anyone else kind of bummed about where this is heading? Looks like either we're going to get nothing or, more likely, a really bad bill that:

1. Does absolutely nothing of significance to bring down costs and change the incentive structure currently in place
2. Costs a trillion dollars or more
3. Leaves in the goofy employer-based health care system
4. Will, like the Massachusetts plan, likely need to be fixed or have more money poured into it in a year or two

So disappointing. Just like with the stimulus plan, I think it was a huge mistake for Obama to let congress figure out the details as a group. He should have picked a strong plan (seemed like Wyden's was a good start from the bit I heard) and backed it forcefully.

Maybe it'll end up working out. But I'm pretty pessimistic at this point

I read this graph in The Economist a few weeks ago that said that the United States spent as much per person on public health care programs as countries that had universal health care programs. We spent as much per person on our public programs as Canada, France, Germany, Sweden, Great Britain, Italy, and Japan. We just also paid more than double in private payments. This is how we ended up spending double most other countries and a third more than the next most expensive health care system in the world, France. Another graph showed the usual life expectancy chart which pegged us at 77.8 and the rest of the chart (mostly listed above) around 80 and Japan had 82.4 while having the cheapest health care.

This is a tough problem to fix. For a country that has the best health care in the world, it seems like we're doing it all wrong.

Yeah, we spend more for worse outcomes. And the bill that is likely to emerge will, by all apperances, do basically nothing to change that. Awesome.

It seems like we should use the money that are already spending to cover everyone.

I'd like to hear see details behind your statements mumble. WHat exactly is so bad about the new plan?

Also, it's still way too early to say how the finished product will look, and how well the stimulus will work.

Lastly, that trillion dollar price tag is projected over 10 years. In the context of government spending, that's not too bad. Look up the figures for how much the navy requested to install LAZERS on their ships to fight PIRATES, or the spending projected for mars program through 2025.

Also, when the new plan replaces the current one, there's a projected yearly savings per person compared to our current spending.

The main problem is that it doesn't appear to do anything to contain costs or change the incentive structure. If healthcare costs are spiraling out of control, and we're paying more for worse outcomes than other countries…. and our answer is more or less to expand what we have, I don't see how that's a recipe for long term success. I mean, there's likely to be some good changes around the edges-- better protection if you lose your job, no denials over pre-existing coverage, things like that. But overall, it seems like we're blowing our one chance to do it right. Instead of fundamentally reforming health care and getting universal coverage, we're just expanding a poorly designed system to cover more people.

I have a feeling we're going to get a bill that will expand coverage but not change costs or incentives, and then it's going to be a fiscal mess in 3-4 years, and then people will say "see, the liberal plan didn't work", and we'll end up with some terrible republican "enjoy the wolves of the free market" plan instead

I guess I'm getting ahead of myself!

Anyway, I hope something good and *sustainable* comes out of it, but it doesn't look like it

And yeah, we can't say for sure how the finished product will look-- but things are coming together, and it's not looking pretty

Just hang on.

Yeah, and the figures being inserted into these discussions are being cited as "research" and in some cases (see Senator Grassley, R-Iowa) are outright lies. The strategy for the last fifty years has been to allow health care reform to be discussed, then slow it down, and wait for the next disaster/opportunity to arrive. While it's messy, and no plan will be perfect, something has to get done. Period.

I'm generally sympathetic to MCs argument with some importatnt caveats.

I mean, there's likely to be some good changes around the edges-- better protection if you lose your job, no denials over pre-existing coverage, things like that.

Outlawing denials for pre-existing conditions is huge because is changes the entire dynamic of the health care market. No longer will the profit motive of the corporate health care interests point towards shedding the most sick from their rolls - if the most sick (that is, the users of the vast majority of health care dollars) are necessarily included in the system, then a health care concern's intent will go towards efficiencies and prevention and other ways to control costs.

But, yeah. I'd much prefer a single-payer. As far as it being set-up to fail so that Big Corporate can take over, never underestimate the staying-power of a gov't program once established. This is one criticism I will grant to conservative folks - once the people get their program, it's really hard to take it away (unless the program is for powerless, vulnerable people. Then, it's really easy...right PAWLENTY?????).

Maybe I'm being too pessimistic I guess. I was really hoping for something that represented a more fundamental change-- maybe something like the Wyden plan. That seems doubtful now. But we'll see

Couldn't have this discussion in the Health Care Policy thread, huh?

here's a shock. Other people can start a thread on a board if they wish.

Oh, i thought the other one was just for you and Wizzy. My bad!

Those are some great points garyburrito!
Of course single payer would be great, but the benefit I think you might be missing, mumble, is that the government program would be lower cost, same/better access. So in a free market, it'll challenge the big baddies to provide lower cost care or lose customers. That's my understanding anyway.
I thinkits really pretty clever. Kinda keeping the old system in place while challenging it to provide the care people REALLY need, ie affordability when something big comes up, but first and foremost, PREVENTION.
That's what I really like about Obama. He Actually seems to be investing in the future, rather than turning a blind eye and then establishing reacionary policies that just throw money at existing problems.

tom posted this on Jul 21st, 2009 at 10:00:28 am
here's a shock. Other people can start a thread on a board if they wish.


tom posted this on Jul 21st, 2009 at 10:00:28 am
here's a shock. Other people can start a thread on a board if they wish.

Here's a double shock: has nothing to do with me, and everything to do with trying to have a concentrated debate in one area. Having multiple threads is cool and all, but these always lead to the spinning of wheels.

Go tell someone to get there ass fingered.

It'll be interesting to see what happens to these bills in conference committee. I feel like they'll get better and start looking a bit more like what we want to see around that time.

Wheel spinning is kinda what we do here.

Killer McHann posted this on Jul 21st, 2009 at 11:11:31 am
Wheel spinning is kinda what we do here.

No way. This place cured my ass cancer.

Killer McHann posted this on Jul 21st, 2009 at 11:11:31 am
Wheel spinning is kinda what we do here.

exactly!!! I'll jump in if it is needed but there is nothing wrong with a few conversations at once considering the board is a community at large and that is generally what is happening.

Also it's nice to have a shorter thread/fresh start sometimes.

Maybe we need Health Care Thread Reform?

Sorry if I sound kind of unhinged today, but the truth may be that Killer McHann is correct. I just can't believe what I am seeing.

Well we spent a Trillion dollars on a war that we still haven't "won"

What's another trillion these days?

Personally I think no real concrete reform is gonna come out of washington any time soon, but states are gonna take the initiative on this one and lead the way.

Progressive governor MN 2010!

well my point isn't that a trillion dollars is too much to spend on health care, but that it's a lot to spend if you're not actually fixing a broken system

bloodface posted this on Jul 21st, 2009 at 10:56:55 am

Here's a double shock: has nothing to do with me, and everything to do with trying to have a concentrated debate in one area. Having multiple threads is cool and all, but these always lead to the spinning of wheels.


And yet, your butt seems to hurt the most every time it happens.

haha!

bump

are you trying to bury a thread? which one?

pitpat's erotic confessions thread.

Now the talk is that there won't even be a vote. Cowards, all of them.

Healthcare reform took way too long. It is the most pressing issue to the national debt and yet we cannot do anything about it. Where is the American Tommy Douglas? In the past, all the medicare bills benefited the old because they are the only demographic that consistently votes. There is no doubt in my mind that the medicare D fucked up any chance drastic healthcare reform now.

Anyone up for protesting? Our generation has to force change; otherwise, a broken arm can make you bankrupt.

Now even Pawlenty is calling the Health Care reform plan a joke. As "president" he would ruin HC like he has done here, endless waiting lines for the poor.
Shame.

Well, he was here with Newt Gingrich promoting his "idea" for Minnesota Health Care to a room of about 50 white men in business suits a couple of weeks ago.

But there's also where the administration's first choice at HHS was the COMPLETELY in the tank Tom Daschle.

True.

Why can't the side of goodness and light have one – just one – shameless, unreconstructed demogauge.

From what I've head, this bill is AWFUL and the lady that Obama pointed in charge doesn't know what the fuck she's doing and the window of opportunity to get a decent health care reform plan going during the Obama administration may likely have been blown. What's that ladies name?

Sebelius? Not sure if she's really "in charge", but whatever role she has had appears to be mostly behind the scenes

Have you heard about the six senators who are out to kill health care reform?

Of course, that's not how they'd phrase it. Sens. Baucus, Bingaman, Conrad, Enzi, Grassley and Snowe say they're striving for "bi-partisan compromise." But what they're actually doing is working to make sure reform won't include a public option or mandatory employer-based insurance - two key policies needed for effective reform.

There are 100 members of the Senate, but these six, inexplicably, seem to be holding all the cards when it comes to health care.

So you probably won't be surprised to learn that all six have taken a huge amount of money from the health insurance industry and pharma. Take a look:

Senator Lifetime contributions from Insurance/Pharma
Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) $1,203,205
Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) $206,297
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) $442,165
Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) $342,228
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) $702,595
Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) $161,706
TOTAL: $3,058,256

These six senators -- who, by the way, represent only 2.74% of Americans between them -- are writing bad policy, and they're doing it while they take money from the very companies who stand to benefit the most.

I wish Obama would put more pressure on some of these senators, use his popularity to his advantage, etc. Doesn't seem like he's going to go, though. Sounds like he's losing the 'message' game anyway:

"President Obama’s ability to shape the debate on health care appears to be eroding as opponents aggressively portray his overhaul plan as a government takeover that could limit Americans’ ability to choose their doctors and course of treatment, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll"

Oh well. Maybe we can get this right in 2050 or something?

I don't know how much longer I can afford even my catastrophic/high deductible "insurance".
When you hit 50, it goes up all the time, like crazy.
It would seem that the corrupt and lying anti-reform people are having great success with their misleading campaign.

I have to imagine United Healthcare and GlaxoSmithKline knew what they were buying when they purchased Senator Max "These pockets aren't gonna line themselves" Baucus. I just don't see Pfizer and Kaiser Permanente concerned about making sure Montana is represented adequately.

Call these tools and tell 'em what for. These are their DC offices:

Sen. Max Baucus: 202-224-2651
Sen. Jeff Bingaman: 202-224-5521
Sen. Kent Conrad: 202-224-2043
Sen. Mike Enzi: 202-224-3424
Sen. Chuck "That Fuck" Grassley: 202-224-3744
Sen. Olympia Snowe: 202-224-5344

I have met the ousted CEO of United Healthcare.

He drives a 2-door Mercedes with a V-12. He's exactly the type of person you might think he is.

zom-zom posted this on Jul 30th, 2009 at 09:29:23 am
I have met the ousted CEO of United Healthcare.

He drives a 2-door Mercedes with a V-12. He's exactly the type of person you might think he is.

I would've asked him what it feels like to PAY BACK $620,000,000 that he illegally stole by back-dating options. I'm sure that would've really STUNG HIM. Especially when he only got out of there with $1.6 billion. I mean, he had less than a billion after that. BURN.

I wanted to ask him all sorts of things.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/6/16/report_senator_max_baucus_received_more

RW's link.

I would have looked at that car and said, "Huh. So, this is what helping sick people get affordable health insurance gets you, eh? Sign me UP."

I looked up the car: Price: $139,100

Amy Goodman sucks sometimes. She says in her intro that Obama's speech to the AMA contained his strongest opposition to the public plan to date.

Did she listen to the fucking speech?

"The public option is not your enemy, it is your friend, I believe."

He also talked about members of his own party (cough BAUCUS cough cough) opposing his ideas.

Hey zom, was McGuire in the studio today to lay down some tracks? He just might be Tone Attorneys material.

No, doesn't play man. Digs the jazz though I'm not sure about The Blues.

A jazz fan. You could knock me over with a feather!

Imagine, would you?

Pawlenty has taken a lead roll in bashing reform. Now he is calling it "Obamacare", (like he has done anything for the average Minnesotan) & bad for the economy.
I sure hope the national media does some home work & finds out just how he has declared war on those of us who can't afford health care.
%96 chance he will run for president in 2012, %22 Newt will be running mate.

Real face of America, sour dough & bleached.

At a recent town hall meeting, a man stood up and told Representative Bob Inglis to “keep your government hands off my Medicare.”

we are doomed.

hahahaha yeah the government should stay out of....medicare?

On MPR today, there was a very good talk given by George Lakoff, professor of cognitive linguistics at the Univeristy of California, Berkeley and author of "The Political Mind: A Cognitive Scientist's Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics," in which he discussed the use of language in politics, particularly how it is used in the health insurance debate.

Listen to it here.

If our Democrats have ANY hope of passing the kind of health coverage refrom we so desperately need, then every Democratic office holder, policy maker, advisor, and activist needs to heed Lakoff's words.

Do the Dems have the truth on their side and the right ideas? Unquestionably so. The problem is, the Republicans know how people think. Democrats think that, if they present the facts in just the right way, that people (the ignorant masses who don't think all that critically to begin with) will suddenly have a moment of enlightenment, and completely understand. Man, that is some wishful thinking right there.

These people need to be pummeled with talking points, repeatedly, and the Republicans know this. Why is this so hard for the Democrats to understand? This exactly why Obama is slipping on this issue, and why the Republicans are turning the tide of support away at this crucial moment.

Democrats are NOT framing the issue effectively. They can describe policy until they're blue in the face, but will have a hard time fighting slogans like "government takeover" and "harmful to old people." They need to repeat phrases (and lucky for them, truthful) such as "private insurance companies get rich off denying/delaying coverage/treatment," "people die because they can't afford coverage," or "Have you ever worried about losing your health insurance if you lose your job?"

The Dems need a focused campaign in the next month that doesn't pull any punches. Nobody gives a damn about policy specifics; the people they need to sway most need to get hit at a gut, emotional level.

PYFHO, Democrats.

Dustroyer is correct, It is a war of words & the radical Republicans must be held accountable. If any one runs across any fishy looking info or flat out lies about Health Care reform, report it to: flag@whitehouse.gov

Let's get control of the campaign language & frame this issue to our advantage.

Good heavens, I've been forced to endure 2 days of non-stop Faux News coverage of town hall meetings. They're doing damage control on the negative coverage these things are generating. It's kind of pathetic, watching all these white people talking about constitution this, what about the children that. Though they could barely control themselves at Specter's carefully stage-managed meeting today, Faux is calling it a victory because nobody burned an effigy.
Two Americas, man. . .Two Americas.

Meanwhile, I just got a notice saying my health insurance rates are going up $30/month due to "increased costs" of "health care". That's going to be over $200/month with a $7000 deductible.

Nope, nothing wrong here! Great policies, great prices.

Half of all bankruptcies caused by medical bills.

<i>Surprisingly, over 75 percent of those bankrupted by medical problems were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness. Among those with private insurance, however, one-third had lost coverage - usually due to job loss - at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy....Many families were bankrupted by medical expenses well below the catastrophic thresholds of high deductible plans that are increasingly popular with employers.

The research, carried out jointly by researchers at Harvard Law School and Harvard Medical School, is the first in-depth study of medical causes of bankruptcy..."Our study is frightening. Unless you're Bill Gates, you're just one serious illness away from bankruptcy. Most of the medically bankrupt were average Americans who happened to get sick. Health insurance offered little protection. Families with coverage faced unaffordable co-payments, deductibles and bills for uncovered items like physical therapy, psychiatric care and prescription drugs. And even the best job-based health insurance often vanished when prolonged illness caused job loss - precisely when families needed it most. Too often, private health insurance is an umbrella that melts in the rain," said David Himmelstein, lead author of the study.<i>



Democrats, here's your new banner. Run with it.

Employer based health insurance is garbage.

COVERAGE DENIED...GRANDMA DIED

Such a drag that they didn't even seriously consider scrapping the employer-based system.

The biggest reason it won't go away is these idiots you see protesting are going to insist on keeping their employer-based system even if it costs twice as much just because they don't want to be part of "evil socialism" or whatever, but meh, sucks for them. Anyone sane will benefit at least.

I still can't believe this is happening, senators on the finance committee decided to get rid of the provision on end of life counseling.
This was to be a big $ saving element of the plan & now it's out, what else will they take out of the bill out of fear from the right?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-health-end-of-life14-2009aug14,0,4670272.story

Chuck Grassley really sucks

i can't stomach paying attention to any of this shit. it makes me so depressed.

mumblecrust posted this on Aug 14th, 2009 at 12:01:40 pm
Chuck Grassley really sucks

the first school assembly i attended when i first moved to iowa in '89
he showed up to tell us all about how abortion was a crime against god and
as the future generation we needed to get the word out and protect the
existence of our future families, etc.

it was a bit creepy to hear that shit in school.

the weird thing is, he's portrayed in the media as some kind of a moderate. I don't see why.

He is engaged in a Twitter war against Arlen Spector today. bizarre

IMAGE REMOVED - CLICK TO VIEW

IMAGE REMOVED - CLICK TO VIEW

he can't even read!

AR LEN

The best thing about Twitter is that news organizations (like the NY Times) have started quoting it in stories, and it makes our elected officials sound like paint-drunk kids. "change ur last tweet"

did the house scuttle an obama sellout to PhRMA? was obama setting up a doublecross of PhRMA?


these have nothing to do with health care but they are about economics and i needed to put them somewhere:
income inequality at an all time high
"...while the bottom 99 percent of incomes grew at a solid pace of 2.7 percent per year
from 1993-2000, these incomes grew only 1.3 percent per year from 2002-2007. As a
result, in the economic expansion of 2002-2007, the top 1 percent captured two thirds
of income growth."

the bailout saved us, supply side economics is dead

White House dropping public option?

Huh, I thought that was already essentially conceded... i guess not.

Conrad (D-ND): "Wasted Effort".
Oof, if it does go down this way, watching the teabaggers take credit for something that was likely not to happen anyway is going to have serious implications for my blood pressure.
"Just don't look, just don't look"

The whole world is looking at this and shaking thier heads. How can the most powerfull country in history neglect it's weak & poor like this? Who knows what will happen now, I just hope Rham makes the Democrat "blue dogs" pay for this betrayal because I don't think this new non "public option" plan will have anything for me.
I predict that nothing will pass at this point, unless the economy gets better.

BOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! Fuck you america. Super duper fuck you. Jesus would hate america.

If we can't even get a public option with Democratic majorities in the house and senate, a first-term president with a clear electoral mandate, and rapidly rising private insurance costs AND Medicare costs, then it's official: the United States will never have universal health care, and the Republicans will own the public debate about all issues for the rest of time.

So. I, recently, had a medical procedure that I made sure to call my insurance company and have PRE-approved. Going over my plan with me to make sure I understood it, the customer care rep neglected to tell me the insurance didn't kick in on this particular procedure until after my deductible. I JUST found out I am out five hundred dollars. I want to cry a bit.

That's why I don't have insurance. It's not worth it. It would cost a lot more than my occaisonal visit to a cheap clinic does.

It's not worth it, unless you have a home, property and a family.
The thought of losing everything as a result of a hospital stay and the resulting enormous debt that can be incurred is what drives me to pay the high monthly premiums.

We should all be so fortunate to not need any other medical care other than an occasional visit to a "cheap clinic".

is it possible Obama never wanted a public option in the first place?

Well. At this point my deductible will be paid, so I should go get all my arms/legs broken and whatnot having a rad time, no? Might as well...

SK, I'd disagree with that a little--- yes, it's a centerpiece policy but it's also something that no one's been able to pull off for decades, involving the reordering of a huge chunk of the economy and butting up against multiple special interests. He might very well still have luck with other policy pursuits even if he fails to get the public option here…. it'll be easier to get the needed votes on other issues

That said, I think he wasted a great deal of political capital on something that was, from the beginning, highly unlikely to happen. The surest way to get substantial, meaningful health care reform would be to, apparently… abolish the senate!

zom-zom posted this on Aug 17th, 2009 at 01:58:17 pm
It's not worth it, unless you have a home, property and a family.
The thought of losing everything as a result of a hospital stay and the resulting enormous debt that can be incurred is what drives me to pay the high monthly premiums.

We should all be so fortunate to not need any other medical care other than an occasional visit to a "cheap clinic".

I understand that, but I don't have any of those things. I'm 25, single and live in a cheap studio in Whittier and am generally healthy. The last time I needed any medical attention was when I got a urethral infection (wasn't an STD though I feared it was.) The total cost of the clinic visit and the two doses of prescription drugs I got for it was less than your typical monthly premium.

Still I was strongly supporting this because I know not everyone is in my position, and I'll probably sign up for the non-profit co-op if that's what ends up getting passed if it's not as ridiculously priced as current premiums.

I understand being young and relatively carefree. I was pretty much in the same position when I was your age.
I'm twice that age now and have to consider that the older one gets the better the chances are for developing many diseases, even though I do all I can to stay healthy. So I pay, very reluctantly. I've gone many years at a time without any coverage, I didn't have any for the past three years prior to my buying this policy this past year.

It shouldn't be like this. This is a really fucked-up system.

It shouldn't be like this. This is a really fucked-up system.


I'm a bit taken aback by how many times in the last couple weeks I've heard someone say (exact quote): "Health care is a privilege, not a right!"

I am amazed we're still talking about health care reform, and not reforming health care.

paul krugman breaks it down with a side of swiss cheese
and drops this mad diss at the end:
"all that stands in the way of universal health care in America are the greed of the medical-industrial complex, the lies of the right-wing propaganda machine, and the gullibility of voters who believe those lies."

IMAGE REMOVED - CLICK TO VIEW
You're high.

IMAGE REMOVED - CLICK TO VIEW

Your last link sent me down the rabbit hole. I'm not falling for that again.

But no, the usually useful idiots are engaged in their usually useful idiocy, as
Washington stages another shell-game debate in the name of transferring more
private wealth to the state-partnered corporate class. Headlines warning that the
so-called public plan may be "dropped" entertain the same fallacy as The Obama's
liberal supporters engage--those on the left-hand side of the idiot corpus as it were.
They assume that there exists a "public plan" to be dropped. Meanwhile, the rightards
engage in some supremely amusing agitprop, creating a fictional groundswell of
chimerical grassroots opposition to a proposed system of socialized medicine that
was never really proposed. The whole thing is a sham, and in the end the circular
genius of state capital will again reward itself by reforming a system in favor of the
system already in place. The rules of this game are simple, and I refer everyone once
more to The Ratchet Effect.

That dude might have an interesting point, if he weren't so obviously taken with himself and how many ways he can call everyone else stupid.

That gets the Most Annoying Writing Style of The Week award!

People are starting to carry SEMI AUTOMATIC WEAPONS to Obama events now. Swell.

Here

if i can enjoy music made by smug talented assholes i can learn from commentary written by smug smart assholes

In summary, the left review the nuances of each of the different proposals and ways the bills can be passed, the right's response is "Obama is Hitler".

The left give a mixed message less that probalby less than half of the population has the attention span to understand or remember, the right says somethings everyone, morons and up, get.

As much as I wouldn't like it, maybe the only way to get the job done is to form the argument that at the current inflation rate, no one will be able to afford health care in 5 or 10 years and if health care reform doesn't pass, you, your friends, your family and everyone you know will have to have their friends set their broken bones, have to choose between paying rent, or their mortgage, or taking their child to a doctor, and if they can't get a second of third mortgage, watch their parents not get the care they need as they age and require end of life care. A vote against health care reform is a vote for that.

I think most the morons who can't, or don't bother to, understand the systemic problems in our health care system could get that message.

I get the feeling that there will not be any significant changes any time soon. It may be best for Obama to move on to a different issue at this point & place blame on congress. Closing Gitmo or fully equiping our troops for the missions they face could be an easy political victory.
What is important is that he & Rham keep his approval polls up, just like Clinton did in the later half of his first term.

It basically looks like a mostly-crappy bill that does nothing to address the core problems of the health care system will pass, things will get worse, and another President will have to deal with a bigger mess in about 15 to 20 years.

60 House dems say they won't vote for a bill that doesn't include public option

labor unions imply they won't support dems who don't support a public option

ugh. this is so stupid.

Does that even matter? Can't do math on the fly. The senate is the issue

ur right
fuck those dumbasses for stating how strongly they support good reform
lets just let repubs control the issue and make it all about whether they support the reform

wtf?

yep, "fuck those dumbasses for stating how strongly they support good reform" is exactly what I meant

I'm rooting for a strong public option for reasons including eventually shoving this defeatist thread up somebody's ass.

it's not defeatist to point out they're failing pretty badly! I hope they pull it off; it just doesn't look like a good long-term bill is going to emerge

yeah neight, the goverment should start functioning with a fixed cog instead of a the ratchet affect (freewheel).

Absent a bill, and there's no more a bill today than there was a month ago, all there is to point out is one's feelings. Which one can choose to be defeatist or not.

Well, I think it's more than "feelings"--- why should we ignore what's being worked on in the committees, what senators are publically saying, where the polls are at? These bills don't just appear with a "poof"

I rode the elevator up to my office today with a guy who told me he pays 2500 bucks a month to insure him, his wife, and their 15 year old son. There is a $5000 deductible for EACH person on his plan.

I think the whole debate is getting buried buy the press now. Cable news just talks about mixed messages from the administration & the Gun Nuts at the protests. Huh? Now even Cafferty is calling Obama weak.
I knew that if things slowed down this would not pass, the $ from Insurance Co & hate radio would create fear in the Blue Dogs.

If you need some cheering up, I recommend artistic bicycling

This is a step in the right direction...Democrats Seem Set to Go It Alone on a Health Care Bill

Amazing it took them so fucking long to come to this conclusion.

Agreed-- at least now we'll avoid a "Well, let's gut $100 billion so we can add Olympia Snowe" or whatever

I LOVE Barney Frank.

maybe it's already been mentioned BUT today's NY Times had a super good article about what end of life counseling (or "death panels" in Sarah Palin's mind) is really all about. It's a top notch read, depressing and interesting:

Here

I recommend reading it

We are number one in the world with how much money we spend on medical issues, yet number 37 in health care quality. So much for "free market" solutions to our health care policies.

I'll be uninsured as of August 31.

You still can use COBRA for another 6 months. You can pay retroactively once you need it in that time period (assuming the medical expense would cost more than the premium otherwise you still come out ahead).

In case anyone is not aware, the stimulus package included a provision wherein the feds will subsidize 65% of your monthly COBRA payment (if you are laid off). Dunno if this applies, but...

info here

Yeah, that provision winds up benefiting insurance companies more than laid off workers. It pays for COBRA up front rather than when needed (the government should use actuarial tables too). Granted it adds peace of mind for those laid off (especially those that know they will use it) but the insurance companies benefit the most.

Yeah, I own a couple insurance companies, that's why I posted the link. I actually recently quit my job due to stress/health, so it would be a huge help for me I could get the 65%, I am still determining where in the grey area I fall...

Having already signed up for COBRA, do you have info regarding that 6 month retroactive period? The stuff I am looking at indicates 60 days.

From slashdot...

"Live Science reports that although life expectancy in the United States has risen to an all-time high of 77.9 years in 2007 up from 77.7 in 2006, gains in life expectancy may be pretty much over, as some groups — particularly people in rural locations are already stagnating or slipping in contrast to all other industrialized nations. Hardest hit are regions in the Deep South, along the Mississippi River, in Appalachia and also the southern part of the Midwest reaching into Texas. The culprits — largely preventable with better diet and access to medical services — are diabetes, cancers and heart disease caused by smoking, high blood pressure and obesity. What the new analysis reveals is the reality of two Americas, one on par with most of Europe and parts of Asia, and another no different than a third-world nation with the United States placing 41st on the 2008 CIA World Factbook list, behind Bosnia but still edging out Albania. 'Beginning in the early 1980s and continuing through 1999 those who were already disadvantaged did not benefit from the gains in life expectancy experienced by the advantaged, and some became even worse off,' says a report published in PLoS Medicine by a team led by Harvard's Majid Ezzati, adding that 'study results are troubling because an oft-stated aim of the US health system is the improvement of the health of "all people, and especially those at greater risk of health disparities.'"

I don't want to live in Brazil, where you have super rich people, a small middle class, and a shitload of people living in shacks around the cities. If we can't figure out some way to work together and disassemble the corporate lie machine that is running this country we are really really fucked; we're gonna watch things just get worse and worse for the rest of our lives.

I still like Obama. I wish things were broken down like this always.

Tou-fucking-che: Republicans offer seniors health care bill of rights.

I detect absolutely no political calculation in this gesture

Simple but effective, I gotta say.

I do hope Obama gets some revenge for this, & John Durham is just the man to do it.

I feel a little more optimistic about a decent bill -- not a great bill -- getting passed now. I really, really hope they pull this off. Earlier today I went through some bills and passed the $20,000 mark in medical expenses over the last 12 months, and 99% of that was from three relatively minor things that weren't my fault. Because i have good insurance, my out-of-pocket responsibility has been a perfectly reasonable $3700.

But man, if i had happened to get a hernia or chest pains during the 8 years i *didn't* have insurance.... $20K would have fucked me up pretty bad! And like i said, the things were random and not my fault; it's not like i was running through traffic on PCP and broke my leg or something

So here's to hoping they get a decent bill -- not a great bill; that's not going to happen and that's ok cuz they can tinker and revisit things later -- passed that gets more people covered and at least *starts* to fix the fuckedupedness (is that a word?) of the current system, both structurally and fiscally speaking

Oh my god.

Oh my god what?

I listened to Bernie Sanders today on CNN. The man is a true hero & his powerfull words reminded me that Health Care is a right for all.
Thats why the Baucus bill seems like a bad compromise. Fines up to $3,800 for failing to buy health insurance seems kind of low to me. Wealthy families making over 75,000 can easily pay that & avoid getting coverage.
What would the fine be for a 50 year old unmarried student without a job? Many questions.

Rumors are that during tonight's speech he's going to push for both the public option and malpractice reform. I always thought the latter would be a good way to get a few republican votes, but I dunno if it'll do any good now (seems like most of the GOP has decided the best thing for them is for Obama to fail, period)

Also, check out Matt Taibbi's new article in Rolling Stone about the process of this bill…. shows that we'd probably need congressional reform above anything else in order to get any kind of major, substantially good legislation passed. It's weird and silly that the fate of all this is with Max Baucus and Olympia Snowe and so on. You can have 55% of the people for the public option, and 55% of the members of congress for it, but it still won't happen under the current process

Explain something to ignorant ol' me. What happened to the drive to bring down the costs of medical care and medical insurance? Last night's speech only mentioned those things in passing, while providing a lot more detail and substance to other matters, like extending coverage and a public option. It seemed like the most common response to bringing down costs is efficiency cost savings. How is that implemented in the private programs that most insured people have now? Is this where the idea of competition with the public option comes into play? As in, if the public option is cheaper, then private companies will bring down there prices to compete in the market place?

Part of why I ask is that cost seems to be THE biggest issue in this mess. I understand there are all of those issues with lapses in coverage and being dropped. But if coverage and care were less expensive, more people could afford it on there own.

Long term, cost IS the biggest issue. By far. Simply not sustainable the way it is now

the spineless Baucus bill blows and still no republicans support it. so ridiculous.

Even Franken is getting wishy washy now, I knew he couldn't be trusted.

Olympia Snowe has just announced she will back the health bill.

I really hope they include the tax on the so-called 'cadillac' plans. Sounds like a logical move that most economists agree will help get costs under control.

But apparently it's under attack now from a weird coalition of labor and business groups

UnitedHealth Group beats expectations:

UnitedHealth Group beat market expectations in the third quarter as growth in its Medicare and Medicaid businesses offset the loss of members in the private sector and higher costs resulting from the H1N1 flu outbreak.

The Minnetonka-based health insurer said net income rose 13 percent to $1.04 billion, or 89 cents per share, up from $920 million, or 75 cents per share, a year earlier.

I was getting a haircut yesterday and I heard this really happy sounding commercial with bouncy piano music and a voiceover that said something like "The number one level-one child trauma center in the area!"

It just struck me as a weird tone. "Yeehaw, all these kids are getting sick and we're number one!"

I guess that observation doesn't necessarily belong in this thread, but oh well

The AP is reporting that, in a move to appease moderates in their own party, Democrats have tentatively agreed to drop the public option.

FUCK THIS SHIT

Well.... the public option was already so weak, i don't think it's a huge deal at this point. There hasn't been a "real" public option involved for awhile.

What i'm hoping is that some good stuff gets added in exchange for the public option being dropped, in order to keep liberals on board.

I think during this whole debate "public option" came to signify more than what it actually is. So, i think a decent bill can still emerge w/o a public option

Agreed ^

Oh, Joe Lieberman

----------
In a surprise setback for Democratic leaders, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, said on Sunday that he would vote against the health care legislation in its current form.

The bill's supporters had said earlier that they thought they had secured Mr. Lieberman's agreement to go along with a compromise they worked out to overcome an impasse within the party.

But on Sunday, Mr. Lieberman told the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, to scrap the idea of expanding Medicare and to abandon the idea of any new government insurance plan, or lose his vote.

of course, its not like he'll be punished or anything. obama didnt want a public option anyway.

Well, this move has nothing to do with the public option. That was already discarded. And it was barely a "public option" anyway.

But yeah, you gotta wonder how much they'll continue to tolerate. Before, it was "he's with us on everything but the war."

my point was more rhetorical than anything,
as is this:
wheres a statuette when you need one?

Senate appears ready to drop Medicare expansion.

Dude voiced support for that exact thing THREE FUCKING MONTHS ago!

-------
Democratic leaders noted that Mr. Lieberman on numerous occasions had voiced support for the Medicare buy-in proposal that he now insists must be dropped. It was a core component of a health care proposal that he championed as Al Gore’s running mate in the 2000 presidential race, and three months ago he voiced support for the same concept.

“What I was proposing was that they have an option to buy into Medicare early,” Mr. Lieberman says on a video distributed by Democrats on Monday. In the interview, he did not dispute that he once supported the idea but said he had not recalled that he had done so, or the context, until Mr. Reid’s office confronted him about it.

time to kill it

"This is essentially the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate," Howard Dean said. "Honestly the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill, go back to the House, start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes and it would be a much simpler bill."

My understanding is that the reconciliation route would mean you could only include things that directly relate to the federal budget. I guess I'm not sure which components would and would not remain intact

yeah, anything that is a direct expense is still in, like expanding medicare or tax credits
anything that is just a rule is out, like not dropping or denying cuz of preexisting conditions

I wonder if Lieberman's health care plan covers getting his nuts kicked up into his throat.

Sink this turd.

insurance company stocks "on fire"

"If you need a guide to the health reform debate in Washington, take a look at health insurance company stocks. When the debate
is going the right way – towards quality, affordable health care for everyone, towards getting people out from under the insurance
industry’s crushing monopoly – insurance company stocks take a dive. When the debate is moving against what America wants
– towards more private industry, less insurance regulations, and the like – health care stocks soar.

Right now, they’re soaring.

16 years ago, before most of the insurance companies were publicly traded, they spent 95% of premium dollars on health care.
That level is comparable to Medicare, which spends 97% of premium dollars on care. But once these companies went public
and started trading on Wall Street, the relentless drive for profit drove down that percentage to where it sits today, at 81%."


only 33 percent of likely voters favor a health care bill that does not include a public health insurance option and does not expand Medicare, but does require all Americans to get health insurance

hey dawgs i can't really follow this stuff cuz it bums me out but should i be cheering for this NOT to pass now?

I agree with that except I think you could have a perfectly fine bill without a public option, especially the weak one that was in there for the last few weeks/months. That shouldn't be the end-all to the health care debate.

The way things are going, the bill is going to suck, but the missing public option is just a small piece of Why, in my opinion

i think that the public option was the only thing that was really reform

all these other things are basically tweaks to what is already there


personally, if i get forced to buy health insurance i will have to find a new, full time job. fuck that.

I think both sides have good points. On one hand, you get some kind of framework in place now and it can be amended and get better over time. It falls short now, maybe it straight up sucks in a lot of ways, but it's WAY easier to fix stuff and improve things down the road than to just hope somehow we'll start from scratch later and it'll be rad then.

If health care blows up now, no one's touching it for another 10-15 years. And that'll be a "the country is literally about to go bankrupt" discussion then.

Also, lots of people will really and truly benefit from even the weakened crappy bill.

On the other hand, the bill is going to mostly suck overall. Not only will it do nothing of significance to truly reform things, it'll likely be unpopular. So… I mean, maybe it would be better to just sink it.

My gut tells me to sink it, but in my head I don't know. I think, especially compared to what I was hoping going into this, the bill is going to be a joke and a huge disappointment. But I also know that maybe it's better to salvage something and improve it over time than to throw it all out, knowing that we're not getting another opportunity anytime soon.

I dunno!

Rahm Emmanuel: Dont worry about the left
(how sexy is he now nom?)
"
“There are no liberals left to get” in the Senate, Emanuel said in an interview, shrugging off some noise from the likes of Sen. Bernie Sanders

Emanuel has made the case that this generation of liberal political figures will not make the mistake of their predecessors. The late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s greatest regret was not cutting a deal with Richard Nixon on universal health care. Former President Bill Clinton has forever rued the day he did not take moderate Republican Sen. John Chafee up on a compromise that could have secured a health care bill early in his presidency."

Emanuel pointed to a New York Times column by economist Paul Krugman and another coming from National Journal writer Ronald Brownstein pressing for passage of the Senate health bill. “What you’re seeing is the progressive backlash against the progressive backlash,” he said.
"

uh huh.

I think a decent idea would be to leave the private insurers in place but force them all to be non-profit.

That seems simple and straight-forward, and would that many people outside of the industry object to it?

Ah well. It's a moot point now. One thing is clear, we're not getting any kind of actual structural reform this time around. Probably not for another 15 years I bet.

And in the end, Rahm, you stand for...nothing. Hooray.

mumblecrust posted this on Dec 18th, 2009 at 04:25:31 pm
I think a decent idea would be to leave the private insurers in place but force them all to be non-profit.

How could these even be done? If I was a stockholder in one of these companies, what happens to my stock?

Right you are, Soapy, and it can't be said enough. The Clinton/Chafee canard equally so. Republicans were never letting anything pass.

It's kind of annoying that by a few accounts Snowe and Collins would be fine being votes 61 and 62, but not 60. There's some guts.

I've been guilty of pinning blame on Reid and Lieberman when it's obvious they are just front men/stalking horses. Fuck 'em ALL if they pass a bill that is not only shitty policy but shitty politics besides. Senators will lose their jobs, and deserve to.

The "bad politics" part isn't discussed enough. The bill, as it appears to be heading, is going to be really unpopular. You have stuff that doesn't kick in for years, you force people to buy insurance but have fairly weak subsidies to help them, and the insurance you're forcing them to buy isn't very good….. and that's just the people who are affected; the majority of the country doesn't notice any change at all despite having this debate raging for months. I mean, that's not going to be a great sell in 2010 or 2012!

sigh...

jeez i guess this is why i can't bear to pay attention....let it fail i guess.

One thing though, if you really wanted some super progressive bill to pass the senate, I don't understand how you would do it. If Brown, Wyden, Rockefeller, etc said "We're not voting for this unless there's a robust public option", and then you included it, you really would lose about 5-6 votes from somewhere else. And then you're not at 60, and then it doesn't pass.

My question isn't rhetorical. Is there a path I'm missing? They clearly could have done a better job around the edges -- a LOT better -- but given the makeup of the senate, and the way the senate works, I just don't see how you can pass meaningful structural reform right now. And that's with a center left President and 58-60 democratic votes! I mean, it's fucked up and I don't like it, but the ways you REALLY could change and improve the system seem to be out of reach with the system we have.

Like I said, they clearly could get a better bill than what's there now. I just don't think they could get a great, or even very good bill. Just better-enough-to-be-ok. That's kind of a bummer

"Time and again, [Obama] rebuffed Democrats' requests to speak up more forcefully about what he wanted -- a strategy that allowed Obama to preserve maximum flexibility to declare victory at the end of the process, no matter what the final bill looked like."

The administration wants not only to prevent industry money from funding an anti-health-care-reform campaign, but also wants to ensure that the Democratic Party -- rather than the GOP -- will continue to be the prime recipient of industry largesse....
If you're interested in preserving and expanding political power, then, all other things being equal, it's better to have the pharmaceutical and health insurance industry on your side than opposed to you. Or perhaps they calculated from the start that this was the best bill they could get.


on another note:
pass medicare buy in for everyone through reconciliation

Sounds like they have 60 votes. I'm not sure, but the best thing to hope for at this point might be improvements in conference?

medicaid by LBJ?

Some of the stuff Nixon signed could be considered Liberal.

We miss you, tricky dick

so what's going on here? when can i get my free allergy medication?

I dunno, i think the 2346 midterms might spook some people

ok cool.

From that link Soapy posted:

Q. I have insurance, but I spend so much money on deductibles, premiums and co-
pays that I can’t afford anything else. Will Obama’s plan help me?

A. Yes. The Obama plan is designed to help people exactly like you. His plan will help
the millions of families who currently have health insurance from their employer, but
nonetheless are feeling squeezed by fast-rising premiums, co-pays, and deductibles.
Nearly 11 million insured Americans spent more than a quarter of their salary on health
care last year. Obama’s plan will reduce a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 by
reducing costs, improving technology, and reigning in the power of insurance companies.

This would be a lot more credible if they had spelled reining in right. Or maybe the insurance companies are going to crown Obama king.

I would trade that entire paragraph in for one specific case.

i am reposting this,
because reading it really took my whole 'this is all a game of bullshit' to a new level
(it seems?) there is literally absolutely no reason they can't open medicare to everyone and thus deliver real reform

I like that this was added in:

"Each hospital operating within the United States shall for each year establish (and update) and make public (in accordance with guidelines developed by the Secretary) a list of the hospital’s standard charges for items and services provided by the hospital, including for diagnosis-related groups"

Right now it's common to have no fucking idea what you're going to end up paying when you go into a hospital. Transparency like this can help.

I just want to know if this will somehow allow me to be able to pay less for the shit-insurance I currently have.

If not, and if we are now legally required to purchase insurance for status-quo prices, I will be very disappointed.

That's one of the biggest concerns, both from a policy perspective and a political perspective: it's going to force people to buy shitty insurance. I hope they wake up and improve that.... I actually don't know what the status of that is in the current bill

i love the vagueness:
"Taking it and fixing/adding to it over time is better than the other option,"
oh really? and what happens if they don't fix it or add to it over time?

"better insurance available for the people who will now be forced to buy it (I don't know exactly what form this would be in)"
then why the fuck are you advocating for it?!

medicare buy-in through reconciliation. if its good enough for tax cuts its good enough for health care.

in someone elses words:

Universal, tax-funded health coverage has been transmogrified through the usual Washingtonian alchemy into an insane
mandate that uninsured individuals purchase, at great personal expense, extremely shitty insurance plans. There you have it.
The federal government is going to force poor, underemployed people to spend thousands of dollars that they can ill afford
to spend on consumer products offered by private corporations. I am sure that Yglesias et al. will have some very clever
arguments about how this is ultimately good policy because it forces the irrational lower orders to invest in plans that will
at least hedge against future catastrophe, you know, the sort of rational future-planning that poor morons don't usually
make because fortuity failed to commend a Harvard education upon their beer-drinking souls. So it is worth reiterating:
poor wage-earners cannot afford health insurance. That's why they don't buy it! Although it seems to us comfortable salarymen
far more rational to pay a couple hundred bucks a month for minimal coverage just in case we get Ted Kennedy's brain cancer,
it isn't an option for some people.

Point being, what you have here is a partisan hack endorsing a plan that does nearly the exact opposite of that which he claims
to preferentially support, because his party, sort of, produced it. Instead of using public funds to provide direct subsidies of medical
treatment, you have private wealth confiscated through the threat of legal sanction for the purpose of increasing the market penetration
of private companies. You've replaced a program of individual welfare with a system of corporate welfare paid for by the very individuals
whose economic status would make them the recipients of the individual welfare you claim to seek. Fuck the poor, so long as it
reflects well on Barack Obama, his coattails, and our chances in 2010.

Good luck fixing it over time, after the GOP picks up seats in the midterms.

(maybe I should say "if", but I'm not feeling optimistic this morning).

oh really? and what happens if they don't fix it or add to it over time?
It's hard to believe they wouldn't, but even if not: it's still better than the current system, and it's still better than killing it and assuming we can somehow get it better next time.

then why the fuck are you advocating for it?!
I'm saying, I hope in conference they improve that aspect. I don't exactly which method would be most feasible. Better subsidies? Tweak the 'exchange' so better insurance options are available to more people? I don't know. There's more than one way to do it.

It's not a good bill. It's OK at best. But like I said, given the senate makeup, the senate rules, and the decisions of the opposition party, I'm convinced you simply cannot get a bill that would be straight up "good" right now. If you can, no one has convincingly shown how. Obama says "Stop being a dick" to Lieberman and he says "OK?" They say "We're not going to give you what you want, but still vote for the bill, moderate senators"?

I mean, better around the edges? Yeah. They could have done better. But a literal public option? No. Single payer? No way. Abolition of the employer based system? Nope. And I don't see how you get 51 senators to agree to a medicare buy-in through reconciliation.

I think it sucks just as much as you guys do. But over time I've decided that the senate is too messed up right now to do (substantially) better than this.

That's exceedingly well put, Soapy.

"doing nothing" doesn't follow from killing the bill anymore than "improve it later" follows from passing this stinker.

If you could pass the full bill through reconcilliation, I'd agree. But you're limited to what you can do with reconcilliation and there was never any indication there was support for that. You'd maybe even lose progressive votes because they wouldn't be happy with the bare bones approach.

Otherwise why wouldn't Brown, Rockefeller, Wyden, Sanders etc have pushed for that? They all wanted the public option and more. But they realized in order to get moderates on board they had to compromise. A shit ton of compromise. But unlike Lieberman/Collins/Snowe/etc, they actually cared about the issue and wanted to see something pass

mumblecrust posted this on Dec 21st, 2009 at 10:57:31 am
then why the fuck are you advocating for it?!
I'm saying,

first of all, let me apologize for that, i thought i was saying fuck to a quote, not your words

And I don't see how you get 51 senators to agree to a medicare buy-in through reconciliation. <i>

really? which 10 senators wouldnt support it? lieberman, nelson, landrieu, conrad, arkansas lady, ....?

if they can keep the progressive wing in line, why can't they keep the conservative wing in line?

<i>mumblecrust posted this on Dec 21st, 2009 at 11:18:45 am
even if doesn't get changed at all in conference or afterwards, will still do some good.

this isnt about a bit of money here and there, or even whether a few thousand more people go through bankruptcy.
this is about how our health care system functions. they are not fixing health care, they are just making it less terrible.
this health care plan will RUIN any future chance of actually changing the system which in the long run will cost everyone a whole lot more.

Putting the progressives caucus on Obama's map of groups to take seriously would be another dividend of sinking this (presumed when final) turd.

I agree! But again, I don't how you can actually "fix" health care with the senate we have right now.

And less terrible is better than terrible.

How's that for an inspiring bumper sticker?

Lieberman: Obama did not pressure me on the public option

surprise, surprise!

i just totally disagree with your analysis over the 51 senators mumble. i mean, if there weren't at least 50 senators in favor of the public option, we wouldnt have been talking about it until Joe said no.


mumblecrust posted this on Dec 21st, 2009 at 11:51:27 am
I think I'd be 50 years old before they could get something significantly better

no way. health care is a major issue. leaving things the way they are leaves all the pressure to actually change things,
ameliorating the situation does not.

But there has never been an actual public option in this bill. What WAS in there was a sliver of that. It would only have been available to a small percentage of people, and it couldn't have used medicare rates. At no time did you have a majority of people voicing support for a REAL public option.

well by your own argument (take the best we can get now) a sliver of a public option is better than settling for this

considering,
With the Medicare buy-in and public option off the table there is no 'entitlement' or 'social insurance' program that can
grow and expand. Instead there are subsidies to private insurance for those currently left out which are more likely to shrink over time than grow.

Whereas Medicare and Social Security make the middle class stakeholders in a government run system, and entirely dependent
on that system working properly and delivering results, the current reforms are selective in their effects, largely sidestepping
those with employer based insurance. Instead, like welfare, the benefits are exclusive in nature, in this case targeting only those who
are barred from the current insurance market, and thereby don't give the middle class a stake in its success. Without bringing these
stakeholders into the policy it is far more likely to likely to follow the fate of welfare than Medicare or Social Security as services for
the poor always become poor services.

Check this one out:

The Social Security Theory

It makes my point from earlier today better than I was making it

You could be right-- but I think this will end up being closer to social security and medicare than welfare. (I don't think the benefits of the bill will end up being completely exclusive in nature)

From mumblecrust's link:

I'll just add that I understand the model in which you don't agree that this bill will expand and improve as it develops its constituency over time. But I don't understand the model by which you believe this bill won't be improved over time but you simultaneously believe reformers can get something better in the foreseeable future.

This is pretty much where I am. We would've gotten better results if our leaders weren't complete fucking sell out pussies, but they are. Keep pushing.

Right. We have a handful of shitty senators, and some really stupid senate rules. We should work to correct both of those things. But for now, given those two things, you can't expect to get a substantially better bill than what we're getting.

And if we say fuck it and kill it, we get nothing. And probably nothing for a few years.

I'm of the opinion that if the current bill passes, a public option, or at least some quasi-public co-op type thing will inevitably follow at some point.

Well, the current senate bill is gonna pass. I have procedural questions though: The senate bill passes on Xmas eve, then it's gotta go to conference committee to reconcile the house and senate bills. What are the chances a Medicare buy-in or another "public option" comes out of conference? Then, does that bill have to go back to both houses? And would the Senate still need 60 for cloture?

I'm *pretty* sure it has to get 60 again, after conference. So hopefully we'll get some improvements around the edges, but i think anything that resembled a public option would kill the bill

Yeah, the vote to debate the result of the conference committee is subject to a cloture vote = 60 votes.

So, let's say this fantasy occurs, does Reid finally nut up and MAKE the douchebags filibuster? Like force Coburn or some other shithead to stand up there for a couple weeks reading the bible and pissing his pants?

What they need to do is get rid of that dual track thing which allows other bills to be discussed while one is filibustered. So actually force them to read from the phone book while absolutely nothing else gets done.

They also replaced a 5% tax on cosmetic surgery procedures and replaced it with a 10% tax on indoor tanning.

This whole thing is such a fucking joke

B, yes. How does A make him an idiot?

I don't follow quite yet on the Reid=idiot tip, based on the quote provided for B, which I'm guessing is from the HuffPost article I just read. He's an idiot for eventually kowtowing to the White House, per the part of the article where it mentions Rahm meeting with Reid?

Anyone know how the penalty works? Let's say you say F it and don't get insurance. How do they find out? The penalty is $750, and that's it? I mean, the penalty starts off as NINETY FIVE DOLLARS in 2014.

I'm just wondering how many people aren't going to bother, either concluding they won't get caught or that the penalty is better than the premium cost.

I think an individual mandate is a must, but I wonder how well this will actually work. Seems to have no teeth.

The house version seems a *little* more plausible, but i have a feeling the senate one will win out

The penalty just seems like another way to punish the uninsured.

I fully admit I know zero of the specifics of the current plan.

And it's not even $750 until 2016 or something. $95 to start. That's way less than any premium, even a subsidized one, is going to be

I see no conceivable way that the administration can save people on cost. They may get everyone insured and certain states like California will definitely benefit given that they will have help paying for their illegals now, but... innovation is the big factor here. If there is no technological or structural innovation, the costs won't change no matter who is paying for them.

But I thought there was something that addressed that…. I remember hearing that they couldn't charge exorbitant premiums as a workaround to the 'pre-existing condition' thing. Meaning, when the government says "You cannot deny people for pre-existing conditions", the insurance companies cannot say "Ok, deal. The premium is forty thousand dollars a year for them" or whatever.

I don't remember the specifics of how that's enforced. Premium cap? Or…? But it was something

So, how much a month is this going to cost a person?

It really depends… there isn't really a single answer for that. If you don't have insurance, and decide to continue to not have insurance, it looks like it will probably cost you $95 starting in 2014 to do that. (the $95 is a penalty). And it will rise from there to $750 by 2016.

If you DO get insurance…. it depends, and some of the stuff it depends on hasn't even been figured out, as far as I can tell.

If you already have insurance through your job, nothing much will change

whistleblower reveals how insurers can game the system

Josh Marshall says the only logical analysis of the Speaker's statement today is: No HCR. Pelose Pulls The Plug.

Jesus Christ this world is stupid.

I started this thread exactly six months ago. And the debate had already been going on for awhile.

And now, it's about 95% certain that we get literally nothing out of it.

Just wasted time, wasted political capital, and a high likelihood that no one will touch this issue again until about 2030 or so when the country is on the verge of insolvency and there is no choice.

Pretty sweet!

Oh, we're only a couple of poorly-executed blowjobs for the Chinese away from insolvency.

The bill would have to be completely changed for reconcillation. Which would be fine with me. But these jokers clearly aren't up for anything like that

I wonder if that big ugly spasm of white anxiety known as the Tea Party movement has really come of age, as the NYT suggested today, or if they're really just a sideshow.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), co-chair of the progressive caucus, introducing bill with "robust public option."


The bill currently has 121 co-sponsors in the House, Woolsey said, and has won strong praise from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

"I am very pleased that Congresswoman Woolsey and 120 of her colleagues in the House are introducing a bill to create a strong public option operating in every state exchange," Sanders told Raw Story. "I have long been in favor of a Medicare-for-all, single-payer health care system, but in the post-Affordable Care Act world I think the very least we can do is to offer every person the option of choosing a government-run health insurance plan over a private one."

Criminally stupid optimistic beyond help.

Unfortunately, "beyond help" was pretty much verified when Obama indicated his willingness to work with the Republicans tax cut agenda right after the election.

For both that bill, and the stimulus bill, they should have proposed something radically to the left, and then allowed the republicans to knock it back to Comfortably Center Left and feel like they won something.

You don't start in the center

IMAGE REMOVED - CLICK TO VIEW

why aren't big pharma execs ever punished? (aka man that chappelle skit where the black drug dealer and the white2 collar criminal switch place was sweet)

thanks judge, for taking a half hour break from you Klan rally to declare "obamacare" unconsitutional.

I guess John Roberts will make the ultimate decision on this

Repeal won't happen.

Probably not, but there's a chance now, which is surprising

Not even a chance. SCROTUS might strike bits down, though.

It really does make being informed about politics seem completely futile.

makes you think you might win a shitload at trivia, though. if paired with a random sampling of neighbors.

Pretty dumb. But it shows that they maybe should have front-loaded more of the reforms. I think some of the stuff was pushed out purely to keep the price tag down

Obama's health care law was struck down in U.S. district court. The court ruled that the government forcing people to buy health insurance was unconstitutional. It also ruled that this portion of the law could not be severed from the rest of the law, so he struck down the entire thing. The law stands while it is being appealed by the Justice department.

The constitutionality argument is just bizarre. Had congress just increased everyone's income tax by $600 or whatever the penalty is and then provided for a same amount tax credit for people buying insurance you would have the same mandate as in the bill, the IRS would still be doing the compliance work, and there would be no question that it is constitutional.

There is no "the court' in this case there is "the judge." As of this moment there've been three judges who've ruled for hcr/thrown out suits against it versus two who've ruled against the law in whole or part.

I don't know about the three other judges. I don't think it was a panel decision. This is the case I was referring to.

Given that the 2 judges who ruled against this have gotten WAY more attention than the other 3, I guess the poll result isn't that shocking. I guess a lot of people only follow the news in a very vague way. Not that it's a good thing, obviously

Had congress just increased everyone's income tax by $600 or whatever the penalty is and then provided for a same amount tax credit for people buying insurance you would have the same mandate as in the bill, the IRS would still be doing the compliance work, and there would be no question that it is constitutional.

Isn't that exactly what the bill did?

Finn McCool
2/24/11 2:37 PM

Isn't that exactly what the bill did?

...no!
What the bill did was to make it law, legally required that you purchase insurance or get it through your employer. If you don't, you are subject to a civil(?) penalty of $600 which the IRS collects.

It has the exact same effect, but because it mechanism is different, the constitutionality arguments are different.

Huh. I'd heard it explained differently.

Then again, I'm just a jerkoff on a messageboard.

Nah, I think you've got it right. Someone dropped the ball on that one.

Of course, getting the "mandate" tossed out would open the door for something better.

For those. Of you know former Charles de Gaulle drummer D@n G@nin, he's now a clerk at the 11th Federal District court of appeals, and wrote that ruling. He's officially no longer my best friend.

Offi

Wow, famous.

We're sending him the bill when Elk$Velvet's shoulder x-ray costs us $6000

Freedom isn't free.

He had a hand in that?

But G@nin isn't around anymore. Can we take it out on sharyn?

I would assume clerks write the opinions of the judges, not their own.

Not always! The concept of corporate personhood was originally added in by a clerk.

Bring me the head of that clerk.

I'm pretty sure D@n isn't in favor if a "government with limited inumerated powers" in this case. He does however work for a very conservative judge

"11th Federal District court of appeals" should be "11th circuit court of appeals." The district courts are the trial courts. There's generally 1-3 districts per state (MN has one), and then several states' worth of district courts are combined into one circuit.

-a lawyer

Yeah, I didn't go to law school so I don't know that stuff. You know what I mean. I talked to D@n, turns out he didn't write and didn't have much to do with it, but that is his boss judge that ruled on this case.

Just an FYI, man.

Dan's boss seems like a dick.

Gee, I wonder why health care is so fucking expensive. Here's how my health insurance works:

I have insurance through my employer, and I pay a premium to Health Partners every paycheck.
My deductible is $1500. My plan includes $750 that my employer puts toward my deductible.

I went to a Health Partners clinic 2 weeks ago and used my Health Partners insurance.
The Health Partners clinic charges my Health Partners insurance, which pays about $30 of the $165 bill.
Health Partners insurance mails me an EoB to tell me that a bill is coming.
My employer sends Health Partners the money to cover the bill, since I haven't used up my $750 yet.
Then Health Partners insurance sends me a check to cover the bill.
The next day the Health Partners clinic sends me the bill.

It's hard for me to imagine how this could be less efficient.

Involving an employer in that transaction is the first layer of stupid, but certainly not the last.

IMAGE REMOVED - CLICK TO VIEW

Maybe a little less suck.

That's a huge gap there in Wyoming and Arkansas...