Yes, the health care bill should pass.

[liberalpragmatist]

There's a lot of anger over the public option and the health care bill right now. Let me just make a few points that I think are relevant:

I. The Public Option: Regarding the fact that premiums for the public option may be somewhat higher than private insurance, there are a few issues that are relevant. For one thing, the CBO did not state definitively that premiums will be higher - it said they might be, but that overall they would be comparable. The reason premiums may go higher is because the public option may attract people who are sicker and cannot get cheaper coverage from the private plans. In the absence of a public option, many of these individuals would have to pay even higher premiums under private insurance. So the public option is still a good option for them.

Medicare+5 rates would have helped the public option dramatically. But there simply aren't the votes in the House. Over time, the key to making the public option competitive will be to open the exchanges - and by extension, the public option - to everybody. Ron Wyden has pushed for a "free choice" proposal which would allow anyone to buy into the exchange even if they are offered coverage by their employers. However, both big business and the unions oppose that measure - big business because it'll weaken their control over employee benefits, and unions because they fear that allowing people to opt out of employer-based plans will weaken their bargaining power. That proposal is unfortunately not going to pass for now.

However, that kind of proposal is the sort of thing that could very easily be enlarged down the road, similar to how Medicaid has been steadily increased. In the meantime, we should push for allowing all employers to eventually buy into the exchange, which the House bill does allow, and also pass Wyden's modified free choice proposal which allows some people to opt out of their employer-based coverage if they can get a cheaper option on the exchange. Both would allow more people to buy into the exchange and the public option and could gradually increase its membership and thereby increase its leverage.

II. Should this bill pass? Yes, as Krugman argues.

This bill will expand coverage to over 30 million. It will, crucially, dramatically expand Medicaid, expanding it to 150% of poverty, increasing its reimbursement rates to Medicare levels, and having the federal government pick up the tab, leaving state budgets off the hook. It will allow people in the individual market to buy coverage at rates comparable to employer-based coverage. Yes, that's still expensive, but it's dramatically less expensive than the individual market is right now, when individual coverage costs 3x as much as employer-based coverage. It will end major abuses like rescission and discrimination against people with "pre-existing conditions."

I know many people have made this same point before, but keep in mind that both Medicaid and Social Security began as far stingier programs than they are now. Social Security originally excluded most of the population, and Medicaid was very bare-bones.

For Social Security, for example:

Most women and minorities were excluded from the benefits of unemployment insurance and old age pensions. Employment definitions reflected typical white male categories and patterns.<11> Job categories that were not covered by the act included workers in agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers.<12> The act also denied coverage to individuals who worked intermittently.<13> These jobs were dominated by women and minorities. For example, women made up 90% of domestic labor in 1940 and two-thirds of all employed black women were in domestic service.<14> Exclusions exempted nearly half the working population.<13> Nearly two-thirds of all African Americans in the labor force, 70 to 80% in some areas in the South, and just over half of all women employed were not covered by Social Security.<15><16> At the time, the NAACP protested the Social Security Act, describing it as “a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.”<16>

Both were steadily expanded in the years following their passage.

3. What Should Be Improved in the Bill?: A few things that could improve it off the bat would be to (1) include Ron Wyden's modified Free Choice proposal, (2) allow all large employers to buy into the exchange, and (3) include Kucinich's single-payer exemption for states. Then, once it is passed, over the coming years, aim to do the following:

1. Federalize Medicaid and SCHIP. These bills take steps in that direction, but the aim should be merge or link Medicaid with Medicare.

2. Allow everyone to buy into the exchanges and merge the public option with Medicare, making it an opt-in program available to everybody.

3. Shift away from fee-for-service medicine, by shifting reimbursement for Medicaid, Medicaid, and the Public Option. I know there is criticism of Massachusetts existing health plan, but having covered everyone the state is now poised to kill fee-for-service medicine, thereby undertaking cost control that is far more ambitious than anything Congress is currently contemplating. This suggests that cost control becomes far easier once you get everybody into the system, as Krugman notes.

---

I know a lot of people argue that we should kill this bill and start over. But what makes anybody think that the next opportunity will give us anything better? Every time a major health care initiative has died, it has taken 20 years to revive it, and we wind up with a worse proposal that we did the previous time around. Truman's single-payer proposal died in the late 1940s. In the 1960s, Kennedy and Johnson didn't even try for universal coverage, scaling back their demands to Medicare and Medicaid. Progressives opposed Nixon's plan, which was actually more progressive than anything that followed because they felt they could get single-payer after Nixon was out of office. Single-payer advocates opposed the Clintons' '93-'94 plan, which would have put in place dramatic cost controls and given everybody the choice of several, heavily-regulated health care plans and created a standard basic plan that all insurers had to offer at the same price. In no case has killing a health care reform effort resulted in a more progressive bill emerging the next time around.

And for all the scorn for incrementalism, in most other countries, universal coverage has come exactly that way. In Canada, universal coverage began as a province-by-province battle that took two decades to complete. In France, what they have now is single-payerish, but it evolved out of nonprofit cooperatives organized around key industries and only became truly universal (as in, 100% coverage) in the early 2000s.

This bill does a lot of good. Yes, it is far from perfect and it hardly means that we're done with reforming the health care system. Personally, though, I think it's naive to expect that we were ever going to get a perfect health care system in one bill. How many major issues are resolved with a single legislative battle? Not a whole lot. Almost every reform effort on any issue requires multiple attempts over the years.

[HughMoran]

1. Hearty K&R

I thank you for one of the best summaries of the pluses and minuses of why some compromise is required at this time. Nobody likes to compromise, but there are times when less than perfect is far better than nothing.

[Bonn1997]

3. Compromise implies a moral principle of fairness to all parties. A compromise cannot be bought

At least that's how I use the terms.

[HughMoran]

4. Succumbing to extortion?

:shrug:

How's that work for ya?

[Bonn1997]

5. More accurate than compromise--by far.

[bluestateguy]

2. Yes, pass it and keep on fighting.

Just like with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the work toward real equality was far from done, and more laws had to be passed.

[Sebastian Doyle]

7. There is a fatal flaw in the "pass any old shitty bill and fix it later" argument.

There wasn't such an overwhelming stench of CORPORATISM polluting our party when Social Security and Medicare were passed. The biggest problem were the racist "Dixiecrats" and most of them were already in the process of jumping ship to the Repuke party after the Civil Rights act in 1964.

A more appropriate comparison would be NAFTA, which Clinton and the DLC assured us they would "fix later", and have not. The corporate cowards loved that bill as it was, and had no intention of improving it. Same with this weak excuse for "reform". And as long as this cowardice is allowed to exist in our party, there will be no true progress, in health care, or anything else.

[HughMoran]

9. The fellow in your avatar seems to think it's a good start

I've yet to hear anybody call it "any old shitty bill" - what bill are you talking about?

[Sebastian Doyle]

21. Dr Dean probably is more optimistic about the current state of the political process than I am

Maybe that's because he's from Vermont, where all of the politicians (even Republicans like Jim Jeffords) were still decent honorable human beings?

[Cha]

6. Kick for a Good Start as Dr

Dean said to Lawrence O'Donnell on KO's.

[ixion]

8. Not in my opinion

passing it will be a colossal mistake.

[John Q. Citizen]

10. The bill will entrench the Private Insurers as the richest and most powerful sector

of the economy.

They will buy all of our elections forever. They will make health care far more costly, and thus far less available. We will see many of our congress people, our Senators and their staffs running these companies in a few years.

If the solution is forcing people to purchase a private product, then the solution is fascism, apparently.


The Bill is really based on Republican principles when you think about it. It's a market based solution to a social need. It embodies the spirit of the conversion of social security to a public private partnership, with wall street investing for us. it embodies the spirit of eliminating public schools in favor of tax supported private schools, it embodies almost everything that the Republicans hold near and dear.

So support this Republican Bill if you want to. I never can and I never will. See you in court.

[Cleita]

13. If what Obama says is true, that they are one-fifth of the economy, then

they are already entrenched as the biggest parasitic portion of the economy. God, I really wish we had larger sector of honest politicians to drum these giveaways of tax payer money out of our government.

[liberalpragmatist]

14. With all due respect, what's your game plan?

I disagree with some of Obama's actions on this. But even Bernie Sanders has said there are no more than 10 votes for single-payer in the Senate.

How do you expect to pass single-payer through Congress?

And if you can't pass single-payer through Congress, what's your Plan B?

If you want to argue that Congress is a broken institution and that we need serious political reforms, I would heartily agree. But even that isn't going to create some social democratic utopia.

So what's your option when that fails?

[John Q. Citizen]

28. Thanks for asking. First of all,

this is a bad bill and the bad out weighs the good. So for that reason we should reject it.

2nd of all: We don't have to take this deal. The worst argument of all is that if we don't take it now we will never get another chance. That's just opinion. The congress just voted to bail out a bunch of private corporations and their stock holders. They did that in about 2 weeks time, apprpriating about as much as this bill is supposed to cost in ten years. They just went and did it. So things can be done if someone wants to do them. And they can be done fast. Same with invading Iraq. They just went ahead and did it, quick like. And It'sa already cost us about double what this bill will.

We (the left, the people,) always roll over and do what we are told. It's time we learned to say "No!"


3rd. The insurance industry, big pharma, and the House and Senate Democrats need this deal more than we do. Think about it. The health care industrial complex has sunk tens of millions into getting this, because they expect to get a lot more back from our pockets. If we say, "No, this isn't good enough" then what are they gonna do? Just lose all that money and lose all that extra money they thought they were going to get from us? What about the Blue Dogs? If they won't budhge and give the people what they want how will they do next year?

We are always complaining about how our leaders have no back bone but I say it's us who lack back bone. We need to show a little and not just accept whatever crumbs they are willing to toss our way. Lets go to the mat. Let's scuttle this and watch the insurance industry stock fall along way down. Then lets get terms we can live with. Lets get a Democratic Bill, and say no to this Republican crap. We really can do better, but not if we fold.

The house progressive caucus should say no, we won't violate our principles and pass a bill that is so anti-consumer and so anti-taxpayer and so pro-insurance company and so pro big pharma.

No deal, Howie!

[eridani]

52. We don't even have to reject it. Just recycle the good parts in other legislation. n/t

[Cleita]

11. My biggest problem with it is with the mandates.

In California the mandate for car insurance criminalizes the working poor and I think this would do the same. Well I'm not really happy with most of it but that provision is the one I have the most trouble with right now.

[berni_mccoy]

12. Nice post. K&R.

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. Jeff's theorem: the likelihood of unrecs is directly proportional to the good info provided.

Good analysis. I agree.

[liberalpragmatist]

16. I feel DU goes through cycles

It seems like some days are days when the board is filled with pro-Obama posts and lots of recs for them. And other days when the board is filled with anti-Obama posts and lots of recs for them.

Seems like it must be a "negative" day.

[John Q. Citizen]

32. Why do you see your post as either pro or anti-Obama? Or is your support

for the bill as written based on the fact that you believe that Obama supports it, and supporting the bill then supports him? He's already got great heath care, so it's apart from the policy aspect. Is your support based on your belief that it will be politically useful to Obama if it's passed?

This is an interesting question and i'm interested in your answer.

If people's support for the policy is because of a political reason, then it's hard to actually debate and analyze the policy in terms of is it good for the country as a policy. The political become mixed up in it and it may lead to much worse policy as a result.

If Obama were to reject this, would that change your opinion of the bill in terms of policy? What if he said it didn't meet his principles? Would you change your mind about supporting it, or woulod you fight for it anyway because you feel it's good policy and the best we can get?

[liberalpragmatist]

36. pro or anti-Obama is a convenient shorthand

On balance, I do generally favor the president's policies, although I have specific disagreements with him on some issues, namely gay rights, civil liberties, torture prosecutions, and his relatively soft support for a health care public option.

If, for some reason, Obama were to veto this bill, I would likely oppose a veto. Of course, it could depend on what his stated objections were, and if his objections were appropriate, whether it looked likely that a veto could modify the bill in that direction. If it could not, and it were just to kill the bill, then yes, I would oppose a veto because, again, while this is only a partial effort, it still does many good things and gets us far closer to the goal of universal coverage.

[eridani]

56. God forbid that we actually talk about policies and how they affect people

I'm not pro-Obama some days and against him on other days. I am for some policies and against others, and I haven't changed in that respect since 2003 except with respect to tactics. Issues are always and everywhere more important than any politician.

This legislation is a big pile of poison ivy salad dressed with a nice expensive balsamic vinegar. How about we just keep the vinegar separate? The useful parts of the bill could be easily recycled in other legislation.

[John Q. Citizen]

31. You may have something there. And it happens to boths sides of the debate,

especially when the information is good.

Just for the record, I didn't rec or un rec this thread.

While I'm of a different mind than the OP, I thought the argument was well presented and deserved consideration and also it was worthy of refuting.

It wasn't snarky, it wasn't silly, and it was offered in good faith.

[lumberjack_jeff]

48. Well said. n/t

[kenny blankenship]

17. It doesn't actually kill kittens or pour acid on puppies so let's reward all involved!

[HughMoran]

19. awful post

You're just full of hate. :mad:

[johnaries]

26. Obviously you have nothing to bring to the conversation.

Idiotic cynicism for the sake of cynicism doesn't count.

[HughMoran]

18. Once again - excellent post

It's utterly amazing to me that a well constructed and thorough post like this that isn't just a cut-and-paste has been unreced below zero. DU really has been invaded by Freepers and those who pretend to be on our side, but who would undercut us to the point that we lose any hope of healthcare reform and our majority too.

[Kansas Wyatt]

20. The Democrats are trying their best to bring the Republican Party roaring back...

With this alleged 'best we could do' SHIT.

To bad the Democrats didn't try harder at doing their 'BEST' for the people who gave them a mandate.

My early condolences for 2010 & 2012 and their bewilderment about why people would vote against their best interests.

[John Q. Citizen]

39. Oh, people will just blame it on those dastardly Repos, the media, bad luck, etc. They

will never get the fact that the whole country knows Democrats won't fight for anything ever.

They just roll over from the beginning and say, "it was the best we could do, don't make me actually demand something!"

[Cleita]

22. About the Canadian system, they did it in Saskatchewan first as

a laboratory to see how it would work. We don't seem to have any laboratory state to try single payer yet. Massachusetts has the system that Congress is trying to pass and that Obama wants and frankly it's proving to be very costly to the state. All the cheerleading astroturf saying how wonderfully it's working is simply not true as the Physicians for a National Health Plan have exposed. It's just astroturf. We could start single payer in California if only Arnold would get out of the way. Our legislature has passed it a couple of times and Arnold has vetoed it.

[liberalpragmatist]

25. A couple points:

No, Massachusetts plan isn't "wonderful" but it's a decent start. It's too expensive, but everybody has coverage and public approval of the program is fairly high - over 70%. The biggest issue is cost control and that may well be addressed by shifting away from fee-for-service.

Now, I fully agree that we should encourage state level efforts for single-payer. And that's why I do support the Kucinich Amendment to permit states to enact single-payer. I believe Pennsylvania has a single-payer bill too.

[John Q. Citizen]

34. Putting the Kucinich amendment back in would be smart in terms of public support.

The bill would still suck, but at least we'd feel like there was hope for a better day.

[eridani]

57. The public approves because they don't give a flying fuck about the people--

--who are impoverished by it. Most peoples' opinions about whether their insurance is any good are like their opinions about whether their fire extinguishers are any good, that is to say in no way informed by actual experience. In every demographic, 5% of the population accounts for 50% of all medical expenses, and their political power is zilch.

[johnaries]

27. HR 3962 is NOTHING like the MA model. Obama opposes the

MA model.

[John Q. Citizen]

35. How is it different, and do you have a link to Obama expressing his opposition?

[johnaries]

49. The only thing they have in common is they both have "mandates"

with susidies. However, the mandates are implemented differently and the subsidies in the House bill are fully-funded - unlike the MA law. They have nothing in common aside from the generic term "mandate". To say they are the same is like saying Capitalism and Socialism are the same because they are both "economic systems" or that monarchy and democracy are the same because they are both "systems of government".

Further, MA doesn't have a Public Option, which Obama has repeatedly said he supports.

[John Q. Citizen]

33. I bet we could pass single payer iby initiative in MT, especially if we could raise some money

to counter the corporations.

[demodonkey]

54. Pennsylvania's getting closer to Single-Payer too...

...if we didn't have the Party of NO! controlling our Senate.

[KharmaTrain]

23. I Want My Pony!!!!!

Somehow I'm convinced that even if there was a robust public option...Medicare plus 5 that wouldn't be enough...nothing short of a fully socialized system with the insurance companies made illegal would be sufficient...and even that wouldn't be good enough.

They call politics the art of the possible and, while I'm not 100% with what's being proposed, it's not what I think but what can pass and start the ball moving in providing coverage for millions who don't have it as well as clamping down on the abuses of the insurance companies regarding anti-trust and their draconian "pre-existing condition" rules.

I trust what I hear from Dr. Dean, Mr. Krugman and many other Progressives who know how the game is played and what can or can't happen. Sure, I wish we'd have a full public option and that may still come to pass...or at least the set up of a system that will make it possible rather than the nothing we have now.

Also getting this legislation passed means it can and will be ammended without all the hoopla we've endured over the past few months. Progress many times are marked in small steps that lead to larger ones. This is a first step...always has been. It's not what any of us want, it's what 535 elected representatives decide. If they choose to go against what you wish, then work to get them thrown out and help elected more and "better" (more Progressive" Democrats. You play with the cards you're dealt...and the worst thing you do is just throw the cards up in the air and walk away.

[rhett o rick]

44. "getting this legislation passed means it can and will be amended without all the hoopla we've

endured over the past few months." That's exactly what I am afraid of. Go ahead and call me negative or whatever, but I have seen this happen before where legislation is past, to control the compensation Congress critters can earn on the outside, and immediately it starts to get weakened, and after a few years it's gone. Amended without fan fare. Currently we have a lot of public momentum for a strong public option. Pass a weak bill, with the idea it will get strengthened later, and the public goes back to their business. The insurance lobby does also goes back to their business, but their business will be to spend whatever it takes to weaken this bill.

The American people asked for more and deserve more.

[eridani]

53. How about not wanting a shit sandwich?

Is that OK with you?

[KharmaTrain]

55. Not What I Want...

It's what will get 219 votes in the House and 60 in the Senate. What I think doesn't matter.

[eridani]

60. I see. With Medicare so popular that TEABAGGERS don't want government to

--take it away from them, it's just too complicated to start allowing voluntary buy-in to Medicare right now.

[KharmaTrain]

61. And This Matters How?

I could care less what tea baggers think. This is a debate among Democrats and their votes, not what teabaggers or the man on the moon thinks. The only thing I have is my vote and checkbook...if my representative votes to sell out without a Public Option, she will never get a dime from me, any phone banking or door knocking and my vote...inversely, I'll gladly support any challenger to any "Conservodem" or whatever you want to call them that put the special interests ahead of those who don't have and need medical coverage. It's that simple. Anything else is just a waste of time.

[eridani]

62. So why not ask your representatives to let the public option be voluntary buy-in

--to Medicare. My point about the teabaggers was that there are no political downsides for such legislation.

[KharmaTrain]

63. I Was There and Did Tell Her...

I wanted Public Option. My preference was Medicare + 5 and then called several times since to let my opinion be heard again...that's all I can do...and I'll bet more than many "concerned" and ready to throw the entire Democratic party under the bus. C'est La Vie.

Obviously to some there are downsides. While I would prefer Public Option for all, if putting in an Opt Out clause gets it the votes, then let it be...and let those legislators who vote against this for their citizens have to face them...and some of us who donate to try and elect Progressive Democrats.

The Democratic party, unlike the rushpublicans, is not monolithic...it represents a lot of people with different values and interests. Those in the rural areas have different priorities than urban dwellers as do Northern "Liberals" as opposed to Western "Libertarians" and so on. The battle is within the Democratic party...and each representative will cast a vote that they will have to be addressable to their voters...all 435 representatives and 33 Senators in a year. Of course the teabaggers have no downsides...they're totally out of power...irrelevant. If they had upsides, they'd be winning elections.

[eridani]

64. That is not all you can do

You can call in and ask that the salvageable parts of the bill be removed from the private insurance mandate option.

[KharmaTrain]

65. Yep...They'll Usher Me Right Into The Meeting...

I could also ask for breakfast in bed and a free trip to the Carribbean, but I'll stick with getting passage of a bill with Public Option, the elimination of the insurance company's anti-trust exemptions and forcing them to honor their contracts regarding those with "pre-existing" conditions. My two concerns...coverage for those who have no coverage and competition between government and private insurers to reduce costs. I'll leave the rest to you...

Cheers...

[eridani]

66. You can at least bother to call your congresscritters with your suggestions n/t

[KharmaTrain]

67. Read My Posts...

Not only have I called, I've said it to her face during a town hall last summer. And a good chance I'll call again once I see what the bill she will be voting on contains...after ammendments and other closed door additions or subractions are made. Some of us have real lives...earning living, taking care of families and the real world. I wish I could play political junkie but bills need to be paid.

[eridani]

69. If you've done that all along, you can keep doing what you have been doing

I see no reason to just lay down and accept a shit sandwich.

[KharmaTrain]

70. Bless You...

LOL. Sorry I can't meet your standards. Looks like time for me to take another DU vacation...the goofiness has definitely over run this place.

Peace...and good luck in chasing your windmills.

[johnaries]

24. K&R. with links and comments.

Here is the CBO report to Rangel:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21849473/CBO-House-Health-Care

And a summary of HR 3962:

http://www.centerforpolicyanalysis.org/id57.html

It's actually a damn good bill. As for the PO having higher premiums, the major assumption of the CBO is that it will attract the "less healthy". But, since all providers have to accept all applicants, there is no reason to expect that the "less healthy" will be attracted to any particular plan over another.

Also, I know a lot of attention has been focused on the Eshoo Amendment. But that amendment was to HR 3200 NOT HR 3962. It is actually a GOOD amendment, but Waxman's version is better because it calls for 5 years instead of 12 years (Big Pharma wants 14 years). Obama has suggested 7 years for both generics and bio-similars as a compromise. It's not too late for us to support Waxman's version or even a 7-year compromise for both HR 3962 or, more importantly, the final House/Senate committee bill.

[Aragorn]

29. question

"It will allow people in the individual market to buy coverage at rates comparable to employer-based coverage." Is that really in the bill, and if so can you tell me where? Thanks.

[liberalpragmatist]

38. Health insurance works by risk-pooling, which the individual market doesn't currently have

Health care coverage is generally the most affordable for large corporations, for whom insurers can insure a very broad swathe of people, permitting risk pooling.

In the individual market, there isn't any pooling. The whole purpose of the Exchange is to put the entire individual market in a single pool, thereby creating a large amount of risk-sharing and rates that are comparable to the rates offered for employees of large corporations. From the President's Health Care Speech from 9/9.

Our collective failure to meet this challenge – year after year, decade after decade – has led us to a breaking point. Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured, who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare. These are middle-class Americans. Some can't get insurance on the job. Others are self-employed, and can't afford it, since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer. Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or expensive to cover.

<snip>

Now, if you're one of the tens of millions of Americans who don't currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage. We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange – a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices. Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. It's how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it's time to give every American the same opportunity that we've given ourselves.

More on the concept of a health insurance exchange here: http://www.urban.org/publications/411877.html

And here: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/07/the_most_important_part_of_hea.html

If a public option is included in the exchange, even a level-playing field plan could be an effective way for preventing all the private plans in the exchange from simply operating as a cartel to keep their prices high. So even if a public plan offers slightly higher premiums than the private plans, that could just be a sign that it's working - if the private plans don't keep the prices below the public plan, the entire population on the exchange would migrate to the public plan.

[Orsino]

30. And so should the next one, which patches this release. n/t

[emulatorloo]

37. Kick and Rec n/t

[Greyhound]

40. "You'll want all day tomorrow, I suppose?"

"If quite convenient, sir."

"It's not convenient, and it's not fair. If I was to stop half-a-crown for it, you'd think yourself ill-used, I'll be bound?"

Not even half-a-loaf, we're to be happy with crumbs and believe that we can make it better later, as if "Democrats" are going to continue to hold this kind of power...
:eyes:

[Kablooie]

41. Yes. Once health plan laws are established, they can, and WILL, be adjusted later.

It's MUCH easier to adjust laws that exist than to create new ones with no precedent.

Also, if it doesn't pass that means that the tea baggers have succeeded and we end up with nothing except a greater chance that we will be under Republican domination again, in the near future.

[John Q. Citizen]

43. Sure, right after bush is held accountable and when the medicare part D is fixed, and

when the voting machines are made unriggable, and after Blackwater is indicted.


Democrats are total weaking and whimps. We fall for anything over and over.

[eridani]

51. Yeah, right. Just like we "improved" NAFTA and welfare "reform" n/t

[eridani]

58. Yes, they'll be adjusted to screw us even worse n/t

[rhett o rick]

42. IMHO the Senate wont strengthen the bill but most likely dilute it. nt

[bemildred]

45. Most of the corporate tools in Congress need to be thrown out.

Then we can have a rational debate about what our public health care system ought to look like. You cannot simultaneously maximize public good and private profit.

[ProleNoMore]

46. So A Flawed Bill Is Better Than A Good Bill - What Kind Of Logic Is That?

eom

[Odin2005]

47. get as much as we can now and keep on fighting for more.

That is the only reasonable and rational position. I would ideally like Single Payer but that is not going to happen right now, too many bought-off Blue Dogs. We have to take what we can get now and then keep putting as much pressure as possible on the Dems in Congress in the primaries. THAT is the only way reform will work. Whining on a message board doesn't do anything.

[eridani]

59. So voluntary buy-in to Medicare is impractical because why?

Because it would be too expensive? Really? Why not just put the $900 billion right into Medicare instead of supporting useless parasitic thieves?

[eridani]

50. It does about as much good as taking strychnine and vitamin C together

It is outright theft and robbery to serve insurance companies. Yes, it has good features, but what in fucking HELL is the matter with pulling those features out and passing them separately. Like passing on the strychine and just ingesting the vitamin.

It is so utterly sickening to hear people cheer about my incipient impoverishment. People who want legal age discrimination are utterly vile.

[ipaint]

68. A health care bill will pass

as long as the mandate remains in the bill. The insurance companies desperately need that mandate to remain intact over the next 10-20 years of baby boomer migration out of private health care and into medicare.



"Private health insurance faces a bleak future if the proposal they champion most vigorously -- a requirement that everyone buy medical coverage -- is not adopted.

The customer base for private insurance has slipped since 2000, when soaring premiums began driving people out. The recession has accelerated the problem. But even after the economy recovers, the downward spiral is expected to continue for years as baby boomers become eligible for Medicare -- and stop buying private insurance.

Insurers do not embrace all of the healthcare restructuring proposals. But they are fighting hard for a purchase requirement, sweetened with taxpayer-funded subsidies for customers who can't afford to buy it on their own, and enforced with fines.

Such a so-called individual mandate amounts to a huge booster shot for health insurers, serving up millions of new customers almost overnight.

"I think that's why we've seen the industry basically trying to play the administration's game," said Jane DuBose, an analyst with HealthLeaders-InterStudy, an industry tracking firm. "They really could be licking their chops over the potential here.

...The industry's real trouble begins in 2011, when 79 million baby boomers begin turning 65. Health insurers stand to lose a huge slice of their commercially insured enrollment (estimated at 162 million to 172 million people) over the next two decades to Medicare, the government-funded health insurance program for seniors.

"The rate of aging far and away exceeds the birth rate," said Sheryl Skolnick, a CRT Capital Group healthcare investment analyst. "That's got to be very scary. . . . This is the biggest fight for survival managed care has ever faced, at least since they went bankrupt in the late '80s."

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/07/business/fi-healthcare7


They've killed a million of us through denial of care over the last 20 years and we are now going to pay their way plus extra so they can stay large enough to continue doing it.