House approves ‘Keep Your Plan’ ObamaCare bill; 39 Dems defect - one thing they are forgetting ...

[Bill USA]

... 39 House Democrats have voted for a bill to allow people with fake insurance opt-out of ObamaCare...permanently.

... the provision they forgot to include in this bill is one which the people who opt-out of Obamacare avow they are not part of their national community when it comes to obtaining and paying for health care. They don't want to participate in or receive help from their community when it comes to obtaining health care. They want to be free to 'go it alone' when it comes to obtaining their own health care.... Therefor, when their fake health care insurance drops them for a pre-existing condition - just when they get sick - or when they discover their fake insurance has loop-holes that mean there are significant medical care costs the insured has to pay - THEY WILL NOT BE EXPECTING, NOR WILL THEY RECEIVE ANY HELP FROM THEIR COMMUNITY (THROUGH THE AGENCY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT) IN PAYING THEIR MEDICAL BILLS THEIR 'ECONOMICAL' FAKE INSURANCE WILL NOT PAY FOR. AS THEY WISH, THEY WILL BE ON THERE OWN. It will be medical treatment on a cash only basis (for those costs not covered by fake insurance or if they are dropped entirely by their insurer) for them.

We taxpayers pay for those who receive treatment in hospitals but who dont' have insurance and can't pay for it through something called the Disproportionate Share Hospital program to compensate hospitals for care provided to people who can't pay their bills. The Disproportionate Share Hospital Program shall NOT APPLY to those who opted out of Obamacare because they 'liked their' fake insurance and decided they were better off going it alone in obtaining their health care. It will also be against the law for Hospitals to increase their billing rates - thus impacting the cost of insurance for everyone who does have insurance - to recover the costs of uncompensated care.

Those who want to be on their own will get what they wanted - with no "options to slip back" into public support.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/190404-house-approves-keep-your-plan-obamacare-bill

The House passed legislation on Friday that allows insurance companies to offer health plans that were cancelled for not meeting new requirements under ObamaCare.

Thirty-nine Democrats broke with their party's leaders and backed the bill despite a veto threat by the White House, highlighting the political problem the issue has come for President Obama’s party. Only four Republicans opposed it.


The House approved the "Keep Your Health Plan Act" in a 261-157 vote.
Obama on Thursday announced he would take executive action that would allow insurance companies to offer the old plans for an additional year.

That likely prevented a larger wave of Democratic votes in favor of the bill sponsored by Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.).
(more)

[Lns.Lns]

1. It's Ok

First, it would have passed anyway. Second, I am sure they got permission from Pelosi to do so because their house seat opponents will run ads on them if they don't, kind of like what they did to Bernie Sanders. Third, Obama would never sign it. Fourth, the more they play around with silly, non passable bills, the more time to get the web site fixed. Fifth, it gives the news organizations something to talk about other than the website.

It's all good.

[davidpdx]

3. Nope, it isn't

My representative is one of the 39 D's who voted for it. He's continually pissed me off with his votes. If he has a challenger in the primary I'll vote against him, even if it's just a nominal one. As for the GE, I'm not sure what I'll do.

[Lns.Lns]

4. Yeah, I looked up your District

It does seen odd that a district that has voted Dem since at least 1996 would feel the need to vote that way. I could understand a red state district doing so, but not a solidly Dem district unless he is giving a colleague cover. Don't know. Have you tried writing him and asking for an explanation?

All I know is that I considered buying some property in Oregon for eventual retirement since I had lived there as a kid and loved it. The thing that gave me pause was that when you guys had a surplus, your state voted to return it to the people rather than a rainy day fund. As long as Reps have too much to say in our economic activity, you never know when they will crash the economy next. It would be good not to put more burdens on people during a time like that. That is what a rainy day fund is good for.

My state had a Rep governor and left us 28 billion in debt. We went all blue and last year, with a Dem governor we had a 4.5 billion surplus with many infrastructure and educational upgrades. Too bad people don't understand how economies work.

Also, IMHO, Dems seem to freak out too easy. If I let everything I say OMG to that Reps accuse us of, get to me, I'd probably have an ulcer. People have gotten excited over X Y & Z "scandals" and when they start, I pretty much say the same thing. It is not worth getting excited about until all the facts are in. At least so far, when the facts are in, it isn't such a scandal after all.

[Bill USA]

14. the Bill was sponsored by a Republican which makes your points 4 & 5 sortof well, pointless.

Why would Republicans want to give "more time to get the web site fixed" ...they want it to fail.

The M$M always perform to please the GOP. The GOP wants them to report on the ACA's glitched up web-site. --- THat is the whole purpose of the committee hearings - to make it a news "event" and to keep it in the News cycle as long as possible.

... But we are actually in a pretty good place here.

If the GOP manages to convince the young 'invincibles' to stay away from the ACA then it probably will fail. When it fails, the health care industry will crash as millions more lose insurance which will quickly become too expensive (with no system for controlling medical costs and profit hungry insurance companies hanging themselves by demanding more than people are able to pay for health insurance). When fewer and fewer people can afford medical treatment, most of the population will go on "survival" mode re getting medical care. Only get medical care as is needed to stay alive (i.e. a dramatic decrease in non-essential treatments). This will put many doctors and virtually all hospitals in a nonviable business condition. Not enough paying patients to cover the cost of their expensive assets. They will be rapidly heading for insolvency.

But people won't tolerate being in a 'survival' mode medical care condition and will demand quick and definitive action by the Government. The result: No complicated compromises to preserve unneccessary medical care middle-men (insurance companies) - IOW: Single payer medical care for all.

[Lns.Lns]

15. I appreciate your point...

I just don't see it that way. If they are wasting their time in congress, that is the story, not the website. I of course could be wrong, but I don't think they will be able to keep people away with their silly ads and rhetoric.

A lot of young people will get that plan that is "less than your phone bill" and their parents will be glad to pay for it or they will qualify for the Medicaid expansion. There will be a lot of screaming and fainting in the mean time, but since when did the GOP not scream and faint about everything? What happens, they get proven wrong and the story dies because if more attention is paid, more facts come out, the more they are crying wolf again.

I get what you are saying about the cost, but I watch this stuff pretty carefully and I watch financial shows and note what they are saying. The tide is even shifting a bit there. I added up medical inflation from the same period last year to this and there has been a 14+% reduction. The CBO has had to reduce it's projected cost by about 10%. A fair portion of that is medical service moving from a fee for service model. Just the prep alone is having an impact. I also read that many insurers are starting to move to other forms of income generation. I suppose they see the writing on the wall.

I honestly don't think it is all going to crash and burn and that a big state like mine going single payer will put the ball in motion.

All good things take a little time. I appreciate the concern and viewpoint though, but I think it is better to wait and see... many things resolve themselves and why stress yourself out before it is even a problem. I give you the IRS scandal among others.

I do agree with you... basically the media liberal bias meme is BS.

[Bill USA]

16. Whaaaa????

you said:


"I get what you are saying about the cost, but I watch this stuff pretty carefully and I watch financial shows and note what they are saying. The tide is even shifting a bit there. I added up medical inflation from the same period last year to this and there has been a 14+% reduction. The CBO has had to reduce it's projected cost by about 10%."

It sounds like you are talking about costs under the continuance of the ACA. I was NOT talking about costs under continuation of the ACA in my comnt 14. I was talking about the inevitible explosion of costs for medical insurance and medical care without the cost controls built into the ACA - IF the ACA should fail (due to the young invincibles not signing up). I do NOT THINK This will happen. I was merely stating that if the Repugnants get what they want - the death of the ACA then they are just settiing up conditions leading inevitably to the best way of addressing the health care needs of all the citizens of the U.S. - i.e. a single payer system - iow: losing the for-profit middle men insurance companies. If the Repubugnants 'win' in their war on the ACA - we, the citizens will win in the end.

However, I don't expect that the ACA will fail. And the ACA will be a big improvement on the disastrous health care non-system we had before the ACA - which was destined for disaster without action being taken.


I am curious, were you insinuating that somebody (in the administration???) said young invincibles could get insurance plans under the ACA which would be "less than a phone bill"? I would certainly like to see that statement or implied assertion. This would require you to provide a link to some source document.

[Lns.Lns]

17. I heard it in a speech from the Pres. himself

But here is the closer reality...

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/11/13/244782127/can-young-people-get-obamacare-for-50-a-month-sometimes

I agree with you that the without the ACA and beyond it would be bad. It would be the perfect excuse for Ryan's premium support.

It's going to be messy, any big change is. But I like you believe it will stay, unless Dems do what they have done in the past and start splitting on the basis of purity rather than the long term goals which will take time. It is the thing that scares me more than any rhetoric from the right.

I give you Nader and Gore. Gore would have been Pres rather than Bush. I read here, don't post much... but I see people splitting already on Hillary and Elizabeth. I have said this before, why not have Elizabeth as VP? Would give her more experience toward an eventual run of her own and what happens behind the scenes. Although, I think she will be something that would be missed in the Senate. I just worry we can be our own worst enemies.

If we can't hold together, then yes, your previous scenario won't matter... they will undo it, maybe not loudly, more like they do choice issues.

[Bill USA]

19. "I see people splitting already on Hillary and Elizabeth" .. this concerns me too. Your VP idea for

Warren sounds like a great way to defuse the potential problem..

I love Elizabeth Warren, but something purists in both parties tend to forget is that you have to be able to 'sell' your candidate to enough people to win the election. It doesn't matter how much YOU believe in a certain candidate. You have to be able to convince enough voters to win the election over the other party's candidate.

Warren for VP... pretty cool idea! ..and as you said, it meets the need of shoring up Warren's resume for the next opportunity (in 4 or 8 yrs) very nicely too.

[davidpdx]

2. Oregon Delegation splits

3 yes, 2 no

Yes

Schrader (D-5)
DeFazio (D-4)

Walden (R-2)

No

Blumenauer (D-3)
Bonamici (D-1)

The one in bold is my representative

[Lns.Lns]

5. I just found out why

Your exchange isn't functional and people are yelling about it.

Maybe if they get the Federal site fixed soon, you guys can just go on that exchange.

[davidpdx]

6. Yeah I saw that. I expect more from my state then that. It is ridiculous

I have long disliked though Schrader as he is a blue dog. He's voted with Republicans a number of times on issues that are bad for Oregon.

[Lns.Lns]

7. It's a pretty close split in your state legislature

You might find this interesting... and why I have withheld my decision about buying property in Oregon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_tax_rebate

But it looks like they are trying...

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/08/a_stable_rainy_day_fund_should.html


Anyway, I like living in a blue blue state, but I love your Senators, that's a plus.

[davidpdx]

8. We do have two awesome senators

[Lns.Lns]

11. Yes you do

And as for the blue dog you have, when you have a REALLY viable contender, vote him out. Just don't split the vote so that a Rep wins the district. Remember what happened with Nader... think where we would be if Nader hadn't taken so many votes from Gore. Think of a U.S. without the Bush Presidency... No war... No right wing Supreme Court (or District courts)... and too many other numerous things to list.

We need the seat and we should heed the lessons of the Tea Party and their purity tests. The Dem majority is the goal, not purity. Pelosi will keep him in line when it's important... at least until you get a good candidate that can win.

IMHO of course!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

9. So they all want to keep their crappy plans?

Surely a single payer system should be voted on instead. Dreaming....

[Lns.Lns]

10. Maybe not

I think it was just a safe vote. It really wasn't going anywhere and I think it gave them political cover against ads in their districts from right wing crazies. I don't get excited over things like this, only if it is a critical vote and Pelosi keeps her caucus pretty much in line when it's important.

All we have to do is get over "look at the squirrel" moment and when it starts working, well, states like mine (California) might just ultimately pass single payer... if we do... well that would be a game changer. I've read where many insurers are already starting to diversify out of this part of the business. All we have to do is not lose our heads or nerves and let the arc of history move forward.

[Myrina]

12. Indiana Insurance Commissioner: Cancelled plans will stay cancelled.

I used to work with this guy in the corporate world, he's a Grade A douche.

http://www.wishtv.com/news/local/ind-insurance-chief-plans-will-stay-canceled

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Indiana Insurance Commissioner Stephen Robertson says he will not ask insurers to restore plans canceled because of the federal health care law.

Robertson said Wednesday that insurers have spent months phasing out old plans and that he cannot force them to restore the canceled plans. The state estimates 108,000 residents lost coverage because of the new law.

[jenmito]

13. One thing the media NEVER tell you about the "mass defection" of 39 Dems...

34 House Dems. voted against the ACA in 2010: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll165.xml
So only 5 more Dems. "defected" from 34 who voted against it in the first place.

[Lns.Lns]

18. good point