Why The Democrats "Health Reform" Deserves To Be DEFEATED

[Karmadillo]

http://www.docudharma.com/diary/16997/democrats-health-reform-deserves-to-be-defeated

The total vacuum of any principled leadership from President Obama, has inevitably produced the most directionless, anti-consumer, Insurance Monopoly boondoggle fraud imaginable -- which is now masquerading before Congress as "reform".

In fact, the Insurance Companies are silently doing cartwheels over this, and stand to jack up rates even more, and fatten their considerable death grip over the American public. The people who bother to read the fine print, like Congressman Dennis Kucinich, know this.

Who's to blame?

Well, for starters, Capitulator-in-Chief Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi (who lied to us, and promised "a robust public option"), Max Baucus, .... and the list goes on and on. In other words, The Democratic Party and it's entire leadership structure (do we have any?) created this fiasco all by themselves -- the same people who also want to keep funding and expanding the Bush Wars, Bailout Goldman Sachs and give them (crooks) your tax money for CEO profits, and who blindly support the unconstitutional Bush U.S. Patriot Act.

Some remarks from Congressman Kucinich:

Speaking to liberal MSNBC anchor Ed Schultz on Friday, Kucinich continued:

They're being mandated to buy private insurance. If you read the bill, the people are going to end up paying -- the insurance companies can raise rates 25 percent right off the bat, if you read the bill."

Schultz encouraged Kucinich to repeat himself on that point.

"It's on page 22 of the bill," he replied. "Right here, it says that rates shall be set at a level that does not exceed 125 percent of the prevailing standard rate for comparable coverage in the individual market. Now ... It's very easy to understand what that means."

"It's not reform," Schultz insisted.

"It means a 25 percent increase, they'll have the ability to execute and since insurance companies have already raised rates for the last four years by double-digits, we can expect -- based on the bill -- another rate increase by the insurance companies."

more...

[timeforpeace]

1. Whatever can be called a campaign promised fulfilled fits the bill.

[Skittles]

3. change that insurance companies can believe in

[Celtic_88]

17. So Disgusted

I wont vote for Obama in 2012 ..

[Egnever]

22. My guess

you didn't vote for him in 2008.


Or is there something specific in the bill you disagree with?

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[SammyWinstonJack]

128. Neither will I.

x(

[Skittles]

2. say it like it is

[nightrain]

4. knr. Thank you.

[ShortnFiery]

5. Bingo - You nailed it!

"The total vacuum of any principled leadership from President Obama ..."

I'm so disgusted with President Obama's recent spate of pensiveness and openly CORPORATE loving bent. :(

[PretzelWarrior]

6. this is through Kucinich filter. In other words....cuckoo!

[glitch]

9. The PretzelWarrior filter forgot its :sarcasm: tag.

Or maybe the sarcasm was so obvious you didn't think it needed it? ;)

[Egnever]

12. I highly doubt any sarcasm was intended.

Dennis needs to go back to UFO's and mind control.

[timtom]

89. So, let's pick some of DK's main points:

Get the fuck out of Iraq
Get the fuck out of Afghanistan
Get the fuck out of Pakistan
Single payer universal health care

I'm concerned that you find any of these distasteful.

(UFO's, indeed! Like that's the major plank of all he stands for)

What a maroon!

[Egnever]

112. Yes DK's planks

Has he accomplished anything? at all? in the last 4 years. anything?

Its easy to shout for shangrila. The hard part is actually working to get there.

[timtom]

123. DK accomplishments (partial list)

HR 676. The universal, single-payer, NOT FOR PROFIT health CARE plan.

H.Res. 333 Impeachment of Cheney

HR 808 Department of Peace

HR 6200 Hand counted Paper ballots

HR 1234 Withdrawal from Iraq

Don't have time to research any more. Sorry your DLC buddies shot these all down. Too busy fighting "terrorism," I guess.

[Karmadillo]

124. Thanks

nt

[Egnever]

125. So nothing then

Just llike i said

[timtom]

126. He's not bought and paid for like your people.

But, I suppose principle doesn't count with you folks.
Bought and paid for.

[Egnever]

127. Principle is great

I love what he stands for but if you cant get any of it done what good are ya?

[timtom]

133. That's pretty much what the Vichy government felt...

"Hell. Principles won't buy us escargot. Let's collaborate with the Germans."

[dionysus]

130. those aren't accomplishments, none of them happened. that's his list of failed pipe dreams...

got anything that actually, ya know... happened?
:shrug:

[timtom]

134. Silly, you're redirecting the focus away from the substantive.

Argue with this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BNQElQPkao&feature=player_embedded

[adamuu]

87. yup. that's not what the bill says.

125 percent refers to blacklisted people who cannot currently get insurance at any price.

125 percent above market versus totally out-of-pocket is a good deal, for those of us in that situation.

[sandnsea]

7. And they will still have to pay out 85%

So it's not as if they can just raise rates 25% and pocket the increase. Dennis doesn't mention that and I don't think it's because he doesn't know.

[Egnever]

10. Thank god some of you old timers are still here

cause the mass hysteria on this board is getting maddening.

[sandnsea]

18. You are clearly drunk

Thank god sandnsea is here??? lol. I remember a time...

:rofl:

[Egnever]

19. LOL

I still disagree with you often however at least you recognize reality most of the time when you see it.

Half the folks here these days need to be spoonfed. Its unbelievable.

[eridani]

23. And the enforcement mechanisms for this are what, exactly? n/t

[sandnsea]

24. The same as the enforcement for the 125% n/t

[eridani]

30. In other words, non-existent. The fuckers just get to lock in an ourtrageous baseline n/t

[sandnsea]

31. So the 125% isn't real? n/t

[eridani]

41. Enforcement for a separate high rist pool has nothing whatsoever to do

--with enforcing price control on existing policies and insurers. I've never seen a high risk pool anywhere that was not pure shit--overpriced mostly useless coverage. You want to help people in that situation? Disabled people can get into Medicare early-- just let the high risk people in early as well.

[Egnever]

8. Kucinich is a clown

There i said it!

He doesn't even understand what he is citing!

"it says that rates shall be set at a level that does not exceed 125 percent of the prevailing standard rate for comparable coverage in the individual market"

Thats for insurance inside the exchange as opposed to insurance outside the exchange that still gets to do whatever the hell they want, and he conveniently forgets to include the provision that says that insurers inside the exchange can only have a premium to loss ratio of 85% or above or they must refund the difference to their customers! Effectively putting a cap on what they can charge inside the exchange.

AGHHHH! WTF!

if we cant get this significant but not perfect bill passed who in the hell thinks we could get single payer passed? Thats fantasy land! Really you think we could pass a bill that would put millions of people working in the insurance business out of work in the middle of the worst recession in the US since the great depression?

Really Dennis are you that much of an attention whore? I bet you fart butterflies too!

[glitch]

11. Mirror. nt

[Egnever]

14. That would bother me if you had a clue what you were talking about

But like ST. Dennis you drank the kuckoo juice.

[glitch]

34. Uh huh. Click

me.

[Egnever]

36. Why would I do that?

Been here since 2002 and dont have anyone on ignore. Why would I start with someone with arguments as weak as yours?

Far better have come before you.

[rucky]

96. Who gets to set the baseline?

[ProSense]

13. Does this mean Kucinich is going to vote against the bill?

I can't wait.

[napi21]

15. I see your ideology every bit as disturbing as that of the RW nutballs!

It's unrealistic if not impossible to get everything you want in a first bill! If you face reality you will have to admit that. I've started reading the House Bill, albeit I've only gotten through the first 100 pages. There are a lot of good things in that bill. Eliminating the pre-existing condition excuse, removing the lifetime cap, requiring all ins co's to actually payout 85% of premiums on claims, establishment of a commission similar to the State Ins. Commissions that require ins co's to justify rate increases before they get approval. Sure there are lots of things I'd love to see in there that aren't there, but to slam the entire bill because it doesn't fulfill your ideological dreams is foolish!

[Egnever]

16. Yay for reality!

:yourock:

[Sebastian Doyle]

43. NoSense and reality are complete strangers from each other

The only thing more pathetic than a cheerleader, is a cheerleader for the cheerleaders.

[Egnever]

47. what does that make you?

A cheerleader for the naysayers?

At least I have an idea of whats in the bill. Do you? or do you just go with whatever the current outrage is?

[dionysus]

132. a Failer. the opposite of a cheerleader. wants this admin to fail so bad he can *taste* it.

[eridani]

26. That doesn't mean we have to be forcefed garbage to get a few good things done.

And about all those constraints on insurance companies--seen any hint of any enforcemnt mechanisms?

[Egnever]

28. What garbage?

Specifically? or are you just throwing bombs?

[eridani]

38. Legalized age discrimination and theft at gunpoint of 10-12% of your income

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/eridani/411
Details at the link.

[Egnever]

46. What legalized age discrimination are you talking about?

First off your cost to the system because of youtr age is going to be higher, it just is. I got a clue for you. All of that is legal now however at least with this bill it can only be affected by age not health condition. So you are getting a better deal not a worse one.

The rest of your journal is just fantasy land stuff. I would like it if they made the queen of england pay for everyones health care but it aint going to happen.

Over all you will be far better off after this bill than before it. Sure its got problems but the end result is 96% of americans are covered and no one is dropped for preconditions or other BS. There are proice controlling measures in there and I dont have a clue where you got your only 10% can buy into the public option stuff.

[eridani]

50. You mean you've never heard of risk sharing?

Tough shit if costs are higher for older people. The point of insurance is to spread risk. Charging older people more is like doubling your property tax for the fire department just because you've had a fire. Yes, I know it's legal now, but so what? Poll taxes and literacy tests used to be legal too, until we decided to make those things illegal. Ever since slaves were declared 3/5 of a person, the American historical trend has been toward moving people OUT of the category "disposable human garbage." Now you cheerlead going in the reverse direction. That so many on DU are happy to stick me there makes me understand a lot more about the GLBT forum and DOMA.

And yes, this bill is fucking me over. I will be a lot worse off.

And now you think Nancy Pelosi was in fantasyland when her office sent out the summary of benefits that various people posted all over DU? My referenced post (unless I screwed up the link) didn't do anything other than repackage some of the proposals under two packages of legislation and suggest separate bills for three other items. You want the whole thing and you're the realist, while I want part of it and I'm the fantasist? Try logic ane tell me what's wrong with the proposals.

[Egnever]

60. You do know that none of those things you mentioned

was fixed on the first try. None of them. What makes you think we would get it right the first try this time?

Again how is this biull fucking you over. Explain it to me, saying it doesnt make it so.

As far as you list goes Nacy sent out a list of whats in the bill thats reality. You want to mix and match parts of it which would be great but its not close to reality these bills are the result of the mix and match process. How in the world do you think you are suddenly going to walk in and throw out parts of this bill that made it possible to get the votes to pass it? Thats freaking fantasy. Someone traded their vote for the provisions you want to dump dunmp those provisions now you cant pass the bill at all.

You seem to be under the illusion we can just say watever we want and the bill will magically appear just as ordered and everyone will vote for it. Thats fantasyland. Reality is all kinds of people had their hands in this bill all with ideas of what was right for the country or their constiuency or thier financial backers. The idea you can just discard thier input and still get the votes needed to pass is ludicrous.

Again of course its not the perfect bill but its a good fucking step forward on every damn count you have mentioned you have yet to tell me one step backward from where we are now.

[eridani]

63. IThe fucking over data is courtesy of the Kaiser Family Foundation online calculator

You are right about the financial backers. Your recommendation then, is to just take our fucking. Citizens dare not ask for anything in legislation--only useless fucktards like insurance companies are allowed to do that. In that case, why do you even bother to vote, let alone write to your representatives?

We can fix it later? You mean just like we "fixed" NAFTA and welfare "reform"? A step toward consolidating the power of insurance companies over us is a step backwards. This bill is like, instead of Social Security, passing a bill that mandates that everybody have a retirement stock market fund, with a "public option" government pension open to 2-25% of the population. According to your logic, this would have inevitably grown to the universal eligibility we now have.

What is so goddamned difficult about just expanding Medicare eligibility? That would be a great motivation to fixing some of the problems with it.

[Egnever]

73. Again where do you keep getting the idea that

the public option is only going to be open to 2-25% of the population. You said 10% earlier where is that coming from?

Also not fix it later improve on it going forward. As i said before the house bill is a measurable improvement over the current situation in nearly every example.

Medicare ain't that great by the way, We can do better. Its like saying the VA is great sure its nice we have it but have you already forgotten the mold on the walls in walter reid? Britain has medicare for all and while perhaps better in ways than what we have now its certainly not the envy of the world.

competition will breed a better insurance plan in an exchange that everyone can access. With limits set on the amount of every dollar that must be spent for health care the only way to increase profit is to increase your percentage of the market. The only way to do that would be slick marketing that I don't think flies in this house bill though I am not sure of or having a more attractive plan with better benefits. Maybe cigna in a health exchange can negotiate better rates than the public option can and thus can offer more services for each health care dollar or maybe they can manage their administration better thus cutting costs and again freeing them to provide more services for the same dollar. Maybe the Public option will be the one to do that. Either way you as the end consumer would win because you have the choice to chose what works best for you as opposed to taking what is given to you.


Also to the age discrimination thing there is also a max spread of difference between the cheapest and most expensive plans so yet again a better situation than we currently face today.

[eridani]

78. The estimates are all over the place, and it is impossible to evaluate competing

--claims when evidence is a constantly moving target.

FUCK COMPETITION!! Competition is exactly what has gotten us into the mess we are in now. Competition should be flat out forbidden except for competing in service and in providing extra bells and whistles that wouldn't be provided by a single comprehensive plan. (Not necessarily single payer--in multi-payer countries governments usually decide what plan insurance companies would be required to offer.) Competition is what leads idiots to open second cardiac centers in towns with slow-growing populations. People don't obligingly start having twice as many heart attacks, just so the new guys can pay their capital costs. Competition is what makes 70% of stents inserted yearly medically unnecessary.

Competition in insurance means that you offer lower prices by lemon dropping and cherry picking and denying care. Don't bother to point out that those things are supposed to be illegal--show me the enforcement mechanisms.

Medicare, though needing improvement, is vastly better than anything now on the table. I know that firsthand because my husband is lucky enough to be 67 and I am not. MY own household is a controlled experiment. Is yours?

Nothing will improve as long as costs keep going up. Anything that looks like it might be better is going to be overwhelmed by those costs. As long as subsidizing insurance companies increases their power, this will continue.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

53. Premiums affected by age? ONLY IN AMERICA!

In other countries, if there is a differential in pricing for insurance, it's based on your INCOME.

That's right, the rich pay more, and the poor pay less. I know that's heretical to a Republican or DLCer (ALMOST the same thing--the DLCer is usually more laissez-faire on social issues), but it's considered standard practice in humane countries.

[Egnever]

58. Whats your point

Its standard fair now in america only it comes with health status and prexisting conditions to boot!
How will what is coming out of the house not be a vast improvement on the present situation?

I hear on mars candy is free and everyone gets ponies how does that have jack shit to do with health reform in america?

On nearly every level you can mention this is a vast improvement over our present revolting state of afairs but you would rather have nonthing than improvement.

Got it... I find it incredibly foolish though.

[eridani]

65. No, it will not be an improvement if you are one of those affected by age discrimination

I'm not seeing any improvements that could not be achieved by pulling them out of the current abortion and passing them as separate legislation.

[Egnever]

66. Of course it is because you lose the added factor of health history

How is that not an improvement?

[eridani]

67. Because the age factor is their excuse tor excluding people with poor health histories

--as long as they are over 50.

[Egnever]

68. What?

I dont understand what you are talking about? You mean as health care stands now or under the bill proposed in the house?

[eridani]

72. I mean that the House bill makes the fucking you now get with age is legal n/t

[Egnever]

74. its already legal and the house bill puts restrictions on it.

Its not making it worse its making it better. I dont understand your beef.

[eridani]

80. Hey, let's put restrictions on gay-bashing!

Effective immediately, those who beat up bisexuals will only be allowed to beat up on half of the whole body.

The only appropriate law on age rating is to abolish it. No other civilized country with per capita health care costs about half of ours allows it. The entire developed world proves that this nonsense about having to charge older people more to control costs is bullshit.

[Egnever]

82. straw man

I do agree though that age based pricing seems somewhat unfair, however I am getting longer in the tooth I likely would have seen it differently when I was younger.

but regarding that

PREMIUM.—The monthly premium charged
7 to eligible individuals for coverage under the pro8
gram—
9 (A) may vary by age so long as the ratio
10 of the highest such premium to the lowest such
11 premium does not exceed the ratio of 2 to 1;

[eridani]

83. Fuck that. 1: 1--just like France and the Netherlands

Both of which have about half our per capita costs and no age rating. After the election, I'm looking into possible civil rights lawsuits in the event that this abortion of a bill gets passed.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

103. Let me put it in simple terms for you

The insurance industry will still be allowed to raise premiums on the basis of age.

They will ASSUME that all people over fifty have severe health problems, so without saying so, they will raise premiums on that age group.

If you don't believe me, look at the charts for buying individual insurance. The premiums jump sharply at ages 50, 55, and 60, which can be hell on someone who is unemployed because of age discrimination.

[Egnever]

113. Holy fuck read the bill you dont have a clue what you are talking about.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

121. Will the insurance companies be able to base premiums on age or not?

And if you don't understand why that's an important question, then you must be very young.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

102. Do you have any answers except DLC talking points?

Candy bars and ponies, fuck that.

This is a matter of life or death or financial ruin for a lot of people. You must be either very young or in cahoots with the insurance companies if you don't understand that.

[napi21]

40. Yes actually there are. There are several commissions

to be established. I hoinestly don't recall the names right now, but I know one is headed by the Sec of HHS, another by a new group comprised of some non-govt people, some gov't people, some from the medical community and some from the ins. community. Sorry I don't recall the names of the groups but they are detailed in the first 100 pages of the bill.

[eridani]

57. Calling it a commission doesn't give it any real power n/t

[geek tragedy]

92. You're talking to a die-hard PUMA.

If Obama's hands are on it, this one is going to hate it.

[Scarsdale Vibe]

20. The 125% refers to the short-term insurance for high-risk uninsured.

It has nothing to do with the mandates or the public option. And the Secretary of HHS has discretion to determine the premiums for the high-risk pool, the bill says that the premiums can't exceed 125% of comparable coverage, which is pretty amazing considering the only people who are going to join the high-risk pool are those that are already sick.

Basically, everything Kucinich says in those quotes is wrong, and leads one to the conclusion that he's either a disingenuous liar or an idiot.

[Egnever]

25. And ED sucked it up like it was mana from heaven!

Its revolting! Even the suposed good guys are trying to prevent us from getting reform. I cant decide if it is out of ignorance or petulance or just a desire for better ratings.

[dflprincess]

32. The aren't trying to prevent us from getting reform

they're trying to prevent us being scammed by a bill that does more for the insurance companies than it does for us.

Nothing in this bill guarantees better access to care - only that most of us will be forced to continue to purchase crap from the very crooks that have been taking our premium dollars and denying us care for as long as most of us can remember.

[Egnever]

33. Like what?

For fucks sake you people keep saying that but you cant back it up with anything.

Just give me one for instance.

[dflprincess]

42. Well, there's the section of the bill that requires most of us

to continue to purchase insurance from the private companies - the very people who have been taking our money and denying us care for years now.

Then there's the idea that a person whose income is over the subsidy limits can afford to see up to 11% of their income go to premiums. In addtion, they're also suppose to be able to afford up to $5,000 (single) or $10,000 (family) in out of pockets ("cost-sharing"). In additon you will still have to pay for any services not covered by this bill Iincidentals like vision and dental among the uncovered expenses). Both premiums and out of pocket expenses may go up every year with inflation - regardless of what your income does.

The bill makes sure you're "covered" it just doesn't make sure you'll actually be able to access care. Michael Moore addressed this issue in "Sicko".

Then there's the provision that "starts" to close the Medicare D donut hole. With this bill, it will take 10 years to close it completely. Congress created that mess all at once, it can close the damn hole at once too - they just choose not to.

The bill is a scam we've been so battered by "our" elected officials that there are a lot of people willing to thank them for selling us to the insurance companies.

And check out this post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6907491

[Egnever]

45. Thank you at least you have some idea of why you are upset

Which is more than i can say for most.

lets discuss shall we. First you are not forced to purchase from the private companies. Unless your employer is providing you with insurance through that private company. Even then at the next years insurance sign up you can opt out of the employer based plan and opt into the public option instead.

Second those are caps on total outlay alowed by law not the starting price. Also the bill in the house requires that they spend 85% of every dolar they take in on health care reimbursement and that every peny they spend less than that must be refunded to the people who pay the premiums. So cost control is in there. Also there is an end to all that screwing you have gotten as prexisting conditions no longer exist also you cant be dropped and there is a limit on out of pocket expenses where there is not one now.(somehow you think its worse to have a cap than not have one?) So they may have screwed you before but they wont be screwing you after this.

The medicare donut hole is a small bone but the idea was to bring this in under a trillion over ten years and make it revenue neutral. You cant do that and get everything all at once.

How do you figure they are selling us to the insurance companies?

Simply because its not called single payer? You would have had to pay for that as well you know. Not to mention in the process you wouldput millions of americans out of work the day the bill was signed.

This bill is not perfect and I am not pretending it is perfect would likely be single payer. But to deny the reality that is the republican party sitting there voting no on anything coming to the flor and add to that the dems that can be influenced by insurance companies or whatnot and what you see is likely the best we can do.

and when you actually look past all the screaming ninnies theres a lot of really good reform in there. Or do you think our chances will be better in 2010 after we lose some seats because this wasnt good enough?

You really want to keep putting up with the same BS we are putting up with now?

[inna]

61. sensible and interesting post actually,

thanks for taking time to respond instead of resorting to ad homs.

[eridani]

71. You put 500,000 insurance people out of work in return for gainiing 2.6 million

--new jobs. If you are OK with blowing a trillion dollars, just put it into Medicare and start in on fixing Medicare.

What's likely to cost us seats is if this passes and few people see anything other than their costs going up and their coverage going down. Insurance companies will still be dictating your doctor from their constantly changing preferred provider list. They will still deny claims, even though the percent may fall with the 85% requirement. And notice that naming some commission to look into this says exactly diddlysquat about enforcement.

Oh, goody. I'm forced to pay for insurance, but the CBO says that the public option will be more expensive than private insurance. Some "choice."

[Egnever]

75. The CBO also said that rates would be reduced on average

by 1k over what youwould be paying if we do nothing. So what if the public option is a little more initialy than the private ones in the exchange?

and gaining 2.6 million what?

[eridani]

79. 2.6 million new jobs (Or more likely, just private and public employers

--rehiring a lot of the people they had to lay off so that the rest could still get insurance.)

We don't have to do nothing. We can expand Medicare to voluntary enrolment. As long as insurance companies stay in control, they'll determine what average premiums are.

[dflprincess]

109. Please direct me to the section that says we will all have the option

to select the "public option" the first time open enrollment comes up because I can't find it. Again, they are selling us to the insurance companies by forcing most of us to stay with their crappy coverage and by not getting this up and running before 2013.

Closing the donut hole is not "doing everything at once". A lot of the seniors affected by this may not be around to see it corrected - especially if they can't afford their medications for part of every year. It was a stupid move in the first place and it remains a stupid move. If they're so worried about saving money they can pull out of Afghanistan rather than expecting seniors to continue to pay for it.

And finally, as I mentioned and you failed to address, the out of pocket expenses are too high. This bill does nothing to guarantee access to care. There will be a lot of people stuck paying for coverage who still can't afford to see a doctor.

This bill just reenforces the same BS we have now. We'd be better off to just let the current system collapse which it is bound to do if the government doesn't step in and force us to keep it going.

[Egnever]

111. its right here

(B) EMPLOYEE CHOICE.—Any employee
4 offered Exchange-participating health benefits
5 plans by the employer of such employee under
6 subparagraph (A) may choose coverage under
7 any such plan. That choice includes, with re8
spect to family coverage, coverage of the de9
pendents of such employee.

page 164

[dflprincess]

115. Thank you

but it appears the employer has to be offering "exchange-participating" benefits to their employees. If your employer offers a non-participating plan, you're stuck.

In the section (A) on page 163 it refers to the employer being "exchange eligible". Which employers are exchange eligible will depend on the size of the employer - with the the size increasing in subsequent year. And exchange isn't scheduled to go into operation until 2013. - Besides, the exchange will consist mainly of the same for profit crooks that are running things now.

Most of us are going to stuck with whatever crap is offered by the private companies through our employers for a long time and we're not going to have any choice in the matter.

[Egnever]

117. That would be something you need to take up with your employer no?

Also if other companies are Improving their health care because of what this bill does that will increase the pressure on yours to do something better as well don't you think?

Also you craptastic plan will also be forced to abide by the new rules so it wont be as craptastic as it is currently.

[dflprincess]

120. My employer is too large to be eligible for the exchange for sereral years

after it's up and running - assuming that ever happens. And, as long as I have employer provided insurance I will not be eligible for the public "option" (which really isn't an option if most people don't have the choice).

It is doubtful that companies will be improving their health insurance. As long as they aren't eligible to offer the public "option" to most of us, but only choices from the same old crooks the prices aren't going to change. And, the bill as its currently written allows out of pocket expenses and deductibles that are even higher than the craptastic insurance my employer is offering for next year.

Finally, one more time, more people may be "covered" with this bill but it doesn't mean more people will be able to afford health care.

[eridani]

29. And it's still pure crap. Disabled people get into Medicare early

Why not just let these high risk pool people in as well? High risk means that you get financially impoverished for crappy insurance that doesn't cover anything.

[Egnever]

35. Do you understand that medicare is going broke?

It is unsustainable on its current course? Do you get that? listen to the comptroler general it has the potential to bury us if we dont fix it. We cant just foist the worst cases on the tax payers and expect not to get burried under the mass of medical bills we have to add to that pool to diversify the risk.

[eridani]

39. So what? They are proposing giving $900 billion to useless parasites

Why not put that into Medicare instead?

[Egnever]

48. WTF are you talking about??

That 900 bill is going to start up the "high risk pool" that covers those not covered now and to create infrastructure to deliver services easier and cheaper not to the insurance industries.


Where are you getting this crap? rush limbaugh?

[eridani]

52. Yes, I know. And it's a stupid thing to do. Medicare already exists

Why would anyone sane want to waste money on an entirely new bureaucracy when we have one set up and ready to go? Give the money to Medicare and let them take the high risk people. If I am forced to buy private insurance, and get subsidies for that, you are saying that private insurance is not going to get that money?

[Egnever]

64. medicare is going bankrupt in a hury

The part of the 900 billion that is going to jump start the high risk pool is not funding forever its only to hold the system up untill the exchange and public option can be set into place.

the 900 billion would barely make a dent in medicares problems and adding more high risk to the already insanely high risk medicare pool would only increase its funding problems.

Medicare for all is not the answer. Its the easy answer but its not the most effective one. France has the highest rated health care system in the world at the moment and its strikingly similar to the bill proposed in the house.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/08/11/frances_model_healthcare_system/


An understanding of how France came to its healthcare system would be instructive in any renewed debate in the United States.

That's because the French share Americans' distaste for restrictions on patient choice and they insist on autonomous private practitioners rather than a British-style national health service, which the French dismiss as "socialized medicine." Virtually all physicians in France participate in the nation's public health insurance, Sécurité Sociale.

[eridani]

76. Bullshit on the France analogy

Their health care per capita is a little more than half what ours is because the government directly dictates what providers, hospitals, drug companies and insurers are allowed to charge. There is a single medical ID card in France, good all over the country no matter what, and you never file claims or get pre-authorization for anything. If anything like that was in this bill, I'd back it in a New York minute.

Or take the Netherlands. The government takes full responsibility for 5% of the sickest chronically ill patients. Half the health care budget comes from taxes on businesses. and the rest is from mandated private insurance, with the government setting price ranges and minimum benefits. Average cost is 100 euros/month with NO copays, NO deductibles, and NO age rating. I'd go for that also. Instead I get slammed with $450/month, with 30% deductible and quite a few co-pays.

Prove that $900 billion won't help Medicare. And given the way you and some other Dems talk about Medicare, is it any wonder that the Repukes are having a field day scaring seniors about how the Dems plan to pay for reform by gutting it? And given that you are bemoaning all the high risk and older people costing so much money, are the Repukes also right in accusing you of wanting death panels? The whole POINT of insurance and risk sharing is that the low risk pay for the high risk.

[Egnever]

77. ok well bullshit on your bullshit

Again there are cost caps in the house bill and there will be negotiations on pricing for providers the public option is set to 5% over what medicare pays I beleive so that whole first paragrapgh is thrown out the window,

"rest is from mandated private insurance, with the government setting price ranges and minimum benefits. Average cost is 100 euros/month with NO copays"

there are no copays for preventative health care in the house bill either under the exchange, and where do you get you get slammed for $450 per month from? You just pulling that number out of your butt?

As far as medicare well thats easy.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/rewrite/budget/fy2004/danger.html

But in 2002 the combined shortfall in Social Security and Medicare of nearly $18 trillion was about five times as large as today’s publicly held national debt. In other words, it would take an additional $18 trillion in today’s dollars to pay for the obligations of these systems as they are now constituted. This is roughly the equivalent of the total income Americans will earn over the next year and a half. Expressed yet another way, the combined shortfall in Social Security and Medicare was eight times the amount of total government spending in 2002.

[eridani]

81. I pulled the $450 out of the Kaiser Family Foundation online calculator

There are no copays for ANY kind of care in the Netherlands, preventive or otherwise. In France and the Netherlands, the government just tells providers what the rates will be, and the providers have to make their case if they want that changed. Change this, and Medicare is no longer a problem.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/press-releases/press-releases/future-budget-deficits-almost-entirely-due-to-rising-private-sector-health-care-costs/
If the U.S. can get private health care costs under control, federal budget deficits will not rise uncontrollably in the future, according to an updated analysis released today by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR).

CEPR's interactive Health Care Budget Deficit Calculator allows users to see that the bulk of projected U.S. budget deficits would disappear if the U.S. had the same per person health care costs as any of 30 other countries, all of which enjoy longer life expectancies than the U.S.


http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/hands-off-social-security/

Americans have lost more than $15 trillion in housing and stock wealth, with the great bulk of the losses being incurred by people age 45 and older. This is effectively a transfer to younger workers and those yet to enter the labor force, because they will be able to buy into the stock market and buy homes at close to half the price they would have paid just two years ago.

What do our elites, ranging from editorial boards to former Commerce secretary Pete Peterson, plan in response to this situation? At the same time that they are handing trillions of dollars to the bankers who wrecked the economy, they are proposing to cut Social Security in the name of fiscal responsibility.

This plan is even more outrageous because workers have already paid for their Social Security benefits. The Congressional Budget Office projects that Social Security, by drawing down its trust fund, will be able to pay benefits until the year 2049 with no changes whatsoever.

In effect, the cutters are proposing that the government default on the bonds held by the Social Security trust fund: U.S. government bonds that were purchased with money raised through the designated Social Security tax.

[adamuu]

88. finally! thank you.

I was beginning to think this entire board was cookoo

[eridani]

21. No. The useful parts need to be pulled and recycled as separate legislation n/t

[Egnever]

27. Yea ok

Which part exactly do you consider usefull and what part do you disagree with?

[eridani]

37. I discussed it extensively at the link below--

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/eridani/411

[Egnever]

49. Well I like that you made the effort but

posting a wish list and saying thats what should be done isnt serious consideration of the issue or knowledge of the bill its nitpicking and fantasyland stuff.

I think they should make everyone in america pay me $100 and if they dont fuck the health care bill!

See how that works?

How will this bill not improve your situation over where it is today?

[eridani]

51. So, the "realist" wants the whole bill and the "fantasist" just wants part of it?

[Egnever]

59. The realist wants improvement in our healthcare situation

The fantasist wants his pony or hes going home.

[eridani]

84. Actually the fantasist has given up on the pony, and is only hoping to avoid

--being force-fed a shit sandwich.

[Egnever]

118. If that were true you wouldnt be taking the stance you are

despite your denial of all the good things in this bill it is far from a shit sandwich. It could be better but just becase something could be better doesnt make it bad.

[eridani]

122. If you are between 55 and 64, it is a shit sandwich

I think pulling parts out and passing them separately would be a good idea.

[unkachuck]

44. "Capitulator-in-Chief Barack Obama..."

....yes, Obama is working hard at becoming a one-term president....

....the repugs will remind America next year how the big-government, freedom-robbing, liberty-stealing socialist Dems ruined their healthcare system and country by spending their hard-earned tax dollars on wall street bonus', big banking scams and healthcare mandate/taxes while out of work Americans and small businesses suffered and died....

....How will Dems respond? What will we have to show for trillions spent?....a puny and weak healthcare bill, a jobless recovery, thousands of foreclosures and endless repugs ads listing Dem campaign contributors....

....a weak bill is worse than no bill; if we can't do healthcare right and give the American people a system to be proud of then we shouldn't do healhcare at all!

[troubledamerican]

54. It's good to see the snarling Kucinich-haters

spewing openly. For me, it clarifies my urgent need to get the fuck out of this shithole wasteland that is going to receive the dark comeuppance it richly deserves.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

55. I swear, this country has gone mad

In so many respects, it's running counter to what is considered just plain common sense in so much of the rest of the world.

[inna]

62. +1.

Also, don't forget to make the correction for the fact that DU is a relatively 'enlightened' place compared to the rest of the country.

...

[geek tragedy]

99. Bon voyage! Quitters are expendable. nt

[troubledamerican]

104. Your handle will be self-fulfilling. Such foresight.

[geek tragedy]

107. Good luck escaping the country you hate so much.

Let us know when you find Utopia.

[anigbrowl]

56. This blog lacks Buddha-nature, as well as common sense.

As a Buddhist, I find this as obnoxious as I would some supposedly Christian blog claiming that Obama is an emissary of Satan, if I were Christian. Disagreement is perfectly reasonable, but the article referenced by the OP is really nothing more than shit-stirring.

[dysfunctional press]

69. the Democrats are going to get HAMMERED at the polls next year.

and the repugs know it.
they're LOVING this.

[eridani]

85. Maybe, maybe not

The Repukes, after all, are reaching higher and higher levels of batshit craziness, and that may outweigh the fallout from no visible benefits from the health care plan. But it is utterly stupid of Dems to count on that for political advantage.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

70. This crap is crap. n/t

[Inuca]

86. What a load of BS

"capitulator-in-chief"?!?!? The absolute purity kool-aid must be very tasty.

[blindpig]

90. That's the long and the short of it.

It's a flat out betrayal. Those who say that we should swallow this dreck, that it is the best that can be realistically expected, need to decide if that reality is acceptable. I think not.

[geek tragedy]

91. The Party of No has chapters dedicated to

Kucinichian purists and PUMAs I see.

[blindpig]

93. It's primary time all the time for you.

What a small world you live in.

[geek tragedy]

94. I'm over the primary. But when people who spread nothing

but hatred towards Obama during the primary disappear during the general election, only to return and again spread hatred against Obama, they deserved to be called on their hateful agenda.

The OP is a die-hard PUMA who left the Democratic party because Hillary lost.

[blindpig]

97. I doubt that 'hate' has much to do with it.

It is disappointment, and perhaps a little amazement from those, like myself, who knew that something like this hideous betrayal of the American people was coming down the pike but had no idea how bad it would be.

For the record, a Clinton plan would not have been that much different, the figurehead don't matter all that much, it is the power behind the throne that counts and the Money Party rules.

[geek tragedy]

98. 'Hideous betrayal?'

Grow up. Any legislation that could get through Congress with all of the landmines was going to have significant flaws. There's a reason why every other President and Congress has failed at this.



And when PUMAs come in here slinging their crap, they're going to get pushback.

[blindpig]

100. Then perhaps there is something very wrong with the system.

Doncha think?

Something so necessary, so beneficial to the people, yet it cannot be done? Why is that, why do we tolerate that?

[geek tragedy]

101. The joys of living in an imperfect democracy.

We get a-holes like Lieberman and Baucus and Lincoln.

The House bill, though FAR from ideal, will be an improvement. From there it'll have to be repaired every single year.

[blindpig]

105. Fat chance

Victory will be declared. Other issues will come to he fore.

Improvement? If a band-aid for a gunshot wound is 'improvement', I guess so.....

[geek tragedy]

106. Medicare and Medicaid get tweaked

and improved and expanded all the time. Medicaid only had 4 million enrollees when it started.

[Karmadillo]

108. Actually,

I do think Clinton would have been demonstrably better than Obama, but who knows how she would have done if she had won? Maybe we would have had the same bank bailout, continuation of the Forever War, and all the other features of Bush term #3. But all that aside, I'd go with "Kucinichian purist" if I understand your terminology correctly and if I had my druthers.

P.S. It's not really hate. I thought Obama would be a bad President and I think I've been right so far. If I continue to be critical of him, it's only because his actions justify an awful lot of criticism.

[geek tragedy]

110. You look for things to hate about him.

It's all you do--look for negative attack angles and post them.

The fact remains that you quit the party because your candidate lost the primary.

Nuttin but a dead-ender, sore loser PUMA.


As predictable--and credible--as Rush Limbaugh.

[Karmadillo]

114. Criticism

of Obama regarding his escalation in Afghanistan, his bailout of Wall Street (I think it was Stiglitz who called it theft), and his bizarro "leadership" on health care is hardly "looking for negative attack angles." If Bush were taking these steps, I doubt you would be quite so enthusiastic in your defense. Obama ran as a change candidate and has governed as a status quo president. Cheerlead all you want (as it seems to be the best you can do), but it doesn't change the facts.

[geek tragedy]

116. LMAO.

"his bailout of Wall Street."

Who was president in 2008 again?

But, of course, IAOF ("It's All Obama's Fault")

And, of course, the following mean NOTHING to you, because they don't enable to you to whine about Obama:

Last week, Mr. Obama signed defense-policy legislation that included an unrelated measure widening federal hate-crimes laws to cover sexual orientation and gender identification -- 12 years after it was first introduced. The same legislation also tightened the rules of admissible evidence for military commissions, an issue that consumed Congress in debate in 2007 but received almost no attention this go-round.

Other new measures signed into law since the administration took office, all of which kicked up controversy in past congresses, make it easier for women to sue for equal pay, set aside land in the West from development, give the government the power to regulate tobacco and raise tobacco taxes to expand health insurance for children. Congress and the White House, in the new defense-policy bill, also killed weapons programs that have survived earlier attempts at termination, among them, the F-22 fighter jet, the VH-71 presidential helicopter and the Army's Future Combat System. . . .The hate-crimes bill became law 11 years after the slayings of the men it is named after: Matthew Shepard, a 21-year-old gay man left for dead on a split-rail fence in Wyoming, and James Byrd, a black man dragged to death behind a pickup truck in Texas.

The legislation gives the Justice Department the power to investigate and prosecute an expanded definition of hate crimes and to pre-empt local police when Washington decides too little is being done about a crime. The legislation has long been controversial. In fact, it took 14 votes in Congress to pass it. Opponents believe the measure is an unwarranted expansion of federal power. They also say it creates a new category of violent crime that isn't necessary because the acts it addresses would be crimes regardless of motivation. Mr. Price, the congressman, called it an "unconstitutional thought-crimes law."

The new public-lands law signed this spring was also once hotly debated. Among other things, the new law declares 1.2 million acres of Wyoming range land off-limits to oil and natural-gas development. Some who opposed the measure see an essential problem: The U.S. Geological Survey, they note, has estimated the area holds large natural-gas and oil deposits, which could help the U.S. toward energy independence.

Regarding the new tobacco law, the Food and Drug Administration and allies in Congress have been seeking regulatory authority over tobacco since the early 1990s. Republicans have argued for just as long that a federal regulatory agency established to police medicine and food had no business regulating a legal product that is neither. Indeed, they argued, because the FDA couldn't create a tobacco product that is safe, regulatory authority could in the end make tobacco illegal.

The legislation expanding children's health insurance has been equally controversial. Mr. Bush vetoed the expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program twice in 2007. While there were supporters of the measure in both parties, who were concerned that too many children were without health insurance, opponents said the price tag was too big and would ultimately outstrip the revenue from tobacco taxes designed to pay for it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125712507804421903.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy

Like so many purists, you're not interested in policy. You're interested in finding excuses to complain.

That you went from supporting a center-right, card-carrying member of the DLC to a Kucinichian purity troll is doubly hilarious.

[Karmadillo]

119. Careful with all that post-partisan hate, GT. You'll scare your pony away.

nt

[dionysus]

131. kucinich is their 'beard'

[hfojvt]

129. too late to unrec

but the blurb does not live up to the title. If there is a summary that answers the title question, you did not include it in your clip.

Just a lot of Democrat bashing, and also red herrings.

Start with an Obama bash - he showed a "lack of principled leadership"

then bash some other handy targets - Rahm and Obama again (hint: next time vote Republican or Nader-equivalent) and the entire Democratic Party ("do WE have any leadership")

then throw out some red meat red herrings - Bush wars, bank bailout, Patriot act (way to drift off of the self-stated topic of health care reform, but is that really the topic, or is the topic "The Democratic Party sucks, so next time elect Republicans, either directly or by 3rd party support" Whoever is writing it cannot seem to stay on the topic of health care.

As for what Kucinich said, I don't think that's accurate either, as my recent foray seems to discover. Having recently renewed my insurance with the city and also being on the water board which has talked about getting insurance with the city too or with the county. It turns out that the water department is paying $320 a month for an individual, and the county is paying $450 a month and the city is paying $585 a month. The question becomes "what is the 'prevailing standard rate'?" In this example, if you average it, some people are gonna be able to increase rates (those on the lower end like the water department) and some are gonna have to lower rates (those on the higher end like the city).

Unlike what Kucinich said though, it is NOT "very easy to understand what that means". What it is though, is apparently very easy to take that part and use it to bash the Democratic party.