I wish to add something of major importance to Wendell Potter's comments.

[JDPriestly]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4060149

I would like to add a word to support Wendell Potter's warnings: That word is PREEMPTION.

If you know about preemption you don't need to read further. If you aren't sure what it is, please do read on.

I. PREEMPTION

A federal law may contain a preemption provision, in other words, specific language prohibiting states from passing laws of their own in the area covered by the federal law. When Congress includes a preemption provision in a law, courts will not enforce any state law that contradicts or limits a provision in the federal law.

Health care companies are supporting the passage of a federal law governing the insurance industry because it is likely that the federal law will preempt states from passing laws that contradict or limit it. It is much easier for big business to intimidate, persuade, buy-out and/or bribe a majority in the U.S. Congress and the president than it is for them to intimidate, persuade, buy-out and/or bribe 50 state legislatures and governors.

II. CALIFORNIA IS UPPITY

So when big business wants free reign to do as it wishes, it tries to get Congress to pass a law that it likes and to include a preemption provision. You never know when one of the legislatures will get uppity.

Right now, California is uppity. All we need is a Democratic governor and we are likely to enact single payer in the state of California. Schwarzenegger has made quite a mess. That we will have a Democratic governor before long is a good possibility. Just think what that would do to the insurance business.

So I suspect that the insurance industry has an ulterior motive in supporting the passage of national health insurance reform: to preempt a likely California single payer law.

As California goes, so will go the nation. That means single payer in your state before all that long.

That is why we would be better off with NO REFORM than a bad reform. A bad reform is a reform that does not have a very robust public option.

III. CONCLUSION

The insurance companies are running scared. Don't think we are powerless in the face of the insurance companies.

And don't underestimate what we will be giving away if we back a law that contains a preemption clause and sets up a sweetheart deal for the insurance companies.

This is why we have to demand

1) THAT STATES HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE SINGLE PAYER WITHIN THEIR STATES IF THEY WISH. \

2) THAT THERE BE STRONG MECHANISMS FOR CONTROLLING RATE SETTING, OVERSIGHT OF COMPLIANCE WITH LIMITATIONS ON CLAIM AND PRE-EXISTING CONDITION DENIALS as well as other restrictions that are important.

3) THAT THE BILL INCLUDE A STRONG PUBLIC OPTION WITH OPEN ENROLLMENT FOR ALL that will provide real competition. WE ALSO NEED ABSOLUTE TRANSPARENCY AND LIMITATIONS ON PROFITS AND ON EXECUTIVE PAY. We cannot afford the kind of racketeering that is going on in the health care industry today. When CEOs take the kinds of salaries in the health care industry that the CEOs of American health care insurance companies are taking, it is nothing but a racket.

REMEMBER, THE INSURANCE COMPANIES WILL GIVE AS MUCH AS WE INSIST ON GETTING. THEY ARE RUNNING SCARED. THEY WANT PREEMPTION. THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.

Footnotes:

Sorry for the caps, but this is long. Underlining, italics, all caps were invented for a reason: to assist the reader in understanding text. The rule against using typefaces for emphasis is ridiculous.

[Laelth]

1. This is VERY, VERY important. Please read. k&r n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[gateley]

2. K&R -- thanks! nt

[truedelphi]

3. Thank you for taking the time to explain all this

And you did so CLEARLY and I for one agree with you about using Caps.

I have also learned to like the h2 headers you can find when using the HTML guide.

It allows for things like this to be created effortlessly:

Single Payer Universal Health Care And Nothing ELSE!

[JDPriestly]

6. Thanks. How do I find the HTML guide. What does that mean?

I'm basically a typist who uses the internet.

[truedelphi]

7. Right after you hit to "post" something

Be it an OP or a response, the window comes up where you do the typing.

Right above the empty box where you are going to put in your subject header, there is
Message options - it is in gray and to the left. You will see to the right of that the words "HTML lookup table" and if you click on that table, you will find a world of options.

I usually put in my subject header and do some typing, and then figure out where in my text I might want to change something. You can once versed in this system, create boxes, and different colors

By putting the term "h2" in brackets and then with one more bracket,
put in the expression font color=red end bracket
I end up with this:

"UNIVERSAL SINGLE PAYER IS THE BEST OF THE REFORMS!"

In this example, were it to be the last thing I was typing in, I wouldn't need to put in the end brackets. But if it is in the middle of my post, then I would need the ending brackets.
So that all of my text was not super sized and red. End brackets contain such
terms as bracket /h2
with no spaces between the bracket and the / h2

You can go back in archives and find some neglected topic where replying is still possible and play around in that topic so no one sees your mistakes.

On the internet - no one needs to hear you :banghead:

(The banghead is from the smilies section right below the HTML look up)

[JDPriestly]

9. Thanks. I'll check this out.

[ljm2002]

4. Excellent points!!!!!

:kick:

K&R

[alstephenson]

5. K & R

Important information.

[Laelth]

8. re-kick. This really is important. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Ruby the Liberal]

10. What does this do for people who cross state lines and need care?

Thanks for explaining. Is this what DK is amending to HR2300 - prevention of preemption?

[Laelth]

11. The Saenz case from the Supreme Court says states can't deny benefits to new residents.

If CA passed single-payer, we could all move there and get it, and the state couldn't stop us from getting it. The Supreme Court ruled that denying (or even limiting) benefits to new residents constituted an unconstitutional abridgment of the freedom to travel between the states.

As to your other question, I think DK knew what the health insurance companies wanted, preemption, and he inserted an amendment to insure that preemption would not happen. It's doubtful that the Kucinich amendment will make it into the final bill.

:dem:

-Laelth