"Worse than nothing" = utter drivel.

[damonm]

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.
As the Rude Pundit says:

No, it's not a good bill. But it's a bill that will help many, many people. That's the bottom line. It will make insurance companies richer. It will please lobbyists and donors. But it will also help millions of people. That's the fucking trade-off. And the subconsciously subversive part of it is that, in a few years, it will show how ridiculous it is to not have nationalized health care (which is one reason the Rude Pundit thinks that some Republicans oppose it).

If this makes me a coporatist, coporofascist, or some other adjective I can gleefully ignore, fine. I can live with that.
We'll see if I can set an unrec record.

[Bobbie Jo]

1. No help with the record-setting from me. Enthusiastic K&R!

and a Damn Straight to boot! :kick:

[IndianaGreen]

2. Millions will remain without coverage under Senate HCR

I voted for universal health care, not for an insurance "reform" that transfer wealth from the working class to the health industry.

[damonm]

18. That's so.

But, of the 46 million uninsured, 31 million GET insured. Do the math - that's 2 out of 3 uninsured covered.
It is NOT perfect.
It is not even CLOSE to perfect.
But with this Congress of whores, it is the best we will get. Those are the facts on the ground.
Additional facts are these:
Social Security, as originally passed, would be a massive, steaming POS by today's standards. Medicare, as originally passed, was not much better. Yet both programs, ONCE ENACTED DESPITE THEIR SHORTCOMINGS, were expanded and improved, and became political 3rd rails. This is what, IMO, will happen with HCR.
Feel free to disagree.

[IndianaGreen]

23. Obama would have given us individual retirement accounts NOT Social Security

and instead of Medicare, we would have gotten medical savings account. Whatever it took to pump more money into Wall Street!

[damonm]

33. Whatever.

[winston61]

87. I would suggest that you know nothing of LBJ-

Go read some of Caro's work on LBJ and come back and say that shit. And if you have forgotten- Bush is a yankee, not a Texan.

[damonm]

92. And you would be utterly wrong.

I LIVED through LBJ. I'll "say that shit" if I damn well please.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/damonm/11">THIS is why I don't think much of Johnson.

I don't buy the "Bush is a yankee" line for a nanosecond - though I can see why Texans would WANT to disown him. Bush grew up in Texas - Bush went to school in Texas - Bush served in (and went AWOL from)the Texas ANG - after marrying Laura, they settled in Midland, Texas. Their kids were born and raised in Texas. He ran for Congress from Texas in 1978.
He was - TWICE - elected Governor of Texas.

Sorry, but this doesn't sound like a "yankee" to me.

Texas is stuck with him.

[dionysus]

67. now you're just making shit up and lying through your teeth.

[damonm]

70. Why I responded the way I did. Didn't deserve anything else.

[dionysus]

71. true dat.

[Hello_Kitty]

77. Ever hear of Zeke Emmanuel?

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-196215380.html

Rahm's brother.

[dionysus]

80. yes i have. doesn't prove anything. let me know when ss,meedicare, and all schools are privatized.

shit, let me know when even a bill gets drafted.

[Hello_Kitty]

81. Honey, they've been privatizing the schools for years.

Ever hear of charters?

[dionysus]

82. i just realized, you're not even addressing my post. is zeke goingt o end SS and medicare?

[Hello_Kitty]

83. He wants to privatize Medicare and he's advising Pres. Obama on health care. eom

[Inuca]

73. Utter BS! n/t

[SkyDaddy7]

132. WHATEVER!

Are you that delusional?

[damonm]

134. This is the sort of historical ignorance we're dealing with here. n/t

[SkyDaddy7]

141. We really do have our own set of...

Tea Baggers here at DU, huh? I want to say most are simply young and do not understand America but I have seen the well seasoned abandon all rational here lately! Pure MADNESS!

[truedelphi]

91. Where in the Senate Health Bill does it say that?

It may be that some of the current crop of uninsured will be insured under the Senate Health Bill.

But other people will become uninsured.

Let me repeat that - other people will become uninsured. This will be due to the fact that they will not be able to pay the Sky High Premiums that the Big Insurers are quite confidant will not be rolled back. Yes, there are subsidies for some of these people - but for others, they will make too much for the subsidies.

So in the end, I predict that many of the younger uninsured will become insured. But the older people, whose premiums are so high as too rival their rent or mortgage payment, these people will be in Deep Doo Doo.

Marcie Angell agrees with me, and that should mean something, she is a Senior Fellow at Harvard Medical School.

[damonm]

94. It doesn't - the CBO did that number.

Marcie Angell is a "single payer or nothing" advocate, so it means little.
And CBO vs. someone with a known agenda? I'll take CBO.

[truedelphi]

95. The CBO is counting various important factors twice.

At least that is what analysts are saying about the CBO numbers (Angell being one of those analysts.)

[truedelphi]

97. Here is something that got posted last night

From Slipsliding away

And we hear Obama talk about the deficit reduction in the first ten years, but over half of that comes from the long term HC provision (CLASS) which collects money for long term care and uses the money to pay for subsidies to the private insurance companies. At some point that debt becomes due???

Even the CBO said in late December that the Dems were double counting the Medcare savings, they cannot help keep Medicare solvent for a few more years and also pay for HC reform.

I wish my revenue could be double counted against future debts. endof "slipslingaway's" remarks

Furthermore, the Dems have written into the Senate Bill the right to be pulling 500 Billion bucks from the "waste" currently administered in MediCare.

What waste? Yes, the provisions that mean that the various agencies start going after the Fraudsters are fine - as for instance the state of New York doesn't even attempt to indict anyone untilthe fraud totals over $ 20 K.

But the Senate Bill also states that doctors are being paid too much. Have you ever talked to doctors whose practices deal with geriatric patients? They have already retired or semi-retired as it is impossible to make a go of it on what they are paid now. Reduce the dolar amount that they are paid, and you will find NO ONE taking care of people on MediCare, unless soem type of "boutique" insurance plan is also available to the senior citizen..

[Raineyb]

116. I'm sure that the people who will STILL be uninsured will appreciate that

they're considered an appropriate sacrifice on the altar of "pass any damn thing just to say we passed it."

[damonm]

121. Got something better that has a chance to pass?

Didn't think so.

[dflprincess]

135. Getting insurance doesn't mean they'll be able to afford care

not with the out of pockets these bills allow.

Most bankruptcies are the result of medical bills and most those filing thought they were "covered".

[SoxFan]

47. So you will let the perfect be the enemy of the good

It's 100% your way or else you sulk. How special.

[IndianaGreen]

85. It is the DLC pukes that never compromise on anything, and treat us like abused spouses

[truedelphi]

101. yes, ain't that the truth.

And if we complain that we are being abused, we are told that our old domestic partner, Bush/Cheney will be coming back in the door and abuse us even worse!

[Ozymanithrax]

3. What that makes you is a compassionate progressive.

And I agree with you.

[phleshdef]

57. Exactly. Its compromise for progress rather than purist principles that accomplish NOTHING.

These so called progressive that are against this bill are some wrapped up in their own "more liberal than thou" vanity that they could care less if anything actually gets done. So called "principles" aren't worth a pile of shit if they don't get us anywhere and thats exactly the condition of the Dennis Kucinich types on this bill.

[damonm]

76. Bingo - as Nance Greggs said

in her journal entry of 12/15/2009:

Well, "principles” are great. But if those principles lead you to refuse to participate, ignore the consequences to your country and fellow citizens, fail to vote for that lesser evil as a means to keep the greater evil out of power – well, quite frankly, your principles suck.

[OnyxCollie]

99. A Nance Greggs citation!

Am I supposed to be impressed?

I think she puts capitulating to the repubs and blue dogs by the Obama Administration and Congress above Obama's refusal to participate in the debate and Congress ignoring the consequences to the country and her fellow citizens. So much for her "principles".

Nance irreleRants.

[damonm]

107. I'm sorry...

you seem to have mistaken me for someone who gives a flying fuck about your opinion of Nance's writing.
Welcome to ignore.

[OnyxCollie]

110. Awww.

Did I hurt your feelings? Too bad. Don't cite ideologues to support your position.

When bush was in office, Nance was right on target. Now that the target has moved, she keeps shooting high and to the right, crowing about the nice grouping she got.

[Hekate]

4. 10th Rec

:kick:

[girl gone mad]

5. ""pre-existing conditions" become a thing of the past"

This line is utter drivel. The bill will do no such thing. It can do no such thing. It is logically impossible to eliminate pre-existing exclusions under this bill.

[damonm]

34. Your assertion is drivel.

[girl gone mad]

39. Use a modicum of common sense.

If pre-existing condition exclusions were truly eliminated, everyone would choose to simply pay the fine until they were diagnosed with a serious illness, then they'd run out and get insurance. This would kill profits in the industry.

Do you honestly believe that all of the lobbyists in Washington and all of the politicians they own are dumb enough to let that happen?

Please, don't be so gullible.

[Hippo_Tron]

138. People buy insurnace for routine care as well as catastrophic coverage

The fine can be thought of as paying for bare bones catastrophic coverage without any of the other stuff.

[girl gone mad]

49. Oh, and Johnson was at least a halfway decent President..

and Bush was a carpetbagger. "Reagan is the reason no one from California should be allowed within 500 yards of the Oval Office" would be a more reasonable sig line.

[Raineyb]

117. Your assertion is bullshit

If that were true why did they write in a loophole to allow insurance companies to weasel out? No preexisting conditions means no preexisting conditions which means it doesn't matter if you remember to tell someone or not. But they stuck in that "fraud" clause.

Oh and paying for insurance that you can't afford to use rather than keeping that money in your pocket and maybe being able to buy something else is worse than nothing.

This entire OP is bullshit.

:thumbsdown:

[damonm]

120. And yours simply doesn't add up.

You're certainly entitled to that opinion - I simply find it wrong in every particular.
BTW, where, exactly, in the bill is the "loophole"? I must have missed it when I read the bill.

And where on Earth do you get "can't afford to use", when there are annual caps on out-of-pocket expenses (based on income) and ZERO copays on preventive care?
And then there's this:



When considering also that the dollars at risk for the uninsured get real high real fast if, Heaven Forbid, they get seriously sick, this gets even better to me.

Maybe YOU can stand on principle, but my SiL and her family don't have that luxury - neither do several friends of mine. This bill will help them, so you've got a VERY hard sell convincing me it's worse than nothing.

[Raineyb]

122. And I can't afford what you've sold out for.

I need insurance I can afford to use and this bullshit you're touting doesn't cut it.

Oh and I see no numbers for single people or do you think EVERYTHING centers around the family of four?

[damonm]

124. Divide. by. four.

How hard is that?

And you STILL haven't answered where you come up with "can't afford to use" when preventive treatments are 100% covered and there's an income-based annual limit to out-of-pocket costs.
Medicaid also expands to help lower-income Americans.

Read. The. Bill.
right here: http://dpc.senate.gov/dpcdoc-sen_health_care_bill.cfm

[joe black]

143. are you nuts?

My wife and I can't afford 18,000 fucking dollars for this shit.

[damonm]

145. Nope. Just aware of what actually goes on.

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

The $18,000 does NOT, I repeat, NOT reflect your annual cost. You'd have to have a pretty shitty year medically to hit that, bearing in mind that the $8400 is a MAXIMUM for out-of-pocket in a given year. Odds are your annual cost would be closer to the actual premium.
Either way, if you can't afford that, then you fer damn sure can't afford the status quo, either.

[ProSense]

6. Exactly. Here is an excellent comment on 2010 predictions

...the differences between now and 1994 in terms of the political climate across the country, as well as the limited ratio of retiring Democrats vis-a-vis Republacans, makes the 41 seat change needed to claim majority status extremely difficult to accomplish. Back in 1994, Republicans did reasonably well in approval ratings in all regions of the country. Today, their numbers (dismal as they are) are being propped up by Southern support. They're doing incredibly poorly in comparison to Democrats in the Midwest and West, and absolutely terrible in the NE (where GOP approval is still below 10%). The number of Democratic and Republican retirements is very close now, compared to 1994 when many more Democrats were retiring and the GOP saw this as an opportunity to contest elections that would have otherwise gravitated toward the incumbent.

Second, there's really no need to fix the HCR bill "later," whatever that's supposed to mean. The biggest structural deficiency in U.S. health care not directly addressed in the bill, that insurance is tied to employment, is gradually remedied through the exchange model as more and more people get insurance through that system as current employees change jobs or retire and new employees enter the workforce. As for the public option, it isn't really necessary either in terms of cost containment, which is provided by expanded regulations. In fact, without those regulations, a public insurance option would be just as vulnerable to risk selection as any other non-profit. And if Republicans want to remove those regulations after this supposed BLOOD BATH, they'd just as easily be able to dismantle a public option too. So that argument is a red herring.

As for mandatory profits for Health Insurers, you and everyone else who makes this insipid argument can be treated seriously once you understand what things like community rating and medical loss ratios are. Otherwise you just look uninformed and reactionary.

Bravo! Excellent!

Posted by a DUer here

[Colobo]

7. Great post.

[ibegurpard]

8. sorry, i have no confidence in a systemic reinforcement

of insurance companies as the the gatekeepers of healthcare because of regulations...when we all know that regulations are subject to the whims of whoever is lobbying the loude$t.
I would think the experience of the past few years should teach us that putting our faith in regulating systems with no interest in the public good...only with an interest in profits...is not a recipe for change that we will like.

[Amonester]

9. Not before 2013 (or 2014) ...

Plenty of time for the Gang Of Pukes to come back from the dead and make it worse.

History repeat$.

[Oregone]

10. "If this makes me a coporatist, coporofascist, or some other adjective I can gleefully ignore, fine.

I think it just makes you confused. Thats ok. Its tough cutting through the bullshit in the US, so you wont get any flack from me.

[johnaries]

16. Aren't you a Canadian now? Wouldn't you want us still stuck here

in the US have the same access to Health Care as you have now?

[ibegurpard]

17. i'm sure he would

except you won't
I'd be out in the streets marching in support if they were proposing something even CLOSE to what Canada has.

[Oregone]

26. Id do everything I could in such a fantasy, even being abroad

But it looks like I hedged my bets correctly in the end (though health care is but one aspect of my rationale for leaving, the party that could have addressed it would have handled a plethora of other issues properly).

[johnaries]

113. Then why are you so adamantly against us left here doing ANYTHING

that would advance us even a little?

I've read many of your posts, and I really don't think you have the best interests of the average American in mind. It seems to be more of a personal issue with you, almost as if you want to justify your reasons for leaving. Normally, I would LOVE to hear input from someone like you hoping that it would be objective. However, I have never heard a single objective statement from you. You keep spewing rhetoric that seems geared to massaging your own ego. Again, as if you are trying to internally justify your reasons for leaving.

I can understand that, and I can even respect that. But the end result for the rest of us is that you are muddying the greater issue with your own personal issues.

You are not helping.

[Oregone]

20. I want that very, very much

:(

My two children are also American citizens. My family, and my friends. And besides, people live there, and I do care about all people.

But universal access to health care was just never on the table. Its saddening, but expected.

[niceypoo]

11. Institutionalized corporatism? oh boy!!

Its the privatization of healthcare and the institutionalization of corporate insurance! Oh goodie! goodie! Whats a republican not to love?

Cure the cancer by MANDATING it!! What a stroke of GENIUS!!

[Oregone]

13. "Whats a republican not to love"

Uh...that the Democrats are passing it.


They actually did love it when it was caled the The National Health Insurance Partnership Act (NHIP) by the Nxon administration.

[Skittles]

15. can you believe these naive people?

it's very disturbing

[Jennicut]

12. I think it will pass and people will come to accept that the govt. should step in more on the

issue of health care. I think it is the starting point only.

[Skittles]

14. YES, WORSE THAN NOTHING

no cost controls, no guarantee that coverage means actual access to healthcare, more profits to the very same insurance companies that have been fucking America for decades. WORSE. THAN. NOTHING

[johnaries]

19. You obviously haven't read the bill.

Insurance companies HATE this bill. And yet you want to help them kill it. You are helping the insurance companies screw the American people.

If you support insurance companies, then keep working to kill this bill. If you actually want to help PEOPLE, then you should support it.

Obviously, you support the insurance companies. Because despite all your rhetoric, that's who you are helping - while you are fucking the rest of us.

[Skittles]

21. YES I FUCKING HAVE

it's GARBAGE

[phleshdef]

44. Very doubtful that you are telling the truth.

Your uninformed, knee jerk responses indicate as much.

[Skittles]

90. OMG

you are fucking RIDICULOUS - I have REPORTED on that bill.

[johnaries]

115. Really? Can you give me an example of what you consider "garbage"?

If you have read it, you should be able to give me a specific example of what you consider "garbage".

Here, I'll help you. Since I'm sure it's been a while since you read it and may have problems finding it:

http://dpc.senate.gov/dpcdoc-sen_health_care_bill.cfm

I'm serious. What part of this do you consider "garbage"? No nebulous or bullshit rhetoric, any specific part. Name three. I dare you.

[slipslidingaway]

24. You tell me why insurance and drug companies ran ads in support

of the bill.

Google...

AHIP "If Everyone is Covered"

[Skittles]

27. thank you

I'm tired of arguing with idiots

[slipslidingaway]

32. I understand and there will be no reply...you're welcome. n/t

[JTFrog]

79. AHIP funded Chamber of Commerce ads aimed at killing healthcare reform.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Health Insurers Funded Chamber Attack Ads

By Peter H. Stone

http://undertheinfluence.nationaljournal.com/2010/01/health-insurers-funded-chamber.php

Updated at 10:30 am 1/13/10

Just as dealings with the Obama administration and congressional Democrats soured last summer, six of the nation's biggest health insurers began quietly pumping big money into third-party television ads aimed at killing or significantly modifying the major health reform bills moving through Congress.

That money, between $10 million and $20 million, came from Aetna, Cigna, Humana, Kaiser Foundation Health Plans, UnitedHealth Group and Wellpoint, according to two health care lobbyists familiar with the transactions. The companies are all members of the powerful trade group America's Health Insurance Plans.

....

Asked about the health-insurer funding for its ad blitz, the chamber's top lobbyist Bruce Josten said, "No comment. We never disclose funding or what we're going to do." However, after the story hit the blogosphere Tuesday, Josten confirmed the money transfer from AHIP to several news outlets.

AHIP originally did not return several calls requesting comment for this story. It supplied a written statement Tuesday evening after the story broke. "Reform needs to make health care more affordable, particularly for small businesses that struggle to provide coverage to their employees. We share the very serious concerns employers have raised about provisions that will increase health care costs, including new premium taxes that will hit small businesses hard. So when the employer community--our customers--asked us to contribute to their campaign, we readily agreed."

[slipslidingaway]

104. And Pharma promised 150 million for their deal in support of HC...

they played both sides to get what they wanted.

Before Obama was even elected they wanted an individual mandate in exchange for covering pre-existing conditions.

They also wanted no PO or an extremely weak PO.

Looks like they are winning.

Biotech companies wanted a 12 year data exclusivity clause - check!

No drug price negotiation for Medicare - check!

etc....

[JTFrog]

105. Says you....

:shrug:

[johnaries]

111. Have you been watching TV lately?

They are running a blitz campaign against it. I wrote my local news channel this morning because of them. And even as they ran those "support" ads as part of concessions that were negotiated, they were quietly funneling money into "anti" ads.

Insurance companies HATE this bill.

[harkadog]

144. Have you read the 2074 page bill?

Please say yes so I can quiz you.

[Amonester]

22. and plenty of 'new' inmates in for-profit prisons

for refusing to pay the fines after we'll refuse to pay the mandates to the for-profit insurance scammers

thousands of 'new' inmates garanteed

[Cha]

25. Whining all over the place..it's either too much

or not enough.

I'm glad that intelligence rules like Senators Sanders, Franken, my New York Senators..I don't know about my freakin' blue dog..he's whining about something too.

[HughMoran]

28. & don't forget the exchanges & subsidies - a huge cost savings for sm. cos and individuals

This bill is, as Dean said in December on Countdown, "quite good" in fact.

[damonm]

63. Yep. Goes even farther than Dean himself in 2004.

And now the same folks who were near-orgasmic over him in '04 now say his plan then would be "worse than nothing"
What a steaming, stinking piece o' BS.

[denimgirly]

29. A House (website) Divided. nt

[slipslidingaway]

30. How many people are denied health care for a pre-existing condition?

I have read that there are approximately 5 million people, but there are 23 million people who will be left behind if we pass this bill.

Which number is greater?

And for the 5 million people we are willing to pass a law that every citizen buy a policy otherwise be fined.

What leader would fight for this give-a-way?

And why would people follow him?

[damonm]

64. Wow. Nice spin. Totally bogus numbers, but nice spin.

According to FactCheck.org, "(t)here are an estimated 47 million nonelderly Americans without health insurance."
This bill will cover 31 million of them (per the CBO) - nearly 2 out of every 3.
I've cited my sources - pray do the same.

[Hello_Kitty]

84. How many have pre-existing conditions?

About 5 million, according to most sources I've read.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a4BEIIi_OauQ

[damonm]

89. About 12.6 million,

According to the Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey, 2007.
Cited at:
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html
Interesting that the Bloomberg reporter didn't source her number - they're not normally that sloppy.

[w4rma]

31. No Public Option, no bill. (nt)

[ProSense]

35. More

facts

[Vinnie From Indy]

36. I am not sure about the corporate facist labels, but you are neglecting one huge consideration

That consideration would be that you ASSUME that the insurance industry will actually play nice and abide by the HCR legislation that may be passed. I think it is highly naive to believe that without a reason to play fair, like a public option, that they will not play fair. There is nothing in this bill that these insurers are afraid of. They love it! The only thing the health insurance industry fears is a true public option.

As far as helping millions of people, this bill will help bring them to the waiting arms of Wellpoint and the rest. Sure, they will sell you a policy and make damn sure you pay every month, but good luck getting treated. The fact is that I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that these health insurers have already devised dozens of strategies and tactics to get around any provision that hinders their ability make the most money possible.

[truedelphi]

37. Glad to see someone else who has thought about this.

Oh I am sure that our elected officials have thought about it too, but only in terms of how much in campaign donations they will get from the Big Insurers.

[emilyg]

38. +10

[damonm]

56. If you can say this, you haven't read the bill. n/t

[PATRICK]

98. Enlighten me

You will have mandated coverage for all, like with car insurance? You cannot be refused but they don't have to lower their rates for anyone in particular? So the affordable, providing some service policies can be offered on the surface offering some coverage(provided the business doesn't collapse and disappears with your premiums). But wait, the government is on hand to provide premiums and cover for all the poor looking for second class(better than none) coverage.

Even single payer plans in others countries have an upper tier of private insurance. Won't our two tiers look massively different? Poorer actual coverage and care and still a huge "cadillac" business severed from people they always wanted to be severed from with the ability to raise rates and get their massive number of clients(businesses, unions groups) riled about being taxed for the lower tier? It looks from the current dumping of low paying single customers by big providers that whether the law passes or not they are moving toward consolidating their tier and share of the business. If it doesn't pass they won't foot the bill for the poor and individual customer with rising costs anyway. They may be unhappy about all their options in an economic meltdown, but in all scenarios provided by the "possible" legislation they seem to be crying all the way to the subsidized bank where their Christmas Club account for purchasing pols swells by the nanosecond. All leave the people divided and conquered, though with some tricky rage to be redirected.

[winston61]

40. This is the worst sort of bullshit I've ever heard-

This smelly turd of a bill does not deserve to see the light of day. It's designed to fail and it will, but not before making the insurance companies even more wealthy and powerful. Please do not piss on my leg and tell me it is raining.

[SoxFan]

48. When someone gets denied for a pre-existing condition

I will be sure to send them your way.

[girl gone mad]

50. It's like talking to brick walls.

People with pre-existing conditions will continue to be denied under this reform. There is simply no possible way that the insurance industry could stay in business otherwise, unless you want to start talking about fines in the tens of thousands for those who choose to go uninsured - which isn't feasible, either.

[gkhouston]

53. Oh, they won't be "denied". The insurance companies will be sure to take your money.

In fact, they'll take plenty of it. Actually providing the coverage you should get is another matter entirely. Expect an astounding upswing in "insurance fraud". :grr:

[girl gone mad]

61. Yes, absolutely.

They'll use the fraud provisions as they do now and increase co-pays to crazy levels. I'm sure they've already got dozens of other tricks up their sleeve.

[truedelphi]

93. Thank you for your common sense.

I am beginning to believe that "common sense" is not all that common any more!

[IndianaGreen]

112. They won't be able to afford the higher premiums and co-pays

They will get their insurance, only to be cancelled for not paying premiums, or not getting care for not paying the high co-pays.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

69. It must be nice living without any kind of facts. (nt)

[winston61]

88. Facts, my happy ass--

Mandated purchase of insurance from a PRIVATE insurance corporation. Fines if you don't buy it.
The insurance industry wanted jail time if you don't pony up. THIS BILL SUCKS. Obama is fighting for too little, too late. As soon as they took single payer off the table the whole process turned to shit. The entire process and everyone in D.C. and the media can kiss my ass, and I mean right in the red. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. What weak bullshit.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

103. At least your ass is happy.

It's surely not informed.

[winston61]

108. I'd rather my ass was happy than deluded-

If you think ANYONE in D.C. is going to do anything to help you then give me some of what you are smoking. There are few good folks in D.C. who want to do the right thing. Just not enough to actually do anything. To me it looked pretty simple. Expand Medicare to include everyone. Have the bill on Obama's desk within a week. With majorities all around the Dems can't or won't do anything. I repeat that when you take single payer off the table, the whole thing turns to shit.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

109. I'm not continuing this conversation.

It'd be pointless.

[winston61]

126. You are right about that, friend it would be pointless-

I believe like Howard Zinn that it is a mistake to rely on elected or appointed officials to do anything to help the population. Don't want to believe me? Just wait. That stabbing pain between your shoulder blades? Guess who!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

127. So we shouldn't rely on ourselves to help our own problems.

That's what you're saying. Elected officials don't get to Washington on their own. People deride the government, as though it were some amorphous entity, but we ARE the government. We've always been the government. It IS a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. The problem is that WE keep sending the wrong people. We don't provide any incentive for people that want to do good. We don't provide a proper system that will enable the smartest and the ones with the best intentions. We bitch about corporate money infiltrating the system, yet where's the movement towards federally funded elections? Where's the constitutional amendment clearly defining the role corporations can play in our democracy? We have the tools to fix it, but we don't.

It's long past time for us to look long and hard in the mirror as a nation. We'd rather blame someone or something else, but we've had the ability to change things all along. We just don't want to do it. That's the bottom line.

[winston61]

128. Oh you're correct- it is our fault. But fighting the ring wing

propaganda is something else. Down here in Texas people walk around like they are in a trance. If you talk to them about anything but God, Guns, the Bible and the GOP they look at you like you got two heads and are from another planet. They will believe anything they hear on Focks or talk radio. Every office you go into has FOCKS on the tv. How do you go up against willful, delighted ignorance? These people can't wait to elect another Bush or Cheney. They pray to their God for deliverance from the wicked and evil liberals. They don't want health care, they don't want equitable taxation, they don't want their share of the American dream. They are happy to carry the rich ruling class on their backs and thank the rich for the honor of doing so. They want the war machine, they want never ending war. They constantly talk about 'America, the worlds leading super power'. And now the Democrats have turned against the working class. They never had the needs of the working class in mind to start with. The perpetuation of their own wealth and power is their concern. I'm sorry, but talk about 'government by the people' is just a lot of sheep dip. The 'people' want oppression. They want discrimination. They want to send their sons and daughters into the jaws of the war machine. If there really was a god and he could see this country, he would puke.

[JoeyT]

41. I'm still not sure if it's a good idea or not.

From what I have read "Recission goes away" isn't exactly true. They may have to show that you committed "fraud" when you filled out your paperwork, but they already have to do that. AFAIK there's nothing in this bill that will stop them from taking your money every month and kicking you to the curb for neglecting to dot an I or cross a T or failure to mention you had empetigo when you were four.

I don't see pre-existing conditions being eliminated either. What's to prevent me from paying the fine and getting insurance only after I get sick? While I realize this is a really stupid thing to do, there are an awful lot of short-sighted people that will do just that.

As for the rest, it depends on the amount of teeth the regulations have and how free the regulators are to actually enforce them.
Edited to add: I really wish they'd "negotiate" with the left and tack a halfway decent public option on. That would gain them a tremendous amount of support.

[TwilightGardener]

42. Ideology and symbolism is more important than tangible benefit--to some.

[babylonsister]

43. Big fat recommend from me with thanks!

:thumbsup:

[Juche]

45. Thank you

This bill is much better than nothing.

Besides, this bill will also expand government programs like medicaid, and it will cement in the public's mind that health care is a universal right guaranteed by the government. As a result further reforms down the road will be easier to enact.

Conservatives opposed medicare in the 60s. Now they pretend they are defenders of the program because it is so popular and cemented as a duty/responsibility of the government. Imagine if medicare had failed in the 60s because it was only half a loaf and we tried to pass it now.

[phleshdef]

46. This bill is what Howard Dean would have pushed for in 04. Yet its worse than nothing.

[girl gone mad]

51. Dean's plan had a true opt-out, no fines for not buying mandated private insurance.

So yes, this bill is much worse.

[phleshdef]

54. Those details are actually very insignificant when you look at the whole proposal.

And Dean, like Obama, would likely have been forced to accept that mandates are necessary to make this work. Those are just the tough facts. So no, this bill is not very different at all and you are generally full of shit at the face of the facts destroy all notions of the ideas Dean presented being all that different. They weren't, PERIOD. Even Howard Dean had to accept this and support the current bill being passed. You don't have to like it. Thats just how it is.

[girl gone mad]

59. mandates are not necessary and the difference is not small.

It doesn't matter whether I like it or not. It's unethical and immoral for the government to force people to subsidize private profits.

I will take it to courts, all the way to the SC. That is and has been my position. I have the money to do so and will use it. I am not alone, not by a long shot.

[phleshdef]

68. Anyone who thinks mandates aren't necessary knows NOTHING about the topic of funding care for all.

That includes YOU. You apparently believe in fairy tale money that will cover everyone and all their conditions and in your little fairy tale world, this money apparenly grows on fairy trees.

A mandate IS necessary. Whether it be a mandate that requires a certain amount of your tax dollars to be used to cover you or a mandate that requires you to instead take that same money and purchase private insurance, its the same exact thing in the end. Yes, SINGLE PAYER is paid for by tax dollars that everyone with enough income has to pay, and therefore ALSO has a mandate. I'll say it again, SINGLE PAYER SYSTEMS REQUIRE A TAX MANDATE TO WORK.

And I just have to laugh at people who act like mandating that people pay for something is unconstitutional. Good luck with that SHIT argument.

[Myrina]

52. 31 million more forced-customers for CIGNA and United and Wellpoint. YAY!

:eyes: WTF dude. Seriously.

[phleshdef]

55. 15 million of the 30 get medicaid. The other 15 are guaranteed subsidies if they can't afford it.

I could give less of a shit how peopelg et covered as long as they get covered. But people like you tend to care more about purist crusades than making any actual progress.

[girl gone mad]

60. Coverage is not care.

Sorry, we are not that dumb.

[backscatter712]

65. So regulations abolishing practices like rescission mean nothing? n/t

[phleshdef]

66. First, who is "we"? The voices in your head? Second, coverage IS care, single payer or private ins..

Whether the government is using a tax to fund subsidizing that care or whether people are paying for it out of their own paychecks, medical professionals do not work for free, medicine costs money to make and hospitals cost money to run. Anyone that doesn't realize that much is pretty fucking clueless and has no business forming an opinion on the topic at all.

[Raineyb]

131. No. Coverage is NOT care. If one has an insurance policy that has co-pays

and deductibles that are so high that the person can't actually visit the doctor then they have no care. If you want to see clueless I'd suggest you look in the mirror. The idea that merely having an insurance card guarantees health care is asinine and isn't supported by the facts.

[Hippo_Tron]

139. Going $5000 in to debt to pay for a deductible is different than going $200,000 into debt...

Because you have no insurance. It's not perfect but it's an improvement.

[Kind of Blue]

58. Coould not recommend this ENOUGH! KnrR n/t

[damonm]

62. And the #1 reason "worse than nothing" is drivel:

Rush Limbaugh threatens to leave the country if HCR passes

[Uzybone]

72. KnR

[newtothegame]

74. Ok. "It's as good as we can get."

That's still no reason to not demand more from a President who vehemently denied that he was nothing more than "smoke and mirrors."

I wouldn't vote against it. But I will be out every day pushing for more, or in 2012 for someONE who will give me more. Or at least someone who will tell me the truth when they're campaigning.

[damonm]

75. "I will be out every day pushing for more"

Fan-fucking-tastic. You better be.
I'll be there too.
As I've said elsewhere, this is a starting point, just as SS and Medicare were when first passed. We need to demand more, once this is passed.

[JTFrog]

78. K&R

[OneBlueSky]

86. if you believe that the insurance companies won't find ways around . . .

pre-existing conditions and the other so-called "attributes" of this law, you haven't been paying sufficient attention to how this country works . . .

for-profit corporations can make money in two ways: 1) increasing income, and 2) decreasing expenditures . . . in the field of health insurance, that means 1) maximizing the premiums they charge, and 2) minimizing the benefits they pay out . . . and if you don't think they'll be able to find ways to do both -- and with the full consent of the Congress they've bought and paid for -- you're dreaming . . .

[damonm]

96. Then, according to you,

there is no point in doing anything - which is in the running for "Crock of the Year".

Single payer (the only way to stop this)is politically DOA in the current climate. I don't like that, and neither should you, but it is a fact.
What we have is what is currently doable.
And it is your conjecture that they will find ways around it - which I hope they do.
Because that will show everyone once and for all, incontrovertably, how dumb it was not to nationalize in the first place. The insurers will cheat themselves right out of existence.

[ibegurpard]

100. there is no point in doing THIS

which is mandating we buy for-profit insurance.

[OneBlueSky]

118. of course not . . . but there's certainly a lot to be said for not doing something . . .

that will make the insurance companies richer, consumers poorer, and (the important part) leave the corporations pretty much in control of our health care system . . . given the choice between that and a government controlled system like Medicare, I prefer the latter . . . given the choice between that and doing nothing (for now), I still prefer the latter . . .

just because something is doable doesn't mean you should do it . . . I still think the bill(s) before Congress suck big time, and I wouldn't mind seeing them defeated . . . maybe that will force our president to grow a set and take on the corporations a la FDR . . . because until someone with power does that, not much is going to change for the better . . .

[winston61]

129. Amen to that!

Do you really think the house and Senate are going to do anything for the working class? What a pipe dream.

[eridani]

102. Point by point

31 million more people will get covered under this bill than under the status quo - you say that's worse than nothing.

Yes, it is. They don't get health care--the just get forced to buy shitty insurance which they can't afford to actually use. They'll just join the hundreds of thousands who die or go bankrupt despite having insurance.

"pre-existing conditions" become a thing of the past - you say that's worse than nothing.

Not true--age is a pre-existing condition, and discrimination against the old is written right into the bill. Not to mention which you can still get turned down for having a poor credit record.

recission goes away, and your coverage can't be cancelled because you get sick - you say that's worse than nothing.

Except that recission doesn't go away--the bill doesn't say that. What it does say is that recissions will be eliminated except in the case of fraud. Can somebody please explain why the insurance companies will not be able to drive a whole fleet of very large trucks through that loophole? And there is no mention of what happens when you get dropped because you are unable to afford the premium one month.

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.

This is utter tripe. "Account for" is purely meaningless. Nowhere is there any provision for congress or a regulatory agency to actually make them lower costs.

[damonm]

123. Counterpoint by counterpoint:

They don't get health care--the(y) just get forced to buy shitty insurance which they can't afford to actually use.

Any proof aside from your assertion? Sect. 1302 of the bill (p. 104) does provide that policies shall include essential benefits to be defined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services that at least includes the following general 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.

Doesn't sound shitty to me.

Moreover, there is ZERO co-pay for preventive care, and an annual cap on out-of-pocket expenses based on income. So much for that complaint.

Not true--age is a pre-existing condition, and discrimination against the old is written right into the bill. Not to mention which you can still get turned down for having a poor credit record.

First, you can't be denied insurance due to age, so your "point" is a crock.
The sections I can find deal with establishing premiums based on known health risk factors, age being one (tobacco use another), but it LIMITS how much more insurers can charge - unlike the current system, where the insurers can gouge away as they please.
And how many are turned away due to poor credit? With a source or it's BS.

Except that recission doesn't go away--the bill doesn't say that. What it does say is that recissions will be eliminated except in the case of fraud. Can somebody please explain why the insurance companies will not be able to drive a whole fleet of very large trucks through that loophole?

It's very simple. If the insurer accuses fraud, THEY HAVE TO PROVE IT - basic Law, page 7. And in the face of sworn testimony by both patient and medical professionals, that is nowhere near as easy as you imagine. Moreover, the bill includes provision for each state to have a health insurance ombudsman to assist consumers in appeals, and a clear, plain-language appeals process for any such occurrence. (Section 2719, p. 36)
Recission effectively goes away. You lose again.

"Account for" is purely meaningless. Nowhere is there any provision for congress or a regulatory agency to actually make them lower costs.
Sentence 1: Section 2718 of the bill (starting on P. 2040) says different.
Sentence 2: I made no such claim.
The claim I made is that they have to justify rate increases at both the state and federal level. BIG difference, and that claim is backed up by section 1003, beginning on page 40.

So.
You have assertions.
I have the bill cites which refute them.
Nice try.

[eridani]

125. What renders a plan shitty or not is WHAT PERCENTAGE of your expenses they pay

The basement plan (the only subsidised one) pays only 60% of costs, and that is shitty no matter what is in the plan. And ths out of pocket limits are an outrageously expensive burden, that will still push less than affluent people into bankruptcy.

Enough people are denied insurance due to poor credit that WA State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler is trying (unsuccessfully) to get a law passed against it this session.

If you get charged more due to age, that is being penalized financially for having a pre-existing condition, period. I really like how supposed Democrats are so willing to assign older people to the category of disposable human garbage. Thanks for nothing.

Re recission: The insurance company wins anyway with this meaningless legislation. You get expensively ill. They rescind your policy for fraud. You challenge that. The challenge winds its way through the process, but before it gets resolved, you die. The verdict comes down in your favor, but tough shit. This is exactly what happened to the Sarkisians. CIGNA reversed their claim denial, but only after their daughter died.

And when they "justify their increases" exactly what the fuck does the government do about it? Nothing that I can see. The utterly outrageous prices they have now will be PERMANENTLY LOCKED IN.

[slipslidingaway]

106. Wow, this line is right from the AHIP commercial in support of HC reform...

"pre-existing conditions" become a thing of the past.

[damonm]

119. Interesting...

hadn't seen that. With the kids hogging the TV on Nickelodeon, Disney, etc., I don't get to see much TV.
Is that commercial on YouTube? I'd like to see it for myself.

[firedupdem]

114. too late to rec, but I agree 100% n/

[damonm]

130. And Ron Brownstein sums it up...

...equally compelling could be the price of inaction. If Obama's plan fails, as President Clinton's did, it's likely that no president will attempt to seriously expand coverage for many years. The independent Medicare actuary has projected that under current trends the number of uninsured will increase by 10 million, to about 57 million, by 2019. Providing uncompensated care to so many uninsured people would further strain physicians and hospitals -- and inflate premiums as those providers shift costs to their insured patients.

Some fiscal conservatives want to attack rising costs without expanding coverage. But that approach looks impractical, politically and economically. While Republicans controlled Congress after the 1994 election, they never built enough of a consensus to pass the cost-control ideas they are now pressing on Obama, such as medical malpractice reform. Meanwhile, Nichols warns that imposing meaningful cost control on hospitals without reducing the number of uninsured patients they must treat "would bankrupt many and strain most to the breaking point."

Weighing such factors, Nichols concludes that the "risk of doing nothing" exceeds the risk of passing the bill. In interviews, Emory University's Kenneth Thorpe and Stanford University's Alan Garber, two other leading health economists, guardedly echoed his conclusion. Both men believe that the current proposal could move faster to control costs. But both also agree that it contains valuable first steps and establishes what Garber calls "a good platform" for further reform. By contrast, Thorpe says, "under the do-nothing scenario, everything gets worse." For Democratic fiscal hawks uncertain that approving Obama's plan will cure what ails U.S. health care, the real question may be whether defeating it guarantees that the system's chronic afflictions will metastasize further. (emphasis added)

[Common Sense Party]

133. Sick. Of. Excessive. Punctuation.

Just say what you're trying to say, without the artificial dramatic pauses.

[golfguru]

136. You have no sympathy for the other 280 million

who will face unrestricted higher premiums from the private insurers?

You think the private for profit insurers will absorb the additional
cost of carrying new customers with pre-conditions? If you believe
that I got a slightly damaged bridge in Minnesota to sell you.

May be you can tell me what restrictions are contained in the HCR bill
on how high they can raise the premiums?

We need Medicare for ALL!
If that is not possible then at least a robust PO to compete with
private for profit insurers.

[damonm]

137. Simple answer to the misinformation you're spewing:

Read the bill:
http://dpc.senate.gov/dpcdoc-sen_health_care_bill.cfm

[golfguru]

140. I did not find anything that restricts increases in premiums

the for profit insurers can charge.

May be you can clue me in where it is.

And is this the senate bill?

[damonm]

146. Yes, it is the Senate bill.

And what you're looking for is Section 2794, beginning on page 40.
Premium increases have to be reviewed by HHS (if the State you're in doesn't do it first), and excessive increases can get them booted off the exchange.

[Vinca]

142. My biggest worry is that even with subsidies, many people

will not be able to afford to buy into this scheme and, after being penalized, will end up worse off. My husband and I are older with pre-existing conditions and will be subject to tripled premiums under this bill. We make a hair over the limit for subsidies. I estimate the cost will be about $200 over the current unaffordable insurance available to us. It will be surprising if the same people with pre-existing conditions or older people will be able to afford this, even with the subsidies. Our only option is to impoverish ourselves in order to qualify for the Medicaid expansion. But as long as we make sure big insurance is cemented into place for all time, I guess all is well.

[damonm]

147. Try looking at this. It'll give you a clearer picture.

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