This is why many are so sad and angry about this bill

[Armstead]

(Said before, ad nauseum, but it bears repeating as Democrats do the "victory dance" over this bill.)


People's emotions, myself included, have been in overdrive because we cared about this passionately and we feel betrayed and undone by a combination of corruption and ineptitude.

And before you mention the "perfect and the good" and ponies, let me state this as dispassionately as I can.

For people who really cared about reform for years, this started out with a huge concession from the "perfect" when solutions like expansion of Medicare and a single payer alternative system were taken off the table immediately. Proponents were not even allowed to make their case in the early hearings.

So we agreed to a tame "public option" as a major compromise from the very start.

But then, we did get very disappointed and angry as almost everything we cared about got whittled away -- and the bill became the Privatization Support Act through things like misplaced mandates for private insurance. We felt betrayed. Especially as truly anti-reform forces like Ben Nelson were given EVERYTHING THEY WANTED.

The result was a bill that includes some positive things,but in its very philosophy and strategy FURTHER EMBEDS the very forces that created this problem in the first place. And it rejects actual straightforward regulation. This is based on the same premise that drove the Reagan Revolution. "Allow insurers to be more competitive, and they will do well for everyone." (I just heard Ron Wyden parrot this crap, and had to restrain myself from tossing my shoe at the TV).

And then, as we tried to at least get the worst things taken out so that the hard parts would not be rushed through haphazardly, we were labeled as "kill the bill teabaggers" or "naive ideologues" by the very people who ought to be allies in the fight for a better healthcare system.

You think that feels good? You think there is any pleasure and comfort in that? Don't you think we would much prefer to be able be celebrating a shared victory -- even a small starter victory -- together?

[treestar]

1. this further embedding thing

Do you really believe that it was possible at this time to get something that would do away with them?

Or that further regulating them can't lead to more control over them?

[Armstead]

2. Getting rid of them was not the issue atv this point

Very few people expected the private insurance system to be eliminated (although that wold be a good thing).

But we thought the gioal was to loosen their stranglehold somewhat, and begin to offer an alternative based on an actual public national healthcare system such as an expansion of access to Medicare or a real "public option" for those who preferred or needed that.

At the very least, we hoped to see real regulation of insurance companies. Not Reaganesque "regulation by market forces" but actual direct control of prices, access and behavior, based on the fact that they are not like other businesses. They could have continued to make their profits -- but maybe not as exorbitant, and more directly accountable and reguklated so they they would have to provide affordable coverage.

That does not seem like a lot to ask. And it is what most Americans actually wanted. But apparently even that modxest beginning in the right direction was too much.

[Tansy_Gold]

7. Maybe not somethng that would do away with them, but

preferably not something that strengthened them.

In other words, this bill has, in many ways, made further reform MORE difficult.

The basis for support seems to be, in many cases, that this is something we can build on. If that were the case, most of those of us who are opposing it would offer grudging support. It's not everything good, but it's something good.

Unfortunately, that's not hte case.

It's not only not very much good, it's also VERY MUCH bad.

It's kinda like the cash for clunkers.

I drive a 2000 Chevy S10 Blazer that probably would've qualified. So the C4C might've looked like a good deal for me. I'd get a new car with fewer problems. Yay! But I'd also have a horrendous payment that I can't afford. I'd have a warranty, but it would mean taking the car to the dealership all the time instead of my local mechanic. It would mean higher insurance premiums.

It's not a perfect analogy, but I think you can see that on the current senate bill, there is so much that's against the progressive model that the benefits really don't outweigh it.

Is there a possibility that something better will emerge in the conference version? Yes. is it likely that it will resolve the worst abuses of the senate version? No, it's not.

I'm one of those who will probably be saddled with an unaffordable private insurance policy until I'm eligible for Medicare in four years. I have pre-existing conditions and I'm over 60, so there's not going to be a cheap plan for me. I'm low income but I own my home free and clear so I'm not eligible for Medicaid. I'm lucky that so far my health issues have been easily and inexpensively managed.

But as long as the insurance companies are calling the shots -- and don't think that they're not -- there will be no victory dance for the middle and working classes. 30% or more of our premiums wil go into the pockets of the execs and the stockholders, and we will still be left with huge deductibles and co-pays -- and no way out.

That's what we progressives are fighting for, and we got nothing of that nature at all.


TG2012

[Armstead]

13. Exactly

[lapfog_1]

12. Let's play with some numbers for a bit.

When the exchanges are set up, there will be plan offered to young adults (with no pre-existing conditions) which might be affordable for many people, say $7000 a year ( $583 a month ). Why do I say "no pre-existing"... didn't we get rid of that? Nope. The companies cannot deny you insurance, but they sure can charge you more money. Up to 50% more.

And why a young adult... because they can charge older adults ( over 50 ) up to 3 TIMES what the young adult is charged.

What I'm driving at is "what will be the AVERAGE premium for adults"?

My guess is that it will be something over $1000 a month, probably $1200. or $14,400 a year.

The majority will pay this through their employer provided plan, some will get subsidies, many will not but will pay it anyway because everyone wants health insurance.

How many... let's say 200 million. That's an industry income of $2.88 Trillion dollars. They are (by this bill) restricted to 15 percent profit margin. That's a mere $432 Billion dollars. That's their PROFITS. For handling the money.

How many more politicians do you think they can buy with $432 Billion? They bought enough this time with something like $600 million dollars. If they spend 5% of their annual profits on lobbyists and campaigns and fake astroturf movements (like FreedomWorks aka Tea baggers), that's over $21 BILLION dollars. 5% of profits.

Even if my numbers are off by a factor of TWO, it's still $216 Billion in profits, $10.5 Billion to influence public policy.

Do you think that there will be any further regulation on them?

[Armstead]

14. It will lock people into bad situations even more than now

Many people keep bad jobs because they need the insurance.

Now, even with the "you get to keep your insurance" thing, people will be further locked into bad jobs by the mandates. If they were to work on their own, or get a differentr job with no benefits, they are screwed even more than now.

That is not helpful.

[Tansy_Gold]

22. Someone who makes $30,000 a year can't afford to spend

$14,000 for "insurance," especially if there are copays and deductibles that make that premium only part of the total cost.

$30,000 is roughly $15/hour.


TG

[frazzled]

23. Where did you get that figure?

If you have a family, your projected annual premium would be $1,966, with a max out-of-pocket of $4,200. That, presuming you use all that out-of-pocket because of a seriously big bill, would amount to $6,166 (17% of income).
If the bill doesn't pass, the same premium will cost $12,042 for that same family, with an annual out-of-pocket max of $12, 600. That's a whopping 68% of your income, or $24,642. Which would you pick? The bill or no bill?

I don't have the figure for an individual, but a single earning $30K will still be eligible for a subsidy, making the premium more affordable than it is now.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/the_most_important_table_youll.html

[Tansy_Gold]

24. I was replying to lapfog_1's hypothetical n/t

[BeyondGeography]

3. You have been a reasonable opponent and a worthy discussion partner

There is no victory dance here. It will take years to see the full effects of this bill. Some of us are hopeful, others not. Nothing wrong with that, as long as it doesn't veer into relentless pounding of one side or the other, which you avoid.

[Armstead]

5. Thank you, but i admit i've been a painn in the ass at times

I just hope we can all heal the rifts and get back to being on the same side. :toast:

[uponit7771]

4. If those people KNEW that this wasn't the final version would they be upset? TIA

[Armstead]

8. I would be ecstatic if I am proven wriong in the final bill

I would happily eat large amounts of crow if they actually were to dial back the bad parts and/or put back in some pof the good parts.

But frankly, I'm not holding my breath expecting that.

[NJmaverick]

6. I look at this differently. It's not about me

and if a single life is saved by the bill, that's a huge victory (in my book)

[Tansy_Gold]

9. What if in order to save that single life you have to sacrifice

10 or 20 or 100 more?

Everything has a price.

[NJmaverick]

10. It's a given that saving a life is a net result

and I don't see how anyone is going die due to expanind coverage for so many.

[joeprogressive]

15. OK, then by your logic saving 1 net life is better

than enacting real reform that has the potential of saving thousands of lives. You are comparing this bill to the current status quo, not to what we should have in place. When people look at it from the bigger picture, not the sell out perspective, they are not happy about this at all.

[NJmaverick]

16. They have been trying to enact "real reform" since Teddy R's days

it's always failed, usually because someone sinks it claiming anything short of near perfection isn't worth passing.

[Armstead]

11. Do you do this stuff on purpose?

It's not "all about me" as you so graciously put it.

The whole fricking reason so many people care so passionately about this has been to actually help the population -- the entire population, including poor, working class and middle class and upper middle class, healthy and sick. (Even the wealthy, as long as they're not among those who are screwing the rest of us over.)

If you would remove a few bricks from the wall you have erected around yourself, you might recognize that and acknowledge it. I doubt it, but hope springs eternal...

[NJmaverick]

17. See this is what I am seeing

you're telling me that "the whole ficking reason so many people care so passionately about has been to actually help the population".


Now you see I have been a volunteer EMT/Heavy rescue person for 25 years now. I don't get a single dime getting up to help someone at 2 in the morning having chest pains or a stomach ache. So I am not just wanting to help people, I help people. You know what else, I worked in a not for profit hospital for 15 years. So I know a thing or two about the health care system that is being reformed. I know where the big money is made and where the marginal profits are made.

It seemed to me what people were passionate about was the public option. I appreciate that this is an excellent way to keep insurance company profit margins low (assuming the government run option is run efficiently). The fact of the matter is insurance companies don't make particularly large profits, nor do they pay their employess well (like say the pharmacutical industry). There really isn't the potential for big savings there. The savings is in the drug companies, the doctors, medical supply companies and imaging centers. They are the ones making the huge profits. When I worked for hospitals doctors were investing in imaging centers and getting 100% profits on their investments.

[Armstead]

20. My gosh, a real answer.Is that you?

I applaud your work as an EMT.

And I actually (heaven forbid) agree with your points about places that contribute to high costs. This has to be dealt with on many levels, and some of them are sticky when one gets to the devils in the details.

But those of who are critical of the bill were not as myopic or passive or simpleminded as you portray. (I've done my share of volunteer work not on the level of EMT but I do what I can, and I have had cause to see first hand the innards of gthe healthcare system through family experiences and professionally.).

Many people have been working long and hard in various venues to bring improvements both on a real world level and a policy level.

If you would focus more on the actual reasons for your positions, and less on put downs of posters, there would be more room for constructive debate in this whole mess.

For the record, my own position on insurance savings is that Medicare would be better off if it were getting premiums from younger healthy people as part of the larger pool. The more money they can take in (with a lower ratrio of need per person) the more effective they could be as payers to providers. That seems more efficient to me than the added costs that private insurance does add to the overall system.

[TheKentuckian]

18. I know if a Republican had shoved the people of this nation into a predatory monopoly

that there would be hell to pay. Don't be surprised that such an action is seen as an extreme betrayal of trust. I'm not folding my tent and taking my marbles home but President Obama and Congress have exhausted their allotment of trust up completely by failing to regulate the banks, by expanding this stupid action to hold gravel, and finally with this selling out of the American people to perserve the profits of big insurance and pharma. As I wrote the President, it is a sin in my eyes. I hope I'm wrong but since no coherrent case has been made for forcing the people into a predatory monopoly, it doesn't look too favorable.

[Bluenorthwest]

19. I'd like to add that the bill continues to enshrine discriminatory

practices toward my community and our families. More inequality, just when we are fighting for equality. Not a warm feeling.

[Armstead]

21. A point I missed in all of this -- and additionally sad if true

[depakid]

25. Ironically, Republicans (the anti-science party) understand the psychological dynamics

whereas Democrats discount or ignore them.

Guys like professors Westen and Lakoff, who've studied and written extensively about it just shake their heads.