"It's this bill, or everybody dies."

[deaniac83]

From The People's View (my blog) (link to video, other links and action item in the full post):
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2010/02/its-this-bill-or-everybody-dies.html

That's what Ezra Klein said Saturday at a forum sponsored by Families USA. He was referring to the fact that for Democrats, there is no way to move backwards on this. There is no going back on this. There is no smaller piecemeal legislation. Democrats can run on this bill and the success of it having passed, or they can run on a caricature of this bill and the failure of it. Either way, Democrats are tied to it. If we let health reform fail now - if we don't pass it quickly now - the failure will doom the Democratic party. It's this bill, or everybody dies. Not having health care reform will spell political and policy disaster for the Democratic party. Not to mention, Ezra reminded the audience, this bill will save real lives. Failing on this means more real people will continue to die.

Click here to see Ezra Klein make this point succinctly.

...

And "this bill" has to start with the House passing the Senate bill first. If for no other reason, because the House can move faster than the Senate - even when the Senate is operating under reconciliation rules. As Jonathan Cohn, Senior Editor of the New Republic points out in the same forum, even while a bill is moving through the reconciliation process, the Republicans can still obstruct and take up time, even though they won't be able to stop it ultimately. Passage of the Senate bill through the House while reconciliation starts in the Senate (but is not completed) and the current Senate bill is signed into law will create momentum.

...

Let's also talk about what this reconciliation everyone is demanding might include. It would be great if a public option can get in, and I'm still going to push for it. A reconciliation bill is only being talked about because Democrats no longer have the 60 votes in the Senate, but the overall parameters of the House-Senate negotiations may not have changed. Recall that prior to the election of Scott Brown to the Senate, the House was demanding fixes to the Senate bill - and those fixes did not include the public option. Those negotiations were directing to these possible demands from the House: a national exchange (instead of state based ones), a supposed fix/temporary exemption for unions of the Cadillac tax and combining it with a millionaire's tax as a revenue mechanism, increasing the subsidies for low-income Americans in the exchange, fixing the Nebraska compromise to give all states the same treatment as Ben Nelson got for Nebraska in terms of Medicaid payments (having the federal government take over 100% of payments rather than sharing it with the states) and ending the anti-trust exemption for health insurance companies. Whatever the Senate was unlikely to give the House before January 19, it is probably not likely to give it now, at least not right away. The reconciliation bill is still taking shape, and this one will likely skip the public option. So the basic question for those of us pushing for a public option in reconciliation is this: are we willing to kill health reform if - as is likely - a reconciliation bill does not include a public option? I am certainly not willing to do that. I am willing to get whatever we can of the rest of the fixes in reconciliation. And once again, I believe that the House should not wait until the reconciliation process is complete to pass the Senate bill - it will only delay the bill without any sense of success or accomplishment to fuel the rest of the path.

Full post with links to video and other stuff here: http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2010/02/its-this-bill-or-everybody-dies.html

[johnaries]

1. Agree 99%. I don't think it will "kill" the Dems if it doesn't pass,

but it will save real lives. And I agree 100% with your last paragraph. Rec'd.

[deaniac83]

4. Thank you

I think Ezra meant it as rather a counterpoint to an argument going around in kill-the-bill land that Democrats will be politically doomed if the Senate bill passes. I think the point here is to say that no, passing nothing is the worst of all possibilities in terms of the Democrats' political (mis)fortunes.

But yes, to me, policy has always been more important than politics. I would be for passing the bill regardless of its political consequences because it moves the ball forward, away from and ahead of the status quo. It will save lives, it will reduce medical bankruptcies, it will expand coverage, and the Community Health Centers - 5 in every Congressional district - will deliver real health care to the needy and present real competition to the hospital industry.

Rome wasn't built in a day. We are not done with health reform at the end of this process. I'm in this for the long haul, but I believe we should move forward wherever possible.

[johnaries]

7. Thank you! And as Obama said to the Repugs, you shouldn't

vote against a bill simply because you only got 80% of what you wanted.

Oh, and BTW, welcome to DU! :hi:

[deaniac83]

9. Thanks for the welcome!

I have been enjoying my time here. There is so much to read here - I'm kind of a wonk and I love vast resources on policy. Hehe.

[frazzled]

15. I firmly believe it will kill the Dems if it doesn't pass

They spent a year front-and-center telling the country that this bill was not only critical to people's personal needs but to the entire health of the economy. They spent many many months and untold amounts of political capital arguing it, bargaining amongst themselves, issuing vows, beating fists on the table, and promising, well, everything.

If they do not pass it now, they will appear to have been not only insincere in all their posturing, but simply and quite utterly incapable of governing altogether. Put short: if they can't complete this job, people will (rightly) assume they cannot manage to pass anything. That they cannot get their acts together to govern the country. And they will lose.

People are less interested (and certainly less knowledgeable) about the details of policy than in getting something done. If we can't get it done, we're toast in the public's eye.

[damonm]

2. Strong rec.

I'll take 94% covered, pre-existing conditions gone, recission gone, and the removal of the anti-trust exemptiion over nothing any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
The PO can be put in later after this bill becomes a political third rail.

[secondwind]

3. I'm with you on this.....let's get this done already~!

[deaniac83]

5. Yup

You know exactly what is at stake. I have always thought that I cannot call myself a progressive and then stand in the way of (even partial) progress. I want a public option - hell, I want single payer. But I think that nothing serves us worse than being an ideologue about this. Every inch of progress is important, and we should not block progress simply because we didn't get this or that or the other.

[damonm]

8. Indeed I do...

And one question no bill-killer has ever answered - think I'll put it in an OP - is this:

Name ONE time in US history where a bill has made it this far, been pulled back by its proponents, and then sucessfully passed as a stronger version of itself. Bonus points if it did so in the face of a MORE hostile Congress.
Do this, and I'll join the bill-killers. Until then, I say pass what we got now.

[flpoljunkie]

6. They had essentially reached a deal to fix the Senate bill before the special election in MA.

Pass. The. Damn. Bill!

[JoePhilly]

10. Pass it ... I know some one who may lose their insurance due to prior cancer.

[deaniac83]

12. I am so sorry to hear that

Cancer alone is bad enough. People have to worry about recurrence, treatment, lifestyle, everything. They shouldn't have to worry about being able to get insurance or if they have insurance, losing their house because their insurance company refuses to pay, too. That's why we need to pass the bill.

[JoePhilly]

18. Thanks ... she's self employed, and get HC through her husband, but ...

He's coming to the end of a multi-year contract ... and if that contract is not renewed, she'll have to get other coverage ... and from what she's been able to learn, coverage would cost more than she'd ever be able to afford.

So, this is all very real for her.

[deaniac83]

31. It's real. That's why I'm convinced the President gets it.

This president had a mother who struggled not just with cancer but with insurance coverage in the last days of her life. No one knows better than Barack Obama what it's like to go through this with a family member. No one knows better than this president why we need this so badly. That is why my blood starts boiling when people accuse the President of selling out Americans to the insurance lobby. I don't think Barack Obama would sell out his mother to the insurance industry.

[dkf]

63. Does she know what change this bill will make for her exactly?

Let's say her husband is not renewed. She should still get cobra under the same family rate for 18 months but they will have to pay everything. But she doesn't have the preexisting problem until Cobra expires also assuming her husband can't find work. Even if the bill passes I don't believe there are any subsidies for 3 years so there will be no subsidies anyway.

What provisions in this bill will help her?

[JoePhilly]

64. She's not sure she could even afford the cobra ...

First, if the bill passes, as I understand it, given how lower her income is, she'd qualify for subsidies to help pay for insurance.

And she's been looking into what it would cost for her to get insurance outside an employer plan, and with her medical history, she'd be blocked completely ... they don't want to touch her.

With this legislation, she could not be prevented from getting insurance because of that history.

She was excited when they started to discuss dropping the age at which you could buy in to Medicare to 55, she's 53. But that provision was pulled.

[grantcart]

55. We haven't seen a doctor in 5 years due to a minor preexisting condition

Moreover it will stop bancruptcies because of huge medical bills

[mdmc]

11. It will kill us if it does not pass

It will kill us when it passes and fails to create access to affordable health care.

win win..

[deaniac83]

13. You can believe that if you want

but that's simply not true. It will not fail to create access to affordable health care. The massive expansion of community health centers alone take care of that. That's why Bernie Sanders called it a revolution in primary care.

[mdmc]

17. Yes, the increase in community health centers = affordable care

but how does giving millions of poor americans health insurance help them to access medical treatment?

I have for profit health insurance and I cannot afford medical treatment.

Granted, I am very ill and should probably be on disability.. I guess my worldview is clouded by my illness.

I guess if you are healthy, and don't need much medical attention, it would be better to be insured then uninsured.

[deaniac83]

19. Because of the minimum coverage requirements

Here you go:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/17/212843/00

Your insurance WILL have to cover all these things once the bill is fully implemented. Having insurance will mean that you get preventive care at no extra charge (not even a copay). Your out-of-pockets in other areas is limited to 10% of income or $5950 for a single person, whichever is less.

The CHC's will compete with for-profit providers and hospitals, bringing that cost down as well.

[mdmc]

21. so you really think that this current bill would cover

physical therapy three times a week and a weekly appointment with a psychologist? I would gladly pay 10% of my income to receive health treatment..

I must admit, NAMI is for the HCR bill.. it cannot be all bad (although I still can't see how it will help me.. unless what you say is true about the 10% limit)

I'll check out the link you provided.. peace out..

[deaniac83]

32. Yes.

It will if that's medically necessary for you according to your physician.

[mdmc]

33. currently I've been precribed all this treatment

but it costs $40.oo per visit. By the time I went to all my medical treatment appointments, I would be out of money.

If this bill changes that, the dems really should be shouting it from the rooftops.

[mdmc]

23. that link really wasn't helpful

ramble on rose..


but like I said (and the info at the link corroborated) NAMI is behind it and it seems to cover mental health..

[IndianaGreen]

14. Kill the bill! Kill Ben Nelson's Cornhusker kickback.

Dems Say Sen. Ben Nelson's Deal Was Setback For Health Care

Christina Bellantoni | February 1, 2010, 11:58AM

Democrats are privately admitting the deal they made with Sen. Ben Nelson on Medicaid funding for Nebraska was a major factor in souring the America people on the health care reform bill.

Senate leadership inked a deal in December to win over Nelson (D-NE), allowing him to insert pro-life language in the measure and to secure federal funding for the cost of any Medicaid expansion in what has now been dubbed the "Cornhusker kickback."

It's been the target of lawsuits and scorn from both the right and the left, and leaders in both chambers believe it ultimately will be stripped from the final measure, whenever one surfaces.

Instead of considering more dealmaking to get a final health care bill passed, Democratic sources privately acknowledge that Nelson's compromise did more harm than good. Several sources said it tops a list of problems that have hurt the health care process.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/sen-ben-nelsons-deal-sealed-then-soured-health-care.php?ref=fpc

[deaniac83]

16. Oh no! big bad Nelson kickback!

Like no other legislation on earth ever gave one state advantage over another. Unprecedented! Come on.

Besides, that is ONE thing you can guarantee will be fixed one way or another.

[Pirate Smile]

20. Rec - got it back to zero.

[deaniac83]

28. Thank you

Appreciate it! :-)

[girl gone mad]

22. It's a bad bill.

I hope it dies. The sooner the better.

[PHIMG]

24. Democratic Circular Firing Squad

Democrats running around saying the party is screwed if this doesnt' pass. If it was liberals of the party behaving this way we'd be called PURISTS and whatnot by the DLC and mainstream press.

Here's an idea. How about fight for a BETTER bill, watch Republicans predictabily kill it and run against that?

Oh such BLASPHEMY! What would the village elders think? And then the fat checks from AHIP and PHRMA will stop.

Ezra Klein is a a very cute likeable tool for the Rahm Emmanuel type Democrats who put our party in politically shitty circumstances like fighting for a bill that forces people to buy a defective product and throws trillions in tax dollars to the highly profitable industry that sells said product.

FDR is rolling in his grave.

The bill is dead. Bring HR676 and S.703 to the floor. Or even just a simple Medicare Buy In. Make the big insurers rue the day they decided to bankroll Scott Brown and the rest of the Rethugs and Teapartiers.

Most of all, can it with this self-defeating chicken little crap.

STOP blaming good democrats for Max Baucus' fuck up.

[damonm]

25. OK, say we bring HR676 to the floor.

Say it passes.

How in HELL do you avoid the filibuster on S.703? You gotta have the 60 votes to even bring it to the floor in the first place, the way the reThugs are going about it.
If you say "let 'em filibuster", that's all well & good, unless you happen to be someone who's dying from a pre-existing condition. Don't see how that's going to help them very much.

[mdmc]

34. thats the thing

let them filibuster and then let them run for reelection on their obstruction..

[damonm]

37. Ok, so that's 10 months until the elections...

then another 2 until the hypothetical Monster Progressive Democratic Majority hypothetically sweeps in.
Assuming they get right to work, that'll be a year from now when we hypothetically get Medicare for all.
IF all this happens - and history augurs against it - what will you tell the families of the 45,000 unnecessarily dead from lack of health care coverage? Something tells me, "sorry, but your loved one died so we could get a better bill" isn't gonna cut it.

[mdmc]

39. health insurance does not equal medical treatment

I have health insurance that I cannot afford to access due to high co-pays. If people like me can't afford medical treatment although I am fully covered, how could someone with less money?

[damonm]

43. Nice duck - extra points for use of a GOP talking point. Now answer the question.

[ibegurpard]

52. sorry, that's not a GOP talking point

[damonm]

58. sorry back atcha, it is.

When Glenn Beck, Bill-O, and Sean Hannity have all said EXACTLY the title of your post, it most definitely is.

[ibegurpard]

59. Oh, so Glenn Beck, Bill-O, and Sean Hannity are all for removing insurance corporations

from the healthcare equation? Because that's what the people who say "health insurance is not healthcare" mean

[damonm]

60. Nice try. It's NOT what they mean, and you know it well, PLUS you still can't answer the question.

We're done here.

[ibegurpard]

61. your question wasn't directed at me

but i'll attempt to address your hysterical pulling figures out of your ass anyway...people are not going to die from lack of health insurance any more than they will with substandard health insurance. Either way, they're not getting the CARE they need.
Health insurance is NOT health care...that is NOT a right wing talking point...it's a pretty straightforward fact. Denials of claims for care have the same effect as no coverage at all.
Do you want INSURANCE CORPORATIONS deciding what they will and will not cover? Because that's what you're cheering for.

[Raineyb]

67. It's not a duck it's a big part of the objection to the bill

and it's NOT a GOP talking point. What the hell does insurance do for you if you can't afford to seek treatment even with the insurance. What the hell are you paying for? We're supposed to be trying to make sure people get care and you're fixated on insurance, the barrier to care.

[PHIMG]

46. So our legislative stategy is dictated by narrow short term goals?

Using this tactic to defending a bad bill is really sleazy.

Congress TOMMOROW could pass a bill banning pre-existing conditions without the TRILLION DOLLAR bailout for big insurance the taxes on the middle class, and the private mandate throwing 50 million more lambs to Big Insurance wolves.

I'm sure with your concern for people with prexisting conditions you've written and called Congress urging just such an approach, right?

[SanchoPanza]

26. FDR couldn't get a National Insurance Program into the Social Security Act.

It was one of the original key planks of Social Security and it got killed in Committee. The provision became so toxic that FDR insisted it be dropped, for fear that it would jeopardize his entire legislative agenda post-1934. This was of particularly disappointment to Francis Perkins, FDR's Labor Secretary (and the first woman to be appointed to a position in the Cabinet), who insisted that a NHIP be a part of the New Deal along with unemployment insurance, a pension program, and tougher labor standards. And this was in an era where the President's party controlled over 70% of the seats in both chambers, compared to 60% today.

But whatever. Rahm, Rahm, Rahm. DLC, DLC, DLC.

[damonm]

27. Interesting bit of History there -

I've just learned my new thing for the day! Thanks for posting this.

[deaniac83]

29. Perspective.

Thank you for providing it. Why a lot of us on this side don't get it is mind-boggling.

[PHIMG]

35. Doctors didn't want it in FDR's time.

They do now. Medicare for All has a majority support among doctors now. This wasn't true 10 years ago, or in LBJ's day, let alone back in FDR's day.

I love how right-wing democrats say : "no we can't. no we can't. no we can't." Despite all evidence to the contrary. It's more like: "no we won't" because they are addicted to coporate cash.

Lets see did the Civil Rights act pass the first time they brought it to the floor or did it get filibustered a whole bunch of times?

And if the bullshit centrist bill has so much support why haven't they passed it yet?

The solution is always for Progressives to swallow a watered down bill that hurts the country and the party, it is never to bully conservative democrats to go along with the party line. Why is that?

[SanchoPanza]

36. It had nothing to do with doctors.

Like today, it has everything to do with the AMA. It doesn't matter what polls of doctors say, then or now. If the AMA is against a proposition, they have enough clout in state medical boards and among insurance commissioners that any policy resulting in a pay cut for doctors and hospitals would be opposed. They're the reason the PO and Medicare Buy-In was dropped, and the reason why Medicare was initially limited to the elderly. If a majority of doctors want Single Payer, then they need to form their own lobby to counteract the influence of the AMA and reassure politicians (especially in the Midwest) that such a system wouldn't lead to medical professionals moving out of their state.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a compromise. The original House bill gave greater control to the Federal government to regulate private businesses. The Democratic and Republican Senate leadership introduced a weakened bill in order to break the filibuster. It worked, and the House passed it.

"The solution is always for Progressives to swallow a watered down bill that hurts the country and the party, it is never to bully conservative democrats to go along with the party line. Why is that?"

Because Progressives ostensibly believe in progress, and Conservatives believe in the status quo. You can either get some of what you want, or nothing. And Conservatives always favor nothing.

[ibegurpard]

42. progressives AREN'T getting what they want with this stinkola

they STARTED with our compromise and proceeded to give it all away from there.

[SanchoPanza]

44. The largest expansion of access to affordable healthcare in a generation.

That's what we're getting with this legislation. If that's not good enough, people who oppose the bill need to find an appellation besides "Progressives".

[PHIMG]

45. At what cost?

TRILLIONS in subsidies? A private mandate?

THIS IS DEMOCRATS PUSHING REPUBLICAN legislation and getting called socialists for it by the Teabaggers and rightfully called corporate sell outs by Independents.

PYRRHIC VICTORY at best. Start over. Medicare for ALL.

WALL STREET REFORM

Forces you to buy Big Insurance’s defective financial product.

Raises taxes to shovel trillions of dollars in subsidies at the hugely profitable insurers.

Adds more toothless, ineffective, and hard to enforce insurance regulations, increasing complexity and raising costs.

Gives insurers freedom to abuse patients and providers and continue to sell "affordable" Pinto plans that leave you uncovered and vulnerable to bankruptcy.

MEDICARE FOR ALL

Saves up to $400 billion in eliminated waste. This is money that will not need to be raised in taxes.

Provides everyone a real Cadillac health plan not tied to your employer with no deductibles or co-payments. No guessing what is covered and what is not, no need to consult a list of providers to see where you can go. Ends claim denials and insurer abuses.

Restores HOPE by demonstrating that American government cares more than just about Wall Street.

[SanchoPanza]

48. This cost.

$871 billion over ten years. Paid for by various tax mechanisms and making the public entities more cost effective. If you believe the CBO and the JCT. And you simply can't eliminate medical history as a criterion for coverage and not have some kind of mandate, even the toothless one currently being proposed. Risk pools across the country would look a thousand times worse than they do today.

There. Are. Not. Enough. Votes. For. Single. Payer.

Wan't more votes for Single Payer? Fine. Make it a condition of your continued support for your particular Representative and Senator. Tell your friends and family to do likewise. Actively campaign for politicians who make it a central plank of their platform. As the interests arrayed against Single Payer continue to deteriorate, we may end up getting it eventually. But you know what? None of that demands that the current legislation shouldn't be passed. And it is the height of irresponsibility and demagoguery to hold millions of lives for ransom by NOT passing the legislation just because Single Payer (and even Public Option) advocates aren't getting exactly what they want. Lives are more important than your cause.

[PHIMG]

49. We'll never have the votes for single payer if this bill passes.

The CBO doesn't score bills on the political damage they will cause for the party that passes them.

There weren't enough votes to get Civil Rights done. Did they pass a watered down civil rights bill?

The current legislation should not be passed because it will make the insurance companies stronger. Tell me how forcing 50 million people into the arms of the Private Insurance sharks makes them any weaker? Tell me how giving them trillions in new subsidies any weaker?

The House and Senate healthcare bills are modeled on the bill Mitt Romney (Bain Capital) pushed through Massachusetts four years ago. Wall Street healthcare reform failed to achieve universal coverage, reduce costs, or end medical bankruptcy at the state level. When Romenycare-modeled Obamacare fails nationally the left will take the blame and Teabagging Republicans will gain powerful new ways to beat back the Progressive movement. Democrats will be smeared in all quarters for eroding personal liberty with the onerous ‘personal mandate’ and raising taxes to pay for trillions in corporate welfare.

Ignore that as long as you want. The GOOD PARTS of this bill are not worth the cost. They could pass the good parts without the BAD parts but this isn't about the American people. It's about bailing out another bailout for Wall Street.

[SanchoPanza]

50. Is there some central repository for these talking points?

"The CBO doesn't score bills on the political damage they will cause for the party that passes them."

More people will have access to care. Those that do have access will have more secure access. Care itself, particularly primary care, will be improved. That's some real political damage right there.

"There weren't enough votes to get Civil Rights done. Did they pass a watered down civil rights bill?"

Yes, they did. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was watered down from its original version to break the Senate filibuster.

"The current legislation should not be passed because it will make the insurance companies stronger."

It will make some insurance companies stronger. Non-profits. Predatory companies will have a much more difficult time carving up the risk pool and pitting the old, poor, and sick against the young, middle-class, and healthy. Insurance companies have been funneling millions into the coffers of the Chamber of Commerce to run issue ads in states like Nebraska to kill the legislation. This is the principle reason why the CoC has more funds than both the DNC and the RNC, because all the traditional big money players didn't want to leave the perception that they were are fighting against the bill. Insurance company, pharmaceutical company, and AMA contributions are all at the lowest level in years.

"Tell me how forcing 50 million people into the arms of the Private Insurance sharks makes them any weaker? Tell me how giving them trillions in new subsidies any weaker?"

Because it forces them to abide by a strict, nationwide framework for conducting business. The state-by-state framework we have now makes it incredibly easy for those same companies to bury non-profits. This is the reason why most of the BCBSs went from non-profit to for-profit across the country: private insurers left them only the chronically ill and poor to cover. States that implemented the kind of regulations in the legislation (Vermont, Hawaii, Minnesota, and eventually Massachusetts) have an insurance market much more friendly to non-profits and high levels of coverage. The distinction between a non-profit and a program run by the government is minimal.

"The House and Senate healthcare bills are modeled on the bill Mitt Romney (Bain Capital) pushed through Massachusetts four years ago. Wall Street healthcare reform failed to achieve universal coverage, reduce costs, or end medical bankruptcy at the state level."

The percentage of uninsured in MA dropped to around 5% after the 2006 reforms. The problem with those reforms is that cost controls weren't implemented, and there were no incentives to increase the number of primary care providers. Those problems are being debated within MA currently, and are difficult to address at the state level.

"When Romenycare-modeled Obamacare fails nationally the left will take the blame and Teabagging Republicans will gain powerful new ways to beat back the Progressive movement. Democrats will be smeared in all quarters for eroding personal liberty with the onerous ‘personal mandate’ and raising taxes to pay for trillions in corporate welfare."

This only matters so long as you buy into the BS that the legislation entails a tax increase. It doesn't.

[PHIMG]

51. The BS notion that there is no tax increase?

Tell that to the labor unions who will get thier benefits taxed because they are adequate. I guess that's not a tax increase in your world?

Your talking points come from what, the DSCC?

Lieberman and Nelson and Landrieu thank you for being a "Good Democrat".

You have a lot of faith in this bill, clearly. Blind faith.

Medicare for All saves hundreds of billions of dollars, eliminates the big insurers from basic healthcare, including thier past and future abuses, and gives everyone a Cadillac plan. But it would alienate people like Max Baucus from thier corporate paymasters and that's why it is not viable.

Keep polishing that turd buddy! The people aint buying it.

[SanchoPanza]

53. There are no votes for Medicare for All.

Whether or not I agree with your assessment about that as superior policy is irrelevant. It's not going to happen. There is such a thing as "good enough," and this legislation more than fits that description.

"Tell that to the labor unions who will get thier benefits taxed because they are adequate. I guess that's not a tax increase in your world?"

Their benefits won't be taxed. The mechanism taxes the revenue collected by insurers above a certain threshold. This means that insurers will stop offering plans to companies that do not have high risk occupations (which are exempt), giving an incentive for employers to allocate more compensation dollars to wages. A likely provision in a reconciliation sidecar would be to provide a transition period to renegotiate plans before the tax comes into effect and increase the tax threshold.

What I have is faith in my own reading comprehension.

Lieberman and Nelson can fuck off. Along with Kucinich. Grandstanding doesn't save lives. It just keeps those donations coming in.

[ibegurpard]

54. No, this legislation is NOT good enough

It is WORSE than the status quo because it cements the status quo INTO LAW.

[SanchoPanza]

56. Repeating something does not make it fact.

Limits age and gender rating. Elimination of rating based on medical history. All health insurance is guaranteed issue. The largest expansion of Medicaid in a generation. Community health centers to fill primary care delivery gaps in poor and rural areas. A regulated risk pool for individual markets with minimal standards for coverage. Scaling back the Medicare Part C boondoggle. Fixing Medicare Part D. Some parity in wages/benefits.

None of this is the status quo.

[ibegurpard]

57. removal of antitrust against insurance corps

no regulation with teeth. mandated purchase of insurance with no guarantees of cost controls.
You're making people buy insurance...that's the gist of it.
And if they can't afford it they're fined or given subsidies...so the taxpayer dollars will NOT be going to provide healthcare, they'll be going to provide insurance coverage.
Doesn't matter how many times you say it isn't so... insurance is not healthcare.

[SanchoPanza]

62. You have any idea what community rating and guaranteed issue entail?

Saying that the regulations are "without teeth" is either moving the goalposts or ignorant. If you want to put every single insurer out of business, both for-profit and non-profit, and replace it with Single Payer, I'd have no objection. But I don't make policy, representatives do. And a plurality of representatives would rather not go that route.

And I'm fine with that, because I'm more in favor of covering people than I am destroying insurance companies. If there are progressives out there who would rather put reform on hold because they don't like insurance companies, and are willing to deal with the misery that such a delay would entail, than they simply don't deserve to call themselves progressives.

No cost containment?

* A freeze on the threshold for Medicare B premiums.
* Massive restructuring to Medicare C payments to a base payment schedule and additional payments tied to quality of care.
* Reduction in Medicare D subsidies for individuals making over $85,000 and couples making over $170,000 a year.
* Compliance programs for Medicare/Medicaid providers, and a longer screening period for new suppliers/providers to route out fraud and abuse.
* Reduce Medicare/Medicaid payments based on hospital readmissions and conditions acquired through care.
* Reduction in Disproportionate Share Hospital allotments based on the number of uninsured in the area.
* Reduction in period of exclusive use for drug manufacturers and faster development of lower-cost generics.
* Increase in the Medicare/Medicaid drug reimbursement for generics.
* Allow providers to join together to share cost benefits from Medicare payments.
* Standardized rules and procedures for claims, transfers, payments, enrollments, and dis-enrollments among all insurers.
* Advisory boards to disseminate best practice information and provide recommendations on savings (that can't entail reductions in benefits).

And going to the emergency room isn't healthcare either. I can play a meaningless semantics game as well.

[Raineyb]

68. Where exactly does the access to health care come in?

Because what we have is a bill that mandates you buy health insurance. Having health insurance does not guarantee you get care. If you have insurance and the company refuses to pay for your treatment and you can't afford to pay for it out of pocket you may as well have no insurance it's the same outcome.

There's nothing progressive about forcing people to buy a defective product on which their life will depend from rapacious companies whose only concern is profit at your expense.

It is YOU who needs to find another appellation besides "Progressive."

[deaniac83]

30. Oh save it

"if liberals were running around"

I'm a liberal. Ezra Klein is a liberal. What we're not is ideologues.

[PHIMG]

47. Only a corporate ideologue or a low-information partisan

Can support this bill. It will destroy the Democratic party.

WALL STREET REFORM

Forces you to buy Big Insurance’s defective financial product.

Raises taxes to shovel trillions of dollars in subsidies at the hugely profitable insurers.

Adds more toothless, ineffective, and hard to enforce insurance regulations, increasing complexity and raising costs.

Gives insurers freedom to abuse patients and providers and continue to sell "affordable" Pinto plans that leave you uncovered and vulnerable to bankruptcy.


MEDICARE FOR ALL

Saves up to $400 billion in eliminated waste. This is money that will not need to be raised in taxes.

Provides everyone a real Cadillac health plan not tied to your employer with no deductibles or co-payments. No guessing what is covered and what is not, no need to consult a list of providers to see where you can go. Ends claim denials and insurer abuses.

Restores HOPE by demonstrating that American government cares more than just about Wall Street.


I guess pointing all this out makes me an idelogue. You pointing out nothing to defend a bad bill and the village elders makes you "serious." Ezra Klein too.

[ibegurpard]

41. Absolutely!

[hulka38]

38. It's a political tactic of those responsible for this debacle to put pressure on those who recognize

that this is not only inept politics but bad policy.

[lynne]

40. And here I thought we were all going to die anyway -

- but if a bill can give me eternal life, I'm all for it!

[lumberjack_jeff]

65. I'm of two minds.

The democrats in the senate want a bill on the president's desk. The house has leverage now,that they won't have once they've passed the senate bill.

I say use the house vote to pressure the Senate to pass as many fixes as possible in reconciliation.

But at the end of the day, we need to pass the Senate bill along with whatever more we can get from the Senate.

[TheKentuckian]

66. I guess my vote is everyone dies then

People concerned about the negative impact of not passing a bill should have thought of that before allowing the insurance lobby to write a horrible bill and then pretend we are doing something for the American people.

Try all the guilt trips and labels you like but they won't work on me, just affordable access to quality care which has not be demonstrated to me or apparently the majority of citizens.

Hell, forget what I want and what percentage of it I can get because that is going to be well under 50% under a best case scenario. What I see doesn't even qualify as serious market based reform with the unenforced and loosely written "regulations" without any real penalties that allow the same criminal behaviors as today. I see little effort to control pricing and the major cost containment appears to be the Max Tax that will just provide downward pressure on services to get policies down below tax levels over time.

You want to keep big insurance then you regulate the dogshit out of them, you want a mandate then it comes with a THOU SHALT NOT on recessions without exception and you force them to take customers with "pre-existing conditions" at the same affordable rate as anyone else, that's the cost of requiring every living soul to buy your product. Speaking of affordability that is also left swinging in the breeze with the two most common counterpoints being to see the subsidies that are insufficient in making the product affordable and that they leave a considerable out of pocket that many simply will not be able to utilize. That and "we'll fix it later" are the two lame rejoinders.

That's just silly. The #1 reason people don't have insurance is because they cannot afford it and if that is allowed to remain a substantial obstacle then the entire effort has failed. Mandating me into the most expensive monthly cost I've ever had for the lowest benefit level is not what I call help and I sure as shooting don't call it reform.

This is a carefully legislated status quo expansion not reform or even the roots of real reform.

[ibegurpard]

69. bravo

well said :thumbsup: