Wow... Cogent Argument For Killing HCR Bill... From Bill Moyer's Journal

[WillyT]

In 1999, Dr. Marcia Angell became the first woman to serve as editor-in-chief of the NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, the premier journal of medical science in the United States. She has also written for a general audience on the relationships between medicine, ethics, and the law.

<snip>

Dr. Marcia Angell, a single-payer advocate, doesn't think there's much in the President's plan to feel good about. But it's not just the particular version that she objects to — rather that the bill doesn't address what's fundamentally wrong with the American health care system.

"We have chosen, alone among all advanced countries, to leave health care to for-profit industries, to leave health care to businesses, that then distribute health care as a market commodity according to the ability to pay. And not according to medical need. So we have left the financing of health care to private insurance companies that have learned that they can thrive not by providing health care, but by not providing health care to sick people, by avoiding sick people."

<snip>

Article: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03052010/profile2.html

Video: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03052010/watch3.html

Transcript: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03052010/transcript3.html

Also, Bill's Segment with Wendell Potter:

Link: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03052010/profile.html

:shrug:

[rucky]

1. K&R, but...

we're so far from getting where we should be with this, the question still remains:

There are two options on the table: the plan and the status quo. On balance, which one is better to proceed from?

[dysfunctional press]

2. the status quo is better to proceed from.

things will get worse faster, and people will be demanding single-payer.

[jefferson_dem]

5. So you want things to get really bad so, hopefully, we can get something better down the road.

Wow. Talk about a "nuclear option."

[dysfunctional press]

17. things already are 'really bad', and this bill will guarantee they stay that way for years to come.

[totodeinhere]

146. Yes indeed. n/t

[Enthusiast]

153. Continuing the status quo

will guarantee the greedy will further alienate the electorate.

I feel that even now the American people would poll in favor of scraping the for-profit system and going with medicare for all. If, that is, they were polled in a objective manner.

Given a few more years of unbridled greed by the insurance industry we will have a population demanding real reform, not these half measures. No amount of misinformation will be able to overcome this true grass roots demand for reform.

[Greyhound]

80. If I may, I think it's not a matter of wanting things to get really bad, so much as

acknowledging that the system will not change until it does.

It is already far worse than we believe thanks to a virtual blackout on any substantive reporting on the scale of the overall crisis, but it is effecting so many more people so quickly that the tipping point is very close. This farce will only serve to delay the collapse, and therefore, make it even worse.

[Better Believe It]

85. We'll be at the mercy of the health insurance industry and big Pharma for a generation.

If the Health Insurance Industry and Big Pharma Protection Act is passed.

[sendero]

159. This bill...

... does almost nothing to change that fact. To the contrary, it solidifies the death grip.

I'm still hoping that it does not pass.

[pocoloco]

152. Don't you think people are sick of the wimps

wimping out??

Promise and follow through!

[defendandprotect]

162. Forcing people into corporate hands is probably illegal/unconstitutional, for one . ..

on the other hand, it's another give-away of $300 BILLION to insurance companies --

strengthening the very enemy you're trying to defeat --

and increasing power of right wing!!

[rucky]

7. I think more DUers would be on board with "kill the bill"

if there was a cogent follow-up to that plan. Not like there's a clear path from a to b with the bill on the table, either.

I guess I'm in the neutral camp about the whole thing, because the OP is correct - neither plan addresses the fundamental problem. But I'm leaning more towards stopping the bleeding first - simply because there are so many people suffering right now.

Did I put enough cliched metaphors in that response?

[dysfunctional press]

18. once the bleeding is stopped- people stop caring.

until gangrene sets in.

[rucky]

24. I guess it's a bit too personal for me to be comfortable with that angle.

[CLANG]

168. Same here.

I have a 19 year old son with a pre-existing condition (Asperger's) who will run out of Cobra this year. Passing the bill will allow him to stay on my insurance through age 26. I think a lot of parents are in the same situation.

[icee]

157. Excellent

[bvar22]

87. There IS a "cogent follow-up to that plan".

1)KILL this 2800 page labyrinth of trap doors, loopholes, and indecipherable legalese that fundamentally enshrines the For Profit Health Insurance Industry as the gateway to Health care in the US.

2)Break out the best pieces of the bill.

3)Offer them as individual, short, simple Stand Alone Bills.
This would cover Pre Existing Conditions, Dumping, and other regulatory reforms.

4)Force them to the floor for Up or Down Roll Call votes.
Let the Republicans OPPOSE these easy to understand and popular reforms.

5)Offer an incremental expansion of Medicare to the unemployed in the 50 -65 group NOT as Health Care Reform, but as Emergency Aid to this vulnerable and virtually un-employable age group.
.
.
.
Voila...the door to Medicare for ALL is WIDE OPEN.


I believe the House was already successful at passing a revocation to the Health Insurance Industry Anti-Trust exemption in a simple, Stand Alone Bill.
The Republicans in The House didn't DARE try to stop it.
Using THIS blueprint, The Democratically Controlled Congress could implement many of the GOOD pieces, and avoid the Terrible ones....if "they" wanted to.

But the Democrtatic Party ALREADY KNOWS this.
The PROBLEM is the "wants to" part.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans."---Paul Wellstone

[rucky]

97. as long as they don't have to go through the finance committee

it could work.

[eridani]

118. +1000

There are a number of incremental approaches that would help. The current bill is not one of them.

[M_A]

145. Bravo!

This is the best road map to REAL HCR I've seen so far. Thank you! Permission to copy/paste it to my congress critters?

[bvar22]

184. Thanks for the kind words.

You have my permission to use ANYTHING I post here.
You can even claim it as your own.
I picked them up from somewhere else.
They are ideas, and belong to everyone.:hi:

[sendero]

149. I agree..

... this is a workable solution, until such time as the average moron American can understand why single payer is the only method that will ever actually work.

[DisgustedInMN]

150. Thanks Bvar...

.. for laying it out so cleanly and succinctly. Of course I would have expected nothing less from a fellow Wellstone Democrat.

:toast:

[mdmc]

156. +1

well met..

[Enthusiast]

160. bvar22, can I vote for you?

I would advocate your exact position.

[tomp]

171. you mean govern in an open and above board fashion?

i thought this board was for democrats.

[pokercat999]

173. Don't just kill the bill....kill them all! This generation, the spawn

of the "greatest generation" is so far the "do nothing" generation. It's time we stand up and risk something for the good of all our people and those to follow. It's time to shut this country down until we get J U S T I C E for everyone. Like the high school football hero that never makes it in college or business we've had our "best" days when we were young and as a generation we have been failures as adults.

Excuse me now, "Idol" just came back after a "word" from the sponsor.

[defendandprotect]

163. Also, folding and giving in to insurance companies is a poor way to proceed . . .

also letting out Congress/President get away with this is a another poor precedent!!!

Stand up and fight the bread-crumb givers!!!

[jefferson_dem]

4. You are correct...

Given our two options, the choice is clear. One path is not perfect but will undeniably lead us in the direction of progress. The other appeases the shitty status quo and all but assures no reform for at least another decade.

[MadHound]

6. With a mandated monoply gift wrapped for the insurance industry, and no public option,

There is no chance for progress under the current proposed law. In fact it will be rather regressive, as premiums will continue to go up and middle class union members are taxed above and beyond.

It is time to kill this bill and start over with something truly progressive.

[jefferson_dem]

8. "Kill the bill and start over" huh?

Others are saying that too. But they don't have something "truly progressive" in mind.

Look, this package of reforms is hanging by a thread. It's not because progressive lawmakers are opposing it. So how the hell will something more progressive be more acceptable if we did, in fact, start over? Sorry, starting over is not an option. Unless you mean start over in like ... 2024.

[MadHound]

20. A classic tactic, somebody disagrees with you imply that they are RWer's

A transparent, but amusing ploy.

Actually if you look in the House, the progressive contingent is mightily pissed and they could very well vote against the Senate bill when it comes through the House.

So something more progressive, like a strong public option, which Obama and Democrats promised us, is not viable? Why, because the 'Pugs will filibuster it? Oh no, a filibuster, the Dems would have to actually fight for what is right, can't have that happening. Fuck it, let them filibuster, and then beat them about the head and shoulders for their obstructionism.

As far as not starting over to 2024, why is that necessarily so? Because the Dems don't have the intestinal fortitude to start over now? Sorry, but that's no excuse. The only predetermining factor that mandates when health care reform is brought up again is the Dem's spine or lack thereof.

[bvar22]

53. I don't find it "amusing".

...but it IS painfully transparent Industry Propaganda.

The "This is a step forward" argument is completely BOGUS.
The Foundation of this bill MANDATES PROFITS for the Health Insurance Industry.
This bill would have to be Undone before we could take a step forward.

"The perfect is the enemy of the good" is another BOGUS argument.
In THIS case, The BAD is the enemy of The Good...
which was very clearly documented and explained on Moyers' excellent program.

(I'm surprised that Moyers hasn't been killed in mysterious accident yet.
He makes plenty of enemies in BOTH Corporate Parties..)



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans."---Paul Wellstone

[truedelphi]

92. Perhaps Moyers is still alive because he is about to retire. And

I agree with all points that you made.

I found Angell very restrained, and very skilled at showing how misleading Obama is without her resorting to the "L" word.

I also found my self gagging when Pelosi was on the TV the other day telling her Dem colleagues to do the "courageous" thing and vote for this bill.

[jeanpalmer]

143. The people who know this is the 1st step

should be able to tell us what the next step is. If they can't tell us, then they're just repeating a slogan. Or they're wishing upon a star.

It's just as likely that the next step will be as bad as the first. Congress and the President wasted an opportunity to change course on health care, and instead went with the overpriced status quo.

Anthem just raised premiums 39% in the middle of a health care debate. That's a wake-up call that there's something fundamentally wrong with a system based on private insurance.

It's better to wait for the real thing. Although what hope is there with a President who opts for war over health care, because you can't have both.

[jefferson_dem]

56. A transparent, but amusing ploy ... indeed.

Nice try. I never implied you were a right winger.

The harsh reality is this: a few on the left and almost all on the right want to "kill the bill" and "start over." But the two sides do not agree what that means. Even if "starting over" actually meant "starting over" and not "killing reform", the new product would be more closely aligned with what the right wingers want given the composition of the Congress. Nobody will argue that the numbers will grow more favorable for us after 2010.

Face it. The public is sick and tired of this debate. No chance we're going to spend another year hashing it out to end up in the same place...or worse. All that could be said has been said. Now's the time to stand and be counted. Then we will have some real accountability, for all sides.

[MadHound]

58. Given the composition of Congress? You mean the Democratically controlled Congress?

In a Democratically controlled Congress why would a bill be morel closely aligned with what RWer's want, unless the Democrats once again cave in to their wishes?

Yes, the public is sick of this debate, but they are even sicker at the prospect of a "reform" that is going to cost them more in the long run and would rather Congress start over and hash out something that is more progressive and includes a strong public option.

However if Congress doesn't do this, then yes, there will be accountability, this fall on election day. Are the Democrats ready to pay that piper?

[jefferson_dem]

111. You do understand Senate rules, right, in particular those requiring 60 votes to procede?

And you do know that we have one less Dem in the Senate than when the bill was voted on favorably with a slim 60 vote margin.

So how could something more "progressive" possibly be approved of by the Senate now? The only option is to pass the House version and then fix what we can via reconciliation. That's it. Time to pick a side.

[MadHound]

132. No, actually what I understand is that it takes two things to procede

One is fifty one votes in the Senate, the other is a backbone so that the Dems will actually fight. Let the 'Pugs filibuster, do it. Then you use the power of the bully pulpit to beat them about the head and shoulders for their obstructionism.

Whoops, made that three things, the people like you and me to rise up and make our voices heard, support the Dems in their fight. Are you ready to do that, or do you just want to take the easy way out, allow a POS bill to pass so that you don't have to stand up and be counted?

[bvar22]

81. There IS THIS:

* Would you favor or oppose the national government offering everyone the choice of a government administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private health insurance plans?

Favor 82%

Oppose 14%

Not Sure 4%
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010010320/poll-shouts-message-massachusetts-voters-were-sending

The Democratic Party OWNS:
*The White House

*A BIG Majpority in The House

*A 19 vote MAJORITY in the Senate

*(most importantly) a HUGE MANDATE for "CHANGE" from the American People

If not NOW...WHEN?
"Fix it LATER" is a HUGE BOGUS LIE.
The Democratic Party will NEVER have a better chance.
The "Democratic" Party has ALREADY squandered a once in a generation opportunity.
They could NOT have done a better job of WASTING this Opportunity if the WHOLE fucking thing was choreographed & scripted from the start to produce THIS results.
At this point, they are either:
1)Hopelessly incompetent
OR
2)Hopelessly Corrupt
There is NO middle choice.

I'm PISSED.
And rightly so!

"By their works, you will know them."

[Biker13]

91. You're Right

Once the insurance industry gets their hands on 30 million new (mandatory) subscribers, they will never allow any further reform.

And they'll have the money to keep it that way.

[CrispyQ]

107. Damn straight!

"Fix it later" has worked out so well for us. :eyes: NAFTA, the Patriot Act, FISA, MCA, and on & on. Those advocating fixing it later are living in the past, remembering a Congress that was not completely bought off & a media that still did it's job. There will be no fixing it later.

Welcome to DU, Biker13. What kind of biker - motorcycle or bicycle? Or both? :hi:

[jefferson_dem]

113. Thing is...

They fuck around with premiums already, unbridled. And that's only getting worse by the day. Enjoy that... Status quo.

Oh, welcome to DU. :hi:

[eridani]

120. And the "reform" will enable them to fuck around with premiums until forever n/t

[jefferson_dem]

112. One obscure poll from a month and a half ago proves what exactly?

Nobody is totally happy with the "finished" product. We all (I think) wish it was bolder. In hindsight, we can find all sorts of places to point to for blame. Let's do that later. For now, we are where we are no matter how hard you stomp your feet.

[bvar22]

181. "One obscure Poll from a month and a half ago"?

This was a poll taken immediately after The Democrats LOST Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts .
It is consistent with EVERY poll taken over the last year.

LESS than 35% of ALL Americans support Mandates without a Public Option.
Good luck selling this piece of shit to the American People.

There will be NO "Fixing it Later", especially after the blood bath in 2010/2012.
Of course, there are some people who salivate over the idea of FORCING every American to contribute to the PROFITS of the Health Insurance Industry, and really don't care IF it produces a blood bath at the polls in 2010.
THOSE people want to "Get Done NOW"!!!

"By their works you will know them."

[Jackpine Radical]

154. The problem is translating a huge wave of popular sentiment

into actions in the political bodies that purportedly represent the public holding those sentiments.

If this were a democracy of one person, one vote, the legislative bodies would automatically follow popular will.

Unfortunately, what we have is a slightly different system.

One dollar, one vote.

[dana_b]

165. agree completely n/t

[austin78704]

144. Not sick of the debate

Sick and tired of the lack of representation. There are really three sides in this: the Democrats' plan, the Republicans' plan, and the decent solution most people actually want. We want the decent solution at LEAST debated.

So far, everything that amounts to real, sweeping reform has been pushed off the table for the sake of "getting something passed" without any debate. But you know what? Nothing has been passed yet, very little of what we were promised remains in the bill, and even less of what we asked for remains in the bill.

I remember what this was about "Universal Health Care." Then it got pushed to "Reform." Then the reform got changed to just some tweaks of some rules. Now we have a goddamned mandate, millions still won't be covered, abortion bullshit is in it, taxes are being hiked on middle class people, mass subsidies to support and insurance industry that would otherwise collapse under its own weight, and with a light sprinkling of a few reforms on top to appease us.

And all of that downhill slide without a single fucking fight that might leave any politicians bruised.

I don't know where in there to put single payer since it was NEVER given a fair look.

Of course, they still have time to strip out what's left of those regulations for the sake of "getting something passed."

[WillyT]

151. Great Post !!! - And Welcome To DU, austin78704 !!!

:toast::bounce::toast:

Glad ta have ya aboard !!!

:hi:

:kick:

[tomp]

172. not sick of the debate...sick of the obfuscation...

...to which you are contributing.

[sabrina 1]

Include a Public Option. That would get the support

of the American people. The current Senate Bill will do nothing to improve the healthcare system in this country. It is a giveaway to the Insurance Company, a giveaway accomplished in the most unjust way, as President Obama himself believed BEFORE he changed his mind.

Forcing the poor to buy shoddy policies, will not solve the problem of helping them get treatment when they need it. The huge co-pays that will accompany the cheapest available policies purchased under threat of punishment, will prevent those people from going to the doctor when they need to. They simply can't afford it, just like now. Except now, they at least don't have to make a donation to the Insurance Companies under threat of the IRS going after them.

It is as clear as could be that this effort is to save the failing Insurance Industry with the hope that it MIGHT help a few people along the way. But helping Americans get GOOD healthcare is clearly not the main priority of this legislation and most people know that.

Watching Kucinich struggling with the burden placed on him by a president he desperately wants to support, but in all conscience cannot see how he can go against his principles, is just plain sad. To put good Democrats in that position and try to force them to vote against the intersts of the people they represent lost whatever lingering respect I have for this president.

He has the means and the support to at least use the compromise of a PO which is what the people who elected him want. But he won't do it. He himself said that the Republican policy of 'mandated insurance' was wrong because 'it forces people to buy something they cannot afford and that would require some enforcement mechanism'. That was the Obama I supported. What happened to him?

[defendandprotect]

166. If Obama uttered the 3 little words: MEDICARE FOR ALL ...everyone would be with him!!

[sabrina 1]

197. Yes, I imagine he knows that too, which is why not only will he not

mention it, his WH helped kill Dornan's Bill which would not have been 'medicare for all' but it would have extended it to people 55 and over. They don't want it. It would cut into the profits of the Insurance Cos.

[pundaint]

138. Kill the bill and don't start over is better than pass the bill. This is a multiple-part problem.

The runaway cost increases will not be attenuated by this bill, especially because it provides the Strongest Incentive to Increase Medical Costs - giving insurance companies a guaranteed slice of the pie, however large the pie becomes. They'll double the size of that pie, and thereby double the value of their 20% slice before the coverage enhancements even kick in.

This bill will bleed America into a depression, and all that coverage wont keep up with the results of our economic collapse.

[Enthusiast]

161. But I agree with Dr. Marcia Angell.

As written the HCR measure would start to unravel immediately. It is far too complicated and it would be criticized at every turn. Consumers would never stop complaining about "The Democrat's failed reform bill".

[defendandprotect]

164. STOP being grateful for right wing bread-crumbs and worshipping the

bread-crumb givers!!!

This is a $300 BILLION give-away to insurance companies, strengthening the hand

of the right wing in our health care!!!

NO to this bill !!

MEDICARE FOR ALL --

[CanSocDem]

9. Indeed.

A new start should include clever ways of convincing the masses that good health is everybody's RIGHT in a democratic state.

A capitalist has to be tricked into believing this...

.

[tridim]

11. The exchange is the opposite of a monopoly.

If you haven't read the bill yet, you probably should asap.

[MadHound]

26. What other alternative is there besides going with a private insurance plan in that exchange?

Oh, yeah, that's right, none. And if you don't think that the various insurance companies wouldn't work in concert to set prices, ever increasing ones, I've got some swamp, er prime real estate to sell you in Florida.

I've read the bill, have you? If you have surely you noticed the loopholes, big enough to drive a truck through, in the so called price control mechanisms. I guarantee you that right now there are dozens of insurance industry lawyers looking for the best way to exploit each and every one of those loopholes.

The notion that this exchange is going to be competitive, especially if you're middle or working class, or if you have a pre-existing, is ludicrous, and like I mentioned earlier, swampland, Florida, for sale.

[tridim]

28. The PO will be added to the exchange if private insurance doesn't play ball.

There are legal penalties if they don't play ball, it's all in the bill that you've "read".

[dysfunctional press]

30. and what are the definitions and rules of 'play ball'...?

:shrug:

[tridim]

33. Playing ball entails providing affordable, quality, regulated coverage.

Something they are not doing now and will continue if the bill is killed.

[dysfunctional press]

35. and what is considered to be "affordable, quality, regulated coverage"...?

specific parameters including covered services and policy costs for customers would be appreciated- otherwise they're entirely meaningless and unenforceable.

[tridim]

37. The specific parameters are described in the bill.

Open your mind and read it.

[dysfunctional press]

38. give some examples, then...

seeing as you're the one in the know- enlighten us.

[tridim]

43. You can read the bill and summaries here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.3590:

[dysfunctional press]

60. i saw/see NOTHING about specific dollar amounts that must be met...

perhaps you have a problem with plain english...? :shrug:

[MadHound]

34. HAHAHAHAHA! Oh please, stop, you're making my sides hurt with laughter

You are so damn gullible, do you understand how high the bar is set for those penalties to come into play? Do you understand the myriad of ways that the insurance companies can get around those penalties? Geez louise, when were you born, yesterday.

Your wide eyed naivete is charming, but it is going to get do you great harm unless you start learning real quick. The insurance agency can easily get around those limits by merely charging "fees" and other such charges that aren't called premiums and they will suffer NO penalty. Got that, is that clear enough and slow enough for you?

Legal penalties:rofl: Thanks for the laugh.

[bvar22]

55. Exactly.

For a concrete example,
SEE: How the Credit Card Companies circumvent the new "regulations."

[girl gone mad]

84. It isn't naivete.

It's pure spin - and weak spin, at that.

[Individualist]

123. +1

[flyarm]

104. I know i just spit my coffee all over the keyboard laughing as well!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

some people around here are such jokers!! They make ones sides split with laughter!!

[bvar22]

54. NOTHING will be added after the election in 2010/2012.

"We'll Fix it Later" is a completely BOGUS argument,
especially after the blood bath in 2010 and 2012.
The Republicans won't be "fixing" anything.
They will leave this exactly as it is.
If anything, they will "de-regulate" any regulations that prove to NOT be toothless.

This bill MANDATES PROFITS for the Health Insurance Industry.
Every American WILL be FORCED to contribute to those PROFITS.
This money will NOT provide "Health Care".
It WILL provide new Summer Homes in Aspen and New Yachts for the CEOs of the HI Corps.

What we get NOW is what we will be forced to live with for a LONG time.
"They" are counting on it.

FIX IT FIRST.
Pass it later.

[CrispyQ]

108. "If anything, they will "de-regulate" any regulations that prove to NOT be toothless."

Indeed, this will be the only fixing of this heinous bill.

[Political Heretic]

67. Name them. See, I HAVE read the bill. So now I ask you to name the "legal penalties"

First define "playing ball"

Second, name the specific "legal penalties" and the page number/section of the SHCR bill that they come from.

This should be awesome.... seeing as how I already know the handful of things you could refer to, though I doubt you do because I doubt you've ever read anything other than talking points about the bill.

And of course the handful of things you could refer to are so awesomely bad that you half-defeat your own argument just by posting them.

So go to it! I'll be waiting.

[flyarm]

119. Playing Ball..is a game ..our health care is not a freaking game!

and I am sick and tired of these phrases being used about our health care!

A dear friend of mine died last week and her funeral was last Sunday..she died of ovarian cancer..and I will tell you..it was no damn ball game!

Please stop using those kinds of phrases CONCERNING OUR HEALTH CARE! It may be your talking points you were sent here to use..but please stop!

[eridani]

121. They don't play ball now. Give them another trillion of public money--

--and they will NEVER play ball.

[pecwae]

140. Jeepers!

I'm sure those 'legal penalties' have insurance companies quaking in their boots. Since they'll be getting hundreds of thousands of new customers paying a 'penalty' should really have them running scared and probably thinking of getting out of the business altogether.

[icee]

158. Oh, puhleeze!

[defendandprotect]

167. Sounds like Nixon's "Secret Plan" for peace in Vietnam . . . never came . .

[Jakes Progress]

32. What the half-a-loafs don't seem to understand

is implicit in the OP. The problem is making health care a commodity. Any regulations can be side-stepped or ignored. That group always says that we can start adjusting the bill and making it better after it is passed. Following the SCOTUS ruling the more likely scenario is that there will be adjusting all right, but it will be to water down or eliminate any restrictions on the insurance companies now that they have full citizenship rights. Just witness the financial mess we are in. After the last mess, we passed bills to regulate the banks. The banks bought legislators and had the restrictions removed. Show me where the bank regulation laws got tighter and more people oriented after they were passed.

The problem is health care as a commodity. The current bill just rearranges the deck chairs. The ship is still going down.

[bvar22]

179. Actually, "The Exchange" as proposed...

...will make it EASIER for the For Profit HI Industry to collude on Pricing, Gouging, Minimum Services, cooperate on circumventing regulation, pool legal resources to challenge regulation, ensure that NO ONE offers a competitive challenge to their market dominance.

"The Exchange" WILL let them "team up" and share notes.
It WILL discourage competition.

[rucky]

13. Instead of a comprehensive reform bill...

what if we had started simple?

Introduce a bill that states two things:

1. Insurers can't deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.
2. Medical loss ratio is capped at 85%

That would at least help the uninsured that need it the most. That should be something we can get through in a year, don't you think? (maybe not that exact MLR, but that would be the only thing up for debate) It would take out all the poison from the current plan and buy us more time to do this right.

:shrug:

[bvar22]

47. Thats the BIG problem with the current version of HCR.

There is NOTHING to build on.
The FOUNDATION is the For Profit Health Insurance Industry.
In fact, this "reform" MANDATES PROFITS for these giant Corporations.
Every Single American will be FORCED to contribute to these profits.
It can't be Fixed later.

This NEW system (The Senate Plan with Obama's face on the label) will have to be UNDONE before we can take a Step Forward toward real reform.

The ONLY "RIGHT" enshrined in this "reform" is the Right for Corporations to Profit off of Sick People.

[WillyT]

51. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said...

Exactly !!!

:hi:

:kick:

[rucky]

95. wouldn't the Public Option lead a pathway, though?

not the most direct path, but something we could work with.

[bvar22]

109. Yes...a REAL "Public Option (Publicly Owned, Government Administered)

...could provide a foundation for moving toward Single Payer.
That is WHY there is NO "Public Option" included in this bill.

[bvar22]

110. Yes...a REAL "Public Option (Publicly Owned, Government Administered)

...could provide a foundation for moving toward Single Payer.
That is WHY there is NO "Public Option" included in this bill.

[Hardrada]

136. To the barricades!!

Seriously.

Aux armes, citoyens!

[truedelphi]

90. The answer to your question is this one - if you

Trust the Workings of the Beltway crowd, and if you see this as just a beginning and that "later on" something will be done to change the bad policy of this bill, then you can be for this bill. (There is no good policy being put forth in this bill, so the pro's and nay's are about what you think comes after the Bill is passed.)

If like me, you trust NO ONE in Washington, except maybe Sanders of Vt, and fifty or sixty Dems in the House, then you don't want this bill.

It is all about perception.

[rucky]

94. Well...

the people I do trust (Sanders for sure!) are supporting the bill, so here's what I think:

It's a wash. The bill will fix some shitty things and create new shitty things for different people. Not shitty for corporate persons, tho.

[truedelphi]

103. i approve of Bernie Sanders voting for the Bill. he did after all negotiate some

Major concessions in terms of local medical clinics, an the money to fund them.

me, I cannot approve of the bill. Unlike Bernie, I got no concessions from anyone in Power. In fact, I am in the age group that will be hit with premiums three times higher than the younger folks. Which means that many in my age group will remain without insurance, or will be penalized, or will be forced on County MediCaid.

[gkhouston]

93. What the President needs to do IMO is put aside politics for a bit and quietly

bring in the best health policy and economic experts he can find. Those people need to be open-minded, close-mouthed, and not in the pockets of any major corporate or political interests (yeah, this is fantasy land). Their task: to discuss what healthcare should look like without first getting bogged down in how we're going to get there or even when we're going to get there. Once they've come up with some possibilities, then start discussing the mechanics of transition, drawing on other experts as necessary. Politics shouldn't come back into the equation until the mechanics, not the possibility, of transition are discussed, and the goal should be to achieve the best end result for our country as a whole while incurring the minimal amount of disruption to our country as a whole.

We've gotten to where we are now by limiting ourselves to what we thought might be politically possible instead of starting with what we really need to do to solve the problem at hand. That sort of timidity wouldn't have gotten us to the Moon. If the public at whole understood that the healthcare crisis and what it does to our economy is a much larger threat than "losing the space race" :eyes: ever was, then maybe we could get a few more Senators to take their eyes our of their wallets and direct them towards our future.

[mike_c]

115. the status quo is FAR better, even though it utterly sucks....

The problem is that accepting the current HCR bill, or at least the senate version as it stands (or is ever likely to stand), institutionalizes the worst aspects of the status quo. It tacitly puts the weight of federal government approval behind the most egregious element of the status quo, the notion that in the U.S., health care is SUPPOSED to be controlled by corporations who have no real interest in sick people or in making them well, rather than by the institution nominally charged with promoting the welfare of the people.

Rejecting the HCR bill is explicit refusal to institutionalize the status quo, but more important, it leaves the vulnerabilities of the for-profit insurance industry intact, where they can be attacked later. Passing the HCR will provide cover for the worst elements of the status quo for decades to come.

[JVS]

130. The status quo.

[totodeinhere]

147. Neither is better. Both are unacceptable IMO. n/t

[icee]

155. The status quo by leaps and bounds. If you start and entrench

this piece of garbage it will take a black swan event to get it reversed.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[WillyT]

10. From The Transcript:

<snip>

MARCIA ANGELL: When I look at the Senate bill and the President's suggestions, almost every paragraph, there is a poison pill for someone. I think sometimes they're unintended. Let me give you one example. They allow for insurance companies to charge three times as much for older people as for younger people.

So from the point of view of the insurance industry, this is a god-send because either way, they win. Either the 55-year-olds cough up three times the premiums, and that's good. Or else they can't, and that's probably the more likely situation. They can't, and then they're fined. And the insurance companies don't have to take care of people who might actually get sick. They're left with all of the thirty-year-olds, who are less likely to get sick, but who are required to buy their products.

So this sets up a situation which probably all plans, for 55-year-olds, are high priced. So they can't afford to buy it, or if they do buy it, they have to pay an excise tax on it. This is a real poison pill for these older people. It's a gift for the insurance industry.

BILL MOYERS: But the President is pushing ahead; he wants Congress to act in the next month. What would you have us do?

MARCIA ANGELL: I think the problem is this, Bill. If this plan is passed, and I think there's real doubt as to whether it will be, and there's even more doubt as to whether it would ever be fully implemented, but let's say that it's passed. It will begin to unravel almost immediately. And then what will people do? Well, they'll say, "We tried health reform, and it didn't work. Better not try that anymore."

It'll be like what happened after the Clinton plan failed. There'll be another 16 years before anybody comes up with the courage to try that again. People say, "Too expensive. Just can't have universal care. Tried that, did that, didn't work, good-bye." Whereas if the bill dies now, people can say, "This bill died because it was a bad bill." And the problem is still on the front burner. And then one can hope that we get some version of Medicare for all. And that we don't have to wait 16 years.

BILL MOYERS: What makes you think it would come back in 16 years or more? What makes you think it will ever be back on the table?

MARCIA ANGELL: Oh, I think it has to be. I mean, I think that this system is unraveling so fast, doing nothing or doing the Obama plan, so fast, that something will have to be done. Unless we want to, you know, explicitly be a third world country. So I don't think it's going to wait. But if we pass this plan, it's going to delay.

BILL MOYERS: Are there any, you know, three or four things that could be changed in the next month that would make you change your mind and vote for this if you were in the Senate?

MARCIA ANGELL: No, I don't think so.

BILL MOYERS: Not one?

MARCIA ANGELL: That could be--

BILL MOYERS: If they took out the mandate--

MARCIA ANGELL: --that realistically--

BILL MOYERS: Yeah, realistic.

MARCIA ANGELL: No, no. If you take out the mandate, then the private insurance industry says, "No, we're out of here." This Congress will do what the private insurance industry wants it to do. If you look at the money that has flowed into Congress over the last year, and particular to people who were crafting this bill, you can see that the pay masters get what they want.

<snip>

Link at OP

:shrug:

[cilla4progress]

19. Then please explain to me

WHY THE HEALTH INSURERS AND GOP ARE SO ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO THIS PIECE OF SOCIALIST LEGISLATION?

In my heart (and mind) I totally agree - health care should be entirely out of the for-profit structure. But narrowing the discussion down to this bill or nothing at this time, sadly, disappointedly, it's very clear - we need to push for this to pass.

[moondust]

36. My guess: Newton's Third Law.

"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

The harder they try to defeat it, the harder its proponents will try to pass something/anything--and eventually will.

Political manipulation in a 2-party system.


Dr. Angell makes a strong case for killing a weak bill.

I think a mandate would be a big juicy target for opponents that could be politically costly. Unless Americans feel they or their own family/tribe are getting something in return for their money, it can be pretty hard to sell them on something in the abstract. That's probably easier done in more homogeneous countries/tribes where there is greater social cohesion and more acceptance of doing things "for the common good."

It would be a tragedy if we ended up with private insurance mandates that would be an easy campaign target for nasty politicians yet the insurance companies would never allow them to do away with the mandates because that's their big new cash cow.

:shrug:

[Vinnie From Indy]

63. The answer is simple

The GOP areopposed becuase they have charted a course of obstructionism and it does not matter what is in the bill.

The health insurers are NOT against this bill. Their participation in getting it passed is to APPEAR to be against the bill. They love this bill! The rest is all political theater.

This bill is much, much worse than the status quo. It cements the worst of the current system into law.

[Greyhound]

82. "It cements the worst of the current system into law." There it is, right there.

:thumbsup:

[bvar22]

88. Thats just the "Don't throw me in the Briar patch" campaign.

Its ALL marketing to make it appear that you have a choice.

[jtuck004]

133. Hey Marcia, there might be other options...

"They allow for insurance companies to charge three times as much for older people as for younger people."

She seems to think that older people will either pay the price or the fine. That's not the only option.

For some with decent incomes or wealth, they might be able to weather this.

But several million people are unemployed, or with so little income that this will really hurt them. So I am opening a commune, (Hey, we did it in the 60's, but we are wiser and smarter now) but this time whatever property one wants to contribute, (maybe the place you are living in) goes into am irrevocable trust for the perpetual benefit of the members. With no assets, but a place to live, we will all apply under the "too broke to afford health care now" provision that is in the bill. That leaves all those young people to pay not only their health care but the 3X more expensive policies paid for by our government. We can work a collective, keeping our personal property just under the limit. Gotta love capitalism when it makes socialism possible ;)

Well, ok, maybe not, but there are thousands of people filing bankruptcy because of medical costs,(now more than 60% of all bankruptcies and the numbers are still climbing) and they will most definitely wind up under the "can't afford it" option. And the bills will be paid by the gov, paid for by fewer younger people. You might as well attach a big ball and chain to productivity, because there will be no way to afford all this against the pressure China will be exerting by then (barring a big burst of inventiveness on our part, but I'm not holding my breath).

And that whole 9.8 trillion deficit increase the CBO has predicted by 2020, 90% of GDP? They might want to sharpen those pencils again, cause the GDP won't be as great with all that experience and wisdom out of the system, so it might rise to 100, 110% of GDP.

This is just a bad idea without a public option to lower costs. And if one thinks it will change after opening the vault doors and creating a virtual monopoly for perhaps a dozen or two of these filthy, slimy, arrogant, greedy companies, could you please share what you are smoking? You will be invited to the commune.

[cilla4progress]

12. I appreciate this reasoned discussion and analysis

The other piece - and I hate to "go political," but it's a reality -- is that if HCR fails to pass, it dooms Obama's other reform attempts. And vice versa.

[jonathon]

14. Moyer's is right. Don't give these corrupt corporate thieve ANY money -

Excise them from our collective body - they are PARASITES.

[Ozymanithrax]

15. 45,000 people die a year because they have no health care.

48+ million people have no health care.

Just kill the bill like the Republicans and Health Insurance companies want.

It is better to let 45,000 people die a year and keep 48 million on a waiting list for a coffin than do something to help them.

[slipslidingaway]

27. Members of PNHP did this research and they are not for this bill...

everyone uses their research to argue for something else and ignore what they say are the solutions.

Tired of watching the politicians do this time and time again.

[Ozymanithrax]

52. My prioity is to help people who need it now with what it possible now.

I'd love to see single payer initiated, but that won't happen at this time in history. It never had a chance to pass in this congress. I'd like to see a public option, but that probably won't happen. This bill is possible. It will help real people, millions of people. I will save lives.

If PNHP wants to play politics with living people, fine. Let them. They have chosen a poltical goal rather than help as many people as possible with what is possible. That is their choice.

[slipslidingaway]

61. There are things that can be done now to help people without ...

giving a hand to the private insurance companies, we do not need to mandate that people buy a private product.

Another I'd love to see SP but it cannot happen now excuse, majority of the people want it, but the Democrats take it off the table once again.

PNHP does not have a political goal, they argue for universal HC, something the Democrats said they also wanted, before making back room deals with the for profit industries and diverting attention to the elusive public option.

[Ozymanithrax]

65. I argue for universal health care Clearly, it isn't going to happen.

So, refusing to do something Less than universal health care is to agree that what we have now is only marginally worse than universal health care.

The health care bill will help millions of people and save lives. To refuse to act because it isn't good enough is morally and ethically repugnant. And that is my opinion of PNHP, morally and ethically repugnant for the stand they have taken, and is also my opinion of the elected Republians who continue to fight any change in Health Care and the Health Insuance companies that have spent more than 300 million dollars to stop any change to the health care system.

I am a realist. At this point in time, Universal Health Care is not going to happen. That should not stop us from doing what we can to help.

[slipslidingaway]

66. Remember the Dems are standing in the way of universal HC and

now promote a mandate to buy a private product - yes it is repugnant.

[Ozymanithrax]

70. And it will help millions of people and save lives.

It is the saving lives part that I find good about the bill.

It is deciding that it is better that 45,000 people to continue to die every year because they can not get health care, and to allow 48+ million people a year suffer without health care that I find morally repugnant.

Mandates work in other countries where they are used. They will work here.

[girl gone mad]

99. I don't believe it will help millions or save lives.

Read through this thread again. The opposite point has been made quite clearly and eloquently, with logic and example to back it up.

You can repeat your mantra over and over, but you've done nothing to persuade me the bill is the fix you claim it is.

[totodeinhere]

176. You are right. This bill is a step backward, and it will cost lives, not save them. n/t

[slipslidingaway]

127. This bill will not save an additional 45,000 people, follow the discussion

on the research and you will see why, I've posted it several times already.

And again everyone loves to use a portion of their work and point to the deaths, but hardly anyone will then admit that they ignore their proposed solutions.

Can your family afford the 11,900 annual maximum deductible under the senate bill in addition to the premiums, cost of medication, out of network charges (something that is not really discussed)

Many families will still not be able to access the care needed.

[fascisthunter]

131. sorry, but that's extortion

[bvar22]

192. That is EXACTLY what it is!

"Give us a TRILLION DOLLARS, and FORCE every American to BUY our shitty products, or we will keep doing what we have always done...let 45,000 Americans DIE!"

Reminds me of the Paulson Extortion Demand for Wall Street.
"Give us a TRILLION DOLLARS, or we crash the economy!"

NOW we have Your Children’s Money too !!!
And there is not a fucking thing you can do about it!
Now THIS is “Bi-Partisanship” !
Better get used to it!!
Hahahahahahahahaha!


"Thank GAWD it passed!"
Same Band.
Different Parade.

[grahamhgreen]

69. They will still die under this crap plan - there is no mechanism for holding big insurance acccounta

accountable.

[Ozymanithrax]

73. Doing nothing at all is worse.

Those big companies have spent more than 300 million dollars to stop this crap bill. Republicans and conservatives have used every tool at their disposal to stop this crap bill. Racist Teabaggers oppose this crap bill. Should I assume that Health Care Companies and Republicans oppose out of moral and ethical outrage?

I stand with the people who will die because they have no health care, this year, next year, and for all the years after that. It is unconscionable to do nothing. It is unconscionable to allow the current system to stand because we don't like mandates. The good of the many outweights the good of the few.

[dflprincess]

122. People with insurance die because they can't access care in time

the out of pocket costs for those with "coverage" go up every year and more and more people delay treatment because of it.

"Coverage" is no guarantee of access to care - and it doesn't keep health care costs from bankrupting you.

Nothing in this scam will change that.

Only in America.

[totodeinhere]

148. And under this bill, they will continue to die. n/t

[stray cat]

16. DU and the GOP agree - it makes me fear the GOP knows something most DUers don't

[tridim]

25. I'd estimate about 20 extremely vocal DU'ers agree with the GOP.

Not "DU" in general.

[newspeak]

21. I watched the program

She also talked about the health program in Massachusetts. She said that there are over sixty thousand people in Mass. who are exempt because they cannot afford the insurance. People who are kind of stuck in the middle-who do not qualify for exemptions.

What also disturbed me was when she said that not only does the insurance industry get a forced clientele, plus taxpayer monies for subsidies; but they can charge older individuals three times the amount than younger ones. And if older people cannot afford such an amount, then they will wind up paying the penalty with no insurance, and the insurance companies profit because they won't have to pay out for those who are aging.

Now hubby and I are in our fifties-so those who are in their fifties and early sixties, this is like a big FU!!!!!! You think I'm going to thank Obama and his "new democrats" for royally screwing us, especially since we cannot afford the screwing.

[nightrain]

22. knr. yep. Compared to what Wendell Potter said during the first part, Angell is

more likely accurate about the impact of the proposed implementation of the bill.

It's an enormous transfer of wealth from people to the disease management corporations. I support a constitutional challenge to those aspects of the bill.

It's still unaffordable for middle income people and the fact that subsidies are needed proves it. HUGE SCAM.

[AllentownJake]

23. Don't look now but over in Mass they are raising the rates of that mandated insurance nt.

[ipaint]

29. Give the insurance companies a mandate with no government run

public plan that guarantees a level of care for all americans and we are permanently screwed.

Every other country with health care understands this as fact. It is insane to give for profit insurance companies that kind of power and control. We should be seizing control not giving away any and every opportunity to legislate them into submission.

As far as sinking further reform, what further reform...schools... banks...wall street? It's all cut out of the same for profit corporate cloth already.

Neo-liberal chicago school bullshit masquerading as progressive reform. It is neither, no thanks.

[slipslidingaway]

31. CBO only looking at federal spending ...

as costs shift to individuals.

The senate bill has an $11,900. maximum deductible per year and that will be in addition to premiums, drug costs etc.

If a family needs to pay this maximum several years in a row or even every few years it will destroy the finances of many people.


"...MARCIA ANGELL: Well, first of all, you have to look at what the CBO is looking at.

BILL MOYERS: Congressional Budget Office.

MARCIA ANGELL: Yes. They're not looking at the cost to the system as a whole, to the larger system. They're not looking at the private system. They're simply looking at the federal budget as a budgetary item.

BILL MOYERS: Right. They look at the government--

MARCIA ANGELL: The government part of that. So if they can save money in Medicare, then they come out ahead, no matter what happens out in the private sector. And so that's what he's talking about. It will take money out of Medicare and put it into the private sector. Medicare is the source for a lot of the funds that are going to go to subsidize the private health insurance industry. So that's the first thing. The second thing is the CBO has to build in assumptions. And those assumptions are arguable, to put it mildly..."

[ipaint]

39. Well isn't that a nice added bonus for insurance companies. Not only are they taxpayer subsidized

to rob us blind we all get to contribute to "reform" that gradually undermines the medicare system. A two for one.

Wasn't this the MO for taking down the public school system- starve it, declare it a failure, privatize. This is right wing republican slash and burn policy.

Collectively we are a bunch of rubes. Singing the praises of reform when in reality we are all being handed shiny new shovels to dig our own and our children's graves.

It's been 30+ years that conservatives have been attacking and co-opting the public commons, civil rights, the constitution, etc. for profit using the same method, the same ideology and the same PR propaganda.

At what point will we learn.

[slipslidingaway]

44. Sometimes I feel as if that is the reason the idea of Medicare cuts

was fueled in the tea party movement, because if anyone on the left suggested the same then they could be included with the crazy people.

IMO there is no way that savings from Medicare can be used to subsidize other portions of the HC bill when the enrollment in Medicare moves from 46 million to 79 million beginning in the next year or so and lasting for the next two decades.


"At what point will we learn."

Either when people have to pay more of the services themselves, get fewer services or watch taxes be raised on the next generation.

:(

[ipaint]

57. Exactly. If you want to see where the real three dimensional chess is being played.

That's where you look. It's all about marginalizing and co-opting the left. The teabaggers let the DLC off the hook because anything looks progressive next to them. Convenient.

They are used the same way the color coded terrorist warning system was used. Only this time the warnings are aimed at the left which will be the scapegoats to blame the eventual government takeover by right wing nutjobs on. Instead of blaming it on a president and congress incapable of restoring the rule of law.

Whether this non reform passes or not, the coming shitstorm for most of the working class won't be avoided.

[slipslidingaway]

64. At least we are seeing things in a similar light :) and I agree that...

the working class is facing tough times ahead.

[slipslidingaway]

40. Conyers asked Obama to allow two people to be invited to the WH summit

one was Dr. Angell and the other was Dr. Quentin Young, his request was denied.

Dr. Quentin Young, Longtime Obama Confidante and Physician to MLK, Criticizes Admin’s Rejection of Single-Payer Healthcare

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/11/dr_quentin_young_obama_confidante_and

"While the Obama administration claims “all options are on the table” for healthcare reform, it’s already rejected the solution favored by most Americans, including doctors: single-payer universal healthcare. We speak with Dr. Quentin Young, perhaps the most well-known single-payer advocate in America. He was the Rev. Martin Luther King’s doctor when he lived in Chicago and a longtime friend and ally of Barack Obama. But he was noticeably not invited to Obama’s White House healthcare summit last week..."

[WillyT]

42. Thank You For That !!!

:hi:

[slipslidingaway]

49. You're welcome, IMHO the tone was set from the kickoff meeting at

the WH, we blamed Baucus for not including SP advocates, when in reality he was just following the lead set by the administration.

[femrap]

41. I watched last night....

if we don't have a public option, what's the use?

People are going to go postal when their loved ones end up dying on the streets.

[Hamlette]

45. it would be a great argument, if it were true. n/t

[WillyT]

46. WOW !!! - Great Argument !!!

All those facts and figures, citations from the proposed bills...

I'm truly reassured... NOT!!!

:rofl:

:wtf:

:shrug:

[Hamlette]

59. sorry, I thought you knew about Switzerland

great health care through private carriers

or workers compensation...same thing.

It can be done, if done right.

I am NOT saying that is my first choice but remember even in countries with the best health care in the world (France for instance) the vast majority have private insurance in addition to what the state pays for.

You need a system of regulation and maybe an administrative agency to mediate disputes but it is a model that has proved it can work in many areas.

Big bold blanket statements as in the OP are simply not true. I would rather get sick in Switzerland than in England.

[WillyT]

75. You Need A HEAVILY Regulated System For It To Work Like Theirs...

You really think that is gonna happen in THIS country???

If regulators are like referees in a sporting event, we've bound, gagged, blinded and kneecapped the refs in this country. Unless of course they play ball with the betting mafia...

then they are allowed to ref unencumbered by rules, while betting on the game they're officiating.

NO THANK YOU!!!

:shrug:

[Hamlette]

96. works for workers comp which is heavily regulated and for profit.

why is that?

[LeftyMom]

128. You think worker's comp works?

:rofl:

[Hamlette]

185. tell me why you think it does not

I worked in workers compensation for 10 years representing injured workers. I worked for a time for the state workers compensation department and I even worked for a short time for a workers compensation insurance carrier. It is a brilliant program and should be used as a model for other unintended injuries like auto accidents. It is cheap to run, payment is made very quickly (in the VAST majority of cases) it covers your medical expenses for life, and pays your wages while you are out of work.

That doesn't happen if you are injured by a doctor or the driver of another car on the road.

What you got? Yes, there are a few people on the edges who do not get everything they need to make them whole, and there are a whole lot of people who belly ache about how they didn't get all they wanted but on balance it is light years more fair than "regular" health care in the US.

(I have a sneaking suspicion that people's minds here are made up but you've not convinced me. My 35 years as a lawyer in several related areas tell me different. I'll still listen but you gotta do more than just attack me. It might feel good to you but it doesn't advance the discussion or put us on the way to solving our problems.)

There are many paths to universal coverage which should be our goal. The path to single payer is not on the radar so while we should still consider and push for it if appropriate, putting all our eggs in that basket does not seem productive at this place and time.

[LeftyMom]

187. Because I've known people with obvious, unfakable injuries who wait years for payment,

and then when they finally do get it they get a bare fraction of what they already lost, and most of that goes to the lawyers and medical people they needed to get it.

[Hamlette]

193. those people are lying to you

as I said, I worked as an attorney in the area for 10 years. People would tell me all the time how they had been ripped off by the system. I'd pull up their files and find out they were not eligible for benefits for a legitimate reason or they did receive a fair "settlement". I found this without exception.

And if they tell you most goes to lawyers and "medical people" they are flat out lying. Attorney's fees in workers' compensation cases are set by statute and it is not very much money. If the injury is substantial it is usually covered by the overlap between different entities covering the same thing like social security disability or the second injury fund. This money would NEVER go to the injured party (say you are eligible for SSDI and workers comp. SSI or SSDI deducts what you are eligible to receive from workers comp except the attorneys fees which are paid BEFORE the deduction. The injured party gets the FULL amount and attorney's fees are paid by the overlapping coverage from the "second" party or second "insurance" carrier.

Medical costs are paid entirely separate from ANY judgment or settlement in workers comp. That's exactly how I know these people are lying to you. A workers comp award is for losses suffered by the worker "and any and all medical costs incurred as a result of that injury for life." The workers comp agency never assigns a dollar amount to medical costs for the injury.

Next time someone tells you a tall tale about how they were ripped off by the workers compensation carrier tell them to report it to the insurance commissioner for your state. If its true, (and I never saw an instance where it was) the insurance carrier will lose its right to write insurance in your state.

Look, I'm a knee jerk liberal (godless commie pinko if truth be told) who wants to hate "the man" as much as anyone else. It's not that I've been coopted by my work, its that I found out the system is not always wrong. Sometimes it is people who suffer a relatively minor injury and who treat it like they have won the lottery and they are going to sue everyone in sight for millions. When they don't get millions they say they got screwed. I can't even begin to count the number of times I heard those stories.

Also, not all employers are evil. There are, in my experience, a great number of employers who do give a shit about their workers.

[LeftyMom]

195. I'm sorry, but you're full of shit.

My late stepfather blew out his back using a piece of equipment OSHA had repeatedly warned his employer was not safe. He needed several discs fused and a metal rod inserted to repair the damage. Not only did he have to fight and get a lawyer and spend years of his life to get paid, after his share of his medical bills and fees for his lawyer he only got about $10,000. For a working man's back. That wasn't even a fraction of his lost wages.

And this was a man who had been in the same workplace all of his working life, since he was a teenager in fact, and who had the support of a strong union. The best case scenario, really. What happened? He wound up so poor he had to apply for General Assistance and go to the food bank, because in fighting his Worker's Compensation claim, his employer had to claim he was fired for cause (faking an injury- and we're talking something a half blind layperson could see on an x-ray) and thus get his state disability insurance payments denied as well, leaving him with no income at all, and no medical insurance, while he had a gaping surgical hole in his back and could barely get out of bed to manage bodily functions, and that only with assistance. Thankfully his union was eventually able to straighten that out and get his insurance back while the rest was straightened out.

FWIW, he's my late stepfather because in all of this mess he succumbed to depression and an addiction to pain pills, and when my mother couldn't handle the strain on their marriage anymore and left (she really didn't have much choice, his life was destroyed by this point, and he was an understandably angry and bitter person as a result- she'd already been through this once before on a smaller scale when he had a knee injury at work and all of the same things happened) he shot himself in the head. If his injuries had been handled promptly, and his financial needs that arose as a result taken care of, he'd probably still be alive today, and in all likelihood still happily married to my mother, who adored him. Instead he's dead, and she'll probably never be as happy or as prosperous as she was the day before his back was destroyed.

I hear stories like this all day long, of prosperity gone and families destroyed by the strain as a result of on-the-job injuries. The only thing that surprises me as that more don't end that way. I could tell you a few more if you like. None of them, I assure you, are made up. So you'll forgive me if your assurances that HCR will work like workman's comp aren't reassuring at all. That would only assure somebody who moves in the sort of circles where nobody does any actual manual labor. I know entirely too many people who have lost their health and who live in constant pain, and have got insulting compensation, if that, for their injuries.

[flvegan]

196. You just told my late ex-uncle in law's story.

I can't describe the horror that he went through and what it put his family through. Saw it every single day. Good man, good family all ruined by that shitty system.

[Sebastian Doyle]

78. The Swiss system works for one reason.

By law, all insurance corporations are NON PROFIT, and tightly regulated.

And you know the odds of that happening here are about as likely as a blizzard in Hell. So it's not a valid comparison to this RomneyHillaryCare horseshit.

[WillyT]

79. Thank You !!!

I couldn't remember if they had to be non-profit, but I know they are highly regulated.

:hi:

[slipslidingaway]

48. How do you win a fight if you silence the harshest critics of those who hold power....

Please do not tell me that you are fighting the entrenched interests when you invite them to the discussions and private meetings and exclude those who have been fighting the For Profit companies for decades.

Imagine if P. Obama had called upon Dr. Maria Angell to speak at the WH summit instead of Karen Ignagni, members of Congress might be pleading for a public option.

Dr. Marcia Angell not invited to attend and therefore not called upon to speak, Conyers asked that two single-payer advocates be invited to attend....Dr. Quentin Young and Dr. Marcia Angell - his request was denied.

President Obama calls on Karen Ignagni of AHIP to speak on HC reform

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=328837&mesg_id=328837


And the same thing happened this past week when insurance execs were invited to the WH, it was originally scheduled to be at HHS, and then P. Obama popped in to read a letter to the CEOs.

May it is just me but if I were an insurance exec and was constantly being invited to the discussions knowing that my real enemies were being held outside the gates, then I would think that I won.

:shrug:

But the administration is really fighting those nasty for profit companies when they silence their biggest adversaries!!!

:think:

:crazy:

:think:

[slipslidingaway]

50. Thanks for posting this! :) n/t

[MisterP]

62. "I didn't come to Congress to walk away empty-handed" *click* "44,000 die a year" *click*

"we don't have the votes" *click* "you don't have all the facts but are still screaming about it" *click* "I trust the Leader" *click* "you'd never be satisfied with anything"

END OF SIDE ONE. FOR MORE TALKING POINTS, TURN TAPE OVER...NOW

[bvar22]

116. If this wasn't so infuriating....

..I would be laughing.
Great summation.
:toast:

[dflprincess]

124. If all those in Congress who claim "we don't have the votes"

would support supported single payer - they would have the votes. I'm tired of these jerks pretending it's someone else's fault that they have sold us to their corporate masters.

[grahamhgreen]

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

Obama is simply giving trillions to big insurance that they will use to crush what little reform is in the bill.

[EFerrari]

71. K&R.

[AzDar]

72. K & R

[MilesColtrane]

74. We will never get government run single payer because the insurance companies own the politicians.

You want to fix health care (and a host of other problems)? Stop the flood of money from corporations into the pockets of Congress.

[WillyT]

77. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said...

Exactly!!!

:kick:

:hi:

[TankLV]

76. I saw her on last night - she makes a strong argument and I totally agree with her...

THIS hcr bill should be KILLED.

It's a bad bill.

Period.

[xchrom]

83. Recommend

[Kitty Herder]

86. K&R

[upi402]

89. Of course. But both parties are corporatist

Whatcha gonna do now America?
:shrug:
Ya got what ya asked for... many did anyway.

It's going to get real nasty here in the home of the brave, and the land of the free (In God We Trust inc.)

[Solly Mack]

98. K&R

[ProSense]

100. From a single payer advocate, where is the cogent argument?

This is from the OP:

Dr. Marcia Angell, a single-payer advocate, doesn't think there's much in the President's plan to feel good about.

This is from the transcript:

BILL MOYERS: But, the very poor do get Medicaid.

MARCIA ANGELL: Yes, yes. And one of the things about the Obama plan that I do like is that it expands Medicaid up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level and that's fine. The problem is that could have been a stand alone measure. You didn't need to have it incorporated in this massive Rube Goldberg apparatus.

BILL MOYERS: Is there anything else in there you like, in the Obama plan?

MARCIA ANGELL: Oh yeah. I mean--

BILL MOYERS: What?

MARCIA ANGELL: First of all, the intention is very good. The expansion of Medicaid is very good. Raising the age of dependents to 26, and saying that they have to be covered under parents' plans. I think that's very good. Looking at the cost-effectiveness of various procedures is a good thing to do in its own right.

So yes, there are things in it. But the bill as a whole, the more I look at it, the worse it gets. It's going to increase costs, not decrease them. And it's going to increase the rate of growth. It's not going to bend the curve, except in Medicare.

I think in order to look at a reform and to measure a reform, you have to look at the problem it's designed to answer. You have to look at what's wrong with our system, in order to evaluate a reform. You have to ask yourself, "Why is it that we spent over twice as much per person on health care and yet don't manage to cover everyone?"

<...>

BILL MOYERS: But the President is pushing ahead; he wants Congress to act in the next month. What would you have us do?

MARCIA ANGELL: I think the problem is this, Bill. If this plan is passed, and I think there's real doubt as to whether it will be, and there's even more doubt as to whether it would ever be fully implemented, but let's say that it's passed. It will begin to unravel almost immediately. And then what will people do? Well, they'll say, "We tried health reform, and it didn't work. Better not try that anymore."

It'll be like what happened after the Clinton plan failed. There'll be another 16 years before anybody comes up with the courage to try that again. People say, "Too expensive. Just can't have universal care. Tried that, did that, didn't work, good-bye." Whereas if the bill dies now, people can say, "This bill died because it was a bad bill." And the problem is still on the front burner. And then one can hope that we get some version of Medicare for all. And that we don't have to wait 16 years.

Sounds like someone speculating based on a set of bogus premises. The Clinton plan? So she advocates killing a bill that does a lot of good because she thinks it's going to unravel? She then claims that this will be similiar to what happened when the Clinton plan failed: "Tried that, did that didn't work, good-bye." So killing the bill is supposed to produce a different outcome?

I think her argument is the same hocus pocus from the all or nothing advocates.

Killing the bill isn't going to happen, it makes no sense and it is going to pass.

[CreekDog]

101. Potter said to pass the bill, by the way

Yup he did, unequivocally.

[jefferson_dem]

114. Anyone...

who understands American politics, is rational, and not bearing some invisble cross of righteousness says "pass the bill". No brainer.

[flyarm]

102. Oh but but but ..Tom Hanks thinks Obama is doing a great job!!Dr. Marcia Angell You wrecked the love

fest!!!!!!!!

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

ACTOR...Dr. Marcia Angell..ACTOR...Dr. Marcia Angell..ACTOR ...Dr. Marcia Angell

WHO TO BELIEVE??????

does Disney still have fantasy rides???????

me thinks some around these parts never got off them!!:crazy:

Thank you Dr. Marcia Angell!!

And Thank you WillyT for this thread of info!!

K&R

[Mithreal]

117. +1

[Cleita]

105. Also, Wendell Potter has stated that if this corporate friendly bill is signed

into law it will bankrupt the Treasury, then Congress will be forced to go back to the drawing board and get it right. It's too bad, they can't get it right the first time and prevent the agony it will cause.

[pleah]

106. K&R

[slipslidingaway]

125. AHIP commercial for health care reform - "If everyone is covered..."

"Illness" - AHIP Reform Ad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R36YJl8SagU

If everyone is covered = individual mandate.



"Health Plans Propose Guaranteed Coverage for Pre-Existing Conditions and Individual Coverage Mandate

http://pnhp.org/blog/2008/11/20/ahip-bcbsa-support-guaranteed-issue-and-individual-mandate/

AHIP (America’s Health Insurance Plans)

November 19, 2008

"Summary of AHIP’s Proposal to Guarantee Coverage for Pre-existing Conditions and Promote Affordability in the Individual Insurance Market:

Guarantee-issue coverage with no pre-existing condition exclusions;

Establish an individual coverage requirement with an insurance coverage verification system, an automatic enrollment process and effective enforcement of the requirement that all individuals purchase and maintain coverage;
...."

[colsohlibgal]

126. I Completely Agree With Her

How likely do you think it will be that improvements will be made to what is passed?

Three is no reason on God's green earth that there needs to be a gigantic money sucking leech apparatus as a third party to health care. What do they really do for your health? Every other non two bit country allows this. But then their government isn't getting bribed like ours. If I go down to the State Tax Office and bribe someone there to cut my taxes in half we'd both get criminally charged if caught. In Washington - business as usual.

I flashed back today to Obama's inane statement that single payer would be fine if we were starting from scratch but...... How hard would it be to just change to medicare for all. The health companies could hang on by switching to covering non essential cosmetic surgeries like boob jobs and face lifts like they do overseas. Just more excuses and smoke screens from DC.

BTW, predictably the MSM is completely misreading, almost certainly on purpose, why support for the health care bill has lagged - it's mainly due to progressives who think it's a joke.

[bvar22]

178. That was the first direct LIE Obama told that I remember.

..that we would have to "build a Single Payer System from scratch."
I remember hearing him say this during the debates, and was surprised that no one confronted him on this distortion. We ALREADY have TWO "Single Payer Systems" UP & RUNNING.


I didn't call it a "LIE" then, but many of us commented on Obama's "mistake" on DU.

[Bluenorthwest]

129. She's right. And that is all there is to it.

This country is insane, and lead by criminals.

[Jester Messiah]

134. Making common cause with the freepers... despicable. [nt]

[tomp]

170. making ad hominem arguments....

....stupid.

[Jester Messiah]

194. I quite agree.

But that isn't what I did. I said that the OP makes common cause with the freepers. In so much as OP and the freepers want HCR killed, my statement is accurate. I find that common cause deplorable, in that it has DU'ers working with Freepers to leave the currently uninsurable without insurance, and keeps us all at the mercy of the insurance companies who can drop us anytime we become inconvenient. Show me the ad hominem. (Hint: Ad hominem is the fallacy where I attempt to disprove your argument due to your race, religion, or some other fault found with you instead of your argument. In that I'm not addressing an argument in particular, you've got your work cut out for you.)

[bvar22]

177. I HAVE more "Common Cause" with the Teabaggers....

...than with the CEOs of the Health Insurance Corporations and their bought politicians.
.
.
.
You do too, you just haven't realized it yet.

[jotsy]

135. I don't see the mandate as anything but a demand for profit,

which should have no place in the practice of medicine. If we are liberators, we should be freeing doctors from the powerful participants who provide the least, yet profit the most.

As part and parcel to the introductory fabric of the constitution, promoting the general welfare of we the people establishes the corporate presence in this process as inappropriate. The health insurance industry has acted as serial mass murderers for money and should be barred from ever making another dime.

[SlingBlade]

137. Run a stake through its black corporate heart, Kill It !

Kill this fucker dead.

70 billion dollar giveaway to the top five monopoly health care insurance cartel !!!!

Tell these whores that we don't want or need their crumbs.
Vote 'em out, Every last one of these fux democrats, Top to Bottom

If were gonna get fucked over, Let a republican do the fucking
not these slimy assed bastard blue dogs, corporate whores and Lieberman liberals
Fuck 'em, One and all


Buncha Rat Bastards !

[democrank]

139. Like bvar 22 said

it`s mandated profit for the insurance industry. It`s a junk bill....like junk mail only much worse. This is a pretend "fix" filled with loopholes. When the senate winks and says, "gotcha covered" they aren`t talking to average citizens.

[Echo In Light]

141. k/r

[mmonk]

142. Single payer is "the only thing that can be done".

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

169. Kill it? It's already been drowned in the watering down process. Just bury it.

[mvd]

174. My thoughts

Yes, I'm extremely frustrated that this is all we get with the majority in both Houses and the Presidency. If you are going to get everyone into the system, much better to do it the way they mandate in other countries: through contributions made to a fund. But even Bernie Sanders said that the bill would save lives through Community Health Centers. Is he wrong? If he is, just tell me why - I'm open to opinions. Also, if we don't pass a bill, is there any way to take up health care again, and any way to avoid Repukes being back in power?

[bvar22]

175. The problem with this is:

Community Health Care Centers are already legal and in operation across the country.
We don't have to Pass the Senate Bill NOW in order to get them.
They are already perfectly legal.
Find the closest Federally Funded Community Health Center:

http://www.findahealthcenter.hrsa.gov/

We do NOT have to give the For Profit Health Insurance Industry a $TRILLION dollars and MANDATED PROFITS in order to get Community Health Care Centers.
That money would be much better spent simply expanding and funding the Community Health Center Network. that already exists. IF we did THAT, the MONEY would be spent actually providing Health Care to Americans instead of providing NEW Summer Homes in Aspen for Health Insurance CEOs.
No need to pass this bill.

As far as "is there any way to take up health care again,"...
Please tell THAT to the "Pass it NOW, we'll FIX IT later" crowd.
That is why it is critically important to include a viable Public Option NOW.
It won't be "added later" especially after the coming blood bath in 2010.

[mvd]

180. You make some good points

I still have concerns about the elections, though - if we pass nothing, we'll be seen as weak. We absolutely can't have the Repukes back in power. I also wonder if heath reform will come up at all again if we do nothing. Remember the conditions we have to face - the party isn't as progressive as a whole as I am.

[bvar22]

183. THAT is the Problem.

The Democrats have now engineered (mis-engineered) this into a Damned if they do/Damned if they don't situation...Lose/Lose.

The best resolution I can see would be for Obama/Democratic Party to stand up and say that this thing has "gotten out of hand", but we are not going to "Start Over". We are going to take the BEST pieces of this bill, and offer them to the American People in simple, Stand Alone, legislation we will bring to the floor for Up or Down votes.
Then DO IT.
Do it for the Pre-existing conditions
Do it for the "dumping".
Do it for the price gouging.
Do it for the limits on profits.

ALL, one at a time...Up or Down votes...
and LET the Republicans oppose these individual reforms that are very popular with The People.
Then the Republicans will NOT be fighting "a massive government take over"...the WILL be forced to SUPPORT Dumping, Price Gouging, etc.

And THEN...
Offer an incremental expansion of Medicare eligibility to the "Unemployed over 50"..NOT as "Health Care Reform", but as Emergency Relief to Working Americans who are now virtually unemployable.
And LET The Republicans TRY to OPPOSE THAT!
.
.
And, BINGO, the door to Medicare for ALL is wide open.

But the Democrats would have to act FAST.
2010 is coming, and things don't look good the way it is going.
LESS than 35% of the American People support Mandates without a Public Option.
Good Luck trying to sell that in 2010.


BTW: In reference to the Community Health Centers,
I think that was an inspired but Machiavellian piece of marketing to add something to the bill that we already have in order to make it seem more palatable.

[mvd]

186. Sounds like a good plan

What would your replacement for the mandate be, to make sure we all participate?

[bvar22]

188. Ultimately, It MUST be THIS:

* Would you favor or oppose the national government offering everyone the choice of a government administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private health insurance plans?

Favor 82%

Oppose 14%

Not Sure 4%
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010010320/poll-shouts-message-massachusetts-voters-were-sending

This is not an outlier. When asked this question, Americans overwhelmingly respond YES.
If the Democratic Party is going to continue to call itself "The Party of The People",
then it is time to Prove It.

But again, this CAN and SHOULD be offered as a clean, stand alone provision, forced to the floor for an Up or Down vote.

At this point, it would be easier to simply do the Medicare Expansion to 55 BEFORE the 2010 elections.
THAT would immediately produce Grateful Americans who can appear in the campaign commercials thanking the Democratic Party for their help.
(BTW: Howard Dean supports this. In fact, he stated that if the Democrats do NOT do this, they stand a chance of losing the Majority in the House in 2010.)

After THAT, the easiest course would be to simply carry out incremental expansions until EVERYONE is covered or has access to Medicare.


Mandates without a Public Option are a NO GO.
THAT is SUICIDE for the Democratic Party.

"When given the choice between a Republican, and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, the voters will choose the Republican every time." ---Harry Truman

QED Massachusetts

[mvd]

189. Yep, implementing the public option before..

any mandates is a reasonable course of action. Thanks for the discussion - this is really a viable alternative to the House passing the Senate bill. :hi:

[mvd]

190. Duplicate - editing out

n/t

[ipaint]

191. +1 nt

[amborin]

182. recommended; thanks for posting