This is why the House Bill is worse than No Bill

[PHIMG]

From HealthcareNOW!
http://www.healthcare-now.org

On Saturday, November 7, 2009, the House passed H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, to much celebration by the Democratic party. Healthcare-NOW!'s view, however, is that the House bill is a gift to the insurance industry at the further expense of the people of this nation.

The bill's advocates claim it will cover an additional 36 million people, subsidize the cost of insurance for families up to 400% above the poverty level, increase Medicaid coverage to 150% above the poverty level, close the Medicare donut hole by 2019, place a surcharge on individuals making more than $500,000 and couples making more than $1,000,000, will end rescissions and pre-existing conditions.

What the Democrats fail to mention is the bill leaves millions of people uninsured, allows medical bankruptcies to persist, criminalizes and fines the uninsured, increases the number of underinsured, does nothing to contain the sky rocketing costs, blocks women from their reproductive rights, transfers massive public funds to private insurance companies strengthening their control over care, protects pharmaceutical companies' superprofits at patient expense, fails to reclaim the 31% of waste in our system, expands Medicaid without regard to the state budget crises, discriminates based on immigration status and age, and sets up several levels of care covering less for those without the ability to pay. Those who have coverage will increasingly find care unaffordable and will go without. The whole system will inevitably fail from being fiscally unsustainable.

So is the House bill better than nothing?

"I don't think so," writes Marcia Angell, M.D., former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. "It simply throws more money into a dysfunctional and unsustainable system, with only a few improvements at the edges, and it augments the central role of the investor-owned insurance industry. The danger is that as costs continue to rise and coverage becomes less comprehensive, people will conclude that we've tried health reform and it didn't work. But the real problem will be that we didn't really try it. I would rather see us do nothing now, and have a better chance of trying again later and then doing it right."

Given that the bill does nothing to contain or reduce rising costs or end the private health insurance industry's dominance, we hoped that the Progressive Caucus would stand strong. But they did not. All but two of H.R. 676's cosponsors voted for H.R. 3962 -- Rep. Eric Massa and Rep. Kucinich .

Rep. Massa stated, "At the highest level, this bill will enshrine in law the monopolistic powers of the private health insurance industry, period. There's really no other way to look at it."

Despite telling single-payer advocates that Congressman Weiner's single-payer amendment could not go to vote because it would open the floodgates for regressive amendments on abortion and immigrant access, the Democratic leadership allowed votes on both. Prior to the vote on H.R. 3962, the Stupak Amendment passed that will prevent women receiving tax subsidies from using their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion and in many cases will prevent low-income women from accessing abortion entirely.

"The House of Representatives has dealt the worst blow to women's fundamental right to self-determination in order to buy a few votes for reform of the profit-driven health insurance industry," writes Terry O'Neill, President of National Organization for Women. "We must protect the rights we fought for in Roe v. Wade. We cannot and will not support a health care bill that strips millions of women of their existing access to abortion."

Healthcare-NOW! fought to win a fair and open debate on healthcare reform including the merits of a single-payer system. This has not yet happened, but the advocacy for this system has greatly impacted the debate in meaningful ways.

We need to continue to build the grassroots movement for single-payer, not-for-profit, national healthcare. We look forward to much brain-storming at our upcoming national strategy conference in St. Louis this weekend, and the opportunity to move forward with renewed energy, creative ideas, and resolve.

Meanwhile, we have the opportunity NOW to continue to support the Sanders' Single-Payer Amendment to be introduced in the U.S. Senate, Congressman Kucinich's efforts to get the state single-payer amendment back in when the House and Senate bills are reconciled, and the efforts of the Mobilization for Health Care for All.

Thanks for all that you do,
Healthcare-NOW! National Staff
http://www.healthcare-now.org

(Edited to add URLs to the originator of this analysis)

[TheWraith]

1. I can't believe there are people who buy this bullshit.

Folks who live in utter fantasyland.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[Aramchek]

22. Thanks for getting out of the way.

[jtrockville]

3. You're right. It's fantasy to think the current bill is adequate.

Bolstering the broken system is bullshit. Why are we accepting this bullshit bill as "the best we can do"?

[Vincardog]

70. Yes it is the best we can do as long as we are feeding at the corporate trough. We need to outlaw

BBV, Elect real legislators and demand public financing of elections.

[jtrockville]

94. A well-stocked corporate trough to feed from seems to be the purpose

of this bill. By the way, what is BBV?

[sandnsea]

4. Create a viable party, a viable candidate

and pass single payer. If it's so easy to do, well then get out there and do it.

[LooseWilly]

7. And, clearly, the Democratic Party wants no part of such an effort.

It's just too hard for them to want to take any chances by taking part. Finger noted.

[sandnsea]

17. No, the Democratic Party wants to make progress

Again. If it's so damned easy - the Green Party should have had it done by now. Right?

[spotbird]

24. It's impossible because the corporations

own congress. Reformers can't be elected.

[LooseWilly]

106. "the Democratic Party wants to make progress"? Hell, just subsidize the price of band aids then.

Bammo... "progress".

Small businesses that have to buy band aids for their first aid kits will save money. Infections will be less likely. Cuts will heal 25% faster. More units of band aids will move and more jobs will be created.

"Progress" is easy. Real progress takes work. Obviously you are championing the idea that the Democratic Party should settle for "progress".

If the system funded the Green party like the Democratic Party is funded, maybe the Green Party would have done it by now. But you know all about the underlying logistics of the political system's economics, don't you?

[Toucano]

12. Hmmm. Some of us thought we had done the first two parts.

Viable party? Party has super majority.

Viable candidate? Electoral college landslide.

Change you can believe in? Rearrange the deck chairs, nothing more.

[sandnsea]

16. To pass single payer?

Clearly you weren't paying attention.

[Toucano]

63. Tell me what I missed?

I am not accustomed to having to prod for that part. ;)

[sandnsea]

76. The part where the candidate laid out his health care plan

Did you miss that??

[Toucano]

96. I do recall something about that.

True, not much was said about a "public option" by the candidate. But I remember saying his plan would "cover everyone".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aR3Gpsn4v4

I think there was quite a bit of criticism leveled at another primary candidate's plan over individual mandates.

"On the -- on the point of many adults, we don't want to put in a situation in which, on the front end, we are mandating them, we are forcing them to purchase insurance, and if the subsidies are inadequate, the burden is on them, and they will be penalized. And that is what Senator Clinton's plan does."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/politics/26text-debate.html?ei=5124&en=250cc1249b4dcae1&ex=1361854800&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&pagewanted=all



If someone claims their plan will "cover everyone" but with no individual mandate, that would seem to imply, I don't know, a public option?

[Cleita]

5. Yes, however, the good news is that Wendell Potter, the ex-Cigna

whistleblower executive, saying the same thing, has stated that when the system collapses on itself, Congress will have to go back and do it right. There will be no other recourse. I have some hope that future Congresses will improve on this final bill before it becomes law in 2013 so that what emerges is Medicare for all as one of the exchange options. It will be up to us to continue the pressure on them. If Medicare is offered as an option to anyone who wants it and not as a condition or trigger, then we will be on our way to single payer in no time.

[dflprincess]

107. It's a nice hope, I'd like to have it too,

but we're kidding ourselves if we think Congress will do anything to improve this POS. As far as they're concerned, once a bill comes out of conference and Obama signs it, the issue will be closed and they will ignore any demands for real reform claiming they already did that. If they had intended to do anything meaningful, they would have at least left in the language that allowed the states to develop their own solutions.

[Cleita]

108. Another hope, a very slim one, that President Obama will

threaten to veto any bill that doesn't include access to a public plan for those who want it, which means he will send it back to conference until they and he can agree to it. I know we have to write and phone on this to put on the pressure, again. Like I said, a very slim hope, but at least a hope.

[tblue]

6. Okay, let's say all of this is 100% correct, and I do believe it probably is,

let's think this through.

Say this, or similar, is not passed, not signed into law. What happens then? The Democrats, weak and corrupt as many of them are, will likely lose control of the House in 2010. We now have a Republican majority in the House. So I ask you, does Healthcare Reform, the real reform we all want, have a prayer?

I'm playing devil's advocate. I see both sides of the debate on this bill and I very much despise huge chunks of it. But are we as Democrats better off if it does not pass?

[LooseWilly]

11. Maybe the question shouldn't be "are we as Democrats better off..."

Maybe the question that would better serve as a starting point for "thinking this through" should be "Are we, as citizens, better off if the current Democratic Party legislation does not pass?"

And likewise the converse should be considered. Are we, as citizens, any worse off if it doesn't pass? It's beginning to sound like we may in fact not be terribly much worse off if something like the House bill in its current form does not pass.

The exception, of course, is those who are insured through a nice middle-class job's benefits who might otherwise be thrown off when a need arises to use that healthcare. Is mandating that all independent contractors, self employed, etc. buy crappy private insurance, or a crappy half-ass public option in order to provide a virtual "payoff" to private insurers to stop denying benefits really a public policy option that "we" are willing to endorse? Or should the fight continue until there is meaningful reform for all citizens?

And, of course, there is the question of whether or not "leaning left" and providing a robust public option might not actually be a boon, rather than a drag, on Democratic electoral prospects.

Just saying.

[hfojvt]

32. the OP's notion that it is better to fail now and try again later

just puts us back to 1993. We tried that option once, and here we are 16 years later.

[spotbird]

38. Is that what happened?

So the punishment for the 1993 failure is the 1993 plan?

[Chan790]

36. Yes.

We really really are. It's a blunt-object issue. The GOP is not going to pass a healthcare bill at all...it's simply not something they're going to do. So, momentum swings back our way for 2012 when we run on a "Public Option or Bust" platform...non-supporters not welcome to DNC support or money. We take the White House, we retake (if necessary) Congress...we win.

Even if we lose one or both houses of Congress on this stand, it's not like the GOP can do anything with their majority with a Democrat in the White House as it's not like they're going to gain enough seats to pass anything veto-proof...and any moderate defectors in that situation (such as the Nelsons and Stupaks) can and should expect that they'll be pariah within our party at all future points.

It's time that we stop being weak and stand-up for ourselves. FDR stood-up more than some of these quislings we kowtow to in order to get "anything" done.

It's party purge time.

[napi21]

8. It's not perfect, but I also don't think you can be foolish enough to

believe one bill can fix everything! A health care bill is not the place to fix the bankruptcy laws!

I would love to see single payer that would cover everybody, but it can't be passed right now!

This bill is NOT the final bill, and noone knows what the final bill will look like.

I happen to think even if there were no changes made to the current bill except change to the Stupak ammendment, I think it would be a great first step.

[BREMPRO]

69. +1 Angell is being unrealistic.

Single Payer doesn't have the votes now. What makes her think it would have votes in 2010 after likely Dems lose seat? Could be another decade before we have a majority to pass a health care reform bill. How many will die in that time because they don't have insurance?

it is a good step to build on.

[lumberjack_jeff]

9. Only an idiot believes this. n/t

[dotymed]

13. This bill is set to fail.

It has no choice. HR676 would've saved us money and insured
everyone, just like all other "civilized" (not
profit before life) countries. 2013? lol...Why would a
"reform" bill be passed and go into law in 4 years?
Die poor people die...

[PHIMG]

14. Dr. Maria Angell - idiot? Yes, idiots get thru medical school...

and wind up being the first woman editor New England Journal of Medicine!

Are your beliefs so shaky that you have to dismiss those who disagree with juvenile name calling? Grow up.

[sandnsea]

19. In real life, the people I know who support single payer

and refuse to help pass anything else - are all college educated. They also all have health insurance.

I lived most of my life without it. That's why I'm not about to let this opportunity pass by.

[PHIMG]

20. So...let me get this right?

You've not had health insurance but now the threat of being fined is going to make you get it?

That's interesting.

[sandnsea]

23. I have subsidized insurance

in Oregon. I know how many people it is going to help.

I also know it is people like Krugman and Reich, from the left, who pushed this last year during the primaries.

[PHIMG]

35. Like they have it in Maine

Except that there is a huge waiting list.

Funneling money into a broken system is a recipe for failure.

Enjoy your subsidy while it exists. When it falls so low that you can't afford the insurance policy anymore have fun paying for the fine for not having health insurance and or getting harrassed by the IRS for tax evasion!

[sandnsea]

37. Because it isn't mandated, DUH

If it's mandated, then they're going to have to come up with the funds.

And if it that becomes unsustainable - then we'll have to look at another system and maybe then this country will be ready for single payer.

I don't care if this only works for 5 years. That's 5 years of lives saved and that is worth it to me.

[PHIMG]

44. There is no mandate on the government to provide you subsidies

The mandate is on you to have coverage, regardless of the level of subsidy available to you.

So if you aren't so poor that you can get Medicaid, but you are too poor to buy the cheapest barebones Pinto plan offered in the exchange then you'll get a fine, a percentage of your income.

Remember that these subsidies will be the first thing states and the federal government cuts when budget deficits happen.

It's a bait and switch. Forcing us to buy a defective product from insurers.

And never forget having insurance does not mean you'll have healthcare when you need it. Insurers will find new ways to deny you coverage, you can bet on it.

INSURERS NEED TO GO. They are the problem. Leaving them in place is not change we can believe in, it's change BIG INSURANCE paid for.

[sandnsea]

49. They are mandated

exactly the same as the insurance is mandated.

When they pass legislation, that's what makes a mandate.

Can they change legislation? Certainly. And they can also change the mandate if it doesn't work.

And they can also change to single payer if the whole thing doesn't work.

But we have to start moving forward.

[PHIMG]

60. This bill is going to damage the democratic party such that we lose the ability to improve it

Or go with single payer. And if you think that the bill is so great why was the State Single Payer option stripped? It's because this bill is by and for the big insurers with just enough concessions to convince the naive that it is real change. It's not and that's the point of the OP which you are attacking.

[spotbird]

33. Those damn educated elitists

Intellectualism is killing this nation, just ask Rush.

[sandnsea]

40. Those damned distorting idiots

This go to jail shit is a right wing talking point that we thought we killed in August. You're recycling right wing bullshit. And you want to pretend to dump Rush on ME??

When economic privilege distorts a person's judgment, then their education is no longer relevant in the specific debate. If they don't understand the reality of those the debate effects, they should go back to doing what they were educated to do. That doesn't mean their education isn't valuable. It just means their education doesn't make them all-knowing.

[spotbird]

54. You're the one complaining

that educated people don't like the plan, not me.

Rush hates the intellectuals, he talks about it all the time. You blame them for opposition to this plan, the irony struck me, that's all.

Republican talking point or not, no one has explained how there aren't criminal penalties for failure to cooperate with this corporate boondoggle.

[sandnsea]

67. They're going to increase Medicaid

to all adults up to 133% - 150% of poverty.

Do you have an obligation to help pay for that?

[spotbird]

71. That's a public option,

not a corporate give-away. Everyone eligible for Medicaid is accepted.

No tax (aka "fine") is imposed based on an individual obligation.

In other words, there is no credible comparison. I pay for the wars too, and I oppose them.

[sandnsea]

75. It's part of this bill

Do you have an obligation to pay for that? There will also be new Office of Women's Health, Minority Health and a number of improvements in Indian Health. There will be a new plan for long term care. And the public option.

Is it fair that you don't pay your share of any of that?

Yes you pay for wars too, and oppose them. And if you don't pay your taxes, you get fined, and if you don't pay your fine, you can go to jail.

Does that mean you're going to jail for opposing war?

[spotbird]

77. Your point being that to

accept these crumb we must swallow a whole swine? Or is it that an individual mandate to by corporate insurance is the same as a shared obligation to pay for any government program? Or is it that the government and corporations are the same thing now, so the mandated purchase of a private company's product is identical to the mandate to pay any tax?

Please clarify.

[sandnsea]

79. Do you have an obligation to contribute?

Yes or no.

These are not crumbs. You haven't read the bill if you believe that. OR, you have insurance of some sort and really don't know what it's like to be sick and not able to get treatment.

[spotbird]

85. Certainly

You must not understand the difference between public and corporate, perhaps because there isn't one anymore?

[sandnsea]

93. Heard of medical supply corporations?

How are you going to prevent your single payer money from going to those corporations? Or pharmaceuticals? Or hospitals? Or medical ppc's? You think they don't ALL make as much money as insurance companies?

Should a person not be required to participate in single payer because they don't like "big pharma" or their pet holistic procedure isn't covered?

[spotbird]

98. The brand new requirement

that individuals must by a product from a private company or be punished by the government is what I'm talking about.

You can go ahead and talk about any other subject you'd like. Please reply to me again when you'd like to address the issue at hand.

[sandnsea]

103. No,they don't. They can buy the public option

In fact, they can sell everything they own, sell flowers on the street corner, and go on Medicaid if they object to corporatism that much.

You can't respond because you know I'm right. You wouldn't object to your money going to all those other corporations through single payer - so there's no reason to object to it going to an insurance company.

It's all ideological CRAP.

Get people health care. That's the job in front of us.

[Kansas Wyatt]

84. They can increase Medicaid without screwing up Health Care Reform

And they can make it effective immediately, if they wanted to help anyone. But this isn't about helping anyone, this is about an Insurance Industry Giveaway.

They can also regulate the Insurance Industry at any time, regarding 'Pre-Existing' conditions, without screwing up Health Care Reform.

[dflprincess]

109. For a single person 133%-150% of poverty level equals an income

between about $14,300 and $16,100. I suppose the increase is better than nothing, but not much.

The American health insurance system remains a disgrace even after "reform".

[redqueen]

72. Have you seen ProSense's thread?

This RW talking point is getting great play here. Fantastic even.

[no limit]

10. criminalizes the uninsured? I guess lying isnt exclusive to right wing sites

[PHIMG]

15. How is this a lie?

If you don't pay the insurers for thier defective product, you get fined, if you don't pay the fine, it is tax evasion.

Tell me...is tax evasion illegal?

Stupidity isn't exclusive to right wing sites.

[ProSense]

89. Because it's

not true

[sandnsea]

18. Nope, never has been

And that's a good lesson for some to learn.

[PHIMG]

21. How is this a lie?

I'd love to know.

Do you know about the individual mandate?

Why don't you put down your pom-poms and learn about the bill you are cheerleading before calling people liars for telling the truth and making an ass out of yourself.

[sandnsea]

30. If you don't contribute your share

either as an employer or individual, and refuse to take advantage of free medicaid or subsidized insurance; then you will have to contribute through your taxes. If there are no pre-existing conditions and you can sign up for health care any time you want to, well it's not fair that others paid when you didn't. So a tax on employers or fine on individuals is applied through your tax return.

If you don't pay your taxes, you *can* go to jail. That's just a reality.

So if you want to be a deadbeat and not pay your share of your health care costs, even after getting generous subsidies which is what we really need to be focusing on, and end up in cascading difficulty with the IRS - well then I really can't feel bad for you.

[spotbird]

41. So why is it a lie?

It punishes the "deadbeats" for not funding corporate profits in the name of "health care."

[sandnsea]

45. Buy into the public option n/t

[PHIMG]

53. What public option?

The Public option that is not an option if you employer offers ANY KIND OF PRIVATE INSURANCE?

The Public option that is going to be administered by Private Insurers?

The Public option that the CBO says will be more expensive than private insurance?

The Public option that the CBO says will only be available to at most 5M people?

The Public option that is going to turn into a Triggered Co-Op in the Senate by Nelson and Lieberman?

The Public option is a mirage. It's purpose was to suck support away from Medicare For All and it succeeded but that changes in 2010.

[dflprincess]

110. I think the term "public option" was also meant to fool people

I've talked to several people (ones who are not as involved or following this as closely) who supported a "public option" and thought that meant some kind of single payer, Medicare for All option.

There are going to be a lot of upset voters when they finally figure out how badly the Democrats sold them out.

[no limit]

81. So by your logic every time congress raises taxes they are criminalizing the population

since chances are some people will try to evade those taxes.

[spotbird]

86. Not at all.

In this example the congress will criminalize the individual failure to buy a private product. There aren't too many examples of a universal application of that penalty. It is very different than a general tax requirement.

Do you honestly fail to understand the difference, or are you just fucking with me?

[no limit]

92. There is no difference. Let me give you another example

by your logic anytime congress raises taxes on the rich they would be criminalizing the rich. When they pass a tobacco tax are they criminalizing smokers?

This was posted earlier today, give it a read:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2009/11/will-i-go-to-jail-if-i-dont-buy-health.html

[spotbird]

99. No.

That doesn't have a thing to do with what I said, or believe for that matter.

[no limit]

100. Yes, it has everything to do with what you said

this is no different than raising a tax on the wealthy, taxing tobbaco, taxing alcohol, etc. Remember how the democrats wanted to tax executives that got bailout money then got outrageous bonuses; same principle here.

Taxing is not criminalizing. Never has been never will be.

[spotbird]

101. What part of individual mandate don't you understand?

It may be that you really don't comprehend the difference. But there is no point in continuing this conversation, because you insist in making false analogies, and I'd prefer to talk about the issue.

It is telling that the supporters don't even have a fundamental understanding about what it is they advocate.

[no limit]

104. It is not a mandate

just as taxing smoking isn't a mandate not to smoke.

But if you are a middle class person making over 40,000 a year and you refuse to buy insurace yes (a very small percentage of the population, including myself that falls just outside of this credit), you will have a 2.5% tax increase. Tough luck, you are a burden on this system, just as a smoker, and just as a drinker is. Thats why we tax smokers and drinkers. You can try to pretend that I am an idiot but the bottom line is that this bill will help a lot more people than it will hurt. And I agree with you that this bill is not perfect, far from it. But when the CBO says that we will have 96% of the uninsured covered and there will be some kind of public option then I think that is a lot better than the status quo (not to mention all the other things this bill will do such as eliminate the anti-trust laws and outlaw pre-existing conditions).

[spotbird]

27. Seriously, please explain

how it is a lie. What happens to the people who refuse to pay the "fine"?

[sabrina 1]

46. It is not a lie. People who cannot afford to pay

for Private Insurance and do not qualify for subsidies or medicaid, as has happened in Mass with Romneycare, can be fined. In the Baucus bill the fines were as high as $3000. Dems got those fines redicued, one of the few concessions in that bill. Greedy as they are, the Private Ins. lobbyists threw a fit over that, even though they got everything else they wanted, considering the helped write the bill.

The House bill calls the fines 'excise taxes' or something like it. While saying that they could not go with a Single Payer system which would tax everyone, same as SS tax and Unemployment tax, they manage to tax the poorest people. They call it a tax, because forcing people to buy something from a private vendor and then fining them if they don't, is unconstituional. Taxes are not.

So, if you fail to pay these Corps, you get fined, and if you fail to pay fines you end up in jail. The problem is how are they going to enforce this law? Do they not understand how many of the working poor cannot afford to pay for this?

As far as I know, in Mass where this is already in place, there are over 500,000 people still uninsured. In the past they coud go to the emergency room. Now, they will risk being 'discovered' for not paying.

It is a draconian and cynical way to 'get everyone covered' and shameful that democrats would even consider it. But one way or another, those Private Insurance companies have to be paid.

[no limit]

80. You are not criminalized for not having insurance, you are criminalized for evading taxes

This is nothing knew, not paying your taxes was always illegal. From what I read the penalty is a 2.5% tax increase which you will have to work out with the IRS.

[sabrina 1]

95. So you are in favor of taxing the poor, for being poor.

No wonder we cannot get anywhere. Either you have fallen for this trick or you support it. It is as fine, and they do not have the courage to call it what it is after they were told that fines forcing citizens to buy something from private industry is unconstitutional. They are so clever in their zeal to force money out of the poorest of Americans, they came up with this punishment.

And that is what it is, it is a punishment for not paying the Private Insurance industry and it is a disgrace.

Taxes are not meant to be used as punishment. That too is unconstitutional, and it most likely will be challenged in court.

What's sad is to see Democrats supporting somethign like this, knowing that if this was coming from Republicans (and it is a Republican idea, mandated insurance complete with punishment for the poor) we would be fighting it like rabid lions.

[no limit]

97. Under this bill the poor will be helped. Anyone making under 40K will have affordibility credits

so no, the poor will not be taxed. The middle class that doesnt want to purchase insurance will see a 2.5% tax increase. And yes, if they evade taxes the IRS will go after them with penalties.

[sabrina 1]

102. The excise tax imposed on those who cannot afford to

pay for Private Insurance, and who are not poor enough to qualify for subsidies or medicare, is unconstitutional. You cannot force the public to buy a product from your friends in business who finance your campaigns, or any private business.

This tax is a cynical attempt to get around the fines that so many have been outraged by. You cannot use taxes to punish people for not buying a product from a private industry that they cannot afford. Funny, Obama used to think that also and said so in the primaries.

You have adapted the longtime Republican meme that people who are not covered by insurance, are selfish, lazy liberals who just don't want to pay for it and want the rest of us to support them. I never thought I'd be arguing against that vile charge against decent hardworking Americans on a democratic board. I have spent years doing so on rightwing boards.

I guess all those who die, the working poor who do make over $40,000 which barely covers the bills, college tuition,car insurance, mortgage payments, food, clothing for their families, because they could not afford coverage, died just to 'save money'.

Even a single person, with no family, would find it difficult to live in a major city on such a salary in today's world.

There is simply no defense for this and what's amazing is that this type of mandated insurance, Romneycare iow, was opposed by almost all Democrats, until Democrats decided to adapt it. It was wrong then and it is wrong now and is pretty much indefensible.

[no limit]

105. 2.5% is not a huge amount to pay if it covers 96% of the current uninsured

taxes are nothing new. I am willing to bet that if the government raised our taxes tomorrow by 2.5% the majority of this country wouldn't notice. Would you be ok with a 2.5% tax increase across the board if it meant bringing a single payer system to this country?

You can not refute that this bill will help the poor in this country. Yes, this will affect the middle class in a small way, which I agree sucks. But that's a trade off I'm willing to make (speaking as a person that just falls outside of the affordibility credit).

[Orsino]

25. Carefully ignoring the actual people who will be helped.

I've no objection to noting all of this pre-bill's many deep flaws, but let's not pretend there's nothing good in it.

"There's really no other way to look at it"? Bullshit! There are at least as many ways to examine this legislation as there are people who will eventually be affected by it.

[ecstatic]

26. The third paragraph is full of lies and distortions

I don't get why people can't argue their position without resorting to lies.

[PHIMG]

29. Name the lies!

I can't get why people can so easily make vague scurrilous accusations.

List the lies and explain why it is a lie, otherwise you are a just a non-thinking cheerleader for a bad bill.

[inna]

28. KR.

Thank you for an excellent and informative post.

It's unfortunate that some people prefer to stay uninformed and in denial.

[PHIMG]

31. Please go thank Healthcare-NOW! with a donation.

They do great work! Even $5 helps.

[rucky]

34. For the sake of the people denied coverage for preexisting conditions

we have to pass this bill - even if it means even more sacrifice from many of us who can barely afford to buy into this plan.

And fuck you, Congress, for putting this burden on the lower and middle class again, instead of the corporations that cause the problems.

[PHIMG]

39. The key thing is, after the bill passes (or not) what do we do?

Do we let the Democrats waste the next 15 years trying to fix flaws in the bill?

Or do we start over with THE BEST SOLUTION - simply expanding the successful and efficient Medicare system?

Why is that we have billions to hand the private insurers in subsidies but we don't have money to expand Medicare which provides health care with vastly less overhead?

I can tell you are an ally from your thoughtful reply so please don't take these questions personally.

[spotbird]

48. The Democrats didn't spend the

past 15 years trying to fix the flaws in the Clinton bill. They spent the last 15 weeks letting the industry draft legislation that perpetuates the problem.

If they made a real effort, that would be different.

[rucky]

62. I will continue to fight for single-payer - no matter what.

I just know that would take a Congress with more resolve than what we now have, and more time - like you say. So we need to do something for the population most vulnerable right now. It's urgent.

[Kansas Wyatt]

82. START OVER...

Without conceding your mandate from the People right off the bat.

President Obama and the Democratic Congress know now that they will NEVER get ANY Republican support, so weakening and watering down any plan is a wasted concession.

President Obama should come out swinging, by stating that America deserves the best plan in the world and wants the best the American People could ever want and wish for. Start high, and bargain down from there.

President Obama should call in all Representatives and Senators of his Party and inform them that the American People gave him a MANDATE to get them Health Care Reform, which is why they control Congress and why many of them are even there. He needs to go on to tell them that if any Democrat stands against that MANDATE from the American People, then he will make it his personal mission to find a candidate in that Representative's District or Senator's State to run against them in the Primary and visit often to raise funds for them and to campaign for them.

This piece of SHIT Bill was produced in less than a year. If President Obama and the Democratic Congress started over in 2010, and forgot about trying to please those who are opposed to anything and everything, they would end up with a Bill on President Obama's desk to sign before the end of summer. 65% - 70% of Americans want at least a Strong Public Option, without any giveaways to the Insurance Industry. President Obama and the Democratic Congress can easily give America that, if they CHOSE to, well before the 2010 Election. If they did that, the Democrats would actually pick up MORE seats in Congress.

This nonsense about having to accept a bad bill, because the Democrats will lose Congress, is WRONG. The Democrats screwed around, but they still have a chance to make it right, by giving the American People what they voted for. The Democrats will ONLY lose seats and/or Congress if it pushes this BAD Bill through or just drops it all together.

The Democrats have 1 year to make it right, and everything is riding on that one year. Oh, and if they did actually deliver what was promised, then they would actually find the American People would rally behind them and support them on other issues, which would make it easier for them to get other things done.

[spotbird]

87. Amen.

Since we know there won't be compromise, why not do it right?

[Kansas Wyatt]

90. They could easily do it at the beginning of 2010.

And they could easily give the American People what they gave them a mandate to do, actually give them Health Care Reform, rather than this Republican version of it.

Right before the 2010 Election, and they would be very surprised how well the people would respond to them.

[Chan790]

42. I am totally unsure where this notion came from that this bill is not worse for them...

there are no price controls in this bill that stop them from rate-jacking you out of your insurance for getting sick with anything they'd just have found a way to not-cover or drop you for previously. In many many ways this bill is worse than the status quo for them too and we need to stop pretending it isn't.

[rucky]

50. For me, it came from DU-ers in that situation

who urgently support passage of the bill.

[Chan790]

61. That's because people are dumb and accept the pablum they're fed...

If some kind gentle and lying voice told you that not making a fuss while they stabbed you in the back was going to improve your life dramatically...you'd likely do it until someone told you the truth. Truth sucks. Truth is vital however, no matter how bitter the pill.

[rucky]

64. I also checked the bill, and there are price controls

it's the cost controls I'm worried about. I'm pretty sure we'll see this system easily gamed by the insurance companies and healthcare providers - if they're working in collusion to screw us.

[spotbird]

58. Yep.

There isn't regulation to stop it. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure it prevents the states from stepping in, which a few do now.

[sandnsea]

43. Have you looked at the House subsidies?

We have to get the focus on those subsidies so we don't end up with the Senate garbage.

Can't you afford a plan with the House subsidies?

[PHIMG]

47. Subsidies that may not be there in the future

But you can bet your ass the individual mandate will be there in the future.

The insurers and there waste remain, and they'll find new ways to deny you coverage.

MEDICARE FOR ALL IS WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE GONE FOR. We've been had. The Democratic Party has been hijaacked by corporate interests. The DLC Dems in Congress veto'd even a DISCUSSION about Medicare For All and they veto'd even the inadequate "robust" public option.

Wake up and smell the corruption people. Our party will go the way of the Whigs if we don't confront this problem.

[sandnsea]

51. And the mandates may be not there in the future n/t

[PHIMG]

59. Yes and I have a bridge in San Francisco to sell you. n/t

[Kansas Wyatt]

88. The mandates will always be there and by the time the Republicans...

Retake Congress, after this giveaway to the Insurance Industry, they will shave off help people MIGHT get and start working directly with the Insurance Industry to bring delinquent policy holders to justice immediately. (No Child Left Behind)

But hey, at least we got 'Health Care Reform!':sarcasm:

[rucky]

65. We're within an inch of a total screw job.

But since the Dems seem good at acting in their own self-interest, I can only hope they know the repercussions they'd face next November.

[rucky]

52. Tax credits don't do me much good right now.

seeing as I'm on unemployment - just enough to disqualify me from the state plan - not enough to owe income tax in the first place.

[sandnsea]

66. 150% of poverty won't help?

to get Medicaid?

And it's not a tax credit, it's a subsidy that is applied every month when you buy through the exchange.

Tax credits are for business to provide insurance to their employees.

[rucky]

68. I wouldn't know until I see where we're starting from.

I pay $225/mo right now for private coverage for me and my family - bare bones, high deductible. This is over 10% of my income. I have no idea what to expect.

[sandnsea]

74. Making vague guesses here

Using $24,000 as annual income for a family of 4, you'd qualify for medicaid. In fact, I'm a little surprised you don't now, you do have a child or two, right?

http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

On a side note, when they passed health care assistance for people on unemployment, there was a lot of hoopla about the COBRA subsidy. They also talked about expanding medicaid, but I never heard much else about it. Oregon has waivers so I never know if something doesn't get implemented here because of that, or if they did it differently, or what. Do you know anything about that in your state?

And, my daughter got a mortgage through Countrywide, which was sold to BofA. I just found out about the lawsuit but I don't think she qualifies because they never did a foreclosure on her after the loan reset. Get this, she hasn't made a payment in over a year. Her husband had an affair, bla bla, a real mess. She's going back to school. Anyways, isn't it peculiar that they're just leaving her alone like that? Does that indicate some kind of problem with the paperwork, or are they trying to avoid including her in the class action? I called the AG yesterday, stupid me, it was Veteran's Day. I just found out about this law suit Monday. Thoughts?

[sabrina 1]

55. The donut hole doesn't close until 2019?

Many seniors who are currently in the donut hole and are going without medications right now, will be dead by then. I don't get it. Why does everything that benefits the people have to wait so long, while Wall St. were handed over a trillion dollars as soon as they demanded it?

I know seniors in their eighties right now who did not understand the donut hole until they could not longer get their medications. Some have tried Canadadian pharmacies to get their medications, others just cut back on them. We are a total disgrace as a nation. Trillions for war, trillions for Wall St, and crumbs for the people who generate that money.

[Sebastian Doyle]

56. John Allen Muhammad was executed for killing 10 people with a rifle

The insurance companies kill millions of people and are rewarded by Congress with 40 million new "customers" who have no choice in the matter.

Tell me what's wrong with this picture.

[PHIMG]

57. Wow from +20 to +8.

The unreq tolls are out in force today. Fact based critiques are dangerous, you see!

[redqueen]

73. *roffle*

[LaydeeBug]

78. but it gets rid of pre existing conditions!! So everything else it does, or doesn't do, is ok. nt

[Kansas Wyatt]

83. See Post #82

We are being had and locking out real Health Care Reform FOREVER with this BAD Bill.

Congress could have and can pass bills now and at anytime, regulating the Insurance Industry on 'Pre-Existing' conditions, without screwing up Health Care Reform.

Congress can expand Medicaid NOW, without screwing up Health Care Reform.

After all, look at what they just did for the Banking Industry. Now they are doing for the Insurance Industry in the name of Health Care Reform.

[GreenTea]

91. No bill, will help give republicans- many more congressional seats in 2010 & Obama a one term

president in 2012....

This is exactly what the insurance corporations and the republicans want and are hoping for and trying to sabotage the health care bill anyway they can to make it happen!!

No health care bill will be devastating to the democrats and the republicans know this are doing everything they can, including getting dems to insert abortion language in the bill ANYTHING to make sure there is no bill ...it will hurt the democrats more than you can imagine.

We need a bill to get our foot in the door and expand on it...by keeping a Dem congress majority and a Democratic president - the republicans & insurance companies are doing everything legal & illeagal & lying to make sure there is never a health care bill in this country - Staus quo is what they want forever!!

[Orwellian_Ghost]

111. K&R

[Raine]

112. You're on point

totally! :thumbsup: