Even though we may get a bill that we may not all agree on, it at least serves as a base

[still_one]

for the future

I am not happy that the bill doesn't include certain things, or takes things out, but I also realize that if we don't get a bill this year that provides a foundation, we can kiss healthcare reform goodbye for a long time

Once we get our foot in the door, we can improve it, and this could be the basis for single payer.

The bill answers the pre-existing condition discrimination, and that would take effect immediately if passed. It won't let insurers drop your coverage, and addresses costs. It also provide the foundation for the government to offer a public option. It may not be the most ideal, but it does provide a start, and doing nothing would give us nothing, and condemn tens of thousands of citizens no help at all.

[Davis_X_Machina]

1. Bad bill. No excuse.

We should vote it down, and move on to the single-payer plan funded by a new top income tax bracket of 55% that just passed committees in the House and Senate, and sits next on the House agenda.

Oh, yeah, wait a minute...

[still_one]

10. Where are you going to get the votes for single-payer today? You're not. Throw the baby out

with the bath water, and there will be no foundation period.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

14. In my dreams I see unicorns. Funny how you see single payer funded by a

majority destroying tax increase in yours.

[sandnsea]

2. What did Churchill say?

After Americans do every other thing possible - they will eventually do the right thing. Something like that.

I see this in that light. It's another thing that must be tried before we go to single payer. And everybody can get health coverage until we get there. That's why I support it, as long as it retains the House subsidies.

We must not let the Senate subsidies win. That has to be the line in the sand.

[gateley]

3. The exception I see with this, though, is that we had the model

in Medicare that we could have copied to implement a single payer (or, I guess expand Medicare to cover all).

If we hadn't announced that "single payer is not on the table" from the git-go, maybe we could have actually accomplished a LOT.

Anyway, if we're moving in the right direction, I'm grateful.

[sandnsea]

7. I just don't get that thinking

We're having a hard time getting a public option at all, let alone one tied to Medicare.

How in the world do people think there was a prayer in hell for single payer. I just do not get it.

The subsidy is the thing that is going to make or break this health care reform in the long run. If it isn't enough, if families have to use up all their discretionary incomeon health care premiums, the screaming for repeal will kill any more reform for another hundred years. It's got to be affordable, that's #1.

[gateley]

47. Yeah, I flop back and forth between your opinion, and thinking we could have

made this a whole lot simpler.

I think that if they just said "you know Medicare? Well, we're expanding it so anyone who wants to buy in can, and if you like your insurance stick with it" -- and just made it SO SIMPLE.

Of course, everything seems so simple from 'out here'.

I'm weary of the whole thing to tell you the truth. I just don't care any more.

[Oregone]

4. Exactly. And if the base for the future direction aint too hot, thats just more to be dismayed with

Your foot is in the mandated & subsidized door, and it doesn't lead to the single payer house. Might wanna recheck your directions

[notesdev]

5. That ain't your foot

it's the foot of someone who doesn't have your best interests in mind.

[HughMoran]

6. Good post - K&R

It is a good start IMO.

[still_one]

11. I took the other side for quite a few months, but after critical thinking, we have to start

somewhere.

We simply don't have the votes today for an ideal bill, and there is no guarantee that we will win enough votes in Congress to insure a bill later

At least if we have something, we can improve on it

[HughMoran]

19. I am very impressed

I am familiar with your historical stand on this issue and I think it's very big of you to publicly modify your stance based on the realizations that you've elucidated in this thread.

[still_one]

25. Don't give me that much credit, but it is like you said coming to the realization that

we have to start somewhere or it will never happen.

Thanks though

[Cha]

41. Thank you, stillone, for being

a critical thinker. I Rec this but some don't want it to get more exposure.

[kaehele]

8. I hope you are right

My problem is that I do not see how requiring people to buy into health insurance helps anyone but the insurance companies. Seems to me from the people I know, could they afford the costs they would already have a health insurance program. So "forcing" the insurance companies to abandon pre-existing conditions is a small price for them to pay for having all Americans--except Congress-persons and federal employees-- legislated into buying insurance.

Seems to me the single payer ideal is shot all to hell; the public option is toothless; and all that is left is more money to the corporate turds and nothing for those who actually need help.

I love Obama but it is difficult for me to see what is to be gained in this bill.

[still_one]

13. I don't know what is right or wrong, but I believe that we have to get something or we

won't ever have anything. The cards are just to stacked against us right now

I also believe that once it is law, we can amend that law to make it better.

[kaehele]

32. Well, I'm willing to hope

and trust that Obama is not entirely turning away from his candidate pledges. I am fairly sure he had no idea what would hit him in the oval office. Gotta say that I don't trust all democrats any more but gotta trust someone, so I will pick the Pres.

[ipaint]

9. Think it will be another 95 years for a bit of reform of the reform.

AALL Bill 1915

In 1906, the American Association of Labor Legislation (AALL) finally led the campaign for health insurance. They were a typical progressive group whose mandate was not to abolish capitalism but rather to reform it. In 1912, they created a committee on social welfare which held its first national conference in 1913. Despite its broad mandate, the committee decided to concentrate on health insurance, drafting a model bill in 1915. In a nutshell, the bill limited coverage to the working class and all others that earned less than $1200 a year, including dependents. The services of physicians, nurses, and hospitals were included, as was sick pay, maternity benefits, and a death benefit of fifty dollars to pay for funeral expenses. This death benefit becomes significant later on. Costs were to be shared between workers, employers, and the state.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/a_brief_history_universal_health_care_efforts_in_the_us.php



Also how does it answer the pre-existing condition discrimination. What kind of teeth does this law have? Who regulates the ins. industry and are industry lobbyists involved in top regulatory jobs as they are in every other regulatory agency. What rights do citizens have for immediate action should they be denied coverage for a life threatening illness.

We already have a foundation for a public option, medicare, and it is ignored.

Instead of comparing this bill to nothing compare it to every other country with a form of universal care. That's where you will find the truth regarding the contents of our so called reform.

[still_one]

17. There is no way you will get the votes for medicare for all today. However, if you at least

get your foot in the door, that bill can be the path to it.

That is my view now, it wasn't that before, but I have reconsidered

If we lose seats in 2010, I can almost bet that we will not see any progress in healthcare reform in our lifetime

[ipaint]

34. A legal mandate with no cost controls is not a foot in the door. n/t

[lib2DaBone]

12. As Dems we have learned to be "dogs under the table"...

We are grateful for whatever scraps the Repugs push off the table and allow us to have...

[saracat]

15. A "base" that doesn't cover most Americans, and eliminates women's rights. Wowee. Just what I want.

[still_one]

21. Really. How does it compare to the system today? I didn't say it should make one happy

but, it at least gets your foot in the door, where you had NOTHING before

Incidently, it doesn't eliminate a women's right to choose. Yes, abortion isn't covered, but that can be added later. It also takes away discrimination of a woman being a pre-existing condition

You also say it doesn't cover most Americans. How about those Americans who have lost their jobs, and couldn't get health insurance because of pre-existing conditions? It helps them. How about people who are dropped from coverage? It will help them?

If you don't start with something, you won't have anything to build upon

[Desertrose]

22. Do you think things will move in favor of the people

or the insurance companies?

If we start behind the eightball we aren't gonna win anything.

[still_one]

30. Do you really think that if you can't get the "ideal" bill, that you will have a chance later?

The question, is this bill better or worse than what we have now?

If you believe it is worse, then you should be against it

I believe that the pre-existing conditions and preventing insurance companies from dropping people because their expenses are too much, are major parts of this bill, and just that makes it better then the current system

[John Q. Citizen]

31. Gosh, do you think they will change NAFTA too? Are you in the market for some beans?

Magic beans.

Very powerful, and cheap.

I can get them, if you are interested, pm me.

I voted for Obama and I'm a Democratic precinct person. So you can trust me.

[John Q. Citizen]

24. See, they didn't give us functioning public option because we said, Oh OK. It's better that nothing.

Meanwhile they give the anti choice folks their wet dream because they said "No."

And about 85% of the folks here just don't get it at all. It never even occurred to them to ask for more for people.

Duers are as weak willed as the most rubber back boned Democrat, by and large.

[annabanana]

16. It will also make insurance companies subject to anti-trust legislation..

This is a BIG thing..

[John Q. Citizen]

26. I don't think that was put in. I could be wrong. I think that is in the judiciary committee.

It's been introduced for the last few years. my guess is the Dems haven't passed it because they really don't want to. We've had the majority since '96

[John Q. Citizen]

18. I don't believe health care reform has to be magic, That it only happens at certain magical times.

In fact, any time the Dems have a majority in one house or another they could, for instance, pass a bill outlawing pre-existing conditions.

But they don't. Ever wonder why not?

Is it magic? Or money?

This bill sure makes it look like it's money. In order to get very little we've had to bribe the industry with a whole lot of money. Why?

Are the Dems corrupt?

[Stinky The Clown]

20. A shit sandwich will never become caviar.

Keep hoping, though, cuz its all ya got.

[still_one]

28. and cutting your nose off to spite your face, will get you nothing either /nt

[John Q. Citizen]

29. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. But you can play pretend.

[still_one]

33. We can continue to throw cliques at each other, and that is nice, but

in my view, if you can get pre-existing conditions, and prevent insurance companies from dropping you because it costs to much, would be a major start

I also personally believe that if this fails, it won't happen for a long time

The reality is that we don't have the votes for single payer, there are too many blue dogs who won't support it.

Are the liberal Democrats going to start winning Red or Purple states in 2010? I don't think so.

That is my position

One question though, do you believe the current system is better than this bill?

[John Q. Citizen]

36. What about if they triple your premiums?

[still_one]

38. As I understand it they have a group to insure that doesn't happen. There is nothing

to control that your premium won't go up now?

[John Q. Citizen]

40. There are no price controls. Have you read the bill? Let me ask you this;

Why do you think that the insurance industry signed on early and stayed on board with this bill?

[still_one]

44. Yes I have.

"IMMEDIATE SUNSHINE ON PRICE GOUGING—Discourages excessive price increases by insurance companies through review and disclosure of insurance rate increases."

Summary:

http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2009/10/affordable-health-care.shtml

Full BIll:

http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2009/10/affordable-health-care.shtml

[John Q. Citizen]

46. Yet there is no way to stop excessive price increases. It has no teeth and no mechanism to

restrain price increases.
http://pnhp.org/blog/
There are no effective cost containment mechanisms built into the bill, either for the costs of health insurance or for health care itself. As it whines about weakening of the individual mandate that will likely limit some of its big increase in the insurance market, the health insurance industry is already warning that sharp premium increases will result. The most the bill will do is to require disclosure and review of premium increases, without any regulatory teeth. Although the bill would set up a Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend a minimal essential benefits package (with four tiers), insurance industry lobbyists will argue for the most minimal levels of coverage, and we can anticipate an exponential growth in underinsurance. Moreover, there are no price controls to be applied anywhere in the system, except perhaps in authorizing the government to negotiate drug prices with manufacturers. But that provision will almost certainly not clear the Senate, where we can expect even less concern for affordability and prices.

[WeCanWorkItOut]

23. It takes far too much from Medicare. And it will be SLOW to change

This bill will hurt seniors especially. Yes, there is tremendous waste
in the system now, and a lot of fraud.
But they are not making a good-faith effort to change that,
or to find other ways to lower health costs.

Also, I don't believe we can assume that they will right major errors quickly.
It took long years, and a tremendous amount of stress, before they
got around to addressing very serious flaws in Medicare.

I suggest that it would be wiser and more compassionate to build on the energy
we have going now to formulate more intelligent solutions in the future.

[still_one]

27. How will it hurt Medicare? Where are you getting that from? That is absolutely wrong

[John Q. Citizen]

37. It cuts 400 +billion out of Medicare. That's how they got the numbers to be

deficit neutral.

[still_one]

42. The bill says it will NOT cut seniors' benefits in any way

"Reducing the deficit and ensuring the solvency of Medicare and Medicaid. The legislation will be entirely paid for – it will not add a dime to the deficit. It will also put Medicare and Medicaid on the path to a more fiscally sound future, so seniors and low-income Americans can continue to receive the quality health care benefits for years to come.
Pays for the entire cost of the legislation though a combination of savings achieved by making Medicare and Medicaid more efficient – without cutting seniors’ benefits in any way – and revenue generated from placing a surcharge the top 0.3 percent of all households in the U.S.(married couples with adjusted gross income of over $1,000,000) and other tax measures.
The Congressional Budget estimates the bill will reduce the deficit by at least $100 billion over ten years.
Estimates also show the bill will slow the rate of growth of the Medicare program from 6.6 percent annually to 5.3 percent annually."

[John Q. Citizen]

45. This from the CBO

Provisions Affecting Medicare, Medicaid, and Other Programs
Other components of H.R. 3962 would alter spending for Medicare,
Medicaid, and other federal health programs. The bill would make
numerous changes to payment rates and payment rules in those programs
(the budgetary effects of which are summarized in Table 1 and detailed in
Table 3). In total, CBO estimates that enacting those provisions would
reduce direct spending by about $426 billion over the 2010–2019 period.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf (bottom of page 6)


I don't know what that does in terms of on the ground differences. But it does cut spending in Medicare and Medicaid and use those saving toward coming up with their numbers.

Just out of curiosity. If the Repos cut benefits for seniors do you think they would write it into the bill that they were doing that? I know they wouldn't. And neither would the Dems. You may notice that the CBO says that some spending will be less. That's not what the Dems write into the front of their bill. I don't blame them, but you have to remember, the bills are always written to put things in the best light possible. So relying on the front preamble for your info on the bill is risky at best.

The Dems will be slowing the growth rate of Medicare just as the baby-boomers come eligible. Maybe that's good. I'm not sure. But it does make me wonder what is being cut. The Dems call it making it more efficient. Maybe that's true. I don't know.

[still_one]

49. I don't know either, but I would like to think that this is the first step toward single payer for

all. It is a moot point now because it is in the Senates hands, and who knows what form it will take, but it is moving forward.

Good luck and good Health to ALL OF US

[John Q. Citizen]

50. Unless you are a woman who needs an abortian, that is. Then not so much.

[still_one]

51. I am not a women, and I am not happy about that amendment. I also want that taken

out of the final bill. I don't know if you saw CSPAN, but they had a bunch of blue dogs up there with the implication that it most likely would not have passed without that amendment

The only good thing is they at least put rape, incest, and the life of the Mother as exception

Hopefully, when it gets to the Senate that will be modified, at the minimum, not to interfere with abortion for private insurers at the very least

I also question the legality of the amendment, since abortion is legal today

[John Q. Citizen]

52. What progressive vestige do you think the Senate will kill first? I bet they

pull the drug price negotiation. That's not going to make it out through conference.

And I bet they do something to lower the overall cost, like lower benefits for the basic package for poor people.

I just see this getting worse, if the past is any indication. The Senate is usually more conservative, and more corporate friendly.

[Individualist]

35. a base made of quicksand.

[still_one]

39. So you believe it is worse than what we have now I take it? Because if this doesn't pass

this year, the populous should become very comfortable with the healthcare system they currently have

Some folks here believe it is caving in to the Insurance industry. That may be true, however, I find it strange, that insurance companies are sending letters out to their subscribers telling them to call their Congress person to oppose this bill?

I also find it interesting that companies like UnitedHealthcare go up when it appears the bill is in trouble, and go down when investors think it will pass

I do not think those actions I stated would happen if they thought this bill was in their interests

[kenny blankenship]

43. It's more like a stool.

[AngryOldDem]

48. We're going to be right back at square one regardless.

There will be no progress on MEANINGFUL health care.

[Raineyb]

53. Like how we fixed NAFTA?

Oh wait... Never mind.