People advocating to kill the bill (with all its flaws) are giving up this chance to help scores

[CreekDog]

Scores who would get subsidies to pay for health insurance and not face a bar to medical care they face now.

They would give up the chance to expand Medicaid, a big chance there is no guarantee will come around in any form again anytime soon.

We would give up a chance to put new regulation on health insurance companies --none of this exists on a national level (to require coverage of preexisting conditions, to force issuance of insurance policies to anyone who applies for one). Insurance doesn't solve everything, but would you rather be uninsured trying to get care or insured if those are your only options? For most of us they are the options under the law currently.

I hate the way this all played out, but just as in 2000 when people said they were unhappy with their choices of whom to vote for, I knew I was not just voting for myself, that others were depending upon me. I voted having benefits, decent employment and even comfort, but given the chance to expand the safety net by 10% I'd still go for it unless 50% is truly on the table right now.

I am a big fan of Howard Dean but he is human and his opinion is human. I supported him in 2002 when not many here even knew him or supported him.

I've said before, the weaker this bill gets, the more the provisions still left are needed. I would rather have this in place and try for more later than have nothing in place and start over. If we knew the filibuster would be gone tomorrow, there would be cause for trying again --but it's not. They didn't have a backup in reconciliation and that's almost unforgivable, but we have this bill.

Say what you will about the bill, but on the main issues: preexisting conditions, guaranteed issue, expansion of Medicaid and new subsidies to effectively working poor and lower middle class I would vote for even if they said I had to be shot out of a cannon right afterwards. It's too big a chance.

And despite this, I'm doing no politician's bidding. I know why I support what I support and I will remember those who weakened it through malpractice and through deceit. But I'm not missing this opportunity, no way.

I remember watching in 1994 when all the plans fell apart. I don't trust the politicos to do a better job a second time. When they gave up in 1994, did we get something better? We got SCHIP and some portability a little while later, but that was about it.. Almost any of the plans in 1994 were better than what took years to do incrementally.

[rockymountaindem]

1. We're also passing up the chance to give tens of billions in subsidies without accountability

We're passing up the chance to fork over gobs of money to the insurance industry without cost controls, and we're passing up the chance to create more path-dependency which will lock us into the rapidly failing system all the longer.

The House bill is the way to go. I still support that.

[Armstead]

2. Mandates for private insurance with no public alternative will undermine real reform

If this reform bill were simply milder than I would like, I could live with it.

But this takes us in the wrong direction.

It forces people into the private insurance jungle, and thus makes an already bad system even worse and entrenches it even further.

Subsidies may be helpful, but why tie it to a mandate and a system that will prevent any public source of health coverage in the future?

[polichick]

3. +1

[jillan]

4. +1

[Vincardog]

9. +1

[Hippo_Tron]

14. Because the principle of universal (or at least near-universal) coverage will be enshrined into law

And once that has happened there is no going back. What will happen eventually is that covering everybody with private insurance will simply become too expensive. The government will have no choice but to create a public option.

[BeyondGeography]

15. That's another beautiful mind post that doesn't address the OP

Plus, you have no idea whatsoever a) how the market will behave in the aftermath of reform or b) what legislative steps would be taken to correct any excesses. And neither do I. Meantime, killing the bill would doom the HCR process indefinitely and provide zero relief to those who would otherwise get it.

[Better Today]

5. Is the language such that the subsidies are guaranteed to cover the price of the

insurance for people at or below the poverty line? I've not heard, or read, anything discussing how, or even if there is a mechanism, to assure that will be achieved.

[MISSDem]

6. If this passes companies will stop providing insurance to employees.

Too expensive and they would rather pay the fine - cheaper for them. So those of us who now have insurance will be out there looking for affordable coverage with everyone else. I'm afraid the Congress is going to mess this up for everyone. Don't trust them.

[CreekDog]

12. they are already doing so

and if you lose your job, you are SOL except for temporary COBRA subsidies (that don't apply to everyone).

[Hippo_Tron]

17. How does this give employers incentives to drop coverage?

[CreekDog]

18. they are dropping it without incentive

with no backstop in place now as there would be under the bill.

[MISSDem]

44. health care is one of the, if not the most,

costliest benefits for an employer to provide. The fine that will be levied if they do not provide insurance for their employees will be less than the cost of the insurance.

[yurbud]

7. subsidized insurance and mandates for everyone to buy would not necessarily drive down prices

[jgraz]

8. I bet we could restart this process and still get something in effect before 2014.

Hell, with an honest debate and real support from the White House, we could start saving lives by March.

[CreekDog]

13. i've heard that before

how many times have i heard that will happen.

are we getting new congresspeople, new leadership? you expect this to happen with all the same people in charge, by 2014?

i'm more cynical.

[jgraz]

19. All we need is a real leader in the White House.

I still haven't completely given up hope that Obama will do something sensible -- even if just to save his own political skin.

[CreekDog]

32. his term is four years and if Bush lasted 8, Obama can probably argue for 16

so if your plan is based on someone either acting differently than they have been or replacing that person, forgive me for not feeling confident in your instincts.

either Obama does what he has said he wants to do and continues doing it or he does something else, but you and i haven't gotten him to do otherwise yet, do you think without this bill on the table, he's going to pivot and do what we say?

do you support us being in Afghanistan? how has your opinion altered that outcome?

i didn't think so.

be honest with me and say, if it depends on the person in the white house to act different or be a different person, we don't get to talk about it until 2016 if the usual math applies.

[tandot]

10. I am with you, CreekDog.

Even if we start over, Republicans and some DINOs will still oppose it. Republicans will use this to defeat Democrats and Obama in 2010 & 2012. If Republicans take over again, we can say good-bye to reform for a long time.

[Zodiak]

11. Read the L.A. times today?

Interesting article about how BOTH BILLS allow insurance companies to sell nationally, across state lines.

This is why we have 40% credit card rates, because CT has no usury laws......and all credit card companies work out of CT, effectively rendering any other state incapable of regulating them.


And now they want to do this with health insurance?

This was a REPUBLICAN idea, by the way.

I will not allow the insurance cartel to hold a few million poor people hostage trying to extort from the rest of us. Fuck that.

This bill will make them stronger and less accountable. It's a shipment of fail with a pretty bow tied to it.

[CreekDog]

16. I'd vote for subsidies and expansion of Medicaid even if I had be shot out of a cannon afterwards

:shrug:

yeah, they got me. frankly in a week, we will look at this bill and feel lucky.

[Zodiak]

20. Then you are letting them take hostages and pandering fear to you for compliance

Here is the link

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/17/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5990684.shtml

All of us, including the currently uninsured, will be subject to whatever state gives in the most to health insurance lobbies with no ability to remedy that.

The price is too high. Kill the bill.

I'd rather shoot them out of a cannon over this than you.

[CreekDog]

27. guilty as charged, to get them to throw some money into Medicaid and subsidies to the uninsured?

You really don't know how low I would go to have these things happen because in my lifetime, getting any of them done has been an uphill battle. We aren't talking about money for AIG and Citibank, that's easy. We are talking about money for lower middle and poor people, such opportunities almost never come around.

[kelly1mm]

28. Will you stll be OK with it when/if Nelson gets Stupac language in the bill? nt

[CreekDog]

34. Probably. When they are holding help to people who have almost nothing, they've got me

my bluff has been called.

that's why i'm livid that there was no backup plan, although i don't believe it was an accident.

the changes to insurance MUST happen, they should have happened anyway, but if we walk and do nothing, do you think Nelson will lose any sleep, Lieberman? No, but the people who actually could have been helped, they are screwed.

watch the Senators that we usually can trust, look at what they are saying? you think Harkin is bought and paid for? if you are reduced to fighting Harkin on providing help to those who need it, you are losing!

[kelly1mm]

38. I sense your frustration and will back off .... I see you are no

chearleader in this and feel sick about your position. Have to admit, you do have me rethinking my (kill the bill) position. Thanks for the discussion.

[Zodiak]

41. For the possibility of insurance that has unspecified "coverage"

People will get some money, yes. How much they have to pay out of pocket in addition to this is completely unspecified at this point. What are the copays....what are the premuims.....what percentage of coverage will be offered the poorest with their subsidy?

These are important questions....unanswered besides "minimum coverage is guaranteed".

In exchange, each and every one of us will be forced into this dysfunctional system (now enforced by the IRS!!!), and in some areas, it will be considerably less regulated. The person in charge of what little oversight is in this legislation is the HHS secretary. Face it, that is a political appointment, easily taken up by an industry insider that refuses to regulate.

We are feeding everyone to the wolves in the hopes that companies who have proven to be asshole end their evil ways.

It is a deal with the devil, and it will end up doing a lot of damage, not only to those we all wish had access to healthCARE (insurance is NOT care, remember?), but also the Democratic party, and ultimately, the whole country when this becomes one of the factors that destroys us economically.

Oh, and added to that, the health insurance companies will have another 450 billion dollars to kick around (because those poor people who get subsidies are only there to pass the money on to the health insurance companies) to buy more influence, and spend the next few years not making better legislation, but buying more politicians to gut the legislation some more.

Even the Democrats admit that this horrible bill will not be improved next year.

So you sure are giving up a lot to what I consider to be a promise and some vapors.

[CreekDog]

42. 800 billion is not vapors

yes, i never said insurance was care, however i did ask the valid question that if the average person needed care, would they prefer to try and get it being insured or uninsured? most of us are not going to have another option.

[Vinca]

21. A whole lot of people will get their subsidy and will not be able to afford

to purchase big insurance's product. There is no regulation on the corporations re how much they will be allowed to charge. The same people who are being screwed over today - the ones in the middle who are too well off to qualify for Medicaid and too poor to buy insurance - will be the ones who end up not being able to come up with the difference and will, instead, be paying a fine. It's ridiculous. Unless big insurance is regulated in a way similar to a public utility, this whole exercise will make life much worse for some families.

[CreekDog]

35. there are income limits, you don't get a subsidy and they triple the rates and you pay whatever

if you are supposed to pay $2000/year and they triple the rates, you still pay $2000/year, the subsidy increases, but instead of you arguing it out with the insurance company, the government and all the other special interests will argue against the high subsidy, which politicians then will be loathe to take away. someday, something more like Medicare rates will take hold, but not until the government is footing the bill. you and me have no leverage, the government does and getting the government on the hook is the key.

i think the most liberal senators know this, even Sanders has not said he will filibuster, he has said he doesn't support yet.

[hulka38]

22. The opportunity costs that come with this bill's passage will dwarf whatever

good that comes from it.

[Umbral]

23. They can yank the mandates and pass a bill. So what's stopping them? nt

[valerief]

25. They're an arm of the health insurance industry. Why else? nt

[CreekDog]

36. because liberals are better people on this issue

like me, they know when their bluff has been called.

think of who will lose sleep if this fails? people on our side. who won't? the folks saying it's not good enough (Nelson et al)

[valerief]

24. We don't need friggin' health insurance regs if we get MEDICARE FOR ALL through reconciliation. nt

[CreekDog]

26. the folks that got us here are going to give us that?

like i said, if that was on the table as an alternative, i'd jump at it, but it's not (malpractice really).

[Oregone]

29. People who don't want to withdraw 10 troops from Afghanistan would give up that chance to...

protect 10 people and everyone they'd kill.


So, if after an avid peace movement caused the administration to capitulate and engage in a withdrawal, we damn well should be happy with a mere 10 people withdrawing. Thats a withdrawal you can believe in.

[TheKentuckian]

30. We aren't getting anything but a requirement to get reamed and insurance for

folks that they still may not be able to afford to use.

Preexisting conditions? Who can possibly afford three times what the normal person can't afford?

Would you trade your car for a bowl of soup? We're getting there.

[rug]

31. Scores? You convinced me. I thought it was only dozens.

[CreekDog]

37. estimated 30+ million would get coverage, but you say "dozens"

of course you are wrong all the time so... :eyes:

[rug]

40. You say scores. I think you're correct.

[brentspeak]

33. "Scores" = units of twenty

[Xithras]

39. Because it would harm far more people than it helped.

There's no question that some would be helped, but the real question is whether it helps ENOUGH people to counteract the harm it will do. I think the answer is a solid no. Enshrining penalties into law for millions of Americans who can't afford insurance, burdoning millions of blue collar workers with a new tax on employer health benefits irregardless of income, a total dismantling of state-run insurance company oversight by state insurance commissioners...the harm in this bill is FAR greater than its good.

[CreekDog]

43. The unrecommenders are out in force on this thread

:hi: