home

Selling The Health Bills: No Public Insurance, No Taxes On The Wealthy

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 08:43:11 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Kevin Drum on the selling of the health bills in Jason Altmire's district:

Doyle McManus writes today about a town hall meeting between Blue Dog Democratic congressman Jason Altmire and a group of tea partiers. The Senate healthcare bill, he told them, doesn't have a public option and doesn't raise income taxes:

But the conversation ran aground when he asked a fundamental question: Shouldn't the government help low-income people afford basic health insurance? "No!" most of the visitors shouted. "Some of you are never going to agree with me," Altmire said.

And none of them will ever vote for Altmire or any Democrat. and yet Altmire sells the health bills by pointing to how progressive ideas were discarded. But some want progressives to put on a happy face and whip for these bills. And some will do it. To each his own.

Speaking for me only

< Will The Health Bills Really Be "The Most Important Thing They Will Ever Do?" | March For America This Sunday >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Selling The Health Bills: No Public Insurance, No Taxes On The Wealthy | 182 comments (182 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The new WH talking points (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:06:44 AM EST
    TPM:

    Offer tax credits to small businesses to purchase coverage;
    Prohibit pre-existing condition exclusions for children in all new plans;
    Provide immediate access to insurance for uninsured Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition through a temporary high-risk pool;
    Prohibit dropping people from coverage when they get sick in all individual plans;
    Eliminate lifetime limits and restrictive annual limits on benefits in all plans;
    Require premium rebates to enrollees from insurers with high administrative expenditures and require public disclosure of the percent of premiums applied to overhead costs;
    Ensure consumers have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to appeal new insurance plan decisions;
    Require plans to cover an enrollee's dependent children until age 26;
    Require new plans to cover preventive services and immunizations without cost-sharing;
    Relief on the Donut Hole.

    There are some good things there.  Sure as hell no new age of liberalism though.  And that makes me cranky.

    Wait a minute (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:17:06 AM EST
    Now it's "Prohibit pre-existing condition exclusions for children in all new plans"

    Um...what about the rest of us?

    Parent

    If I'm not mistaken, I think that's (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:20:22 AM EST
    been in the plan all along - and a lot of language about "...in all new plans," which has yet to be explained.

    It's as much what they don't tell you as what they do that tells the tale.

    Parent

    Pre-existing conditions restrictions (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 11:11:37 AM EST
    are only found in NEW plans. You have to have been diagnosed and/or treated for a condition within 6 months prior to signing up for a New Insurance policy for pre-existing to even come up.

    My employer changed insurance companies this year. We all got our certification that we were insured on the day before new coverage began. In my state, the only way a pre-existing condition can deny coverage on a person is if that person was without any insurance just prior to getting new coverage. If you change employers and have to change insurance companies, your certification clears you of being put on a pre-existing condition restriction.


    Parent

    So, are you saying that once the (none / 0) (#90)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 12:06:19 PM EST
    bill passes, someone who has an insurance policy that does not cover them for a specific condition will then be automatically covered?

    I mean, there are people who have plans that currently exclude coverage of certain conditions, and not just for the duration of a waiting period.

    Some years ago, my husband and I went out into the individual market for insurance; they accepted us (and our daughter) but would not cover my husband for specific conditions - ever.  Not after a six-month period, not after a year, but EVER.  And the exclusions were so broad (one was high blood pressure and anything related to it, so you know that if he needed to be treated for a hangnail, they would find it somehow related to his BP) that he decided there was no point in being insured.

    Now, he's now 100% covered by the VA, which has been a blessing (and at least here in Baltimore, the experience with the VA system has been top-notch).

    My concern was really about people who currently have plans with exclusions, and whether they would automatically get coverage, or if they would be forced to re-apply.  Will they be paying more and thus given the choice to self-exclude to keep costs down?  Not sure that has been answered.  I mean, if there is to be no denial or non-coverage for pre-existing conditions, why does "new" even come into it at all - why would it matter if the plan was a new one or an existing one?

    Feel like I am talking in circles - sorry! - and still not sure if myt questions convey what it is I'm concerned about.

    Parent

    NEW comes into it because (none / 0) (#96)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 12:34:37 PM EST
    only new policies have the pre-existing conditions restrictions.

    I've not read or heard one thing ever that said this bill was going to mandate to insurance companies what they can and can't cover in their policies. People will have to shop for coverage just like they do for their home and auto policies.

    You get what your employer provides you access to if you are on a group plan. Individual plans are dreadful everywhere.

    What you are trying to get from this bill is what most of us really wish for....Single Payer where the plan is national and everyone is covered for everything :)


    Parent

    So, don't you think there is going to (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 12:46:52 PM EST
    be a collective, "WHAT? The Democrats told me...and now I find out that...and on top of that...and I have to wait a couple more years, and my premiums have gone up XX%...and...and...so where's all this benefit I'm supposed to be getting???"

    How hard do you think the Dems are praying that enough people don't glom onto the scam before November?

    Parent

    Am I understanding you? (none / 0) (#110)
    by me only on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 01:12:15 PM EST
    You want the legislation to require additional coverage at the current price?

    Parent
    No, you're not understanding me... (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 01:55:27 PM EST
    premiums are going up like a rocket NOW, and I expect they will continue to do that so that when the day comes when all those millions of people who don't have insurance are mandated to buy it, the rates will be as high as possible as a baseline.

    Shoot, my premiums went up almost 20% for 2010 - and nothing changed; they have doubled in the six years I've had the policy, for heaven's sake - I can hardly wait to see what next year brings...

    But, here's the thing...when you hear Obama and Pelosi and all these other insurance bill-cheerleaders talking it up, do you ever hear them say, "this bill will not allow insurance companies to refuse to issue you a policy if you have a pre-existing condition...but you will probably be rated higher and it will cost you more (up to three times for your age group)."

    No, of course you don't, even if it just makes sense, because when the government is going to mandate that you have insurance they don't want you to think about the cost, they only want you to think about the benefit...and your only option for lowering your premiums will be to lower your coverage and increase your deductibles and co-pays, which means the real benefit will not be accruing to you.  And if people believe these companies will not still be looking for ways to deny payment, they are truly living in another reality than the one the rest of us are living in.

    Democrats have been so focused on PASS THE DAMN BILL that they are missing the fact that when you tout something as truly historic and of epic proportions that will usher in the biggest change in a generation, it sure as hell better live up to that promise or you are going to pay, and pay big for a long, long time.

    Not that it matters - to anyone in Washington, apparently - but what I want is a single-payer plan that covers everyone, is the same in every state in the nation, and is paid for with taxes, not premiums.

    Parent

    Anne, something changed (none / 0) (#117)
    by me only on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 02:06:20 PM EST
    Shoot, my premiums went up almost 20% for 2010 - and nothing changed;

    Either you died last year or you are a year older.  So from the insurance companies point of view something did change.

    they have doubled in the six years I've had the policy,

    Mine have more than quadrupled in the nine years I have had the policy.

    As far as single payer is concerned, it won't happen.  It is the pipedream that keeps money flowing to Democrats campaign funds.  The Democrats won't enact it, because the base would never accept paying for it with additional payroll taxes.  

    Parent

    The current price is pretty darn high (none / 0) (#139)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 03:38:15 PM EST
    and the insurance companies are about to get a whole bunch more people to pay those high premiums.

    Here's a glitch that is bothering me:

    The insurance companies, at this time, can cancel anyone they want to because they find them too costly or high risk.

    There is nothing in this bill that I've seen that says we can be exempt from the mandate if our policy premiums increase more than a certain amount.

    Here's a really big concern I have:

    Obama told the crowd in Ohio, I believe, the bill will reduce many employer plans by 3,000% (three thousand percent)--there's video on it, so everyone should be expecting big raises. Once you reduce a cost by 100%, you've taken it to FREE. How does someone reduce it by 3000%??

    Now, if he doesn't have a better understanding of this bill than that, what are we to think?


    Parent

    Maybe he just made a mistake, but in (none / 0) (#141)
    by me only on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 04:00:18 PM EST
    reading the transcript, he made another mistake, namely:

    And she upped her deductible last year to the minimum [sic], the highest possible deductible.  But despite that, Natoma's insurance company raised her premiums by more than 25 percent.  And over the past year, she paid more than $6,000 in monthly premiums.

    AUDIENCE:  Boo!

    THE PRESIDENT:  She paid more than $4,000 in out-of-pocket medical costs, for co-pays and medical care and prescriptions.  So all together, this woman paid $10,000 -- one year.  But because she never hit her deductible, her insurance company only spent $900 on her care.  So the insurance company is making -- getting $10,000; paying out $900.  Now, what comes in the mail at the end of last year?

    Does Obama understand that deductibles are not paid to the insurance company?  They are paid to the provider.  So the insurance company did not get $10,000 and pay out $900.  

    Let me rephrase, I am sure Obama doesn't understand the current system.

    Now, as for

    "The insurance companies, at this time, can cancel anyone they want to because they find them too costly or high risk.

    There is nothing in this bill that I've seen that says we can be exempt from the mandate if our policy premiums increase more than a certain amount."

    I don't think you would be exempt from the mandate.  Probably you would drop your insurance and pay the mandate penalty because it makes economic sense.

    Parent

    He doesn't understand the bill being proposed, (none / 0) (#145)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 04:20:59 PM EST
    nor does he understand the insurance industry. He proves he is disconnected constantly. His industry expert advisors are taking advantage of that. Yet, he is out there just rambling on and on pretending his goal is to solve this countries problems on getting affordable healthCARE to ALL its citizens. And, time for Term limits....too many congressional folks have been away from real life for too long to do the people any good from those cushy seats.

    I didn't communicate my concern for being mandated to pay whatever the insurance companies want to charge well enough, so I won't respond to your reply and drag that out.


    Parent

    As someone who uses the individual (none / 0) (#147)
    by me only on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 04:30:43 PM EST
    market, I promise I understand your concern.  I just don't think anyone really knows what the answer is.

    Parent
    Only employer plans (none / 0) (#142)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 04:02:00 PM EST
    in our 57th state will be reduced by 3000%. :-)

    Parent
    Chuckle :) (none / 0) (#144)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 04:11:35 PM EST
    I thought about that, too, but the difference between that kind of misspeak on the campaign trail and the sharing of knowledge intended to sell a pretty important piece of life to the people is 3,000 miles wide.


    Parent
    It's already happening (none / 0) (#111)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 01:20:34 PM EST
    My 91 year-old grandmother, who will not need this bill because she is covered under my late grandfather's plan from the UAW and Medicare, asked me the other day what was going on with this bill. she hadn't watched the news in a few days and she wondered if this bill had passed yet. When I told her no, but even if it passed today, most of the stuff she's concerned about (coverage for some of her grandkids and great-grandkids) won't take effect until 2014 or 2016, she was surprised and asked me what the point was of dragging this out for the last year.  I didn't have an answer for her, and then she went off about politicians and screwing things up.

    Parent
    I do think that is going to happen.... (none / 0) (#143)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 04:08:50 PM EST
    on more than one level of collective, "WHAT?"

    First of all, too many people don't know what they have now, and think because they are "insured" they are free to run to the doctor for everything and anything (except plastic surgery). They think this way until they have a problem.

    It's real easy for the gov't to make claims when they know most people are in a bubble and don't understand insurance, anyway.

    I don't see a whole lot of changes between what is actually available (though not universal) and what they are proposing. I don't think they went to "cadillac" level with what they propose, but they are making it hard for insurance companies to sell truly bare bones policies. They are not making it affordable, they are not managing the costs, and they've done nothing to make healthCARE available to all.

    Anyone who has a policy that includes a $25.00 co-pay for office visits, and a $1,000 deductible, plus pays their own premiums is someone who could have problems getting healthCARE.


    Parent

    The rhetoric on closing the donut hole (none / 0) (#146)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 04:23:08 PM EST
    for people on Medicare is another example. How many seniors are aware of the fact that this legislation is scheduled to close that gap not this year or next but 10 years from now? Since Pharma raised prescription drug prices by 9.3% this year, many seniors will actually have to pay full price for their drugs sooner this year than they did last year.

    Parent
    As medical advocate to my parents, the (none / 0) (#148)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 04:55:55 PM EST
    doctors need to stop trying to figure out what they can write on their pad every single time a senior shows up in their office.

    Always handing over a new prescription with, "let's try this, and if it doesn't work you let me know and we'll try something else."

    Parent

    I think the big difference (none / 0) (#46)
    by CST on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:23:49 AM EST
    on this issue is that someone like you reads that line and says "this bill doesn't go far enough"

    I read that line and say "I'm horrified that that isn't already covered today, we need to get on that".

    That to me is the key difference between the two "sides" of this issue here.

    Parent

    No, I think the problem is that (5.00 / 6) (#53)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:35:17 AM EST
    all we've been hearing, for months and months is, "the insurance companies will no longer be able to refuse to insure you if you have a pre-existing condition," which is not the same as "pre-existing conditions for children will no longer be excluded."

    But note, if you will, that it says "in all new plans."  What does that mean from a logistical standpoint?  If you have a child whose asthma isn't covered under your existing plan, and you want it to be, will you have to drop your current plan, re-apply, and be subject to new rates for your new, conforms-with-reforms policy?

    What if your coverage is through an employer's group plan?  And what happens if your employer is happy with the plan and wants to keep it - will you be unable to cover your children's pre-existing conditions because there is no "new" plan?

    Don't you think we should all understand and know what lies ahead, so we can know if what is being sold to us is actually going to help, and don't you wonder why these kinds of questions are not being answered?

    Parent

    Yes, we absolutely should all understand (none / 0) (#77)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 11:23:04 AM EST
    and should be given a period of time where whatever congress is passing has been analyzed and examined thoroughly before any vote takes place.

    Problem I see is that insurance rules vary considerably from state to state. It's really difficult to see what would change if you don't know what your state currently holds the insurance companies to.

    The pre-existing conditions rules started as a means to prevent people from dropping their insurance when they are well and only buying them again after they had been diagnosed with something that needed expensive treatment. They've expanded as a means to deny claims while the industry gets more and more greedy. But, pre-existing conditions clauses only apply to New policies, which is why the wording is there.


    Parent

    I do think we should understand (none / 0) (#86)
    by CST on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 11:40:40 AM EST
    and the questions aren't being answered because no one with a big enough platform (news media) is asking them.

    That being said, the bill is in writing, the senate bill is essentially what we are getting with some "fixes" attached, but not to the regulatory structure.

    But if you want to know the answer, it's out there, and I've tried to link to some of the information.

    There is an extended timeline for this stuff, but it does all come in at some point.  And the immediate provisions are there to provide some relief in the meantime.

    And thanks to the inspector for explaining the "new plans" bit.  Since a lot of this stuff doesn't make sense unless you have dealt with it first-hand.  And even then it's complicated.

    Parent

    Pelosi promised 72 hours (none / 0) (#88)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 11:56:45 AM EST
    She said they would post the plan they were going to vote on 72 hours before any voting took place.

    We shouldn't have to scour the internet to find bits and pieces. The Senate bill is horrid.


    Parent

    Don't hold your breath (none / 0) (#91)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 12:07:06 PM EST
    After all, Obama promised a 5-day public review and comment period before signing any non-emergency legislation, and we all know how that's gone...

    Parent
    The senate bill (none / 0) (#95)
    by CST on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 12:27:36 PM EST
    contains all the regulatory changes (since I believe that cannot be adressed in reconciliation) and has been online for months.  So for the purposes of this discussion - we know exactly what we're gonna get.

    We shouldn't have to scour the internet for someone to break down this monstrous bill for us.  But that's the news media's fault, not congress.  The senate bill is there, for all to see, in it's complete, horrifically long glory.

    Parent

    I've had the Senate bill (none / 0) (#98)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 12:42:32 PM EST
    on my computer since it was released. I thought the House was making all kinds of improvements and changes to give the country a bill that all could be happy with :)

    If the House has tweaked the Senate bill into something magical, I haven't seen it published.


    Parent

    Insurance Definition of PRE-EXISTING (none / 0) (#94)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 12:25:59 PM EST
    What if your coverage is through an employer's group plan?  And what happens if your employer is happy with the plan and wants to keep it - will you be unable to cover your children's pre-existing conditions because there is no "new" plan?

    Your scenario has no pre-existing condition in it because there is no new plan. The condition had to have existed, been diagnosed, and/or treated within a close timeframe (usually 6 months) prior to having insurance coverage.

    (At least in my state, only if you break the link from one insurance policy to another and go uninsured for a period of time do you even face the possibility of pre-existing restrictions.)

    Pre-Existing Condition - A coverage limitation included in many health policies which states that certain physical or mental conditions, either previously diagnosed or which would normally be expected to require treatment prior to issue, will not be covered under the new policy for a specified period of time.

    Think of your auto insurance. You are uninsured and hit the side of your garage while backing out. A month later you decide to buy insurance because you don't like driving around with a dented fender. Should your new insurance company pay to repair your fender?

    On your asthma case, no insurance companies are going line by line to the previous plans to see what specific conditions were there so they can create pre-existing conditions restrictions. They expect the reason employers move to new companies and policies is to get better coverage than they had.

    Back to the auto comparison: say you change insurance companies and your new policy has added uninsured motorist coverage. A month after you switch policies you get hit by an uninsured motorist. Your new provider is not going to ask you to prove your previous policy had this coverage.

    There are real reasons to not like insurance companies and the way they run their business, though.
     

    Parent

    Okay - this makes sense. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 12:40:31 PM EST
    I allowed myself to get bogged down in the weeds.

    I've not been insured by a group plan for about 6 or 7 years; for a long time, we had insurance through my husband's employer - it was better insurance and less expensive than what I could get us through mine.  When he lost his job, we did the COBRA thing for as long as we could (he was out of work for almost two years), and that's when we went out into the individual market - there was some kind of gap in coverage and the insurance company took advantage of that and wrote exclusions into the proposal with resepct to my husband - and they were not time-limited.

    Imagine - an insurance company taking advantage of something...who'd a thunk it?

    Anyway, I've not been in group mode for a while, so wasn't thinking about how everyone's covered no matter what (more or less).

    It's the individual market where this is going to be more of a factor, and so my question was, if someone currentl has insurance with exclusions, do those exclusions automatically just go away - probably with some kind of rate increase - or what?


    Parent

    To add to the complicated nature of (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 12:54:23 PM EST
    insurance, every state has a different set of rules they guide the industry with...that's why we all have Insurance Commissioners, and why Single Payer on a National scale would be the easiest and best solution. (IMHO)

    Parent
    Some kind of rate increase... (none / 0) (#102)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 12:52:42 PM EST
    The devil's in the details, right?

    Parent
    State rules (none / 0) (#101)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 12:49:49 PM EST
    could be superseded by this law. Remember the telecommunications act when states and local governments lost the ability to regulate locations for cell towers and sidewalk blocking telecom equipment? How many state rules will be tossed out the window?

    Parent
    Yes, indeed, the state rules could/will be (none / 0) (#105)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 12:57:11 PM EST
    tossed out the window...unless they have a rule that says the better of the two shall rule.

    My reference to the difference from state to state is in trying to find common ground in defining the current situation. We all have different experiences because of the differences in the rules between states that currently exist.


    Parent

    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#108)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 01:10:00 PM EST
    A co-worker and I were talking about this a few weeks ago.  She told me that she had to fight her insurance company because she bought an individual policy and then a couple of months later, she got pregnant.  They weren't going to cover her because they considered it a pre-existing condition, even though she wasn't pregnant when she applied for and was accepted into, the policy.  They had a 6 month waiting period to get pregnant.

    So I guess the potential to become pregnant is now a pre-existing condition?

    Parent

    Someone used the wrong term (none / 0) (#137)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 03:18:36 PM EST
    There are some policies that will have restrictions put into their plans to prevent people buying coverage because they are trying to get pregnant. They had a no-coverage clause for 6 months on pregnancy, and probably other expensive conditions. That's not uncommon. As dry as the material might be, people need to read their policies.

    I made that mistake once, and had a crown taken care of 2 weeks before my restriction period for major dental work was up...cost me over $1000, and it will never happen again. Most policies I've ever had through employers were no major illness coverage for 3-6 months.

    Working in the insurance industry is a giant eye-opener for how few people take the time to understand their policies and the industry in general. I did a year in health insurance and hated it, but rather enjoy the commercial and personal lines industry. Then, I also work for someone who goes out of his way to make sure his clients are informed about what they are buying, and he fights like heck to make sure they are properly taken care of when they have a legitimate claim.

    Parent

    I wish (none / 0) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:25:22 AM EST
    I had said that

    Parent
    Someone like me? (none / 0) (#48)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:27:44 AM EST
    Of COURSE I think children should be covered and of COURSE I wonder why it hasn't been there all along.  The whole point is for a year we've been hearing that we want to get rid of the pre-existing condition rule.  Period. No exclusion on adults.  Both Republicans and Democrats have bent over backwards to say they agree about that.  But apparently now the talking points are it's only for children.

    And yeah - I buy my own own insurance and don't have kids, so I have to worry about me, first and foremost. No one else is taking care of me and I don't have a second income to rely on. If that makes me selfish - so be it.

    Parent

    And what you're saying (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:38:20 AM EST
    was a huge reason why people said the bill HAD TO PASS.  It'wasn't about just the kids. The reality is that kids' pre-existing conditions is the lesser of the pre-existing condition worries, which is why they've been left in.  The people with greater tendency to be denied coverage for  pre-existing conditions (adults) have aparently been cut.  And we're apparently supposed to drink the psychedelic koolaid and just pretend this bill is okay.  LOL.  It's okay for those who haven't ventured on the individual market yet.

    People including Mr. Capt. Howdy were all over us horrible nay-sayers because we were preventing people with pre-existing conditions from getting coverage.....Of course, I can't find the post I'm referring to in the midst of all the trolling and baiting he's done in the past few weeks.

    Parent

    the reality is (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by CST on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:52:32 AM EST
    the bill covers all that by 2014.

    This was a list of what will happen by 2010.

    Pre-existing conditions for adults IS being adressed.  And there is an immediate provision in 2010 for a stop-gap until 2014 in terms of catastrophic coverage.

    We DO know.  Because it's all there in the senate bill to read.  Here's a good timeline of what's here.  Under the year 2014:

    "Implements strong health insurance reforms that prohibit insurance companies from engaging in discriminatory practices that enable them to refuse to sell or renew policies due to an individual's health status. Insurers can no longer exclude coverage for treatments based on pre-existing health conditionsIt also limits the ability of insurance companies to charge higher rates due to heath status, gender, or other factors. Premiums can vary only on age (no more than 3:1), geography, family size, and tobacco use."

    Emphasis mine.

    Parent

    first of all (none / 0) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:42:20 AM EST
    we dont know yet.
    heres and idea, why dont we wait and see what is and is not included in the bill before organizing the posse.

    after googling this I see there have been some hysterics about a comment someone made on a sunday show.

    thats really all it is at this point.  

    Parent

    Hmmm . . . . (5.00 / 8) (#58)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:44:36 AM EST
    we dont know yet.
    heres and idea, why dont we wait and see what is and is not included in the bill before organizing the posse.

    wait and see? really? like after the bill has passed?

    Parent

    Mind-boggling, isn't it? (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:50:56 AM EST
    To propose that we just wait and see what's really in the bill until after it passes; heaven forbid we should really know what's in store.  It amazes me that there's never any wondering about what we haven't been told, and what that might mean.

    I'm sure, though, that as long as all of Capt. Howdy's personal heroes have told him we HAVE TO PASS THE BILL (this is the 2010 version of WWTSBQ), that's good enough for him.

    Parent

    by all means (none / 0) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:45:19 AM EST
    make something up and then oppose it.

    Parent
    As opposed to (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:46:00 AM EST
    Making things up to support it?

    Parent
    I support (none / 0) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:49:51 AM EST
    what was in that list.
    and some thing that were not.

    what are you opposing?

    Parent

    I didn't call you selfish (none / 0) (#50)
    by CST on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:33:25 AM EST
    by "someone like you" (poor phrasing I grant) - I could have been speaking to Anne or the vast majority of the other people on this blog who share the same view.  

    It wasn't about your personal situation.  I buy my own insurance and don't have kids too - what's your point?

    And if you read the whole link you would see there is immediate catastrophic coverage in a "high-risk pool" for adults with pre-existing conditions.  Again, not as good as it should be.  Again, better than what we've currently got for them which is NOTHING.

    Parent

    I could be wrong (none / 0) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:35:04 AM EST
    but that could be what happens as soon as the bill is passed.


    Parent
    Yeah, (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:11:04 AM EST
    and they leave out the parts that people don't like. If they would strip the bill and just leave the above in that would be fine, however, it's all the garbage in the bill that's killing it imo.

    Parent
    You can't strip say a mandate (none / 0) (#119)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 02:20:44 PM EST
    and leave in the requirement that Pre-existing conditions be covered though.

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 07:40:36 PM EST
    So strange, considering that's precisely what Obama promised during the campaign.  Oh well, ...

    .... that was then, this is now ...

    Parent

    maybe its just me (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:19:55 AM EST
    but that looks like a pretty good list to me.


    Parent
    Uhhhhh, ..... yeah ... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:34:39 AM EST
    I think that's why they call them "talking points".

    Parent
    why dont you send (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:37:12 AM EST
    this lady an email and discuss your opinions with her

    Parent
    Oh for pete's sake. (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 01:10:33 PM EST
    We could help people like her without making the insurance companies richer. That's the whole point of the resistance to this bill by Democrats. Reform doesn't have to mean screwing the middle class. We could simply beef up Medicaid and allow Medicare buy-in. Those programs already operate without restrictions for pre-existing conditions. They are already offered at a percentage of cost depending on your income.

    We simply need to increase the foundation we already have for publicly centralized funding for medical care (not socialized medicine, not a takeover of healthcare).

    But we do NOT have to accept this crappy plan that cements in the for-obscene-profit of the insurance industry. Giving in and accepting this plan prevents us from ever getting true reform.

    Parent

    Not the point, ... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:56:11 AM EST
    ... but you keep posting that same video.  Why is that?  Do you think we should support this bill simply because this woman supports it?  or is it because you think this plan will help her?  Do you think she'll be able to hang in there for the four years it will take for many of its provisions to take effect?  Do you think she'll have any assets left at that point?

    But back to the original point - your appreciation of the talking points from the White House.  Made me think of a neighbor who bought a Yugo back in the early 80's.  I still remember him shaking his head ... " But they made it look so good in the brochures" ...

    Parent

    why do I keep posting the same (2.66 / 3) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 11:10:13 AM EST
    video?
    because that is the person you are blowing off.

    face it.


    Parent

    You didn't answer the question (none / 0) (#78)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 11:25:57 AM EST
    No big surprise, there.  But maybe you're right.  Maybe we should all support this bill because it might help this woman, in four years, if she's still alive, and if she has any assets left at that point.

    Yeah.

    That's a great way to make public policy.

    BTW - Just to make it crystal clear.  I'm not "blowing her off".

    I'm mocking your premise.

    Parent

    pfft (none / 0) (#81)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 11:34:26 AM EST
    (sorry)

    Parent
    Thankfully (none / 0) (#107)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 01:07:33 PM EST
    She qualifies for financial aid and Cleveland Clinic will not put a lien on her house, so she just has to focus on getting better.

    Link

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#56)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:39:44 AM EST
    Thank you.

    Parent
    Prohibiting dropping (none / 0) (#82)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 11:34:31 AM EST
    Sort of.  The penalty for dropping is $100 per day.  Insurers will do the cost/benefit on that. I can't imagine an insurer that would provide coverage rather pay the penalty.  The person, of course, can seek a new insurer while the appeals process is going on as they can't be denied, but I imagine a scenario in which people are just recycled thru the few insurers in the monopoly with increasing rates.

    Parent
    Wonder what this means? (none / 0) (#84)
    by Radix on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 11:37:53 AM EST
    Prohibit dropping people from coverage when they get sick in all individual plans

    Aren't employer sponsored plans called Group Plans?

    Parent

    It means exactly what it says (none / 0) (#87)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 11:51:14 AM EST
    Individual plans. People on these plans don't have the protections of a Group plan where they can't be denied coverage or dropped from the plan for being sick. On an individual plan, the insurance company doesn't hesitate to drop those who cost them too much to insure. Not much of a problem for the insurance company. But, if they were to do that to people on group plans, they risk the whole group going to another company.

    Not all insured people are on group plans through an employer.


    Parent

    Thanks for the info. (none / 0) (#113)
    by Radix on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 01:24:35 PM EST


    Parent
    Dependent children to the age of 26? (none / 0) (#89)
    by coast on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 12:03:26 PM EST
    Why 26?  Why not 30 or 40?  Good lord.  If my kids aren't off my tab by 26 insurance is going to be least of their worries.

    Parent
    Grad school (none / 0) (#114)
    by Radix on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 01:25:09 PM EST


    Parent
    I suppose (none / 0) (#129)
    by ZtoA on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 02:43:45 PM EST
    if they remain dependents then they will not be able to apply for pell grants to help with grad school.

    Parent
    What does that have to do with (none / 0) (#149)
    by coast on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 05:23:44 PM EST
    anything?  Brother-in-law finished his third degree when he was about 34.  Should he have been covered all that time?  24 is good enough for the IRS, should be good enough for health insurance as well.

    Parent
    this might be another pretty good reason (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:49:01 AM EST
    to vote yes

    Labor and progressive leaders are threatening House Democrats who oppose health care legislation with potentially destructive third party challenges in November.

    The discussions have already taken concrete form in New York State, where a handful of votes hang in the balance. They're part threat, part an early attempt to channel what liberal leaders expect to be a wave of anger if Congress fails to pass health care.
    btw (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:50:48 AM EST
    THIS would be the majority of democrats I was talking about.

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 11:07:03 AM EST
    How exactly does and handful of "progressive" and labor union leaders in NY state supporting this bill translate into "a large majority of Democrats who ... admit it is historic legislation"?

    Still waiting ...

    Parent

    "progressive" (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 11:08:46 AM EST
    thats great.  the quotes I mean.

    keep waiting.

    Parent

    That's what I thought (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 11:27:18 AM EST
    Guess it is easier just to make stuff up.

    Parent
    Heh, I would almost like to see (none / 0) (#75)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 11:12:55 AM EST
    the bill fail just to get some 3rd party challenges going with labor backing  ;)

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 02:45:49 PM EST
    screw those poor people this bill would help, they don't vote all that much anyway!

    Parent
    It's just band-aids & misdirection. (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 03:18:49 PM EST
    This bill beefs up Medicaid, but the next group in Congress will simply slash it. Repubs will ride to office on it because it's welfare healthcare, and as we already know, welfare doesn't work. Obama's commission will recommend reducing entitlement programs right after this bill creates a new entitlement, in this case an entitlement funded via the tax base. By making us pay for ten years while receiving only six years of benefits, Obama et. al. stave off criticism from Democratic voters like the currently clueless college crowd, but working Americans and those who pay for their own insurance are going to figure it out long before the next election. If it passes as is, we're sunk.

    Parent
    I never said that (none / 0) (#171)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 04:00:39 PM EST
    nor have I said the bill should fail.

    Parent
    again (none / 0) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 11:21:29 AM EST
    you have a point

    Parent
    So according to the NYT (4.25 / 4) (#25)
    by DancingOpossum on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:01:27 AM EST
    and Obamabots, we have to let Obama pass one piece of cr*p legislation so that he can pass more and more pieces of cr*p legislation!

    Is that about the gist of it?

    Frankly my feeling about Obama and his merry band of DINOs is much what it was during the reign of Bush the Lesser: Keep the guy busy with pretty-looking photo ops and make-work so he can't screw anything else up, and for God's sake dont' let him get near any actual legislation. I'm sorry that it's come to this because real people's lives are at stake, but here we are.

    So far the only things Obama has managed to get done are the wholesale bombing of children in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and shill for a "health care" bill that made insurance companies do a happy dance and break out the champagne...so I think the less his hand on his lever the less death and destruction we get.

    much better (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by CST on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:07:16 AM EST
    to pass nothing at all over the next few years.  Then we are stuck in neutral going forward making no progress on anything.

    Sounds great.

    Because "immigration reform" and "caps on carbon emmisions" are such terrible pieces of legislation they couldn't possibly do any good.

    Real people's lives are at stake.  And this is most certainly "actual legislation", whether you like it or not.

    Parent

    honest to (none / 0) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:08:07 AM EST
    god

    ??

    Parent

    "Whole sale bombing of children"? (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:56:22 AM EST
    Give. Me. A. Break.

    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 02:16:17 PM EST
    that's the only thing- sure there's a long list of actual achievements, but easier to say "Obama is Bush, but kills more in Afghan/Pak"  things like ending torture, repealing the Global Gag Rule, drawing down in Iraq, etc. - those things don't really matter because hey they aren't your pet issue, and Obama didn't magically make single payer palatable to congress (as an aside the single payer mania of some people is a bit odd- its not the best option and if you're going to push for something that's not going to occur why not push for a public-private hybrid ala France or Japan)?

    Parent
    yeah (none / 0) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:02:33 AM EST
    I think you understood the article.

    congratulations

    Parent

    this blurb from the NYTimes (2.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 09:19:11 AM EST
    gives a pretty good reason to pass it:

    If Mr. Obama falls short on health care, his hopes of passing other ambitious legislation like an overhaul of immigration  and a market-based cap on carbon emissions to curb climate change would seem out of reach, at least for the rest of this year. Much of Washington would question whether he is weak, some Democratic candidates would run away from him and Mr. Obama would be forced to consider a narrower agenda like that pursued by Bill Clinton  after his own health care drive collapsed.


    Seems you missed these parts (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:21:10 AM EST
    At the same time, passing it has its risks too. While a bill-signing ceremony in the Rose Garden would provide at least a short-term boost to a beleaguered president, Republicans have made clear that the legislative procedure Democrats are using to avoid another filibuster would so anger them that they would not cooperate on other major initiatives this year.

    "If they jam through health care," said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, then Democrats will have "poisoned the well" on other issues. He was interviewed Sunday on ABC's "This Week."

    An immigration proposal he has been working on with Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, would likely fall victim to the worsened environment, he said.

    If Mr. Obama and the Democrats succeed, the challenge over the next eight months will be to convince the public that the program is better than polls suggest they think it is. And while some of its features would take effect right away, particularly popular limits on abuses by insurance companies, much of its impact in terms of coverage for the uninsured would not kick in until long after the fall election.

    SNIP

    Still, for all the potential consequences, it is probably too hyperbolic to suggest the presidency rides on this moment. If he fails this week, Mr. Obama could still recover. Even a weakened president has enormous capacity to set an agenda. For all the damage Mr. Clinton absorbed from the failure of his health care plan and the Republican takeover, he eventually found his footing again and won re-election handily.


    Parent
    They're not (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:54:30 AM EST
    going to "cooperate" on major initiatives no matter what the pres. and the Dems. do or don't do.  That's a perfectly ridiculous threat from Graham.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:58:53 AM EST
    News flash - they did not cooperate on anything before this either. And won't do so after, no matter what. Graham is as full of it as they come.

    Parent
    They don't have to cooperate, because (5.00 / 8) (#71)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 11:08:36 AM EST
    Obama and his designated committee chairmen will make sure to include lots of good GOP ideas in an effort to "reach out" to the other side - just as they did with health reform.

    They get a lot of what they want just by making a lttle noise, Obama gets the neoliberal policies he's so attracted to, and the GOP never has to vote for them!

    And we're the ones who pay.

    Nice little arrangemnt.

    Parent

    I think you missed the point (none / 0) (#103)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 12:53:04 PM EST
    The Graham quote was incidental (and it wouldn't have made sense to cut it out of what I pasted).

    Here's the money quote from that op-ed:

    Still, for all the potential consequences, it is probably too hyperbolic to suggest the presidency rides on this moment.


    Parent
    I guess the counterargument (none / 0) (#121)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 02:28:51 PM EST
    would be what were Clinton's major domestic initiatives after Healthcare Failed? SCHIP is the only thing I can think of and people don't think expanison in SCHIP is all that big a deal on here. I mean Obama would be crucified if he slashed say social security the way Clinton did welfare so its hard to argue thats an achievement. This is not to say that Clinton achieved nothing post-94 but rather that his agenda was reduced to piecemeal legislation.

    Parent
    Actually, no (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 03:51:29 PM EST
    Any counterargument offered would not even mention Bill Clinton, or GWB, or GHWB, or Ronald Reagan, because they have nothing to do with the discussion.  The discussion was about whether the bill in its present form(s) will get passed, and if it doesn't, does it cripple the rest of the Obama presidency for the next 2 1/ 2 years, can he overcome a defeat, will it matter, or will it help him in the long run.

    But again - that strawman is certainly getting a lot of use out of a few commenters around here lately.

    Parent

    Arrggh (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 11:24:21 PM EST
    Clinton achieved little after '94 because the Republicans took over both House and Senate.  The "Hillary-care" debacle didn't help, but the way things were going, they would have taken over anyway.

    Beware Village Pundits trying to peddle the idea that it will be the End of the World as We Know It if this awaful bill doesn't pass.

    Parent

    Forget the Village Pundits (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by shoephone on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 11:41:23 PM EST
    We've got a couple of folks selling those histrionics right here on this blog.

    Hey, that's it. It's not historic legislation. It's histrionic.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#120)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 02:25:31 PM EST
    I totally think reconciliation would offend Republicans to such a degree that they would make things worse- by I don't know actually suicide bombing congress?

    Parent
    OY (none / 0) (#6)
    by jmacWA on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 09:32:16 AM EST
    This is hardly a good reason to pass anything.

    Parent
    Seriously... (5.00 / 7) (#27)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:04:51 AM EST
    If one likes the way Obama has addressed the so-called reform of the health system, leaving truly progressive ideas off the table and incorporating many GOP ideas into the mix, one might be hoping the legislation passes, giving Obama some momentum as he sets his sights on Social Security and Medicare.

    I would be more inclined to ask if that person was a Republican, if I were the sort of person who used those kinds of questions to avoid substantive discussion, but I'm not.

    If the trade-off for a weaker Obama is less chance that his Reagan-esque agenda will move forward, I'll take it; I think there is little chance that a weaker Obama means less chance for the kind of liberal policies we need, since he is already proving that he has no intention of pushing them anyway.

    Parent

    what a (3.00 / 5) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:06:30 AM EST
    surprise

    Parent
    the counterpoint (none / 0) (#122)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 02:31:54 PM EST
    would be that failure on healthcare could make him go Clintonesque- which yes would give you the small things you don't think would hurt, but would also make reforming social security and medicare awfully tempting- after all Clinton got a boost from reforming welfare (the difference of course would be that screwing over the poor is good politics and thus helped Clinton while doing so to the elderly isn't).

    Parent
    I believe that's already (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by mentaldebris on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 03:02:51 PM EST
    the plan. They've been pretty clear about SS and Medicare being on the table (entitlement reform) since the deficit reduction became an overarching goal. They have a Blue Dog panel looking into it already. Health care passing or not isn't going to change anything in that regards.

    Parent
    then you would be a republican (2.83 / 6) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 09:37:32 AM EST
    I guess?

    Parent
    Republicans should be very happy (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 12:10:42 PM EST
    with the current health insurance legislation.

    When Democrats become Republicans and Republicans become conservatives

    To put a finer point on my earlier post about the compromises in the health-care bill, check out this Kaiser News Network table comparing the Senate bill, Boehner's bill, and the bill that moderate Republican Lincoln Chafee developed as an alternative to Bill Clinton's legislation in 1993.

    The Senate bill is almost identical to the legislation supported by moderate Republicans in 1993. Boehner's bill, by contrast, is far, far more conservative (and useless) than what moderate Republicans developed in 1993. Conversely, the Senate bill doesn't look anything like the Clinton plan itself, much less like the more liberal efforts to expand Medicare to all Americans. We've got a situation in which Democrats are essentially pushing moderate Republican ideas while Republicans push extremely conservative ideas, but because neither the press nor the voters know very much about health-care policy, the fact that Republicans refuse to admit that Democrats have massively compromised their vision is enough to convince people that Democrats aren't compromising.




    Parent
    Of course another (2.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 02:33:45 PM EST
    difference between this legislation and the Clinton attempt is that this legislation actually has a chance of becoming law, whereas the Clinton HCR agenda never passed a single house and thus was never in any way subject to actual congressional change.

    Parent
    And, of course, ... (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 07:48:10 PM EST
    ... Clinton wasnn't afraid to take on the insurance companies and big pharma, as opposed to Obama's backroom deals with them.  Hell, Obama thought Harry and Louise were so great, he even brought them back for an encore presentation.

    Parent
    Keep The Fantasy Alive (none / 0) (#153)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 07:57:44 PM EST
    July 12 2006

    NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The health-care industry, once a fierce critic of then-first lady Hillary Clinton's reform plans for the sector, is now lavishing campaign contributions on the U.S. senator ahead of her expected presidential bid.

    According to Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan group that tracks campaign finance filings, Clinton has received $781,112 in contributions from the health-care sector during the current election cycle, which makes her the No. 2 recipient of funds from that sector, behind only Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., who received $977,354.

    CNN

    Parent

    Not my fantasy (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 08:09:15 PM EST
    That would be yours.  You mean those contributions 12 years after the Clinton administration's attempt at health care?  Of course the health care industry contributed to her.  She was a leader of the Democratic party, virtually certain to be a Presidential candidate, and sat on a committee overseeing the insurance industry.  What's your point?

    BTW - You're probably well aware of this (or at least, should be), but if campaign contributions per se are evidence of caving to the insurance and pharma industries, you may want to rethink your support for Obama.  After all, his 19+ MILLION from the health industry dwarfs anything contributed to Clinton, or anyone else, for that matter.

    Oops ...

    Parent

    My Point is Obvious (none / 0) (#157)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 09:12:44 PM EST
    Hillary and Obama are cut out of the same mold. Mainstream Democratic party. To fantasize that things would be different now had Hillary won is absurd. She would have the same lobbiests pouring money into DC, the same advisors and the same center right country who could give a sh*t about paying for the uninsured, not to mention about worrying about out of control government spending on Health care in the future.

    But keep on dreaming. I am sure it makes your misery a bit more bearable.

    Parent

    Actually, your point wasn't obvious, ... (none / 0) (#159)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 09:57:02 PM EST
    ... but the point of my original post was.  I pointed out that another difference between Clinton's HCR approach and Obama's was that she was attacked by the insurance industry and fought them, as opposed to making backroom deals with them, as Obama did.  Your response was that, 12 years after the fact, she took campaign contributions from them.  I never fantasized that "things would be different now had Hillary won", I doubt she would have caved as easily as Obama has.  That's your own little, straw argument.

    But I guess it is easier to knock down those than the real ones, huh?

    BTW - You say "Mainstream Democratic party" as though it's an insult. Actually, for the most part, I'm fine with "Mainstream Democratic party", unless, of course ...

    ... a candidate allows themselves to be sold as something else.

    Parent

    Don't be a dolt... (none / 0) (#156)
    by masslib on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 08:34:34 PM EST
    That includes doctors and nurse.  She didn't even make the top 25 when they take out practitioners.

    Parent
    Oh, In Your Dreams (none / 0) (#158)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 09:36:44 PM EST
    Here is the 2006 list:

    Santorum, Rick (R-PA)    $495,806
    Lieberman, Joe (I-CT)    $430,694
    Clinton, Hillary (D-NY)    $381,200
    DeWine, Mike (R-OH)    $357,686
    Nelson, Ben (D-NE)    $327,336
    Talent, James M (R-MO)    $290,186
    Kyl, Jon (R-AZ)    $275,620
    Dodd, Chris (D-CT)    $255,750
    Baucus, Max (D-MT)    $253,275
    Allen, George (R-VA)    $201,636
    Carper, Tom (D-DE)    $192,620
    Nelson, Bill (D-FL)    $185,85

    2008 list, Seems to me they were betting on McCain #1, Obama #2, and Hillary #3:

    McCain, John (R)    $2,447,206
    Obama, Barack (D)    $2,328,520
    Clinton, Hillary (D-NY)    $1,196,590
    Dodd, Chris (D-CT)    $853,006

    Clinton was named by her husband, President Bill Clinton, to lead a task force early in his administration that recommended universal health care, minimum coverage requirements and potential limits on health-care spending increases.

    The legislation was beat back by a strong lobbying effort by the health-care industry, including commercials featuring a fictional couple, "Harry and Louise," which mocked the plan and stirred fears of government interference in families' health-care decisions....

    But since she was elected to the Senate in 2000, she has made an effort to reach out to the sector, and she has admitted errors in her earlier approach.

    link

    Charles N. Kahn III, a Republican who was executive vice president of the Health Insurance Association in 1993 and 1994, now works with the senator on some issues as president of the Federation of American Hospitals, a lobby for hospital companies like HCA and Tenet. He describes his battles with the first lady as "ancient history," and he said health care executives were contributing to her now because "she is extremely knowledgeable about health care and has become a Congressional leader on the issue."

    NYT

    Parent

    You're dreaming again (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 08:50:31 AM EST
    Turns out that Masslib was right if only health care political action committee (PAC) donations were considered -- that is, donations from the actual health care "industry" -- Clinton drops off the list of top 25 congressional recipients of health care industry money entirely.

    Oops, again.

    Parent

    Who's dreaming? (none / 0) (#166)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 08:34:06 AM EST
    I don't know where she falls if doctors and nurses are excluded, but that CRP report does include contributions from doctors and nurses.

    Clinton, the only Democrat to be in the top five in total donations from the sector, is also the No. 1 senator in terms of donations from nurses and health professionals, and the No. 2 recipient of donations from employees of hospitals and nursing homes, as well as insurance companies.

    Link


    Parent

    Can you give me numbers on that? (none / 0) (#162)
    by observed on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 05:59:02 AM EST
    I'm interested.

    Parent
    Found it (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 08:46:11 AM EST
    Turns out Masslib's claim was 100% accurate.

    ... that the number includes donations from individual health care professionals, such as nurses and doctors, and neither Thrush nor the Times noted that if only health care political action committee (PAC) donations were considered -- that is, donations from the actual health care "industry" -- Clinton drops off the list of top 25 congressional recipients of health care industry money entirely.


    Parent
    The "squeaky" wheel (me) got the (none / 0) (#169)
    by observed on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:01:26 AM EST
    right info in the end. Woohoo!

    Parent
    Insurance Industry Only (none / 0) (#170)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 02:58:40 PM EST
    The numbers on this page are based on contributions from PACs and individuals giving $200 or more. All donations took place during the 2005-2006 election cycle and were released by the Federal Election Commission on Monday, June 04, 2007.

    Candidate    Amount
    Santorum, Rick (R-PA)    $495,806
    Lieberman, Joe (I-CT)    $430,694
    Clinton, Hillary (D-NY)    $381,200
    DeWine, Mike (R-OH)    $357,686
    Nelson, Ben (D-NE)    $327,336

    Open Secrets

    Moving goal posts again? When Obama's  industry specific donations are discussed, the "individuals" are always insurance co workers who are donating because they are essentially employees in the bag for insurance companies, but when it comes to ST Hillary, the only reason the insurance industry employees and execs donate is because she is the next coming, or "the one".

    Funny how it all translates in the various dialects of cultish.

    Parent

    I didn't expect any critical thinking (none / 0) (#172)
    by observed on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 04:30:42 PM EST
    from you, and I didn't get any.
    It's quite remarkable that when you take away the doctors' and nurses contributions, Clinton ranked 25th. Only a complete moron would think this fact has no meaning.
    What it means I can't say exactly, but it certainly seems to go against your claim that Clinton was in the pocket of the industry the same was Obama was.

    But whatever. You're not interested in having a conversation---you never are.


    Parent

    Irrelevant (none / 0) (#174)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 05:05:17 PM EST
    The argument you are making is not germain to the fact that Hillary dropped her antagonistic position towards insurance companies once she became Senator and entertained running for POTUS.

    Do you really think that the people who work for insurance companies would donate money to a candidate that would work against their interests?

    Would you vote for someone who would put you out of a job?

    Hillary learned to love insurance companies since she became NY senator, just like almost every Senator. She saw them as integral to the health care solution, just like Obama (lessons learned, bad ones IMO). Had she stuck to her previous position she would not have lasted as NY senator, nor had a shot at POTUS.

    Ss far as critical thinking goes, you argument certainly doesn't have a shred of it. But that is understandable, because you are  infatuated with anything CLinton and irate with anything Obama.

    Parent

    It's completely germane (none / 0) (#178)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 05:35:55 PM EST
    You attacked Clinton for receiving what you claimed was the second-highest level of health industry contributions, when in fact, those misleading numbers included contributions from health workers.  Once the misleading nature of your numbers was pointed out, they suddenly became "irrelevant".

    Just like they do it at Fox News .....

    Parent

    BS (none / 0) (#179)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 06:13:18 PM EST
    I claimed that Clinton was just as beholden to the insurance industry as any mainstream dem, and that was a turnaround from her position as First Lady.

    It started with your bit of imaginary history:

    ... Clinton wasnn't afraid to take on the insurance companies and big pharma, as opposed to Obama's backroom deals with them.  Hell, Obama thought Harry and Louise were so great, he even brought them back for an encore presentation.

    And I assume that your past tense usage refers to Hillary Clinton when she was first lady, because her position dramatically changed since becoming NY Senator.

    And again, you show your blind love for a Politician when you fail to answer the question about the donors position.

    Do you think that the individuals who worked for the insurance companies who donated over $200 to Hillary should not count as having a pro insurance industry position?

    And it is even more hilarious that you come back, as if it is a defense of Hillary, that Obama took in 19 million from the health industry, but of course that was when he was Dem Nominee.

    And of course that number includes all the individual donors that you claim are not in the tank for the Health Industry, even though their livelihood depends on the Health industry.

    Really, your forever bottom line is Hillary is a Saint, and Obama is the Devil, and you will move all goalpost wherever you need to to support your idee fixe.

    Not a dimes worth of difference, imo.  They are all in the pocket of lobbyists for one, and for two, the majority of Americans think that progressive values are akin to communism and our Dem representatives reflect that viewpoint.

    Parent

    I see your BS ... (none / 0) (#180)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 08:51:59 PM EST
    ... and raise you some reality.

    1)  Your initial claim was a response to Masslib, where you said "In your dreams" to his claim that her 2nd highest ranking was due to the inclusion of health care workers.  His claim was 100% accurate, as documented by the Media Matters link.

    Oops.

    2)  You failed to point out what was "imaginary" about my history.  Maybe you can't remember 1994, but Clinton was viciously attacked for "Hillarycare".  The pharma and insurance lobbies spent millions on Harry and Louise ads, ads thsat were later brought back by Obama to attack the idea of mandates.

    Oops.

    3)  Not only did you use figures that comingled health industry PACs with doctors and nurses, but you then did the same thing with the "insurance industry".  BTW - Maybe you're not aware of it, but there are many kinds of insurance.  Health insurance is but one.  Nice try, though.

    Oops.

    4)  Like I said, I'd be happy to compare apples to apples between Hillary and Obama any day of the week.  I used the 19 Million number because it was the number that was available, and more importantly, you were using sector/industry totals.  Media Matters hadn't debunked any such claims about Obama, since none were being made.  Guess that's the advantage of being a MSM darling, huh?  But like I said, if you feel like coming up with numbers for Obama, I'd be thrilled to compare them to Hillary's.  Now, keep in mind that your favorite time period (2005-2006) might be just a tad misleading (in yet another way), given that Hillary was a leader in the Democratic party, member of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, and likely Presidential candidate, while Obama was a state legislator or freshman Senator.  After all, we wouldn't want to leave anyone with the impression that you're trying to mislead them, ...

    ... again.

    Oops.

    The St. Hillary Obama Devil meme was a nice, little fairytale, but starting to wear a bit thin at this point.

    Parent

    Got It (none / 0) (#181)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 09:54:37 PM EST
    Like I said, I'd be happy to compare apples to apples between Hillary and Obama any day of the week.

    Yes, I know you are on team Hillary, and Hillary would win every time, and I am sure you could prove it.

    Too bad that none of them ever stay the same because they have to pander to a wide range of people who often have opposing beliefs.

    Obviously, it is more interesting for me to compare Obama cultists to Hillary cultists. They both have similar qualities of belief, even though the demographics are very different.

    Obama and Hilllary are from the same mold, mainstream Dem, with only superficial differences primarily style. And I do relate and prefer Hillary's style far more than Obama's style, but I was never deluded that there was some kind of chasm between either on a policy level or their very similar bipartisan approach to politics.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#182)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 02:01:45 PM EST
    I wouldn't want to address the substance of the point either, if I were you.  Just another True Prog cynic who sees "mainstream Dems" as virtually identical, contemptable, and, well, ..... just slightly better than Republicans, and who likes to complain while crowing "I never really liked either of them!"

    Heh, heh ... too funny.

    BTW - "Hillary cultists"?

    Just how many fantasies can you juggle at once?

     

    Parent

    THAT'S a rebutal?!? (none / 0) (#173)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 05:00:44 PM EST
    LOL!  I point out the fact that your figures are misleading because, as Media Matters points out, they lump together individual contributions from health care workers with actual industry/PAC donations, you give more figures which comingle workers?!?!?

    Are you trying to be funny, or just trying to prove my point?

    BTW - I'm not moving your imaginary goalposts.  If you want to break down Obama's contributions and do a comparison, that would be great.  Otherwise, ...

    ... I guess I'll just laugh at your attempts at what I'll generously characterize as a "rebuttal".

    Parent

    LoL (none / 0) (#175)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 05:11:15 PM EST
    I have posted Obama's numbers, but you are missing the point. Unlike you, I never was a cultist from dkos or wherever you fled from. I am not remotely defending Obama, merely pointing out that there is not and never was a dimes difference between Obama and Hillary.

    We would be in the same place now had Hillary won, except for people like you squirming to defend her and her advisors even though progressive issues would have long been thrown under the bus, save for the occasional lip service.

    Parent

    You posted Obama's numbers? (none / 0) (#177)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 05:31:12 PM EST
    Really?  The real one's, or the numbers (like Clinton's) where they comingle industry/PAC contributions with workers contributions.  I'd love to see your post ... how about a link?  Otherwise, one might get the idea that you were just making it up.

    BTW - You have no clue where we'd be if Hillary had won.  You're just another pie-in-the-sky True Prog cynic awaiting the day when the skies will open and a politician will arrive that will refuse all contributions and implement the perfect progressive agenda, as defined by you.  In the meantime, you'll continue to gripe about all the "corporatist" Democrats and say they're all the same.

    Truly funny.

    Parent

    BTW - See what you did there? (none / 0) (#176)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 05:19:53 PM EST
    You tried to change the discussion from health care industry contributions, to insurance industry and individual contributions.

    You do realize that the insurance industry (and, of course, the individuals that work in insurance), is comprised of many types of insurance, of which health care is only one type, right?

    Just want to make sure you noticed that little difference.

    Parent

    you (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 09:43:51 AM EST
    don't have to be a Republican to think that passing a crap bill helps no one.

    Parent
    If you really think it "helps no one" (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 09:44:50 AM EST
    then you're probably just willfully ignorant.

    Parent
    amen (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 09:47:15 AM EST
    I would like you to have a chat with this lady

    Parent
    Again (none / 0) (#112)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 01:22:01 PM EST
    She will qualify for aid already and there will be no lien on her house.  At least, according to the Cleveland Clinic.

    Parent
    I'm (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 09:47:30 AM EST
    talking politically. Politically this is a loser all the way around. It does nothing to help the majority of people in the middle class and even hurt them financially with the mandates.

    Parent
    meh (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 09:48:24 AM EST


    Parent
    why do you keep avoiding (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 09:48:42 AM EST
    the substance of the quote?

    Parent
    People (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 09:52:57 AM EST
    already see him as weak and ineffectual and as unable to pass effective legislation due to the way HCR has been handled. CNN was reporting this morning there still ARE NOT the votes to pass it.

    Parent
    I love the way (3.66 / 3) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 09:54:19 AM EST
    every imagined setback is breathlessly reported here as the end of the legislation.

    it will pass.  it will be celebrated as historic.  because it is.


    Parent

    I love how you begin every comment (2.00 / 1) (#23)
    by observed on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 09:59:05 AM EST
    with a strawman. No really, I do.
    It sets off your "arugments" so well.

    Parent
    It's not a strawman, observed... (5.00 / 8) (#39)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:16:30 AM EST
    it's just the Capt. pushing buttons again; he knows he will get a rise out of people even as he adds little of any substance to the discussion.

    Kind of thought that was the definition of "trolling..."

    He thinks people should get out more; I just think he should just get...oh, nevermind.

    Ignore, do not engage; your blood pressure will benefit.

    Parent

    please (2.66 / 3) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:21:00 AM EST
    take the advise

    Parent
    Did (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 09:56:49 AM EST
    I say it was the end of it? Frankly, in my opinion, it's never going to be dead until the November elections. It's going to be hanging out there saying they'll pass it even if the votes aren't there.

    Historic? Are you kidding? It's not historic. LOL.

    Parent

    I am pretty comfortable with the (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 09:59:55 AM EST
    large majority of democrats who, whatever failings the bill has, are adult enough to admit it is historic legislation.

    and that it needs to be passed.  I am only in the minority here.  and Im fine eith that.

    Parent

    including BTD, right? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by dk on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:05:02 AM EST
    Because he also thinks this bill is not historic. I guess he's a Republican too.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:05:52 AM EST
    then that's like the chorus of Republicans saying that Iraq is a success. Right?

    Historic would be complete overhaul of the healtcare system which is NOT happening unless you are one of the ones that bought into the "miracle of teh exchanges"

    Parent

    your really should (3.25 / 4) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:07:04 AM EST
    get out more

    Parent
    no (none / 0) (#41)
    by CST on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:18:29 AM EST
    one of the things about being a liberal, is that we know Republicans are pretty much always wrong.

    So you can't compare a "chorus of Republicans" to a "chorus of Democrats" (speaking in terms of voters here - not politicians).  Because from where I sit, at least 90% of the time the "chorus of Republicans" is gonna be wrong.  Like the ones freaking out about healthcare.

    Not to say that a "chorus of Democrats" (again, voters) is right 100% of the time.  But if you believe in liberal ideas, you believe they are right a lot more frequently than the republicans.

    Parent

    I missed that poll (none / 0) (#32)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:06:52 AM EST
    When did a a "large majority of democrats ...admit it is historic legislation"?

    Parent
    see comment #33 (none / 0) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:07:26 AM EST


    Parent
    Couldn't even bother to cut-and-paste ... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:13:06 AM EST
    ... that weak attempt at a juvenile taunt?  What's next, "I know you are, but what am I?"

    BTW - Still waiting for your evidence that the "large majority of Democrats who ... admit it is historic legislation".  (cue the Jeopardy music ...)

    Parent

    If it passes (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 02:40:19 PM EST
    it would be Historic, there isn't anything really comparable in terms of Progressive legislation in the last 30 years (maybe longer I don't know Carter legislative agenda in its entirety).

    Parent
    "Progressive" legislation? (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 07:57:59 PM EST
    This bill?!?  Not even close.  As BTD points out, that would be the 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act.  I particularly enjoy his conclusion:

    If BaucusCare becomes the singular achievement of the Obama Administration, it will be damning indeed. And all of the Bill Clinton "triangulation" bashers who stand in support of BaucusCare will be exposed as hypocrites.

    Sounds about right.

    Parent

    Fair point (none / 0) (#126)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 02:38:50 PM EST
    though I would argue this simply confirms the postulate that Health Care Reform is our version of Social Security reform popular with the base but a political loser when attempted. I mean this will be two consecutive Democratic Presidents that it hobbles (though i don't think Obama will lose Congress to the degree Clinton did).

    Parent
    One could equally well infer that (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by observed on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 09:54:05 AM EST
    a Democratic sellout to the insurance companies on HCR bodes very poorly for serious action on global warming.
    Yeah, let's get bipartisan with people who think the earth is 6,000 years old  and whose every response to a mention of scientific fact will be "CLIMATEGATE!""
    I'm already ill in anticipation.


    Parent
    No that's dead (none / 0) (#128)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 02:42:02 PM EST
    because of the very Dem's who have championed a lot of HCR- Unions and others are not going to back Cap and Trade- it will hurt them in the short term at a time when its hard to point to short term pain as being a good trade off.

    Parent
    So everything is the fault of those (none / 0) (#133)
    by observed on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 02:54:06 PM EST
    Democrats who are not sufficiently in love with Obama. Got it.

    Parent
    Um no (none / 0) (#134)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 03:00:40 PM EST
    Cap and Trade is the fault of some Dems who love Obama, some who like him and some who tolerate him and the complete and total obstructionism of the GOP- seriously, Cap and Trade's far less popular than even Healthcare because unlike HCR a large chunk of the Democratic base could be actively hurt, and only a small margin of the Democratic coalition would be pleased.

    Parent
    Oh (none / 0) (#125)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 02:36:27 PM EST
    my bad I assumed we were talking about actual impact, in terms of politics its a mistake to even attempt Healthcare Reform- I mean look at the Clinton attempt it helped hand over congress it was so politically tone deaf, this may do the same- heck expanding medicaid even without all the other stuff is basically a political loser so really why should we give more healthcare to the poor.

    Parent
    How (none / 0) (#163)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 06:28:40 AM EST
    is passing something that the middle class has no vested interest in a good thing? You can make the argument for helping the poor with medicaid but you tell me how you keep the GOP from eliminating it the next time they win everything with out the middle class having some vested interest? If the majority of the people in the country see this as nothing more than expanding welfare it's not going to last anyway.

    Parent
    thas not what the quote said. (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 09:46:06 AM EST
    it was about the effect on future legislation.

    I am aware some here are willing to accept no progressive legislation as long as Obama is  not allowed to get a win but lets be honest.


    Parent

    This (4.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 09:50:47 AM EST
    is NOT a win for Obama except in his own mind which I know he thinks he's a legend in. It's the genius of Obama that's led the party to a lose/lose proposition.

    How passing a crap bill helps Obama is beyond me. And as far as imigration goes, well, he's already dumping out there for other people to do the work on so expect the same diaster with the lack of leadership that we've experienced on healthcare.

    Parent

    Seriously, (3.50 / 2) (#130)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 02:44:28 PM EST
    is there a single way Obama could make you happy- with a lot of people its substantive issue but with you I have the feeling if Obama presented a complete Health Care Bill or Climate Bill you'd dismiss it as "arrogant- who does Obama think he is to dictate terms to congress, man its a sign of inexperience that he didn't realize that congress should form the bill, I mean why couldn't he have learned from Clinton's debacle in 1994?"

    Parent
    What can Obama do? (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 03:06:16 PM EST
    I can live with continuing the war in Iraq, and I've accepted the expansion of the war in Afghanistan because our involvement by Shrub et. al. is a factor in the current Administration's decisions. But I'm pissed as hell that we still have Don't Ask Don't Tell and the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. I got mad about the bankster bailouts, but figured at the worst it would waste our money and maybe help the economy by pumping up Wall Street. I'd rather we bailed out Main Street, but I accept that other strategies might be helpful with the economy.

    But this stinkin' Insurance Industry Profit Protection and Enhancement Act is going to cost us a huge amount of money because its foundation is corporate welfare and with no way to stop future indebtedness. It's not just a one time bailout; it cements in the greedy for-profit model that is bringing our healthcare system to its knees. The much touted expansion of Medicaid will be easily slashed as part of the next Administration's deficit recovery work, as the Repubs gain mileage vowing to help America recover from the excesses of the one-term Obama presidency. Obama gets to go down in history as the Man who finally gave us UHC (sort of), in spite of his lame one-term presidency. Meanwhile, major benefits such as not allowing pre-existing condition limitations will be swept away by the cost of paying premiums and co-pays to cover those with pre-existing conditions. In 15-20 years, we'll finally get a good economic assessment and wish we had taken a stand for true health care reform instead of accepted this lame overlay that pulls a financial bait & switch on the middle class.

    What can Obama do? He can stop gunning for his own claim to fame at the expense of the American dream.


    Parent

    Well, ... (none / 0) (#152)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 07:52:19 PM EST
    ... not flip-flopping on his major campaign promises would be a start.

    Parent
    Obama (none / 0) (#164)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 06:31:14 AM EST
    could get a spine and quit preemptively surrendering everything. But, that's not who he is and it's probably something that he is incapable of doing so he probably can't make me happy. He's inherently a wimp unwilling to stand up or stand for anything. So unless he can change his personality it's unlikely that he'll get much love from me.

    Parent
    thats it (2.66 / 6) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 09:52:34 AM EST
    let all that Obama hate out.

    Parent
    Oh (3.43 / 7) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 09:54:03 AM EST
    puleeze. If you want to defend wimpish behavior then that's your right. I have no use for wimps but if you want to define it as "hate" well then go ahead if it makes you feel better.

    Parent
    But it's not what the whole op-ed said (none / 0) (#106)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 01:00:03 PM EST


    Parent
    Good to know (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 02:34:17 PM EST
    that people on Medicaid aren't people.

    Parent
    You (none / 0) (#165)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 06:36:43 AM EST
    obvioulsy don't know how restrictive medicaid is then.

    Parent
    That does (none / 0) (#21)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 09:56:45 AM EST
    sound like a good reason to me.

    Still, further success depends on the Administration and Reid/Pelosi taking a new approach.  They are going to lose seats to the Republicans...they just need to make sure that doesn't overwhelm getting things done.

    Parent

    Potentially... (1.00 / 1) (#99)
    by DancingOpossum on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 12:43:44 PM EST
    ...potentially destructive third party challenges

    Long past time for that. Although I wouldn't regard the end of either party as particularly "destructive."

    And gyrfalcon, sorry if you don't like the way I characterized Obama's first actions in office. Is it the term "wholesale" you object to? Or how many children and Afghani villagers is it OK to kill? Obama couldn't wait one month to start bombing civilians and that includes children. Sorry if the truth offends your delicate sensibilities.

    You might be right (3.50 / 2) (#132)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 02:47:23 PM EST
    who knows maybe Nader in 2000, helped America, after 8 years of Gore probably would have been very similar to the 8 years of Bush we did have.

    Parent
    If there's any district (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 08:50:29 AM EST
    that voted for McCain but should still support generous social programs, it should be Altmire's. It's like West Virginia and southern Ohio.

    former Bush-era U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan (none / 0) (#115)
    by ding7777 on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 01:25:32 PM EST
    that's who is running against him

    Parent
    Er yeah (none / 0) (#2)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 09:03:38 AM EST
    I don't what some people think tea partiers are about, but that is definitely it.

    Which is why I think Village Blogger types get confused when selling the awesomeness of the bill at hand.  They often say health care reform when they really mean Medicaid expansion.  It's dishonest.  Talk about the exchanges and what not if you want to talk about reform.

    Sounds like the conversation ran (none / 0) (#3)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 09:13:22 AM EST
    aground well before the writer says it did.  Like when the 46 tea party people got on that bus.

    Also sounds like Altmire like many Democrats are trapped in their own circular reasoning about this bill, its significance and its reality.

    People are indeed worried about the economy; and if the bill had made a real and immediate impact on Americans' healthcare premiums and costs across the board, they would have had a great economic argument.  But they abandoned really addressing that issue when they chose health insurance reform over heathcare reform.

    The irony is that the health insurers are raising their premiums at astronomical rates.  I hate to think what kind of train wreck this mandate is going to be by the time it comes into effect.  For the concern trolls worrying about deficits those subsidies are going to be an issue and for everyone else who just has to pay premiums without assistance, it is going to hurt - perhaps a lot.

    I wouldn't say the "wealthy"... (none / 0) (#5)
    by masslib on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 09:21:20 AM EST
    For example, my mother would have been caught up in this tax and she can hardly afford spending anymore than she already does on taxes or health care.  She makes a lot now, sure, but it took her a career to get there.  Now, while her income is finally quite good, she's older and pays a lot in the way of co-pays and stuff not covered by insurance.  She's really strapped, actually.  Wealth is better measured in assets than income.

    which tells me (none / 0) (#49)
    by cpinva on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:30:03 AM EST
    And none of them will ever vote for Altmire or any Democrat.

    they're either incredibly stupid (not really a reach), or so filled with hubris, they don't care, they figure they'll be re-elected anyway.

    Off topic (none / 0) (#80)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 11:33:42 AM EST
    I would love to hear your thoughts about this Nate Silver post:  Progressives' Strategic Choices on Health Care Likely Made Little Difference

    I am hard-pressed to see what is particularly scientific about it Nate Silver making sh*t up but hey maybe that's just me.

    excerpt (none / 0) (#83)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 11:36:11 AM EST
    -- I also tested what happened if certain groups were removed from the process. For example, the projected outcome increases from 52 to 58 if the committee chairs are bypassed, and from 52 to 57 if Olympia Snowe is ignored. It appears that dealing additional groups into a negotiation can have potentially unpredictable and deleterious consequences; even if those groups are not influential initially, they have a chance to accumulate influence once they're seated at the table.  [emphasis supplied]

    Omg!  Do you think?

    Parent

    Relevance (none / 0) (#85)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 11:39:35 AM EST
    Silver's foray into opinion makes it easy to disregard his numbers.  He has no legitimacy.

    Parent
    yeah (none / 0) (#93)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 12:12:34 PM EST
    he starts with assumptions that are completely subjective:

    - White House (70). Very highly influential but distracted (lower engagement). Extremely flexible; wants deal done. Veto point.
    • Nancy Pelosi (75). Influential, highly engaged, quite flexible. Veto point.
    • Harry Reid (67.5). Modestly influential (less than Pelosi), highly engaged, very flexible. Veto point.
    • Progressive Democrats (85). Modestly influential, engaged, modestly flexible.
    • Moderate Democrats (67.5). Modestly influential, reasonably engaged, very ambivalent/flexible.
    • Blue Dogs (52.5). Influential, engaged, fairly inflexible. Veto point.
    • Committee Chairs (60). Modestly influential, highly engaged, reasonably flexible. Veto point.
    • Olympia Snowe (42.5). Low influence (although high relative to other individual members of Congress), but engaged. Modestly flexible.
    • Republicans (20). Low influence, modest engagement. Completely inflexible.
    • Insurance Lobbiysts (0). Comparatively low influence, but very engaged. Modestly flexible -- not totally averse to compromise.
    • Liberal Activists/Unions (100). Low influence, engaged, somewhat inflexible relative to policy-makers.
    • Voters/public sentiment (45). Highly influential, but very distracted/disengaged. Position somewhat amorphous/flexible.

    Anyway, none of it is "scientific."

    Parent

    Selling The Health Bills: No Public Insurance, No Taxes On The Wealthy | 182 comments (182 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment