Why am I so pissed about Health Care Reform? Here's why.

[Armstead]

I truly hope, at the end of the day, I will have to eat large flocks of crows. I truly hope that Obama and the Congressional Democrats pass and sign a meaningful health reform that includes an option for everyone to sign up for a public insurance plan if they want to. No limits,restrictions, triggers or anything else. Just a simple additional choice that will help out millions of Anmericans.

If they pull that off, I'll happily admit that i was wrong. I'll take back all of my carping, griping and whining about it during this sausage-making process. I'll have a renewed respect for Obama, and the Democratic caucus.

But at this point, I fear that this may not come to pass.

Why are people like myself so incensed over the way this is playing out? Here's an explanation from my own point of view.

Remember that in the early 1990's there was a large call for healthcare reform, because people knew they were getting screwed. The situation was horrible then, and there was widespread recognition of the need for reform -- whether it be truly universal single payer coverage for everyone or -- at least -- strong regulation of insurance companies and a public health plan available to everyone as an alternative.

That's one of the issues that put Clinton into the White House.

But instead of doing what was really needed Bill Clinton and the "centrist" Democrats rolled over for the insurance industry. His plan was so convoluted with efforts to placate the insurance industry that it was a joke, and it crashed to defeat.

THEN FOR OVER A DECADE the issue was basically ignored. No efforts at even incremental improvements. So the health insurance industry got ever more powerful and abusive and the public continued to get the shaft.

Now, finally this year the climate is right for real reform. The accumulated awfulness of the situation has become obvious to everyone, the Democrats are in control, the public voted for change...and all the pieces were in place.

(For example, my brother -- who is basically a don't rock the boat moderate conservative -- has become livid about the need for strong health care reform and public coverage, after being driven into debt by the terms of his own insurance.)

Ooooookay. Now, being a realist, maybe a major conversion to a universal single payer system was too much to ask for. So how about a compromise? A voluntary public program that people can choose to join. Create competition for private insurance. Also couple that with strong regulation of rates and other aspects of coverage of private insurers.

Most people agree with that. Forget the teabaggers, who are ideological nabobs, and the GOP whose job is to protect corporate interests. A majority of the public would at least like the opportunity to join a public plan, even if they choose not to. A majority of the public wants to reign in the absolute power of the insurers.

So what do we get? A small number of obstructionists in the Democratic Party threaten to scuttle it and/or work feverishly to make it toothless and meaningless.

And President Obama, who really believes in universal single payer, refuses to throw his weight behind a real public option. Instead of bringing the obstructionist democrats in line with the majority who want a real public option, Obama has empowered their obstructionists. Makes them more important and significant that they should be.

Chikey -- Even if some dems decide to vote against a public option, it should not be so agonizing to at least pressure them NOT to go along with a GOP filabuster to even prevent a vote.

From the beginning, Obama and the democrats who support a public option should have proposed a simple plan of making Medicare available for everyone who wants to sign up.

Instead, we get this ongoing Hamlet act. And once again it appears more likely that a solution that almost everyone agrees is needed gets put off for another 15 years.

[WillFranklin]

1. And all of these Mamby-Pamby Moderates

Who needs two Republican Parties?

All of these mamby-pamby moderates want to come up with some do-nothing crap that just re-elects them in their districts. Why are people afraid to do the correct, liberal thing here?

Moderates...

[ProSense]

2. "I truly hope, at the end of the day, I will have to eat large flocks of crows." So until then,

you're going to complain about a process that has advanced further than any other time in history?

When health reform passes, it will be the first time in history that as many as 97 percent of Americans, nearly 300 million people, will have access to health care.

[inna]

3. Mandated insurance is not health care.

It's INSURANCE care.

[ProSense]

5. A whole lot of people

disgree with your mischaracterization.

[Oregone]

14. Can you tell us why YOU do

Everyone already has google. You have anything to add?

[Armstead]

4. If it passes a bad bill millions of Americans will....

...be forced to by bad, expensive insurance they can't afford.

That would be an unholy marriage of the worst of the Nanny State and the Corporate State. "You Must become customers of Big Insurance or we will fine you."

Unless they provide an affordable public option -- and enforce regulations on private rates and coverage -- they should leave us alone because their "solution" would be worse than the problem.

[ProSense]

6. If, if, if. You're in full complain mode, ignoring the facts for hypotheticals

just to keep complaining.

[depakid]

10. "enforce regulations"

This would require, among other things- repealing ERISA preemption and other immunities to civil liability.

Let the lawyers loose with the tort of bad faith- and insurers will tow the line. Leave it to inefficient (or corrupt) government agencies to enforce with the paltriest of fines) and very few of their behaviors are going to change.

[sandnsea]

11. And they will get a subsidy to pay for it

Just like they'll get a subsidy to pay for the public option, if they choose it.

Millions more will be eligible for free Medicaid when they expand eligibility to 133% of poverty for all adults, which the horrible HELP bill had at 150% of poverty.

And you're fighting it. :crazy:

[Armstead]

21. How about healthcare that's fair to everyone -- including the middle class?

A subsidy is bullshit. Tax money to pay high rates to insurance companies.

And worse yet, many people (who are currently with or without insutrance) are going to continue to be pummeled by unaffordable insurance rates, even though they make just slightly too much to qualify for assistance.

Plus, the stigma of having to go for a public subsidy or medicaid is very painful for a ot of working class people.

Why the hell not just make a simple public option that anyone can join? Why force all these fricking gyrations on people.

[Armstead]

7. A question for you...If they are gong to mandate coverage, why not make it Medicare?

[ProSense]

8. Why not

read more. There are so many great fact-based points being made.

[vaberella]

25. I actually agree setting the bar a bit younger for Medicare like 55-60.

However, I also agree there is no way of opening it up to a much younger population. It wasn't designed for that sort of make up. Medicare pays for itself through the younger population----ie similar to SS set up---they sort of work in tandem. And to open it up would be ludicrous. It would make things disproportionatly inefficient.

[sandnsea]

12. Because YOU are not the King of the World

and believe it or not, everybody doesn't think like you. A lot of people would rather do without than go to the government. That's why.

Not to mention, many people on Medicare who DO like it, don't want to risk having it ruined by putting too many people in the plan.

[Oregone]

15. Why not at least allow everyone to choose government, if that is their choice?

That wont even be an option for the vast amount of people according to all committee bills

[ipaint]

16. The "kings", the insurance companies, won't allow it. That's how free we are. n/t

[Armstead]

24. I'm obviously not King of the World -- If I were I'd be ,making a lot more money

But to your point....Not everyone thinks like me? Duh I never realized that.

I know full well gthat not everyone would want to sign up for a government plan. But that doesn't mean that people who DO want to -- or have to -- should be denied the ability to. And over time, I suspect a lot of people who initially turn their nose up at it wojuld take another look.

I don't really even care if a public option is part of medicare or not. But I do b elieve strongly that we need a public plan available to everyone to offer chloce and competition and to rein in the arrogent abusive insurabnce companies.

What part of the word CHOICE do you object to anyway?

[sandnsea]

38. Mandating Medicare is not a CHOICE

Since you understand the situation perfectly, why do you pretend you don't?

I think once people are used to having health coverage at a price they can afford, they'll do anything to keep it; even go to single payer. We've got to get everybody in first.

I don't think a mandate is necessary, but it's a particular group of Democrats who disagree. And I don't think that even the looniest of the teabaggers would opt out of a public plan if it was cheaper and better, but they'll do anything to create conflict.

So we create CHOICE. You have to get coverage, but you can CHOOSE whether it's public or private. At least hopefully we'll get that done.

[Oregone]

43. "You have to get coverage, but you can CHOOSE whether it's public or private"

Unfortunately, the mass majority of people won't be able to choose the public coverage--something those who took the time to browse the committee bills would know. And if private coverage was sufficient for those masses to produce quality, responsible and affordable coverage, then a public option would never be needed, period. But, the entire existence of the debate about the public option only goes to substantiate that the private market alone does not provide adequate choice.

Because there will be eligibility requirements to access the exchange, the majority of people will be delivered a mandate with no public means to satisfy it with. For this segment of the population, the private market is guaranteed a constant level of demand; this drastically may influence their price point models, being that despite the prices, the demand will never waiver because it cannot (unless it becomes so exorbitant that people opt for penalties in great numbers).

"Since you understand the situation perfectly, why do you pretend you don't?"

[Armstead]

47. NO they are moving towards mandates with no choice

If there is no competition to private insurance -- and no public alternative with fees based on income (unless one is poor enough to qualify for Medicaid) then they are screwing us and forcing us into the equivalent of corporate fascism.

You ready for United Healthcare to have the power to throw you in jail if you don't buy their insurance?

[vaberella]

26. Simply? It's inefficient and the current system would not be able to handle the influx of people.

It would be a mess in the first 10 years---possibly longer if there's not even more reformation put in place costing us even more money. A fuckin' nightmare. Republicans would have ammunition for years to come with how bad it will be.

[smoochpooch]

9. Doesn't it create an incentive to quit your job if the insurance sucks?

If you have insurance, you can't get the public option even if you want it. But if you quit, you won't have insurance anymore so then you can get the public option?

[sandnsea]

13. I call that FREEDOM, Finally n/t

[vaberella]

22. Are you thinking logically?! I mean seriously, your statement is the stupidest yet.

No joke. You would quit your job for insurance?! No one would do that. Logically, you need your job for subsistence. Most logically thinking human beings will never quit their job in order to place themselves in the uncertainty of not having another job. Ugh, I feel like I'm losing brain cells answering this obvious answer.

There is absolutely no incentive for people to quit their jobs. As a matter of fact the public option actually causes employer insurance to improve. Employers pay a certain amount if not all funding for insurance care. They get this insurance care through major companies and provided tax breaks by the government. When there is a public option it forces costs down in the major insurance companies and improves care because these insurance companies will have to one up the provisions in the public option in order to keep their customers. That means companies pay cheaper and as a result families that pay into their insurance pay cheaper and they get more care considering the insurance company is competing with the public option.

How in Gods name is it an incentive for someone to quit their job?! I think that is utterly insane thought process.

[smoochpooch]

That is the point. If you are sick and your insurance won't cover you, you would be forced to quit.

If that was the only way I could get AFFORDABLE insurance and not shitty insurance that costs twice as much, of course I would quit. Hmmm, have a job and die from cancer or be unemployed and get treatment.....tough decision.

[vaberella]

45. Then you're insane.

No one thinks like that. So you would quit to get another health insurance or get on the PO? That's insane because you would forfeit unemployment by doing that. You only get unemployment if you are laid off due to no fault of your own. How would you survive without money for food or shelter? That's irrational and no person in their right mind would do it. Not to mention the new health bill will actually force the insurance company to cover you. That's one of the benefits behind employer mandated insurance.

[bvar22]

17. Kabuki Theater.

It was decided long before Obama placed his hand on the Bible.
"Health Care Reform" was going to be a Multi-$BILLION Dollar transfer of Public Money to the Health Insurance Industry.

We are being allowed to beg for the crumbs, a "thin sliver" (Obama) of a not so Public Option.

Do the math:

$1 TRILLION Dollars for 10 years

10 Million in the "Public Plan" after 10 years

Who gets RICH?

[sandnsea]

18. The subsidies will go to the Public Option too

If it is as great as you think it will be, it will easily surpass private insurance and the bulk of the subsidy money will go into the public plan, not the insurance industry coffers.

[vaberella]

23. Basically. Most don't understand natural progression.

Secondly, I get the feeling Congress will follow Deans ideas and open up Medicare for those younger like aroud 50. I know Anthony Weiner has been advocating for this.

[BzaDem]

19. Maybe this will help you understand it.

In any given Congress, the marginal (60th) Senator can essentially write the bill, and the President has to approve it. That's just how our system works. It is very unfortunate and anti-democratic, but that is the way it currently works.

In 1993-1994, that marginal senator was a Republican. So no chance of a real public option there. (In fact, the concept of a public option was not even mentioned by anyone until around a decade later.)

In 1995-2006, not only was the marginal senator a Republican, but the whole Congress was Republican. Fat chance lf anything there. In 2007-2008, we controlled Congress, but the marginal Senator was still a Republican, and the President was also a Republican.

Finally, in 2009, the marginal (60th) senator is one of Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, or Olympia Snowe. (I'm not sure which.) Two of those three have to agree on any healthcare reform bill that can pass. That still sucks, but it is much better than having that marginal senator be a conservative Republican. It means we might be able to pass something (as opposed to nothing.

And again, I am not supporting this system. So please don't accuse me of doing so. That just is the system.

If you say that reform is defined by an immediate universal public option (where everyone can sign up), that isn't even being considered by any committee in either house. The MOST LIBERAL option being considered won't start until 2013, and will only be available to those who don't have an option of employer based health insurance. Your proposed universal option would certainly not be supported by the marginal Senator (or probably 20 Senators to his or her left either).

So in that sense, it is NOT the case that "the climate is right for real reform." If reform to you must include a universal public option, then the climate right now is NO more right for real reform than it was from 1993-2008. The chance that the marginal senator will favor a universal public option is no higher now than it was at any point in the past. What has changed is the chance for other reforms that aren't as good (but still good). Now, the marginal senator will support those reforms (whereas they wouldn't from 1993-2008).

[Armstead]

27. I'd rather see fighting than excuse making among our leaders

You are correct that the GOP had control of Congress for much of the last 20 years.

But that isn't really an excuse for the Clinton administration and Congressional Democrats to totally ignore the issue for so long. Democrats could have been shaming the GOP to at least till the soil for healthcare. And -- I realize this may sound silly -- but I suspect some decent progress cuold have b een made on some aspects in cooperatrion with the GOP.

Meanwhile, now that there is a President in favor of real reform, and a Democratic Congress where many are also either in favor or persuadable, there's not really an excuse not to have at least pushed for a true public option which, after all, was already a COMPROMISE by those who believe that what is really needed is a full-fledged government coverage program like every other advanced nation (and many unadvanced ones) have.

As for the 60oth Senator...That only id the Democrats are so inept that they can;t at least get their causus to at least allow a vote on a public option.

[BzaDem]

44. How are Democrats so "inept"?

What if Joe Lieberman says no? Then what? Strip him of his chairmanship? He would become ranking member then after joining the Republicans. Fine; maybe this is a better outcome anyway. But it still only gives us 59 votes. If you were leader Reid, what would you do to convince Joe Lieberman to vote for cloture on the public option?

[vaberella]

20. Even Dean knocked out your last comment abot Medicare.

It's not that easy and I'm bit fed up with "so-called" progressives not realizing that we need something realistic and not fantastical. I'm also tired of people who seem to always think Obama is not standing by the PO. He came up with it, he proposed it during the candidacy and pushed it during his Presidency. So he most definitely is supportive of it. To say he's not, says to me, said person is not listening to his speeches. This is like when all the people said he's not supportive of repealing DADT or DOMA. If you're not getting he doesn't react with crazy zeal over things like you and so many other reactionists...then you'll be very disappointed for the next 4 years or have serious hypertension conditions. You may see a sense of urgency, and there is one, but there is no need to make mistakes. The way you're reacting for a push and decision made and all of this is the same way Repubs are pushing for Obama to make a decision on the war. I'm not worried about the Pres, I'm more worried about the Dems writing the bill and voting on it. The President in my estimation has come through and is trying not to have repeat mistakes like the Clintons where we got NOTHING at all. So if you don't realize the bureaucracy of progress---because there is one. The you'll get nothing done and Im pretty thankful you're not the President.

[Armstead]

28. I've been hearing variations on that theme ablout most issues for decades

According to some people its never time to do anything. Anything even mildly prohgressive or liberal is "too much too soon" or "naive.

It's always time to be "realistic" and just allow the rancid aspects of the status quo to continue to fester. That';s why things keep getting worse and worse, and the oligarchs keep getting fatter and happier and richer, while everyone else suffers and the middle class declines.

The fact that Obama does support a public option (I know that, by the way) makes it worse, IMO. He is doing nothing to really push for it, and instead wants to make Olympia Snowe happy.

[vaberella]

31. So he supports it and you know it but he's not pushing it.

How does he support it but not push it?! Every speech, except maybe 2 has entirely around a public option. During his candidacy, and the reason I chose him, was because he pushed this form of health care. I prefer it and it's the best bet. I can go into the whole long winded detail about how the failure it would be to push what you want. It doesn't work that way. We have a corrupt, crappy mess. you add millions upon millions of people into mess and even trying to fix parts of it...you're making even more of a mess. We don't even have a computer network that is sufficient enough to maintain that. Dean who's a doctor, admits tha the medicare system is too weak to maintain so many people. I agree with lowering the age to a few million people, ie those 55-60 should be able to enter. But that's the gap and so we can build a better foundation until the PO kicks in 2013 (tentative date). That's more realistic to achieve. And the reason you push for realism is because you need to see you have a country of about 330 Million and growing. This is not a few thousand.

[Marsala]

32. He hasn't threatened to veto a bill without it

Also he hasn't shouted, stamped his feet loudly or thrown a temper tantrum about it. If he did, that would make many at DU happy.

[Armstead]

35. That'd make me happy if it brought results

[vaberella]

41. Your post is full of crap. I don't know if you're being sarcastic or serious.

He has said he'd veto a bill without a public option---There's video too...knock yourself out.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/obama-demands-the-bill-i-sign-must-include-public-option.php

As for the rest of your statement. He's not a child but an adult.

[Armstead]

37. Here's my problem with what you are saying

"Unrealistic" progressives like me are not as rigid or simple minded as people like you like to portray us as. We are fully aware that Medicare has problems of its own to sort out. And we also have been patient and more than willing to wait and compromise and phase change in, if necessary.

But we (at least I) am sick to death of the lack of commitment to meaningful goals by the so-called "realists" in the Democratic Party. This obscuring of a clear path and lack of commitment to a clear liberal/progressive agenda is what brought us this mess, as well as the corruption and collapse of the financial system, the war in iraq and countless other problems.
That, IMO is as much of a problem as the GOP conservatives who WANT to keep the status quo. At least they have a plan and are sticking to it.

You may be absolutely right that it is such a huge cumbersome system that changing it overnight would be a massive messy headache.

But it already is a massive messy headache, and it has been for decades. And every time anyone starts to try to fix it, obstructionists get in the way and say anything is too much too soon, etc. We dither and ;postpone and make excuses and don't really try to get to the root of it. Even small changes -- like a very limited public option -- is hemmed and hawed to death.

That is what is happening. As I said in my original post, I hope to hell I am wrong. But we have to stop defeating solutions by using the cop-out that "it's too complicated to fix."

[vaberella]

42. I am not condoning the actions of Dems.

However, a disproportionate amount of blame or accusal is laid at the door step of the President which I find unfair. You even said he hasn't pushed it enough. But he said this below: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/obama-demands-the-bill-i-sign-must-include-public-option.php (there's video attached as well) in essence the key point of his words...which is in the article.

Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans - including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest - and choose what's best for your family.

It's when I see his remarks from before that I can't understand why people ignore what he has said in regards to the public option. He's not fighting hard enough and yet goes as far as to say he wants a bill with a public option. End of story. But it goes continously ignored.

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

As for the problems in regards to medicare. Medicare is a mess in and of itself correct? It holds millions of people already in it. Now think of just the aspect of opening it up to another 250 million or so people. Are you wrapping your brain around the logistical nightmare that would be? You would be setting up Democrats total failure for infinity. This nation would become Republican at a drop of a hat. Why? Because the medicare system can't handle that many people in the disaster that it's already in. And sure we can pull work with the technical aspect, but the man power would be wholly insufficient and the amount of money needed to fund the amount of healthcare facilities is not functional. So when Obama proposed 2013, I did find that realistic. It gives them time to create a sound foundation before opening the doors. Plus they wouldn't have the insurance companies going belly up and putting a lot of people out of work into the system even more. It would take a good number of years, however with the mess we have that would just be an added mess.

You need a transitional plan. The PO actually is an early step towards single payer---it just gives the first steps and/or framework and Obama knows that. It will clean up the mess that is healthcare currently over a good 4-8 years span. And then hopefully in another few years we can have legislation that passes that say we can have single payer because the PO is functioning great with new people insured and those on medicaid being on the plan aiding that system. In the end you get the political clout and you don't have crazy teabaggers running around.

Lastly, I never said it was too complicated to fix. Far from it. It's just extremely complicated. And politically it just doesn't seem possible. We have conservadems who I equate to Republicans posing as Dems. They make up 13 of our 60 senate majority. Even with reconciliation if we exclude those clowns we'd be at 47. We'd never have enough votes. Until you and many of the other people out there realise that there are some people who are setting us up----some of the attention needs to move away from the President and focus on the real culprits. To me, the President has done and said a lot. Way too much and he's sounding like a broken record because I know where he stands. He's not my problem, or from what I can see, our real problem. Are problem is the Senate and on some issues the House (although very very minimal). We don't have too many progressives in the Senate and your posts would be more effective by pointing out who is fucking us up instead of always targeting the President. But it's not you alone. These Senators are a problem and they will be our problem. If we had a Senate and a House with no blue dogs and little conservadems, we'd have a Congress making progessive changes that you'd love and you'd probably love the President then. However, we don't and he's being thrawted in his actions by them. Not by himself or his inactions as you like to say.

[Armstead]

46. In response...

1) I am not opposed to a transitional,phased in approach. I don't really care whether it's an extension of medicare or something new. But what we DO need is a clear direction and a roadmap. That should be very straightforward. A public health coverage program available to everyone who wants to join it. Period.

Instead of a clear forward movement, however, the democrats are going zig-zag and backward and forward. Trigger? That is completely stupid because it would never be "triggered." Opt out? Great a state-based system of medical apartheid. Your lucky to live in this state that's opted in while your neighbor a few miles away lives in an opt-out state? Tough.

2)the problem with Obama is the he either doesn't know what he wants or is trying to have it both ways. yes he says "I want a public option." But he usually undercuts that by adding "but I'm open to anything, and that's just a small sliver." Nor does he define what he believes a public ooption should be. That's not leadership. Sorry.

3) Mandates without a public option. That's the worst of all worlds. That combines the worst of the Nanny State that conservatives hate and the Corporate State. Force people to buy overpriced insurance from Corporations? Bullshit. Only idf there is a public safety net that is available and affordable for EVERYONE does that make sense.

4)You know who the obstructionist dems are. The problem, IMO, is that rather than dragging them to the position of the democratic majority, the leadership is dragging the majority to their position. That's n ot leadership either.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

29. "Realists" who talk about nothing but "what's politically possible" are killing us

"Realists" gave Reagan everything he wanted.

"Realists" have always given the Republicans everything they wanted--which is always "politcally possible," for some reason, because what is actually good for the country is "politically impossible."

I AM SICK TO DEATH OF COWARDLY, INEPT, CORRUPT "POLITICAL REALISTS." :grr:

[vaberella]

30. Until you join the system to change it...you'll have to deal with it.

This is all political. If people weren't realists Dems wouldn't be in office right now. Obama proposed a plan for his campaign and it was realistically achieved for the most part---for states he figured he had no chance, he didn't go there...Everything about who we are is politicized and as such we need to be realists.

Further more have you sat there and thought through how it would be to enact single payer for millions of Americans?! Based on the non-sense health care we have now it would be a bloody mess.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

40. No, we don't

If the Dems blow this by requiring purchase of private insurance without putting the insurance companies on a very short choke chain (as in Germany), several things could happen:

1. People voting Republican out of spite.
2. People deciding that both parties are corrupt and not voting at all.
3. People voting third party.

None of these things are necessarily intelligent courses of action, but if you get people mad enough (as compulsory purchase of expensive, useless insurance would), they WILL do these things.

For an example, look at Britain, where the Conservatives are expected to win the next election due to people voting against New Labour out of anger at the state of the economy.

And I'm sick and tired of "political realists" telling me that things that are possible in other countries are impossible here. The only thing that's keeping us tied to the private insurance vultures is their massive contributions to political candidates. Good Lord, Congress can't even remove their exemption from anti-trust laws.

[ChiciB1]

33. Since This Issue First Began It's Been Changed In So Many Ways...

I personally think that NO MATTER WHAT gets passed, many Democrats are going to stand up and cheer simply because it got passed.

I think we've gone too far down the track to "fix" what many of us really want. It's about money for the most part, and it's about saving face too! Just pass something so it can be said it got done!

What began as a possible "single payer" now has devolved into something with a "trigger" or "opt out" and to me that's a far cry from what many of us really wanted in HCR!

Many of us who have complained have been told that we are just against anything Obama wants, but I know in my heart that I don't feel that way. But I do feel we have compromised ourselves into accepting almost anything now. We probably don't know the half of it!

[ipaint]

34. Most people in Washington don't have a clue how real people live.

"Consider an illustrative family of three in which the father earns $35,000 from a small retailer and the mother earns $11,000 as a part-time sales clerk. Neither receives health care through his or her employer. The couple has a daughter in elementary school. The couple has avoided accruing credit card debt but has no life insurance or retirement savings. After paying basic expenses,<4> this family has about $650 a month to cover costs for clothes, car repairs and maintenance, various other household expenses, restaurant meals, and any hobbies or activities — as well as the family’s health care expenses. Under the Finance Committee bill, this family could pay $360 — 55 percent of the remaining monthly amount — to cover the cost of premiums. In comparison, under the Senate HELP bill, this family would pay $214, or 33 percent of its remaining monthly budget, for premiums. Under the House bill, the family would pay monthly premiums of about $305, or 47 percent of its remaining monthly income.



Even the more generous plans seem to be a recipe for backlash. And I don't think the citizens have been adequately prepared for it. But the plans with the lower subsidies are insane. I don't suppose that most of the people writing these plans have recently had to live with only a couple hundred dollars a week to spend among three people, but if they did, they would know that cutting that in half is impossible. I don't know how many people this affects, but it's obviously in the millions.

There's a reason why so many people are uninsured and it isn't only because they have pre-existing conditions. It's also because insurance is unaffordable. Unless this reform fixes that problem they haven't fixed it at all. They need to create a public plan that these subsidies can actually make affordable or these folks are all going to have to become criminals and defy the mandate. And if that happens reform fails."

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/light-dawns-by-digby-light-dawns-by.html

And that doesn't include co-pays or deductibles. It is insane and so far from reform it would be comical if it wasn't so deadly.

So who will be the first person to call this family and others deadbeats when they inevitably fall through the cracks??

[sandnsea]

39. The subsidies are the most important part

I've been saying that all along. The HELP Plan was good on subsidies, $30 for minimum wage people, about $150 for your family there. None of the rest of the subsidies are really good enough and I suspect there will be a backlash.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

36. At the end of the day people have died and are suffering

my husband was denied radiation treatment for head and neck cancer by the HMO. We kicked up such a fuss that hey finally found a way to cover him. Not all people are like us.