MSNBC breaking news ~ Pelosi has the votes to pass HC reform!

[mzmolly]

:toast:

This, given we "fix" the bill in reconciliation.

[hlthe2b]

1. Too much rollercoaster for me... I'm dizzy, but hopeful... n/t

[mzmolly]

4. It sure is!

OY!

[frazzled]

2. It'd be a hoot if they just took a quick vote before the SOTU

I'm all for that. The quicker we get this thing over the better. It dragged on for too long already. It's now or never.

[mzmolly]

3. That would be GREAT. So much for the Republican "change the course" BS

eh? :D

[gkhouston]

8. I'm sure there's been some pressure for just that. I only hope the "reconciliation"

isn't for utter crap.

[mzmolly]

36. I don't think it can be.

Pelosi would never be trusted by her caucus again.

[BadgerKid]

42. Wish they could expedite legislative matters....

...I need to know whether I need to get drunk before or after the SOTU.

[PufPuf23]

77. Drunk before. lolz

I have payed around with MzMolly's(and other posters) Kaiser Health care calculator and it is bad news for for anyone over 40 (esp those that have taken a major hit in personal finance or health.

The Senate Bill needs major adjustment including a true and fair public option.

The mandates are an obstacle to moving towards a kinder society as in most western industrial nations and, while budget neutral, are another shift in wealth distribution upwards. Health insurance is not health care.

What will happen with Medicare and Medicaid? Read Zeke Emmanaul's ideas.

I don't want to be scvrewn, but big changes to the Senate Health Care bill need to be made because the core left is neo-liberalism economics.

[AlinPA]

48. Yes. They need to show us that they have guts.

[euphoria12leo]

57. That would be a blessing

While the disruptor's are screaming "you lie" (a repeat performance) and holding their signs. The Democrats could hold signs saying "we just passed HCR and we forgot to tell you". And that's not a lie. Suckers!!!


:kick:

[ddeclue]

5. NO PUBLIC OPTION - DO. NOT. WANT. BETTER IF IT DIED!

[mzmolly]

7. The Senate bill as IS contains a state opt in for the public option.

This hasn't been touted much, however.

[ddeclue]

17. useless. will never happen.

[mzmolly]

24. So, now you speak for every state?

C'mon.

[ThomWV]

31. My bet is the poster is right.

[mzmolly]

34. Not one state will have a public option if the overall bill does not?

Again, some states currently do. So that talking point is already moot.

[ddeclue]

50. The vast majority will NOT you are ignorant of political reality.

Most states have conservative legislatures and deficit spending prohibitions.

[mzmolly]

67. The people of the states you are concerned with should

elect people who represent THEIR interests, shouldn't they?

[ddeclue]

108. again that only shows MORE ignorance of political reality.

you don't know what kind of Gerrymandering goes on in states like Florida do you? It SOUNDS smart to say stuff like that but it's really just mean and ignorant.

[mzmolly]

117. Well, we'll have to have everyone check with you on the uhm, "political reality"

going forward.

[Political Heretic]

114. Such a pathetic cop-out for bad policy.

[mzmolly]

118. What's bad is that people don't have access to health insurance.

I hope we'll rectify that in spite of the whining about imperfection.

[Marr]

126. What's bad is that they don't have access to healthCARE.

There is a very big difference. With no non-market option and a mandate, all you're doing is forcing people to pay for an ethereal "product". Maybe you had enough money to pay for your doctor visit. Now you can pay that money to the insurance company, which has given you a deductible so high that you can't afford the actual visit to the doctor.

[mzmolly]

129. Obviously health care is the goal.

Further, I don't agree with all the chicken little assertions about how horrible the end result will be.

[Political Heretic]

131. It doesn't matter of they have "access" if they can't afford to get sick.

People need quality care. If this bill passes guess what? Our health care will still lag behind the rest of the industrialized world in quality and affordability of care.

ONEThe bill actively HARMS low income and working class individuals and families by gutting the subsidies for people who can't afford health insurance. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities confirms what I'm saying, and shows that subsidies are now insufficient, with post-subsidy average premiums still a huge and preventative percentage of a poor family's income. At the time they wrote the analysis, they still supported the bill with the provision that subsidies be addressed before final passage - they take the anything is better than nothing attitude; I do not. However, it does not matter, since their condition for support isn't being met now, in that there's no movement in the Senate to negotiate their weak subsidies at all.

TWOThe bill does nothing to deal with the cost of car itself. The annual out of pocket expenses cap is so high over 10,000$ for a family, that any critical or long-term health care will still do what it's been doing: saddle working class families with so much debt that it bankrupts them and/or throws them into poverty, and prevent low-income families from seeking health insurance at all.

Whether the Senate Bill passes or doesn't, the same millions of Americans without insurance today will go to be saying the same prayer - god, please don't let me get really sick, because if I ever have to be in the hospital or deal with a serious illness, it will ruin me and my family. They'll be praying the same prayer after "insurance reform" passes, even if they - as you say - have "access" to health insurance.

THREEThe bill leaves the big questions of regulation and oversight of the insurance industry and its practices unanswered - punting most of the most critical pieces of regulation to states, for a state-by-state answer. This leaves millions of American families at the mercy of conservative legislatures and governorships actively committed to gutting and exploiting any health insurance legislation passed by congress. It makes it so that quality of care for American citizens varies from state to state, when this is a national human rights issue, demanding national responsible action.

FOURAs National Nurses United, the Largest Nurses organization in the nation, wrote when they took a stand opposing this bill:

Major loopholes in the insurance reforms that promise bans on exclusion for pre-existing conditions, and no cancellations for sickness. The loopholes include:

* Provisions permitting insurers and companies to more than double charges to employees who fail “wellness” programs because they have diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol readings, or other medical conditions.
* Insurers are permitted to sell policies “across state lines”, exempting patient protections passed in other states. Insurers will thus set up in the least regulated states in a race to the bottom threatening public protections won by consumers in various states.
* Insurers can charge four times more based on age plus more for certain conditions, and continue to use marketing techniques to cherry-pick healthier, less costly enrollments.
* Insurers may continue to rescind policies for “fraud or intentional misrepresentation” – the main pretext insurance companies now use to cancel coverage.

FIVEThis health bill continues to travesty of multi-tiered layers of health care, based on how much you pay. Meaning the rich continue to have access to the best health care in the country, while the poor continue to be limited to the weakest health care options - if they can even afford to access those (a problem described above.) This is wrong at the most basic level, and any serious reform would have to start with addressing the classism entrenched in our health care system. Failure to do so, makes this a bill that hurts poor families in the long run, as their care standards inevitably decrease, while care standards for those with access to the "top tier" health care continue to expand.

SIXThere's next to no oversight in this bill on denials of care by insurance companies. Even though in California for example, the six biggest insurers in the state have rejected a full one fifth of all claims.

SEVENReproductive rights for women were thrown on the auction block. Nelson's vote was secured by changes to the bill that assault women's rights without the fanfare that accompanied Stupak (house) or Nelson's attempt at a Senate amendment. Planned Parenthood, NOW, NARAL all oppose this bill in its current form (some were hoping that conference would fix it, but opposed health care reform if it did not fix it) as an assault on women and equality of rights.

EIGHTThe excise-tax on the best insurance plans will cause employers to stop offering the best plans and instead offer more crappy, high-deductible, high premium plans that leave Americans in the same situations of rationing their own care. It contributes to the scale-down of health care in this country, a phenomenon that does not help Americans, but does help the insurance industry maximize its profits without large investments.

NINEThere's nothing in the bill that does anything to break-up insurance monopolies. Almost every metro area in the united states is overshadowed by an insurance monopoly, where the only choices for coverage are one or two major insurance corporations - this cripples competition and does nothing to control skyrocketing prices and price gouging. It also makes it difficult to set up functioning so-called "insurance co-ops" when the market is dominated so completely. Add that to ineffective or vauge regulatory oversight left to states, and you have the recipe for more of the same.

I could actually go on. I haven't even gotten to all the ways the Senate Bill fails the American people. But I'm tired of writing.

We may disagree about whether or not the bill should be passed, but public policy analysis is my professional career. It's what I'm trained to do, its what I do. So when I tell you that, in my opinion, this bill will do more to actively harm low-income and working class families in the long run - its based on something, not nothing. We can still disagree, but don't act like I have no idea what I'm talking about.

[mzmolly]

146. Long winded or not, you're incorrect.

Check the link in my sig line for calculation on subsidies.

1. Medicaid is greatly expanded, subsidies pertain to families making up to 88K.

2. 10K is the max for a family, currently there is NO cap.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/14/david-axelrod/reform-plan-caps-out-pocket-expenses/

3. Regarding regulation see the Latimes article below entitled > "Senate healthcare bill now relies on regulation" ... "Democrats in the House and Senate have filled their bills with a dizzying array of rules and regulations on insurers. The insurance market provisions in the Senate bill alone run nearly 400 pages."
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/18/nation/la-na-health-assess18-2009dec18

4. Many major medical organizations endorse the plan.

5. I FULLY disagree with you on this. Sanders included funding for about 10,000 community clinics in the Senate bill. In addition, the poor often have better access to care than those in the middle. I say that as a person who has been on both sides of the financial spectrum.

6. Again, I disagree. California is not yet subject to the particular legislation in question.

7. I support choice, but I would not deny others life saving health care, because this bill may or may not include abortion coverage when all is said and done.

8. The excise tax may be a none issue after reconciliation. However SEIU President, Andy Stern just came out strongly supporting the bill. Also, Insurance companies would not offer top tier plans, if they didn't profit from them.

9. Again a state opt in public option can break up insurance monopolies. It's up to individuals in every state to elect people who represent their best interests. For example when, say Texas sees that a public option did not result in "death panels" a few years from now, we'll be able to better combat the myths and achieve the goal of busting up monopolies in every state.

Lastly, I don't care what your career is. You attempt to pull out that trump card in every HC discussion. Obviously there are people in your profession who disagree with you? The bottom line is that this legislation helps those without access to health insurance. People will no longer be denied due to pre-existing conditions. This bill expands medicaid, the bill subsidizes premiums for families making less than 88K, the bill expands coverage to seniors in regard to medication, and so on. It is a BEGINNING. And, it will be the END for decades if we have an all or nothing mentality. NO THANKS!

[gkhouston]

33. It won't happen in Texas. n/t

[mzmolly]

35. Then Texans better vote differently.

:hi:

[gkhouston]

45. Texas has e-voting, with no paper trail. You don't necessarily get what

you vote for.

[mzmolly]

47. They need to address that

as well. In fact, that should be addressed nationally.

[Selatius]

109. As a Mississippi resident, can you convince me my state will opt-in to a Public Option? nt

[mzmolly]

119. No,

I don't intend to try. It's up to YOU to convince your leadership to opt in.

[Freddie Stubbs]

39. Why not?

:shrug:

[Political Heretic]

65. That's because its 100% pure bullshit.

[mzmolly]

68. No it isn't.

The states will have the ability to create a public option if they so choose. Unless you think Barbara Boxer is a liar?

[Political Heretic]

93. YES, it is.

They can't create a "public" option, like we're talking about on their own without a a federal program already in place.

States already have the ability to manage their own state programs in whatever way they want. Oregon has a public plan.

Saying states can "opt in" when there's NOTHING TO OPT IN to is more Washington doublespeak nonsense.

[mzmolly]

105. You're wrong.

They can create their own public option as the current bill stands. Yes states can already do so, but this bill provides the funding.

[Political Heretic]

113. I'm not wrong.

But I can't argue against invincible ignorance.

[mzmolly]

120. You've been quite wrong in our discussions on this issue before.

One would think you'd turn down the arrogance meter just a tad?

[Political Heretic]

132. Not in my discussions with you; and I'm not wrong now, my dear Kettle.

By the way, even the President of the United States of America disagrees with you:

Although President Obama would liked to have seen the final health care bill include a public option, he is overall “very satisfied” that both the House and Senate bills have 95 percent of what he wanted in there, or as he put it, “nine-tenths” of a loaf, he told PBS' Jim Lehrer.

“Look, I’ve been in favor of the public option,” he told Lehrer this afternoon. “I think the more choice, the more competition we have, the better. On the other hand, I think that the exchange itself, the system that we’re setting up that forces insurance companies to essentially bid for three million or four million or five million people’s business, that in and of itself is going to have a disciplining effect.“

But President Obama said although he would have liked to see a public option as one of the elements in the final bill, it should not be a deal-breaker.

“Would I like one of those options to be the public option? Yes. Do I think that it makes sense, as some have argued, that without the public option we dump all these other extraordinary reforms and we say to the 30 million people who don’t have coverage, you know, 'Sorry. We didn’t get exactly what we wanted’? I don’t think that makes sense.”

So Obama concedes the public option was dropped from bill passage, but you are still trying to pretend that it wasn't. Why do you hate Obama?

By the way, and this part is really critical: I've been trying to explain to how how a state by state so-called "opt in" isn't a "public option" by any conventionally accepted definition. But what I haven't pointed out is that, to the best of my knowledge, even state opt-in was dropped from the final Senate Bill, so that there's no federal funding for state's programs that go beyond the federal requirement of medicaid.

Haven't located it in my reading of the text of the bill itself. Every policy organization, Harry Reid and Barack Obama all say there is no public option. Only you maintain that the "opt-in" still exists. Despite the fact that the "opt-in" was never an actual public option without a "trigger" (trigger idea dropped months ago) - a public option in any form doesn't exist anymore to the best of my - and every policy agency I've so far consulted's - understanding.

[mzmolly]

137. You have been wrong in conversations with me.

And you've apologized.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7288743&mesg_id=7313042

In addition, I presume your link is a tad old? However even if he said it yesterday, Obama is talking about a national public option in the senate bill alone vs. state opt in. I have no problem leaving it up to the states. People need to elect reps. that "represent."

[Political Heretic]

144. I was wrong on the "Netherlands" not on the details of this Bill.

I apologized not for being wrong on this bill - because I haven't been wrong in the analysis - but for being insulting... something I'm trying very hard to avoid now in the face of all this amazing bullshit that you are throwing.

If your point was that I have, in my life, but wrong on something - then yes, I have indeed by wrong on things. But that certainly was not my point. My point was than when it comes to this bill, I haven't been wrong - since its not really about "me" - its about simply presenting factual analysis of the bill rather than wishful thinking.

So...wrong on the netherlands? Yes (setting aside for a moment, that the netherlands and its "for-profit" allowance can't be compared to the US because their entire structure of regulation and rules governing industry and economy are completely different from ours) I was wrong.

On my description and analysis of the Senate health care bill? No, so far no one has demonstrated the facts of analysis to be in dispute.

[mzmolly]

147. Actually you had some facts wrong, which you admitted. This,

in spite of your background.

I believe I've demonstrated that you're wrong on your facts in the HC bill. Just as you were on the Netherlands.

One would think if you are going to analyze public policy on this bill, you'd have looked to the Netherlands, immediately.

[Political Heretic]

157. Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

What facts about the bill did I have wrong, exactly?

"One would think if you are going to analyze public policy on this bill, you'd have looked to the Netherlands, immediately."

Why would one think that? The United States and the Netherlands are in no way paired examples. The Netherlands regulatory laws and economic structure is so radically different from ours that a one to one comparison is simply meaningless.

In order for a similar 5% for profit system to function as well as the Netherlands, we would have to transform our entire political economy. We're not doing that, thus no parallel comparison can be made.

[mzmolly]

163. Many experts have made the comparison.

Such as the Dept. of Health Policy and Management at the Gillings School of Global Public Health.

http://www.unc.edu/~wedavid/web/Netherlands.doc.

Who is paying you for your input on this matter?

[Political Heretic]

180. That's not "many" experts. They're not "experts" on economic policy. And they're wrong.

Now that you've been shown to have your own facts in error, rather than acknowledging that - as I did about the Netherlands - all you have left is to suggest that I must be paid for my opinion?

Currently, I am waiting to see if I will be accepted for a fellowship with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington DC.
http://www.cbpp.org/about/

However as of this moment I am, like millions of Americans, out of work.

[mzmolly]

183. I've made no errors.

And, I have greater confidence in this President and his advisers than I do in you, sorry.

I'm sorry you're out of work. I hope you'll be accepted for a fellowship as you desire.

Peace, I'm done.

[Political Heretic]

186. You're "done" - because its impossible for you to defend your nonsense.

You were wrong about the public option - the administration that you love and believe in even says so.

You were wrong on the coverage and protections provided to low income and working class families, as the limitations and inefficiencies of the tool you attempt to use as a "proof-texting" device are exposed.

You were wrong in your claim that the bill has no critical flaws, as a detailed nine point summary (and it is a summary) of the bills critical flaws which do active harm to low income and working class individuals and families was documented, without any substantive policy disagreement, or counter evidence, only your own personal wishful thinking.

Maybe your own desperate desire for health care, or for a ban on denial based on preexisting conditions is causing you to try to sell a terrible bill just to get a few things you personally need? Maybe it clouds your judgment. I don't know.

What I do know is that you have next to nothing by way of evidence and no response to the mountain of evidence, analysis and professional research institutions and organizations dumping piles of information about why this bill is so horribly problematic for working class people.

We need positive change. And we may even need small positive changes before we can get to big positive changes. Positive change may come one small step at a time.....

The problem here is that this bill doesn't bring positive change. It brings negative change for poor people, status quote for people at the median, and arguably some positive change for people above the median and into varies levels of privilege.

Does that describe you? Is your "ordinary" family part of the upper-middle class white mainstream? What's your families annual income? I don't expect you to answer (though I'd be happy to give you mine) but I can guess.

[mzmolly]

188. What I said was that public option will be available as an opt in

to the States. Barbara Boxer said this after the Senate Bill passed. Your nine point summary is a biased joke. I've responded to it, in spite.

You were wrong on the coverage and protections provided to low income and working class families, as the limitations and inefficiencies of the tool you attempt to use as a "proof-texting" device are exposed.

The Kaiser Foundation tool has not proven incorrect simply because you don't like the results.

You were wrong in your claim that the bill has no critical flaws, as a detailed nine point summary (and it is a summary) of the bills critical flaws which do active harm to low income and working class individuals and families was documented, without any substantive policy disagreement, or counter evidence, only your own personal wishful thinking.

I've never said the bill was flawless. I simply disagree that this bill will harm low income families. Your assertion in this regard is without evidence, and is based upon negative speculation.

Maybe your own desperate desire for health care, or for a ban on denial based on preexisting conditions is causing you to try to sell a terrible bill just to get a few things you personally need? Maybe it clouds your judgment. I don't know.

I have health care. This isn't about ME.

What I do know is that you have next to nothing by way of evidence and no response to the mountain of evidence, analysis and professional research institutions and organizations dumping piles of information about why this bill is so horribly problematic for working class people.

You keep on spinning and hope someone buys your BS, aside from you.

We need positive change. And we may even need small positive changes before we can get to big positive changes. Positive change may come one small step at a time.....

The problem here is that this bill doesn't bring positive change. It brings negative change for poor people, status quote for people at the median, and arguably some positive change for people above the median and into varies levels of privilege.

Does that describe you? Is your "ordinary" family part of the upper-middle class white mainstream? What's your families annual income? I don't expect you to answer (though I'd be happy to give you mine) but I can guess.

As to what my family income is, it's none of your business. What I will say is that we make less than the 88K pseudo family you bleed for, and we pay plenty for health insurance.

[Political Heretic]

145. You "presume" my link is a tad old? It's his statement after Senate Bill was done - December 23rd

Sorry did I forget the link ?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/12/obama-very-satisfied-with-house-senate-health-care-bills-.html

[mzmolly]

148. Yes, last month IS old in this debate.

This was before reconciliation was officially put on the table.

[Political Heretic]

156. But that's not what you said. This isn't about passing the bill, this is about the public option.

The public option you claim, without evidence, and despite evidence to the contrary, still exists in an "opt in" form. When President Obama states, in his own words, that the Public Option is not part of the passed Senate Health Care bill.

So, the President's statement after the the PASSED bill is not "old" - nothing has changed from them to now about the content of the bill.

Are you ready to give a retraction, like I did about the netherlands when I was wrong about that country?

[mzmolly]

162. I've provided you with the statement by Barbara Boxer

about the public option, opt in. I have nothing to retract. Again, Obama is referring to a nationwide mandate that is not in the current Senate Bill.

[Political Heretic]

181. And I've provided you with UP TO DATE (rather than outdated) statements by the PRESIDENT

And the Senate Majority Leader.

:shrug:

[mzmolly]

189. Boxers statements were made after the Presidents

and again context matters. Obama spoke about a national option, Boxer state wide. Sorry, you fail again.

[Political Heretic]

204. Boxer is not saying what you claim she is saying.

And even with what she is saying, she's saying it an a weaseling sort of way for political purposes.

There isn't funding in this bill for a system stats can "opt in" to, there's no structural system for states "opt in" to - nothing to opt in to. Building your own state healthcare system isn't "opting in" to anything. There's no options for states to "opt into" a national system or funding to build a public plan for themselves that does not already exist for them.

Boxer is of course pointing out that states can, as Mass. did, attempt to fix their own health care systems.

But "opting in" to a federal public program is not part of this bill. Period. Any one and everyone will tell you that.

The president, the majority leader, the speaker, every analysis group you can find to quote - they're not all wrong about the dropping of the public option.

Your attempts to pretend somehow that this is not the case are really pitiful, but do at least expose you for what you really are.

[mzmolly]

207. You claim she's not saying what I think, followed by "even if she is saying it..."

A perfect example of your double speak.

Regarding the lacking infrastructure, you're apparently unaware that there are already states with their own version of a public option for those without health insurance?

Cheers! :hi:

[grahamhgreen]

83. But not for single-payer!!! Senate bill will crush reform.

[mzmolly]

87. States can use monies

for a single payer system if they choose.

[Edweird]

89. The states don't have "monies'.

[mzmolly]

90. They will if the bill in question passes,

thus my point.

[Political Heretic]

133. You're wrong on that.

And its time to demand that you put up a source, showing that the bill passed on December 24th includes federal funding for a public option if states request to have one.

Since we have the president of the United States on record saying there is no public option of any form in the final bill, and the Senate Majority Leader confirming this.

[mzmolly]

149. Boxer was on Countdown in December when she mentioned the public option opt in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UniUQmEeaI

Fast forward to four minutes in and listen to what the bill offers to seniors and others. Prick up your ears at about six minutes in where Boxer mentions the "public option," option. ;)

[Edweird]

88. That's because an 'opt in' is total bullshit IN A RECESSION where budgets are being cut.

But, hey, 'victory' at any cost, right?

[mzmolly]

91. FUNDING at the federal level

is part of the bill.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

11. ROGER. THAT.

[mzmolly]

12. There already is a public option

thought it's a state wide opt in. I do hope it becomes national and improves in the recon process.

[ddeclue]

18. useless and will never happen. if it is up to the states they won't do it.

[mzmolly]

20. I'm not sure where you're from

but my state already has a similar program.

[ddeclue]

49. Well congrats but it won't happen outside of New England

because of conservative legislatures and prohibitions against deficit spending.

[mzmolly]

53. I'm not in

New England. ;) I think what will happen is that those railing against a public option, will have to take note that it works? I do hope that the legislation includes a public option on a national level however, after recon.

[ddeclue]

54. Well you are clearly NOT in the South or the MidWest or the Southwest

and the only states I know of are Hawaii and Massachusetts. No other state has anything like a generally available public option for its citizens.

[mzmolly]

56. Actually

I am in the Midwest.

[ddeclue]

102. What State?

[mzmolly]

106. I'm

not much inclined to provide personal information on DU these days. However my avatar might be a clue. ;)

[ddeclue]

107. Minnesota is NOT the "midwest"..not really

and I'm working to help a candidate up there for MN-3 (Maureen Hackett).

Minnesota is a very liberal place compared to the REAL midwest (KS, OK, NE, ND, SD, etc.)

[mzmolly]

116. Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa are all part of the Midwest.

[CTyankee]

125. Great. Maybe we'll get back some of the population who left for warmer climes

and more job opportunity in the past 10 years or so! Come to New England where you can have gay marriage and a public option on health care!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

22. Hope springs eternal.

What's the latest on IRS-enforced mandates with no insurance industry cost controls?

[mzmolly]

25. There are cost controls.

Though, I don't know the latest. Yes, I'm hopeful. I'm not ashamed of that. :D

[frazzled]

29. Because what we have now is SOOOO much better

Unregulated insurance; prices going up every day; people being kicked out or denied access every day; annual and lifetime limits that cause sick people to go bankrupt (or die); people with no government assistance to help them purchase any insurance.

Yeah, that is soooo much better than the plan before congress, even if compromised.

[mzmolly]

32. Not to menion the fact that anyone who's sick is denied

coverage. It's a tragedy that those who oppose reform are either unaware of, or don't give a crud about.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

55. You left one out...

we support REAL REFORM, not this crap legislation as it stands now.

[frazzled]

60. Then you support nothing.

All of us are disappointed in the compromises that were made to get this thing through 435 members of Congress and 100 Senators (well, subtract all the Republicans from those totals). But there we are. If this doesn't pass, then you've got nothing: except your noble ideals for "real" reform, which will undoubtedly follow you to your grave.

It's like, if you're starving in Haiti, and someone offers you a piece of bread and you say, "No, I want a real meal. I want lobster." Chances are, you gonna starve.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

63. The comparison to starving people in Haiti is tacky.

And if done my "noble" way, the poor, un- and under-insured would obtain health care without the middle class being forced to bend over, yet again. It's really not that difficult, but our leadership, from Obama on down, made it so.

KILL IT.

[mzmolly]

70. KILL IT

my arse. I take it you have health insurance?

[mzmolly]

69. This is REAL REFORM

and it's only getting better in recon.

[Political Heretic]

134. It's not remotely close to real reform, and promises to make things worse for poor people,

not better.

[mzmolly]

150. It is if you have a pre-existing condtion, or you make 20K per year

or you qualify for a subsidy, or you're a senior citizen who can't afford medication, and so on ...

[LoZoccolo]

76. 1. This is a typical hyperbolic "progressive" strategy to begin with but 2. if this bill dies...

...the Republicans will seize on the natural human tendency to give up on failed attempts at things they don't understand and perhaps kill any chance at reform for 50+ years. It will be "we tried to pass that twice already" until a new generation of voters becomes the majority. Don't believe me? Do you remember "they counted them twice already" during the 2000 recount? I want a public option. In my lifetime please. Let's get this passed and work on the slippery slope.

[mzmolly]

78. Hey LZ.

:hi:

[LoZoccolo]

85. Hey!

:fistbump:

[wowimthere]

138. I agree with this even though I don't like the senate give away to corporate interest bill

Pass something and fix it in conference. Republicans (children) don't want to get it done because this is what people will talk about... good bill... bad bill... but... it still is a bill that got done.

[Maru Kitteh]

95. So run for office then. I'm sure YOU have healthcare.

Then you can be yet one more politician denying healthcare to others because it's not perfect enough for you or done YOUR way while you sleep easily at night knowing you and your family can at least get your foot in the door.

[Juche]

112. No it isn't, we need a bill

If this bill offers pre-existing condition controls, can cut the deficit, reduces health care cost growth, fights rescissions and offers subsides it will be worth passing even without the public option.

Health care insecurity is a rapidly growing problem.

[johnaries]

222. We can get a Public Option via reconcilliation. Remember, we

had 58 votes for it in the Senate, and reconcilliation only requires 51. That's why the House caveat "only if it is fixed through reconcilliation".

As usual, you haven't been paying attention.

[murphyj87]

226. Public Option

There seems to be a consensus that the public option might be able to be passed under reconciliation (51 votes - no filibuster).

[Donnachaidh]

6. that fix better be freaking IRONCLAD

This back and forth for crappy legislation is pissing many people off.

[mzmolly]

28. I think the fix will eliminate the middle class tax and include a national

exchange. JMO, based upon scuttlebutt of course.

[backscatter712]

71. If we're lucky, and we push hard enough, the reconciliation fix could have a public option in it.

Jared Polis is circulating a petition in Congress to add it to the reconciliation sidecar, where it can pass with only 51 votes, and doesn't need Lieberman, Nelson, Bayh, Landrieu or Lincoln.

The odds are against it actually happening, but they're far from zero percent. It can be done, and certainly should be fought for.

CALL YOUR CONGRESSCRITTERS!!!

[daleanime]

9. It all depends ...

on what ends up in the bill period.

[dflprincess]

10. Sure they will,

right after they fix NAFTA and NCLB.

Unless, of course, Pelosi has actually come up with a health care bill, not the insurance protection scam the Senate passed.

[atomic-fly]

14. no mandate please...who can afford that? nt

[mzmolly]

15. I don't recall every hearing they'd fix those bills in reconciliation.

I do recall noting that NAFTA wasn't properly enforced by the Bush admin, however.

[dflprincess]

27. They've been claiming they were going to "fix" those bills

(among others) for a while. I don't believe this promise any more than the others.

The only thing that doesn't surprise me is that the progressive caucus caved - again. I can't wait to see what lines in the sand they draw and then step over during "reconcilliation" - which will just amount to more Kabuki theater.

Really, the Supreme Court decision last week was redundant - the corporations already own Congress and the White House.

[mzmolly]

30. I don't recall the claims you speak of. I do recall demands

and a lack of enforcement and proper implementation of the bills, however.

[dflprincess]

62. Apparently you weren't paying attention during the last presidential campaign

they were falling all over themselves promising to fix them - but back then our votes were being courted. I suppose it will all come up again next fall because they think we're dumb enough to fall for it againg.

[mzmolly]

72. I listened

and I supported Edwards in the primary because I felt Obama was too centrist on this issue and others. However, Obama's term is not over and according to him, NAFTA will be addressed when we're not teetering on the edge of international financial collapse.

[dflprincess]

92. Obama says a lot of things

like how a public option was needed to "keep the insurance companies honest". Now he denies he ever said the bill needed a public option.

[mzmolly]

96. He's never denied saying

that. He said he didn't run entirely on the notion of a public option.

[dflprincess]

97. Several times he said a public option was necessary to "keep them honest"

and that he expected any bill got to his desk to have one. It was a stupid remark as he was admitting the insurance companies are crooked and now he's selling us out to them.

And remember, as a state senator he supported single payer, as a presidential candidate he opposed mandates - but he's abandoned both of those positions as well.

His actions mean more than his words - no matter how pretty he sounds.

[mzmolly]

100. He's not a dictator.

HIS actions are a part of the solution. He should not deny people health care coverage because every one doesn't have every measure they'd like to see in health care reform.

[dflprincess]

101. He's suppose to be a leader

and his actions have done nothing but support the status quo.

He can call it reform but "coverage" does not equal care (as was clearly shown in "Sicko"). In addition to the premiums both the House and Senate bills still allow large out of pocket expenses that will continue to keep people from getting care. All we'll see is an increase in the number of underinsured. Thousands will still die before they should have because they could not get to a doctor (both those "covered" by this bill and the millions that will still not even have access to crappy insurance) and people will still face financial ruin because of medical bills.

This bill has nothing to do with access to care and everything to do with protecting an industry that would collapse if it wasn't being handed millions of new victims to fleece.

Every other industrialized nation has figured out how to get its citizens health care. The fact the United States continues to see access to care as a privilege is a failure of leadership and further evidence of how corrupt "our" elected officials are.

[mzmolly]

104. The status quo? Preventing the denial of health care coverage to those

with pre-existing conditions is status quo? Subsidizing premiums for families with incomes < 88K is the status quo? Funding 10,000 neighborhood health care clinics around the US is the status quo? Expanding medicaid to three times the current limit is the status quo?

I think people need to familiarize themselves with the bill in question before declaring it's anything close to the status quo.

[Political Heretic]

142. They can still deny claims - without any change, regulation or overshight

1 in 5 health claims are denied by big insurance companies in California for example. Even after someone with a preexisting condition gets coverage, there's no certainty they can afford it, no certainty they could afford the out-of-pocket for critical care, and no certainty that their claims would be approved.

I think one of the people that needs to familiarize themselves with the bill in question is you.

The subsidies for families are, according to the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities, woefully insufficient for low-income and working class families.

Indeed using your own deeply flawed "calculator" a family of four with a single income of 60,000 would be on the hook for 5.5 thousand dollars in premiums after subsidies - and that number is based only on the tools estimated cost of a premium which are ridiculously low.

Funding health clinics doesn't have a damn thing to do with fixing our broken care delivery system in this country. Great individual act, would be an excellent bill on its own. Doesn't do anything to fix what's broken. Same with medicaid, and given the deep and sustained flaws in the medicaid system (that varies from state to state; one of the many problems) that sets up a second "class" of care for poor people - expansion of medicaid is kind of a backhanded blessing without desperately needed medicaid reform.

[mzmolly]

152. Change

is change. Progress is progress. It's not an immediate remedy for every potential issue that might arise.

Of course companies can deny claims. If they couldn't I could get a nose job and find a surgeon to say I had a cold that required surgery.

It's not MY calculator it's a calculator provided by the Kaiser Foundation. Certainly a person of your stature and knowledge is familiar with them? However, what you fail to point out is that the same family would pay 9500 today. This legislation saves the family in question 3000 annually in premiums alone. And that is IF they can get health care coverage today. Also the calculator only uses one plan for their model. There are lower cost options.

[Political Heretic]

184. It's not "change" we need if it does active harm to working families.

Not all change is good change. Some sets us back, not moves us forward.

What I "fail" to point out? It doesn't matter if a person today would pay 1 million dollars if they still can't afford insurance.

Before bill - insurance costs me a billon dollars. I can't afford it. So I have no insurance.

After the bill - insurance costs me 5.5 thousand dollars, plus deductible cost, plus out of pocket payments. I can't afford it. So I have no insurance, or I have to wrangle with the government to avoid paying mandatory insurance penalties.

The effect is exactly the same. It's not change for working families because either way the effect is the same. It doesn't matter if its slightly less unafforadable if its still unaffordable. And when we are ranked dead last in the world when it comes to key health care indicators, its shameful that we can't all agree that there's no excuse for us not doing better and doing better right now.

The lower cost option, by the way, still costs them 5.5 thousand. And that is based on the foundation's own guestimation of what a likely premium would cost - guesses that are low by any account.

[mzmolly]

190. It doesn't do active harm

to working families. I can't afford insurance, but I pay for it because we don't have a choice. I wish everything were free, it isn't.

The costs your whining about are not unusual for those with employer based insurance. This legislation will give others the choice to opt in to plans similar to those that employers offer currently. In addition, the income in the KFF scenario, is adjusted modified gross income, which means the family making 88K, makes more before taxes. HORRORS, they'll have to pay for health insurance, too! :eyes:

[dflprincess]

171. Insurance companies will be required to "cover" preexisting conditions

for a price - a price that those with the conditions will be required to pay.

The amounts an individual or family receives in subsidies decrease as income goes up so a family with an income of $87,000 may get a subsidy, but they won't get much. And, regardless of income, they'll still have all those out of pocket expenses. For a single the House bill allows maximum annual out of pockets of $5,000; for a family that amount is $10K - plus anything else not covered. The deductible for a single is $1,500 (which does count toward the annual OOP) not sure what it is for a family. With today's private policies, it is usually doubled (at minimum). Remember the deductible is what you have to come up with before insurance pays a dime. The government may help with the premium, but they won't help you actually access care.

Also remember that the subsidies are just a transfer of tax money to the for profit insurers. If we're going to use tax money for health care it would be more efficient to use it for a single payer system. As the bills are written, it is indeed being used to protect the status quo which is controlled by the private insurers.

Medicare will be available to those earning 1.5x the federal poverty level, not three times the FPL. You're confusing the ceilings for subsidies with what will be allowed for Medicare. The Senate bill allows subsidies for up to 3x the poverty level; the House bill, 4x. Better than nothing but not enough by a long shot and proof that Congress has no clue what it costs to live. The FPL for a single is $10,830; 1.5x that is $16,250. The FPL is the same whether you live in New York City or Sioux Falls, SD.

The community clinics are in there because Bernie Sanders pushed for them not because Obama or any of his DLC allies pushed for them.

The big winners in this deal are the insurers, pharma and maybe the credit card companies as Americans will continue to be forced to sometimes use plastic to pay their medical expenses.

[mzmolly]

175. I don't care who pushed for community health care centers. The fact is,

the additional CHC's are part of the bill you oppose. Also, you fail to take into account the current system of denials and high costs in your post. And of course, you're using worst case scenarios in your cost analysis. Remember, insurance companies are supposed to be competitive and to keep profit margins down to 15% as a result of the pending legislation. Regarding Medicaid, you're correct. I should have noted that the expansion is to 150% of poverty level, which means 5,000,000 more Americans would qualify.

I hope the bill passes, you don't. Again, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Edited for atrocious grammar. ;)

[dflprincess]

176. The claim denials and high costs will continue with this bill

and if you think the insurers won't find a way around the profit limits you're dreaming - and there's not a whole lot of regulation that will do anything about it when they cheat. They didn't get into the position they're in now because they played by the rules or were concerned with helping people maintain their health.

And what worse case scenarios am I using? A simple appendectomy or kid breaking their arm or a normal pregnancy will result in people needing to come up with a whole bunch of cash to cover the cost. It can cost thousands to find out that the funny spot on a mammogram is benign (that I know from personal experience fortunately I had decent insurance at that time). Running up a few thousand in medical bills in a single year is not a rare occurance. Sooner or later it will happen to everyone.

As for another 5,000,000 being covered by Medicaid, you'll have to come up with a link for that one. I've seen nothing else that puts the number that high. In additon, the Medicaid expansion will largely be the responsibility of the states - who don't have the money for it. In order to cover the people who will be eligible, they may be looking at cutting back on what services are covered and tightening other eligibility requirement. The CBO says this bill expands "coverage" to only 30 million and by 2017 there will be 19 million without insurance (a number that, it appears, will continue to climb even with this "reform"). I find it very hard to believe that of that 30 million, 5 million will be eligible for Medicaid.

The CHCs should have been part of a separate bill because this scam is a disaster and will, in the long run, do more harm than good and leave more Americans without access to regular care. But at least there will be more CHCs, because more of us won't be able to afford to use anything else. Of course, we're also assuming that the CHCs will be funded at the level they'll need to provide all the services that they'll be asked for.

If Obama really thinks he will be the last president to deal with this he better stop sucking up to corporate America and start paying attention to what people need. As of now, he just wants to sign anything so he can pretend the issue has been dealt with and he can spend the rest of his term ignoring the demands for real reform.

[mzmolly]

177. I'll let the R/W opposition speak to some of the questions you have.

Regarding regulation: "Democrats in the House and Senate have filled their bills with a dizzying array of rules and regulations on insurers. The insurance market provisions in the Senate bill alone run nearly 400 pages."

And...

"Insurance companies would be prohibited almost immediately from rescinding policies for people who get sick and imposing lifetime limits on how much they pay for customers' healthcare."

Not to mention...

"And state and federal regulators would be required to set up procedures for reviewing how much insurers charge customers and whether premium increases were justified."

The last line of the article states:

"We'll have to monitor what is happening state by state. To the extent that insurance companies fail to adhere to rules, we're going to have to get that fixed. . . . But Rome wasn't built in a day."

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/18/nation/la-na-health-assess18-2009dec18

I've also been on the other end of a mammogram scare. I had another digital mammogram at no cost other than my copay. I realize that this bill is imperfect and that we'll have problems that have to be solved. But, I'm not willing to cut off our collective noses to spite our faces and shout ALL OR NOTHING NOW!

I'm sorry, but I can't find the link to the 5,000,000 additional people covered under medicaid. I believe I read this at the Kaiser Foundation website? However according to R/W Heritage Foundation the number is 11 million.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCAre/wm2554.cfm

"A Medicaid expansion undermines the logic for having an individual mandate. The individual mandate is necessary, according to its congressional advocates, to ensure that everyone is in the insurance pool so that risk can be spread across everyone and thereby lower costs. But keeping 64 million children and non-disabled adults (53 million "moms and kids" currently on Medicaid plus 11 million newly eligible) on Medicaid rather than in the rest of the insurance pool dilutes the effectiveness of the mandate."

I'll close by saying that corporations didn't hire Besty McCaughey again to promote a "death panel" meme and gin up false populist, fear based anger about HC because they like the idea of pending reform.

I wish I could agree with you as it would be easier given Health Care is teetering on the edge right now. But I think scrapping this bill would be a tragedy. I believe that the legislation is only a beginning not an end.

Peace

[dflprincess]

179. You're joking right?

The right wing thinks there's still too much regulation on Wall Street and banks and you believe them when they say the insurance bill has too much regulation? I thought the DLC talking points were bad enough but now you're using the Heritage Foundation as a link? Because they wouldn't exaggerate, would they - especially when it comes to how many people might get health care at "taxpayer expense".

Health CARE will still be teetering on the edge if this bill is made law - but the insurance companies will be in much better shape. Once this bill is passed Congress & Obama will pretend the issue has been dealt with. We couldn't get them to take it seriously this time so do you honestly believe they'll revisit it when they'll all be patting themselves on the back for "fixing" (or putting the fix in) it? No, they won't do any more with it - they'll be busy "reforming" Social Security and Medicare and that should make us all very afraid.

If this bill was harmful to the status quo, insurance company stocks would have taken a dive the day after it passed. Instead, they've been going up.

[mzmolly]

182. No, I'm not joking. The opposition from corporate sponsors and their ilk

speaks volumes.

Also, stocks have nothing to do with what the bill entails. The stock market is all about perception.

Peace, I'm out.

[Political Heretic]

213. It may speak, but you're getting the wrong message.

Corporations play both sides.

They advocate for no health reform because they are doing great in the system as is. And buy doing so they win more and more and more concessions from congress, who are stupid enough to think that if they just give them enough they will stop opposing it.

AND AT THE SAME TIME

They win major, huge, victories in the health care reform process itself, so that either way they win big. And to deny this you have to ignore all of the on-the-record statements by health insurance lobbyists talking about how they "won" this battle "either way" and how excited they were when critical provisions of the reform were dropped.

The stock market, is about the preception of shareholders of the value of stock. When one sector leaps disproportionately to the rest of the market, on certain news. It's sort of silly to claim it doesn't tell you anything.

[mzmolly]

216. Besty McCaughey wasn't hired to "play both sides."

She was hired to spread the death panel meme and try to kill health care reform. The Tea Party sponsorship wasn't interested in playing both sides, they're interested in killing the bill. Those who suggest we start over, aren't really interested in starting over, they're interested in delaying the bill until it dies.

[Political Heretic]

202. Mzmolly, the article from December 18th includes things not passed on December 24th.

Just throwing that out there for ya.

If you had spent any time truly poor, and not just middle class moonlighting with the over-privileged out-of-touch definition of what "poor" is - if you'd ever had to access medicaid yourself in more than one state for any length of time, you'd understand why simply trumpeting the glories of medicaid rings pretty hollow.

[mzmolly]

208. LOL

:hi:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

187. mzmolly, dflprincess used to work for a major insurance company

She actually understands this stuff.

[mzmolly]

191. So does the Kaiser Foundation who are policy analysts.

Friends and family of mine are also in the industry. People who work for insurance companies surely differ in their opinions on this bill. I've never implied that DFLPrincess doesn't understand the discussion. It's apparent that she does. That does not mean we agree. ;)

[GinaMaria]

115. This isn't health care reform

Obama doesn't even call it that now. It's Health Insurance 'reform'. The focus is in the wrong place, on the insurance industry, not our health care system. And there's no reform if the corrupt industry we needed to reign in, wrote the damn bill. This is an Insurance Company Bailout. It is not health care reform. Health insurance does not equal health care. What this bill has done is to solidify ownership of our health care system to the blood sucking Insurance Industry. What's worse, the dems are now beholden to this corporate monster and must deliver their bill or be swift boated or worse have to return the money.

We deserve so much better than this, especially from our employees. Piss poor performance in this economy is not a smart move on anyone's part, even congresspeople's.

[mzmolly]

121. Debates about semantics

don't impress me.

[GinaMaria]

124. I'm in no way interested in impressing an anonymous poster. Semantics?

around what? Obama stopped calling it Health care reform and now calls it Health Insurance reform. Not the same thing and a very important distinction. As you apparently have nothing to say on this topic, why bother posting a response?

[mzmolly]

130. Anonymous poster? Isn't that what you are GinaMaria?

Unless you're willing to provide your full name and address for us? If you're not, thank me, DU and Public Citizen for defending your First Amendment right to speak anonymously, here.

Again, health insurance reform is part of health care reform. And you appear more concerned with semantics than the end result.

[Political Heretic]

136. Umm... there is no first amendment right here.

This is a private board.

:shrug:

[mzmolly]

141. DU defended all of our rights to privacy ala the First Amendment.

http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/sinclair-v-democratic-underground

[Political Heretic]

143. Yes but, posting *here* isn't a first amendment right.

Would be my point.

[mzmolly]

153. My point

was that we have the right to remain anonymous.

[GinaMaria]

159. my point is that anonymous posters do not need to be impressed

Remaining anonymous was never the issue, but it did give you something to rant about.

[mzmolly]

161. My point again is that most of us

are anonymous here. And, I'm not ranting, I'm celebrating the beginning of health care reform in this country.

:toast:

""We will go through the gate. If the gate is closed, we will go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we will pole vault in. If that doesn't work, we will parachute in," Pelosi said. "But we are going to get health care reform passed for the American people."i ~ Nancy Pelosi - January 28, 2010

[GinaMaria]

167. Right. You responded irrationally to my post because I don't agree with you

It was obvious. There was never any issue about anonymity.

[mzmolly]

169. Irrationally?

LOL :)

[GinaMaria]

151. Let me rephrase

I'm not interested in impressing you or anyone here. We are all anonymous posters who have equal opinions here. I would bet a paycheck no one is here to impress. I think you know that already but you can't debate the facts so you left a snarky post suggesting I was posting to impress and attempted to diminish my thoughts as semantics. Your post doesn't say anything about me. It reveals volumes about you.

While health care reform can include health insurance among other things, it does not stand to reason that health insurance reform equals health care reform. While you may dismiss this as semantics, knowing the difference between the two means knowing the difference between the results. Health care results and outcomes are things I've been focused on for my entire career.

[mzmolly]

154. I was stating

my opinion on the fact that you're debating semantics. That is the fact, I was addressing.

One can advocate for single payer if they choose, but to suggest that there has been dramatic change in the bill because Obama states "Health Insurance Reform" vs. "Health Care Reform" is silly. It's a politically motivated change in tone to combat the "health care takeover" meme, I presume?

[GinaMaria]

158. Again, you may label this semantics

but while all cats are animals, not all animals are cats. I'm sure you understand this. The same is true for Health Care and Health Insurance.

My post said nothing about single payer

There was a dramatic shift in direction when Obama moved from Health Care Reform to Health Insurance Reform. It was at this time that the insurance industry wrote the legislation. There is nothing silly about it. This moved from a Health Care Reform debate to an Insurance Company Bailout. There is nothing in the Senate bill that does not benefit the insurance cartel.

Even the elimination of pre-existing will not impact their bottom line because of the other changes.

The results as you claim to care about are that we will all get less health care not better health care. More will be paid out of pocket and many people will be priced out, meaning they may have coverage but cannot afford to use it.

The mandates for individuals to purchase policies mirror Insurance Industry strategy. Their biggest profit margin is in individual policies. They have been pushing this for a couple of years now, but really started to push it when the recession hit. Due to the recession many employers cut employees' jobs. While they still provided insurance coverage to their employees there were fewer employees which means fewer customers for the insurance company.

The goal is to encourage this and move more and more people into individual plans. More profit. Even better for them is to have taxpayer money going to subsidize the policies. This guarantees them more customers. Insurance you can't afford to use, means you see no return for your investment. You are simply mandated to hand over money.

[mzmolly]

160. This is your opinion

and you're entitled to it. However to say that there is nothing that doesn't benefit insurance companies is simply not so. I'm sure they'd rather not cover pre-existing conditions, for example. Also, I tend to think that you can't mandate coverage for pre-existing conditions unless more are essentially required to buy in. In addition ins. companies will be allowed a profit margin of 15% vs. the sky is the limit (such profit margin limitations have helped control cost in the Netherlands.) I also disagree that we'll get less health care. This is a Republican talking point and an absurd one IMO.

Health insurance is the avenue for health care in this country. Changing the rhetoric does not mean that the legislation will not ultimately reform health care.

If one doesn't wish to "hand over money" like I do every month for health care coverage, then one can pay a maximum penalty of $750 until they have a need. At such time they can't be denied. This is an inexpensive way to obtain what amounts to catastrophic coverage. Or, if all else fails, one can apply for a hardship or religious exemption.

Lastly, here is some info. as to why Obama may now prefer the term Health Insurance Reform. See the conclusion for more specifics.

http://www.unc.edu/~wedavid/web/Netherlands.doc.

[GinaMaria]

166. Actually, given my work

these are facts, but you can believe what you wish.

can't mandate coverage for pre-existing conditions unless more are essentially required to buy in

This is an insurance company talking point. You will find it almost word for word in their communications.

Getting Less Health care, is not a republican talking point. It is actually an insurance company strategy component. It is called Bending the Cost Curve. It means you will be getting less care because they won't pay for it. They spin it as more care causes more problems for people. People are being overtreated.... the goal is to decrease health care.

If you pay 3k a year for insurance and cannot afford to use, the insurance company will not give you back your 3K. They keep it.

Health insurance is an access point for health care in many places. The problem is that it is the only access point with this bill, unless someone wants to pay completely out of pocket or qualifies for medicare. There is not enough competition for this industry. There may actually be less if this is passed due to mergers.

The language change reflects the change in policy. There is some reform in the current bills. My concern is that we are paying too high a price for those reforms. It was never necessary to have reforms cost us so much that we bailout the health insurance industry.

The handing over money happens no matter what you want with this bill. Your comment is cold and callous. Insurance companies have been trying for close to a decade to get 20 somethings to buy health insurance. They just got the government to mandate it. They won.

[mzmolly]

168. There are plenty of people in the field

of analyzing health care reform, who actually worked on helping to put together this bill. Also, the premise of insurance is to spread risk. It's not a talking point, it's a fact. And, many 20 somethings can remain covered under their parents policy (as the new bill allows for this up to age 26) or they'll likely qualify for the new expansion of medicaid this bill provides.

As for paying into health care for nothing, what do you think most people do, who have coverage via an employer? As a general rule, they don't get a rebate if they're not ill.

MY comment is cold and callous?! Your suggestion that we maintain the status-quo unless you essentially have your way on single payer or ?? is what's cold and callous. As for me, I will not get worked up into a lather over your cynical predictions based upon nothing but conjecture.

[GinaMaria]

172. You make a lot of assumptions

about what you think I want. I have made no suggestion that we maintain the status-quo. I want excellent health care reform that doesn't cost us the price of an insurance company bailout.

I'm well aware how insurance works and that is exactly why they want the 20 somethings. They in general as a group are not concerned about health insurance, but their parents are. Isn't that nice how it all worked out?

As for paying into health care for nothing, what do you think most people do, who have coverage via an employer? As a general rule, they don't get a rebate if they're not ill.

By rigging the system so people pay for insurance they cannot afford to use, they know they will keep that money. That's the point to doing it this way. At least with some plans, people can afford a doctor's visit. This is being set up, so that people will not get basic care because of the amount they will have to pay. That's where the money is for the 'for profit' industry. Not all are 'for profit', but the biggest ones are.

My comments are based on fact and policy and were never intended to work you into anything, lather or otherwise. This is a discussion board. I thought we were having a discussion. You can make your points without resorting to distortion and assumptions.

[mzmolly]

173. I disagree with your predictions.

You, mine. I also disagree with the notion that your assertions are fact based.

I did not distort, or assume. You did. Your suggestion that Democrats wish to supply the masses with mandated insurance they can't afford to use, speaks for itself.

I guess at this point we'll just have to agree to disagree?

Peace

[GinaMaria]

178. I disagree with your speculations

in this thread.

You continue to distort and make assumptions. I made no suggestion about 'Democrats wish to supply the masses with mandated insurance they can't afford', This bill promotes insurance they can afford but cannot afford to use. I don't think dems wish to supply people with insurance they cannot afford to use, either. I do think there are dems who are blinded by corporate interest. Their intent is not to be malicious but they do seem motivated by avarice or expediency. They believe what they are doing is right or they wouldn't be doing it. They do not see a problem with letting lobbyists write this bill.

Not all democrats are for this bill in its current state. DLCers may call themselves democrats but again it's the same issue we've had throughout this subthread, not all democrats are DLCers and that is the distinction that needs to be made. The difference between DLCers and non DLC democrats is the same difference between you and me in this subthread. Yes, we disagree, but again that is no reason to distort, assume and accuse.

I entered this subthread with the idea that we agree to disagree. It's unfortunate that you seem to just be getting around to that now. There's no point in continuing. We said what we needed to say.

Peace to you too,

GM

[Lorien]

127. +1. I guess we'll just wait and see. We've already emailed, marched and called for

universal single payer since, well, at least back when "Sicko" was released. Let's see if they have any respect for their base or concern for the American people whatsoever.

[mzmolly]

13. Unreccing news?

Fascinating. :crazy:

[ddeclue]

19. Bad decisions by Pelosi deserve un-reccing.. If I could un-rec more than once I would.

[mzmolly]

21. You don't wish to share news if you don't like it?

Interesting.

[ddeclue]

51. NO I wish to express my displeasure at the news.

[mzmolly]

73. You did so

in your commentary. But I understand your rationale. Thanks for sharing.

[rucky]

16. I'll believe it when it happens.

fingers crossed.

[AlinPA]

46. They don't have the courage to do anything in this congress.

[Jim__]

23. Here's hopin' - n/t

[mzmolly]

26. :D

:hi:

[spanone]

37. how about a few 'signing statements' from the President .....k&r

[mzmolly]

40. Agreed.

:)

[librechik]

38. hmmm which appendage are we losing this time

and btw, Republicans and blue dogs do not keep their promises. We're going to gag on this one and lose in the elections.

[mzmolly]

41. They better keep their promises in this regard. IF they're really listening to Mass voters.

The night of the Massachusetts election, three liberal groups -- Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Democracy for America and MoveOn.org -- paid for a poll of a thousand people who voted for Obama in 2008 and either switched to support Republican Scott Brown for Senate or didn't vote. It was conducted by Research 2000.

More than 80 percent of both groups favored a public option.

The poll also upended the conventional understanding of health care's role in the election. A plurality of people who switched to Brown -- 48 -- or didn't vote -- 43 -- said that they opposed the Senate health care bill. But the poll dug deeper and asked people why they opposed it. Among those Brown voters, 23 percent thought it went "too far" -- but 36 percent thought it didn't go far enough and 41 percent said they weren't sure why they opposed it.

Among voters who stayed home and opposed health care, a full 53 percent said they opposed the Senate bill because it didn't go far enough; 39 percent weren't sure and only eight percent thought it went too far.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/27/house-progressives-push-r_n_438024.html

[librechik]

58. it is positively creepy the way Obama's team has ignored polls like that

really makes you wonder what the true agenda is.

Here's hoping!

[HuckleB]

43. K & R.

Still mad as hell, but we need to move something forward.

[mzmolly]

52. Agreed.

:hi:

[AlinPA]

44. They don't have the guts to pass anything in congress.

[Change Happens]

59. Please GOD make this be fucking TRUE!

I know we have to fix things in it, but we need something...

[livetohike]

64. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[optimator]

61. PREPARE SOME LUBE

we are about to be FUCKED

[WorseBeforeBetter]

66. The Middle Class takes it yet again.

Fortunately, I can still afford lube; for others, spit's gonna have to do.

[Lorien]

128. Middle class, working class, the poor-they're sort of all rolled into one giant underclass

at this point; one that apparently has no representation.

[mzmolly]

74. That statement can be taken

many ways. ;)

[harkadog]

75. Where is the link to that?

Its not what the story says at MSNBC. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/01/27/2186535.aspx?ocid=twitter

[mzmolly]

81. You're reading one story. This was reported on MSNBC

live TV. Jenimoto posted a couple minutes after me that CNN said the same. Look for her thread in GD.

[spanone]

79. steny hoyer just said there was NO MOVEMENT on the healthcare bill today....the ed show m$nbc

[mzmolly]

80. Not sure how they're defining "movement"

in this case.

[spanone]

82. he acted like nothing happened.

[mzmolly]

86. They want to wait for Obama to insist on

action in the SOTU, I'd imagine.

[quiller4]

99. That is only because he wants to claim credit.

[grahamhgreen]

84. NO BILL WITHOUT A PUBLIC OPTION OR MEDICARE BUY IN AT MINIMUM.

[begin_within]

94. +1

[quiller4]

98. I'd take a bill without either one if it reduced premiums and got rid

of pre-existing conditions and annual maximums. Sure I want more but I've never considered a public option a holy grail and I still don't.

[grahamhgreen]

110. ONLY, if you get rid of the mandate that will give trillions to big insurance to crush

what little reform is in the Senate bill. If they pass a bill with your provisions, it will be systematically removed through corporate lobbying and gaming the system.

In the end it will be you who is sick and dying vs a team of corporate lawyers with unlimited funds arguing they had the right not to pay for your cancer treatment for some arcane reason.

Medicare for more, then for all through reconciliation is the best way to go.

[uponit7771]

103. Sigh, ....

[NoFace]

111. Read: "Cautiously Optimistic" nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

122. Oh, dear

I have no confidence that this bill will get "fixed."

It's a bad, bad bill with a few good parts.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

123. Yeah! Love it!

and so much for the negative reactions to the SOTU

and yes, given much fixing afterwards...just like introduction of Social Security, or any number of legislation (wasn't the Bill of Rights a kind of "fix" to the Constitution? (Forgive me if I'm off the mark... I slept through high school American History.... )

[Political Heretic]

135. Here are just a few of the ways that this bill HARMS ordinary families more than nothing.

People need quality care. If this bill passes guess what? Our health care will still lag behind the rest of the industrialized world in quality and affordability of care.

ONEThe bill actively HARMS low income and working class individuals and families by gutting the subsidies for people who can't afford health insurance. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities confirms what I'm saying, and shows that subsidies are now insufficient, with post-subsidy average premiums still a huge and preventative percentage of a poor family's income. At the time they wrote the analysis, they still supported the bill with the provision that subsidies be addressed before final passage - they take the anything is better than nothing attitude; I do not. However, it does not matter, since their condition for support isn't being met now, in that there's no movement in the Senate to negotiate their weak subsidies at all.

TWOThe bill does nothing to deal with the cost of car itself. The annual out of pocket expenses cap is so high over 10,000$ for a family, that any critical or long-term health care will still do what it's been doing: saddle working class families with so much debt that it bankrupts them and/or throws them into poverty, and prevent low-income families from seeking health insurance at all.

Whether the Senate Bill passes or doesn't, the same millions of Americans without insurance today will go to be saying the same prayer - god, please don't let me get really sick, because if I ever have to be in the hospital or deal with a serious illness, it will ruin me and my family. They'll be praying the same prayer after "insurance reform" passes, even if they - as you say - have "access" to health insurance.

THREEThe bill leaves the big questions of regulation and oversight of the insurance industry and its practices unanswered - punting most of the most critical pieces of regulation to states, for a state-by-state answer. This leaves millions of American families at the mercy of conservative legislatures and governorships actively committed to gutting and exploiting any health insurance legislation passed by congress. It makes it so that quality of care for American citizens varies from state to state, when this is a national human rights issue, demanding national responsible action.

FOURAs National Nurses United, the Largest Nurses organization in the nation, wrote when they took a stand opposing this bill:

Major loopholes in the insurance reforms that promise bans on exclusion for pre-existing conditions, and no cancellations for sickness. The loopholes include:

* Provisions permitting insurers and companies to more than double charges to employees who fail “wellness” programs because they have diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol readings, or other medical conditions.
* Insurers are permitted to sell policies “across state lines”, exempting patient protections passed in other states. Insurers will thus set up in the least regulated states in a race to the bottom threatening public protections won by consumers in various states.
* Insurers can charge four times more based on age plus more for certain conditions, and continue to use marketing techniques to cherry-pick healthier, less costly enrollments.
* Insurers may continue to rescind policies for “fraud or intentional misrepresentation” – the main pretext insurance companies now use to cancel coverage.

FIVEThis health bill continues to travesty of multi-tiered layers of health care, based on how much you pay. Meaning the rich continue to have access to the best health care in the country, while the poor continue to be limited to the weakest health care options - if they can even afford to access those (a problem described above.) This is wrong at the most basic level, and any serious reform would have to start with addressing the classism entrenched in our health care system. Failure to do so, makes this a bill that hurts poor families in the long run, as their care standards inevitably decrease, while care standards for those with access to the "top tier" health care continue to expand.

SIXThere's next to no oversight in this bill on denials of care by insurance companies. Even though in California for example, the six biggest insurers in the state have rejected a full one fifth of all claims.

SEVENReproductive rights for women were thrown on the auction block. Nelson's vote was secured by changes to the bill that assault women's rights without the fanfare that accompanied Stupak (house) or Nelson's attempt at a Senate amendment. Planned Parenthood, NOW, NARAL all oppose this bill in its current form (some were hoping that conference would fix it, but opposed health care reform if it did not fix it) as an assault on women and equality of rights.

EIGHTThe excise-tax on the best insurance plans will cause employers to stop offering the best plans and instead offer more crappy, high-deductible, high premium plans that leave Americans in the same situations of rationing their own care. It contributes to the scale-down of health care in this country, a phenomenon that does not help Americans, but does help the insurance industry maximize its profits without large investments.

NINEThere's nothing in the bill that does anything to break-up insurance monopolies. Almost every metro area in the united states is overshadowed by an insurance monopoly, where the only choices for coverage are one or two major insurance corporations - this cripples competition and does nothing to control skyrocketing prices and price gouging. It also makes it difficult to set up functioning so-called "insurance co-ops" when the market is dominated so completely. Add that to ineffective or vauge regulatory oversight left to states, and you have the recipe for more of the same.

I could actually go on. I haven't even gotten to all the ways the Senate Bill fails the American people. But I'm tired of writing.

We may disagree about whether or not the bill should be passed, but public policy analysis is my professional career. It's what I'm trained to do, its what I do. So when I tell you that, in my opinion, this bill will do more to actively harm low-income and working class families in the long run - its based on something, not nothing. We can still disagree, but don't act like I have no idea what I'm talking about.

[upi402]

140. without oversight and enforced strong penalties, it's EPIC FAIL

and insulting.

[mzmolly]

155. As a person with an "ordinary" family, whose members have pre-existing conditions

I deeply disagree.

[Political Heretic]

185. You're "disagreement" comes without any evidence to contradict any claim made.

But only with your own wishful thinking and what you "want" to believe.

By the way, your subject line is insulting.

As a person who also has a "ordinary family" and my own medical problems, who lives within the brackets of low-income and working class families (do you?) that I'm talking about... I don't need you attempting to "contrast" yourself - falsely - to me.

What I do need you to do however, is address these nine points, or stop pretending to be an expert on this health care bill when you're not. In fact you can barely keep the facts straight about what you're talking about.

If you'd care to substantively respond to this critical, deep, failures in the Senate health care bill, I'm listening.

In a thread above, you indicate that "you're done." You're only done because your position has been discredited.

You were wrong about the public option - the administration that you love and believe in even says so.

You were wrong on the coverage and protections provided to low income and working class families, as the limitations and inefficiencies of the tool you attempt to use as a "proof-texting" device are exposed.

You were wrong in your claim that the bill has no critical flaws, as a detailed nine point summary (and it is a summary) of the bills critical flaws which do active harm to low income and working class individuals and families was documented, without any substantive policy disagreement, or counter evidence, only your own personal wishful thinking.

Maybe your own desperate desire for health care, or for a ban on denial based on preexisting conditions is causing you to try to sell a terrible bill just to get a few things you personally need? Maybe it clouds your judgment. I don't know.

What I do know is that you have next to nothing by way of evidence and no response to the mountain of evidence, analysis and professional research institutions and organizations dumping piles of information about why this bill is so horribly problematic for working class people.

We need positive change. And we may even need small positive changes before we can get to big positive changes. Positive change may come one small step at a time.....

The problem here is that this bill doesn't bring positive change. It brings negative change for poor people, status quote for people at the median, and arguably some positive change for people above the median and into varies levels of privilege.

Does that describe you? Is your "ordinary" family part of the upper-middle class white mainstream? What's your families annual income? I don't expect you to answer (though I'd be happy to give you mine) but I can guess.

[mzmolly]

192. You have provided nothing substantial

worthy of critique. You toss around speculation based upon nothing but your "word" and when it's proven incorrect, you continue with the same tactics.

Also, my position is far from discredited. And it's not simply MY position. Nate Silver, Ezra Klein and many others have conducted thoughtful analysis.

Here is a bit from Mr. Silver entitled "Why Progressives Are Batshit Crazy to Oppose the Senate Bill"

I especially like this statement from his analysis:

"We can debate whether $9,000 for a family earning $54,000 is "affordable"; what we know is that it's a hell of a lot more affordable than the status quo, under which the family might have to pay more than twice as much to receive equivalent coverage."




The only error I made (as far as I know) was in conversation with DFL Princess. It was regarding the medicare expansion percentages. I admitted my error.

"What I do know is that you have next to nothing by way of evidence and no response to the mountain of evidence, analysis and professional research institutions and organizations dumping piles of information about why this bill is so horribly problematic for working class people."

Back up this claim. Back up the "mountain" of impartial policy analysis and research that demonstrates how this bill hurts the working class. I'm the only person who has provided evidence by way of impartial analysis ala the Kaiser Foundtion and Nate Silver above.

Here is more about the KFF for the record:

Who We Are

A leader in health policy and communications, the Kaiser Family Foundation is a non-profit, private operating foundation focusing on the major health care issues facing the U.S., as well as the U.S. role in global health policy. Unlike grant-making foundations, Kaiser develops and runs its own research and communications programs, sometimes in partnership with other non-profit research organizations or major media companies.

We serve as a non-partisan source of facts, information, and analysis for policymakers, the media, the health care community, and the public. Our product is information, always provided free of charge — from the most sophisticated policy research, to basic facts and numbers, to information young people can use to improve their health or elderly people can use to understand their Medicare benefits.

The Kaiser Family Foundation is not associated with Kaiser Permanente or Kaiser Industries.

What We Do ~ The Foundation has many programs and a complex organizational chart, but essentially we do three things:

We are a major producer of policy analysis and research ourselves.
We serve as a trusted and independent expert voice in a U.S. health system dominated by commercial, political, and ideological interests; a place where people can turn for unbiased and non-partisan analysis, basic facts, and explanation of the biggest domestic and global health policy issues and public opinion shaping them. This is the role for which we are best known in the U.S. ...

We are a “go to” clearinghouse of news and information for the health policy community.
We operate a large-scale health news and information service on the Web and a series of specialized websites, featuring both data we produce as well as the latest and best data from others, to help to ensure that everyone has the same kind of information and access to events as insiders do. We also make a major effort to assist journalists and news organizations working to inform the public about complex health policy and public health issues. ...

Kaiser develops and helps run large-scale public health information campaigns in the U.S. and around the world.
These currently focus on HIV/AIDS, with an emphasis on reaching young people. Kaiser campaigns are based on a new model of public service programming pioneered by the Foundation —direct partnerships with major media companies and a comprehensive “multi-platform” communications strategy that goes far beyond traditional “PSAs.” Current partners in the U.S. include MTV, BET, Univision, Viacom/CBS, and Fox. Together, Kaiser's campaigns reach tens of millions of people annually, and have won multiple Emmy and Peabody awards in recent years. ...

Your nine point bologna is about as credible as the "death panel" claim made by corporate sponsored analysts.

Regarding "harm" coming to the working class, if you're talking about the excise tax, it may or may not be in the final bill. And Unions (like the SEIU) have recently come out in support of this legislation, in an effort to pursue the greater good.

Regarding income, I've been above and below poverty level in my lifetime and again, this bill is not about me. That doesn't mean I haven't been in a position to watch people who were family, be denied coverage. Or to watch people die in their homes because they had no access to hospice or health care period. YOU, on the other hand, wish to continue with the status quo, for an indefinite period of time, until you have a perfected solution, according to YOU.

Now you tell me what killing this bill will do to the 45,000 people who die annually as a result of not having health insurance. How long can they wait while you pursue perfection? Tell me how you're representing THEM with your rhetoric.

[Political Heretic]

193. Passing this bill would leave 45,000 people in the same situation they are in now:

Going to bed every night praying to god that they never get really sick, since between the premium costs they are still on the hook for, even after insufficient subsidies, and the deductible costs they are still on the hook for, and the out of pocket costs they are still on the hook for (over 10,000 for families) - THEY STILL CANT FUCKING AFFORD HEALTH CARE.

I don't believe that passing a bill that still makes it so that the cost of accessing serious care for critical illness, or long term treatment bankrupts families and throws them into poverty.

But guess what. This bill does.

Handing US a piece of paper and saying "be grateful that we've provided you health insurance - does not matter to us AT ALL when we still can't afford to access care.

Regarding income: nice dodge.

Regarding your "favorite" quote:

"We can debate whether $9,000 for a family earning $54,000 is "affordable"; what we know is that it's a hell of a lot more affordable than the status quo, under which the family might have to pay more than twice as much to receive equivalent coverage."

First of all, 9,000 is a low ball estimate. It is an estimate - a guess. And its low balling it. Second, this is spoken like a true elitist. Saying "hey this is not affordable, but at least its less not-affordable than before" doesn't fucking solve the problems of me, my family, my friends and my community.

I'm not surprised you like that quote so much. :(


The different between me and you, I am convinced, is that you talk about poor people and I AM poor.

"It may not be in the final bill" When we have a different bill other than the passed Senate Bill, then we can talk about that. Passing THIS bill into law is a tragic mistake.

As far as your blow-off of nine fully detailed points of criticism, with reference to both National Nurses United's analysis of the bill and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - it was cheap and pitiful and I'm embarrassed
for you.

So from now on, until you can come up with something better - I've got nothing to say to you other than to repost those criticisms to every reply you make to me.

[mzmolly]

194. Goodnight

PH. It's apparent we will not agree. I will close by saying that I understand poverty, I've lived it.

Peace

[Political Heretic]

195. Then act like it.

Stop arguing for policy that doesn't help, and sets up a system to actively make things worse for the most vulnerable families.

Stop doing it while ignoring mass amounts of clearly identified failures of the bill at hand.

Stop putting wishful thinking and baseless talking points ahead of concrete numbers, some of which were included in the lengthy, detailed nine points already given.

There's nothing to say back to my point millions of families will go to bed the exact same way if this Senate bill was signed into law that they do right now: praying to god that they never get really sick, because if they do it will ruin them.

Simply handing people a meaningless piece of paper and saying "congratulations you have insurance" was never the moral imperative for health care - not insurance - reform. And it is meaningless if you still can't afford to access care when you really need it.

All around the world countries are doing it better, and its a humiliating shame that we can't do the same. Suggesting that we must settle for something that does not help and seems poised to actively harm the most vulnerable families in the long run is an insult. If no one in the world was doing better, it would be one thing. But they are. And yet we're the so-called "greatest country in the world"

[mzmolly]

196. You keep asserting that the bill doesn't help anyone

which is completely absurd. Also, I'm not sure what you consider poor. But if you're ACTUALLY part of the working poor there is NO WAY this bill will not be of help. You'll either qualify for medicaid OR substantial subsidies. Tell me how that is NOT an improvement?

YOU sir are the party inclined toward magical thinking, cynical thinking, at that. You pull numbers out of your backside in your "nine points" mumbo jumbo and suggest I believe what you say, simply because YOU said so? At the same time you have no answers for the 45K people who die as a result of not having access to health care in this country. You have no answers regarding the fact that health care will be less expensive for most Americans who have a need to partake in the plan. You have no answers regarding why you oppose the medicaid expansion in this bill. In fact, you IGNORE it. You have no answers as to why you oppose the addition of 10,000 community clinics, who will treat people based upon a sliding fee. You have nothing but snark and conjecture based upon your bias - PERIOD.

Here are more "concrete numbers" for you, given you fail to acknowledge the concrete numbers I've provided via the Kaiser Foundation (see my sig. line) and NATE SILVER



"The vast, overwhelming majority of families will be better off under this bill. The families in the greatest danger get the most help. They will have insurance that they can use, and if they need it, subsidies to help them afford it. Compared with the status quo, in which about 50 million people have no insurance and tens of millions more have insurance they can't afford to use, this is a massive improvement. As Jonathan Cohn writes, "This is a hugely progressive program to bolster economic security, the likes of which we haven't enacted in this country for a long, long time."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/jane_hamshers_10_reaons_to_kil.html

I was opposed to this bill "No mandates without a nationwide public option!" I said. That is, UNTIL I looked at the numbers, the concrete evidence. Now, I fully support this legislation and I hope the house and senate will get.it.done, and SOON.

YES, I'd prefer a single payer system, but today that's not a realistic goal. We may not even have the votes for the reform in question!

I view this as a stepping stone, not the end zone. This is a foot in the door, and a needed one we can't afford to pass up, once again.

As to what various countries are doing, we've already had the Netherlands discussion.

Can we agree to disagree? Or, do you intend to continue the attempt to bully me, with false assertions and insults until I agree with you?

[Political Heretic]

197. I intend to keep countering incorrect assertions or failed arguments for as long as it takes

which is completely absurd. Also, I'm not sure what you consider poor. But if you're ACTUALLY part of the working poor there is NO WAY this bill will not be of help. You'll either qualify for medicaid OR substantial subsidies. Tell me how that is NOT an improvement?

No actually, I keep asserting that this bill sets up a system which I believe, based on more than a little examples of clear policy failures, will actively hurt low income and working class families in the long run.

I've been telling you how this isn't an improvement. You simply don't care. The subsidies you qualify for go toward paying the insurance premium - that's it. And those subsidies, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities among other experts, are insufficient, leaving families struggling month to month still with premium burdens beyond what can reasonably be called acceptable.

And if that was the only problem, then we might be able to agree that anything is better than nothing. Unfortunately, that's not the only component to quality health care; in fact its not even the biggest component.

The biggest problem is the cost of care itself, not simply the money you pay to buy insurance and have it go unused. On top of premiums you have deductibles, which push a family already not getting enough support to cover premium costs even harder. Worst of all, you then have out of pocket expenses for care. The house bill capped annual out of pocket expenses (that would be co-pays) at $10,000 for families. The Senate Bill raised that number, putting families on the hook for more costs, but I don't currently have an exact figure on how much, so we can stick with just 10,000 as an example.

For all your talk about subsides, there are no subsidies for out of pocket cost. In my example of a family of four living on one income of 60,000 a year in Boston Massachusetts, that family is not exactly living high on the proverbial hog in one of the highest cost of living areas in the country. Based on the guesstimates is the very calculator you have in your signature - assuming a very low estimated premium cost as the tool does - after subsidies the family would be on the hook for 5.5 thousand dollars in premiums. They they pay a deductible. This isn't a so-called "cadillac" plan, since those will be taxed out of existence in this bill, so we can assume a very common 1,000 deductible, bringing the on-the-hook total to 6.5 thousand - more than 10% of that families total income.

"But-" you argue, "none of this matters because its still better than nothing." But now we get to the deal breaker. This family is also on the hook for a maximum of 10,000 out of pocket costs. While we can hope for the best, and pray - as this family surely will - that nothing serious ever happens to any of them, and they never have to access serious long term medical treatment and care, the reality remains that if they do have to seriously access medical treatment, bills can easily go high enough to reach that cap - putting the family on the hook for a staggering 16,500$ of their 60,000 a year income.

(side note - if anyone in this family had a preexisting condition or other special classification, you can multiple the premium cost by three)

And that's precisely where the bill fails to make things even marginally better for too many families. Because right now, I can go see a doctor for basic medical care (check-ups, minor conditions, basic prescriptions) for free. And when I wasn't in an area where I could go to a free clinic like that, the cost to see a doctor with a sliding scale fee was 20$. And if I couldn't do that, the cost to see a doctor for basic treatment was 80$.

Now, 80$ was a lot of money. Too much for me to get preventative care. But often a one time fee of 80$ for a basic medical issue was not what was burdening me about our health care system. It was the fact that I had to live in fear of getting really sick, or being really injured, or ever having to be taken to the hospital, or ever needing surgery.

Under this bill, I go to bed with that exact same fear. The only difference is now I have a piece of paper that says "Congratulations! You're insured!" that I can't afford to use if I am ever really sick. It effectively changes absolutely nothing about my situation. It doesn't make it better in any meaningful way.

If I have a preexisting condition and can now get covered, it doesn't make any practical difference in my life. Why? Because I can't afford to access the health system - even with that coverage, and I could already scrounge around and figure out how to do something basic like see a Doctor for a routine problem on my own. I, like my family, my friends and my community - needed real health reform so that getting sick would not bankrupt us or push us deeper into poverty. And we don't get that with this bill.

On top of all that, there are little to no measures to deal with denial of care one of the biggest problems with our insurance industry today when, in some places, 1 out of every five people has a medical claim denied by their insurance company. 1 in 5! When that happens, and it happens millions and millions of times a year, families with this brand new awesome Senate "Health" Reform bill are on the hook for the entire amount. Just like they were before the bill.

So, as I said - a family making 45,000 a year (your number example) goes to bed every night after insurance reform passes the exact same way they went to be before insurance reform passes - praying to God that they never get seriously sick, because if they do it will ruin them.

At the same time you have no answers for the 45K people who die as a result of not having access to health care in this country.

Yes I do. They will keep dying anyway. This time they will die with a cute little card in their pocket instead of without one. They'll die because the cost of accessing health care is still beyond their ability to afford. Premiums were not the only or even the main barrier. Out of pocket costs and denial of care was.

You have no answers regarding the fact that health care will be less expensive for most Americans who have a need to partake in the plan.

Of course I do. Health premiums will be marginally less expensive. Basic routine doctors visits will be less expensive. Serious health care - continues to be prohibitively, debilitation expensive, and thus out of reach for millions of American families. Whats more, without sufficient regulation, without addressing denials of care, without doing anything sufficient to contain the rising costs of premiums - their lot, my lot, is going to get worse, not better.

You have no answers regarding why you oppose the medicaid expansion in this bill. In fact, you IGNORE it.

I don't know that I do oppose it. Pass it in a separate bill without the things that do long term harm to working class families. I'm not ignoring it; it just doesn't justify passing this harmful bill that doesn't address critical needs of millions of Americans, that does not contain a sufficient protection structure to contain rising costs to the consumer or safeguard against well know abuses such as massive denials of care.

And if fails to do all these things while being an insurance industries wet dream - loaded with huge giveaways to drug companies and insurance. It is true they win if nothing passes, and that is a tragedy. But the working class American families don't suffer long term harm that is twice as hard to fix because its codified into law. The real tragedy is that insurance companies also when if the senate bill does go into law, while working class families lose in the long run.

So pass medicaid expansion, even though medicaid as a program has massive problems and low quality of care and access points. As it is a state-by-state regulated and administered program, it is hardly the "silver bullet" for poor people that you think it is. Of course, had you been actually poor and tried to access medicaid, you'd probably know that. I can't prove that about you of course, but I'd place that bet in Vegas.

But hey in that case, something IS better than nothing, and expanding medicaid, despite its problems would be more helpful than harmful. So make another bill and do it. But don't expect me to support a bill full of trash that harms people in the long run.

You have no answers as to why you oppose the addition of 10,000 community clinics, who will treat people based upon a sliding fee.

Aside from the fact that opening free clinics as comprehensive health care reform is an insulting joke, I never said I opposed it. Pass it as a separate bill. Don't expect me to vote for trash that will harm people in the long run in order to get more health clinics.

Here are more "concrete numbers" for you, given you fail to acknowledge the concrete numbers I've provided via the Kaiser Foundation (see my sig. line) and NATE SILVER

There's nothing "concrete" about these "numbers" your linking me to written by the senior editor of the New Republic Brilliant. The total risk for a poor family with insurance reform, according to even these numbers is SEVENTEEN PERCENT OF ANNUAL INCOME.

And that's based on costs of premiums alone. Premiums. Get it? Premiums does not equal health care. It's what very small part of a picture being largely ignored or made worse by this bill. Being at risk for 17% of your income is completely unacceptable. That translates into UNAFFORDABLE to working poor, and yet another thing to keep them pushed down into poverty.

I was opposed to this bill "No mandates without a nationwide public option!" I said. That is, UNTIL I looked at the numbers, the concrete evidence. Now, I fully support this legislation and I hope the house and senate will get.it.done, and SOON.

Good luck.

I, on the other hand, was for this bill UNTIL I looked at, and understood, a multitude of numbers, and analysis assessing more than just "OMG IT LOWERZ PREMIUMZ!!1!!1" Once I saw the comprehensive assessments made on the impact of this bill on low income and working class individuals and families, I opposed it.

[mzmolly]

199. Spreading misinformation with great zeal, doesn't make it so.

You mention the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities as being essentially on your side in this debate. NOT SO. In fact they have called the pending legislation, as is, "A VAST IMPROVEMENT." They also oppose your suggestion of passing the bill in pieces saying doing so will drive up cost.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3062

They also note that employer based plans cost Americans up to 25% of their income CURRENTLY. And, they advocate for subsidizing premiums, which this bill does.

"In recent days, some policymakers have suggested that Congress should consider forgoing comprehensive legislation and enacting instead a scaled-back bill that focuses primarily on these popular health insurance market reforms. As President Obama, Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, and other analysts and commentators have pointed out, however, this approach will not work; it could disrupt existing insurance markets and cause health insurance premiums to spike.

These market reforms will work properly only if they are enacted as part of broader health reform legislation that includes, among other things, both a requirement for individuals to have health insurance and provisions to make health insurance affordable for people of modest means. These elements are included in the comprehensive health bills that the House and Senate have passed."

...

Robust health insurance market reforms are badly needed and constitute a key element of health reform. Passage of these types of insurance reforms in isolation, however, would not constitute effective reform. It would drive up the cost of coverage and cause insurance premiums to rise, with the result that fewer people would be able to afford insurance and some healthy people who now have coverage would likely decide it made more sense to go without it.

For insurance market reforms to be successful, they must be enacted as part of comprehensive health reform that includes an individual mandate and provisions to make health insurance affordable. These are the key elements of the House and Senate bills.

In addition, rather than suggest the bill be killed, as you do, they support improving the bill in reconciliation.

"To require people of modest means to stretch their budgets to pay substantial amounts for coverage that provides many of them with only modest help in meeting their health care costs, because of the high deductibles it carries, would pose various problems. As the House and Senate move forward to hammer out final legislation, Congress should accord priority to improving the affordability provisions in the Senate bill."

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3045

...

"Some critics have charged that using reconciliation to enact a major change in policy, such as health reform, would be unprecedented and would represent a gross misuse of the process. A review of the past use of reconciliation demonstrates, however, that this charge is incorrect:"

More at link >>>>> http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3059

Also, by your logic, we should cancel medicare, because some Seniors can't afford all their medication.

"Once I saw the comprehensive assessments made on the impact of this bill on low income and working class individuals and families, I opposed it."

WHERE ARE THESE ASSESSMENTS YOU SPEAK OF? I'M WAITING FOR YOU TO PROVIDE JUST 'ONE' IMPARTIAL, CREDIBLE SOURCE that suggests we "KILL THE BILL." YOU HAVEN'T DONE SO, WHY?!

You assert that I've never been poor, which is quite odd. Being poor is nothing to be proud, or ashamed of. It really doesn't matter does it? Poor people certainly disagree, like those who are wealthy and all in between. Having been poor, is not a trump card in this debate. I will say, I would not lie about my circumstances past or present. Though, I'm not going to try and prove anything to you.

In closing, let me ask you the following question. Do you support passing the house version of the bill?

[Political Heretic]

201. That's not correct. I actually told you everything you just quoted me about CBPP

The Center on Budget and Policy priorities said that the bill would be an improvement, conditional on key failures being fixed in conference. I actually told you that on more than one occasion.

In the very same study in which they conclude that Senate Subsidies are insufficient, they want to see those deficiencies fixed in conference, because they conclude that the bill is better than nothing. I told you all this before, with the link to the analysis itself.

But that this option is gone, and when considering the Senate Bill AS IS, we have a whole different ball of wax.

The CBPP supports trying to fix the bill in reconciliation. I'd support that too, in theory. What I don't support is passing the Senate Health Bill as is and then trying to pass a "patch" to fix it through reconciliation later.

Why not? Because there are no guarantees what the Senate will pass, and insufficient power of any other body to hold them accountable to do so once a bad bill is law. I would prefer that the Senate bill was crapped, and a new bill was created that would be passed through reconciliation if necessary.

These are quibbling points of disagreement. They have nothing to do with facts of the bill, only policy strategy.

Also, by your measure of perfection, we should cancel medicare, because some Senior can't afford medication. I say lets improve medicare, as well as the Senate bill.

Hardly. Seniors can afford access to long term medical care and treatment, and do not have to go to bed every night praying to god that they don't get really sick. And Medicare isn't being passed as national health reform when it isn't, either. A couple key differences.

WHERE ARE THESE ASSESSMENTS YOU SPEAK OF? I'M WAITING FOR YOU TO PROVIDE JUST 'ONE' IMPARTIAL, CREDIBLE SOURCE that suggests we "KILL THE BILL." YOU HAVEN'T DONE SO, WHY?!

It's not that I haven't done so - over and over and over again. It's that you don't care what they say. Here's what will happen. I'll post something like this (which I have done before)

http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/in-the-news/2009/december/nation-s-largest-rn-organization-says-healthcare-bill-cedes-too-much-to-insurance-industry.html

And you will instantly go into defense mode, attempting to find something - anything - no matter how ridiculous to argue any point, or to discredit the source and kick up sand.

If it does not say what you want to hear, then its not "impartial" or "credible." So why bother re-distributing the same material I've been distributing to you and everyone else over and over again?

You assert that I've never been poor, which is quite odd. Being poor is nothing to be proud, or ashamed of. It really doesn't matter does it? Poor people certainly disagree, like those who are wealthy and all in between. Having been poor, is not a trump card in this debate.

Of course it is. And no, I don't believe you have any serious, long term experience with real honest-to-god poverty. I can't prove that, but its my suspicion, based on the very way you write and speak about policy as an outsider.

And when one has no serious, significant immersion in poverty themselves, they're perspective on what's good "for them" and what's good policy or bad policy is dramatically skewed - going on and on about fractional gains that continue to keep millions and millions of families effectively locked out of quality care, all so they can get a largely useless insurance card that doesn't solve the problems we asked to be solved and doesn't give them effective health care in this country.

All for a political victory, and so the comfortable and complacent classes forever detached from honest-to-god poverty (but 100% of which swear up and down that they've "been poor" once) can feel good and score one for the political party if their choice.

Until over-privileged outsiders stop coming in and telling poor people what's "good for them" and instead let poor people ourselves, on the ground in our own communities and with our own deep immersion in the realities of poverty in America today, speak for ourselves and be heard, little will change.

In closing, let me ask you the following question. Do you support passing the house version of the bill?

We don't have a house version to pass, so it doesn't matter. And its been a while sense I've been immersed in the policy details of the House bill.

But as far as I can remember, without having the house version in front of me right now, and without as much detailed examination as I have given the Senate Bill - yes I think that the bill, while not everything we need, at least does more good than harm for low income and working families.

At this point in the nearly lost fight, that could in fact be better than nothing. Though not without a sincere sense of how much our politicians failed the American people with ridiculous political strategies and shameful capitulation to privileged interests at the expense of the working class. But support of the House version comes with all those caveats. It's been a while since I've had my teeth into the House bill, and I might be wrong. But I start from the premise of support it for the reasons I gave.

OF course we don't have that option now. There are only two options on the table. One, get the House to pass the Senate Bill as is with some non-binding promise that the Senate will "fix it" later through reconciliation - a promise I wouldn't trust further than I can spit. Two, start over.

If some other options emerges that alters the shape of the Senate Bill before it passes, then of course I'll be required to reexamine the bill.

[mzmolly]

206. Actually the CBPP said either bill would be a VAST IMPROVEMENT

and the house bill an even greater one. You contradict yourself above in your first two paragraphs. Their mention of a vast improvement was not conditional as you suggest.

As to not having the house version in front of you, the KFF link in my sig line (which you claim to have examined) provides one with a handy dandy comparison of the two bills. The House has already indicated that they will only vote to pass the Senate bill IF the bill has key improvements in reconciliation. This is why the bill hasn't floated through the house thus far. They're working on a deal.

I'm comfortable with my statements on your failure to provide impartial, credible examination of HC legislation while spouting off about how we'd all be worse off if the bill passes. The CNA, whom you've noted before, is a single payer or bust organization. They have an agenda. You said several impartial bodies oppose the legislation. You have not backed up your claim.

On poverty, I posted this a while ago, about my experience with "real, honest to God poverty," by US standards.

http://www.democraticunderground.org/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7283251&mesg_id=7289168

Again, I don't feel it's a trump card, and I don't care what you believe.

"If some other options emerges that alters the shape of the Senate Bill before it passes, then of course I'll be required to reexamine the bill."

We'll leave it at that. I'm getting on with my weekend.

[Political Heretic]

211. That's simply untrue.

and the house bill an even greater one. You contradict yourself above in your first two paragraphs. Their mention of a vast improvement was not conditional as you suggest.

The CBPP said that the subsidies in the Senate version were insufficient for low income people and that it needed to be cleaned up in conference. And they say so. Clearly. In their own words.

Subsidies in Senate Health Bill Would Be Inadequate for Many Low- and Moderate-Income Households, Need Improvement in Conference

and

Conclusion

To require people of modest means to stretch their budgets to pay substantial amounts for coverage that provides many of them with only modest help in meeting their health care costs, because of the high deductibles it carries, would pose various problems. As the House and Senate move forward to hammer out final legislation, Congress should accord priority to improving the affordability provisions in the Senate bill.

Relative to the Senate legislation, the final bill should move as close to the House provisions as possible on premium subsidies for households with incomes below 250 percent of the poverty line, strengthen the Senate’s cost-sharing assistance for individuals and families with incomes up to about 300 percent of the poverty line, and expand Medicaid to cover children and adults with incomes up to 150 percent of the poverty line while adopting the House provisions on raising primary care provider payments in Medicaid. The final legislation also should include measures that produce the necessary savings and revenues to fully cover the costs of these improvements.

The final legislation does not contain these things.

Then on Jan 27, appears another CBPP you cite. Only it doesn't conclude what you claim.

Low- and Moderate-Income People Need Assistance to Make Coverage Affordable

An individual mandate, of course, will not work without assistance to make coverage sufficiently affordable for people of modest means. In 2009, the premium for a typical employer plan, which is less expensive than a comparable policy sold in the individual market, averaged $13,375 per year for a family policy.<7> This represents more than a quarter of the pre-tax income of a family of four earning $50,000 a year.

Low- and moderate-income individuals and families, who make up the bulk of the uninsured, often struggle already to pay for basic items such as food, housing, and utilities. A requirement to purchase health coverage without adequate subsidies could cause these households’ budgets to unravel. A 2005 Urban Institute study found that only about 20 percent of uninsured people could afford to purchase insurance coverage on their own. <8>

And as they wrote on Jan 8th, subsidies are currently insufficient for low income families.

The CBPP position is this:

-- They want a health care bill
-- They describe the many benefits to moderate and upper income people in this bill
-- They describe the deficiencies for low income people in this bill and want them changed before the final bill is signed into law
-- Given where we are now in the process, they support reconciliation as the tool to make those changes and pass one comprehensive bill.

My position is this:
-- I want a health care bill
-- the many benefits to moderate and upper income people do not outweigh the deficiencies for low-income and working class individuals and families
-- the many benefits are unfortunately not greater than the critical defects in the bill in areas of oversight, regulation, and in the failure to address critical, show-stopping issues such as cost of care and denials of care
-- Given where we are now in the process, I would support scrapping the senate bill that passed, and immediately passing a new bill that fixes these critical mistakes through reconciliation, where it could be passed in the house and signed into law.
-- I do NOT support signing the Senate Bill into law based on some promise that the Senate will "fix it later" through reconciliation.

Whether the CBPP cares more about benefits to the upper-middle class than it does the liabilities to the poor, is a matter of debate. You highlight the portion of their summaries which suggest the bill's good points and benefits to people who don't really need it. I highlight the portion which suggests the bill's failures for low income and working class families.

For me, those failures outweigh the benefits. If the CBPP ultimately disagrees, then I disagree with them. But so far, that's not quite what's happening. What's happening is you picking and choosing their words to fit what you want it to say.

No questions the CBPP wants health reform, and they operate under the believe that any marginal gains is better than nothing. The believe that we are close, and that we should use every procedural tool possible to get in done, and that we should not split reform up into parts. I'm not disputing that and you're not disputing that.

What you leave out however, is their constant statements that key parts must be changed prior to this bill becoming law and that failure to do so hurts working class families.

The CBPP doesn't get into other key areas. It discusses financial impacts. It does not discuss the issue of cost of care, which is disappointing. It doesn't discuss lack of regulation, the failure to address denial of care and the host of tools insurance companies use to cancel policies of people who start to cost them too much - legally. They didn't discuss the price variance between plans, the continuation of class-based quality of care. And on and on.

On poverty, I posted this a while ago, about my experience with "real, honest to God poverty," by US standards.

.....when you were 13. And not the head of a household. Not responsible for any of the burden of trying to make ends meet. To young to even understand the implications or quantify the experiences.

Brilliant. And makes perfect sense to me. Everyone loves to talk about how poor they were when they were a kid, and sometimes its true. But it has almost no connection to actually understanding poverty for yourself. To understand that, fully you have to be the head of a household responsible to provide.

Of course its not true that its the only way people can be sympathetic to the plight of poverty. But without that kind of adult qualitiative experience of what deep poverty is really like - we end up with too people like you, having to go all the way back to their childhood to say "I know poverty!" while advocating ideas that completely miss the need for poor people and fail to understand the reality of the experience.

Again, I don't feel it's a trump card, and I don't care what you believe.

If you don't care then stop writing about it. :)

[mzmolly]

215. Sorry dude, you fail

again. I didn't magically stop living in poverty when I was 13. Also, I don't trust that you actually know any more about poverty than what you've been told. On to other things...

I'm going to tweak your CBPP wish list a bit as I understand it:

-- They want a health care bill that works to reduce cost, expand coverage, strengthens affordability, and reduces the deficit
-- They describe the many benefits to moderate and upper income people in this bill, as well as lower income people who qualify for the new medicaid expansion
-- They describe the deficiencies for a percentage of low income people in this bill and want them changed before the final bill is signed into law. However they indicate that passage of the Senate Bill is "landmark legislation" that would would "represent a dramatic improvement over the current health insurance system" regardless

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3006

"The new Senate health bill marks a major step toward comprehensive, fiscally responsible health reform. It would extend health insurance coverage to 31 million Americans who lack it, reduce the budget deficit, and put long-term downward pressure on health care costs."

...

The Senate should now move without delay to consider this landmark legislation, which would represent a dramatic improvement over the current health insurance system."

Bottom line, I agree with the group that you chose to use to advance your position. You don't. I agree that we should improve the bill in reconciliation. I have confidence that can and will be done.

It seems to me your biggest issue with the bill stated here? http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3004

"For people between 134 percent and 154 percent of the poverty line, however — people with incomes around $25,000 to $28,000 for a family of three — premiums would actually be higher than the already significant amounts they would have to pay under the Finance Committee bill. Modifications are needed at some point as the legislation moves forward to ensure that near-poor families and individuals do not face insurance premiums and cost-sharing charges that many of them could have difficulty affording."

Though, instead of trusting that the bill will be modified now, or in the future you'd rather start anew like the Republicans, correct?

Instead of the tit for tat, let's discuss what we agree on shall we? We agree that the doughnut hole created, effecting the working poor needs to be rectified. Perhaps we can find common ground in our advocacy for that issue? Can you agree to advocate for strengthening this portion of the bill, or are you of the kill the bill ilk, regardless?

:shrug:

[Political Heretic]

223. Okay, despite the last subject line jab, I agree to refocus on where we can agree.

Instead of the tit for tat, let's discuss what we agree on shall we? We agree that the doughnut hole created, effecting the working poor needs to be rectified. Perhaps we can find common ground in our advocacy for that issue? Can you agree to advocate for strengthening this portion of the bill, or are you of the kill the bill ilk, regardless?

I can agree to strengthening this portion of the bill, before it is made law. If there's some way that conference could still be an option, that would be one way. Or if the senate would simply pass another bill, through reconciliation and send that to the house instead - that would be another option.

That does not seem that scary to me. And doesn't really even fell like "killing the bill." But they could take the basic structure of the currently passed Senate Bill, modify it, and pass the strengthened bill with 51 votes.

The House could then vote to approve that bill and let the previous version die. I could get behind that as well, assuming that what I believe to be critical flaws were addressed.

I'm extremely uncomfortable with passing what I consider to be a fatally flawed bill with only a word-of-mouth promise that it will be fixed through reconciliation measures to be too great a risk to me. I don't trust the Senate and they have given me no reason to trust them. If we got stuck with the Senate Bill as is I think that would be a terrible setback.

My ultimate desire is for health care reform that I feel confident will not make the problems we currently have in health insurance worse by doing nothing to stop gross abuses or major holes. If we could address those, even partially - if there was anyway to get health care to a place where I felt it did more marginal good than potential harm - I'd support it.

Ultimately however, I strongly believe that our policy should prioritize the needs of low income and working class individuals and families first, middle class and upper middle class needs second, and the wants and whims of the upper class and investor class last.

That's a tall order in our society, which barely speaks about poverty or the poor by name, and targets everything at the vacuous and expansive grouping called "middle class" in name, and often even then only uses them as a talking point while delivering policy that overwhelming favors the wealth and financial elite.

In this case, with Health Care, its more than I feel the people who were used score points during the campaign, poor people and the uninsured, are getting screwed - because the provisions of the bill leave them on the hook for potentially huge, huge amounts of money for access to care, combined with the cost of premiums and deductibles which, while better, are still potentially prohibitive. These were the very people referenced in campaign speeches from all candidates and used to generate sympathy for the need for reform. But now, they are an afterthought.

We can and must do better. Maybe we could pass the bill as is and fix it later. I can't prove that wouldn't work. But I have to make a decision based on my best guess. And based on what we know from policy and politics historically, and given the fact that this bill leaves critical exploitative and corrupt practices of insurance companies almost completely unchecked - I fear that passing the bill as is will only solidify insurances stranglehold, give them free reign to continue their explosive raising of costs to consumers, continue to mass-deny claims and continue to use fraudulent justifications to terminate polices.

Enshrining that system, and removing all political will to substantively change it, I think does more harm than good to the most at-risk portions of our society in the long run.

What's why I am both so worried, and so passionate about it.

Look however you feel, whether we find some common ground or not, its going to have to wait as I'm heading out of town. I promise myself that I won't be accessing the internet while I'm away, but we'll see if I can keep my promise. See ya in two days.

[mzmolly]

225. I agree with much of what you stated.

Perhaps when you get back into town we can organize around the issue of urging the strengthening of subsidies for the working poor in the final bill? I am not sure how to best advocate for this, but calling Pelosi and Reid's offices may be a start?

Where we disagree in a nutshell, is on the impact this bill will have in the area of reform, in the short and long term. I see this as a beginning as I've said. I think attitudes on our collective acceptance of insurance industry abuses will be far less tolerant, when these companies essentially answer to tax payers.

Have a great time on your trip.

[Political Heretic]

212. PS --

People need quality care. If this bill passes guess what? Our health care will still lag behind the rest of the industrialized world in quality and affordability of care.

ONEThe bill actively HARMS low income and working class individuals and families by gutting the subsidies for people who can't afford health insurance. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities confirms what I'm saying, and shows that subsidies are now insufficient, with post-subsidy average premiums still a huge and preventative percentage of a poor family's income. At the time they wrote the analysis, they still supported the bill with the provision that subsidies be addressed before final passage - they take the anything is better than nothing attitude; I do not. However, it does not matter, since their condition for support isn't being met now, in that there's no movement in the Senate to negotiate their weak subsidies at all.

TWOThe bill does nothing to deal with the cost of car itself. The annual out of pocket expenses cap is so high over 10,000$ for a family, that any critical or long-term health care will still do what it's been doing: saddle working class families with so much debt that it bankrupts them and/or throws them into poverty, and prevent low-income families from seeking health insurance at all.

Whether the Senate Bill passes or doesn't, the same millions of Americans without insurance today will go to be saying the same prayer - god, please don't let me get really sick, because if I ever have to be in the hospital or deal with a serious illness, it will ruin me and my family. They'll be praying the same prayer after "insurance reform" passes, even if they - as you say - have "access" to health insurance.

THREEThe bill leaves the big questions of regulation and oversight of the insurance industry and its practices unanswered - punting most of the most critical pieces of regulation to states, for a state-by-state answer. This leaves millions of American families at the mercy of conservative legislatures and governorships actively committed to gutting and exploiting any health insurance legislation passed by congress. It makes it so that quality of care for American citizens varies from state to state, when this is a national human rights issue, demanding national responsible action.

FOURAs National Nurses United, the Largest Nurses organization in the nation, wrote when they took a stand opposing this bill:

Major loopholes in the insurance reforms that promise bans on exclusion for pre-existing conditions, and no cancellations for sickness. The loopholes include:

* Provisions permitting insurers and companies to more than double charges to employees who fail “wellness” programs because they have diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol readings, or other medical conditions.
* Insurers are permitted to sell policies “across state lines”, exempting patient protections passed in other states. Insurers will thus set up in the least regulated states in a race to the bottom threatening public protections won by consumers in various states.
* Insurers can charge four times more based on age plus more for certain conditions, and continue to use marketing techniques to cherry-pick healthier, less costly enrollments.
* Insurers may continue to rescind policies for “fraud or intentional misrepresentation” – the main pretext insurance companies now use to cancel coverage.

FIVEThis health bill continues to travesty of multi-tiered layers of health care, based on how much you pay. Meaning the rich continue to have access to the best health care in the country, while the poor continue to be limited to the weakest health care options - if they can even afford to access those (a problem described above.) This is wrong at the most basic level, and any serious reform would have to start with addressing the classism entrenched in our health care system. Failure to do so, makes this a bill that hurts poor families in the long run, as their care standards inevitably decrease, while care standards for those with access to the "top tier" health care continue to expand.

SIXThere's next to no oversight in this bill on denials of care by insurance companies. Even though in California for example, the six biggest insurers in the state have rejected a full one fifth of all claims.

SEVENReproductive rights for women were thrown on the auction block. Nelson's vote was secured by changes to the bill that assault women's rights without the fanfare that accompanied Stupak (house) or Nelson's attempt at a Senate amendment. Planned Parenthood, NOW, NARAL all oppose this bill in its current form (some were hoping that conference would fix it, but opposed health care reform if it did not fix it) as an assault on women and equality of rights.

EIGHTThe excise-tax on the best insurance plans will cause employers to stop offering the best plans and instead offer more crappy, high-deductible, high premium plans that leave Americans in the same situations of rationing their own care. It contributes to the scale-down of health care in this country, a phenomenon that does not help Americans, but does help the insurance industry maximize its profits without large investments.

NINEThere's nothing in the bill that does anything to break-up insurance monopolies. Almost every metro area in the united states is overshadowed by an insurance monopoly, where the only choices for coverage are one or two major insurance corporations - this cripples competition and does nothing to control skyrocketing prices and price gouging. It also makes it difficult to set up functioning so-called "insurance co-ops" when the market is dominated so completely. Add that to ineffective or vauge regulatory oversight left to states, and you have the recipe for more of the same.

[Political Heretic]

205. PS --

People need quality care. If this bill passes guess what? Our health care will still lag behind the rest of the industrialized world in quality and affordability of care.

ONEThe bill actively HARMS low income and working class individuals and families by gutting the subsidies for people who can't afford health insurance. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities confirms what I'm saying, and shows that subsidies are now insufficient, with post-subsidy average premiums still a huge and preventative percentage of a poor family's income. At the time they wrote the analysis, they still supported the bill with the provision that subsidies be addressed before final passage - they take the anything is better than nothing attitude; I do not. However, it does not matter, since their condition for support isn't being met now, in that there's no movement in the Senate to negotiate their weak subsidies at all.

TWOThe bill does nothing to deal with the cost of car itself. The annual out of pocket expenses cap is so high over 10,000$ for a family, that any critical or long-term health care will still do what it's been doing: saddle working class families with so much debt that it bankrupts them and/or throws them into poverty, and prevent low-income families from seeking health insurance at all.

Whether the Senate Bill passes or doesn't, the same millions of Americans without insurance today will go to be saying the same prayer - god, please don't let me get really sick, because if I ever have to be in the hospital or deal with a serious illness, it will ruin me and my family. They'll be praying the same prayer after "insurance reform" passes, even if they - as you say - have "access" to health insurance.

THREEThe bill leaves the big questions of regulation and oversight of the insurance industry and its practices unanswered - punting most of the most critical pieces of regulation to states, for a state-by-state answer. This leaves millions of American families at the mercy of conservative legislatures and governorships actively committed to gutting and exploiting any health insurance legislation passed by congress. It makes it so that quality of care for American citizens varies from state to state, when this is a national human rights issue, demanding national responsible action.

FOURAs National Nurses United, the Largest Nurses organization in the nation, wrote when they took a stand opposing this bill:

Major loopholes in the insurance reforms that promise bans on exclusion for pre-existing conditions, and no cancellations for sickness. The loopholes include:

* Provisions permitting insurers and companies to more than double charges to employees who fail “wellness” programs because they have diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol readings, or other medical conditions.
* Insurers are permitted to sell policies “across state lines”, exempting patient protections passed in other states. Insurers will thus set up in the least regulated states in a race to the bottom threatening public protections won by consumers in various states.
* Insurers can charge four times more based on age plus more for certain conditions, and continue to use marketing techniques to cherry-pick healthier, less costly enrollments.
* Insurers may continue to rescind policies for “fraud or intentional misrepresentation” – the main pretext insurance companies now use to cancel coverage.

FIVEThis health bill continues to travesty of multi-tiered layers of health care, based on how much you pay. Meaning the rich continue to have access to the best health care in the country, while the poor continue to be limited to the weakest health care options - if they can even afford to access those (a problem described above.) This is wrong at the most basic level, and any serious reform would have to start with addressing the classism entrenched in our health care system. Failure to do so, makes this a bill that hurts poor families in the long run, as their care standards inevitably decrease, while care standards for those with access to the "top tier" health care continue to expand.

SIXThere's next to no oversight in this bill on denials of care by insurance companies. Even though in California for example, the six biggest insurers in the state have rejected a full one fifth of all claims.

SEVENReproductive rights for women were thrown on the auction block. Nelson's vote was secured by changes to the bill that assault women's rights without the fanfare that accompanied Stupak (house) or Nelson's attempt at a Senate amendment. Planned Parenthood, NOW, NARAL all oppose this bill in its current form (some were hoping that conference would fix it, but opposed health care reform if it did not fix it) as an assault on women and equality of rights.

EIGHTThe excise-tax on the best insurance plans will cause employers to stop offering the best plans and instead offer more crappy, high-deductible, high premium plans that leave Americans in the same situations of rationing their own care. It contributes to the scale-down of health care in this country, a phenomenon that does not help Americans, but does help the insurance industry maximize its profits without large investments.

NINEThere's nothing in the bill that does anything to break-up insurance monopolies. Almost every metro area in the united states is overshadowed by an insurance monopoly, where the only choices for coverage are one or two major insurance corporations - this cripples competition and does nothing to control skyrocketing prices and price gouging. It also makes it difficult to set up functioning so-called "insurance co-ops" when the market is dominated so completely. Add that to ineffective or vauge regulatory oversight left to states, and you have the recipe for more of the same.

[mzmolly]

209. .

:nopity:

[Political Heretic]

198. PS--

People need quality care. If this bill passes guess what? Our health care will still lag behind the rest of the industrialized world in quality and affordability of care.

ONEThe bill actively HARMS low income and working class individuals and families by gutting the subsidies for people who can't afford health insurance. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities confirms what I'm saying, and shows that subsidies are now insufficient, with post-subsidy average premiums still a huge and preventative percentage of a poor family's income. At the time they wrote the analysis, they still supported the bill with the provision that subsidies be addressed before final passage - they take the anything is better than nothing attitude; I do not. However, it does not matter, since their condition for support isn't being met now, in that there's no movement in the Senate to negotiate their weak subsidies at all.

TWOThe bill does nothing to deal with the cost of car itself. The annual out of pocket expenses cap is so high over 10,000$ for a family, that any critical or long-term health care will still do what it's been doing: saddle working class families with so much debt that it bankrupts them and/or throws them into poverty, and prevent low-income families from seeking health insurance at all.

Whether the Senate Bill passes or doesn't, the same millions of Americans without insurance today will go to be saying the same prayer - god, please don't let me get really sick, because if I ever have to be in the hospital or deal with a serious illness, it will ruin me and my family. They'll be praying the same prayer after "insurance reform" passes, even if they - as you say - have "access" to health insurance.

THREEThe bill leaves the big questions of regulation and oversight of the insurance industry and its practices unanswered - punting most of the most critical pieces of regulation to states, for a state-by-state answer. This leaves millions of American families at the mercy of conservative legislatures and governorships actively committed to gutting and exploiting any health insurance legislation passed by congress. It makes it so that quality of care for American citizens varies from state to state, when this is a national human rights issue, demanding national responsible action.

FOURAs National Nurses United, the Largest Nurses organization in the nation, wrote when they took a stand opposing this bill:

Major loopholes in the insurance reforms that promise bans on exclusion for pre-existing conditions, and no cancellations for sickness. The loopholes include:

* Provisions permitting insurers and companies to more than double charges to employees who fail “wellness” programs because they have diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol readings, or other medical conditions.
* Insurers are permitted to sell policies “across state lines”, exempting patient protections passed in other states. Insurers will thus set up in the least regulated states in a race to the bottom threatening public protections won by consumers in various states.
* Insurers can charge four times more based on age plus more for certain conditions, and continue to use marketing techniques to cherry-pick healthier, less costly enrollments.
* Insurers may continue to rescind policies for “fraud or intentional misrepresentation” – the main pretext insurance companies now use to cancel coverage.

FIVEThis health bill continues to travesty of multi-tiered layers of health care, based on how much you pay. Meaning the rich continue to have access to the best health care in the country, while the poor continue to be limited to the weakest health care options - if they can even afford to access those (a problem described above.) This is wrong at the most basic level, and any serious reform would have to start with addressing the classism entrenched in our health care system. Failure to do so, makes this a bill that hurts poor families in the long run, as their care standards inevitably decrease, while care standards for those with access to the "top tier" health care continue to expand.

SIXThere's next to no oversight in this bill on denials of care by insurance companies. Even though in California for example, the six biggest insurers in the state have rejected a full one fifth of all claims.

SEVENReproductive rights for women were thrown on the auction block. Nelson's vote was secured by changes to the bill that assault women's rights without the fanfare that accompanied Stupak (house) or Nelson's attempt at a Senate amendment. Planned Parenthood, NOW, NARAL all oppose this bill in its current form (some were hoping that conference would fix it, but opposed health care reform if it did not fix it) as an assault on women and equality of rights.

EIGHTThe excise-tax on the best insurance plans will cause employers to stop offering the best plans and instead offer more crappy, high-deductible, high premium plans that leave Americans in the same situations of rationing their own care. It contributes to the scale-down of health care in this country, a phenomenon that does not help Americans, but does help the insurance industry maximize its profits without large investments.

NINEThere's nothing in the bill that does anything to break-up insurance monopolies. Almost every metro area in the united states is overshadowed by an insurance monopoly, where the only choices for coverage are one or two major insurance corporations - this cripples competition and does nothing to control skyrocketing prices and price gouging. It also makes it difficult to set up functioning so-called "insurance co-ops" when the market is dominated so completely. Add that to ineffective or vauge regulatory oversight left to states, and you have the recipe for more of the same.

[mzmolly]

200. I've responded to your so called "nine points"

previously.

[Political Heretic]

203. No you didn't.

You said "there's nothing of substance there."

Which as anyone who reads can see and decide for themselves, is horse shit.

[mzmolly]

210. You really should work on that memory thing,

given you're trying to find work and all.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7584303&mesg_id=7594710

Bye :hi:

[Political Heretic]

214. Oh dear god. THAT is your response?

1. Medicaid is greatly expanded, subsidies pertain to families making up to 88K.

That's not a response because the first point was never about that. It was about the fact that the subsidies are grossly insufficient.

10K is the max for a family, currently there is NO cap.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009... /


That's EXACTLY what I said. As the ARTICLE says, which you obviously cut and paste without even reading, the "cap" we are referring to is not a cap in services but a "cap" in the amount of out of pocket expenses a family has to pay. It's 10,000 in the House version, higher in the Senate version.

From the article: "In the House legislation, outlined in section 122, the annual cap on out-of-pocket expenses is $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family." The Senate version makes those caps weaker (higher)

Your "response" - isn't a response to the issue at all. You just ignore it.

3. Regarding regulation see the Latimes article below entitled > "Senate health care bill now relies on regulation" ... "Democrats in the House and Senate have filled their bills with a dizzying array of rules and regulations on insurers. The insurance market provisions in the Senate bill alone run nearly 400 pages."

Let me get this straight... your response to not just the claim of insufficient regulation but the examples of it is to say "well there's a LOT of them so it must be good!" That's hot.

4. Many major medical organizations endorse the plan

Uh, okay. And?

In addition, the poor often have better access to care than those in the middle.

That is the most idiotic statement I've ever read. They neither have better access to care nor to they have better access to high quality care. And responding to these concerns by saying "but we're opening up free clinics" is basically the equivalent of saying "let them eat cake."

Again, I disagree.

That's not a refute of the point.

I support choice, but I would not deny others life saving health care, because this bill may or may not include abortion coverage when all is said and done.

When all is said and done? It's DONE.

The excise tax may be a none issue after reconciliation. However SEIU President, Andy Stern just came out strongly supporting the bill. Also, Insurance companies would not offer top tier plans, if they didn't profit from them.

Your last sentence is the whole point.

9. Again a state opt in public option can break up insurance monopolies. It's up to individuals in every state to elect people who represent their best interests. For example when, say Texas sees that a public option did not result in "death panels" a few years from now, we'll be able to better combat the myths and achieve the goal of busting up monopolies in every state.

You calling it an "opt in" is bullshit. Basically, states have to pass their own health care reform. There's no federal structure to opt in to in the bill. And thats fine maybe state be state was were the battle will be won, but that doesn't make the federal mess any better, and only complicates state level efforts to do the right thing.

The bottom line is that this legislation helps those without access to health insurance.

Not really, no.

[mzmolly]

218. Yes, and I'm satisfied

with it. :)

[CreekDog]

139. if the plan was to have this all happen as a result of the SOTU, then he is playing chess

not convinced yet, but it's crossed my mind.

[mzmolly]

164. I think these

things are coordinated. If he didn't feel he had support, he'd have pulled back in the SOTU, IMHO. ;)

[CreekDog]

165. I'm not convinced it was the plan though, because Axelrod says there was no plan

Holy Crap.

The swing votes for healthcare were either warmed over Republicans and/or 105 years old and there was no contingency for losing one of those votes?

Unforgivable. :grr:

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

White House Didn't Have MA-Sen Health Care Contingency Plan

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/white-house-didnt-have-ma-sen-health-care-contingency-plan.php?ref=fpa

[mzmolly]

170. I don't think they planned to lose

MA. But I think they may have had a back up plan to pass HC and let the President "lead" on this issue in the SOTU. Who knows though? It's all conjecture at this point. ;)

[DeadEyeDyck]

174. then "get 'er done"

[LatteLibertine]

217. Sent Speaker Pelosi

a note the other day offering her thanks and encouragement. I know it's not easy, to hell and gone from perfect, yet offers a first step plus opens the door for later reform.

[mzmolly]

219. Thanks very much from all of us who wish to see progress, LatteLibertine.

:hi:

[lib2DaBone]

220. P-F-F-F-T...

Let this ugly mutant of a baby die already!.......

Expand Medicare for all... now how hard was that?

[mzmolly]

221. Good idea on the ugly mutant of a baby

thing. I forget we're muddying up GD. ;)

[fujiyama]

224. Ehhh, that'd be great and all

if only the House were required to sign it into law. Unfortunate there are too many @$(*&%#% in the Senate blocking it to get anything passed...