WHAT'S IN IT FOR THE LEFT....

[ProSense]

WHAT'S IN IT FOR THE LEFT....

I had an item last week about the fate of health care reform being dependent, at least in part, on the willingness of progressives to stand up and fight for it. I received a very sincere note soon after from a reader who asked, "What's in it for the left?"

As the reader saw it, the Democratic reform package had provisions intended to make Republicans happy, and measures geared towards centrists, but with the public option and a Medicare buy-in scuttled, progressive reform proponents are wondering what they get in this package.

The answer is pretty straightforward: they get health care reform.

Ezra noted today that some progressives "have lost sight of the fact that the very existence of this legislative process is a huge progressive victory."

Five years ago, no one had ever heard the term "public option." But progressives had been talking about the uninsured for decades. There's probably no more constant lament in Democratic campaigns than the plight of the nation's 50 million uninsured. And this bill is, fundamentally, an effort to address that. Once it's up and running, it spends $200 billion a year to help low-income and working-class Americans afford health-care coverage. About 15 million of those people will become eligible for Medicaid, which is public insurance. Another 15 or so million will get private insurance.

But that private insurance will now be a very different beast: It will have to spend 85 percent or 80 percent (depending on the market) of every premium dollar on care. It won't be able to reject people for preexisting conditions. It will be in a regulated exchange where it has to justify premium increases and bad behavior or face exclusion. And those exchanges, regulations and subsidies will also create the core structure of a universal health-care system in this country, which should be comforting to progressives who look to the improvements in Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and CHIP and the EITC and know that the history of American social policy is that, in general, we build on our imperfect foundations and make them stronger and fairer over time.

He added that liberal reform proponents "have lost some very hard battles but are on the cusp of winning an incredibly important war."

<...>

[EFerrari]

1. So, now I'm supposed to be happy that the "legislative process",

which is more corrupt than any madam on the Las Vegas strip could hope to be, is functional?

:rofl:

[damonm]

18. And your alternative would be...?

[EFerrari]

44. My alternative? Don't ask me to be happy with a corrupt process?

Maybe start with that and work your way up?

[damonm]

46. nice miss of the point....

Your alternative to the system would be...?
And what are the real-world chances of getting it anytime soon?

[EFerrari]

48. Are you asking me to accomodate myself to corruption

just to be clear? Because that's what it sounds like.

[damonm]

52. Wow. Your reading comprehension's even worse than I thought...

And that's an accomplishment.
OK.
In words of ONE syllable:
You say what we have now is bad. How would you fix it, and how long would that take?
If you say it can't BE fixed, what would you put in its place, and how long would THAT take?

[EFerrari]

53. My reading comprehension is just fine. Your dodge ball, on the other hand

could use some work.

And as I said above, a good start would be not to expect voters to be happy about a corrupt system. That would be a step but apparently, even that small step is too big.

[damonm]

54. Nope, you still can't read.

Or you just have no answer and dodge the question while accusing me of dodging.
We're done.

[EFerrari]

56. And there you are. You asked for an alternative and I gave you a very simple one.

You have no argument, you have no response to my suggestion. Yes, we're done.

[tekisui]

2. Thank you, sir, may I have another?

[ShortnFiery]

3. Whoa!

It seems that Baghdad Bob has found a job at Washington Monthly? :silly:

Any moment now FOLK we'll be hit over the head with a big bale of "progressive reforms."

TRUST me? :eyes:

[Clio the Leo]

4. MOST of the left gets it thankfully. NT

[Uzybone]

5. yes indeed, we sure do

the "expert" bloggers who are perpetually outraged and all or nothing fanatics will never be happy. they remind me of re; religious folks waiting for the rapture.

[reggie the dog]

23. all or nothing?

I just want health care like exists in damn near every other wealthy country in the world. Forcing people to buy overpriced private health insurance is shit for the people and a gift for the private health insurance companies that have been fucking us for years.

[TreasonousBastard]

6. Damn straight-- we get health care reform. Tough shit if we didn't...

get to write the bill. Maybe we'll get to write one next time, or maybe not, but this is still better than what most of us had.

[mdmc]

7. No one on the LEFT cares that 50 million are "uninsured"

WE GIVE A SHIT THAT 50 MILLION UNINSURED HAVE NO ACCESS TO MEDICAL TREATMENT. WE GIVE A SHIT THAT MILLIONS OF "FULLY INSURED" STILL DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE MEDICAL TREATMENT.

[zipplewrath]

8. Exactly

All these proponents make their claims based upon the presumption that any of the 35/45/50 million (the number keeps going up) are actually getting anything that will help them get access to medical CARE. What they are getting is mandatory health INSURANCE. That's not a progressive victory by any stretch. And there are some regressive features to the taxes behind much of this.

[ProSense]

9. "WE GIVE A SHIT" enough to kill the bill so that they remain without access. n/t

[mdmc]

10. I have no say over what gets passed or what gets killed

I have full health insurance that does not allow me access to affordable medical treatment. I work f/t and I earn about $40k (granted I am very sick and need expensive treatment).
How will giving "for profit" health insurance to poor people that cannot afford co-pays help them to receive medical treatment? If I can't afford my treatment how will they?

[ProSense]

11. You keep asking the sames questions and have been given numerous excellent answers.

How do you see yourself benefitting from the status quo?

[Oregone]

24. How do they see themselves and the country benefiting from change?

If they do not, then there is very little reason to go through with the hoopla in their eyes.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[mdmc]

28. I don't benefit from the status quo at all - I admit that

Now please answer (if you have the answers - Mo Hinchey's staff really didn't know the answers so I am not sure I can find the answers here at DU, but please try if you can) my question -

I cannot afford medical treatment that I have been prescribed although I have full health insurance.
QUESTION- Does this HCR bill help me at all?
(I work f.t earn 40k, am single, 38 yrs old)
Will this bill help me to receive medical treatment?

I fully admit that the status quo is shit. We need a game changer. This Romney (or the State of MA plan) plan is as good as it gets?

I admit that the status quo is no good. My question is if this HCR bill is just as bad for me as the status quo? I know it has to be a little better then the status quo, but I feel that it is very, very little.

Thanks for the replies and the discussion. Peace and low stress..

[Oregone]

16. This bill doesn't guarantee access to care; only to insurance

[reggie the dog]

27. after the bill they will have shit or no access

do you know what you pay for cancer treatment in France??? NOTHING NOT EVEN FOR THE MEDS do you know what you pay for child birth??? NOTHING, heart disease???? NOTHING! Public insurance pays back 70% of the cost of a consultation with a doctor (21 euros for the consultation, with an actual doctor, usually for 20 minutes or more. I pay 50 euros for a pediatrician, am refunded 27 and the pediatrician examines my little girl for a good half an hour including when he personally tells us how to care for her.If I want to pay less I just take her to the general practicioner.

How can I ask my French wife to move to the USA, my home country! with me? We have it so well here in France. We are cared for and tucked into bed at night as a society and I will protest, strike, and peacefully fight tooth and nail to make sure France does not end up as shitty as the USA?

[SanchoPanza]

12. So... what?

The reason why the uninsured/underinsured lack access is because care is paid for by insurance and in many states insurance is driven by traditional underwriting practices: take in as many low-risk assets (in this case, enrollees) as you can, and limit your exposure to high risk liabilities. You change this by turning to a social insurance model where everyone is put into the same pool and insurers can't create these kinds of categories.

In this respect, you're making a distinction without any substantive difference.

[Oregone]

20. I don't think you understand why some of the insured do not have access to care

Its because plans with low actuarial values require people to pay a larger proportion of the health expenses. Many of these plans are what poor people can afford (or those working lower end jobs), who subsequently cannot pay the rest of the money for access to care. 30% of the costs for many people is just too much for many sicknesses.

Low actuarial plans cut off access to care for the lower classes and cause self imposed economic rationing. The Senate bill does not exactly mandate a high value whatsoever.

Although everyone will be covered under the new bill, most of the people coming into the system will be subsidized onto these type of plans that they will not be able to utilize. In such cases, the health insurers basically get money from the government coffers for doing nothing.

[SanchoPanza]

50. I do understand that.

And, frankly, you're wrong about how the bill regulates cost sharing. Especially when it comes to enrollee's relationship to the poverty line.

Not sure if you're aware of the basic structure or not, but the exchange rules divide plans into four basic categories (with a fifth set of options for people who are exempt from the mandate and are under 30, but that's a separate issue). Bronze, silver, gold, and platinum. Bronze require that premiums pay for 60%, silver has 70%, gold has 80%, platinum has 90%. These rules get expanded outside of the exchanges in 2014.

I don't know where you're getting the 30% figure for out of pocket costs, but those who would still not qualify for Medicaid under the programs expansion (those between 133% and 150% FPL) receive platinum level cost-sharing. The only group of people who get 30% cost sharing are individuals or families at 400% FPL, and these folks are not necessarily the ideal candidates for High Deductible Plans. Keep in mind that the average level of cost sharing for current High Deductible Plans is around 70%.

In other words, any insurer covering an individual making around ~16.5k or less would be required to pick up at least 90% of their benefit costs. And that's in the unaltered Senate bill. The Obama proposal, which I think is safe to assume essentially means the reconciliation sidecar, reduces cost sharing in the platinum category to 6%. Further, the premium subsidies under the Obama proposal work on basically the same income scale, with the lowest end having up to 94% of their premiums subsidized (as opposed to 90% in the unmodified Senate bill).

So I'm not really sure how you figure poor people currently shoveled into High Deductible Plans don't have it immensely better under the legislation. They're going from paying 70% of benefit costs out of pocket (if they're even on the High Deductible Plans, which are often the only ones available to them), with no premium subsidies, to paying 6% out of pocket with up to 94% of premium costs being subsidized. They're the ones who benefit the most from this deal.

[damonm]

17. Dude, pay attention to your own sig...

And ease off the caps...

[Cha]

31. +1

:hippie:

[mdmc]

57. will do my friend

I just am very upset and feeling so much physical pain. All due to lack of affordable medical treatment (and fully insured)..

[Name removed]

19. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Phx_Dem]

13. What's in it for the left? As in "where's mine?!"

Jesus. Selfish much.

Good read, but he initial question is embarrassingly self-serving.

[Oregone]

15. Its just a silly way to ask: "Why the left should be motivated about the bill passing"

[Oregone]

14. The bill is a complete rejection of socialism as a government solution for the people

progressives "have lost sight of the fact that the very existence of this legislative process is a huge progressive victory."


No shit. Non-egalitarian, private, for-profit, multi-tiered insurance isn't necessarily something to be excited about.

[katandmoon]

21. So where is the public option Obama claimed had to be in any bill he signed? NOWHERE.

Where are the mandates Obama trashed Hillary Clinton for supporting? IN THERE.

Where is the tax on benefits Obama promised would not be in there? IN THERE.

Where are the taxes on high earners he promised would pay for it? NOWHERE.

As usual, Obama is taking it ALL out of the middle-class's hide, while leaving his rich friends alone and making sure his beloved corporations won't suffer a bit either.

[ProSense]

22. Call you Senators and tell them to deliver it to him. n/t

[katandmoon]

30. HE promised it -- THEY didn't.

[ProSense]

34. Well then, keep waiting for the President to sign a bill that doesn't exist. n/t

[whatchamacallit]

25. I think the pertinent question for this bill is "What's left in it?" (n/t)

[David Zephyr]

29. Delusion or Collusion.

Which is it?

[Cha]

32. Ezra Klein is dead on.

[grahamhgreen]

42. $375 a month - forcing underpaid workers to shell that out to private rich gold plated magnates is

total crap, IMHO.

[damntexdem]

33. Left behind?

;-)

[Change Happens]

35. Amen to that!!!! About 10000000000000000000000th times!

[IndianaGreen]

36. What's in it for the Left? BOHICA

and without lubrication!

[Jakes Progress]

37. Here's the lie. "they get health care reform"

Insurance profits do not equal care. Health insurance and health care are not the same thing.

[ProSense]

38. Bogus

Insurance pays for access to health care. Insurers have been denying access and will be banned from doing so when reform is passed. Their profits will be limited and the government will have greater control over rate increases. As for health care, that is provided by doctors.

[mdmc]

39. We all already have access to health treatment

all we need to do is pay for it.

That is what I am having trouble doing right now - and I am fully insured.

I support this bill - it is all that the corporations will allow us to get and we must be satisfied. Yet I am in chronic pain and not so satisfied. C'est La Vie..

[Jakes Progress]

47. Wishful thinking without basis.

Just because you have insurance doesn't mean you get health care. Haven't you read anything about what insurance companies do to avoid paying for treatment for clients? Define limits. Define control. You are wallowing in a great sea of trust and faith in our corporate state and their helpers in the government.

Our problem isn't lack of insurance. Our problem is insurance as a gatekeeper for healthcare. Perhaps you would be happy if we had police insurance. You pay for protection. You premiums could be reduced by contributions from your employer. If you pay more, you can get better protection. Then you could have food and drug insurance. With the right insurance card you could go to markets where the meat is tested. Less insurance, less inspection.

Before the tired old words fall out of your fingers, this is not a straw man. In other countries, when you are sick or hurt you go to the doctor. She treats you and you go to the pharmacy to get the prescribed medicines. You don't have to go to the emergency room for a cough. You don't have to wade through pages of forms for government support programs. If you are sick, you get treated. That is how health care works. Health insurance is turning that whole process over to a multi=billion dollar industry whose driving motive is to make more money - not just to be profitable, but to make more. I know it voids you argument if you admit that insurance companies won't do the right thing, but I also know that you are smart enough to know that. I know you are smart enough to know (though not admit) that regulations won't work. The banks were regulated and that didn't stop them. Inside you are smart enough to know that no nation should turn over the safety and health of its citizens to a profit driven industry.

Now you can argue that Obama can't do any better than the crap bill that is being bandied around. But to suggest that it will work or that this isn't the very product of insurance industry dreams is simply foolish. We all know it. Even those who are cheering it know better. We are losing the chance to have America catch up to the world. Any possibility that this could work is being negotiated away for some political gamesmanship even as we blather away here.

[jenmito]

40. What a shame that so many are unrec'ing this. n/t

[grahamhgreen]

43. You need to listen to what we are saying - this bill is worse than nothing! nt

[damonm]

51. We did - we stopped because "worse than nothing" is DRIVEL.

31 million more people will get covered under this bill than under the status quo - you say that's worse than nothing.
"pre-existing conditions" become a thing of the past - you say that's worse than nothing.
recission goes away, and your coverage can't be cancelled because you get sick - you say that's worse than nothing.
Insurance companies, in exchange for their billions, have to swallow regulations they've been fighting for a century,have to PUBLICLY ACCOUNT for how they spend our healthcare dollar, and have to justify their rate increases - you say that's worse than nothing.

Drivel. Pure, unadulterated drivel.

You want me to be sorry that 31 million people who don't have insurance will get it under this bill.

Not. Gonna. Happen.

If this makes me a coporatist, coporofascist, or some other adjective I can gleefully ignore, fine. I can live with that.

[grahamhgreen]

55. 31 million people paying $375 a month, how much money is that?

Thats the cheap price in Massachusetts.

That is the cash they will be using to crush what little reform you belive is in the 2,711 page bill.

Lets say your insurance is rescinded - it will be you in court facing a team of insurance lawyers with more money than God and you will lose - especially if it goes all the way to this Supreme Court.

It's bait and switch at its best.

I'm not going to call you names, just beg you reconsider.

[grahamhgreen]

41. You are so wrong. What the left gets is LEFT BEHIND, and Big Insurance gets TRILLIONS!

If you make the insurance you are forcing people to buy NON-PROFIT, then MAYBE we get something. But what will happen is the trillions big crapsurance gets from this deal will be spent by them to crush the weak and pathetic reform measure you have stated. They will ferret out every last detail of what you think you are getting and leave NOTHING AT ALL.

That's the way the 'business' is done to the American people - we all know it, stop trying to sell us this crap plan!

[ibegurpard]

45. I'm confused...

the "left" is saying we don't think this is reform and you're telling us we should be happy we're not getting reform because we're getting reform?

[w4rma]

49. I'm sorry, but the only thing useful in this bill was the Public Option. (nt)

[ShortnFiery]

58. Absolutely NOTHING. eom