Michael Moore's sad but very true message

[Matariki]

Wednesday, March 17th, 2010

Friends,

It was amazing. Every story on the front page of Tuesday's New York Times told the story of the Age of Greed during which a system known as capitalism is slowly, but surely, killing us:

Insurance company greed: "Millions Spent to Sway Democrats on Health Care"

War profiteers: "Contractors Tied to Effort to Track and Kill Militants"

There's no profit in repairing our infrastructure: "Repair Costs Daunting as Water Lines Crumble"

China, the bank: "China Uses Rules on Global Trade to Its Advantage"

You mean NAFTA didn't improve life in Mexico: "Two Drug Slayings in Mexico Rock US Consulate"

What happens when Big Food profits from hurting kids: "Forget Goofing Around: Recess Has New Boss"

There's now a daily parade of news like this -- well, not really "news," more like the media division of large corporations shoving your face into the dirt that is your life. You already know the schools are a disaster and the war is a boon for the Halliburtons and a bust for you. You don't need a newspaper to tell you the roads and electrical lines and the local sewage plant is in miserable disrepair.

And by now you've figured out that you don't really have any say in this, that what we call the "democratic process" is mostly a sham, pretty words that get repeated in the hopes we will all still fall for it. But the fix is in and we don't fall for it anymore. Admit it: Wall Street owns "our" Congress lock, stock and big barrel o' campaign cash. You want a say in this? Well, I don't see you on the Forbes 400, so shut the f@*& up and go fetch me another bottle of bubbly.

Within days, the House of Representatives will vote to pass the Senate health care "reform" bill. This bill is a joke. It has NOTHING to do with "health care reform." It has EVERYTHING to do with lining the pockets of the health insurance industry. It forces, by law, every American who isn't old or destitute to buy health insurance if their boss doesn't provide it. What company wouldn't love the government forcing the public to buy that company's product?! Imagine a bill that ordered every citizen to buy the extended warranty on all their appliances? Imagine a law that made it illegal not to own an iPhone? Or how 'bout I get a law passed that makes it compulsory for every American to go see my next movie? Woo-hoo! Who wouldn't love a sweet set-up like this windfall?

Well, the insurance companies -- get this -- don't like the Democrats' bill! That alone should be reason enough to vote for it.

Now, you would think these thieves would love this bill -- but they are actually fighting it. Why? Because it doesn't give them ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the what they want. It only gives them... 90%! YOU SEE, pure greed demands all or nothing.

The insurance industry hates this bill because it puts a few minor restrictions on them. Six months after its passage they won't be able to deny children coverage if they have a pre-existing condition. How awful! Government interference! SOCIALISM!

But, hey, they'll still be able to deny these children's parents coverage until 2014! So if a parent gets sick and dies in the next four years, I'm sure someone will step in and raise these already-insured orphans.

And how big will the fines be if the insurance companies do deny someone coverage for having a pre-existing condition? Are you sitting down? A hundred dollars a day! That's it! So if you're the insurance company, and Judy is a customer of yours, and Judy needs an operation that will cost $100,000, what do you do? You take the fine! Let's say Judy lives another year after you've sentenced her to death, your $100-a-day fine will only cost you $36,500! That's a savings of $63,500! And trust me, my friends, that's EXACTLY what's going to happen.

There are some good things in this bill. Parents will be able to keep their children on their policy until the kids turn 26. A few things like that. So, yes, pass that.

But don't insult me and 300 million Americans by calling this "health care reform." At least you've stopped calling it "universal health care." We will not have universal health care or anything close to it. I wish the president and the Democratic leadership would just stand up and say, "We're sorry, America. We didn't get the job done you sent us here to do. We're weak and scared and unable to communicate the simplest of messages to the American people. Therefore, our bill will guarantee that 12 million of you will still have NO health insurance. And that's because we have decided to leave the greedy, private insurance industry in charge of our system. Forgive us for this and for continuing to allow profit to be the determining factor as to whether a patient gets the help she or he needs."

Please, Democrats -- just say that -- then pass this poor excuse of a bill. Pass it because, if President Obama takes a fall on this one, I don't know if he'll be able to get back up. And then NOTHING will get done. We can't have that. (And thank you Dennis Kucinich for hanging in there right up to the end and being the only one out of the 435 members to speak the awful truth.)

On the front page of yesterday's New York Times, the dateline was, sadly, once again, "Flint, Michigan." The story was about how doctors are no longer accepting Medicaid patients. Which means tens of thousands of poor can no longer go to the doctor. Last year, the State of Michigan also prohibited doctors from accepting Medicaid patients who had anything wrong with their vision, their hearing, their feet or their teeth. In a 16-county area northwest of Flint, there will soon be not one single hospital that will allow you to give birth there if you're on Medicaid. The official unemployment rate in Flint is 27% (unofficially, closer to 40%).

This is an American tragedy. And, as I've warned you for years, this tsunami is heading your way -- if it's not there already.

I've just turned on my new iPhone and it informs me that it has "apps" it would like to suggest I buy. One is called "Scanner." It will allow me to listen in on police scanners anywhere across the country. I buy the app. I see that the Flint police scanner is part of this. I turn it on out of curiosity. And this is what I hear, at one in the morning: A woman is being beaten by her husband... A home invasion is taking place ("16-year-old black male, wearing a white skull cap")... A child has been missing since noon today... Another woman is being beaten by her boyfriend... A diabetic, obese man is having trouble breathing and needs to be rushed to the hospital (there will be three more of these obese diabetics in the hours to come; the entire town is ill)... One more woman calling, screaming for help, "officers urged to use caution..."

...And on and on and on. This is what I have listened to before going to bed. I am filled with despair and helplessness as I hear my former neighbors crying out for help. I hate it. I have to turn it off. I start to cry. Thank you, iPhone. Thank you, Democrats. I'll sleep better knowing that you're looking out for all of us.

Bastards.

Michael Moore
[e-mail]
MichaelMoore.com

P.S. I'll continue my jihad today on Dylan Ratigan (MSNBC, 4pm ET) and, for the first time together in the same studio since our, um, 2007 debate, I'll join Wolf Blitzer live in his CNN Studio (5-8pm, ET). I'll also be on live for the entire 11am hour this morning on the wonderful Diane Rehm Show on NPR. You can listen live online here.

The rest of the day I'll spend wandering the halls of Congress with my shillelagh and shamrocks, doing my best impersonation of St. Patrick as I try to drive the snakes out of Capitol Hill. Wish me luck...

[Mari333]

1. telling it like it is. knr

[quiet.american]

2. Yes, I know it's heresy to say it, but Michael Moore doesn't know WTF he's talking about re: HCR. nt

[Matariki]

4. Can you be specific?

perhaps I don't understand it either because I'm seeing the way he does. It seems like a massive give away to the insurance industry, forcing everyone to buy their extremely faulty product.

[Mari333]

8. a lot of people are putting party before whats good for the country

they do the same thing with the bush policies that continue in Iraq, Afghanistan, Gitmo, FISA, the patriot act, etc....party before people, party before everything. they thank their masters for a few crumbs off the master's table.

just going to sit back and watch the USA sink into it's corporate cesspool.

[quiet.american]

16. And a lot of people are sticking to their guns with ideology before people.

And not even bothering to understand what's in the bill.

[Mari333]

18. yes, party before people. grandstanding for wars and corporations.

spineless .

ignore.

[quiet.american]

20. Tunnel vision. nt

[defendandprotect]

112. Rather advancing corporatism and supporting it is naive "tunnel vision."

[Matariki]

21. I understand there's a mandate and have seen the math - and it looks disasterous to me

I don't suppose you want to bother to at least try and sum up your support of the bill?

[quiet.american]

31. See my post #13 for a start. nt

[Puglover]

167. Your posts aren't worth a read much less a 2nd look. nt

Join the rest of your "centrist" pals on ignore.

[Bluenorthwest]

47. That's funny, because he says pass the thing

He's just not going to call mediocrity by the name of excellence. How in the hell is saying pass the bill and don't stop fighting putting anything before people. The crap will be passed. Mikes agrees with that. And like every single politician promoting it, he says it is not that good, could be better, needs to be fixed, only Mike means it.
I guess passing it is not enough for you, you are also expecting ticker tape and roses? Get real.

[quiet.american]

51. Wasn't referencing Moore, there. nt

[Nikki Stone1]

59. Moore tells you what is in the bill. So have others. It's a bad bill, not ideologically, but REALLY

practically, for real.

[quiet.american]

63. Try as I might, I don't see why I should recoil in horror from:

Immediate Benefits

Access to Affordable Coverage for the Uninsured with Pre-existing Conditions
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will provide $5 billion in immediate federal support for a new program to provide affordable coverage to uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions. This provision is effective 90 days after enactment, and coverage under this program will continue until new Exchanges are operational in 2014.

Access to Quality Care for Vulnerable Populations
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act makes an immediate and substantial investment in Community Health Centers to provide the funding needed to expand access to health care in communities where it is needed most. This $10 billion investment begins in 2010 and extends for five years.

No Pre-existing Coverage Exclusions for Children
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act eliminates pre-existing condition exclusions for all Americans beginning in 2014, when the Exchanges are operational. Recognizing the special vulnerability of children, the Managers’ Amendment prohibits health insurers from excluding coverage of pre-existing conditions for children, effective six months after enactment and applying to all new plans.

Re-insurance for Retiree Health Benefit Plans
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will create immediate access to re-insurance for employer health plans providing coverage for early retirees, effective 90 days after enactment. This re-insurance will help protect coverage while reducing premiums for employers and retirees.

Closing the Coverage Gap in the Medicare (Part D) Drug Benefit
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will reduce the size of the “donut hole,” raising the ceiling on the initial coverage period by $500 in 2010.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will also guarantee 50 percent price discounts on brand-name drugs and biologics purchased by low and middle-income beneficiaries in the coverage gap, beginning July 1, 2010.

Small Business Tax Credits
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will offer tax credits to small businesses beginning in 2010 to make employee coverage more affordable.

Tax credits of up to 35 percent of premiums will be immediately available to firms that choose to offer coverage; later, when Exchanges are operational, tax credits will be up to 50 percent of premiums. The full credit will be available to firms with 10 or fewer employees with average annual wages of $25,000, while firms with up to 25 or fewer employees and average annual wages of up to $50,000 will also be eligible for the credit.

Ensuring Value for Premium Payments
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will establish standards for insurance overhead and require public disclosure to ensure that enrollees get value for their premium dollars. The Managers’ Amendment tightened these standards, requiring plans in the individual and small group market to spend 80 percent of premium dollars on clinical services and quality activities, and 85 percent for plans in the large group market. Health insurance plans that do not meet these thresholds will provide rebates to their policyholders. This provision takes effect in 2011 and applies to all plans, including grandfathered plans, with the exception of self-insured plans.

Patient Protections
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act protects patients’ choice of doctors by allowing plan members to pick any participating primary care provider, prohibiting insurers from requiring prior authorization before a woman sees an ob-gyn, and ensuring access to emergency care. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all new plans.

Extension of Dependent Coverage for Young Adults
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will require insurers to permit children to stay on family policies until age 26. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all new plans.

Free Prevention Benefits
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will require coverage of prevention and wellness benefits and exempt these benefits from deductibles and other cost-sharing requirements in public and private insurance coverage. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all new plans.

Beginning on January 1, 2011, Medicare beneficiaries will receive a free, annual wellness visit and will have all cost-sharing waived for prevention services.

No Lifetime Limits on Coverage
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will prohibit insurers from imposing lifetime limits on benefits. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all new plans.

Restricted Annual Limits on Coverage
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will tightly restrict insurance companies’ use of annual limits to ensure access to needed care, effective six months after enactment for all new health plans. These tight restrictions will be defined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. When the Exchanges are operational, the use of annual limits will be banned.

Protection from Rescissions of Existing Coverage
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will stop insurers from rescinding insurance when claims are filed, except in cases of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of material fact. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all new plans.

Prohibits Discrimination Based on Salary
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will prohibit group health plans from establishing any eligibility rules for health care coverage that have the effect of discriminating in favor of higher wage employees. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to group health plans.

Public Access to Comparable Information on Insurance Options
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will enable creation of a new website to provide information on and facilitate informed consumer choice of insurance options.

Health Insurance Consumer Information
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will provide assistance to States in establishing offices of health insurance consumer assistance or health insurance ombudsman programs to assist individuals with the filing of complaints and appeals, enrollment in a health plan, and, eventually, to assist consumers with resolving problems with tax credit eligibility. This provision is effective beginning with fiscal year 2010.

Appeals Process
Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, all new health plans will implement, within six months of enactment, an effective process for appeals of coverage determinations and claims. And, states will provide an external appeals process to ensure an independent review.

[defendandprotect]

117. "Immediate" . . . ? Adults with pre-existing conditions wait 3-4 years . . .

before that game-playing moves off the corporate stage --

[eridani]

153. Access to Affordable Coverage for the Uninsured with Pre-existing Conditions = bullshit

My state already has one of those useless totally shitty high risk pools. Mostly the uninsured don't use it because it is totally crap coverage which is so expensive that it prevents them from paying for their ongoing care.


Protection from Rescissions of Existing Coverage = bullshit

They'll rescind, you get to appeal. If you die before the appeal process is done, they win. Ask the Sarkisisans.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will establish standards for insurance overhead and require public disclosure to ensure that enrollees get value for their premium dollars = utter complete TOTAL bullshit.

15 states have tried regulating insurance costs by MLR requirements, and have ABYSMALLY FAILED. Every single one. And the "sunshine law" is nothing but a sick joke. It is nothing but a list of very naughty boys and girls. If they don't straignten up and fly right, why, next year they're going to be on that very same list!

[anachro1]

164. How dare you

post FACTS?
Do you expect teapartiers to read all that?
It's much easier for them to scream loudly about things they can never understand.

In fact, it's downright AMERIKAN...

[Loge23]

165. It WAS about health care for all...

Now, the headline banner is about the watered-down pre-existing condition clause.
Even Rachel Maddow, whom I adore, was - sadly - pretty near ga-ga last night about these bullet points.
The points you thoughtfully listed do little but get us back to what health insurance should have been - and may have once been.
The bill does little to nothing in the way of providing the much needed strong competition for the cartel.
The tax credits (for a whopping 35% of the premiums) will do very little to actually make health insurance more affordable for the under $50K employee. But now, that employee WILL HAVE TO purchase the insurance!! How screwed up is that??
Some nitwit inserted the clause for pre-exisiting for the children to be effective within 90 days. Why just children?? Is that to make the bill more palpatable for "awwwww" crowd?
Look, this bill has to be passed. It's a start and it should only be viewed as such. But let this entire fiasco serve as proof-positive about the utter ineptness of our government and our country as a whole.
Frankly, we are so freakin' behind the rest of the developed world in just about every vital measure realted to quality of life that the writing on the wall (if one can still read it) just blares how far this country has fallen.

[Uncle Joe]

74. Their ideology is the people, the whole people or "general" as in

to "promote the general welfare", not a particular welfare as in to enshrine an illogical, dysfunctional, redundant, for profit "health" insurance industry.

[Mithreal]

78. +1

[defendandprotect]

118. Not some of the "people" -- not a few of the poor -- ALL THE PEOPLE EQUALLY....

Not a tiered-system --

Not a system where many are those with pre-existing conditions are thrown into "risk pools" --

Not a system where we have MEANS TESTING and declare some POOR and others even POORER --

fit for "welfare" status and "charity" -- NO!

Means testing is a filthy GOP gimmick -- which they've long wanted to use on Social Security!

Not a system of subsidizing insurance companies!!

[icee]

91. I read the bill almost twice. I know what's in the bill! It is a consummate

piece of garbage. Watch what happens to the middle class. Watch what happens to old people. Watch how the insurance company skirts every single ostensibly "good" provision in the bill. Watch how in just one or two years every person who is insured under the new bill's provisions decides who he/she WILL NOT vote for!

[ooglymoogly]

105. Why do you think they have put off most of the thuggery in this

bill till safely after the next election and even the one after that to insure O's and their re-election; And how do you think the elderly who depend for life on medicare, will feel when they learn half a trillion is taken from their lifeline to pay off the insurance thugs for not attacking O, no matter what smarmy parcing is proffered. "We're just cutting out the waste and fraud"; Yah, been there done that about a jillion times; A broken record when cover for pulling the rug from the elderly is needed. After this flim flam is passed then watch them start cutting medicare. If fraud could be cut, it would have been cut long ago. The pugs couldn't tamper with medicare but flim flam Obamarama can get the job done cus he has a D after his name and has learned the pug trick that all you need is to fool the people most of the time.

[icee]

142. Hi, oogly. I'm a diabetic who will turn 65 next February. I'll be one

of those elderly that will be affect by Obamacare. Medicare is just the start. Obama has someone working on Social Security also. That will change big time also. Get sick, then you die: this will be the Obama prescription. Or: grow old and Obama will put you on a patch of ice. And the quiet Americans suddenly will start talking (in horror) again. You would think that after all the lies his Obama has told, people would start to understand the MO. Anyway, I told someone the other day he should show you a post and get your opinion, but then I realized how stupid that sounded. There's no way to get in touch with people here. It's not like summer camp. Oh, well. Day one Democratic Party burial date is sometime Sunday. They are going to sneak HCR through without voting. It will be challenged right after Obama signs it. LaterZ

[sendero]

96. I understand the bill just fine..

... and it is bullshit. And if it passes, come November you will find out just how many Americans agree with me.

[defendandprotect]

111. We too well understand what's in the bill . . . and if we're smart we who do know

will make sure that everyone we come in contact with knows . . .

[Enthusiast]

156. How about people

before corporations? Is the wellbeing of the people of less concern that party unity?

[tomp]

170. perhaps you should go to his website....

....and debate it with HIM there.

I'm guessing he'll give you a run for your money, if not trounce you thoroughly.

but otherwise you're just making a very unconvincing ad hominem argument.

[Kalun D]

82. Before

A lot of politicians are putting CORPORATE before people, corporate before everything.

Party doesn't mean anything anymore, now that we have the DLC. Party used to mean people like Kucinich, now he's the minority.

[icee]

92. After today, he's is not even that. Dennis who?

[defendandprotect]

119. Could Kucinich have actually stopped this bill?

And where's Howard Dean -- ???

Finally, I think they all decide to keep playing with the team --

otherwise, we'd see break-aways -- people moving on and some moving on together --

moving out of the party to maybe start a new party?

However, things have been so locked up and so much barred by the two-party fascism

that that's almost impossible to do!

[icee]

147. Your point is well taken, D&P. I would have rather DK would have

held his ground. No, he couldn't have stopped the bill, but he was a walking, talking progressive. And he gave comfort to us all. Now he's a remnant, a broken reminder of better times. Did you see his face, hear his voice...observe his countenance? He was a broken man, imo. I used to have to fire someone every once in a while. That's what he looked like. Let's start a new Party. How big is your garage?

[defendandprotect]

178. You know . . .

basically, the stuff that Obama's comments have prompted re third parties is

actually taboo on DU!

I've been looking for a mod to jump in and shut it down --

On the other hand, Skinner may think it best to not try to put a lid on this???

There's too much DLC influence here -- which wastes all of our time.

We have to remember that liberals and progressives are the majority --

and that includes 73% of Catholics who want government run health care --

including contraception and abortion!

Is Obama willing to see women and Unions walk away from the party?

Or have WOMEN and UNIONS not yet figured out that they're on the LEFT and that

this is not necessarily the final betrayal we're going to see!!

[defendandprotect]

110. Well . . . first come the BRIBES . . . then comes the corporate before people . . .

Let's be sure to call this campaign funding and lobbying what it really is . . .

BRIBERY -- with leverage -- of, by and for the elite.

Obviously, no one is getting this money -- including Obama -- and then being permitted

to wander off and do whatever they wish!!

[cilla4progress]

98. Right on!

Although, sadly, I do believe this bill has to pass, or the Republicans will believe they can tear through any and everything on BO's agenda and destroy it. Sadly, it has been turned into this stupid binary win-lose fiasco. So, it must pass, piece of crap though it is. I just hold onto hope that SOMEONE up there on the hill will truly take on the PO and any thing of any actual VALUE that could and should have been in the bill, and carry it forward after this passes.

[LWolf]

161. +1,000

[quiet.american]

13. Let me ask you this.

Have you spent as much time reading through the bills' summaries, the bill's table of contents and the bills themselves as you have in taking the point of view that you have?

If I were to walk up to a low-income ($22,000/yr x .02 (maximum percentage of income that can be charged towards premiums=$440/yr premium cost, divided by 12 mos=$37.00/mo) family of four on the street today and say to them, "Look, you can have health insurance for your whole family for $37/month, and the government will pay 90% of your out-of-pocket costs beyond the premium. Dad has diabetes and hasn't been able to get insurance? No problem. If Dad hasn't had insurance over the past six months, he can get into a subsidized temporary high risk pool insurance that will be started up by June or July of this year and will be in place until 2014.

What will you be covered for under this insurance? At a minimum, free preventive health services and:

(b) ESSENTIAL HEALTH BENEFITS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), the
Secretary shall define the essential health benefits, except that such benefits shall include at least the following general categories and the items and services
covered within the categories:
(A) Ambulatory patient services.
(B) Emergency services.
(C) Hospitalization.
(D) Maternity and newborn care.
(E) Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment.
(F) Prescription drugs.
(G) Rehabilitative and habilitative services
and devices.
(H) Laboratory services.
(I) Preventive and wellness services and
chronic disease management.
(J) Pediatric services, including oral and
vision care.

So they say, sounds good, what's the catch? Well, you have to buy the insurance for $37/mo, and everyone else does, too, in order to keep the costs down.

So, on the one hand, Dad currently can't get insurance, and even if he could, the family can't afford insurance. On the other, $37/month gets the whole family insurance, Dad can get into the subsidized high risk pool, and the family gets 90% of their healthcare costs subsidized by the government.

Is it crazy to think that the first thing that comes to this family's mind is, "No! It's just a giveaway to the insurance companies!"

Edited to add sources:

HR 3590 Section by Section (56 pages)
http://stabenow.senate.gov/healthcare/Patient_protection_section.pdf

HR 3590:
http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act-as-passed.pdf

HR 3590 Manager's Amendment:
http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/managers-amendment.pdf

The President's Proposal:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal/whatsnew/affordability

[Matariki]

28. Yes, it has some advantages for people with very low incomes

and that's good. But it's going to rape and pillage the middle class - using your same math examples for a family making more than $22k but struggling, on say, $40k.

The bill allows Insurance companies to raise their already high rates. It does nothing to lower costs. Money that middle class families were saving to put their kids though collage and to save for their own retirements will now be forced over to for-profit insurance companies.

[quiet.american]

34. How are the struggling families better off with no premium or cost-sharing subsidies?

With not having access to healthcare?
With being able to be dropped from healthcare?
Etc.?

With healthcare reform, the percentage of your income that goes towards health insurance premiums is capped. And the out-of-pocket is capped at a lower rate than it is now. Plus your out-of-pocket is subsidized from 70-90%.

Without HCR, premiums definitely go up at will with no limit.

With HCR, you cannot pay a premium than is higher than your maximum percentage.

If there are *no* cost controls, how is it that CBO rates the bill as reducing the deficit by $1 trillion over the next twenty years, and reducing premium costs for individuals, and small businesses significantly?

[defendandprotect]

114. Why are you supporting a tier-system which doesn't treat every citizen EQUALLY . ..??

Let's have one system that provides universal health care --

not welfare and not charity!!

This is the supremely ugly MEANS TESTING of the GOP -- !!!

Nor do we need these inane and gimmicky complexities -- let's simply provide health

care for every citizen --

MEDICARE FOR ALL --

everyone in, no one out --

NO PRIVATIZATION ---



Oh, yeah, we remember why . . . Obama made private deals with "for profit" health care

providers that American citizens wouldn't get a government run health care plan!!


Betrayal is an ugly word -- it will be even uglier as we see it played out over the next

three-four years!!

[happy_liberal]

35. I have seen you post these numbers before

and it sounds like this is really going to be a big help for poor people.(because of that I find it hard to believe)

I don't trust the gov't or this bill, but you seem to have done the research and this makes it seem better than everyone else is saying.

I see people disputing the gist of what you said, but with no specifics, no numbers, no links.

So what gives? Do DUers really know what is in the bill or what?

[quiet.american]

38. Thanks for giving a listen, happy_liberal. nt

[truedelphi]

93. I don't think that anyone knows what is in the bill.

In fact, the thing is, the Senate and House are supposed to be voting on an up or down vote, considering only the amendments.

How many times have we had amendments to bills that no one understood until two or three years down the road?(Except opf course for the rat bastard who put in the hidden clause. Back circa 1999, or 2000, Tom DeLay did that to one of the more pertinent financial bills, and that was the beginning of the end for our economy.)

And as explained on the wonderful topic that I believe you started, laughingliberal, the Senator Ensign amendment that was offered to "let Americans who choose healthy lifestyles avoid penalties that others will face" means that if you are judged as being obese because of lifestyle decisions, if you don't exercise, if you are poor and live in an area where the incinerators of toxins throws the proverbial at you 24/7, then you have not chosen a healthy lifestyle. So that huge segment of America will see their premiums be higher than those limits on high premiums that we all suppose will be in effect.

[defendandprotect]

115. Though corporations polluting the planet and making us all ill are to be ignored!!

Carbon tax is something we should be thinking about --

but obviously our Congress/Dems are doing little thinking except

about what they have to do to get the next corporate BRIBE!!

[defendandprotect]

116. Trade agreements . . . !!!

[truedelphi]

180. Carbon taxes and trade argreements wil be another bullet in the

Flesh of the dying middle class.

[Hello_Kitty]

45. A family of 4 making $22K is getting Medicaid.

That's under the Senate bill, the House version, and Obama's plan.

http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

So I don't know why you wasted your time with that cut and paste for that particular example.

[quiet.american]

46. Kaiser's calculator is wrong. My info is based on what's posted at the White House website.

Kaiser has excellent information, but their subsidy calculator has problems. For one thing, it bases subsidy amounts on age, and subsidies are based only on income and citizenship status.

Here's the table I based my info on, which is posted at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal/whatsnew/affordability



As you can see, it also posts the figures across the House, Senate and President's Proposal ranges.


Edited to add:

Although, upon second look, I do see that the WH lists the tax credit for $22,000 and starts the cost-sharing at $29,000:



So it's not correct for me to wholly dismiss what you said - the table lists the $22,000 family as at 2% of income for premiums, and if this remains as qualifying for Medicaid, then it looks like the scenario improves with Medicaid picking up the remainder of all costs.

[Hello_Kitty]

48. But $22K a year for a family of 4 is 100% FPL.

I thought everyone below 133% FPL would be put on Medicaid. Has that changed?

[quiet.american]

55. Quite frankly, I don't know -- but I added some further comment to my original reply to you.

I added that the premium level is maxed at 2% for the $22,000 family, and cost-sharing starts at $29,000 - so it looks to me that Medicaid will pick up 100% of out-of-pocket until you get to just over $29,000/yr in income.

[Hello_Kitty]

49. Also, how can age not be a factor when insurers are allowed to rate for age?

And subsidies are based on a percentage of income? A 50 year old should be getting a bigger subsidy than a 25 year old at the same income.

[quiet.american]

54. In their text on eligibility, Kaiser has the language.

Kaiser has been an excellent source of information, but according to the information on their own site, their calculator does not seem to be correct.

As for fairness, since the bill does away with denial of coverage, capped coverage, etc., I suppose the thinking is that it levels the playing field for subsidies by income and citizenship status.

If you're fifty, but you can't be denied coverage or charged higher premiums because of your health status, I guess the thinking is, you would not need a higher subsidy based on your age.


edited for typos

[Hello_Kitty]

57. Wait, what?

It's impossible to have a cap on income percentage for premiums and allow for older people to be charged more. If a family earning $44K can pay no more than 6.3% (according to the chart on the WH page you linked) of their income for premiums, then a family headed by a 50 year old will have to get more subsidies than one headed by a 25 year old.

[quiet.american]

60. I take your logic, but as you see, the table lists only income levels, not age. nt

[defendandprotect]

120. Aren't Kaiser the Nixon's "darlings" who conceived of the "less care" agenda???

[matt819]

94. Quiet American has obviously done a bit of homework

And for that I say thanks. I don't have the patience, or time, to sift through the bill.

Based on those numbers, my insurance premium (family of four) would be reduced by $4,000 or more. Frankly, if my coverage remains the same, I'd be a relatively happy camper.

Now for the questions.

Michael Moore observes that this bill is a boondoggle for the insurance companies, as it requires us to purchase their product. That seems like a reasonable point. Of course, this leads to the next question: What's the alternative? As far as I can tell, it's Medicare buy-in, the single payer option. Since seniors seem to like Medicare, I imagine buy in for younger people would be equally appealing. In this situation, I would still be paying premiums, presumably at something along the lines of the rates Quiet American posted here. The difference is that my premiums go to the USG rather than a private insurance company. Well, if the coverage is comparable and the controls noted by QA here are in place, then should I care whether my premiums are paid to the government or to a private company? As long as I'm covered, at the end of the day I don't really care. Should I?

From my perspective, universal health care would have to be something akin to a medicare buy-in, with the truly indigent (however defined) exempt from any costs. The fact is, however, that someone has to pay for this care. If the government doesn't charge premiums for a medicare-type buy-in, then they have to cover those costs somewhere else, e.g., higher taxes. There is no such thing as a free lunch, notwithstanding the tea party's cry, don't cut defense, cut taxes. Again, this takes us back to the question. To whom do I pay my premiums, USG or private companies, which brings us back to the comment above. As long as I'm covered, as long as controls are in place, as long as there is oversight of the kind of abuse foreseen by Moore, then I don't think I really care. I'm not a big fan of bloated bureaucracies, whether public or private, but if there is oversight and recourse, then I don't see much difference between government insurance or private insurance.

I think I've repeated myself, but I'd appreciate QA's comment.

All of that said, I do share Moore's general observations about the state of our union. Frankly, I despair more now than I did during the Bush years. We know the Republicans are venal and corrupt, but we now also know that the Dems are fundamentally spineless. I can't tell you how disgusted I am seeing old white guys with wattles who've been in office for decades claim to know what's best for us, for America, etc.

[cascadiance]

169. Haven't studied closely, but do tax "credits" trap people the same way AMT has?

In that, if you do get a huge medical expense of well over $100k, that the government is supposed to pick up the tab for, if it is done with "tax credits", that implies that the person doesn't get that "relief" for that huge expense until the following year? What happens between the time they look for you to pay your bill and the time you have to file taxes? Do you still have to come up with some bankster, or payday loan to come up with that cash to pay your bills before the government steps in to pay you back? If you have to get a payday loan, you might have to pay back three times what the government gives you, and you're still stuck with bills that bankrupt you.

Same sort of thing has afflicted people with the alternative minimum taxing schedule, which hadn't been reindexed in decades, and therefore snuck up on middle income America and didn't just affect the wealthy as it had earlier. With AMT, if someone working at a startup was getting a big chunk of their pay in stock options instead of money, and then they exercised their options and the stock was suddenly worth 10 times what they exercised their options for, then they were liable for taxes on that 90% of what their stock was worth since AMT required them to pay in advance of selling that stock taxes on their "gain" in value.

So for those who weren't getting much in salary and didn't have much wealth already, and were counting on stock options revenue as their "nest egg", they were now looking at a huge tax bill that they had to pay that tax year before they sold their stock. What makes matters worse is that during the dotcom bomb, at the time they exercised it, the stock might have been worth 10 times what they paid for it, but afterwards the stock dropped to not much more than what they paid for it. Should they be forced to sell the stock to avoid AMT and perhaps avoid potentially getting gains later (especially long term gains taxed a lot less if they could wait a bit longer)? A wealthy person could absorb that cost for now and get the refunds back for AMT when they actually sold the stock for less later than what AMT wanted to tax them at.

It's about timing. For AMT, the wealthy can absorb the bigger cost initially, but over time get the money back when the government "corrects" things. The poor have to pay the money NOW, or they wind up paying tons more trying to come up with that money, or in the case of AMT maybe have to sell investments at time before they could realize their value, or taking penalties (such as taking out money from their 401k or IRA) to pay it.

The same thing wil happen if people are forced to pay for medical bills up front and have it "corrected" later the following year with a "tax credit". Rich people can deal with that. Average people will be forced to pay a lot more by bankster opportunists if they can even get that money at all.

[defendandprotect]

121. Medicaid patients are being cut off by doctors . . . this is a blessing?

What the hell are Americans thinking, anyway?

Why have a system for the poor?

We need UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE -- EVERYONE TREATED EQUALLY -- RICH OR POOR!!

[happy_liberal]

177. what if you are qualified for medicaid

but don't want to lose your house and assets to get it?

[pundaint]

76. I can describe a nice cheeseburger too, but if it cost $4000 it still wouldn't be a good idea.

The problem isn't on the benefit side, nobody's arguing against benefits.

The problem is paying the for-profit insurers $70 Billion for about $4 Billion in actual benefits. And leaving them in charge of a delivery system that they disrupt.

[ooglymoogly]

109. Gee where does this benevolent government get the funds

to pay these exorbitant, but mandatory, fees for those in that category.

[defendandprotect]

122. Taxpayers: AFTER citizens get stamped "welfare" or "charity" -- !!!

[Kokonoe]

174. Its a provisional tax credit.

The poor saps need to pay the $10's of thousands to corporations before they get a percentage of tax credit.

A night in the hospital will cost thousands after the bill passes. Same as now.

[defendandprotect]

113. Let's take the first part: "the government will pay 90% of your oop costs, beyond the premium . .!!

And you see nothing wrong with not only FORCING customers to buy insurance from

PRIVATE corporations -- but the fact that the US taxpayer is subsidizing the corporations!!!

How many middle-men to Hell do you want before you wake up?

[Cleita]

5. Let's see for a guy who did a documentary on health care in America and

then compared it to other countries, I'd say he knows a lot about what he's talking about. You, on the other hand, do a hit and run one sentence post and have no documentation to back your statement. So I'd say Michael is way ahead of you.

[quiet.american]

14. Patience. I can only type so fast. I've posted more. nt

[defendandprotect]

124. You could have typed the Constitution by now . . . and health care should be that simple!!

Universal Health Care -- everyone in, no one out!

Stop the corporate gameplaying -- stop the bribery and the lobbying!!

[truedelphi]

182. You are forgetting one small thing there, Defendandprotect.

it is not bribery - it is officially "Free speech!"

[dflprincess]

6. Where is he wrong?

If you think this scam is about HCR, you're the one who has no idea what they're talking about.

[quiet.american]

15. That people just take Moore at his word is a bit disconcerting.

"Where is he wrong?"

If you would take some time to read up on the bills, you wouldn't have to ask me.

For one thing, he's wrong about people who have pre-existing conditions having to hold on with no healthcare or health insurance options until 2014.

After the bill is signed, there is a subsidized temporary high risk pool that will be created for people who haven't had insurance for six months and who have a pre-existing condition.

[Matariki]

22. Is that one of the things the Insurance Lobby is fighting, I wonder?

[dflprincess]

29. I have read the bills

as for the "high risk insurance pool" - that only provides "coverage" (assuming a person can afford it)> And, as Moore pointed out in "Sicko" - coverage doesn't mean you can afford care.

[quiet.american]

32. Then I guess there are only three groups in the whole of the US that have ever received care.

Because in that case, the only ones receiving "care" are veterans through the VA and TRICARE, Medicare recipients, and children through CHIP.

[dflprincess]

61. And those who either have policies with low out of pocket expenses

or who have the money to pay them.

More & more employers are moving to policies with cheaper premiums and higher deductibles and "coinsurance" costs expenses for employees. These "cosumer driven health care" plans are designed to make people think twice before seeing a doctor. They're sold with the argument that it keeps people from running up needless costs by seeking care everytime they sneeze and that they do. They also keep people who have chronic condiditons or those who are having serious symptoms from seeking care. Most of these plans do cover screening (aka preventative) tests but it appears that fewer people have the tests done because they fear they won't be able to afford the follow up.

Many of these "consumer driven" scams come with HSAs. Some employers do contribute money to the HSAs, others do not. The maximum amount that may contributed annually to one of these is $3,500 (single person) even if the maximum out of pocket amount their policy allows is higher. There are some outfits who, even today, promote these HSAs as a great deal because, once you have $2,000 in it, you can INVEST IT IN A MUTUAL FUND (below $2K they are in a FDIC protected account)! What a deal, your health care dollars can be used to help Wall Street - just hope that, if you ever have some major medical bills, that the market is up.

[quiet.american]

64. Fine, but employers will have an immediate benefit of a 35% tax credit towards their costs.

That will give them more options towards getting into better plans.

[dflprincess]

66. Do you really think any employer is actually going to spend more than

they have to on health care?

It might help some small business offer insurance when they didn't before but it's a lot of the larger employers are moving to these consumer driven scams and all they will do is take the 35% and run - they aren't going to improve benefits after rolling them back. Unless, of course, the economy makes a dramatic improvement and they start using good benefits as a way to attract employees - but I think it will be a long time, if ever, before those days come back.

But you bring up a whole other problem with this "reform" - "coverage" is still tied way too tightly to employment.

[quiet.american]

67. Yes, I do. Because not every small business employer is a scammer.

Some really want to do better for their people, especially those with businesses where everyone has worked together for years from the start.

[kenfrequed]

75. Eh...

It amazes me the opportunism of your idealism in this matter.

Reality has to kick in on this score as many smaller businesses operate on a razor and all expenses related to wages and benefits tend to be lumped into the category of 'flexible expenses' whereby you try to do what you can for as little money as possible. Certainly most businesses prefer not to offer Walmart style unaffordable insurance but these are the cheap plans and if it is a business that employs a lot of people in their twenties these plans are good news for the insurance industry (as they usually have four digit deductables) and are affordable to aforementioned small business.

To delve into the realm of idealized compassionate small business owners who shaft their own profits for the sake of their workers as a matter of routine is a gentle stroll through fantasy land, and when it does occur, it ought not be taken as representative of the whole. In this manner using such an example would be assuming or making a rule or law by exception rather than reality.

I find this Ironic as most of us hard core lefties and progressives are considered to be idealistic or somehow wooly or fluffy. But at least we understand the hard numbers involved, and the loss that comes in the form of profits, from the layers of corporate bureacratic middle men in insurance, in American healthcare.

[dflprincess]

79. Oh, I'd agree with that small businesses would do better

it's the mid-size to large ones that have less of a connection to their employees that will just take advantage of any credit they can get without improving benefits. I'd bet with them, as long as the economy sucks, will continue to cut back.

[defendandprotect]

133. PLEASE . . . . in this economy??? Are you kidding . . .??

How naive are you?

[defendandprotect]

132. "coverage" is still tied way too tightly to employment" -- Absolutely!!

Another reason why we need government run health care --

not insurance run and controlled health care!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

123. Employee health benefits are already a tax deductible business expense

as long as all employees get the same coverage/

[defendandprotect]

134. So taxpayers are subsidizing this every which way . ..!!

[defendandprotect]

131. Right . .. more taxpayer subsidies for insurance companies . . .!!!

And you're boasting about this garbage?

One program for everyone -- MEDICARE FOR ALL --

[awoke_in_2003]

89. "make people think twice before seeing a doctor"

Yep. To keep the UHC plan we had last year would have resulted in 17% premium increase. So the company went for a cheaper UHC plan. I went from a $1000 deductable to a $3000 dollar deductible. Both prescription on visit copay's went up, and we have a lower yearly allowance on care. My coworkers wife is on dialysis, and ran out of benefits for the year at the end of February (luckily he is retired military and has Tri-Care). MRI's used to cost $50, my wife just had one last month- $920. Boy, I am glad we are keeping these blood suckers around :sarcasm:

[defendandprotect]

135. And with insurance companies in control, things will only keep going in that direction ....

Shameful!!!

[defendandprotect]

130. Thank you for this very pertinent information . . ..

One insurance scam after another!!

[defendandprotect]

129. Why all these groups and labels? Let's make it simple: MEDICARE FOR ALL, everyone in --

no one out!!

[eridani]

154. Most people will never need expensive care

5% of the population accounts for 50% of all health care costs, and 15% for 85% of all costs. The ignoramus healthy majority can afford the delusion that because they have insurance they will somehow get care if they ever get expensively sick. For most, that will never happen, and only the seriously ill get fucked over.

[defendandprotect]

128. Excellent point . . .

[pundaint]

77. No matter how often he's right I'd rather believe that that's not really a corporate d*** up my a**

But, alas, it does, on closer inspection, Always seem to be that way.

[Kalun D]

84. Lawyer Weasel-Speak

""for people who haven't had insurance for six months and who have a pre-existing condition.""

that sounds like lawyer weasel-speak for "not very many people"

the main thing that's wrong about this whole bill is mandatory coverage

when in the history of the country has any citizen ever been forced to purchase something

that's a new first in that annals of American corporate fascism.

[defendandprotect]

136. That and the fact it's a tiered, class system .... branding some as "welfare" and others

as "charity" -- while meanwhile the taxpayer subsidizes all of it --

every which way!!

We need a Universal Health Care system which treats every citizen equally --

One that treats Health Care as a Human Right!!

[defendandprotect]

126. Rachel just repeated that tonight . . .ADULTS do not get off that hook until 2014!!!!

Now -- do you have something to show us which proves otherwise???

[ScreamingMeemie]

179. Do you realize the cost of the High Risk Pools?

And what they do and don't cover? I do, and it's not an option

[RoccoR5955]

65. The above post is by a Republican Shill! n/t

[Mithreal]

71. If not outright true, sometimes it's hard to see the difference.

[Mithreal]

72. self delete

error

[Kalun D]

85. or a DLC shill

SAME THING

[Puglover]

168. Ya think?

I seldom hit my ignore button so quickly but it was a special case.

[Mithreal]

70. Rinse, Wash, Repeat. You all never stop. Doesn't matter how often

called on the nonsense.



News Flash for the pony dealers: MM doesn't know everything. Focus on that and ignore the overwhelming truth of his main points.

[gleaner]

73. Yes he does ....

He always has. That is why he draws the lightening. This is a bad bill. I think it is a bad bill without anyone to tell me that it is, although I do agree with Moore.

Really, why blame the messenger? Obama triggered this mess and he let it continue and if you read the New York Times he made prior agreements to do so with the health care industry and got paid very well for his efforts. That news is out. A member of his administration admitted it. There were two deals. Obama underwrote both of them. He is not a wonderful president, he is not a role model. He is just another politician with his hand out.

If that is what you want in a president, that's fine. But please don't try to denigrate the people who are trying to inform and help those of us who want more.

[frylock]

81. feel free to post your credentials for review..

until then, i'll just assume that you don't know fuckall.

[troubledamerican]

99. With a moniker like "Quiet.American" you must have zero idea what Graham Greene meant

Alden Pyle was an idealistic force of destruction and a murderer. "The Quiet American" is not a term of heroism or endearment.

Perhaps it's unintentionally truthful, however.

I hope you keep it. It fits you.

[upi402]

101. shoulda remained a qiuet.america huh?

heresy would be fine, even cherished, but 'completely lost the plot' is another matter.;-)

[nightgaunt]

176. No dickwad---this is how you declaim someone, with information

He was incorrect here, "You mean NAFTA didn't improve life in Mexico: "Two Drug Slayings in Mexico Rock US Consulate"" Not NAFTA it is the Drug War that is doing this. However the 12 million or so illegal economic immigrants are to blame for NAFTA. Otherwise I saw no other error.

[Cleita]

3. Driving the snakes out of Capitol Hill.

How appropriate for a demonstration. Maybe next St. Patrick's day?

[dflprincess]

9. I have a feeling it will happen sooner than that - say November 2

sadly, the current snakes will just be replaced with new ones.

[closeupready]

7. Moore speaks the truth.

Way to go, Michael. :yourock:

They really are all bastards. Sucks so bad. :mad:

[fascisthunter]

10. here's where people can apply the "never satisfied"

to the rich fucks wanting to shove this mandate down our throats.

[raouldukelives]

11. $100 a day fine?

Facts like these really bring me down man.

[Matariki]

19. Yep, whenever any numbers are posted about anything related to this bill

it's clear as hell it sucks.

[SandWalker1984]

12. Michael Moore's documentary was mainly about people WHO HAD INSURANCE....

...and were still getting screwed out of actual health care by their health insurance corporations.

That's a very important point.

From what I have read of and about the Senate version of the HCR bill, there are so many loopholes and lack of regulation regarding a lot of what was covered in Moore's documentary that the bill will not "fix" or resolve the problems that lead to the call for health care reform. It merely adds more people to the insurance corporations rolls. They will still be able to rescind policies, they can still deny medical procedures, they can still INCREASE PREMIUMS - especially for those over 50 years of age or with pre-existing conditions (see Ensign Amendment), they can jack up deductibles until you cannot afford to use your health insurance policy, etc, etc.


For those reasons and more, this bill should be killed. The few "good things" in the bill could then be put into a much smaller bill and passed.


Mandating all Americans buy a faulty product from an industry that has a bad track record is the definition of insanity -- doing the same thing over again and expecting different results.

[Matariki]

17. Indeed, it seems insane -

and yet, as Moore points out, not passing some bill will probably cripple Obama's ability to get any future thing done.

This just really sucks.

I read an iterview with Jake Adelstein, an American reporter in Japan who wrote a book about the Yakuza. He talked about how much the Yakuza influences Japanese politics. I'm beginning to get the very depressing impression that much of the world is becoming owned by organized crime - some of it with a corporate face.

[defendandprotect]

138. That's not the way I read what MM said about ...

Obama losing this one --

It's seemed more pitying --

Pity for a guy who betrayed American voters --

No difference between elites and organized crime -- they're the same --

only some wear suits!

Organized crime cannot exist without protection of the elites -- whom they serve.

[Newest Reality]

27. For Sure!

The essential point, underlying the entire issue here is: Who is going to be the middleman between the recipients and the providers? That's it in a nutshell.

If the insurance industry is going to continue their, (unnecessary role) then the motive is purely profit and we get nothing close to true reform and adequate access to services. Keeping it in perspective, the catastrophic amounts potentially incurred by health care services do not equate with a car or home repair.

There is no other common expense, IMHO, that correlates with the costs that can be involved, hence, we need reasonable way to distribute that. How does having the insurance industry, with its OCD-like addiction to filthy lucre apply to lowering costs collectively?

A stumbling block is the perception that forming a sort of national pool, administered by the government, will be worse than what the insurance companies are doing. We should keep in mind that, despite the bungles in the jungle that our government is capable of, there have been many, reasonably successful programs that have functioned this way. That's why I use the term, "national pool" to describe it. You know, our money collectively utilized for the public good.

Gee, how strange to say something like that these days. I used to think that was one of the very reasons that gave having a "government" any value or importance in the first place.

[provis99]

90. this isn't the government;; its a private insurance company cartel.

I would be happy if the government ran health insurance; all this bill says is that insurance companies can continue to maximize profits, with the added kick in the ass that we are now forced to buy from them.

The insurance company lobbyists were bragging last October that this bill will allow them to reap another $20,000 in premiums per year from the average family.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/11/AR2009101102207.html

I tend to believe the insurance companies when they brag how Obama has helped them earn even more money.

[defendandprotect]

140. EVERYONE wants a government run health care system . . .except Obama/Rahma . ..

the insurance companies, Big Pharma and elites!!

Not only do we have insurance companies screwing up, now they get to screw

up while we pay them even more!! And, guarantee them 40 million new clients!!

[Ignis]

43. +1

It reminds me of someone saying, "Ew, this food is awful! Here, have a taste."

:banghead:

[Bryn]

23. I wonder if it is because America owes China 2 Trillion dollars

that our democrats are unable to get Medicare/Single Payer for all? Because many insurance companies are owned by China? Maybe I am wrong, but I'd love for someone to dig deeper as to WHY out democrats aren't getting Medicare for All, Single Payer, Strong Public Option for Americans. I want to know WHY.

[closeupready]

24. It's not that complicated.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Bryn]

37. If it's all about MONEY for themselves over suffering people, they're in for a big surprise!

When it's time for them to leave Earth. I got into reading Near Death Experience stories online/read books whose people have died, went to the other side and came back.

There's no scientific proof that their experiences are true or real. Let's suppose it's true then they who choose money over needs of suffering people will find out the hard way. According to them:

There's no organized religion there.
Colors are far better than here.
More beautiful places that are hard to describe.
That we're here to learn to love more. To help others.
That the best sex on Earth is like shaking hand with a fat sweaty man compared to Love they experienced over there.
That Supreme Being only wants our experiences on Earth for our growth, not our constant worship.
That animals and plants are just as important and to be treated with respect.
That there are multi-dimensions.

Nearly all of them came back changed for better, money/luxury items are no longer important to them because nothing out there can be compared with luxury items here, because it's how we live our lives that's very important.

[closeupready]

44. Personally, I believe in karma, so that

as they do to others, that negative energy will come back to them in some form, whether it's financial losses or whatever - not wishing it on anyone, just saying, I believe that as you send out negative energy, it comes back to you.

I have seen this happen many, many times over the course of my life. Push, and people push back.

It can be hard to remain patient, though, because pain and sickness are mostly all about NOW.

[defendandprotect]

144. As they say, "there's no honesty among thieves" . . .

we can see that capitalism isn't about competitition --

it's about killing the competition --

Capitalism is a ridiculous "King-of-the-Hill" system --

finally one guy at the top of that pyramid!!

Time for us to move on -- democracy socialism!!

[defendandprotect]

143. Lovely post . . .and it's why REINCARNATION theories were valuable . ..

All of the world's major religious used to teach REINCARNATION --

even the Vatican!

Evidently, it became "inconvenient" for the elites!!


Some say that the strongest spirits among us take up the most difficult lives!!

Like those who are sick and poor -- being beaten down by wars -- bombs.

:)

[defendandprotect]

141. Really . . . ??? "Because many insurance companies are owned by China?"

I didn't know that --

Well, notice that when the Vatican needed money to pay off their pedophile law suits,

Bush came thru with "faith-based" organizations getting $$$$ from taxpayers!!

Now, China is lending us oodles of $$ -- and they get all our jobs!!


Wow!

[veness]

25. Thank you Michael! n/t

[Starry Messenger]

26. Thank you MM.

And how big will the fines be if the insurance companies do deny someone coverage for having a pre-existing condition? Are you sitting down? A hundred dollars a day! That's it! So if you're the insurance company, and Judy is a customer of yours, and Judy needs an operation that will cost $100,000, what do you do? You take the fine! Let's say Judy lives another year after you've sentenced her to death, your $100-a-day fine will only cost you $36,500! That's a savings of $63,500! And trust me, my friends, that's EXACTLY what's going to happen.

That's the math people keep overlooking. I keep hearing people here talk about the selfish irresponsible uninsured swine that show up at the ER and "cost everyone money" for treatment. Criticism for the greedheads who weigh people's lives against a bottom line? Not so much.

[Blue_Tires]

30. k+r

[ProSense]

33. "There are some good things in this bill. "

Pass. The. Damn. Bill.

Well, the insurance companies -- get this -- don't like the Democrats' bill! That alone should be reason enough to vote for it.

<...>

There are some good things in this bill. Parents will be able to keep their children on their policy until the kids turn 26. A few things like that. So, yes, pass that.

Dear Michael, there are a lot of good things in this bill: here and here

[Matariki]

36. You are being rather selective in your quotes

the rest of his sentence reads: "Why? Because it doesn't give them ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the what they want. It only gives them... 90%"

The price calculator you linked to only proves how this bill will be a disaster for the middle class. But we've been through this before.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

40. Did he not say pass it? Did he not say there were good things in it?

Period.

[Matariki]

41. Yes and clearly the discussion of what is very, very wrong about it needs to continue

so it can be changed in the very near future.

It's obvious that there is much more bad in it than good. It's reasonable to fear that when the Republicans take control of Congress again those subsidies and limits on Insurance can be chipped away at.

[ProSense]

53. "It's obvious that there is much more bad in it than good." No,

it's only obvious to people who don't know what they're talking about. Michael Moore thought the bill's providion on pre-existing conditions didn't kick in until 2014.

[defendandprotect]

146. "Pass it" ... after they confess their sins . . . after they tell the truth of their betrayal . .

Period!

[defendandprotect]

145. There is more HARM done by this bill . .. it creates a caste system for health care!!

[LeftHander]

42. The real tragedy is that any message from Obama was shouted down...

By crazy Tea Baggers that were flamed by incendiary talking points from Republicans.

The tragedy of this reform attempt is that so many Americans are too stupid realize they are nothing but profit centers to unscrupulous capitalists.

[Kalun D]

86. Obama wasn't shouted down

he made back door deals with big-pharma and big health-care so that there would be no public option

that's why he hasn't been front/center on real HCR like he was with the $700 Billion crooked banker bailout

[truedelphi]

95. The Tea Baggers are a very small segment of the population. Sadly Obama chose to HONOR them

By going to the meetings that they attended, and he also did not insist that normal conventions for such meetings be upheld. So the Tea Baggers could shout at other people, shout at guest speakers, and even shout at the Congress Person that was holding the meeting.

I've been to many contentious meetings in my life with several friends - and there were always protective conventions in place so that nothing got out of hand. It was sad to hear from these friends that at meetings where Obama was planning on showing up, people were not required ahead of time to sign up if they wanted to speak or ask questions. There were no protocols, and the Tea Baggers took over, even though they were often in the minority.

But of course, by handling things that way, Obama got his cover story for why we cannot have real reform in this country. "It's the fault of the damn Tea Baggers..." Is it really? A minority controls the actions of everyone else?

I think it is far more likely that as it was explained on Huffington Post yet again this weekend, thare were back room deals, confirmed by the top HC lobbyists, that for his letting the Big Medical Interests having things their way, a quid pro quo was offered to Obama and Rahm and whoever else is in the inner circle.

[defendandprotect]

108. "A minority controls the actions of everyone else?"

It seems to be the way of this administration . . .

from Liebermann, to Stupak, on and on --

Now T-baggers!

Insane, illogical and not believable!

[Enthusiast]

157. Not only are

Tea Baggers a very small segment of the population but they are also Dick Armey's tool to impede real health care reform. Every time we turn on the TV to hear "news casters" tell us the tea baggers are a grass roots American response against Obama's health care reform plan we are hearing directly from the insurance industry. Yet we are never told this. This is fascism.

[truedelphi]

181. Yes it is fascism. Since Obama's election and inauguration, it has been

A much kinder, gentler and more pleasant fascism, but it is fascism none the less.

[Echo In Light]

50. k/r

[Prism]

52. $100 a day?!

For some reason, that detail eluded me during the debate.

That is absolutely gobsmacking.

People have no shame at all. None.

[MilesColtrane]

56. "...pass this poor excuse of a bill. "

Micheal wants the bill to pass?

We're going to need a bigger bus.

[Nikki Stone1]

58. AMEN.

K & R

[democracy1st]

62. K & R

[Greyhound]

68. Oh yes, all those wonderful provisions that are why it's so important to

"roll over and think of England" while we are robbed and raped, again.

"So, the kid needs an operation and meds that will cost us $300,000 over the next year, or we can let her die and pay a $6,000 fine". What a tough decision...
:eyes:

You can't fix stupid, and you can't think in the middle of a stampede.

[defendandprotect]

148. +1000% --

:)

[colsohlibgal]

69. Tell It Brother Michael

We all need to jihad in the American way as much as possible. If you took the Senate out of the picture we might have gotten a decent bill. However too many on the take for too many years in the Senate. I don't know how some of those democrats can look themselves in the mirror - that is if they have any shame left in them.

However in the end it ends at the White House. Obama had an enormous opportunity when he took office, significant political capital, and he blew it or really never intended to do much at all of what he said he would do. If he had, as he should have, started out asking for pie in the sky health care reform, we may have ended up with something halfway decent. However he didn't do that and beyond that he hired the foxes to guard the hen house on the financial front. And on and on and on.

Just wait till some democrats who were expecting this bill to impact them see the impact for them is higher premiums. Surprise!

[Enthusiast]

160. Man! Don't call it jihad!

The government has a legal right to drag you off to Gitmo if you even speak the word.

[freddie mertz]

80. K & R. I am so glad we have Michael Moore to help keep us on the true path.2

I agree with him that although it is really terrible legislation, the bill probably should be passed.

Only because the immediate consequences of failure would be much worse.

I also agree that they should at least START admitting the truth about how bad the bill really is, and that everyone who has even an iota of conscience should immediately get to work to improve or eliminate the most egregious parts of the legislation.

[Matariki]

83. what you said +1

[Mumblefratz]

87. Yes it's a bad bill, but ...

it does something that has never been done before.

It does something FDR tried to do and failed.

Yes, it's a bad bill but at the very least it

1) eliminates pre-existing conditions as a reason for refusal to insure, and

2) eliminates the practice of rescission allowing insurance to be terminated just when someone gets sick and needs insurance. And most importantly

3) Sets the precedent of instituting Federal control over the healthcare industry.

I can't over emphasize the importance of #3 and it's one aspect that everyone seems to be ignoring. Sure I would like single payer now. Yes I fully support Alan Grayson's attempt at medicare for all. But to date there has never been any successful legislation at the federal level that attempts to establish the precedent that the Federal government has the ability to control healthcare.

This is why conservatives hate anything no matter how weak. This bill is as far from what I actually want as I can think of but if conservatives hate it then I love it.

It's only a bare start but at least it is a start that we can actually achieve. It's the camel's nose under the tent.

[grahamhgreen]

103. Not.

1) you can still charge 400% increase for pre-existing
2) they can rescind and claim it's 'fraud' - up to you to prove your innocence
3) simply include in the fixes that ALL INSURANCE IN THE EXCHANGE NEEDS TO BE NON-PROFIT, and I'll get on board 9not that it matters, apparently...)


Good luck - hope this bill works out...... ugh

[defendandprotect]

149. And worse, it extends concept of "welfare" and "charity"cases . ..

and the taxpayer is subsidizing this garbage every way -- up down and inbetween!!

We need health care as a human right!

We need each and every citizen treated equally -- not branded as "poor" or "nearly poor" --

or "drastically poor" --

These are the elites/corporates who have so damaged our nation -- so damaged the planet

with pollution -- so damaged our economy -- so damaged our "people's" government --

and we've giving them even more profit and more control over health care!!

Unregulated apitalism is merely organized crime!

[eridani]

155. Oh, bullshit. There is NO control whatsoever over the insurance industry

The Netherlands controls their insurance industry. 100 euros/month/adult gets EVERYTHING but dental covered, no deductibles or copays, and NO AGE RATINGA AT ALL.

That's actual regulation. The Senate bill is just a bullshit simulacrum of real regulation. If there were the political will to do that, there would also be the political will for single payer.

[Dinger]

88. Go Big Mike!

Luv ya!:loveya: :patriot:

[Ardent15]

97. K and fucking R

[unkachuck]

100. a hardy kick for Mike speaking the truth....n/t

[grahamhgreen]

102. The bill is the biggest con job since NAFTA (skipping the BS wars).

[KonaKane]

104. We just finished watching "Capitalism: A Love Story"

And I was just in tears. No one in America's political agitation history had it so right, for so long, to the deaf ears of so many.

Thank you, Michael Moore, for tackling a task so monumentally thankless.

[defendandprotect]

150. Buying it this weekend -- it flew thru our neighborhood and never got to see it!!

[Dinger]

106. Thank You Again Sir

:)

[defendandprotect]

107. Thank you, Michael . . . infastructure, schools . . . so much that we don't know because

our elected officials are being paid not to let us know what the real circumstances are.

Less than two weeks ago, Pres. Obama actually said: "the stimulus saved us from Depression."

"Depression" was scrubbed out before too long -- before I could post the article here.

Sen. Byron Dorgan at the time he announced he was leaving the Senate was also discussing the

economy when he stumbled over how he was going to describe it -- I thought he was going to

say "Depression" but he finally stressed "recession" in a way that suggested to me that he

meant something more.

What is actually being said in inner circles? Is it a Depression? Or is it only a Depression

in SOME areas? A tiered system, like this alleged HC reform? And, we all know there is something

very dirty about the way that deal to a tier-system with INCOME TESTING came to be!

That's an old GOP gimmick they'd love to apply to Social Security and Medicare to turn them

into "WELFARE" systems -- at least, their dirty/demonized suggestion of what "welfare" is.

We should all be ashamed of those who betrayed us all with this pretense to reform.

Corporations have not only bought the legislation they want -- have not only bought our

elected officials -- they have bought their silence. In other words, we can't even know how

bad things are -- nor can we know how filthy all this political dealing really is!!



For one shocker, Sen. Bernie Sanders spoke out on the TRILLIONS we're given which the Federal

Reserve/Bernanke have dispensed. Again, we are not to know to whom or upon what terms!

But Sen. Sanders also told us that the FED is borrowing money from our Treasury at

1/10th of a percent of 1/4 of a percent and turning around and buying US Treasury Securities

with interest rates of 3.5% and 4% and thereby using our money to make profits of 3 and 4%.

Often it's what you don't know that will kill you --

How few of us ever thought in our lifetime we'd see a "Katrina" -- ??


What shall we all decide to do about these betrayals . . . ?

[rhett o rick]

125. When US companies move production to China or Mexico, it doesnt help

their standard of living, and it doesnt give us cheaper products. When Hp moved to India, did their computers become cheaper? no. The profits of the corporation got higher.

[defendandprotect]

151. Yes . . . but first our elected officials had to be moved onto the corporate payroll--!!

Campaign finance is simply BRIBERY --

[Solly Mack]

127. k/r

[Swamp Rat]

137. k&r

[amborin]

139. K&R

[gtar100]

152. The corruption of excessive money has made our government a real joke.

I don't see any other choice but to turn inward and focus our efforts on our community and families directly. Rid ourselves of the idiots who took over our school boards, our churches, and our town councils. No time for liberals to follow the creed of live-and-let-live. We need to provide the voices of reason and vision for making our direct, tangible world a good place to live. No more trusting in a far-away government to look out after our needs.

And I don't mean we should ignore the Federal government. We need a good, strong, healthy Federal government to manage such a large and culturally diverse country. But right now it is sick and not in its right mind. And we should treat it as such.

[TheUnspeakable]

158. k&r-thank you, Mr. Moore for being our voice

[Mad_Dem_X]

159. Bless you, Michael

You are a true patriot - who calls out bullshit no matter who is responsible. :patriot:

[leveymg]

162. My family watched "Capitalism, A Love Story" last night.

Great tragedies are the stuff of great art. MM is the laughing master of tragicomedy for our very sad age.

[TomClash]

163. So what else is new?

It's all true but very much an old story. Our heroes go on TV shows and direct films about health care but not much changes.

We don't and won't do anything about it. Most of us are insured to some degree, or get on well enough that we care but not all that much to act. Most of us are not desperate.

We won't occupy buildings. We won't throw bombs. We won't do much of anything but complain and write to our congressmen, who either already agree or don't care what we think.

[leeroysphitz]

166. Bastards. N/T

[liberal_at_heart]

171. All I can say is I can't wait to move to Europe

[asdjrocky]

172. Indeed.

[h9socialist]

173. I agree with Michael Moore, BUT . . .

. . . there is no virtue in seeing this bill go down in defeat. None at all. The culprit is not President Obama or the SDemocrats . . . nor even the Republicans to be honest. The culprit, the villain in all of this is a Constitutional system that has been allowed to rot. The U.S. is way overdue for a Constitutional Convention and upgrade. Our system allows some losers to win (eg. George W. Bush 2000), and other losers to have no say at all (ie. the people in my own home district who keep voting against Dan Burton). The U.S. Constitution was written to protect private property -- to have an electoral system where thwarting the majority would be easy for a well-financed minority. That this system can't respond to the healthcare crisis any better than this is an indictment of the system, not of individuals. The effort to reform the system goes back to World War II, and the cast of players have changed constantly.
The current health care bill does not deserve the three cheers we could give a "Medicare for All" system. But, if it does pass it will at least deserve two cheers for surviving the meat-grinder of Washington politics and the resistance of a well-funded group of elites.

[catzies]

175. The despair I fel reading this now is the same as I felt after watching "Capitalism, Inc."

When I walked out of the movie I was just consumed with an ongoing nameless dread that took a few days to wear off.

After reading this, it's back.

[Echo In Light]

183. .