Do you evaluate health-care proposals based on their effect on you personally?

[mwb970]

I have as much self-interest as anyone else, but when I form my opinions on various health-care reforms, I think in terms of the country as a whole being better off under this or that policy, not just my own personal bottom line. It would never occur to me to get out my calculator and painstakingly compute what the effect of each potential bill would be on me personally.

So am I being a "great American" here or just self-defeatingly foolish? I am curious about whether other DUers evaluate these reforms while looking at the big picture or the little one. Would you support a reform that you felt was good for the country in general, even if it hurt your own bottom line a little? Or a lot?

[ixion]

1. short answer is no, I would not,

until the country can prove that it is actually acting for the Common Good. Right now, I see no indication of this.

[Captain Hilts]

2. My inability to buy ins. because I'm unemployed trumps a lot, I'll admit it.

As do all my studies in labor policy. It makes NO SENSE to tie the ability to get health insurance only through employers. It discourages individuals from working for themselves and it kills labor mobility to new industries and technologies.

[stray cat]

3. In other words if you had to pay 10% of your income for heath insurance

that is worse and more expensive than what you have now but others could now get covered would you? GIven the number that are against mandated policies I suspect most want something that doesn't hurt themselves too much.

I think it depends on the details. Almost certainly I will be worse off with any of the reforms at least while I'm employed - but if it is a smart, intelligent reasonably fair plan then I would be in favor of it.

[flyarm]

4. Pelosi Says “F*&k You” to Trumka and the AFL-CIO

Pelosi Says “F*&k You” to Trumka and the AFL-CIO
By: Jane Hamsher Saturday September 26, 2009 11:17 am
please read this in it's entirety............
http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/09/26/pelosi-says-fk-you-to-trumka-and-the-afl-cio/
snip;

It's notable that among the Change to Win unions, only the Teamsters came out against the Baucus bill. (Whoever sold Hoffa on ditching the public plan is no doubt talking fast and trying to explain why he is now being kicked in the face.)

Incoming AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka has been outspoken in his insistence on the inclusion of a public option in any health reform bill, and has threatened to withhold support from Democrats who won't vote for it. Over the past week there was a lot of winking in reports that the White House was leaning on progressive groups to drop their support for the public option. It absolutely did happen, but the use of the word "groups" is probably misleading -- the organization they are talking about, the only one that matters, is the AFL-CIO.

Since other unions outside the AFL-CIO are working the yo-yo on the trigger, Trumka is the lone holdout. He's the mainstay, and there is tremendous pressure building within the AFL in response to arm twisting from the White House for him to cave. And if he falls, it's going to be difficult for the rest of the veal pen not to follow suit. So, he's being directly threatened.

The message is clear: "Get in line or we pay for your precious 'public option' by fucking you on health care benefits."

If Trumka suddenly starts singing the praises of triggers (even if they instantly "yo-yo" it back and insist he was misquoted), you'll know it worked.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

no I won't support we the people getting totally fucked so the White House and congress can get paid off to fuck us directly while the insurance industry and big Pharma get to fuck us directly and there are little to no benefits for we the people!

Senator Sanders Unfiltered: US Congress Bought & Paid For?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9-vkpKu5Fg&feature=player_embedded

Senator sanders: " since 1998 big Pharma has spent 1.6 billion $$$$$$$$$ lobbying" our government officials!



No I won't support anything anymore, that the people gave up salary for health benefits, only to see my own party threaten the unions so the White House and congress can get big bucks to help big Pharma and the insurance companies over the health and well being of American citizens so they can get re-elected!

[flyarm]

5. Pelosi Says “F*&k You” to Trumka and the AFL-CIO

Pelosi Says “F*&k You” to Trumka and the AFL-CIO
By: Jane Hamsher Saturday September 26, 2009 11:17 am
please read this in it's entirety............
http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/09/26/pelosi-says-fk-you-to-trumka-and-the-afl-cio/
snip;

It's notable that among the Change to Win unions, only the Teamsters came out against the Baucus bill. (Whoever sold Hoffa on ditching the public plan is no doubt talking fast and trying to explain why he is now being kicked in the face.)

Incoming AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka has been outspoken in his insistence on the inclusion of a public option in any health reform bill, and has threatened to withhold support from Democrats who won't vote for it. Over the past week there was a lot of winking in reports that the White House was leaning on progressive groups to drop their support for the public option. It absolutely did happen, but the use of the word "groups" is probably misleading -- the organization they are talking about, the only one that matters, is the AFL-CIO.

Since other unions outside the AFL-CIO are working the yo-yo on the trigger, Trumka is the lone holdout. He's the mainstay, and there is tremendous pressure building within the AFL in response to arm twisting from the White House for him to cave. And if he falls, it's going to be difficult for the rest of the veal pen not to follow suit. So, he's being directly threatened.

The message is clear: "Get in line or we pay for your precious 'public option' by fucking you on health care benefits."

If Trumka suddenly starts singing the praises of triggers (even if they instantly "yo-yo" it back and insist he was misquoted), you'll know it worked.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

no I won't support we the people getting totally fucked so the White House and congress can get paid off to fuck us directly while the insurance industry and big Pharma get to fuck us directly and there are little to no benefits for we the people!

Senator Sanders Unfiltered: US Congress Bought & Paid For?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9-vkpKu5Fg&feature=player_embedded

Senator sanders: " since 1998 big Pharma has spent 1.6 billion $$$$$$$$$ lobbying" our government officials!



No I won't support anything anymore, that the people gave up salary for health benefits, only to see my own party threaten the unions so the White House and congress can get big bucks to help big Pharma and the insurance companies over the health and well being of American citizens so they can get re-elected!

[flyarm]

6. Chamber Of Commerce Attacks Schumer’s Public Option Amendments

Chamber Of Commerce Attacks Schumer’s Public Option Amendments
By: Jon Walker Friday September 25, 2009 1:52 pm http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/09/25/chamber-of-commerce-attacks-schumers-public-option-amendments/

Live Pulse has a letter from the US Chamber of Commerce attacking four amendments that have yet to be voted on in the Senate Finance Committee. (Rockefeller C1 – Applying new rating rules to the large and self-insured (ERISA) market, Schumer C1/C2 – Public Option Amendments, Wyden C1 – Healthy Americans Act)

The Chamber attacked the two public option amendments from Schumer, but did not bother to mention Rockefeller's more robust public option amendment. The letter indicates that the Chamber must believe that Rockefeller's robust public option is already DOA.

The fact that the Chamber did feel the need to publicly go after the two Schumer public option amendments at least leads me to believe that they have some concern that the amendments might have a chance in the Senate Finance Committee or on the full Senate floor. The lobbying on both sides of the public option issue should get very heated over the weekend.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. I've got mine. Always have.

But others do not and can not afford to have a mandated burden to assist with Corporate profits. To be honest, I do not buy what you are selling about yourself. I mean, if you are so willing to give up your own to help others, could you not be paying premiums right now for a single Mom or something? Seems to me if giving up money is so appealing, you really do not have to wait for Congress to use your bottom line to help others. So if you were doing that now, you'd have a stronger case.
A great American? Nope, just a typical American, willing to settle for mediocrity and looking for ways to make crap look like a moral choice. If this was about helping the country, then Corporate profits would not be job one. If it is to come out of my bottom line, that 30% for the Company is not acceptable. For single payer, tax me senseless.

[abluelady]

8. Definitely, Yes

I assume you're talking about dollars?

[dysfunctional press]

9. no, i do not- i've got medicare.

everyone else should have it too.

[laughingliberal]

10. I look mostly at the effect on the working class

of which I was once a part. Past 2 years, I have fallen into the group that will qualify for help under almost any of the plans out there. But, I can not support a plan that will give me subsidies to buy health insurance while further burdening the middle and working classes to enrich the evil health insurance companies. The effect on the overall economy will be disastrous and it will be the final nail in the coffin of the working class.

[Epiphany4z]

11. in a round about way

while it will have little effect on me now...it would have had a great effect on my life up to this point...

I can recall a time when if you lost your job someone might say well at least you have your health..not so much now...

I want health care to pass because it is the right thing to do and because it will make such a big difference in American life..no more being stuck at a job for insurance...,in this day of worry about new viruses you think folks would see it as a security and safety issue, it will help small business, make us more competitive with other nations, take one major stress out of American life, hell it will probably cut down on the number of abortions done...I just think its an all around good thing.

[justgamma]

12. I also look at how it would effect the rest of my family.

Yes, I would be willing to pay more. I hear everyone mentioning how awful paying 10% would be. That's what I pay now for rotten insurance. My empoyer pays the rest. If I had to pay for my own, it would be 100% of my pay and I would have to get a second job to pick up the rest of my insurance bill. I don't understand how anyone can afford this.

[debbierlus]

13. No.

[bain_sidhe]

14. Good question, to which the only possible answer, for me, is...

"It depends."

Sorry if that seems weasel-ish, and I suppose it is, but what I mean is: If I see a clear benefit to a vast number of people when evaluating a proposal, my self interest tends to take more of a back seat. But, that means acknowledging that I'm still in the car, and don't want to go over the cliff. So if I think a proposal is going to send me and everybody else in the car over the cliff, I can't deny that it's my self-interest that stands up and screams, "STOP THIS CAR RIGHT NOW!"