The current Healthcare Bill HAS BEEN created and approved by several of the Progressives

Yesterday, I posted that the current Healthcare Bill looks like a Winner ( http://journals.democraticunderground.com/berni_mccoy/700 ).

A small number of DUers chimed in and stated that the bill was 'crap' and then praised that there was a caucus of 50 progressives willing to oppose the bill (see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6076998 ).

The only problem with that story is that it was released at the same time the bill came out. That story is referring to progressives who will block any bill that doesn't have a robust public option. Their statement is more of a statement to the Senate that they had better not change the bill the progressives have created. That's right, the current bill does have a robust public option. In fact, one of the leading progressives is George Miller, the Chair of the Committee that just approved and released the bill. Another one is Dennis Kucinich. Both of them voted for the bill.

So anyone who is saying the current bill is crap, better take it up with the progressive caucus as I can pretty much predict, they'll vote for the current bill.

all supported health care for all--and we will get health care reform which will include a government plan. Will it include everything that progressives want? probably not, and there will be some on DU who will still knock it, but the bottom line is it will be a good bill, it will have a public option, and millions of people without health care will be covered.

If Obama "succeeds" in getting this bill passed, our Republic is truly dead. We will have become an oligarchy. The insurance industry will have gotten 40 million new customers--exactly what they wanted.

Republicans will still attack Obama, as they laugh all the way to the bank having delivered the goods to their constituents. So long as this bill is principally funded by a massive new tax on the uninsured (those who can least afford to pay for it), it is worse than doing nothing, and it will drive people away from the Democratic Party in droves.

:dem:

-Laelth

The working poor uninsured are now eligible for medicaid.
The middle income uninsured are now eligible for a subsidy.
Everyone has their total expenditures capped to prevent medical bankruptcies.
Everyone has the peace of mind of knowing that they can get insurance, even if they have preexisting condition.

The bill does many, good things. I don't deny that, but the uninsured will bear most of the cost (and they are, most of them, the most vulnerable among us).

Let's be clear. This bill is funded by a massive, regressive, new tax.

:dem:

-Laelth

I don't see a 12% tax. Here is the bill I'm looking at:
http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

I do see a 2.5% tax in "SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
19 HEALTH CARE COVERAGE."

If I'm interpreting correctly, the 59B tax on uninsured individuals is:

• 2.5% of adjusted gross income in excess of "the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual".
  
  
• but not more than the national average premium.

In other words, everyone below a certain income level will pay nothing. Those above that certain income level will pay a fair share of the actual premium, where the fair share grades in from zero at that minimum income level to 100% at some higher income level.

Anyone with no income, in particular anyone who is unemployed, would pay zero for their healthcare.

In principle this sounds (to me) how it should work. I don't, however, know what the income levels work out to be (as dollar amounts) over which the tax grades from zero to 100% and I would want to see those levels before saying that I'm in complete agreement with it.

And the facts you present seem accurate, from what I have seen. I admit to being lazy and not spelling out all the details in my pithy post above.

But yes, for most people who are uninsured, they will be compelled to spend 1.5% to 11.5% of their gross income to purchase insurance that (most likely) they would have already bought if they could afford it. That's the amount the bill says every uninsured person must pay every year to buy insurance if that person makes more than 133% of poverty and less than $43K/year (for a single) or $88K/year for a couple. If you're uninsured and make over those amounts your new tax payment is capped at $5K/year for a single or $10K/year for a couple. That's a huge new tax on the uninsured.

IMHO, that is an unjust and immoral way to achieve "universal" health care. It significantly impacts the struggling middle class, it will cause massive resentment, and it will drive voters away from the Democratic Party.

:dem:

-Laelth

ultimately?

There are a couple nice parts of the bill. It still leaves an extreme right-wing health system in place though.

From the current system without causing more problems than you solve. It's going to take several steps to go from where we are to a single payer system. That's what many here don't understand. This is the first step.

Thats laughable. The notion that if everyone paid to insurance company A, who paid for them (instead of insurance company {A,B,C,D,E,F....Z}) will cause some sort of disaster is ludicrous.

This is not an incremental jump to Single Payer. Don't try and sell it as that. Its foolish. This is some improvements maybe for people who can get into the exchange in 5 years. It leaves the basic structure completely in place.

am I missing something?

more problems than it solves?

don't mind me .... just trying to keep up :crazy: :yoiks:

First the political: you'll never pass a single-payer healthcare bill. period. The current DEMOCRATS won't do it.

Second, the practical: it's much simpler for a transition to leave people who want to stay on their current (private and/or employer sponserred) plans than to have everyone overload a brand new system. If you provide a transition via a Public Option, then it allows people to choose, over time, to come to it, without overloading it. Like it or not, there is a real infrastructure issue here that will take time to implement. That's part of the reason that the plan isn't fully activated until 2013. It's going to take time to create a branch of the government to perform the services needed for the accounting, billing *and* oversight.

It JUST fucking insurance. It isn't rocket science. We aren't putting a man on the moon. ITS JUST INSURANCE.

Its not that hard. The US already has Medicare. They already own AIG. They already run the FDIC. They already provide Unemployment Insurance.

There is no need to reinvent the wheel. You aren't going to "overload" insurance by having more people on it. Insurance does better with larger risk pools. This is contradictory to the notion of insurance.

Practically speaking, thats all bullshit.

to handle 300 million customers. You'll need to hire thousands of workers and roll out new IT infrastructures to manage the data.

They don't hire an ass-load of people who sit around and deny claims, "manage" cases, crunch numbers, investigate past history for medical "fraud", etc. What they actually do is compensate medical practicioners for services.

Yes, there would need to be a lot of hiring, but they could surely do it far quicker than the 2013 public exchange benchmark here. The reality is, there is no better time than now to hire people (lots of unemployment). What you cit as a practical/logistical concern is really nothing but a standard step to set something up (any new system will need hiring and such). But, a streamlined Medicare for all system is just insurance, and its not the kind that needs to have a huge staff on call to specialize in denying services to people.

And I do believe I said infrastructure was only part of the reason.

Since they do regional systems. British Columbia (my new home) only has the population of Oregon (my old home). BC only covers BC residents. They have regional autonomy in their systems.

No, you are right. It isn't that the US is too big to use that model. They are too assbackwards and idiotic. Seriously. The population argument from the US to Canada is asinine since the US could carry the same load on a region to region comparison

Then manufactured logistical problems that will solve themselves

What else do you want to talk about on that point?

I never manufactured any problems. Those are real issues that have to be solved.

of this bill? It's because it is how we get to single payer. It's a change in the right direction.

The Healthcare system in this country is headed off a cliff and you purists want to teleport us directly to single payer. The only problem is there is no magic teleporter and there is not time to invent one. We have to put the breaks on first, then turn the train around, then reach the destination.

But go ahead, keep stomping up and down for a single payer system. That will help get us there so much faster.

Oh come on now. While I can see how some of the provisions can be really helpful, its absolutely ridiculous to suggest this. There is a much more direct way to get there, which I have mentioned before (income-based, catastrophic single-payer to handle those the system fails).

Look, its a step in some direction (actually, all over the place). But the best route to get from point A to point B (and not get lost and backtrack) is a straight line. This is no where on that line. Its like you are imagining, by mentioning "right direction" a straight 2-D line (left/right), but the map is multi-dimensional and this most certainly steps in its own "uniquely American" direction.

Im not saying this bill isn't a good thing BTW. Depending on how this "cost-sharing" mechanism works out, a lot of people may be helped. Its just, well, "unique" and not intended to go anywhere beyond what is here.

On one hand you suggest that everyone would never vote to pass single-payer, and on the other, you suggest they would pass a plan that will lead to single-payer? Thats sort of a contradiciton. This bill is what it is (probably more good than bad, and the results will speak for themselves in years if it succeeds). But one thing it isn't is some intelligently designed covert legislation to enact true universal healthcare.

I said single payer won't pass in the current Congress. Yes, there are some proponents of a single payer system. But even Obama, along with many (not all) Democrats aren't going to support a single payer solution.

She's Co-Chair of the Progressive Caucus.

I asked, "What's Congresswoman Woolsey's position on HR 3200?" (America’s Affordable Health Choices Act)

The response I got was, "We have no idea what the bill is going to look like when it gets out of committee. She's watching it closely."

I said, "Well the position of the Progressive Caucus has been that you will not support it unless it includes a 'robust' public option. The problem," I said, "is that none of us knows what 'robust' means."

The response I got was, "Hem. Haw. I don't know."

Then I expressed my concerns to the poor staffer and asked her to pass them on to Representative Woolsey. She promised to do so.

If this is a "Progressive" bill, as you claim, at least one Chair of the Progressive caucus is unwilling to announce support for it at this time.

:dem:

-Laelth

Canada did. Britain did. France did. They didn't do any bullshit gradual process. They just up and did it.

Are we so incompetent that we cannot do what other major industrial nations have done?

you actually believe that it could.

I feel sorry for you in either case.

Is the US comprised entirely of fucking idiots? Are you that stupid?

I want to know why the word Medicare is only mentioned as in taking money away from it.

I want to know if they are phasing out Medicare.

There is no 10,000 out of pocket on Medicare now...I am concerned.

There are small deductibles.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Part A: (Hospital Insurance) Premium

*
Most people do not pay a monthly Part A premium because they or a spouse has 40 or more quarters of Medicare-covered employment.
*
The Part A premium is $244.00 per month for people having 30-39 quarters of Medicare-covered employment.
*
The Part A premium is $443.00 per month for people who are not otherwise eligible for premium-free hospital insurance and have less than 30 quarters of Medicare-covered employment.

Part B: (Medical Insurance) Premium

$96.40 per month*

Medicare Deductible and Coinsurance Amounts for 2009:

Part A: (pays for inpatient hospital, skilled nursing facility, and some home health care) For each benefit period Medicare pays all covered costs except the Medicare Part A deductible (2009 = $1,068) during the first 60 days and coinsurance amounts for hospital stays that last beyond 60 days and no more than 150 days.

For each benefit period you pay:

*
A total of $1,068 for a hospital stay of 1-60 days.
*
$267 per day for days 61-90 of a hospital stay.
*
$534 per day for days 91-150 of a hospital stay (Lifetime Reserve Days).
*
All costs for each day beyond 150 days

Skilled Nursing Facility Coinsurance

*
$133.50 per day for days 21 through 100 each benefit period.

Part B: (covers Medicare eligible physician services, outpatient hospital services, certain home health services, durable medical equipment)

*
$135.00 per year. (Note: You pay 20% of the Medicare-approved amount for services after you meet the $135.00 deductible.)

Additional information about the Medicare premiums, deductibles, and coinsurance rates for 2009 is available in the September 19, 2008 Fact Sheet titled, "CMS Announces Medicare Premiums, Deductibles for 2009" on the www.cms.gov website.

*Note: If your income is above $85,000 (single) or $170,000 (married couple), then your Medicare Part B premium may be higher than $96.40 per month. For additional details, see our FAQ titled: " Medicare Part B Monthly Premiums in 2009"

http://questions.medicare.gov/cgi-bin/medicare.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=2100

But for affordability, it is spelled out as a sliding scale based on income and family type.

If you live at the poverty level, you'll pay next to nothing. The more you make the more you'll pay in a premium, up to 5000 for a single person (no dependents) and 10k for a family.

As to what happens to medicare, I can't say. Again, it's a good question.

in this administration.

Phasing out Medicare

"No one (I think he means to say "anyone") receiving Medicare, Medicaid, or any other government program will not be forced out, but there will be no new enrollees. People who turn 65 will simply stay in the Guaranteed Healthcare Access Plan. The special tax benefits related to employer based coverage will be eliminated and most employers will stop offering health insurance."

In addition to the maximum "cost sharing" you will also pay a premium and additional uncovered costs.



Per Steny Hoyer (in a interview on NPR's "All Things Considered" what the monthly or annual premiums will be can't be determined yet because they will be "market driven" (oh-oh). He also said that the public option will not undercut private insurers because that would interfere with people making a fair choice between public or privte.

There is nothing progressive about this bill. It will do nothing but force us to pay to shore up a system that is already broken and we will still be paying many times more than citizens in other western countries and getting a lot less.

I mean, people pay less than that now on average for premiums+co-pays+deductibles. Is this merely there as some sort of catastrophic cap, but not really a rule to how much one will spend out of pocket?


At least its not like that fucked Canadian system though. I here they actually have $0 dollar cost-sharing on basic health care, but they have to tell everyone they are socialists at their high school reunion.

But we need to keep it that way and prevent the conservadems from watering down in committee.

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of helping those who are poor and needy?

That's far worse than Medicare.

Now, just don't ask me to prove any of that

The structure is in place, needs some tweaking...you have your public plan right there. Just fix what needs fixing.

Direct that at the person creating them (unless they are doing the same, eh?)

Regardless of whether it is dipped in a thin sugar-coating that contains (an undoubtedly neutered) Public option.

Sheesh, I wish people would actually read the damn bill.

Mandatory insurance coverage is absolutely a bedrock principle of this plan. Stop pretending otherwise, as it discredits your other arguments.

The questions becomes:

a) who will be allowed to select a Public Option? Most earlier versions of this bill restrict access to the public option based on income.

b) Does this retain the earlier drafts' requirement that the Public Option "not have any unfair advantages over private insurance"?

If either of these principles have changed, please enlighten me. I anxiously await your response.

a) Anyone is eligible for the public option.
b) The requirements for the Public Plan to be competitive with Private Insurance is two-fold:
1. The public plan has to offer equivalent or better benefits
2. The public plan's premiums have to be adjusted based on cost-of-living index by geographical region in order to be fair to local market prices

:hi:

It has links to the relevant points you are interested in. You need to do your own research as you are the one presenting the challenge that it doesn't live up to these standards.

It's not a primary source of authority, to be sure. Moreover, you've misrepresented the foundational concept of this plan (mandatory, for-profit insurance), so I find your naked assertions as to the bill's content extremely unpersuasive.

It is silent as to eligibility. In legal construction (especially at the draft stage) that is not the equivalent of an affirmative statement that all will be eligible.

Again, I find that your positive assertions as to the bill's contents are not matching up with any precise knowledge of same. :shrug:

"SEC. 202. EXCHANGE-ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS AND EMPLOY-

ERS.
14
(a) ACCESSTOCOVERAGE.—In accordance with this
15
section, all individuals are eligible to obtain coverage
16
through enrollment in an Exchange-participating health
17
benefits plan offered through the Health Insurance Ex-
18
change unless such individuals are enrolled in another
19
qualified health benefits plan or other acceptable coverage.20
"

The "Health Insurance Exchange" is the umbrella organization for administering this scheme; it will include primarily for-profit insurers, as well as a public option with undefined eligibility requirements (see quoted text, below.)

The text you've quoted does not say that anyone is eligible for the public option. It merely says that everyone is eligible to purchase insurance under the program.

"SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF HEALTH INSURANCE EX7
CHANGE; OUTLINE OF DUTIES; DEFINITIONS.
8 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established within
9 the Health Choices Administration and under the direc10
tion of the Commissioner a Health Insurance Exchange
11 in order to facilitate access of individuals and employers,
12 through a transparent process, to a variety of choices of
13 affordable, quality health insurance coverage, including a
14 public health insurance option."

PS: I shouldn't have to be explaining this to someone who was earlier admonishing people to read the bill. You have obvious not done so, either. :hi:

http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BILLSUMMARY-071409.pdf

 A Health Insurance Exchange. The new Health Insurance Exchange creates a transparent and
functional marketplace for individuals and small employers to comparison shop among private and
public insurers. It works with state insurance departments to set and enforce insurance reforms
and consumer protections, facilitates enrollment, and administers affordability credits to help lowand
middle-income individuals and families purchase insurance. Over time, the Exchange will be
opened to additional employers as another choice for covering their employees. States may opt to
operate the Exchange in lieu of the national Exchange provided they follow the federal rules.
 A public health insurance option. One of the many choices of health insurance within the health
insurance Exchange is a public health insurance option. It will be a new choice in many areas of our
country dominated by just one or two private insurers today. The public option will operate on a
level playing field. It will be subject to the same market reforms and consumer protections as
other private plans in the Exchange and it will be self-sustaining – financed only by its premiums.

"The new Health Insurance Exchange creates a transparent and functional marketplace for individuals and small employers to comparison shop among private and
public insurers."

Eligibility to particate in the Health Insurance Exchange is not the same thing as eligibility to participate in the Public Option--one may imagine a scenario in which one is eligible to participate in the Exchange but is means tested out of the Public Option.

There is nothing, anywhere, to suggest that the public plan does not compete directly against private insurers, including for the same pool of customers.

http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BILLSUMMARY-071409.pdf

and

http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-PUBLICOPTION-071409.pdf

to say about it, taking snippets of the bill out of context.

You are apparently stymied in your arguments, but is that really a good excuse to turn to the ad homs? I've discussed this matter with you civilly and in perfectly good faith, which makes your turn to snark a bit puzzling. :shrug:

:hi:

The eligibility for participation in the Public Option is simply not defined in the bill. It is not safe to interpret that as an affirmative statement of open eligibility in the Public Option. For a matter both this central to the legislation and this politically sensitive, it's just as logical to assume the absence of any explicit language on the matter is either a punt or a matter to be returned to later.

Let's put it this way: if you saw the above language on a flyer for a private business and went in and demanded to be enrolled in the Public Option based on the promises contained in that language, you'd have no recourse if the business refused. In other words, there is no legally enforceable promise of eligibility in the Public Option to any person contained in the text you've quoted.

If plans must compete on a level playing field, then the public plan can't turn away customers for any reasons that don't also apply to the private insurers.

There logically has to be some eligibility requirement for participation in the Public Option. If it is not defined in the bill presently, it will have to be either spelled out in a further draft or else ceded to a Federal agency to set standards; in any event, there will be some eligibility requirements for participation (if nothing more than US citizenship/residency and current payment of premiums.)

So to pretend that a non-mention of eligibility proves that eligibility is whatever is convenient to one's argument isn't terribly convincing.

"then the public plan can't turn away customers for any reasons that don't also apply to the private insurers."

The text of the bill doesn't say that. At all. That's what we're discussing. :hi:

THis is a protection plan (like a bailout) for the insurance companies, which is an utter bullshit idea.

Government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations.

It is unclear if the regional exchanges set the local rates individually or collectively. If the former, the public plan would be cheaper than the private competition. If the latter, the public plan would offer a greater range of services.

Should the government force people to buy into a captive market at prices set by bureaucrats to maintain the profits traditionally enjoyed by multinational insurance companies?

Fuckers. Bought-and-paid-for corporate whores.
:banghead: :banghead:

eligibility.

If the average American is means-tested out of the Public Option, they will have no choice but to purchase private, for-profit insurance, at prices presumably set to maintain existing insurance company margins. At the same time, the Public Option will be hobbled by the "must compete with multinational business on a break even basis" while the most middle class Americans are excluded from participating.

How is that supposed to work? As the proponents of compelled insurance love to point out, (for profit) insurance can't work if the pool of premium payors includes only those who can't afford care in the first instance. :wtf:

Throwing out "if" hypotheticals which are not suggested, implied, stated, or reasonably inferred from the bill in question does not do the topic any justice.

The bill is 1000 pages long, but I have a way of simplifying the issue. Search the text for "means test".

http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

I did, and found *zero* occurrences. It would appear that this particular concern only exists in your head.

It really shouldn't be up to people to address, explain and ameliorate issues that don't exist.

Else your argument is similarly speculative. :hi:

"The bill is 1000 pages long, but I have a way of simplifying the issue. Search the text for 'means test'."

Again, discussions progress when people read and understand points that precede their own. No one can produce any language in the bill that defines Public Option eligibility, period.

Please cite the precise language which suggests that the public option has eligibility criteria in any way different from the private insurers.

based on the absence of evidence to the contrary (and despite the rather obvious fact that some provision for eligibility must be made at some point--if nothing else than to limit it to US Citizens and legal residents.)

I am merely asking you to provide the textual basis for this assertion. The only negative being proved is the fact that there does not seem to be any basis in the text of the bill for the assertion that eligibility in the Public Option is to be open to any and all comers. After all, the bill doesn't say that Canadian nationals residing in Canada are excluded from the Public Option either. This doesn't make it safe to assume that these Canadians will be eligible to participate, however.

I'm not the one on the flexible end of the logical limb here.

But it is clearly central to the legislation, and must be hashed out.

"I'm not the one on the flexible end of the logical limb here."

You are asserting something for which you can provide no proof. I'm not sure if that goes to logic so much as to basic rules of discussion. :shrug:

It's very clear that the private plan and the public plans compete on an equal basis. In fact, it says that people with affordability credits can choose between the public plan or any of the private plans as they see fit. If the subscriber can spend the government's money without strings, surely they can spend their own.

There is no means test.

This is the worst kind of strawman. It gets rebuilt after every torching.

I'm reminded of what Stephen Colbert said about GW. "He's steadfast and resolute. You always know what he believes. He believes the same thing Wednesday as he did on Monday... regardless of what happened on Tuesday"

:hi:

The sales brochure for the new Prius lacks language about a nuclear fusion reactor. Based on that absence, what should I assume?

Is it incumbent on me to disprove your inexplicable belief that "the fusion reactor in it" will explode?

Troll both side of an issue much?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8531265#8531581

and that people with resources who come to the exchange looking for insurance will be forced into the private plans offered by the exchange. Or are you no longer making this claim?

Don't try to move the goal posts. Certainly, those who have group insurance through their large employers, won't have access to the exchange (nor a reason to access it) unless they lose their job or otherwise find themselves without insurance.

Being unable (and having no need) to buy insurance from the exchange is a far different thing than your belief that those who do will be forced into a private plan. :spank:

I wonder why? :shrug:

The exchange will set rates. Even in the absence of an exchange, the mere presence of the public plan in the private insurer's market space guarantees minimal profit margin.

"Even in the absence of an exchange, the mere presence of the public plan in the private insurer's market space guarantees minimal profit margin."

Not if most people are barred from participating in the Public Option. :hi:

When the public plan administrators tell the exchange that their costs are "X", it will be difficult for the private insurers to say that their costs are 2X.

Please don't confuse "price" with "cost". The "price" will by definition include a portion above and beyond cost designated as profit. That's what defines it as "for profit insurance" in the first place.

and if you need to depend on your employer for insurance, you will be stuck with a private plan until, possbily, 2013.

It is obvious that the main purpose of this bill is to protect the private insurers. You can whine all you want about "purists" but the reason single payer can't pass is because it has not been given a fair hearing. "Our" representatives are not listening to the public, they're protecting their owners' interests over ours. There is no valid reason why we can't have the kind of access to health care citizens of civilized countries have.

It may very well be several years before every business has the option of purchasing coverage from the exchange (and by extension, the public plan).

I have to think that there will be strong pressure from business to expedite that.

I know someone whose husband works for a large company who only offers only a HSA plan with a $5k deductible and other out of pocket copays plus what is withheld to pay the premium for this. The plan does pay for some preventative medicince BUT if your preventative test (i.e. routine pap, screening mammogram) comes back odd - then it's no longer considered preventative but diagnostic and you pay out of pocket for what you thought was covered as well as any follow up you may be able to afford.

People who are underinsured are just as likey as to put off "routine maintenance" as those with no insurance. As with the uninsured, this is especially true for people with chronic conditions.

Contrary to popular belief these "consumer driven" (don't you love the names they come up with) only save money in the short term. In the long term they cost more as ER visits, hospital admits and bed days increase because people wait until something becomes serious.

The idea of these plans is supposedly people will pay more attention to prevention but that is not the case - and you're not cut any slack for developing a condition no one really knows how to prevent (i.e. appendicitis as well as more serious problems like breast cancer).

longer considered preventative but diagnostic and you pay out of pocket for what you thought was covered"
This is a total, fucking utter hateful bullshit move on the part of insurance companies, and it's apparently something that they pull, or try to pull, quite frequently. Our ins. co. tried to pull this crap after my husband had a screening colonoscopy.

News of these sort of practices needs to be spread far and wide. THEY. NEED. TO. STOP.

as opposed to posting things to slam progressives, we might actually be getting somewhere.

1st hint:

federal poverty guidelines for 2009:

$10,830

x 4 = how much?

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/09poverty.shtml



Berni is doing more to combat disinfo than anyone on this topic.

If the Progressive Caucus supports this bill, our Republic is truly lost, and we have become an oligarchy. I hope you are wrong.

:dem:

-Laelth

Anything less is not reform. Public option, even if it isn't great, even if it takes years to phase in, will be a game changer.

It will be a step towards the systems of the other western developed nations. It will put conservatives in the untenable position of dealing with it.

They will have to option of accepting it or running on a platform of taking healtcare away from citizens. It's a no win for them. Democrats will be able to run to strengthen it.

They can't handle this game changer. It will move the 'center' closer to an actual center. We will all take one big step left.

1. It will save tens of thousands of American lives each year
2. It is progressively affordable.
3. No one can be denied health care
4. It has a clear plan to be paid for and is fiscally responsible
5. It is a huge win, not just for Democrats, but for the PEOPLE.

But, hey, let's demand Single Payer or nothing and end up with NOTHING. :sarcasm:

and have experienced the failure of the plan this national plan is based on.

"Yet despite the threat of a $1,068 fine for being uninsured, hundreds of thousands remain uncovered in Massachusetts, and the number of uninsured patients showing up at hospitals and clinics has fallen by only one-third. Moreover, according to surveys one in five state residents (including many with insurance) cannot afford care, and those directly affected by the reform are more likely to say it has hurt than helped them.
High costs and skimpy coverage are in the reform's DNA; private insurers drafted its blueprint, cementing their dominant role. As a result, the plan forfeited the savings on bureaucracy that a single-payer plan could realize--an estimated $7.8 billion annually in Massachusetts alone. The public-plan option that Massachusetts's reform offers to the near-poor hasn't trimmed bureaucracy--a warning that this option, pushed as a compromise at the federal level by erstwhile single-payer supporters, would yield scant savings. Indeed, Massachusetts's reform has actually increased bureaucratic costs; the new insurance exchange (similar to that touted by President Obama and Senate Finance Committee chair Max Baucus) has added 4 percent to insurers' already high overhead. Promised savings through prevention, care management and computerization (also mainstays of Obama's plan) haven't materialized. Consequently, much of the new coverage has come with unaffordable out-of-pocket costs. And cost overruns have drained state funding for care of those who remain uninsured."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090427/himmelstein_woolhandler

If this is what people are allowing themselves to be forced to settle for at least everyone should be aware of pitfalls.




While the middle class sinks, the health reform law has buoyed our state's wealthiest health institutions. Hospitals like Massachusetts General are reporting record profits and enjoying rate increases tucked into the reform package. Blue Cross and other insurers that lobbied hard for the law stand to gain billions from the reform, which shrinks their contribution to the state's free care pool and will force hundreds of thousands to purchase their defective products. Meanwhile, new rules for the free care pool will drastically cut funding for the hundreds of thousands who remain uninsured, and for the safety-net hospitals and clinics that care for them. (Disclosure - we've practiced for the past 25 years at a public hospital that is currently undergoing massive budget cuts.)

Health reform built on private insurance isn't working and can't work; it costs too much and delivers too little. At present, bureaucracy consumes 31 percent of each healthcare dollar. The Connector - the new state agency created to broker coverage under the reform law - is adding another 4.5 percent to the already sky-high overhead charged by private insurers. Administrative costs at Blue Cross are nearly five times higher than Medicare's and 11 times those in Canada's single payer system. Single payer reform could save $7.7 billion annually on paperwork and insurance profits in Massachusetts, enough to cover all of the uninsured and to upgrade coverage for the rest of us.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/17/health_reform_failure/


Do you honestly think the same bloated, parasitic for profit insurance companies won't do to the national plan what they have done in Mass? Massachusettes was practice for them.
The national plan, modeled on mass., is their bill, it may be better than nothing for some here but the insurance industry has never and will never do the right thing. It's all business and the bottom line for them.

:dem:

-Laelth

so folks still have to pay $5000 to $10000(?) why?

The main point of a single payer system is to prevent the American people from
paying out of pocket. Why do these blue dogs Reps hate their country?

Another thing is, have they provided measures to prevent a future Republican
President from dismantling the whole health care bill and returning it back
to the insurance companies? I would like to see that addressed.

from deciding all of a sudden that the public option won't pay for abortions, or birth control, or gunshot wounds, or who knows what else.

It's inevitible that the Repubes will win back the Presidency at some point in the next 20 years. I would be scared to death with the Evangelicals having control over what I'm covered for or not. Remember, these are the same fools who got us involved in the Iraq war which was a big sham. They'll probably ban all of the above and double the cost of the plan.

I don't want a pony, I want a unicorn. No... a hippogriff, that never gets old and shits gold bricks.

Although details about the public option and also the credits would be helpful.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8531265#8531581

Please note posters to this thread arguing precisely the opposite point on that thread as they are here: i.e. arguing that the Public Option is open to all on this thread, and arguing that the public option is not open to all (and that this doesn't matter for various reasons.)

Also, check the timestamps. One poster, in particular, is arguing both positions at the same time!

If you want to have the last word, to be both wrong and unchallenged, have it to your bathroom mirror.

The exchange, and all of the plans within the exchange, are only immediately available to those uninsured by large employers.

The public option is available to anyone who obtains insurance from the exchange. It is not means tested. There is no secret handshake. If you are eligible for PRIVATE insurance through the exchange, you are eligible for the PUBLIC plan through the exchange. It's like a venn diagram, one circle is "people who can get insurance from the exchange". The other circle is "people who can get public option". The circles overlay into one circle.

And people arguing in bad faith have little room to appeal to "netiquette"!

I'm completely, and entirely, consistent.

No one who needs insurance* will be forced into a private plan.
(* "needs insurance" means they don't already have a plan at work)

The low income uninsured won't be relegated** to the public plan.
(** "relegated" means against their preferences)

Anyone eligible for insurance from the exchange*** is eligible for the public option.
(*** people who work for small companies, are uninsured, or who currently carry an individual policy are "eligible for insurance from the exchange")

That is as simply as the issue can be summarized. Do you understand it now?

how many people are willing to settle for scraps. The "all or nothing crowd" as the pandering folks call us ask only for what is rightfully theirs. Of course we are called 'radicals' by those who are willing to get on their knees to their masters and guess what? The rest of the industrial world has what we 'radicals' are calling for and they know it to be their right.

It's a bill that the Big Insurance companies, Big Pharma and the Hospital Industry likes just fine. That alone should tell you it's crap.

Who lost? The good guys again?