here people say "Oh expensive treatments are for the very sick, they'll deny and delay until the person dies."
Of course not all treatment get approved although there is new oversight on appeal process and so on. But instead of getting into the rarer someone needing a heart/lung transplant or something I'll bring up the more common way people are affected.
I've heard this mostly as an issue for people with recurrent cancer when insurance will just quit paying. Now they can't.
But there is someone here with a common preexisting condition, diabetes. Only one company would even take her, a non-profit that was forced to take everyone. Two doctor visits per year were allowed with some crazy high copay. The annual cap they would pay out on her was I think $5000. Might be 3K but I think 5K. That's what people with preexisting conditions in that state can get.
With this bill they can get the same plan as everyone and for the same cost

Medical loss ratio set at 80/85
Yes they will try to get around this and yes oversight and regulation will have to be tough but at least there is a standard they have not had except in a few states

No copay on many preventative services
This one is pretty clear cut. Won't go looking for it now but there is some federal list of these and the no copay/deductible applies to anything on the first two tiers. Non debatable
No copay well baby care
Also clear cut

Adult children can be included on parents policy to age 26/27

Plans that have annual cap on out-of-pocket expenses
People mock this one and say it is set to high. It is inconveniently high
If you make 20,000 the most you would pay in a year on copay/deductibles is 2,000 even if you were in the hospital for 4 months or whatever. At 30,000 income it would be 3K and so on to a max of 5.900
and that could be hard, no doubt. But there is NO cap now and this is making payments inconvenient, not financial ruin, bankruptcy kind of debt that happens now.

Those things don't make for a completely uncontrolled industry and these are things that will make a huge life saving difference in the life of many. And it is a start.

There is a lot to bitch about and some of the bitching has helped trigger improvements to the bill.
But extreme negativity about this bill is what the crap is.