I see that Daily Kos is on the offensive with the health insurance bill. Ask Kos WHO is going to

[Nikki Stone1]

police this bill? Who is going to keep the insurance industry in line? (And don't say "state governments", they can't afford it.) Is Congress, who is entirely dependent on lobbyist money, much of it from insurance and the financial sector, going to be able to even reduce a large increase in premiums by any significant amount?

And when the insurance companies want more and give away less, will Congress just pump more tax dollars into the system? And how many of you will see less of your hard earned money because the insurance companies believe they deserve higher profits and go to their bought-and-paid-for members of Congress to get it?

How can the compromised police the compromiser?

[mmonk]

1. Thanks for the heads up.

I may write a new diary tomorrow.

[alstephenson]

Rec'd - just to offset the unrec someone left.

I'm starting to hate that feature...

[Nikki Stone1]

10. Yeah, well

many of us do. :)

[AnOhioan]

2. kicked and rec'd...tho the apologists have already been busy

[Nikki Stone1]

7. Oh yeah,

they have.

[leftstreet]

3. K&R

[laughingliberal]

4. K & R nt

[EFerrari]

5. Kick

[Uncle Joe]

6. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Nikki Stone.:thumbsup:

[StarfarerBill]

8. K&R

[BunkerHill24]

9. K&R

[Thickasabrick]

11. Nikki that is one of my biggest concerns. The states do not have

the time and I'm not sure if you read that article about California just giving up on insurance litigation because they were "out lawyered.

K&R

[amborin]

12. K&R

[amborin]

13. and "Paul Krugman's Health Care SellOut"

Paul Krugman's Health Care Sellout

Paul Krugman, one of the few liberal columnists writing for the New York Times, claims that at some point in the hoary past when he "began writing a lot about health care," he was in favor of a Canadian-style single-payer health care system. .......

But on Christmas, Krugman threw in the towel, calling on progressives to support the Senate's version of health care legislation. .....

Certainly the Senate bill, and the only slightly less cruddy House version.....does a few good things, such as increasing funding for community health clinics, expanding Medicaid, the health insurance system for the poor, and banning the current insurance industry practice of denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions.

But these small positive steps pale in comparison to the truly noxious things this bill does, and the things it fails to do.

The most outrageous thing the health "reform" bill does is further consolidate the death grip that the insurance industry has over health care access and delivery in America.

.....It does this by mandating that everyone buy health insurance, on pain of being slapped with a heavy fine by the IRS. Since most of the 47 million Americans without health insurance are younger and healthier than average, what this measure does is hand the private insurance industry a huge captive customer population who will be stuck with high-cost, low-benefit insurance that will generate huge profits for the industry. .....

snip

......It is a historic first: a law requiring American citizens to buy a service from a private company.

Adding insult to injury, the bill does almost nothing to limit costs. ....

Indeed, the government's own Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), predicts that the law, if enacted, will cause US health care costs--already the highest in the world on a per capita basis and as a share of GDP by a factor of almost two--to rise faster than ever.

snip

......to keep the projected costs of this bill at an alleged $871 billion over ten years, a huge amount of money is stolen from important existing programs, including $43 billion from payments to safety-net hospitals (mostly public institutions in urban centers which serve poor populations), and from cuts in Medicare funding that could for the first time lead significant numbers of physicians to stop seeing elderly patients on Medicare.

.....The bill also undermines trade unions by taxing, at a rate of as much as 40%, those health plans which, through years of negotiations, offered quality care to workers. .......

..... thus this penalty tax actually targets workplaces that employ more women, or that have older workers, or which are located in higher-cost regions such as New York or California.

snip

.....If his parents did manage to buy some subsidized insurance policy (and under the Senate version, over 20 million Americans would still be left uninsured!), the deductibles and co-pays would be so high that they still would not be able to get him treated for his deadly disease.......

Krugman is also profoundly wrong in his gloomy prediction that there is no chance for true health care reform (as defined by expanding Medicare to cover everyone in America), any time in the next ten years.

snip

As the insurance industry continues to rake in obscene profits, as America's health statistics continue to plummet, and most importantly, as the huge population of baby boomers hits retirement age and sees their health coverage under Medicare gutted and their children and grandchildren struggling to pay for care, the stage will be set for a radical political realignment, with socialized medicine as one of its key demands

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/29-6

[bertman]

24. Thanks, amborin, for that post. So true. nt

[tigereye]

39. well, why don't people continue to exert pressure to change some of these

things while the House and Senate are working out their differences prior to it being sent to Obama? I emailed all of my Reps and Senators prior to the bills being passed in each house, to make my concerns known. :shrug:


I agree with you about making HC mandatory - that isn't right, it's like punishing people more.

[Nikki Stone1]

40. Have you gotten any answers?

Other than the usual form letters...

[tigereye]

43. yes, I did get some answers, I have to find them in my emails

here is the Healthcare survey on my local Congressman's webpage:

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT HEALTH CARE REFORM?

As Congress continues to work on health care reform legislation, I’d like to know what my constituents think about this important issue. If you’re a resident of Pennsylvania’s 14th Congressional District, please take a moment to let me know what you think Congress should do.

1. In your opinion, would you say the healthcare system in America is okay the way it is, needs minor reforms, needs major reforms, or needs a total overhaul?

okay the way it is
needs minor reforms
needs major reforms
needs a total overhaul
Not Sure

2. How serious a problem is it for the United States that one out of every 7 Americans has no health insurance: very serious, somewhat serious, not too serious, or not at all serious?

very serious
somewhat serious
not too serious
or not at all serious
Not Sure

3. Which of the following do you think should be the top priority in reforming healthcare in America?

Improving the quality of patient care
Providing health coverage to people without insurance
Reducing the cost of healthcare
Not Sure

4.If we do reform the health care system would you prefer:

continuing the current employer based health care model
moving to a single payer system like Medicare
Not Sure

5. In any health care proposal, how important do you feel it is to give people a choice between a public insurance option administered by the federal government and a private insurance plan administered by an insurance company -- very important, somewhat important, not that important, or not at all important?

very important
somewhat important
not that important
not at all important
Not Sure

6. Do you favor or oppose the federal government requiring health insurance companies to cover anyone who applies, even if they have a prior illness (a “pre-existing condition”)?

Favor
Oppose
Not Sure

[Nikki Stone1]

48. That's a good questionnaire.

I hope his staff actually compiles the info. Who is your Congressman?

[tigereye]

54. Mike Doyle PA 14th

I guess my point in posting was that I don't think all Congressmen and Senators ignored people's opinions...

[Nikki Stone1]

56. Well, it sounds good

I hope he actually compiles stats and votes accordingly. :)

[tigereye]

60. and that's what every Rep/Senator should do -

so perhaps people should get busy emailing, calling, etc, if they don't like the way things are going. :D

[TheKentuckian]

14. K&R That's what I've been sayin'

[Nikki Stone1]

15. Then you're a wise one.

:)

[sabrina 1]

16. If people refuse to participate in this

Private, for-profit scam, they would not profit.

The American people have been sitting on the side-lines waiting like hungry children to see what crumbs their overlords might throw their way. They've done useless things like calling Congress who have left no doubt anymore, who they are working for, to say how unhappy they are. Or signed petitions that nobody reads.

If we didn't learn after the Wall St. bailouts that we have zero representation in DC, after an overwhelming majority of the American people let them know they opposed those bailouts, that to try to influence them is a wasted effort, when will we learn? Getting distracted by the apologists, wasting time arguing with the collaborators, will accomplish nothing.

Congress will pass a bill that benefits Private Ins. and that is about it.

The only way to influence them is to not participate. At some point, and maybe we are getting there now, it will reach a point, similar to what happened before the American Revolution, where people across the political spectrum and from various backgrounds, all agree on one thing. We no longer have a representative government. Then, we can think about how to use the power we actually do have. We outnumber them. And we have purchasing power, which this bill attempts to take away. Are we going to let them do that?

[Nikki Stone1]

26. The problem is if a lot of us don't by the stuff mandated by law, the fine for not buying will

increase dramatically to make us buy the stuff. And if we all just said no to this crap, we might be forbidden emergency room or clinic care or be placed in jail. I think this kind of stuff scares people, especially if they have children.

[sabrina 1]

42. I understand that. That's why it will take an overwhelming

majority of the people to rise up against these threats. It is ludicrous to accept a threat of refusing to treat people in a democracy. I know this country is not ready to take the only actions that will put a stop to what really is tyranny, if what you say is really what people are scared. Just acknowledging that, shows how far gone this country is. And I do agree that what you say is true. Because each step that got us here, was allowed to happen until they accumulated so much power, that we are now where we are. The people in the US are scared of their own government. How sad is that?

[Nikki Stone1]

45. Everything you say is true here.

And it's devastating.

[havocmom]

17. Most states won't be any help regulating. Lobbyists can buy local pols cheaper than Senators!

And it looks like they buy Republicans pretty often

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/29/health/policy/29lobby.html?_r=1&hp

WASHINGTON — Like about a dozen other states, Florida is debating a proposed amendment to its state constitution that would try to block, at least symbolically, much of the proposed federal health care overhaul on the grounds that it tramples individual liberty.

But what unites the proposal’s legislative backers is more than ideology. Its 42 co-sponsors, all Republicans, were almost all recipients of outsized campaign contributions from major health care interests, a total of about $765,000 in 2008, according to a new study by the National Institute on Money in State Politics, a nonpartisan group based in Helena, Mont.

It is just one example of how insurance companies, hospitals and other health care interests have been positioning themselves in statehouses around the country to influence the outcome of the proposed health care overhaul. Around the 2008 election, the groups that provide health care contributed about $102 million to state political campaigns across the country, surpassing the $89 million the same donors spent at the federal level, according to the institute.

...

[Nikki Stone1]

18. Yep.

God this is awful.

[Nikki Stone1]

38. Do you have more good info on this?

Thanks.

[havocmom]

47. besides the NYT link? Not now

I will try to research a bit about and tendencies toward more lax state regulations tomorrow. Am headed for bed sick just now.

But it is logical to assume the lobbyist push at state level is probably just getting started. That little opt out stinker is a time bomb for lobbyists to tinker with, state by state. People will be constantly at the mercy of their state legis, and state pols usually cave for less than national pols. Less bright light.

One could fret that at state level, majorities could turn a bit more often. I can't imagine GOP majorities in most states NOT opting out of anything a DEM US Congress put into place. But I gotta tell ya, I am not so sure which way I personally go on these bills. Without public option and nation-wide, I see only a patchwork of policies that will constantly keep working and middle classes at the mercy of whims from local political winds.

It sucketh and bloweth.

Talk to ya in the morning, Nikki.

:hi:

[Nikki Stone1]

49. Take it easy and good night!

:hi:

[havocmom]

66. Will Insurance industry pull in states + opt out = public at mercy of bought pols all over America

It doesn't bode well to let states 'opt out' of any federal HCR plan (and that is hoping we might get one that does some good for the majority of Americans) because state legislatures are already influenced too much by insurance companies. States are supposed to regulate insurance but like halls of government everywhere, consumer/voter type people don't seem to have the pull that the ol corporate personhood thing has. Lobbyists and campaign contributions are not just poisoning the Hill.


Not health insurance, but insurance just the same, with the same exemption form anti-trust laws, in Florida
http://www.propertyinsurancecoveragelaw.com/2009/12/articles/insurance/do-florida-legislators-think-we-are-stupid/

Floridians currently have legislators that are in the pockets of and doing business for insurance companies. Virtually all states regulate insurance rates because insurance companies have been historically notorious for over charging customers following losses, as well as for under charging customers before declaring bankruptcy.
Now, our legislators have claimed that rates will stay the same and not go up if there are no regulations limiting what insurance companies can charge. Gimme a break.
Insurance companies want the regulation to cease so they can, as a group, raise the rates as much as they can---especially after hurricanes, when insurers leave the market or use the hurricane losses as reasons to raise prices knowing customers have no choice. This is what happened in the 1990s following Hurricane Andrew and after the 2004 and 2005 hurricanes.
Then, we had leaders that stood up to the insurance industry. Now, many legislators in leadership receive significant support and constant lobbying from insurance companies. The result is this anti-consumer legislation.

Insurance lobbyists spending in California from an LA Times article from 2004
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/nov/22/business/fi-lobby22

Insurance companies spent about $21 million for lobbyists and related expenses in the 2003-04 legislative session, according to records kept by the secretary of State's office. That's about twice the amount spent on lobbying by banks and other financial institutions and about a quarter of the lobbying bill racked up by the state's much larger manufacturing sector.

On top of that, insurance interests kicked in $6.5 million in political contributions for state candidates and ballot measures during the same period.

"In the Legislature, their power is staggering," consumer advocate Amy Bach of United Policyholders said of the insurance industry. "They blanket the Capitol with sheer numbers of lobbyists."
Advertisement

Senate Insurance Committee Chairwoman Jackie Speier (D-Hillsborough), known as a consumer advocate, has been a frequent adversary. She said insurance companies "are persuasive because they are big campaign contributors ... and they can use intimidation."

Also in linked LA Times article makes a reference to then New York Atty. Gen. Eliot Spitzer's law suit challenging insurance company practices. Ol Eliot did us no favor getting caught with his hookers down, but sure gives reason some well heeled heels were gunning for him. Intimidation to other would-be consumer advocates in state governments across America? Oh, yeah, I am that cynical.

Consider the amounts of money insurance companies spent on lobbyists and campaign contributions at state levels over the past few years, BEFORE they might be able to buck any federal program offering some health insurance protection but leaving the opt out option for states. They spent a ton of money on the Hill, just this year, to thwart real reform. Will they take the fight state by state, quietly buying off smaller pols with less media attention? Oh, it sure seems likely.

This whole thing is a wreck that give Big Insurance all kinds of emergency routes and leaves the citizen stuck at the scene, bleeding out under mandates, no real protections from whims of shifting majorities in each state. It leaves open the evacuation route to a patchwork of state/insurer bartered plans. How does that protect Americans?

If you live in a state that lets you get some benefits from the federal plan, but the local economy tanks, your job moves away, and you have to do likewise, what happens if you have to go to a state that has opted out? Are you held captive by which state is in and which state is out? What happens if your state hasn't opted out, you are not totally being screwed by insurers, but there is a shift in voting and the other guys get in and lop off your access to any help from the federal plan?

Can I have slaves in one state, but not in another? That is what it seems to boil down too. Only the slave holders will be the insurance companies. Is there gonna be a new, economic Mason Dixon Line? Will people have to play geographic hopscotch to try and maintain any sort of stability in their health care coverage.

Yeah, I sound like a raving fool, and perhaps I am, but Opt Out + the massive influence the insurance industry has in states sure as hell seems like it has a huge potential for some bad ass unintended consequences. Or is it just part of the plan? I don't know but I know I don't trust the industry nor the pols they have bought.

[havocmom]

67. Colorado health insurance lobby vows to fight mandatory maternity coverage

From 11/17/09 (that's BEFORE states can play fast and loose with an opt out loophole for HRC)

http://coloradoindependent.com/42121/colorado-health-insurance-lobby-vows-to-fight-mandatory-maternity-coverage

Insurance industry lobbyists have pulled back on the fight to charge women higher insurance rates across the board and have redrawn the battle lines, vowing to oppose legislation this coming sessions that would force insurers to offer individual plans that would cover maternity care.

The Colorado State Association of Health Underwriters (CSAHU) doesn’t plan to lobby against laws that would put an end to practices that charge women higher premiums for health insurance on the individual market, according to Dorothy Marshall, who handles legislative affairs for the group.

Yet the group will fight a bill that would require all health insurance plans on the individual market to include maternity.

...

According to a recent study by the National Women’s Law Center, women in Colorado who purchase insurance on the individual market currently pay up to 59 percent more than men. That’s for coverage that doesn’t include maternity care, since it is virtually impossible to find a plan that includes maternity care on the state’s individual market.

Just a little more to consider re current trends and what they might suggest for the future at state level for insurers and the pols they buy screwing consumers.

Opt out? Yeah trust your state pols. They ALWAYS have your back

[shadesofgray]

19. K&R

[Truth2Tell]

20. Markos jumping in on this was as predictable

as the sunrise.

[Nikki Stone1]

22. But not nearly as

pretty. :)

[Truth2Tell]

25. No, never pretty.

Kos can be counted on to act as a reliable NetDaddy when it's time to rein in those pesky kids on the Interwebs who are always harping about their ponies.

[Nikki Stone1]

28. What is this thing about the ponies?

I am missing something here.

[Truth2Tell]

29. The Obama apologists around here have a habit

of deriding progressive critics for whining about "not getting their pony." It got overused for awhile but seems to have died down.

[Nikki Stone1]

31. Oh. That's bizarre.

So complaining when the president does the opposite of what he said during the campaign is "wanting a pony"? I suppose of those apologists bought a new car and then it needed a new transmission right away, they would be "wanting a pony" too.

[Generator]

34. When did this happen?

He was totally against it two weeks ago. It makes me disgusted. Not only do "our" "Dems" have no spine, the progressives voices don't either. I never read Kos-mostly I know him from when I see him on the Ed show or Countdown. Is this because of the magic Bernie Sanders public clinic money compromise or just because he always rallies to the beltway in the end? WHAT is the point of being a progressive voice if you toady to the power in the end? THE END is all that matters.

[Nikki Stone1]

37. Markos was probably told which side his bread was buttered on.

.

[Thickasabrick]

41. Did Markos specifically address this or is this just some diary

writer? Last I heard Kos was on vacation and the last article he wrote about it he was for killing the bill.

[Nikki Stone1]

44. I checked: there were a couple of diary writers.

The problem, of course, is that his name gets associated with them.

[femrap]

63. Markos is

republican lite...always has been. If he calls himself a progressive, it gives most of us here a bad name.

I rarely go to Kos because I simply can't stand that worm.

[amborin]

21. i'm worried that this "terra" thing is distracting....people need to scrutinize the bill...the focus

has shifted

[Nikki Stone1]

23. That's very possible.

But let's just keep on pushing.

[laughingliberal]

59. Yeah, I thought that today. nt

[bertman]

27. What I see happening is that we are being asked NOT to be good Americans, but to be

GOOD DEMOCRATS, meaning that we are supposed to suspend our anger at being screwed by our government and support this bill for the benefit of the Democratic party that has given away the fucking store.

I refuse to do it.

This "reform" is not good for America. It is not a first step in the right direction. It is a continuation and expansion of movement in the wrong direction toward more corporate power over us citizens.

It makes me very sad that allegiance to party has come to be more important than allegiance to the country as a whole. The spin machine is on "High" and cranking out the Good News about Healthcare Reform. For all of the reasons cited in the commondreams article I see no reason whatsoever to be an accomplice in this mugging.

Nikki, your OP asks all the right questions. I wish we were getting the right answers from our elected representatives.

Rec.

[Nikki Stone1]

30. That's right.

We're supposed to support the party to our own financial detriment and to the detriment of our fellow citizens. Obama is just wrong on this one. Or if it's Rahm, then Rahm is wrong on this one.

[amborin]

32. exactly!

and as someone posted the other day, really, this battle is no longer dems vs rethugs....

it's the bottom against the ruling elite

(not paraphrasing very well, the poster's original statement was very eloquent)

[Nikki Stone1]

33. You did just fine.

:)

[johnaries]

35. You've gotten the answer several times now. Why do you keep

asking when you've already been told the answers repeatedly?

Depending upon the provision it will be policed by HHS, HHS in conjuction with individual States, and/or the OPM.

Stop acting like it's never been answered. It's a dead horse.

[Nikki Stone1]

36. Because the ultimate control of Federal agencies lies in the hands of Congress

and the Executive Branch. Congress votes on their budgets, and the Executive Branch can directly interfere with their work. Remember Bush's EPA and how the administration interfered with the science?

If the insurance industry complains, Congress can reduce HHS's budget or the Executive Branch can tell HHS to lay off. Or both. When Congress and presidential candidates are financially beholden to insurance companies in order to get elected, there is no real teeth in the policing.

[SpartanDem]

50. This argument is silly

so we shouldn't attempt to regulate becuase some GOP adminstration might come along and not do it's job. Well I guess Obama and other Dems should turn give up thier offices since all is lost.

[Nikki Stone1]

52. No, it's the truth and there's a history to it.

It's the way things run in Washington. The Bush administration was particularly nasty this way, cutting funds from agencies it didn't like, using the IRS and the Justice Department to hunt down political foes, and stacking the FDA and the EPA with industry shills that destroyed the scientific independence of these agencies. The worst thing was the Bush administration blocking the Inspector General's office at the Pentagon from investigating waste, fraud and abuse, especially in regard to Haliburton.

Now look at TARP, which was basically a transfer of future wealth (debt) from the middle class to Wall Street. Congress voted for this.

Take off the rose colored glasses and maybe it won't look so silly to you. People taking money from an industry are the LAST people who should be policing it. And if you don't think the insurance companies will try to influence the choice of the head of HHS, think again.

[SpartanDem]

55. Again you're arguing that any attempts to regulate are useless

Do think the public option would somehow be better shielded from GOP mischief or industry money? No it wouldn't and given you're stance that since there is industry influence in government, that government shouldn't be policing then we might as well shut down the entire government. Either you believe government can be an effective regulator and manager or you don't. You can't on the one hand embrace Reagan on the ineffectiveness, incompetence of government and then go all Kucinich later extoling the virtues of government run programs like Medicare.

[bvar22]

64. No. Not ANY attempt to regulate is useless.

But ANY attempt to regulate WITHOUT a well funded independent Oversight & Enforcement Agency with SHARP TEETH and frighteningly punitive scheduled penalties is pretty much worthless.

[Nikki Stone1]

46. To clarify: the Kos writer is Norbrook

Kos himself is apparently on vacation.

[berni_mccoy]

53. Thanks for admitting this is a callout thread.

[mcablue]

51. Markos Moulitsas is against the Senate bill

It is anonymous diary writers who make noise.

[Nikki Stone1]

57. OK. Thanks.

I guess he's still holding out for the public option. That's good.

[waiting for hope]

58. K&R -

Insurance companies are going to go to town pillaging everything they can get - and then what? The future of this doesn't look pretty and the fall out with be huge.

[grahamhgreen]

61. What are the penalties for denying a child their rightful cancer treatment? If the child dies,

can anyone go to prison for killing the child?

etc....

I think there are weak fines only, the corp does not get dissolved , people are not fired, nobody goes to jail.... (from my understanding)

[Echo In Light]

62. K&R

[bvar22]

65. Enforcement and Oversight will probably be left up to the consumers.

You can file a suit against the Health Insurance Cartel if you feel you have been mistreated by them.

Then you can fight your way through the courts against an army of well paid lawyers kept on staff by the Health Insurance Industry for just this purpose. They will commonly contest even obviously legitimate complaints, betting that YOU don't have the time or money to follow through. In most cases, THEY are right.

After a few years, if you are still alive, and have had the thousands of dollars necessary to stay in this game, you might actually receive a favorable determination from the court.
If you are really lucky, you might even receive an award that is MORE than the costs of the lawyers, time, and aggravation necessary to carry things this far.

After all, that is the "Uniquely American Solution".


You really have to face the fact that the Democratic Party has a miserable record of "regulating" Big Business over the last 30 years.
In fact, the DLC Democrats are on record saying that "regulation" just gets in the way of "business"...and the DLC Democrats are firmly in control.

Anyone who subscribes to the talking point that "Mandates are OK because the Democrats are going to regulate the Health Insurance Industry" really hasn't been paying attention for the last 30 years.