To all who tell us to hold our fire because the alternative is so much worse

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

I would like to show you the flaw in your logic.

exhibit A is this post of Marcy Wheeler's at Firedoglake.

(Thanks to Luminous animal for posting it in this thread which is what really got me thinking. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7260386#7260660)

Here is Marcy Wheelers two scenarios of what The Health Insurance Protection Act would cost:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/12/16/the-mybara... /

I’m going to do two scenarios — one for someone just above 300% who will receive subsidies and have a premium limit, and one for someone just over 400%. While that artificially calculates the number for those who would be in the worst case scenario, as far as benefits (meaning they make just enough to miss out on some subsidies), it does give a basic idea of what this will do to middle class families (though it is inaccurate in that those over 400% of poverty have no cap on premiums, so those numbers could be higher). Since subsidies are figured on “silver” plans which allow actuarial values of 70%, this is what might happen to a family incurring around $39,666 in medical costs over the year, in which case they would pay the full out-of-pocket costs for their income level.

301% of Poverty Level: $66,370
Federal Taxes (estimate from this page, includes FICA): $8,628 (13% of income)
State Taxes (using MI rates on $30,000 of income): $1,305 (2% of income)
Food (using “low-cost USDA plan” for family of four): $9,065 (14% of income)
Home (assume a straight 30% of income): $19,275 (30% of income)
Health Care: $14,477 ($7,973 out-of-pocket + 9.8% of income; totals 22% of income)

Total: $52,750 (79% of income)

Remainder for all other expenses (including education, clothing, existing debt, transportation, etc.): $13,620 (or 21% of income)


401% of Poverty Level: $88,420
Federal Taxes (really rought estimate based on this page, includes FICA): $13,263 (15% of income)
State Taxes (using MI rates on $45,000 of income): $1,957 (2% of income)
Food (using “low-cost USDA plan” for family of four): $9,065 (10% of income)
Home (assume a straight 30% of income): $26,526 (30% of income)
Health care: $20,565 ($11,900 out-of-pocket + 9.8% of income–though note there is no limit on premiums for this income level, so this could be higher; totals 23% of income)

Total: $71,376 (80% of income)

Remainder for all other expenses (including education, clothing, existing debt, transportation, etc.): $17,044 (or 19% of income)

Now, let's say this healthcare "reform" is passed.

Marcy Wheeler's example is devastating. Nate Silver's column said a family of 4 making 54K would pay out 9K in premiums, deductables and co-pays AFTER the subsidy = 17% of income. The Medicare unsubsidized buy-in was going to be 7200 for 1 person. These figures are ALL unsustainable to most of the middle class, something that our legislators appear to be completely unaware of.

This is not "propaganda" or "moaning" or "whining". I can only assume that people who call it such are all set with their own healthcare and can afford to be smug. People with real skin in the game - the unemployed, the self-employed, the underemployed (part-time workers) the over-employed (mulitple part time jobs, but still no insurance) can see right where this is heading:

The poor will be ok, the rich will be ok , but the middle class will be anihilated.

People will face the indignity of NOT GETTING affordable insurance AFTER reform, AND they are going to be fined for not having the unaffordable insurance!

You think the Tea Baggers are mad now? Just wait a little bit. There will be riots in the streets and it won't be just Tea Baggers. The middle class will howl with a rage we haven't heard in decades. The Democratic Party will be DOA for the foreseeable future and we will all be turned over to the fascist Republicans. That will be the end result.

That is why I LAUGH (albeit bitterly) at the apologists who tell us to hold our fire, why are we being disloyal, don't we know that the alternative is worse, blah, blah, blah, because they are driving the express bus to the far worse alternative they constantly hold over our heads.

[Armstead]

1. Wish I could R this 5 times -- This bill is poison with the mandate

[eridani]

2. Yes. The bill will completely ;wipe out any remaining discretionary income

--that middle class people now have. And 70% of our economy is consumer spending.

[MNDemNY]

3. That is it's purpose.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[Armstead]

8. It will make people go broke faster -- with the government helping push them over the edge

[tularetom]

9. Yep - and the more people that go broke the less taxes they pay

And the wealthy, the poor and corporations already pay no taxes, so with the big drop in middle class tax payments, viola - the government goes broke.

[still_one]

5. Thank-You /nt

[WeDidIt]

6. So this bill will put us straight into a Depression

Seriously, remove that much spending power from the middle class and the whole fucking system will collapse.

[Garam_Masala]

77. You just made a very important point which few realize eom

[slipslidingaway]

7. Big K&R thanks n/t

[Laelth]

10. Useful. Thanks. k&r n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. So, what's the alternative- that's going to pass with our current Congress?

What's going to be viable, if as so many people fear here, the Republicans (great maker forbid) take over one or both houses of Congress in the 2010 midterm elections? Although I do not personally believe that they will, they will almost certainly increase their numbers/clout in the next Congress leaving us until 2012 to try and get some more progressives in Congress. The Republicans are certainly NOT going to fight for any better reform- if any at all- and we're going to lose a window for doing pretty much anything for at least a couple of years at best.

Second, what are people going to do in the meantime about health insurance premiums that are already spiraling out of control leaving people priced out of health insurance (if they already have it) or keeping people out of the market (if they don't have it)? Without this bill, there will be NO subsidies to help people purchase insurance coverage. There will be no changes to recission policies or regulations barring insurance companies from preventing people with pre-existing conditions from obtaining coverage and insurance companies will NEVER change any of these policies on their own. The status quo is simply unsustainable and I don't understand why people would defend simply doing nothing just because the bill isn't everything they hoped it would be (yet). Alleviating SOME suffering- albeit imperfectly- is always better IMHO than continuing to allow a LOT of (unnecessary) suffering. If there is something that can be done to help people NOW, then IMHO we NEED to do it. While we struggle towards perfection, people are going to continue to struggle to hold on to their insurance coverage and/or obtain it. Being mandated to purchase insurance for some ain't going to be fun- particularly if they are otherwise healthy (for the moment)- and I'm not exactly sure how that's going to work in practice but, at least based on Massachusett's system, people aren't exactly getting thrown into prison (debtor's or otherwise) for not being able to purchase insurance. I would also imagine that going into bankruptcy because of an unexpected illness (NOBODY knows for sure what's going to happen to their health at any given moment) isn't that much fun (nor helpful) either.
The medicare buy-in/expansion is a good idea in theory, as is the PO, but the elimination of them, as they were written, simply does not seem to be worth tanking the entire bill over IMHO.
As some people here and elsewhere have suggested, I believe that the best strategy for the present is to get through whatever reforms (insurance and otherwise) that are possible at the moment and attempt the Medicare buy-in/expansion via the reconciliation process but I simply cannot accept the "kill the bill" mentality being spouted by many here on DU and by some members of Congress. I like and respect Dean and other progressives whom are opposed to this bill as it is but I respectfully disagree with them on their strategy on this.

[mullard12ax7]

19. In the meantime, people are going broke and losing everything

That's the point. Nobody is in a "struggle for perfection", people simply want to survive.

[levander]

54. Now or never is so entirely false...

I swear I'm gonna say this 20 times on DU before I log off the internet tonight. But, before the Democratic leaders started doing this whole thing a purely liberal way, there was a bipartisan bill. Bipartisan meaning yes, it had some Republican support. It was called the Healthy Americans Act. It provided universal coverage and had plenty of subsidies. From past reading I've done it actually had more... I could explain why, but I've already explained it like 10 times over the last week on this board.

Bottom line, it is possible to get some Republicans (not as many as you could get Democrats, but some Republicans) to work on this kind of bill.

For introductory reading on the Healthy Americans Act: http://wyden.senate.gov/issues/Legislation/Healthy%20Americans%20Act/haa_faq.cfm">Click

[truedelphi]

66. Indeed what are we the people going to do.

The health insurance and other big medical interests have been so very careful to already raise and inflate their prices, in anticipation of this "Socialistic Attempt" at reform.

While all along these big players knew there would not be any real reform.

So now we have this MANDATED inflated beast that we must continue to feed.

I am thinking that people are so very mad that it may be that there will be violence.

I am not saying that I want or desire this violence - but when a tyrannical group of "leaders" or "rulers" mistreat a group of people, who armed with the internet know now the FUll Truth of how badly they are treated, the end results cannot be pretty ones.

[appal_jack]

69. change the Medicare eligibility age to 0 yrs., 1 day

Change the Medicare eligibility age to 0 yrs., 1 day.

Only takes 50 Dem. Senators + Joe Biden in the Senate. The House would be even easier.

All other details can be 'fixed later.'

-app

[snagglepuss]

12. K & R nt

[AzDar]

13. K & R

[TacticalPeek]

14. You got this so right it hurts.

:thumbsup:

[tom_paine]

15. The same basic story over and over for thirty years now...

Who could have guessed something like this could have happened? Or has it always been happening and we just happened to be lucky enough to br born in the time when the Global Aristocracy was forced to yield even a tiniest bit to a few lucky souls before they took it all back again and we were carrying their sedan-chairs?

Hooray for us.

[CreekDog]

16. the alternative is nothing

or do you know of something else in the hopper.

the alternative is the status quo and it sucks.

[amborin]

17. "doom for dems"

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x58124>

[mullard12ax7]

18. K&R for the actual research

I'm sure it won't stop the constant stream of health insurance hucksters but it is very refreshing to read.

[tekisui]

20. knr.

[lildreamer316]

21. This is pure truth. Thank you.

You are exactly right and this is bookmarked to reference each and every time someone tells me to hold my fire.

[uponit7771]

22. I'll wait to see what the final numbers look like, they don't look good right now though

[Armstead]

23. get back up there....kick

[brentspeak]

24. kicked and rec'd

[TK421]

25. K&R..although I'm waiting for the response about ponies or curing cancer

should be any second now.....

[Armstead]

26. You just want a pony

[TK421]

27. and a cure for cancer...don't leave that out!

:-)

[Armstead]

28. You supporting the GOP

[TK421]

30. Yeah...I work for Rush, but he pays me in Oxycontins rather than cash

;)

[Armstead]

31. You're also a leftist socialist

....er wait a minute I'm getting my memes mixed :crazy:

[TK421]

33. who's on the oxycontin here anyways?

:rofl: get it straight!!

[puebloknot]

34. You just want to have it *your* way. If you don't get what you want ...

... right now, you'll have a temper tantrum!

[TK421]

35. I'm pounding on my desk right now AND SCREAMING!@!@!!!!!

I guess someone should call me the WAAAMBULANCE!!!!!@!@ :spray: before I flatline from my poutrage!!!@

[puebloknot]

39. You get the WAAAMBULANCE only if your insurance covers it! nt

[uponit7771]

41. ...well, Obama aint solved neither one of those so he aint shit!! ./sarcasm lol...

[ProSense]

29. "Health care: $20,565 "? Where is she getting these numbers, and what about employer contributions?

more

$20,565 seems completely bogus if Wheeler is claiming that these will be out of pocket expenses.

[Garam_Masala]

57. Your chart not even close to what my family of 4 is paying under current law

may be you need more explanation of your chart.

[puebloknot]

32. K&R to Powers of Ten!!!

You may not win any literary prizes for this, and you may not have a fan club at DU of fawning followers, but you sure has hell nailed it.

We've had years of this nonsense, and it's time for truth. We were told to hold our fire while Nancy Pelosi ran through her laundry list of "important" items right after we won a victory in 2006. All the important stuff, like impeachment and the unconstitutionality of almost everything the Repubs *and* the Dems handed us had to wait.

Now we hear that it's only been less than a year that Obama has had to make things right, but he is so consistently continuing the Bush policies that I feel great concern over what the remaining three years of his administration is going to offer up.

Thom Hartmann wrote a book called "Screwed," with regard to what is happening to the middle class. Lesser lights should bother to consider its premise before wagging a finger at those of us who refuse to be blind party loyalists!

[quiet.american]

36. Her analysis is wholly inaccurate -- her figures do not include accurate individual subsidy rates.

As posted here, if this is the extent of her analysis, it is simply wrong.

Also, Nate Silver added to his commentary to clarify his $9k number:

"Silver: EDIT -- Another important point or two: To the extent there are critiques about this post, they are liable to revolve around the fact that $9,000 is not so affordable for our not-so-imaginary family. Two things to note on this:

Firstly, in most years, the family will not be paying $9,000. They'll be paying closer to $4,000 -- the base cost of the premium -- or maybe $5,000 for a few meds and doctors' visits and so forth. The costs will be much higher in those years when a member of the family gets sick. But the alternative in those years would be not having health insurance at all -- and in that case, either the the family member might die from the condition or the family will go bankrupt trying to prevent that."

-------------------

Here is my own initial analysis based on a read of the House bill when it was first released, which showed that as a currently uninsured, single person, I would be able to get insurance right away (through the National High Risk Pool) for about 80.00/month or less. Yes, I know this is not the Senate version, however Silver also said the subsidy rates have not changed much between the two bills:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6913410

[uponit7771]

42. *****THREAD DEAD***** Thx for this post

[JDPriestly]

62. The exact figures do not matter so much to me.

The problem with the bill is that the only costs it curbs are Medicare costs. Other than that, it allows insurance companies to increase their premiums an profits endlessly and to infinity if the wish. The subsidies are helpful to poor families, but what will they do to the government's budget?

We need Medicare for all because it will cost less. As long as the insurance companies exist, they will find ways to take a larger and larger share of GDP. Whether that share of GDP is paid out of tax revenue or out of consumers' pockets, it's all the same. It is a transfer to the insurance companies that cannot be permitted.

The insurance companies would be OK if they were limited to making very modest profits. We cannot do much about lowering the costs of our individual health care. Sure, exercise, diet, etc. help, but I can tell you that if every ancestor in the last four generations has had say, diabetes or heart disease or was overweight, chances are you will meet the same fate. Thus far, you cannot change the fate imposed upon you by your genes.

We all get sick. We all need care at one point or another in our lives. How much is, to a great extent, a matter of luck. It is wrong for certain very greedy individuals to leach money from the health care system. I'd rather the money go directly to health care practitioners, directly to the hospitals and doctors and universities that do the research on cures, rather than to Big Pharma and Big Insurance. Who needs them?

[Little Star]

37. k&r

[Vinca]

38. No one can make an accurate prediction because big insurance

has not promised to act in a rational manner. That's the problem. They may very well continue their double digit increases for the next 4 years so by the time any subsidy might kick in, the insurance will be an unaffordable product anyway. To make this bill even slightly palatable, there has to be regulation of big insurance like a utility.

[quiet.american]

40. Actually, that's not entirely true.

Both the House and Senate bills contain regulation to prevent the scenario you've described. But you are right in that no one right now knows what's in the current version of the Senate bill. We only know what's not in it, and that's causing mass hysteria that's feeding on itself. But the only thing regarding regulation that I've heard was stripped out from the House version was the anti-trust exemption -- which I don't like.

[femrap]

43. Maybe the coming

snowstorm will stop this 'Reform.'

If there is no Public Option, there is no reform. Women will lose big time. No abortion coverage.

I hope Joe Lieberman's dick falls off.

[Enthusiast]

72. He has a dick? nt

[femrap]

73. a small one that has

difficulty working.

[rhett o rick]

44. Agree. rec nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

45. If this abomination passes, mass civil disobedience is our only recourse

That's the only language they understand.

[madfloridian]

46. Recommended. I very much trust Marcy Wheelers' work.

She is so careful, knowledgeable, and well-researched.

[bvar22]

47. K&R

Why would anyone expect the Democratic Party to do something for the Working Class?
They haven't in the last 30 years.
Just more of the same.

[mzmolly]

48. What is the penalty for not taking part in the mandate?

Anyone?

[Garam_Masala]

56. Fines and if fines are not paid then jail time n/t

[mzmolly]

58. Is there a link to more info on the specifics?

Nevermind, I found more info as well: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/11/imprisoned-for-not-having-health-care/

[Garam_Masala]

63. So if you don't pay the fine nothing happens?

That makes no sense at all! Why would any one pay the fine then?

[mzmolly]

74. No, you'd face IRS penalties for not paying the additional

tax.

[Garam_Masala]

76. Oh OK...thanks for clearing that up...WHEW

So instead of throwing your body in jail the IRS will just
confiscate your bank account, your car and your house.
Sure that is very comforting.

[dflprincess]

49. Great post

but you forgot the money we're all suppose to be putting into 401Ks so maybe, just maybe, we can retire some day.

[orbitalman]

50. Methinks Howard Dean is RIGHT. n/t

[soryang]

51. the analogy is made to mandatory car insurance

Know what the most common criminal offense is in mandatory car insurance states? Driving on a suspended license. Know why the license is suspended? Driving without car insurance.

Of course the analogy is not a good one for those who insist that the mandate has a precedent for two reasons. First car insurance is much cheaper than health insurance. Second, driving is not a right but a privelege under constitutional law and you can live without car insurance. In many cases, living without health care is not possible.

The mandate will be a fiasco. Millions will ignore it. Millions more will stop filing income tax returns to avoid payment. The mandate will result in massive civil disobedience just like mandatory car insurance but on a much larger scale.

[Garam_Masala]

64. Car ownership is NOT mandated

therefor the car insurance mandate is not a valid
analogy to mandated health insurance FOR EVERY LIVING SOUL.

[soryang]

78. ?

[MissDeeds]

52. K&R

:kick:

[Grinchie]

53. How dare you post the fundamentals! It's undermining Hope and Change*

The DLC paid a lot for that marketing slogan, and even more for the cool Corporate Friendly Logo's used by Obama get elected...

But don't worry, by the time the Health Care Sham gets rolling, everyone will be making 150,000 dollars a year, and bread will cost $20.00 a loaf.

Houses will reinflate to a median cost of $500,000 dollars, and gas will be 18 dollars a gallon.

Yep, the good old days are coming back with a vengeance, courtesy of Fiat money, the printing press, and the miracles of a Fractional Reserve Banking System that is based on nothing.

I had really Hoped that my Moniker of Grinchie would be obsolete by now, but it is only more relevant one year in to Obama's administration.

Obama remains a let down to the 5th power, and there is no sign that he is nothing more than a DLC masthead for the Clinton Corporate Fatcats that helped set the stage for Dubya.

[Blasphemer]

55. K&R... nt

[mzmolly]

59. Here is more info on the penalty for non compliance:

"Those who don’t get coverage will be subject to a tax of 2.5 percent of their adjusted income beyond that threshold, up to the cost of the average national premium.

The letter from the JCT includes a list of civil and criminal penalties. These aren’t penalties for not buying insurance, however. They’re penalties for refusing to pay the resulting tax."

MORE > http://www.factcheck.org/2009/11/imprisoned-for-not-having-health-care/

So, if you make 88,420 (adjusted gross) you'd be subject to a minimum of a 2.5 percent tax ($2211) on that amount UP TO the amount of the cost of the average national premium. As of September, the average national premium was about 13,000.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2009-09-15-insurance-costs_N.htm

[eleny]

60. This is what I fear since hubby and I are in the middle

Retired and smack dab in the middle. We'll be skinned.

K&R :hug:

[xchrom]

61. Recommend. Nt

[winyanstaz]

65. And the New World Order keeps right on marching in lock-step..

[DesertDiamond]

67. For me personally, nothing would be worse than being forced to pay insurance companies for

insurance I never plan to use unless I experience some physical trauma. I would be happy to pay taxes into a govt run program which would allow people who want to use allopathic medicine to use it. However, I take care of my own health with a raw vegan diet, cleansings and yoga. If I get sick at all, I will use alternative therapies not covered by insurance. Some people I know, not having access to what is called "health care" in this country, are doing without the meds they were prescribed and resorting to changing their diets and finding herbal remedies that actually are making them healthier. In my view, until we have true freedom of medicine in this country and MDs are free to prescribe anything they find that works the way MDs can in other countries, the health insurance reform idea is moot anyway. People may get access to more meds, but are those meds really beneficial to their health? Often the answer is no. And if I am forced to pay insurance companies with things as they are now, I may consider moving to another country.

[FunMe]

68. The days of "where are they going to go" are OVAH

I have never in SO many years seen so many people say they will NOT vote for a candidate just because she or he is a Democrat. They have to "show us the money" so to speak.

We have seen in the last week that the Obama administration is "more of the same" and part of the OLIGARCHY of this country who BETRAYS the American people and continues to rob us of our national resources$$$$.

Enough is enough!

I think most Americans see that the guy behind the curtain is just another CORPORATE WHORE who sold his soul to the devil of $$$ money. Obama's mother would be so ashamed of what he has become.

[Wardoc]

70. Agreed. I am not going to be emotionally blackmailed to buy guy A's crap because I'm afraid of...

guy Bs. Either give me something I actually WANT to purchase or I'll take my money/vote elsewhere.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

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

[Hello_Kitty]

75. Thank you. And I'm so sick of hearing about the "30 million Americans" who will be covered

Half to 2/3 of them will be getting Medicaid. Which is definitely better than nothing for them but it totally gets the insurance cos. off the hook for their care. It's a bait and switch - force millions of people into expensive private plans, claiming it's necessary to cover "the poor". Then just expand Medicaid to cover most of the poor.