People keep mentioning Jacob Hacker. Here is what he had to say about the plan Obama campaigned on:

[ProSense]

The public insurance option in the Obama proposal would be an attractive alternative to private insurance. To quote the Obama campaign release on the proposal, “The plan will have the following features:

• Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away FROM ANY INSURANCE PLAN because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
  
  
• Comprehensive benefits. . . . The new public plan will include coverage of all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care. Coverage will include disease management programs, self management training and care coordination for appropriate individuals.
  
  
• Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles. Participants will be charged fair premiums and minimal co-pays and deductibles for preventive services.
  
  
• Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need assistance will receive income-related federal subsidies to keep health insurance premiums affordable.”

link

(emphasis added)

[Oregone]

1. For fuck's sake

Argument from authority or appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative.

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


Every post you make is redundant due to the existence of Google. Ive seen little to nothing of new content created by you, beyond straw-man arguments.

[ProSense]

2. Are you upset? n/t

[Oregone]

3. No. I expected that. Are you?

You are really making a laughing stock out of yourself to educated and intelligent posters (though I accept your group think bandwagon is in your corner)

[ProSense]

4. "educated and intelligent posters "

Is that what they're calling people who can't deal with reality?

[Oregone]

5. No, I'm referring to those that understand logical fallacies and see through all your arguments n/t

[Mass]

6. Your point being? I thought at this point, most of the debate was not whether they were better

solutions than the public option (most of us understand that single payer or very regulated private insurances like in Switzerland, Germany, or Netherland) will not happen.

It is whether or not there will be a public option accessible to enough people to be useful.

So, I am not really sure what your post intend to prove. You may be answering to another post, but I cannot figure out what.

[ProSense]

8. "It is whether or not there will be a public option accessible to enough people to be useful."

Really? That's the debate about Obama's plan?

Who is vigorously debating that?

[Mass]

10. Not answering my question. What is the point of your post>

BTW, in case you missed it, the Obama campaign proposal is no more on the table, so posting what Hacker said about it is really irrelevant to anything that actually matters.

[ProSense]

11. "the Obama campaign proposal is no more on the table" What? n/t

[Mass]

12. Still not answering my question. But I am not expecting an answer.

[ProSense]

13. Good. Because silly questions don't deserve a response. n/t

[Mass]

14. You're right. and and I know the best way not to be tempted to answer them.

[ProSense]

16. Win-win. n/t

[slipslidingaway]

17. Crickets from you in this thread as well - ANY AMERICAN -Opportunity - OR ...

from the Obama/Biden health care plan.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6854386&mesg_id=6854708

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf

"...(2) NEW AFFORDABLE, ACCESSIBLE HEALTH INSURANCE OPTIONS. The Obama-Biden plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals purchase new affordable health care options if they are uninsured or want new health insurance. Through the Exchange, any American will have the opportunity to enroll in the new public plan or an approved private plan, and income-based sliding scale tax credits will be provided for people and families who need it..."


More crickets here...you should either be able to back up your accusations or have the decency to admit you are wrong.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8714327&mesg_id=8714380

"ProSense More PNPH misinformation. n/t"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8714327&mesg_id=8714757

You need to do more than just attack without backing up your claim by posting links to what you believe is misinformation.

These physicians have nothing to gain by advocating for a not for profit system for Everyone and to accuse them of spreading misinformation without any proof is pretty low.

[ProSense]

18. Let me save you the trouble of chasing down my response. PNPH is public option distortion central

They are using the CBO prediction as to how many people will sign up for a public option based on its availability through employers with fewer than 20 employees. Now, what about the 16 million people who are uninsured and unemployed? Also, what happens when the exchange is open to larger employers over time?


The fact of the matter is, the public option is going to be part of the exchange and available to anyone who cannot find affordable coverage, whose employer doesn't provide coverage and who is without coverage due to unemployment. The availability will be fluid and growing. So using the CBO estimate, which, again, is only the number of percentage who will sign up through their employer, to make the case that this is the only group that will be covered via a public option is bogus.

[slipslidingaway]

21. You already tried that diversion earlier today - it did not work then and it is...

not working now, let me copy my earlier reply.

So again you should back it up or apologize for your accusation. There certainly has been an effort to discredit people who threaten insurance company profits!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8714327&mesg_id=8715307

Obama quoted the CBO estimate, is he spreading misinformation as well ...
but my original post in this thread did not even talk about the CBO estimate, that was your attempt to divert attention from the question of one option vs. several options in the HELP bill.

You need to back up your claim that his analysis is misinformation, instead of a broad attack on medical providers who have advocated for a not for profit, national system for almost 25 years.

What language in the bill says that there will definitely be just one public option instead of several?


The Obama/Biden said it was open to any American...period.

[ProSense]

22. If I responded earlier, how is that crickets? Did you just decided to ignore it? n/t

[slipslidingaway]

25. You responded to your own made up questions LOL - still crickets. n/t

[Oregone]

19. The moment this poster is concretely challenged, you get crickets

[slipslidingaway]

20. Exactly, she keeps doing the same thing, but her current response does not

even address the original post.

She is answering the question she wants to answer, not my original post.

To top it off she tried the same thing earlier today.

:rofl:

[ProSense]

23. No matter how many times you post PNPH distortions, doesn't change reality

single payer is not on the table. It's not funny, it's reality.

[slipslidingaway]

26. Now what are babbling about - single payer was not mentioned...

so far you have talked about SP and the CBO score, neither was in the original post.

Don't you get dizzy?

[ProSense]

28. "Don't you get dizzy?" Don't get tired of being in denial? n/t

[slipslidingaway]

31. Why don't you address the original post instead of your own made up questions...

Stick to the TOPIC of the original post and back up your accusation.

ORIGINAL POST

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8714327&mesg_id=8714375

Is the HELP bill one public option or several community options...

"The Senate HELP Committee “public option” will be multiple “options,” and these will be run by insurance companies"

By Kip Sullivan, JD

http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/08/14/the-senate-help-committee-%e2%80%9cpublic-option%e2%80%9d-will-be-multiple-%e2%80%9coptions%e2%80%9d-and-these-will-be-run-by-insurance-companies/


YOUR REPLY

"More PNPH misinformation. nt"


Where is Kip Sullivan's analysis of the bill wrong, you said it was more misinformation from PNHP and should be able to back that up with facts.

[ProSense]

32. Is there something you're having trouble understanding. PNHP is distortion central

They are using the CBO prediction as to how many people will sign up for a public option based on its availability through employers with fewer than 20 employees. Now, what about the 16 million people who are uninsured and unemployed? Also, what happens when the exchange is open to larger employers over time?

The fact of the matter is, the public option is going to be part of the exchange and available to anyone who cannot find affordable coverage, whose employer doesn't provide coverage and who is without coverage due to unemployment. The availability will be fluid and growing. So using the CBO estimate, which, again, is only the number of percentage who will sign up through their employer, to make the case that this is the only group that will be covered via a public option is bogus.

[slipslidingaway]

33. MAJOR FAIL - This demonstrates that people should not believe anything you say...

as you will not back up your allegations and instead like to play games.

You have really shown your true colors.

[Oregone]

7. BTW, K & R!

I want everyone to see this idiocy.


Despite what Hacker originally came up with being decent, his approval of its compromised bastard spawn doesn't make that spawn "good" automatically (unless you have no conception of logic)

[ProSense]

9. .

:rofl:

[slipslidingaway]

15. Video of Jacob Hacker speaking in early 2008 about his plan ...

Health Care for America
3:10 minutes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-J9ZgCRiD8

[depakid]

24. Jacob Hacker was the author of John Edwards' plan

[ProSense]

27. Hacker was responsible for this:

Edwards Explains His Mandate

Later today, John Edwards will announce the specifics of how his mandate works. And they're quite good. Whenever you come into contact with the health care system, or whenever you pay your taxes, you will be asked to provide proof of insurance, presumably a policy number or some similar identifier. If you cannot, you will automatically be enrolled in either a public plan that you qualify for (like Medicaid or S-CHIP) or the cheapest plan offered by his Health Insurance Market. Bills will then get sent out, and if they're not paid, will be collected just like the government collects on student loan debts, or taxes, or anything else, using tools up to and including collection agencies and wage garnishment. (It's notable, here, that Edwards doesn't shy away from saying what his stick will be.)

So at the end of the day, if you don't have health care, your wages will be garnished or your credit will be damaged because a collection agency will see to it that you buy your insurance. You might even go bankrupt! And since it's called a mandate, we'll need a new IRS-like bureaucracy to handle all of this, but it won't be the IRS since a mandate is not a tax, it's just a required fee you pay to a private company.

[depakid]

30. Here's Hacker's actual proposal- which more closely resembled what Edwards had on the table

than any of the other candidates:

http://www.sharedprosperity.org/bp180.html

It has of course drawn criticism from various groups- including PNHP, for very good reasons.

[slipslidingaway]

29. Hacker was the jumping off point for health care reform for all the Dem...

candidates except for Kucinich.

Notes from Roger Hickey

These notes start on page 12
http://www.ourfuture.org/files/documents/evolution-of-the-healthcare-debate.pdf


"Universal Care: Getting the Right Mix
By Roger Hickey on March 26, 2007 - 11:22am.

At Saturday’s health care forum for presidential candidates, John Edwards was bold, detailed and specific—but didn’t diagnose the problem.

Barack Obama was vague—but stressed that no president can do it without the people.
Dennis Kucinich diagnosed the problem, and pushed immediate transformation.
Hillary Clinton, surprisingly, forcefully adopted Kucinich’s diagnosis (before he spoke).

Put them all together—in the right way—and you have a winning health care plan.
I was at the forum in Las Vegas where the Center for American Progress and SEIU made a real contribution to the political debate by getting seven Democratic candidates together to discuss health care.

In a political system where presidential candidates, not party committees, formulate policy for the parties, forcing the candidates to refine their views early—before a crowd of party and union activists—is not a bad thing. Irresponsibly, CSPAN didn’t cover it live, but CAP streamed the event live on the web, and will soon have a transcript available.

Everyone expected former senator Edwards to stress the specifics of his plan for health care for all, and he did. The audience was not so prepared for Obama’s vagueness, but the Illinois senator stuck to principles on the grounds that he was still working on his plan..."

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

34. Unfortunately, the plan Obama campaigned on isn't part of the discussion

Once he was elected, it was like, "Plan? I had a plan that I campaigned on?" His very detailed and specific plan was tossed immediately into the dustbin. So who cares what anyone thinks of it? He didn't care enough about his own plan to make it the jumping off point for any legislation. I liked it - it was a major factor in me voting for him in the primary. Joke was on me for thinking he would press his own plan. Or fight for drug negotiation. Or eschew backroom deals. Ha! Ha! I can't stop laughing!

As I've stated in other posts - he WON the election. The healthcare debate was a big factor in the election, the debates, the town halls, the position papers, any forum you want to mention. He had the ball on the 70 yard line the day he took office and managed to work it back down to our own forty. I just haven't known what to attribute the backward movement to- expediency, lack of courgae, cynicism from the getgo -say what you have to to get elected and then do what you want when in office, bad advice, etc.

He's done the best anyone could possibly ever be expected to do is what I hear. Well, I have doubts about that. We're supposed to be grateful for the crumbs we get from this "reform". I'll wait for the final version of the Olympia Snowe Health Insurance Placebo Act to be passed before passing final judgement.