I'm sorry to say it but I want this healthcare legislation to crash and burn

[cali]

it just keeps getting worse. I've been struggling to find a reason to support it. I can't.


It's a giveaway to insurance companies. The public option covers practically no one. and to top it all off it's become a vehicle for the anti-choice assholes in the dem party- of which there are quite a few.

fuck the legislation.

[Autumn]

1. Agreed

K/R

[jasi2006]

172. Take a deep breath and see what comes out of Conference.

If Dems have the balls of the GOP they can do what the GOP did behind closed doors when DeLay and that ilk were in Congress. After passage of this House version, progressives and others need to take names of those opposing and promise revenge at the polls BEFORE the Conference sessin begins with the Senate version. Lots of things can change during Conference.

[FormerDittoHead]

193. Yes. Let's wait for 20-25 years to see if it really works or not. Let's wait.

>If Dems have the balls of the GOP they can do what the GOP did...

Yes. Let's see if they would do that ONCE, because they haven't done that YET since 2006.

In the meantime, let's be quiet about basic things in the bill, things which will not be changed like insurance corporation subsidies and let "Feudalism For The New Millennium" come to a final vote before speaking up. Let's hope that they'll change it for the little guys like they did NAFTA and GATT.

Just be quiet, it just gets better and better!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. Yeah, I agree too...

Damn.

K&R

[phleshdef]

3. Boy, for it being a "giveaway" to insurance companies, the ins. companies sure are against it.

Why are they so against this great "give away"?

[skipos]

8. I just talked to an friend who works for a health insurance company

and he claims the biz wants this legislation killed. I see most of the health insurance stocks are down 40% from where their peaks in 08. Yet DUers tell me how awesome this bill, which probably won't get a single repub vote, is for the health insurance industry.

[phleshdef]

11. Yea and I have asked the question to a few DUers making such claims and none answer it.

Its easy to throw around buzz words like corporatist and giveaway and all that to make yourself feel all "more liberal than thou" and such, but actually being able to back those claims up with a valid, well articulated argument when put to the challenge is a whole other story.

[Hello_Kitty]

36. Try asking a question in good faith then.

Right now, it appears you already answered your own question and are engaging in rhetorical masturbation.

[skipos]

57. I had an OP that asked why health insurance stocks are underperforming the S&P

whether you look go back to Obama's inauguration, or even back to the point it seemed likely we would have a Dem president that would try to enact some reform. Though I have seen multiple threads in the vein of "OMG! HUM and AET are up 2% today! It shows what a giveaway this bill is!" (which, on a side note, is exactly like Fox News blaming some random Obama speech on the Dow going down 20 points), my thread received two responses.

[Hello_Kitty]

66. There could be a lot of reasons for stock going down.

Maybe it's because of millions of people having to drop their coverage because they lost their jobs. I think we should wait until something is actually passed to see what happens with health insurance stock. I wouldn't be surprised to see an uptick with companies being assured of millions of new customers.

[lyonn]

121. Stocks at a glance....

When ever the public option looked like a looser, insurance stock went up, when it looked like the tea party special was making "News" and influencing the polls in August, their stocks went up. On the rare occasion that the public option looked like it was having a come-back, their stocks went down. This is what you see at a quick glance at CNBC during Obama's 9 months in office. Two words B-S.

Have the insurance stocks truly underperformed since Obama became a likely candidate? I'm confused or maybe not - the insurance companies don't want any control over them. I like that anti trust thingy for sure. Truly I haven't read the bill, not even part of it. I'm like the masses, only what is on the magic screen and internet. I'm waiting for the likes of Weiner and those that seem to know what the bill includes before I decide if the bill will be good or bad.

P.S., my beer is now talking. Makes me a lot smarter......

[Aramchek]

94. you know better than to expect a well articulated response from them

[dionysus]

151. you DLC corporatist bankster lover, you

[phantom power]

10. Because that is how you play the negotiation game.

What you say: "Oh my god, you're robbing me, but I suppose since it will give me good karma, I'll let you have it for that price."

Reality: you got more than what you were willing to settle for.

You never, ever, ever say "I got what I wanted"

[phleshdef]

14. That not an answer. Thats a cop out to side step the question.

The insurance companies are heavily vested in getting this bill killed. If it were truly some huge giveaway to them, they would either support it or at the least, act completely indifferent about it.

The real answer is although the proposed legislations are far from perfect, they are not even close to being an insurance company giveaway. The regulations alone scare the bejeesus out of the insurace companies. Any claims of the bills being insurance company give aways are complete and total lies that have no basis in any reality.

[phantom power]

18. Of course it's an answer. You might disagree with it.

Being heavily invested in killing it is a good negotiation strategy. Obviously, they are perfectly happy with the status quo. Fighting as hard as possible against any kind of bill is a no-lose strategy for them. It makes sure that whatever bill might get passed is as benign to them as possible, and may even help them.

If they end up with some regulatory structure, but that structure is relatively weak and has loopholes (because they pitched a big nonstop fit about it all the way through Congress), and also end up with an insurance mandate, they win. Even if they don't "win", they are very unlikely to "lose."

Either way, they will claim that they lost. You never walk away from the negotiation saying "hey things didn't work out too bad for me." Because that weakens your position coming into the next negotiation.

Everybody appears to understand how this game works, except the Democratic caucus, who took their flagship position (Single Payer) off the table unilaterally. Twice.

[phleshdef]

20. No, its a convoluted conspiracy theory that does not actually answer my valid question.

And its a stretch on top of a stretch to try and prove something that isn't true, that the bill is an insurance company giveaway.

[Dr Fate]

42. Just b/c they oppose it does not mean they wont come out better than middle class voters.

Corporations do not like being told what to do-that is true. That is the only real point that I'm getting from you.

If we are forcing people to buy insurance that corporations will profit from, it's a give-away, whether they pretend to dislike it or not.

[Egnever]

83. just curious how do you get people covered without mandating coverage?

[Dr Fate]

88. The same way we pay for multi-billion dollar, unpopular wars based on lies?

The same way we pay for police, fire depts, highways, schools, congress's salary & HC plan, etc?

[Egnever]

97. Was that supposed to be an answer?

Or are you implying we mandate higher taxes? and if so whats the difference?

[Dr Fate]

103. Not "an" answer- but "the" answer. Yes, taxes pay for public projects.

And the HUGE difference is that no middle class or poor voter gets fined or put in jail if the top 1% is paying for the bulk of public insurance.

Remember, Obama & DEMS ran on no new tax burdens for the middle class.

Also, any unused funds in a public insurance pool could go back into healthcare, not into the pockets of the Republican Insurers who are gouging us.

I find it hard to believe that you cant see the differecnes.

[Egnever]

116. Well i dont think you are thinking this through

If we went to single payer it wouldnt only be the top 1% paying higher taxes. At least not if we didnt want the national debt to spiral out of control. Everyone would have to pay higher taxes. All that money being spent on health care has to come from somewhere.

If you eliminate all the money currently being spent on premiums then you will have to replace that money from another source. The top 1% of americans could not foot that bill alone.

[Dr Fate]

120. So Obama and the DEMS will be breaking their promise? I guess they didn't think that through.

Obama campaigned on the notion that taxes would not be raised as to the poor and middle class.

This means that the rich would be paying for what ever it is that Obama needs paying for, not the middle class, under threat of penalty.

My bad for trusting them. Mandates it is!

But seriously, pretend that this is a trillion dollar war based on lies instead of HC, then come back and tell me how Blue Dogs and "centrists" would craft a comparable "mandate" that would fund it in lieu of taxes.

All other developed nations seem to be able to find the money from their tax base- so I think the richest nation on earth can manage.

[Egnever]

123. I dont understand what you are saying .

You seem to be acknowledging the fact that there would have to be taxes raised,and implying that other countries do it somehow. Yet you seem to be implying that we could somehow acomplish it without raising taxes.

You are correct other countries find a way to get it done. France for example imposes a 20% payrol tax on everyone. You think that would fly here? Thats a mandate BTW.

I think you are getting hung up on the word mandate and not recognizing the reality that there would be a mandate of one kind or another no matter how we chose to get the funding be it through premiums or taxes.

[Dr Fate]

130. Sure- you do- I'm saying we should raise taxes on the top 1%.

I never said we could fund huge projects w/o raising taxes on corporations, the insurance industry and the top 1%, etc.

I'll bet we would have to stop giving so much money to the pentagon as well. Oh, the horror!

If Obama thought that he couldnt pay for HC w/o raising taxes or imposing mandates w/ fines on the middle class, he should have said so. That's not what he said.

Sure, according to my argument, the top 1% would be "mandated" to pay their fair share- we agree on that much.

Yes- raising taxes the top 1% is a "mandate"- but it does not involve fining & jailing the poor and middle class.

Let the people who got us into this mess foot the bill for a while.

Again, pretend this is a trillion dollar war based on lies, then come back and tell me how "centrists" would craft a "mandate" scheme to fund it as opposed to taxes.

Can you do it? LOL! Could you even IMAGINE such a thing?

[Egnever]

131. So in other words you want a pony.

Got it.

I want dubai to pay for my health care but reality is it aint going to happen.

Again the top 1% could not fund the total health care bill of this country I dont know why you keep clinging to that. it is complete fantasy.

[Dr Fate]

141. So , in other words, you want "ponies" for the Corporations and the ultra rich.

Sounds like the typical attitude and talking points from the Joe Lieberman/Landriue/Blue Dog wing of the conservative movement. Get some new insults & talking points. Maybe something we could actaully SAY to swing voters and indepents who WILL be opposed to this in 2010?

Ponies. Good Lord.

If the top 1% cant afford the bill as you say, then what makes you think the poor & middle class can pay for it? You cant squeeze blood from a stone here.

Why do you keep clinging to this fantasy that the poor & middle class are more equipped to fund expensive projects through forced mandates than the very top is through taxation?

You ask me why I am clinging to the prmosies that Obama & DEMS made considering raising taxes (which you falsely use interchangeably with mandates) on the middle class?

Again, you cant provide us with a single examples of individual "mandates" that pay for our wars or other large public projects- No, you cannot, b/c TAXES pay for it.

If taxes can pay for wars based on lies, then taxes can fund HC w/o mandates, fines, etc.

If you dont think that swing voters & independents wont make this connection, I'm afraid you are wrong.

[Egnever]

144. Taxes are mandates

sheesh

[Dr Fate]

149. Fine- then let's "mandate" that the top 1% pay raised taxes in order to help fund HC.

As opposed to mandating that the poor & middle class foot the bill, or be fined and jailed.

If mandates are indeed the exact same thing as taxes- then that means DEMS lied when they promised no raised taxes (or "raised mandates" as you might call them) on the middle class.

As I said, you have yet to provide us with a comparable "mandate" scheme in any other area of govt.

Everything else that is public is generally funded by taxes, not individual mandate schemes that require individual citizens to purchase necessities from private companies.

[boppers]

183. Increased taxes on >$500,000 a year. It's already in the bill.

Have you missed that?

[phleshdef]

113. No its still not a give away. Not when you consider what we will also require of the corporations.

Forcing them to accept and cover pre-existing conditions, reversing their anti-trust exemptions, disallowing them from dropping people because they don't want to cover them and forcing them to spend 85% of their intake on actual coverage... that doesn't sound like anything remotely close to a give away.

The give away meme is nothing more than a myth.

[Dr Fate]

122. They will be making their profits, instead of the money going back into the system.

That is what people mean by a give away.

Maybe we could agree that they will fight for the status quo, even if they still continue to benefit under minor changes.

Just b/c you choose not to characterize continued profits as a give away does not mean that insurance is not getting something that congress has the power to give away, take away or retain.

I dont think this type of semantics arguments will work very well on swing voters & pro-reform moderates one way or the other, but you are welcome to try.

[phleshdef]

129. I don't have a problem with profits as long as people get covered

And you still fail to counter any of my points, once again:

No more anti-trust exemptions
Can't refuse coverage
Can't drop people to avoid covering them
85% of all intake must be spent on people and not bonuses or salaries

These are FACTS, not gray area conspiracy theories or anti-corporation rhetoric for the sake of being anti-corporation, FACTS, FACTS that you can't dispute.

Calling it a give away is dishonesty at the highest degree.

[Dr Fate]

133. I do. I'd rather the "profits" go back into the system, not into the pockets of the gougers.

And just to be clear, I'm not here to refute the positive points in the bill- I'm saying that it when congress GIVES AWAY a scheme to insurance that gurantees them profit, by LAW as opposed to changing the system where they ARE NOT guranteed profits BY LAW, it is indeed a "give away."

When congress gives something away instead of taking something away, it's not dishonest to call it a give away.

For our own sake, I hope that swing voters are more impressed with these types of pin-point semantical arguments than the base is.

I dont think it's a conspiracy theory to say that congress & The Presdient are influenced by corporations, nor is it conspiratorial to think that they could give us a better bill, if they really wanted to.

[phleshdef]

140. Its dishonest to call it a give away because the companies stand to lose more than they gain.

If you look at all the components of the regulations that would be passed, that seems to be the end result. After having to pay their operating costs and employees and all of that, there isn't a lot left for profit.

[Dr Fate]

148. I dont feel I'm lying when I say that they are still getting something out of this...

...when they could have gotten nothing, or less.

Why even take a chance with these crooks, or give them any benefit of the doubt at all?

Let them fend for themselves and compete with a strong public option, without giving away guranteed, mandated customers to them.

It's a give away- we are "giving away" mandated customers to them instead of making cultivate their own customers by competing against a strong PO.

[lyonn]

137. Is public option out of the bill? nt

[Dr Fate]

150. Was a strong PO that I qualify for ever in any viable bill? n/t

n/t

[Egnever]

82. +100

peopel seems to be great at screaming corporate give away. Time after time though when asked how you get crickets or insults.

[dionysus]

153. single payer never had the votes. i don't understand why people cannot grasp this.

i can't disagree with the *notion* people have to "start all over with single payer", except there never has, nor with the congress we have, ever will be enough support for single payer. it doesn't mater if it's the best solution, it does not have the votes.

listen, if the crappy-ass blue dogs don't even want a public option, how on earth do you expect them to go for single payer? if a public option can't make it out of the house without getting watered down, how do you think they would pass single payer? they won't. it's just not going to happen, and unfortunate as it is, that's the truth of the matter

[Dr Fate]

38. Wouldnt they oppose ANYTHING that is percieved as taking even the slightest amt. of power from them?

Just because they would prefer the status quo does not mean that they will lose too much power, lose profits or be less corrupt as a result of this weak bill.

I'm sure they do would want to kill ANY bill that even remotely makes them change any thing.

Corporations do not like being told what to do, granted, but that doesn not mean that corporations still wont benefit from the bill more than middle class voters will.

[lyonn]

136. Makes sense, otherwise why spend so much opposing it?

Billions I tell ya. To say nothing of tea parties. Try hiring actors. Betcha they are expensive.

Who knows, we may get a fairly decent public option out of this deal.

The R's during the debate are pretty much concerned about the welfare of the prosperous, and they throw in loss of jobs, right, like the Bush bunch had nothing to do with this disaster we are in. The health care of 40 - 50 million means nothing. If insurance has to pay all claims dispite pre-exiting they are going to lose their ceo bonus's.

[Dr Fate]

143. B/c they prefer the status quo to what still amounts to a give away. n/t

n/t

[nebenaube]

25. theatre.... n/t

[bvar22]

29. Its the "Don't throw me in the Briar Patch" strategy..

[Egnever]

86. right cause people are making their decisions based on insurance companies reactions

[bvar22]

96. See posts 8 and 11 this thread.

Thats just a start.
Apparently, there are a bunch at DU who think that because the Insurance Corporations are opposing the current House Bill, THAT makes these bills good for America.

Those dots don't really connect.

[Egnever]

99. but the Briar patch comment does?

[ipaint]

48. They were out to destroy anything close to a viable public option. They succeeded.

We are the only country in the history of health care reform to end up with a government run ins. option that is MORE expensive than for profit private ins.

Call the faux, theatrical prop gov. ins whatever you want, thanks to the ins. lobbyists and their corporation's constant flow of cash to congress there is no public option.

We've already been warned that dumping people too expensive to insure will continue. There are a thousands ways to cull the costliest and the sickest. Insurance companies make money denying care, that won't change.
The mandate, in this form, will be a yoke around all our necks. No cost controls, insurance companies as permanent gatekeepers, and taxpayers subsidies for those who can't afford the bill for the ins. co.'s overhead and profit guarantees this is a disaster for citizens.
Americans get to pay their own premiums, pay co-pays and deductibles and kick in taxes to pay, not for health care, but profit and overhead of private ins co.s.

This bill is exactly what the ins. companies want. They knew they needed to give the appearance of being amendable to reform and cost cuts. They knew two years ago when Karen Ingnani, the top AHIP lobbyist, went around and began crafting this legislation with her corporate cronies at the top.

It will save some lives in the very short term but as this legislation ages the consequenses will kill many more. It is designed to strengthen by financially feeding the private middleman who offers nothing of added value but instead increased costs to health care.

This will end badly but there is no telling people. I remember the arguments for deregulation, welfare reform and nafta. This is deja vu for me. Same old pro-corporate authoritarian apologists pushing for faux reform for personal financial gain.

The first health care bill was put forth almost a century ago, medicare almost a half a century ago at this rate we may get real reform in another century or two especially if we continue to play the doormat to corporations and their bought reps. in congress.

[SKKY]

119. DING! DING! DING! DING!

We have a winner!

[JVS]

169. They're just complaining about being thrown in the briar patch at this point.

[DRoseDARs]

184. "Red herring" "bait-and-switch" familiar with the terms?

Just because you don't play that way doesn't mean they don't either.

[sandnsea]

4. Egads

The public option covers anybody who doesn't have employer based coverage. Why would someone whose employer is paying for their health insurance choose to pay for it themselves?

Some people hate the government as much as DU hates corporations. Why should they be forced to buy a government plan?

The Hyde Amendment is the law and there's no reason to muck up health care reform with abortion fights.

Fuck those who would let people die.

[Kdillard]

6. That was my understanding of it too unless something changed.

[ChicagoSuz219]

5. I'm glad you don't have a vote. nt

[arcadian]

23. Neither do you.

[ChicagoSuz219]

47. True. Things are looking good in Congress, tho'... so YAY!! nt

[xchrom]

7. this thing based more or less on the Mass. model is just awful.nt

[frazzled]

9. People who can't get insurance now will thank you for your idealism

I can't tell you how many people I know have been turned down from getting any kind of health insurance: and they weren't cancer patients or people with some dire disease. These were friends and family members with "conditions" as common and minor as slightly high blood pressure, slightly low bone density tests (osteoporosis), slightly high cholesterol, an episode of depression, and in one case: a finger injury!

I'm sure the seriously ill people who will face being dropped from their current insurance will thank you also if the bill doesn't pass. They'll die.

All the regulations on insurers that will be in the bill that won't occur will also make things better, won't they?

Nihilism is not an acceptable political stance. If you're against the bill, you're tantamount to an obstructionist Republican. Doesn't matter if your reasons are "idealism": the result will be the same.

[Kdillard]

12. I know I was shocked to learn that you could be turned down for a

pre existing condition like Pregnancy and domestic violence. Also recently in the news some babies were turned down for being too small and too big. I know it is not perfect but I would rather something be passed and improved upon over the years than fail and people continue to be without coverage.

[phleshdef]

15. Or turned down for being an HIV risk because you were raped and a dr gave you anti-AIDS meds.

[John Q. Citizen]

13. The anti-choice crowd knows something that progressives don't.

If you say "No dice" they will change the the bill.

Progressives should flat out say, "No actually functioning public option, no right for states to pass single payer, no dice."


Instead the so -called progressive just roll over yet again.

And we thought it was our leaders who have no back bone.


Lots of DUers have none, either. They will take crumbs in a second and pretend it's "reform."

[nemo137]

191. and what then?

I am willing to be that you'd have a better chance getting a working anti-choice block than a working progressive block (by working, I mean agreeing on that to vote against). If we can get anything, especially after 30 years of constant fuckery against the working man, let's fucking take it! My generation, once we get out from under the coat tails of our parents and our schools, is going to bear the brunt of the new tendency of the insurance companies to deny for anything and everything. This is not a bad bill.

[tabatha]

16. If it is good enough for Alan Grayson, it is good enough for me.

[phleshdef]

17. And that dirty, rotten corporatist Howard Dean!

See that, I used the word "corporatist", see how liberal that makes me feel?!!!

[argonaut]

19. Next you should call him a "DLCer".

Also, accuse him of being a closet Republican and hating gay people. That's the routine, I think.

[phleshdef]

22. A corporatist AND a DLCer? That would make my progressive gonads WAY too hot and bothered.

I can't handle being THAT liberal this early in the day now.

[tabatha]

21. Actually, Dean said it should be passed.

[windbreeze]

32. you know...I remember Conyers saying

that NOT ONE of our elected Congressmen/women read the Patriot Act before signing it...has Grayson read this bill? Has Dean? To me, that is far more important than anything else...that anyone signing to either pass or fail the legislation is NOT taking someone else's word for it...that they, each and every one of them, has thoroughly READ/UNDERSTANDS this legislation, so that they can/do, with a clear conscience, vote for or against it's passage...That's what we pay them to do, and I don't think it's too much to ask...wb

[nevergiveup]

24. Oh great!

Would you have also wanted the originally passed Social Security and Medicare bills to have crashed and burned? If this health-care legislation crashes and burns health-care reform is dead, the tea-baggers will have won, the Republicans will kick ass in 2010 and Obama will likely loose in 2012. This legislation is much less then I wanted but it is a start and Medicare and Social Security both prove there is such a thing as improving and expanding legislation once it is law.

[firedupdem]

26. +1 n/t

[babylonsister]

45. Well said! nt

[Cha]

132. Thank you for writing

about the bigger picture.

[grantcart]

27. Its one thing to say that you against the legislation

To say that you cannot possibly find a single reason to support the legislation that Governor Dean has called an important step forward doesn't say anything about the legislation, it does speak volumes about you however.

[Aramchek]

95. don't expect reason from those who oppose the bill, they have none

[dave29]

28. Thanks for helping kill me off!

See you on the other side

I guess some of us have more of a stake in this bill passing than others

[windbreeze]

30. I have a question about this health care reform...

I have insurance...twice over...so I've been paying attention to a degree, but I haven't taken the time to read the bill...yes, I have grown children who have NO insurance, and a husband who had a 5 way bypass...I have Medicare, and I DO understand that there is room for improvement....I do realize how important it is, that everyone has health insurance...but what is this I am hearing about possibly going to jail, if you don't buy a policy?? Could someone explain that to me? ARE there provisions in this bill for them to take such actions against someone?? and IF so, how does everyone feel about that end of it?? (I don't know that there is, I'm asking) wb

[Kdillard]

31. It is a catch22 there needs to be a mandate. The way I understood it is that you were fined.

You have insurance so you won't be fined and hopefully your kids will actually have insurance through the public option.

[Hello_Kitty]

35. No, her kids will have insurance if they are lucky enough to have their parents foot the bill

The "solution" to the lack of insurance among young adults is to let them stay on their parents' policies longer. Goody for the ones who have generous parents. The rest will be forced to buy expensive insurance or pay a fine.

[windbreeze]

71. IF that IS the case, then I am against it, period...

In the first place, I can no longer put my kids back on our insurance from his job before retirement...the ins. co. forced each of them off of it, at 18...and why should any American be forced...BE FORCED...to buy insurance/pay a fine/go to jail? What the hell problem, does that solve???...Now all of a sudden it's ok to force people to buy insurance they can't afford??(who does that really benefit I wonder??) Obviously, IF they could afford it now, they'd have it, I don't know anyone who opts out of having medical insurance just because they can, do you???...I thought this reform was a way to provide health insurance for those who cannot otherwise afford it????I can barely afford to pay for our (hubby/I)insurance(about $600 a month out of our retirement income plus co pays/prescriptions)...how on earth would I pay for my kids'/g.kids' policy/ies??and how on earth will a single parent of one or three kids, who are working minimum wage jobs, pay for insurance?? OR the fine, for that matter..???wb

ps: why not just make medicare available for everyone on a sliding scale...???

[Hello_Kitty]

74. Yeah, I don't know anyone who opts out of insurance just because they can either.

I'm sure there are some people out there who do it but not many. Most young healthy people who don't have insurance don't have it because it's hideously expensive and the coverage is crap. Yet there are many people on DU who are just convinced that turning people into criminals for being uninsured is the way to go.

[windbreeze]

93. wonderful...and here I was hoping I had misunderstood....n/t

[Egnever]

126. There are afordibility credits

http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications...

Provide affordability premium
credits to eligible individuals
and families with incomes up to
400% FPL to purchase insurance
through the Health Insurance
Exchange. The premium credits
will be based on the average cost
of the three lowest cost basic
health plans in the area and will
be set on a sliding scale such
that the premium contributions
are limited to the following
percentages of income for
specified income tiers:
133-150% FPL: 1.5 - 3% of income
150-200% FPL: 3 - 5% of income
200-250% FPL: 5 - 7% of income
250-300% FPL: 7 - 9% of income
300-350% FPL: 9 - 10% of income
350-400% FPL: 10 - 11% of income
Replaces the above subsidy
schedule with the following:
133-150% FPL: 1.5 - 3% of income
150-200% FPL: 3 – 5.5% of income
200-250% FPL: 5.5 - 8% of income
250-300% FPL: 8 - 10% of income
300-350% FPL: 10 - 11% of income
350-400% FPL: 11 - 12% of income

[Egnever]

101. well there are fines for not buying insurance

However there are also hardship waivers. I dont think its very likely that many will be going to jail.

[windbreeze]

188. The point is....if even ONE does....

it's one too many...I never dreamed that there would be those of us, who would feel it was ok, to jail a person for not having health insurance...imo...it's just not right...and it seems strange to me that such a provision had to be included in a health care bill....I don't think it's just me who feels that way, either....wb

[Politicub]

33. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater

This is a massive reform, and will pave the way for further reform that will hopefully lead to single payer.

[bvar22]

34. I agree with Cali today.

Mark it on your calendar, I agree with Cali.

This bill should be should be re-named The Health Insurance Industry Profit Enhancement Bill.

The Democrats are going to do what the Republicans could never dream of doing....FORCING everyone to BUY a shoddy product from a For Profit Industry.

If I thought that Congress would be successful at regulating the Health Insurance Industry, I might be supportive, but I seen NO evidence that Congress has been successful at regulating ANY Industry since the Reagan years.

This is a BIG step in the wrong direction.

[TwilightGardener]

37. I don't--this is basically an experiment, and I want to see how it works.

It's incremental, but that's the only type of plan that will realistically pass--let's give it a few years and decide what is working, what needs shoring up, what isn't working, etc. Let's see how it covers people who are in the most desperate straits and have fallen through the gaps (which IS the first priority--giving all of us who already HAVE decent insurance a better/cheaper choice is NOT first priority). Let's see what the insurance industry does as a reaction to the legislation and public behavior. Let's see how many people get signed up for a public option. Let's see if mandates work. Let's see how expensive even the most cautious changes can get, or maybe money will be saved somewhere. Good Lord, it's not a giant leap for mankind, but it's not a baby step either.

[BootinUp]

39. Its just a stepping stone

but a necessary one. Many of the provisions are things that are needed to begin the process of healthcare reform. If its really as rotten as you suggest, Obama won't sign it.

[Oregone]

40. +1

[cry baby]

41. jeez! I don't wish for the dem defeat. nt

[Thrill]

43. It failing isn't going to help it become a better bill. More of a delay and it

will only get worse.

Like Grayson said, this bill saves lives. It needs to get passed

[impik]

44. Yay, that's the spirit! Let's stop 40 years worth of progress

Because we are so pure.

[IndianaGreen]

110. You moron! Abortion rights have been reduced for many years now

and this bill just added another nail on the coffin of reproductive rights.

It is not that we are pure, it is that people like you are so happy to accept so much corruption.

[backscatter712]

46. If this bill crashes and burns, we will get absolutely nothing for another 20 years.

As stated, this bill is a stepping stone. Of course it's not everything we want.

But it gives us the means to get to where we want. When it comes in front of President Obama's desk and gets signed into law, that's when we start fighting for the next steps - expanding the public option, tightening the leash on the insurance industry, bringing single-payer to the point where it can get on the table in Congress.

But if it dies now, we'll be stuck, just as we were stuck when Clinton's health care bill died. We will get nowhere, and the health care situation will continue to get worse.

[Dr Fate]

50. Why 20 years? Why not just go back to congress and keep working until it gets done right?

Where did the conventional wisdom that congress is only allowed to adress HC reform every 20 years come from?

And dont just tell me "thats the way it is."

Who is stopping congress from continuing to work, this year, every day, every month, until they get it right?

I'm not sure I buy this excuse anymore.

If it really is stalled for 20 years, it will be because the usual Blue Dogs want it stalled, so I see that as just more threats from the conservatives who are part of the problem.

Under your logic, it may just as well take 20 years before this bill is re-addressed, amended, improved, etc. I'm not buying that either.

[Cleita]

54. If you haven't noticed that is exactly what was being done after

Hillarycare bombed and how HR 676, Medicare for All was born, but it was never brought to the floor in that length of time.

[backscatter712]

56. You really think Congress is going to turn around and try again after that kind of embarassment?

They didn't in '94.

Part of the reason why was because the Democrats lost Congress soon after they lost the debate on health care.

Defeats such as what you're suggesting are incredibly embarrassing and humiliating, frequently have consequences come Election Day, and if it happens, any further attempts at health care reform will quietly be tabled for years. The issue will become toxic enough that nobody will want to touch it, and most of Congress will put their fingers in their ears and yell "LALALALALALALALA!!!!"

But if we pass this bill, that's enough of a success to encourage our elected assholes to try for the next steps.

That is the way it is, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

[Dr Fate]

61. So if DEMS had opposed invading Iraq, the GOP would have had to wait 20 years to invade?

This is really how it works?

Sounds like the usual excuses to me.

[backscatter712]

67. Not a heck of a lot of Dems opposed the invasion of Iraq.

Blame the corporate Blue Dogs for that too.

But if the Dems united in opposition to the war, filibustered the Iraq War resolution, and stood firm, yes, Bush would have been SOL on Iraq.

Sadly, enough of them supported the invasion of Iraq that it did happen.

But Bush was SOL on Iran. Not just because of Congress (which by that time had been retaken by the Democrats), but because of the people too - there was sufficiently widespread opposition to Bush's plans to bomb Iran that it didn't happen.

[Dr Fate]

76. Voters oppose both wars now. Something tells me it wont be "20 years" before both get more funding.

HCR , on the other hand, is a hot topic, the public is for it, and they would be willing to wait a few days for a bill w/o this very unpopular mandate.

Does DEM leadership have the skills, work ethic & guts to make it happen, or just more excuses & "conventional wisdom"?

[Kdillard]

64. Exactly. Once a bill is passed it can always be fixed but if it doesn't pass noone will want to

get this done. It will be too much of a risk.

[Dr Fate]

80. Who is the " no one" in your statement? Blue Dogs? DLCers?

The public and REAL Democrats will still be demanding a good deal for the voters- this is not the 90's, and many more people are engaged and paying attention this time around.

The public would not mind it at all if this bill was nixed in favor of one w/o a mandate. The problem is that is not what the DEMS who call the shots want to do. Plain & simple.

Like I said, if it really is "20 years"- then it is by design, not necessity.

[ipaint]

162. It will need to get in line behind nafta, welfare reform and deregulation.

We are still waiting for those promised improvements.

[branders seine]

49. I lurked here for a long time before joining and posting only recently.

I never thought I would agree with cali, much less recommend a cali post, but here I am.

[Cleita]

51. Yeah, I gotta agree.

My fear though is, if it crashes and dies like Hillarycare, that it will be put on the back burner for another twenty years.

[Dr Fate]

53. Why 20 years? Who made the rule that we cant go back every day, every week until we get it right?

Is this some rule that Blue Dogs & Republicans made up or what?

So if we had stalled the vote to invade Iraq, it would have taken 20 years to go back and invade? Really?

[Cleita]

60. Because they won't let it come to the floor in that length of time

especially if the Reps regain seats in Congress. There have been many of us who have been working hard in the last twenty years to get just that done. In California we tried to get single payer done statewide and it passed both houses of the legislator to be vetoed by Arnold twice.

[Dr Fate]

65. Who would kill the debate? Blue Dogs & DLCers?

I thought DEMS were in charge. They have plenty of time b/f the next elections, especially if they put in over time and take less vacations- you know, like middle class people have to do all the time.

If they really wanted stronger reform, they would just keep on working and fighting for it instead of giving up and making up excuses.

[Cleita]

70. If you've been paying attention, the DLCers have already fucked over

any good legislation that would have made a big difference.

[Dr Fate]

73. And I'll bet DLCers are also propagating the "20 years" excuse too.

It goes something like this:

"If you far left Liberals dont "compromise" and do what us DLCers say, you will have to wait 20 more years before we tell you what to do again! Dont make us make you wait 20 more years- we WILL do it!"

[Cleita]

85. Are you implying that I'm a DLCer?

I didn't say that it would happen. I just said I fear it could happen if history repeated itself again. Jeez, I'm pretty close to being a communist in my ideology. I'm just practical enough to know that there is no point in even talking about communism here in the USA. Although when I lived in South America, communism was talked about a lot and very openly.

[Dr Fate]

90. No-I'm implying that the DLC/Blue Dogs/etc. likes & benefits from the Catch-22 they created

n/t

[backscatter712]

112. Your fear is very much justified.

A defeat on health care means the House leadership won't allow health care to come to the floor for years, and will likely result in losing Congress to the GOP in 2010.

This is certainly a messy bill, but it will get coverage for 36 million Americans, and start the process of putting a leash on the insurance industry. It's a starting point, not the finish line, but if we can't even get this passed, we're not going to see reform for another generation.

[Dr Fate]

115. In other words, the DLC & Blue Dogs will force us to wait 20 years if we dont do what they say.

As opposed to working on this bill for a few more days or weeks until it is better.

Can you show me which DEMS congressmen are on record saying that they will shelve this for 20 years unless we vote on a bill that includes mandates and a weak PO?

Who is in the House Leadership making this threat, exactly?

[vaberella]

52. Brilliant. You have your pick then between the Repub healthcare plan or the status quo.

Both make the nation worse. Your hope limits my choices to these two.

[Dr Fate]

55. Seriously, why cant we go back & work on the bill for a a few more days/weeks until we get it right?

Why is it this bill or nothing?

I dont understand the "its now or 20 years later" talking point/excuse at all.

[skipos]

62. The reason this struggle to pass is because of bluedogs and Repubs.

What makes you think that the votes are there for a bill that "gets it right?"

Why, after the death of reform in the 90s, has it taken about 20 years address this massive problem again?

Please answer both of these questions.

[Dr Fate]

68. So we admit that it is DEMOCRATS who would hold it up for 20 years- good to know.

"What makes you think that the votes are there for a bill that "gets it right?""


Good point-I dont think that there are too many Democrats who want to get it right- I think they would rather make excuses about "20 years." I dont think that there are too many "good" DEMS who even WANT to twist their arms or threaten their Blue Dog Masters either.


"Why, after the death of reform in the 90s, has it taken about 20 years address this massive problem again?"

I agree with you- it has not been adressed again since the 90's b/c Blue Dogs are too corrupt & conservative to let it happen, and the "good" DEMS were unwilling to force their hand on it.

Thanks for clearing up my questions- we must do what the Blue Dogs & conservatives tell us, or we will have to wait 20 more years before they get to tell us what to do again. Got it.

If it's held up for 20 years, it's by design, not necessity.

[Zynx]

58. Then we will get completely wiped out in 2010.

At this point the only choice is to support it and improve it later.

[Dr Fate]

59. Not if we pass a better bill before the midterms. n/t

n/t

[TwilightGardener]

69. A "better" bill for most DUers equals a more generous, wide-coverage public option bill, right?

Is that what you mean by "better"? Why would that happen in a few more weeks when a less-extensive, more incremental, consensus-driven bill is in danger of not passing now?

[Dr Fate]

72. I dont like the mandate, and I dont want to wait "20 years" to remove it.

Or does the "20 years" thingy only apply to getting it right in the 1st place?

I see your logic when you say that we should go ahead and pass this, then improve it, say, 20 years from now.

I just dont see why we cant keep working on the bill, force some Blue Dogs to compromise, threaten to take away power from some Blue Dogs, call out the ones who are corrupt and in bed with insurance, etc, until we get a better bill, preferably w/o a mandate. If there was a will and some un-corrupt leadership, we could do this b/f the mid-terms.

I just dont buy the "we must do what the Blue dogs want or wait 20 years" excuse. I would rather our leadership force the Blue Dogs to do some compromising for a change.

[TwilightGardener]

81. I haven't said anything about 20 years--I don't believe it has to be that way.

I actually think that IF the bill passes in its current form, the tinkering will begin once it's implemented--Democrats will try to expand it or fund it better, Repubs will try to shrink it--such is the way of Congress. But this is just the initial shape--it will morph, and the public will have a chance to either support the various aspects of the bill or decide that certain aspects suck. Look at SS and Medicare, though--no turning back from that, that's what scares the panties off the GOPers. As far as mandates, you can't force insurance companies to accept everyone, and not drop coverage, without mandates to ensure that the healthy/inexpensive-to-insure also pay in to the pool. Otherwise the ins