For the millionth time, THERE IS NO PUBLIC OPTION

[debbierlus]

I am reading through threads on DU, and people are STILL asserting that there will be a public option in the health care reform.

No, there is NOT.

If you want to support this corporate wet dream bill, be my guest. But, STOP parroting propaganda talking points that have ZERO basis in reality.

The entire point of a public option was to provide competition against insurance companies to drive down costs and provide an alternative choice to citizens. A REAL public option would have been open to all Americans, it would have rates tied to Medicare, and it would be implemented in a relatively short period of time after the bill becomes law. The legislation contains none of these mandates

The current reform labeled as a public option:

- only covers 2% of the population
- will LIKELY be administrated by the private insurance companies
- is estimated to be priced HIGHER then private insurance plans

The public option as now become an ORWELLIAN TERM.

It does not drive down costs. The rates are not tied to medicare. It is open to a very small percentage of the population.

That is NOT a public option. It is a SCAM. They needed to put something in the bill that they could LABEL a public option to appease the masses who want a real alternative to private health insurance parasites, but don't pay close enough attention to understand the political game.

If you want to support this bill, that is your choice.

A REAL PUBLIC OPTION DOES NOT EXIST.

(And, if you want links, read my journal, they are ALL in there. Link after link after link after link after link)

[debbierlus]

1. Unrecommending won't stop the truth from being true.

[emulatorloo]

11. "The House Public Plan: Yes, It's Worth It"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x494214

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/yes-the-public-plan-works

The House Public Plan: Yes, It's Worth It

Jacob S. Hacker is the Stanley B. Resor Professor of Political Science at Yale University, author of The Great Risk Shift: The New Economic Insecurity and the Decline of the American Dream, and an occasional contributor to The Treatment.

Diane Archer is the director of the Health Care Project at the Institute for America's Future and the founder and past president of the Medicare Rights Center.



How short memories are in Washington. A few weeks ago, when it looked possible that Nancy Pelosi could marshal enough Democratic support to create a “robust” public insurance option with rates tied to Medicare’s, everyone was talking about the big savings and reduced premiums that a series of estimates by the CBO showed this option could create. Then, the concern was that the public insurance plan would put private insurers out of business by using the government’s bargaining power to drive too hard a bargain with providers, creating an “un-level” playing field.

Now, however, the punditocracy is abuzz about the latest CBO estimates that show that the public plan eventually embraced by Pelosi--one that would negotiate rates with providers, rather than base them on Medicare’s--might actually charge higher premiums than the average private plan. No matter that the CBO estimates clearly state that the higher projected premiums reflect its expectation that the public plan will disproportionately enroll less healthy Americans--which might be seen as a virtue, since these are folks private insurance tends to serve most poorly. And no matter that a subsequent CBO letter to the House stated that even a public plan with negotiated rates would still place “downward pressure on the premiums of private plans.” Suddenly, in the commentariat, the public plan isn’t a fearsome predator. It’s a complacent kitten. Initially not worth having because it would be too strong, it’s now, according to critics, not worth having because it would be too weak.

In truth, both the initial fears and current dismissals are overblown. The CBO’s declining estimates of savings certainly make a strong case for having the public plan use modified Medicare rates, as we have long argued. It’s a shame the House will not be considering a bill that shows how substantially a public plan can contribute to freeing up federal dollars to help Americans afford coverage. But we should keep in mind that the prime argument for the public plan has never been about a particular payment formula. It has been that a public insurance plan is vital as an institutional check on private plans, its role evolving to reflect the emerging weaknesses (or strengths) of regulated private competition. Put simply, health reform is much more likely to succeed with a public health insurance option, even one with negotiated rates, than if private insurers are left to run the show.

Let us start with the obvious: No one knows for sure the exact role that the public option will play. CBO may be correct that the public plan will attract a less healthy pool of enrollees, and that risk-adjustment (paying plans with higher-cost patients more) will not fully compensate for this. And it is surely correct that the public plan will have lower administrative costs than private plans. (It should be emphasized that if the public plan has higher premiums primarily because it’s attracting less healthy enrollees, then it is still reducing average premiums and hence federal subsidies for premiums. That’s because average premiums would be even higher if the people enrolled in the public plan enrolled in private plans. That’s what the CBO’s more recent letter discussing “downward pressure” on private premiums implies.) But while the CBO estimates are rightly the authoritative source for Congress, they are by no means infallible. CBO has made clear that an unusually high level of uncertainty attaches to its analysis of the public plan.

snip//

The public plan is also critical to reform as a cost and quality benchmark, one that is particularly crucial if private premiums accelerate upwards. The insurance industry has threatened that premiums will skyrocket if an individual mandate is not tough enough. It may be an idle threat, but if a final reform bill ends up looking more like the Senate Finance bill than the House bill, it might not be. In most local markets, competition is likely to be anemic, and regulation of insurers inadequate. There will be little to prevent insurers from raising rates as they have threatened.

Having a public plan in place should also help keep down the rate of growth of health insurance premiums over time. Over the past twenty years, the public Medicare plan has had a substantially slower rate of growth than private insurance. The CBO report on the House bill states that private insurers are better at controlling utilization than a public plan would be. But, to date private insurers have failed to prove their value at cost control and demonstrated they have strong incentives to delay and deny needed care rather than drive efficiencies in the system.

snip//

In short, it’s no time to be despondent about the fate of the public insurance option. For sure, pegging rates to Medicare and obligating Medicare providers to accept these rates would be far preferable, and a public plan with negotiated rates may do less to keep the insurers honest and drive down costs. But it’s still immensely valuable to give Americans an out--another choice--to let the insurers feel the heat of not being the only game in town. The fierce and continuing opposition of the insurance industry suggests that they think that a public option will prove a serious counterweight in an increasingly consolidated private market. The overwrought pessimism of the pundit class should not aid them in their cause of protecting themselves from a public-spirited competitor.

[Go2Peace]

80. It possibly is a step but it is not a reform. It's like saying we are going to build warehouses for

the poor and homeless while doing nothing about the problems in the economy. Sure, we could get some people a roof over their head, which is needed, but we just move the problem underground where people still suffer; but by not dealing with the real problems what will things look like in 10 years?

I am getting ready to get the hell out of this country. It is apparent in so many ways that we did not "win", we are just getting another "respite" while the same whoring goes on in the back rooms.

[dysfunctional press]

140. "we are just getting another "respite" while the same whoring goes on in the back rooms..."

and after the democrats screw things up bad enough to get the electorate pissed enough at them, it gives the repugs a good chance to retake the house, the senate, and then the presidency in 2012.

and then the REAL screwing over can proceed.

i'm trying to figure a way out of this sinking ship of a nation myself- but i don't seem to have a lot of options...i'm 48, disabled, and not wealthy.

[PATRICK]

107. When in doubt get philosophical

I tend to agree that this step reform is the unfortunate norm of most modern progressive legislation. Sweeping simple reform like the ERA amendment and past comprehensive health care reform have not been successful. Nor are they this time for the simple reason we have NO such popular representation in government as of yet to unseat a corporate rule more deeply entrenched(and corpulently stupid and arrogant) than ever. we have multiple frustrations that are never seen as a whole or in context when we face the central absurdities of particular policies.

The question rightly posed, is this step- as Medicare was at its timely but equally difficult inception the real deal even as a step? Then one must remember the purpose- forever banned from American consciousness- was that a successful Medicare logically, inevitably would lead to Medicare for all and not the sickest portion of the pool. To that extent Medicare has STILL failed to instill the logical evolutionary step in reform. Yet the very fight for the NEXT step- which is what this one really is under the forest of absurd health industry dodges has breached the wall of dude and dumb stupidity and the Medicare for all cat is out of the bag.

One can step back and see the frustration of the blindness about Medicare, even Social Security, under constant and thankfully unimaginative assault by Know Nothing Republicanism is ending with a truncation of a great step forward denied by the brute force of simple corruption.

The simplest most impossible reform of all has always been to re-cut(as has been done before for a time) the big money ties to government representation. Forcing such crooks to enact anything but dishonest, backsliding, dishonest and incremental, totally resisted curbs on private profit for the progressive sake of civic interest just about sums up what we have here today- barring some miracle of
humane conversion or political populist wisdom changing the beasts we have let rule in Foggy Bottom into tame pets.

Take the step, expand the public anger and hunger. Claw our way ahead again. The slower it goes the more the populist pressure still seems to grow and BS shift to costlier more ineffective lies. Then, the minimal is that it will grow and entrench like Medicare. The danger- fully planned- is that the deadly cost in time and lives will be added to the constant wall of MSM distraction and silence. None of this elephantine, murderous progress will be enough in a more conscious age. This reform must threaten and be the lever to enact the basic reforms over democratic elections and societal access to information and discussion to stop "America" being as most its muted citizens are not- a nation of greedy, ignorant and incompetent clowns bent on murder and suicide for private profit inducing myths.

Awareness at our relatively powerless state is growing the cause. Brute power still exists to be defeated and it is overly entrenched still in all levels of top American society and government. That was seen as inevitable in 2006, 2008 and at least is no surprise now, as pants down exposed and ugly as the situation is. More than just universal health care it is a major battle for democracy where one can lie but not hide.

Now is not the time to accept or be satisfied or think to be silenced when the skinny turkey is stuffed with private insurance premiums and passed. But if there is something to be gained push like the other side, to shape it the best we can, take it and keep clawing forward as was not sufficiently done with Medicare in the first place.

[bjobotts]

154. The ONLY option coming from this bill is that it opens the door for gov, involvlment

[bjobotts]

155. That's it. Maybe sometime in the future it can be expanded but avails nothing now.

[bjobotts]

156. It was the blue dogs who sank a 'robust' PO.They were well paid for their efforts.

[bjobotts]

157. Without the PO there is no real reform only an exchange of benefits which all favor private ins

[bjobotts]

158. Once again the corporatocracy thru its army of lobbyists told us what we are "allowed" to have.

[bjobotts]

159. while the puppets dangling from their strings convince us how great this is.

[Le Taz Hot]

185. You couldn't make that one post?

That was annoying.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cleita]

2. K&R

My one rec doesn't help much through all the unrecs. Who are the DUers doing this anyway?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Cleita]

6. That's untrue.

She is for real health care reform and so am I.

[emulatorloo]

8. "What Social Security Teaches Us About Health Care"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8738233

[Cleita]

12. We aren't talking about Social Security but Medicare, a successful health

care program that exists already and should be extended to cover everyone, since everyone who has an income pays into it.

[emulatorloo]

16. The point is Social Security wasn't a "perfect" bill either, but it was expanded out

and improved.

Same apparently with medicare.

[Cleita]

20. If you believe that, I have a nice bridge to sell to you in San Francisco.

The insurance companies will never let that happen any more than they have right now. I do believe what Wendell Potter predicted, that this health care reform will prove to be so costly and yet ineffective, that years down the line Congress will be forced to go back to the drawing board and do it right like they should have the first time, but it won't happen because this plan can be improved upon.

[emulatorloo]

24. The same kind of resistance met Social Security and Medicare. Reagan and his ilk

equated medicare to communism. And yet now Republicans defend medicare.

[Cleita]

28. They have to or they would never be elected into office again.

Secretly they are working to privatize it all, not just the Medicare advantage programs, which is what this bill is without the competitive public option connected to Medicare.

[TicketyBoo]

146. Those Medicare "Advantage" Plans

were just a way to privatize Medicare, and they are abysmal.

Attractive rates up front to hook people, and then rate increases (arranged by separating the Part D premiums) and decreases in services, higher co-pays. Just awful, awful plans.

[zoff]

164. And doesn't the government PAY private insurers to run MA?

This subsidy, rather handout, is criminal.

[TicketyBoo]

179. The Medicare Part B

premium that (usually) comes out of a retiree's Social Security check goes directly to the private insurer's plan which the retiree has selected.

When I was being solicited to take one of these plans, I called my doctor's office to see what they thought of it. I found that different rules applied, and many people who had the "Advantage" plans were going back to traditional Medicare because of the differences. When I tried to talk with the insurance agent about the differences between the "Advantage" plan and Medicare, he said, "Forget everything you know about Medicare." That was enough to keep me from going there. I like Medicare, and I don't want to "forget everything" I know about it.

[Cleita]

208. Yes, my husband got caught up in one and it almost cost him his life

and $10,000 out of pocket to save his life. Medicare paid nothing because he had signed away his rights. Also, no doctors in my area will accept them any more because of their rejection of claims and poor reimbursement rate, not to mention slow payments, so they are for all intents and purposes useless for actual health care.

[pattmarty]

85. AND, how the fuck exactly, can they NOT defend it? Don't be an............

...........idiot, they have to defend it NOW. If they didn't there would be a lot less Republicans in the House & Senate than there are now. Everyfuckingbody loves Medicare. Just like in ALL other countries that have some type of "government" healthcare. You take away the peoples medical programs and you'd have a fucking revolt.

[Hello_Kitty]

64. Social Security has always been a government program, administered by the government.

Workers weren't forced to fund 401K plans in 1933.

[tridim]

9. She is against REAL HCR, and is for FANTASY HCR.

[Cleita]

14. Fantasy HCR like Medicare for everyone?

Gee I've been using Medicare for my health needs for five years now. I never knew it was a fantasy. Thanks for the information. Does that mean I really am blind and only imagined I had cataract surgery?

[abelenkpe]

Wow.

I've tried to remain objective reading all these posts. While it's fine to disagree with someone you really take it to a new level. Congratulations.

This bill is a half measure. It is weak compared to what could have been and what is really needed for citizens struggling with rising costs and unemployment. If you want to trumpet it as a success fine. But it isn't seen that way by all democrats and progressives. You must recognize that. By creating a bill that appears to benefit insurance companies it weakens democrats position in the upcoming elections by creating an opening for those to say it isn't 'real reform.' Plus, by putting down those that make those points you silence those who wish to expand it. How is that helpful?

A much better response to the OP would have been to acknowledge her concerns and tell her that it is an opening to continued reform that we can all fight for. Much less contentious and better for overall unity.

Your approach is like a parent yelling at and scolding a crying kid expecting that to solve the problem. It just makes them cry more and you look like an asshole.

[WestSeattle2]

205. Well said. Far too many on this board lack the intellectual

capacity to debate issues based on merit, and all too often resort to name calling, expletives, and deflection. It's a poor reflection on themselves, and also the public education system in this country.

[debbierlus]

10. Don't you dare say such a thing to me.

You are WAY out of line.

WAY WAY WAY out of line.

It is FAR more democratic to speak truth and fight for real reform then blindly support unethical, undemocratic policies.

I support democrats who act like democrats.

[tridim]

13. I can say whatever I want about you.

People who are fighting AGAINST the DEMOCRATIC HCR bill will be called out by me.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[debbierlus]

42. The insurance industry WROTE it - as did big pharm - a very relevant post from July

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/debbierlus/285

(note the original article from yahoo is expired but I cut and pasted the story into the post)....

Here is the specific comment relevant to your claim from a health industry insider....

"There is a way out of it — a bipartisan compromise_ but so far the liberals have found that to be anathema," said Robert Laszewski, a health care industry consultant.

Laszewski is pessimistic about the prospects for overhaul legislation this year. But he thinks insurers in particular look like they're in a win-win situation.

"The health insurance industry is in a fantastic position," he said. Democratic liberals overreached and can't move a bill over the objections of their moderate and conservative colleagues.

"Democrats can't blame the industry if this goes down," Laszewski added. "So the health insurance industry is happy to let this thing take its course."

Get it? Passes they win with millions upon millions of MANDATED target consumers. Lose they keep the status quo.

The insurance companies WROTE this legislation. Of course they want MORE, they are parasites. It doesn't mean that they won't make out like bandits with their newly implemented legislation.

[ooglymoogly]

144. The insurance industry is a very seasoned bunch when it comes to

bargaining; They did not just fall off the back of a turnip truck; They do not throw their biggest bargaining chip away at the start and then bargain down from half a loaf; They want the whole loaf and everybody elses loaf...they want it all. Giving them the farm is not enough, they always demand more and the suckers just give it to them if they squeal long enough and hold their breath in a temper tantrums and then it is handed to them for just a few farthings in backroom deals and bribes.

[bobbolink]

35. "I noticed you didn't counter ONE of the arguments I made about the public option"

Exactly!

It's the same RW play book.... attack the poster, rather than argue the ideas.

[placton]

106. debbie

you are right - but there is a clique (from DU, or perhaps DLC-type trolls) who don't want to hear the truth. sigh

[tblue]

22. Oh please. Take five. Are we obligated to love this bill?

I don't like it even though I'm in the class that would be eligible for the public option. I think the bill has been all but completely emasculated. The public option should be a) an option and b) for the entire public. It is not. But I want it to pass, if only as a foot in the door. And I perish the thought of the Republicans winning on this.

[tridim]

23. Of course not. Never said that.

Debbie has been against Democratic HCR since day one.

[bobbolink]

36. Yes, we are obligated to LOVE whatever tridim dictates that we love.

:shrug:

Long live democracy, eh?

[tridim]

39. Please point out where I said that.

[bobbolink]

43. You've repeated it several times.

[tridim]

44. Now you're just lying.

All I said was I will unrec people who are fighting against the Democratic bill on Democratic Underground.

Unrec is NOT censorship.

[bobbolink]

46. I've had it with your name-calling and your attacks.

What you are doing is just as ugly as the RW which you supposedly decry.

Stop it, and start acting like you are in the same party as those of us you want to attack.

NOW.

And, yes, you KNOW damned well that your unrecs ARE censorship... you admit as such in your first post.

You have a personal vendetta against the OP, and that is against the rules. Apologize to her for your behavior, and learn how to act in a democratic way.

[tridim]

52. Alert me. I certainly don't like her position, that should be obvious.

But it has nothing to do with vendettas, it's about her constant pessimism and defeatism against Democrats on Democratic Underground.

I'm not going to stop posting my opinions. Ever.

[bobbolink]

57. One look at all your posts on this thread SHOW your intentions very clearly.

It is a VENDETTA, against a certain person whose views you refuse to tolerate.

TOLERATION is a foundation of democracy.

Our whole system is built on the right of ANY person to express an opinion which YOU don't like.

That doesn't give you any right to attack them OR attack their views, or censor them.

THOSE are the methods of the RW.

[tridim]

58. It isn't a vendetta just because you claim it is.

This is a forum for Democrats, and I'm expressing my opinion. Sorry it doesn't jibe with yours.

[Better Believe It]

61. You think DU should be a very small tent where your minority views can be imposed on others.

That's not democratic at all.

[tridim]

62. This thread is about HCR and I want it to pass, yes.

That's the MAJORITY view on DU and in the general public.

[Better Believe It]

76. Do you think a majority favor a bailout of the insurance industry or do they favor

either Medicare for All or a strong public insurance option, neither of which are in this bill?

A little honesty now and less political spin please.

[maryf]

Hmmm

Is that why the OP's against this bill have received arguably the highest number of rec's ever??? and that means with all the potential unrecs??? (K&R by the way)

[bobbolink]

211. wrong place

.

[digidigido]

138. The point she is making is that you are following ideology rather then thinking

[eilen]

173. She has a right to vent her frustrations with the Democratic "majority"

Honestly, Why exactly did I vote for Obama in the primaries? He and Hillary Clinton are practically the same person. Except maybe she has bigger balls. I don't think things would look any different.

Hmm, we are still in Iraq, there are prisoners still in Guantanomo, none of the Bush Government Stasi spy on the American citizens shit has been rolled back. Habeas Corpus? Hell, we are still paying Blackwater/Xe

So now I could be mandated to pay a third of my income to health insurance companies? Fuck. It wasn't enough my grandchildren will be paying down TARP; now they get to be saddled with gargantuan college debt and unaffordable insurance. I wanted a Health Care Reform Bill, not a Health insurance Company Handout Bill.
Seems like the leadership of the US is still firmly in the watch pocket of the corporations.

Change?

And exactly how will mandating people to pay their remaining disposable income and then some on insurance help the economy?
I predict this will have the same effect on healthcare as subsidies did on college tuition. So long as there is profit to be made, big business will find a tighter vise in which to express it. I'm already short of breath.

Soon we will all be looking for some spare change.

[peacetalksforall]

195. Funny, you say pessimism and defeatism. I say it looks like the TRUTH.

From here.

[bobbolink]

33. No, you actually CAN'T. The rules apply to you, the same as to everyone else.

It's clear you don't believe that, but that is the FACT.

So, are you going to campaign to shut up Ed Schultz, Thom Hartmann, and many others?????

Are you wearing your censorship crown?

[pattmarty]

88. AND, you will be labeled for what you are, naive.

[regnaD kciN]

115. Damn straight...

It's called "free speech" -- maybe you've heard of it?

[Ken Burch]

153. Nothing will be added to it for decades.

It'll be too late to matter before any meaningful improvements are made. And it'll just get watered-down even more in the Senate.

It's never worth getting less than half of what matters.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

187. Do you work for the insurance lobby?

You are all over these threads, lobbing personal attacks and defending the status quo like you have an investment in it.

[The Gunslinger]

212. I support a Democratic HCR reform bill too.

Let me know when there is one.

[SandWalker1984]

136. I prefer to quote Abraham Lincoln.

To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.



I will not be silent........

[Kermitt Gribble]

190. Excellent quote. I'll have to remember that one. n/t

[emilyg]

152. Bravo.

[inna]

29. what a ridiculous lie.

stop slandering people already, it's disgusting.

[bobbolink]

37. I suggest alerting.

This is more than a personal attack.. it's a personal vendetta.

There is no room for this kind of behavior in a party which proclaims democracy.

[tridim]

45. So you're saying she's NOT against the Democratic HCR bill?

:eyes:

[bobbolink]

49. YOU are attacking with personal slams, and you know that is against the rules.

Your behavior is attrocious.

[tridim]

54. Unrecing a defeatist post is not against the rules.

[bobbolink]

59. I'm sure you're aware that your personal attacks ARE against the rules.

And using the unrec to censor views differing from yours IS censorship.

There have now been several posters who have pointed out your behavior, in this thread and previous ones.

[GreenArrow]

126. she's not against it because it's Democratic

she's against it because it's a piece of shit.

[SandWalker1984]

137. Amen!

"she's against it because it's a piece of shit."



Amen and amen!

[enlightenment]

47. It's not purely personal.

Tridem has been doing this in every single thread that dares to question the current direction of the legislation. Complete with no substance and lots of profanity. I've been amazed at how much they're getting away with, frankly, but damn it's getting boring. Reminds me of a toddler's temper tantrum.

[bobbolink]

50. Thank you. Have you alerted?

We will keep getting what we tolerate.

This behavior is attrocious and very sad.

[tridim]

56. Got any proof?

Unrecing a post is not against the DU rules.

[freddie mertz]

166. I rec'd too. And we are winning here.

My guess is that many of the naysayers can be found over at GDP.

[Skidmore]

3. At this point we need a foundaton on which to build.

Get a law out there and build on it.

[tabatha]

15. Krugman, Dean and Grayson say it should be passed.

They speak for me.

[emulatorloo]

18. When I mentioned that yesteday I was called "stupid" and a "kool-aide drinker"

But I added Weiner to the list, maybe that's what my problem was, LOL.

[Cant trust em]

66. Well we've got to throw someone under the bus.

Why not our previous heroes?

[Go2Peace]

81. Only because they see no other alternative. Not because it is good legislation, but because by

throwing money some lives will be saved. But don't think for a moment in private they are not seriously concerned how this will turn out. It's a HUGE gamble and I am not sure we have taken a good look at the odds on the table.

[dflprincess]

118. I was listening to a discussion on the local progressive talk station this evening

where the consensus was that this bill should not be passed.

The guest (whose name I never caught) was saying that the reason the bill delays some provisions until 2013 is because they all do know how bad it is and part of the concern was to get past the 2012 election though apparently there is concern about what will happen in 2014 and 2016.

[DutchLiberal]

99. Grayson is a partisan tool.

He's only able to repeat the same prepared, lazy talking points every time and he protects corporatist Blue Dogs.

[joeycola]

111. Dean is now a shrill of the biodrug compainies. Grayson talks

to shallow.

[regnaD kciN]

117. Great...our new villains: Dean and Grayson...

:eyes:

While you're at it, why don't you blast Ted Kennedy as a "corporate tool?"

[Go2Peace]

131. They must have been trying to use sarcasm?

It's one thing to argue the merits and strength (or weakness) of the bill but how can anyone who supports Health care reform call either of these guys, who have been fighting hard and on the right side, tools?

[Go2Peace]

130. What???? Are you a freeper in disguise?????

If you really think Dean is on the dark side you are on the wrong team.

[BREMPRO]

141. not to mention Weiner- who fought passionately for the public option

this is a positive step.

[joeycola]

110. Building on greeding insurance compainies is NOT a sound foundation!!

[DJ13]

4. Thank you

Finally some sanity here.

Expect the UN's to be merciless.

[AndyA]

7. And the other options are?

1. Do nothing.

2. Wait another decade plus and try again.

3. Go with the GOP bill.

4. Don't get sick.

Which of those do you think is best for the people who need health care NOW? Some don't have that much time to wait.

No, this bill is not the best.

Yes, it has stipulations that I find objectionable.

It will have to be worked on going forward to make it better. They need to get rid of the mandate and penalties. They need to expand the public option. But it's better than nothing, and if it doesn't happen now, when?

[tabatha]

17. +1

[Sukie]

25. Agree. Build upon the HCR, as we see the things that need

improving, but get the bill out now for those that can't wait. Agreeing with this poster would be like going with the repub plan, and I adamantly believe that it would only serve to completely fail to deliver any form of health care reform to our country.

[debbierlus]

26. The alternative is to stop accepting utter crap and actually fight for real reform.

It boggles the mind.

This is actually really interesting. All I did in the original post was point out that there was no real public option.

And, there isn't. In fact, I didn't even tell people NOT to support it. Just stop pretending there is a public option. For months and months and months and months on DU, everyone was united that we didn't want any legislation that did not provide real reform. A real public option was supposedly the threshhold for support.

If this is the legislation you want to support, go for it. Just don't pretend it is something that it is not.

[Fire1]

91. Then how exactly do you suggest we refer to this current

proposed legislation that is the closest thing this country has ever had to "real reform?"

[Stinky The Clown]

31. One option you forgot ......

.... accept whatever shit sandwich they throw at you and say it is caviar.

[bobbolink]

41. .

:applause:

[Individualist]

60. +1

:thumbsup:

[mike_c]

71. +1....

Yep.

The emperor is STILL nekkid.

[bread_and_roses]

168. Yep. Take our scraps and bones and be thankful, thankful! (n/t)

[phasma ex machina]

193. +1 nt

[inna]

32. abort this crap and start over with Universal Heath Care.

It's way past time to join the rest of the civilized world on this.

[dana_b]

70. yep

we keep hearing about how there aren't the votes for it, but I think those people really under estimate the American public. I think we are ready for it. The politicians would have the fight of their (and our) lives at hand but if we supported them, it could work.

[kath]

142. +10

[Go2Peace]

82. True, it is a "lesser evil" bill". There is a risk though, that it will actually be bad for us in

the longer term. By failing to be what it was "promised" to be.

They should act smarter. Go out big and change the name. Stop calling it Health care reform, call it "Expansion of coverage" to those who need it or something else. They really should make it clear what this really is, otherwise it is likely to come back and bite them when the system again fails in 5 years. And how difficult will it be to re-open in the future for seriously needed reform?

[Fire1]

89. +10. n/t

[dflprincess]

116. We might have been better off if they had done nothing

as it stands it looks like the only "reform" we'll see is the forced transfer of our money to the insurance companies.

The "system" as it currently exists will collapse if something isn't done and if it collapsed, Congress might have had to step in by extending Medicare. Instead, they chose to go with another corporate bail out.

This bill allows for high deductibles so, while you're being "mandated" to pay premiums to the insurance companies, you'll also be looking at out of pocket expenses that are so high you still won't be able to access care.

[Andronex]

161. Here is a clue...

When you are in a hole, you stop digging!

[The Gunslinger]

214. or 5. Do it right.

and keep fighting until it is done right. Forced health care insurance is not reform. It will not keep prices down. I can barley afford my company's health care plan now..............and certainly not the $1600 deductible it will cost before it kicks in. And now I have to accept it. I don't have the "option" of choosing the government "option". No thanks

[HughMoran]

30. This "no public option" will save me $25,000/yr

So, it may not be for everybody, but those of us working in small companies see this as a gift from god.

[Ikonoklast]

40. Yeah, the crappy "No Public Option" is my only choice, and can't happen soon enough.

But let's have nothing instead, and then claim a moral victory while people are dying on a daily basis.

Just more Obama hate, and therefore hate for this bill from the OP.


I'll trust Dr. Dean and Paul Krugman over some anonymous poster with an agenda.

[HughMoran]

51. It's bad enough the Republicans and insurance criminals are against this

But the outrage by just a few (VERY LOUD!!!!) DUers because this bill (that we've been fighting for for 60 years) isn't "everything to everybody" is very stressful to me. I'll be in the poor house if this doesn't pass :(

[Go2Peace]

83. Not true, Republicans are against anything. But insurance is no longer fighting this

they are only fighting at this point so that a real option does not end back on the table. They are (mostly) happy. Don't fool yourselves.

[regnaD kciN]

119. "Claim a moral victory" and then get back to doing what we REALLY enjoy...

...bitching and moaning about the Republican congress and administration. 'Cause, that's what we'll have soon enough, if the "purer-than-thou" brigade gets their way.

[Go2Peace]

133. Yes, dogs that we are we should beg for scraps. Imagine if Europeans took this approach?

They might have decent healthcare and a social net /sarcasm

[GreenArrow]

128. "I'll trust Dr. Dean and Paul Krugman...

over some anonymous poster with an agenda."

Like Dean and Krugman don't have agendas.

[Ikonoklast]

186. But they have a public track record, and history of opinions.

I go with that.

[tridim]

48. Debbie apparently doesn't care about real people like us.

She'd rather fight against HCR for some reason.

[HughMoran]

55. Yes, Debbie doesn't care about people like us

She's a bit of a rageaholic - it's not good for my BP reading these screeds :(

[Cant trust em]

65. She has become my new symbol for the DU that I just can't be a part of

I knew this when she went on a pout about my Seinfeld post in the lounge.

I think it's time to bring out the ignore feature.

[debbierlus]

68. Do tell....How will that work?

[HughMoran]

74. Currently $40k/year at small company

Doing the calculations here -> http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx , it says I will have to pay about $15k.

[slipslidingaway]

104. Does your current policy pay 70% of expenses, that is the reference policy...

the calculator is based upon, which means that the premium might be lower, but the out of pocket expenses will most likely be higher.

Are you comparing apples to apples???

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6916987&mesg_id=6916987


http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10691

"The enclosed table focuses on enrollees who purchase a “reference” plan (the premiums for
which equal the average of the three lowest-cost “basic” plans, as defined in the bill), because
federal subsidies would be tied to that average. Such a plan would have an actuarial value of
70 percent, which represents the average share of costs for covered benefits that would be paid
by the plan. Although premiums under H.R. 3962 would vary by geographic area to reflect
differences in average spending for health care and would also vary by age, the table shows the
approximate national average for that lower-cost reference plan—about $5,300 for single
policies and about $15,000 for family policies in 2016. Enrollees could purchase a more
expensive plan or more extensive coverage for an additional, unsubsidized premium—and CBO
anticipates that many enrollees would do that, so the average premiums actually paid in the
exchanges would be higher (although average cost-sharing amounts could be lower than those
shown in the table)..."

[maryf]

102. but nothing really happens until 2013 nt

[HughMoran]

105. Not true

I (and anybody else in my situation) is eligible to extend Cobra immediately if my company doesn't offer healthcare until the exchanges are set up. There was a good post showing the 14 things that kick in immediately, you should go to the House committee page that is handling this bill and look for yourself. The page is very well done and there's tons of available info written in plain English.

[bread_and_roses]

169. If you are among the tiny % who will benefit, I'm glad for you, but that does not make it a good

Bill. I do volunteer work for a community organization that has been working on expanding health care for 20+ years. We've had some success at the State level. Bills passed, coverage expanded for certain groups. A few years ago someone at the organization did a count, from the beginning. How many in the State were uncovered when they started, and how many after these successes? Well, guess what? The #s were essentially the same. Years and years of work, organizing, lobbying, moving Bills through the Stae Legisltare - and we were just playing musical chairs.

[HereSince1628]

172. Can you explain that?

As someone who doesn't gross that much money annually I'm clearly not dealing with issues such as your's, I don't understand what is in the bill that will save you that much.

[Coyote_Bandit]

34. +1

We have a sitting Dem President with Dem majorities in both the House and Senate. There are only two possible explanations fore why Dem officeholders cannot deliver meaningful healthcare reform: (1) they lack the committment to doing so and/or (2) they lack the political skill to accomplish such an end.

Nothing about that recommends the sorry fucking bastards for re-election. Throw them all out on their selfish lazy ignorant butts.

[juno jones]

112. They are bought and sold.

The hand wringing is merely a theatrical device.

[Coyote_Bandit]

177. You're right

Which gets back to the point that the lazy sack of shit lying bastards lack the commitment to enacting menaingful healthcare reform. That is not where their priorities lie. Fuck 'em.

[Shagbark Hickory]

38. Try to stay positive. It's far from universal healthcare but if people like

Tony Wiener and Bernie Saunders and Alan Grayson say it's OK then it's probably better than nothing.

[enlightenment]

53. Better than nothing.

The newest plank of the Democratic party platform. Works well with some of the other new ones:

As long as the Republicans agree . . .

It will help a few people . . .

. . . and the ever popular

Eventually.

[roamer65]

63. It's Romneycare.

[emulatorloo]

69. I thought it was Pelosicare

Can't keep up with all the bullshit names for it, I guess.

[dana_b]

67. most people who aren't as informed as

the people here on DU just won't get that - until it's too late. People will want to sign up for the "public option" and realize that either they aren't able to, it's too expensive or they'll be pissed that it's not really government run.

[HughMoran]

92. Only an idiot who hasn't been paying attention would think they qualify for the PO

C'mon - Obama and Congress have stated this over and over again - let's not be stupid here.

[Karmadillo]

72. Change we can pretend has happened.

nt

[kath]

145. Ding ding ding ding! It is TOTALLY "change we can pretend has happened".

[mike_c]

73. agreed, 100 percent....

The "I told you so"s are gonna suck when reality sets in and all the folks cheering the home team figure out what a Pyrrhic victory they've won.

[johnaries]

75. Sorry, but YOU'RE WRONG.

First of all, it is open to anyone who qualifies for the Exchange - which is anyone who doesn't get insurance from their employer and doesnn't qualify for Medicare or Medicaid.

Also, even though they will negotiate prices like private plans the administrative costs will be much lower.

As I have stated time and again, the CBO's estimates of people who participate and higher premiums are based on a false assumption: that the "most sick" will be attracted to the PO. Since all private plans are mandated to accept all applicants in order to participate, there is no reason to make this assumption. Therefore there is no reason for the private plans to be cheaper except for competition.

The bill only leaves open the option for private administration. Considering the fact that privately administrated plans have not worked out well for Medicare, I sincerely doubt it would be "likely".

Yes, Virginia, there IS a Public Option.

[berni_mccoy]

78. +100, but don't waste your time

Some people have nothing better to do than to complain and whine while doing nothing productive.

[lumberjack_jeff]

86. +1 more

[HughMoran]

90. She repeatedly calls her lie "the truth"

I hate the bullshit rhetoric spewed by this one. Imagine that there are over 100 people here who like being lied to. Thankfully, there are enough that don't have her on ignore to keep her thread down where it belongs.

[Fire1]

93. Sounds like a public option to me! n/t

[patrice]

96. Can employers choose not to provide a plan?

Say InsCo offers whatever qualified plans, but an employer either wants it cheaper or wants a plan that includes things that InsCo isn't offering, such as legitimate Preventative or Complementary Medical Services, can the employer reject the qualified plans that InsCo is offering and, thus, release its employees to the Exchange?

[Raineyb]

196. Open to anyone who qualifies is not open to everyone

Did we change the definition of public to mean a select few? This is not even a true public option.

[change_notfinetuning]

77. LBJ twisted arms to do the right thing. Rahmbama twists arms just so they

can say they passed something, anything, regardless of how worthless in fact, and Orwellian in name. I'd rather they were honest and said that this is bullshit, but the best we can do with the maroons in Congress.

I am surprised by those who seemed to be on the right side - like Grayson and Wiener - who think this is better than nothing, assuming that it will be improved upon in the future. I'm not doubting their sincerity, just the error of their thinking. This was the one chance we had. It took a near depression and a young, charismatic black man to attract scared independents and non-traditional voters that, combined with traditional Democratic voters, resulted in these majorities in Congress. Any incrementalism in the future will reflect the backlash and will be for the worse.

I still believe the problem is not Obama, but that there aren't more Obamas in Washington, although he is to blame for his horrendous appointments and needs to jettison most of them. That being said, President Obama may as well give the speech, today, that McCain gave during the campaign. "We came to Washington to change it, and it changed us." In spite of his good heart, it changed him faster than you could say "Change we can forget about!"

[2Design]

79. congress sucks n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

84. Cheer up emo kid, you're makeup is running. n/t

[kid a]

94. bwahahaha +1

[colsohlibgal]

87. Really Shading The Truth

Very, very few of us will have any kind of option, so it is in no way truth in advertising. For most of us our premiums and deductible amounts will keep going up. Oh, and I just learned that my out of pocket maximum is no longer exactly that either, my office co pays no longer count toward it so how can they still label it like this?

This will be better than nothing if they can keep some of the restrictions on the scum sucking leeches that bleed us dry every chance they get.

However, as punishment for bankrupting and killing us for obscene profit the US will provide then with even more business - when there is really no reason to have them involved in the first place, they are totally superfluous.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

95. But, remember, all the payoffs "our" side got will help them get re-elected.

So they can sell us out again in comfort.

[Avalux]

97. I might consider your opinion if your history wasn't so pocked with negative posts.

I can count on one hand the posts you've made positive towards Obama's agenda. So it is any wonder I don't find you credible?

[HughMoran]

101. Exactly

She's 100% O'Bashfest - it's no wonder so many people can't take her threads seriously.

[regnaD kciN]

114. It reminds me a bit of the hillaryis44.com gang...

...who claimed to be Democrats but were, in fact, merely rabidly anti-Obama Perotistas seeking to encourage Clinton-supporters to cross over and vote Republican in the general.

:eyes:

[debbierlus]

125. Reality as negativity.

[Avalux]

127. In your world. n/t

[DutchLiberal]

98. It's good to see that some people haven't stopped thinking...

Does anybody really think that "the owners of this country" (George Carlin) would allow real health care reform? Besides, they already own Obama, so what do you expect?

[HughMoran]

100. Lie

But that's not unusual for you - mostly everything you post is.

[maryf]

129. Ad hominem attack, nt

[ProSense]

103. This is simply not accurate

Sec. 302. Exchange-eligible individuals and employers

more

[slipslidingaway]

108. Option advocates offer no information on who will create and run the “options”

Still no answer as to the language in the bill on how these options will be created.

:shrug:

http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/11/01/what-role-insurance-companie/

"...On October 27, I attempted to induce Jason Rosenbaum, a blogger for HCAN, to explain how the Democrats’ “option” would be implemented. I posted a question to Rosenbaum on an article he wrote for the Firedoglake Website in which he called Sen. Reid’s announcement the previous day (that the Senate version of the “reform” bill would contain an “option”) “a huge victory.” My question, which is presented in an appendix to this post, laid out my best guess as to how an “option” plan could come into existence plus several questions about aspects of my scenario. Rosenbaum declined to discuss my question. “Sorry Kip, not interested,” was the extent of his reply....

Thanks in large part to the bait-and-switch tactic employed by the leaders of the “public option” movement, the high probability that the “option” will be a balkanized program created and run by insurance companies is not obvious to the public. The constant description of the “option” as “like Medicare” and “available to all Americans” has created widespread confusion about every aspect of the “option,” including how big it will be, whether it will be uniform like Medicare or balkanized into dozens or hundreds of local programs, and who will create it. Given this confusion, I definitely understand why some people thought Byrne’s article overstated the role insurance companies will play in the “option.” But that doesn’t excuse them. The movement for universal health insurance does not need ditto-heads. We need well informed people capable of playing a role in improving, not diminishing, public understanding of the Democrats’ “reform” legislation.

I want to stress that the issue of whether the Democrats’ tiny “option” is run by public employees or private corporations is secondary to the question of whether the “option” will work as advertised, in particular, whether it will be big enough, efficient enough, and sufficiently immune to adverse selection to seize substantial market share from the insurance industry and force its premiums down. The important issue is the impact the small size of the Democrats’ option will have on its ability to keep its administrative costs and provider reimbursement rates down. The use of private firms to create the numerous “community insurance option” programs will probably add to the total administrative cost of setting up the “option” program, but those additional costs pale in comparison to the higher administrative costs created by the need to build the “option” program on a retail basis, that is, market by market, rather than on a wholesale basis..."

[ProSense]

113. Not true

Establishment and administration of a public health insurance option as an Exchange‐qualified health benefits plan. Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop a public health insurance option to be offered starting in 2013 as a plan choice within the Health Insurance Exchange.

[slipslidingaway]

120. Where are the details as to how these options will be set up...

devil is in the details.

:shrug:


"...My question for HCAN blogger Jason Rosenbaum, posted October 27, 2009 on Firedoglake’s blog:

Could you walk us through the process by which the Department of Health and Human Services will set up an “option” plan in any given market, say Boston, under the Senate health bill, HR 3200, or HCAN’s blueprint? Here’s the scenario I believe will occur under both the Senate HELP bill and HR 3200 assuming the “option” actually survives.

* Beginning in 2013, the Secretary of HHS contracts with a “contracting administrator,” that is, a corporation such as Blue Cross Blue Shield, to set up an “option” plan in Boston. The Secretary also loans Blue Cross several hundred million dollars to carry out all the tasks necessary to set up an “option” plan.

* Blue Cross then hires 80-100 people to create an insurance company to serve Boston. These people do the things you’d expect people to do to create a new insurance company, including making cold calls on clinics and hospitals to see if they’d be interested in accepting “option”-insured patients at Medicare rates plus 5% (or about 15% below the insurance industry average).

Question: Do you anticipate that Blue Cross will at some point ask clinics and hospitals to sign contracts with Blue Cross indicating their commitment to be part of the Boston “option” network? Or will contracts be unnecessary?

* After six months of making numerous cold calls, Blue Cross succeeds somehow in inducing a sufficient number of clinics and hospitals to agree to accept “option” enrollees. Now Blue Cross incorporates the Boston Public Option Plan (BPOP) and hires 80 people to staff BPOP.

Question: Does Blue Cross exit the scene now, or do you anticipate Blue Cross will continue to serve as an advisor to BPOP? Obviously, Blue Cross, if it does retire from the project, has to leave in place a contract with BPOP that at minimum ensures BPOP will repay the loan that Blue Cross got from the Secretary of HHS.

* BPOP/Blue Cross now begins advertising heavily and making cold calls on employers seeking to induce tens of thousands of Boston residents to pay their premiums to BPOP in the event that these people are eligible to shop in the MA exchange.

Question: How many people will have to enroll in BPOP in order for BPOP to have sufficient leverage over local providers to get them to accept reimbursement rates even with or below the rates paid by Aetna et al. in the Boston area? I’m not looking for precision, just some evidence that you or someone you know in the “option” movement has thought about this.

* Let’s assume BPOP solves the chicken-and-egg problem of trying to assemble a critical mass of providers and enrollees roughly simultaneously. BPOP formally opens for business. BPOP makes enough money within the next 8 to 9 years that it can repay to Blue Cross the loan it got from the Sec or HHS. Blue Cross in turn repays HHS.

Is this the process you envision?"

[abelenkpe]

189. 2013?

If democrats don't win the next election doesn't that give plenty of time for the next administration to put a stop to that?

[theFrankFactor]

109. I Agree and I Support You - I Happen to Be a Liberal First, a Democrat... Last

The state of the Democratic party is embarrassing. What was an opportunity to shine has become the exposing of a corporatist, self-serving Democratic party embarrassment.

To the OP: drop by my site. We're collecting real Liberals.

[dflprincess]

122. It's like Bill Maher said on Letterman the other night

"The Democrats moved right, the Republicans moved to the insane asylum and we have no Progressive party in the U.S."

[slay]

151. Preach it Frank - you know, like the Democrats should be doing

Yet no, they are too busy drowning in their own corporate bullshit. I never fully fell for that whole "change we can believe in" stuff but it would have been nice to have at least headed firmly in that direction. Bah. I hope many of us can stand strong, have principles and continue to call bullshit on this crap.

[juno jones]

121. K&R!

It's been this way since the 80's and I guess there is no will for REAL change, even tho the hoi polloi who the MSM claim hate it would welcome it. That's what teabagging is about, disguising the real sentiments of the working class. Why else did you think they engineered that one? REAL working class people have no time to protest. They just edge over to the workplace political junkie and ask for reassurance that there might be medicare for all or a workable REAL 'public option'.

The working class wants UHC. But since when did we give a shit about the needs of these people whose labor at the expense of their very lives, health, and bodies has made others rich and paved the way to the 'American Dream' for so many entrepeneurs? We didn't end child labor by saying, "OK, they can be in the coal mine for 7 hours instead of 8, sorry but we have to compromise and that's all we can get". This is an issue of similar importance to real labor and working class and we are about to get BOHICA.

I remember the welfare reforms of the 90's. I had a lot of friends who were hurt by that. I could well be wrong, It wouldn't be the first time. But I think the law of unintended consequences will grind fine on this one.

[kath]

209. Great post!

[juno jones]

213. Thanks :) n/t

[many a good man]

123. A public option or a "real" public option?

First you state there is no public option. Then you describe the characteristics of the public option and conclude it is not a "real" public option.

There is a public option; it is true. That public option does not meet your definition of a real public option is also true. That makes you half right.

[regnaD kciN]

124. For the millionth-and-one time, you're full of crap...

...as the quotes ProSense provided from the bill make abundantly clear.

[mullard12ax7]

132. K&R for every person who doesn't buy the propaganda

The public option is the only option, a corporate bill that also throws women's health out the window is a load of crap, a SCAM.

[John Q. Citizen]

134. debbierlus, Thanks for fighting for Democratic principles. This so called reform is

based soundly on Republican principles, and all these so called "Democrats" are perfectly willing to sacrifice a woman's right to control her own body so they can win a bill based on Republican principles.

They have been led down the primrose path and they haven't a clue.

[Ian David]

135. The Cake Is A Lie! n/t

[SandWalker1984]

139. Everyone that thinks this bill is great should read Paul Craig Roberts' latest

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23908.htm

The Evil Empire

By Paul Craig Roberts

November 06, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- -The US government is now so totally under the thumbs of organized interest groups that “our” government can no longer respond to the concerns of the American people who elect the president and the members of the House and Senate. Voters will vent their frustrations over their impotence on the president, which implies a future of one-term presidents. Soon our presidents will be as ineffective as Roman emperors in the final days of that empire.

Obama is already set on the course to a one-term presidency. He promised change, but has delivered none. His health care bill is held hostage by the private insurance companies seeking greater profits. The most likely outcome will be cuts in Medicare and Medicaid in order to help fund wars that enrich the military/security complex and the many companies created by privatizing services that the military once provided for itself at far lower costs. It would be interesting to know the percentage of the $700+ billion “defense” spending that goes to private companies. In American “capitalism,” an amazing amount of taxpayers’ earnings go to private firms via the government. Yet, Republicans scream about “socializing” health care.

Republicans and Democrats saw opportunities to create new sources of campaign contributions by privatizing as many military functions as possible. There are now a large number of private companies that have never made a dollar in the market, feeding instead at the public trough that drains taxpayers of dollars while loading Americans with debt service obligations.

Obama inherited an excellent opportunity to bring US soldiers home from the Bush regime’s illegal wars of aggression. In its final days, the Bush regime realized that it could “win” in Iraq by putting the Sunni insurgents on the US military payroll. Once Bush had 80,000 insurgents collecting US military pay, violence, although still high, dropped in half. All Obama had to do was to declare victory and bring our boys home,
thanking Bush for winning the war. It would have shut up the Republicans.

But this sensible course would have impaired the profits and share prices of those firms that comprise the military/security complex. So instead of doing what Obama said he would do and what the voters elected him to do, Obama restarted the war in Afghanistan and launched a new one in Pakistan. Soon Obama was echoing Bush and Cheney’s threats to attack Iran.

In place of health care for Americans, there will be more profits for private insurance companies.

In place of peace there will be more war.

Voters are already recognizing the writing on the wall and are falling away from Obama and the Democrats. Independents who gave Obama his comfortable victory have now swung against him, recently electing Republican governors in New Jersey and Virginia to succeed Democrats. This is a protest vote, not a confidence vote in Republicans.

Obama’s credibility is shot. And so is Congress’s, assuming it ever had any. The US House of Representatives has just voted to show the entire world that the US House of Representatives is nothing but the servile, venal, puppet of the Israel Lobby. The House of Representatives of the American “superpower” did the bidding of its master, AIPAC, and voted 344 to 36 to condemn the Goldstone Report.

In case you don’t know, the Goldstone Report is the Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict. The “Gaza Conflict” is the Israeli military attack on the Gaza ghetto, where 1.5 million dispossessed Palestinians, whose lands, villages, and homes were stolen by Israel, are housed. The attack was on civilians and civilian infrastructure. It was without any doubt a war crime under the Nuremberg standard that the US established in order to execute Nazis.

Goldstone is not only a very distinguished Jewish jurist who has given his life to bringing people to accountability for their crimes against humanity, but also a Zionist. However, the Israelis have demonized him as a “self-hating Jew” because he wrote the truth instead of Israeli propaganda.

US Representative Dennis Kucinich, who is now without a doubt a marked man on AIPAC’s political extermination list, asked the House if the members had any realization of the shame that the vote condemning Goldstone would bring on the House and the US government. The entire rest of the world accepts the Goldstone report.

The House answered with its lopsided vote that the rest of the world doesn’t count as it doesn’t give campaign contributions to members of Congress.

This shameful, servile act of “the world’s greatest democracy” occurred the very week that a court in Italy convicted 23 US CIA officers for kidnapping a person in Italy. The CIA agents are now considered “fugitives from justice” in Italy, and indeed they are.

The kidnapped person was renditioned to the American puppet state of Egypt, where the victim was held for years and repeatedly tortured. The case against him was so absurd that even an Egyptian judge order his release.

One of the convicted CIA operatives, Sabrina deSousa, an attractive young woman, says that the US broke the law by kidnapping a person and sending him to another country to be tortured in order to manufacture another “terrorist” in order to keep the terrorist hoax going at home. Without the terrorist hoax, America’s wars for special interest reasons would become transparent even to Fox “News” junkies.

Ms. deSousa says that “everything I did was approved back in Washington,” yet the government, which continually berates us to “support the troops,” did nothing to protect her when she carried out the Bush regime’s illegal orders.

Clearly, this means that the crime that Bush, Cheney, the Pentagon, and the CIA ordered is too heinous and beyond the pale to be justified, even by memos from the despicable John Yoo and the Republican Federalist Society.

Ms. deSousa is clearly worried about herself. But where is her concern for the innocent person that she sent into an Egyptian hell to be tortured until death or admission of being a terrorist? The remorse deSousa expresses is only for herself. She did her evil government’s bidding and her evil government that she so faithfully served turned its back on her. She has no remorse for the evil she committed against an innocent person.

Perhaps deSousa and her 22 colleagues grew up on video games. It was great fun to plot to kidnap a real person and fly him on a CIA plane to Egypt. Was it like a fisherman catching a fish or a deer hunter killing a beautiful 8-point buck? Clearly, they got their jollies at the expense of their renditioned victim.

The finding of the Italian court, and keep in mind that Italy is a bought-and-paid-for US puppet state, indicates that even our bought puppets are finding the US too much to stomach.

Moving from the tip of the iceberg down, we have Ambassador Craig Murray, rector of the University of Dundee and until 2004 the UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan, which he describes as a Stalinist totalitarian state courted and supported by the Americans.

As ambassador, Murray saw the MI5 intelligence reports from the CIA that described the most horrible torture procedures. “People were raped with broken bottles, children were tortured in front of their parents until they signed a confession, people were boiled alive.”

“Intelligence” from these torture sessions was passed on by the CIA to MI5 and to Washington as proof of the vast al Qaeda conspiracy.

Amb. Murray reports that the people delivered by CIA flights to Uzbekistan’s torture prisons “were told to confess to membership in Al Qaeda. They were told to confess they’d been in training camps in Afghanistan. They were told to confess they had met Osama bin Laden in person. And the CIA intelligence constantly echoed these themes.”

“I was absolutely stunned,” says the British ambassador, who thought that he served a moral country that, along with its American ally, had moral integrity. The great Anglo-American bastion of democracy and human rights, the homes of the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, the great moral democracies that defeated Nazism and stood up to Stalin’s gulags, were prepared to commit any crime in order to maximize profits.

Amb. Murray learned too much and was fired when he vomited it all up. He saw the documents that proved that the motivation for US and UK military aggression in Afghanistan had to do with the natural gas deposits in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. The Americans wanted a pipeline that bypassed Russia and Iran and went through Afghanistan. To insure this, an invasion was necessary. The idiot American public could be told that the invasion was necessary because of 9/11 and to save them from “terrorism,” and the utter fools would believe the lie.

“If you look at the deployment of US forces in Afghanistan, as against other NATO country forces in Afghanistan, you’ll see that undoubtedly the US forces are positioned to guard the pipeline route. It’s what it’s about. It’s about money, its about energy, it’s not about democracy.” http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23906.htm

Guess who the consultant was who arranged with then Texas governor George W. Bush the agreements that would give to Enron the rights to Uzbekistan’s and Turkmenistan’s natural gas deposits and to Unocal to develop the trans-Afghanistan pipeline. It was Karzai, the US-imposed “president” of Afghanistan, who has no support in the country except for American bayonets.

Amb. Murray was dismissed from the UK Foreign Service for his revelations. No doubt on orders from Washington to our British puppet.

[slay]

149. Great reply SandWalker1984 - I wish I could recommend your reply

Excellent article. I hate to see so many people fall for the corporate bullshit - we WANT to believe in a good, government of Democrats. But: Key word = want. :(

[theFrankFactor]

182. Great Post, Thanks

[snagglepuss]

188. Really excellent post. This definitely should be a separate thread so I

hope you start a thread with this article. I haven't read anything that so succinctly describes the takeover of govt by corporate interests.

It was also effing eye-opening to read that Amb Murray was shocked about the sort of torture being inflicted and the real reason for the war because I would have assumed that someone in his position would have been aware of the truth from the getgo.

One of the other insights among many is his observation about an increasingly impotent presidency leading to to string of one termers.


Thanks for posting.

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

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

[slay]

147. Thank you!

How fucking hard would it have been to have done like Canada - or even England. You know, REAL health care reform. R E A L. That REAL people are allowed to get RIGHT NOW - but only if you live in the right place. Argh! This is just more CORPORATE BULLSHIT, not real reform, and I thank you for calling it out!

[RufusTFirefly]

160. +1 Amen!

We should've spent this year hashing out exactly what sort of single-payer system would work best for this country instead of devoting so much time and energy to utterly marginalizing any discussion of single-payer. Our embarrassingly late entry into the civilized world could've actually worked in our favor if we had used the pros and cons of the rest of the civilized world's single-payer systems to arrive at a uniquely American single-payer system.

Instead, we're backing corporate newspeak.

[earth mom]

148. Thank you for not giving up and speaking truth to all the lies and disinfo here on DU!

:thumbsup:

[chill_wind]

150. 143+ recs in short order and still climbing to the top.

Despite all the unrecs. Clearly you are not alone in your convictions, debbierlus, despite the feverish efforts of the more intolerant few to paint your OP otherwise.

FWL that's worth, take heart in knowing it and thank you for continuing to tell it like it is.

(and K & R).

[lonestarnot]

162. On the first step of the journey, get in the saddle or shove the saddle up your nose.

[Vidar]

163. They've passed a stimulus bill for private insurance. Recommended.

[Major Hogwash]

165. Yup, it would seem so.

Well, back to the drawing board.

[Echo In Light]

171. Exactly. Like everything about the US, it's illusory, yet reinforced by millions who NEED to believe

[ProgressOnTheMove]

167. I feel this bill will turn out more positive for people than they realize and open more folks up to

the idea of single payer. It's the step we have to take to make folks that mistrust government trust it again. It will work on that level and that's the most important thing, then we have momentum for much much more. As one person said the civil rights movement didn't get all they wanted at once it came over time, but they didn't abandon hope.

[midnight]

170. This bill will mandate insurance purchase instead of providing a service ie. the

fire departments do. Insurance is still a money making scheme..... Access to medical treatment is still being treated like a mechanism that requires a special pass to access. Choices will not allow those seeking abortions a choice. On the upside the donut hole is being removed.... Why does this shared responsibility part make me think that a new found maze is being created:Ensuring shared responsibility. The bill will ensure that individuals, employers, and the federal government share responsibility for a quality and affordable health care system.
Employers can continue offering coverage to workers, and those who choose not offer coveragecontribute a fee of eight percent of payroll.
All individuals will generally be required to get coverage, either through their employer or the exchange, or pay a penalty of 2.5 percent of income, subject to a hardship exemption.
The federal government will provide affordability credits, available on a sliding scale for low- and middle-income individuals and families to make premiums affordable and reduce cost-sharing.http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/category/commentary-tags/education-and-labor-committee

[geckosfeet]

174. Same crap we ha have in MA. - and my insurance went up 12% this year.

[ClarkUSA]

175. Bullshit! It's not single-payer. FYI News headline: "Health care bill passes with public option"

"The House of Representatives passed the health care bill with a vote of 220-215 on Saturday. Health insurance coverage will cost 894 billion dollars according to Democrats, but will most likely cost over 1 trillion dollars once all provisions are included. The public option will be available in 2013, and illegal immigrants will not be covered.

As part of the public option of the health care bill, federal funds will not be available for abortion services or in the insurance “exchange” the bill will create; this excludes cases of rape, incest or if the mother's life is in danger."

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

"The House bill promises to expand coverage to 96 percent of Americans, but many key provisions, including a new insurance exchange where those without insurance could choose between a government option or private plans, would not take effect until 2013, after next year's midterm elections and after the 2012 presidential election.

In the interim, those denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions would have access to a government-subsidized high-risk pool."

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

"Republicans have repeatedly mocked the House bill because of its length. But there is a reason the bill needs so many pages: It's the product of thinking carefully about how best to design a health care system. The legislation has its problems; all legislation does. But at the level of detail--like, for example, the all-important question of how to design insurance exchanges--the House bill holds up extremely well."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8741555

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


News articles re: the public option in the House bill abound. Sure, it isn't administered like Medicare but single-payer was DOA to begin with. This OP is another example of "the perfect being the enemy of the good". I'm sure you would have hated LBJ's compromises when he first created Medicare, too,
but after 40 years of legislative tweaks have improved it considerably. And so it will happen with HCR.

[Jester Messiah]

176. If it stops the industry shenanigans re: pre-ex conditions, then it's still worthwhile.

I'm disappointed that the public option didn't make it in, but even without it this bill is a step in the right direction. Before you tear your hair and rend your garments, make sure you're not missing the forest for the trees.

[pnwmom]

178. Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

The % of the population who will choose it is nothing more than anyone's speculation at this point.

The rates will be negotiated, therefore the more people who choose it, the lower the rates.

IF only sicker people choose it, then yes, rates will be higher for that plan -- but insurance is NONEXISTENT for many of those people now.

This is not the most robust public option, true. But I agree with Krugman and Dean that it's a good start. And there's nothing that says we can't improve it as time goes on.

[Chan790]

180. It's a solution worse than nothing.

I can't hold out hope it simply will not reconcile with whatever the Senate passes or get vetoed. If this is all we can do with both houses of Congress and the White House, I'm leaving the tent to join the Socialists.

[kpominville]

181. We fell for the old Good Cop-Bad Cop routine

And all we got was another corporate welfare bill that props up the insurance industry instead of addressing the problems.

[RufusTFirefly]

199. Who's "we"? Some of us didn't. Never did. Thank you, debbie! n/t

[abelenkpe]

183. US

Used to even reject the idea of insurance. Our history has put us on a very different path from our European counterparts. I stumbled across this paper which you may find interesting:

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache%3AaDonf3R_t_8J%3Awww.law.nyu.edu%2Fecm_dlv2%2Fgroups%2Fpublic%2F%40nyu_law_website__journals__journal_of_international_law_and_politics%2Fdocuments%2Fdocuments%2Fecm_pro_059586.pdf+alfred+krupp+attitude+towards+workers&hl=en&gl=us



In any event I agree that this bill is a half measure but it is one tiny step forward. Hopefully it will be as the republicans fear the slippery slope towards universal care.

[Honeycombe8]

184. It IS a public option. Maybe a sham of a P.O., but since it's paid for by the govt, it's a P.O.

It doesn't do much to further progress in health reform by stating falsehoods. It really is a public option, since the bills will be paid for by the government. In other words, the government is the "insurer."

So your argument (well founded) is really that it is not YOUR idea of a GOOD public option. That is a good argument worthy of discussion. But insulting those who recognize the option for what it is: a bad public option - doesn't further progress. Furthering progress is the point.

[fascisthunter]

191. I Can't believe people are happy with that piece of shit

unbelievable! This IS why nothing ever really changes.

[glitch]

192. This IS exactly why propoganda exists and public schools are defunded and people are paid minimum

wage to astroturf. But do they get medical?

Fortunately most people IRL recognize shit on a shingle, I wouldn't go by those trying (against the coming deluge) to create a positive buzz out of the gate.

This bill won't work if the goal is to provide affordable health care to US citizens and have the citizens believe that is what is actually being done. All it will do is flush the Democratic Party down the same shithole the Republican Party went down.

On the other hand if the goal is to get rid of both the Democratic and Republican parties and replace them with something fully Corporate... perhaps it will work after all.

[gorfle]

194. Exactly like I've said all along:

- only covers 2% of the population
- will LIKELY be administrated by the private insurance companies
- is estimated to be priced HIGHER then private insurance plans

It's exactly as I've said all along.

Our government is bailing out every industry under the sun. The auto industry, the banking industry, the securities insurance industry, to name a few.

They are not going to destroy the health insurance industry by making a government insurance plan that is open to everyone and costs less. It would destroy tens of thousands of jobs and destroy billions of dollars of investments. Even if our government wasn't in the pockets of the insurance industry, they would not destroy such a large industry, especially in these economic times.

So, any "public option" will be kept expensive enough not to compete with private health insurance, unless you're poor enough to qualify for government subsidies.

Sounds just like what the OP said. It will cover the most destitute (2% of population), it will be more expensive than private insurance plans, and in the end the money goes into the private insurance pockets anyway.

[Stumbler]

197. Exactly! The Orwellian nightmare continues

First it was declaring War to ensure Peace.
Then it was protecting Liberty by silencing Dissent.
Then it was 'Clean Skies' that increased pollution limits.
Then it was 'Healthy Forests' which increases logging in protected areas.
Now it's the Public Option to lower costs, even though it's Mandated Requirements with no cost-cutting measures in place.

[Faryn Balyncd]

198. Right on!...The path we are on is a recipe for BACKLASH. . . . :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6961005&mesg_id=6961005





We can't put off fixing a fundamentally flawed bill until AFTER it has sold us to the corporations!

[rollingrock]

200. It should be called a private option

because your only option is to buy into a very expensive and crappy private insurance plan.

[pleah]

201. K&R

[IndianaGreen]

202. K&R

:kick:

[NotGivingUp]

203. pround to be rec #241...k&r

[caseymoz]

204. K&R

[Generator]

206. Yeah but there is a mandatory abortion rider

so life is good! Or so I am told by those I used to think made sense. Some here's only goal is really to defend anything that a D does.

[atomicweeder]

207. Your Health Care Plan Just Got Taxed

If you have a Flexible Spending Account health care plan (and thousands of your private and government employees have them), you just got taxed.

Under current law, if your employer puts $10,000 into an FSA to provide health care insurance, it's tax free.

Under HR 3962, Section 532, only the first $2,500 is tax free. You'll now have to pay Federal, and possibly state and local taxes on the other $7,500.

You keep your doctor! You keep your plan! You pay an extra $2,000 in taxes!

[Jefferson23]

210. Thanks for the great thread, it is very difficult to watch this happen.

I'll keep fighting, but without public funded elections, how are we ever going to be fairly represented.