Yes, Congressional Progressives won major public option concessions in the health reform bill

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 18:13


Big Tent Democrat wants you to know that progressives are complete, sucky failures whose efforts on the public option came to nothing at all:

In terms of progressive activists, it is clear that they have been completely rolled in this process and were given absolutely nothing. The good parts of the bill (Medicaid expansion, theoretically, the better regulations, though I have no confidence in the enforcement mechanisms) were not controversial and should not be seen as concessions to progressives. Indeed, I expect they would be passed separately if the Senate bill fails. In short, progressives got nothing in the political bargaining.

Now, pardon my exasperation, and please don't anyone talk anything I am about to write personally, because it is a generalized rant. But...

Bullshit.  This is just wrong.  Its bullshit like all the other bullshit out there in the blogosphere about how progressive activists who want to pass the health reform bill got nothing and have been forced into their "veal pens" or some other offensive formulation.  That entire line of "argument" is just demonstrably false, and either intellectually dishonest or blinded by egregious cynicism

Here are two huge public option concessions that ended up in the Senate bill as concessions to progressive activists and members of Congress (more in the extended entry):

Chris Bowers :: Yes, Congressional Progressives won major public option concessions in the health reform bill
1. Four million additional Americans covered by Medicaid
Back in July, the health reform proposal in the House (PDF, p. 17) expanded Medicaid coverage by 11 million compared to current law.  In an attempt to win over the 60 House Progressives who demanded a public option tied to Medicare rates, Speaker Pelosi increased the Medicaid coverage in the health reform proposal to 15 million more than current law.  This was done entirely as a sweetner to Progressives, most of whom come from districts with a disproportionately large number of constituents who would be eligible for Medicaid expansion.  Furthermore, even though it was accomplished through a slightly different policy means, that expansion of Medicaid to 15 million more people than current law remained in the Senate bill (CBO report, PDF, page 20)

The House Progressives who signed the infamous July 31st letter demanding a public option tied to Medicare rates did not just fold and walk away with nothing.  They got four million, uninsured, low-income Americans public health insurance.  They were additionally given a chance by the leadership to whip the entire House caucus on a Medicare +5% public option in the insurance exchange.  They came close, but failed to reach 218.  That was also a concession they won from the July letter.

2. Twenty-five million additional Americans provided public health care
On December 16th, Senator Bernie Sanders was still threatening to vote against cloture on the Senate health reform bill.  Three days later he was on board, but only after securing public health care (not health insurance, health care) for 25,000,000 million, largely low-income Americans:

WASHINGTON, December 19 - A $10 billion investment in community health centers, expected to go to $14 billion when Congress completes work on health care reform legislation, was included in a final series of changes to the Senate bill unveiled today.

The provision, which would provide primary care for 25 million more Americans, was requested by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

He said the additional resources will help bring about a revolution in primary health care in America and create new or expanded health centers in an additional 10,000 communities. The provision would also provide loan repayments and scholarships through the National Health Service Corps to create an additional 20,000 primary care doctors, dentists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants and mental health professionals.

Very importantly, Sanders also said the provision would save Medicaid tens of billions of dollars by keeping patients out of emergency rooms and hospitals by providing primary care when then needed it.

This was won as a direct concession for Sanders' vote on cloture.

****

The Democratic leadership made both of these concessions to Progressives in Congress to win their votes on health care.  Now, if the health reform bill passes, 4,000,000 additional low-income Americans will have public health insurance, and 25,000,000 additional Americans will receive public, primary health care.

We would have had a Medicare buy-in, too, were it not for Lieberman and Rahm.

This is not the level of public health insurance we were aiming for in the health reform process, and we should not be satisfied.  However, these are still enormous social safety net achievements that would not have been possible without the public option campaign.  If you don't want to recognize these achievements, either because you are too blinded by cynicism, because you harbor some sort of deep loathing for progressive netroots organizations, or for some other reason, then that is your business.  However, when given a chance to pass a bill that is the largest expansion of public health insurance and health care in 45 years, and when netroots progressive activism campaigns played vital roles in improving those portions of the bill, you're damn right I want to it passed.

We were fighting to expand public health insurance.  We got public health insurance for 15,000,000, uninsured low-income Americans, and we got public health care for 25,000,000 low-income million Americans.  Much of what has won was directly the result of the public option campaign.  And yes, we are still fighting for even more, no matter the odds.  No matter the outcome of that campaign, however, if the health reform bill passes, then the public option campaign was a success.


Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
If there are 59 votes for Medicare buy-in... (4.00 / 14)
why the $#%^%#*& isn't anyone pushing to put THAT in the reconciliation bill instead of the less-certain public option?

I don't get it!


Lieberman (0.00 / 0)
I believe Jim refers to Lieberman stabbing Senate Democrats in the back by saying no to Medicare buy-in.

Jim has an excellent point: Medicare buy-in would seem to make perfect sense for a "public option" to be added to reconciliation. Unless the other 59 Democrats were lying about their support. I'd love to hear Chris' point of view on this question. And anyone else who might know the thinking of the Democratic leadership in Congress.


[ Parent ]
Forgot about Scott Brown, should have said 58 (0.00 / 0)
And yes, I was thinking of Lieberman's double cross. Was it really that or were the Dems just playing villain rotation (h/t Glenn Greenwald)? (And even if they were, are there really 8 villians on this one?)

[ Parent ]
Unfortunately, the math ... (4.00 / 8)
...doesn't support the argument that community health centers are really going to do much of anything for 25 million Americans.

$14 billion / 10 years / 25 million Americans = $56 a year per person.

That's not enough to cover a ten minute doctor visit much less the basic tests that should be done as part of an annual physical.

$56 a year per person. Beats a sharp stick in the eye, but that's about all you can say about it.


You and your MATH! (4.00 / 3)
$56 is a tremendous success

mission accomplished

raise the flag!

sigh...


[ Parent ]
Community clinics are remarkably efficient (4.00 / 5)
I've used some very good community clinics. $56 is nothing at all for insurance-claim based medicine, but clinics can do real work with small amounts of money because it is not all waste and graft. Now, obviously, these clinics have many other sources of funding. Almost all of them get funding from county or city governments, state government, private foundations and private donors, and they charge the patients that can afford it or have some insurance. These are terrific organizations, and I agree with Senator Sanders that they are the real future of health care for most Americans. Downplaying Senator Sanders accomplishment of getting 14 billion for community clinics does us all a big disservice.

ec=-8.50 soc=-8.41   (3,967 Watts)

[ Parent ]
Agree (4.00 / 1)
Community clinics should have been at least HALF of the entire bill.  Wouldn't have been nice if...

$900 billion / in half / 10 years / 25 million Americans = $1,800 a year per person. It would include the fundamentals of health care like dental.

At that level the bill would deserve the label "health care reform." We'd be talking about breaking the cost curve entirely instead of bending it.

Hopefully this program will prove so effective that Congress will have no choice but to increase funding for it.


[ Parent ]
But they're still only (0.00 / 0)
CLINICS!!!

[ Parent ]
You and your FACTS! (4.00 / 2)
Sheesh.

I expect you want me to believe the sun rises in the East or 1 + 1 = 2, as well.


except he changes the subject (4.00 / 8)
the subject is not whether the programs are good, but whether they can be considered real concesssions and more importantly whether progressives should be owning this bill. What Chris is doing is hide the ball. Rather than answering the questions raised, he changes the subject "look at this pretty programs seeeee."

[ Parent ]
fail- (4.00 / 1)
The question raised is whether the PO campaign garnered significant concessions and his entire discussion is based on that premise, he frames the whole diary as two specific concession that are valuable and important. What the hell are you talking about?

the funk can move and the funk can remove- dig?

[ Parent ]
significant? (4.00 / 6)
More people on welfare and standing in line at public clinics vs. mandates and a new middle class tax to pay for them.  Oh yah, abortions - those dirty, dirty women.  

Sounds to me like the Republicans and corporations cleaned up while the public got squat; and if you think that's significant, please don't ever negotiate anything for me. Maybe Obama can just quit counting the people without health care just like he's going to quit counting the number of jobs that get offshored.  Poof!  Two problems gone in the blink of an eye.  


[ Parent ]
This just reaffirms you don't understand negotiation to me (4.00 / 1)
Let's forget for a second that you are factually wrong.

Concessions are based on understanding your bargaining position. Let me ask you a simple question: What do you think progressive bargaining position was in this process?

My guess is you thought it as a weak hand. But, this again was risk aversion so you could never realize actually it was much stronger than that.  


[ Parent ]
Personally I never said there wasn't some help (4.00 / 7)
in the Senate bill but if we could help 30 million people then why not all who need it and help them NOW not 4 years from now.

If the votes are there for it why is it taking so long????

If you want progressives to be honest then remember honesty is a two way street and the big tent people need to admit the majority of the bill is a big industry kiss (aka bail out) that won't in the end control the costs for middle class people.


Exactly - call a duck a duck rather than pretend this is some (4.00 / 2)
great progressive victory.

[ Parent ]
I'll call it a duck if... (3.20 / 5)
...you and cadfile will agree a duck is better than nothing for those who will suffer and die if HCR fails/dies.

It's life or death to these people and it's obscene that the BTD's of the world are at best indifferent about that because they didn't get their pony.  

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans


[ Parent ]
i can't respond to idiotic talking points (4.00 / 3)


[ Parent ]
I defer to my betters (2.00 / 2)
You are the expert at that.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

[ Parent ]
you only confirm that you are waste of time (4.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
Once again... (0.00 / 0)
...I'll defer to pro on this.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

[ Parent ]
OK Steve, my two cents (4.00 / 4)
This bill, over the long term, will certainly hurt more people than it helps.  It turns over an out of control, runaway health care system to the very people that have been fleecing it.   By the time these laws take effect, there won't be any money left to pay for the costs.  Unless someone agrees to start paying some taxes.

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...


[ Parent ]
"Exactly - call a duck a duck rather than pretend this is some" (0.00 / 1)
wow what brilliant substance.  

the funk can move and the funk can remove- dig?

[ Parent ]
of course I agree it's better than nothing (for now) (0.00 / 0)
how can I disagree? I can't say that 2 isn't more than 1 (in the future I think the ever-increasing costs would reduce the number of lives saved in a big way but anyway).

the private industry knows that it's to its financial advantage to save a few lives so it can keep its scam going, so it will make sure to save a few lives.

a public option will save a lot more lives. and with the money saved, even more people could be covered. and future costs will be controlled so the live saving will continue.

I'm on the side of saving lives. you can call it a pony but I don't think peoples lives are a pony.

I see though that you are afraid the bill would fail. I don't agree a po could do that (I certainly think the HCR bill could fail, but the po only helps increases its support) but anyway. what do you say to a po amendment? if there aren't the votes, the bill wouldn't fail. just the amendment. what do you say?


[ Parent ]
I'm for adding a PO... (0.00 / 0)
...now if it makes sure the overall effort passes. I'm against it (for now) if it jeopardizes passage of the overall effort, though I agree with you that it shouldn't cause it to fail. Paramount for me is that total failure is not an option. I think we're closer in agreement here.

My main point is I find it disconcerting (offensive?) that some people who call themselves progressives would scuttle, vote against and/or urge a vote against this bill, which will mean life or death for some people, simply because they didn't get their public option pony.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans


[ Parent ]
agreement? (4.00 / 3)
I'm certain you will find people, congressman, and presidents that will tell you 'including a po hurts the odds the bill passes'

I think this is absolute hogwash. this is a pathetic excuse so they can sell-out to big health but justify such selling-out to the base.

let's support a vote on an amendment. if that vote fails, the HCR bill won't fail.

we're both happy.

My main point is I find it disconcerting (offensive?) that some people who call themselves progressives would scuttle, vote against and/or urge a vote against this bill, which will mean life or death for some people, simply because they didn't get their public option pony.

I have similar feelings for those that say 'I want a po but a po will bring HCR down.'


[ Parent ]
Agreed n/t (0.00 / 0)


Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

[ Parent ]
It is just fear mongering. It is like how they try to use (4.00 / 2)
process as a method of confusion. As I said, early it is interesting how reconcilation suddenly is viable where it was not viable before.  

[ Parent ]
Well, I think it would make the bill fail (4.00 / 1)
If the PO is included every congressman will be afraid of castration by the health care industry if they vote for it.  On the other hand,  I'm not going to vote for them if they don't vote for a PO. Obviously they are real worried about that.  Guess they think I'm all alone.

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...


[ Parent ]
then we will know who they are (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
I know. I just don't understand what progressives get out of this game. (4.00 / 2)
Progressives know this is the game, and yet, they remain, for the most part, silent on the fact that's what the Democratic leadership is doing. Not everyone. I see some aknowlegment of what's happening. But way to many people just pretend this is all very serious business when it is not.

I predict Obama's actions, and when I asked Chris above about it he just continued to ignore me while posting  all these updates about whip counts. I kept asking what difference does it matter if you are not addressing the president working at odds with your position? No answer. Then suddenly some post about the president patting the progressive on the head, and telling them the PO is not possible. It just represents a mind set that I don't get.  


[ Parent ]
I think a lot of people enjoy the comfort of being aligned with power. (0.00 / 0)
If they were handing out Martin guitars or BAT Action Benchrest rifles I'd kiss up to them too.  But in the meantime BO and all his crooked neolib buddies can kiss my socialist ass.

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...


[ Parent ]
Although I am a moderate, I agree with your assessment (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Me too (0.00 / 0)
But I do believe in a socialist military, socialist power grid, and a socialist health care system.

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...


[ Parent ]
My 3 biggies, and now a 4 are (4.00 / 1)
education, energy supply, health care, tax and finance. In the case of the later, finance, I am a believer in heavy regulation and recently the idea of state level banks. With the prior 3, I believe education should be universally cheap, energy should be subject to industrial policy that pushes it toward cheap, domestic & renewable and with health care either a socialist approach or a strong public option that counter weights the private with some combo of heavy regulation with teeth of the private. Finally a progressive tax structur. These to me are core policy issues that push me left. In other areas, i am probably more center in my beliefs. ie, I do believe in debt and deficit reduction, incentivizing for private small businesses, etc.  

[ Parent ]
Shrill (4.00 / 5)
Contrary to what Chris wrote, the final House and Senate bills took about 5 million people who would have gotten nearly fully subsidized regular insurance through the exchange, and put them in Medicaid which is much cheaper for the government. This is hardly a progressive win--if anything it is a net loss of lives due to Medicaid's notorious access problems. As for community health centers, this is nice but CHCs cannot provide quality longitudinal care, let alone specialty care. They are good for treating chlamydia and strep throat. Meanwhile this bill is going to make life more hellish for working families out in Sacto where they often make a middle class income yet are just scraping by due to the high cost of living. Damn right I can't support that.

[ Parent ]
Explain this please (4.00 / 1)
Meanwhile this bill is going to make life more hellish for working families out in Sacto where they often make a middle class income yet are just scraping by due to the high cost of living.


Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

[ Parent ]
Upgrading (4.00 / 3)
because this didn't deserve a troll rating.

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...

[ Parent ]
His point is that what you call 'concessions" are not concessions in a negotiation (4.00 / 8)
It is about about negotiation. Not the underlying program.

If they are things you were likely to eventually get anyway (without regard to how good they are), then they can not be considered concessions from the other side.

The other side obtained real concessions because you were denied things you really wanted. What was the right denied here? What big thing did they concede? WHat about the White House?

He also asks correctly explains why progressive should require conservatives and centrist to own the  the bill  rather than progressives carrying water for conservatives and centrists.

By doing so, you define the boundaries of what is left and right rather than just taking ownership of a right of center bill as if it is reform as you would see it. Overall, do you consider this bill a progressive bill? If not, then how can you dispute his statement that you should let the conservatives and centrists own both the vote and the bill?

It is like my statement to those who whine that progressives should vote for the bill. If you got the votes, then you should not need progressives. If you don't have the votes, and you need progressives, you need to stop whining, and give them something to get their votes.



Progressives weren't even invited to the WH Confabulous... (4.00 / 7)
... so why are progressives now supposed to carry water on a regressive bill that only serves to kick the can down the road for umpteen more years? As a side note, all this talk about "saving lives" is almost certainly misplaced. With al the loopholes, I fully expect the death toll to remain static, if not rise over time.

Indeed, in all this discussion, only rarely does the matter of women's rights come up. This is odd, no? Progressives are supposed to sign on to a bill that will set back a woman's right to choose back to the friggin' 70s or worse?

Given that roughly 52 or more percent of the Dem base are women, why on earth would any female Democrat or independent ever take the word "progressive" seriously again? Why does this one single point not seem to have any resonance with leadership? The mind boggles...

Progressives are committing political suicide with this and other matters. Good luck rallying people to the cause once everyone sees "progressives" as cheap-date hypocrites.


"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates


[ Parent ]
re: big health (0.00 / 0)
As a side note, all this talk about "saving lives" is almost certainly misplaced.

yes, the private health insurance companies don't give a damn about saving lives. they just care about making the most money possible.

they will save a few lives just so they can keep the flow of money to their pockets. but nothing like the removal of the profit motive would do.


[ Parent ]
Oh yes. And all these loopholes will make sure the status quo remains intact. (4.00 / 13)
Sure, they can't cancel my policy because of pre-existings anymore, but there's no cap on rate increases... so, BAM! My bill just went from $300 per month to $10,000! But they're not cancelling my policy are they? Nope. I AM.

They also get to keep using the "fraud" mechanism to deny care, wherein if you fill out any one of the 238 forms they make you fill out differently, THAT'S FRAUD and your goose is cooked. When is "change" not change?

Rates rise, deductibles rise, co-pays rise. And so will the bankruptcies. So will people fall into the black hole when they lose their jobs and increasingly jobs don't offer healthcare anyway. The beat goes on......

And even with all these rate rises, will the quality of care improve? Of course not! That's not required, is it?!

And even those nice sounding clinics, Sanders' feel-good "concession" from right-wingers,  will almost certainly be slashed in future budget bills. Ditto for Medicaid, which Obama's Cat Food Commission will almost certainly trash along with Medicare and Social Security.

But we're supposed to sign onto this crap anyway, because Barack Hoover Obama wants us to? Like, what's he done for US lately?!

( I should stop using that nomenclature for Obama. Hoover was actually a better person than that)


"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates


[ Parent ]
but there's still a mandate to purchase a private product with no cost controls, right? (4.00 / 11)
because I feel like that's getting overlooked a lot here

No quality controls, either. (4.00 / 10)
Nothing to stop insurance companies from selling junk policies.

[ Parent ]
forcing working class people to pay $400/mo for policies with $1000 deductibles (4.00 / 7)
man it's like I'm in socialist heaven

[ Parent ]
$60,000 a year income (3.00 / 4)
That's how much you have to make to be "forced" to buy a $400/mth policy. That's $5K a month income and a policy that costs 8% of the income.

Frankly, I don't think it's unreasonable to require that someone making that income not be a free rider who passes their health care costs on to me and other taxpayers.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans


[ Parent ]
source for your data please (4.00 / 3)
as far as I've been able to discern the only "help" for people between the FPL and $60k comes in the form of tax breaks, meaning no immediate relief for the sting of tithing 8% to Aetna et al

also you conveniently ignore the issue of comically high deductibles


[ Parent ]
Without googling for it... (4.00 / 2)
...my understanding is you will not be "required" (i.e. fined/sanctioned) to buy insurance if you can't find a policy for 8% or less of your income. Nor will you be required to contribute more than 8% of your income toward a policy that is subsided by the government for the remainder amount. Hence, my numbers for your example. And someone making half that amount ($30K/yr) would only have to pay $200 toward the $400 policy.

I didn't "conveniently" ignore anything. I was specifically address your "forcing" point. I'm not aware of a requirement that to comment one point you must comment on all points.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans


[ Parent ]
"comment on all points" (4.00 / 10)
There's no requirement to comment on all points but the point that high deductibles are still permitted essentially vitiates any point you've made about the affordability of the premium.

It doesn't matter how low the premium is, if, at the point of delivery, you're forced to pay some amount that you can't afford. That's one of the points Ian Welsh has made and, so far, I haven't seen any adequate response to it.


[ Parent ]
yes that's one of the concerns (4.00 / 8)
that by allowing high deductibles (some dispute this) - that what you have done is moved the problem from no insurance to under insurance that really is still no insurance since you are still not going to show up to obtain medical help.

This is unrelated to the national bill, but it illustrates the concern over deductibles being unaffordable , and thus leading to deaths:

""Cost of health care can prevent some from seeking cancer treatment    "

"I've been doing this for 37 years," he said. "Deductibles used to be $250 to $500. Now deductibles for many people are $2,000, $2,500 or $3,000. That's a lot of money to pay out of pocket. When it was $250, it was easy to make five payments of $50 each. Now it's five payments of $500 each."

http://www.thecompassnews.org/... option=com_content&view=article& id=220:cost-of-health-care-can-prevent-s ome-from-seeking-cancer-treatment&ca tid=37:Local&Itemid=67

Thus the problem in a nutshell.  


[ Parent ]
by the way, the link you provide is excellent regarding the problems (4.00 / 4)
including with Nate Silver who mostly just responds "let them eat cake" when one pushes him on the substance of the bill.  

[ Parent ]
Thanks, bruh (4.00 / 6)

Ian Welsh, who has posted for Open Left, has been following the health care debacle, although he just wrote

I can't say how grateful I am that I didn't spend the last year working for a blog where my job would have been to report in the minutaie of health care "reform" like it mattered.

He's been quite clear that the Senate bill is worse than no bill at all, that the House bill is not much better, and whatever passes, if it passes, will be disastrous for the Democrats. (He was also quite clear-eyed about the public option.) I'd trust his judgment over just about anybody's here.



[ Parent ]
Well I definitely liked his insight with the link so I will try to read more of him (4.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
Medicare... (4.00 / 1)
...has deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses serving a user base with limited, finite income and somehow it works. Is it perfect? No. If it were up to me I'd require there be low- or no-deductible options available, though I wouldn't prohibit high-deductible plans.

At the end of the day, however, I'm not willing to abandon the insurance reforms on pre-existing conditions etc. and the Medicaid/subsidy expansions that will bring coverage to millions who don't have it, because of some admittedly real flaws.

...Adding, if I fall and dislocate/shatter my shoulder I'd rather have to figure out how to pay my $1,000 deductible than be faced with a $28,000 or $100,000 bill.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans


[ Parent ]
are you on crack? (4.00 / 3)
are you seriously comparing medicare costs to the private sector with regard to what the patient experiences? And for that matter, are you seriously comparing DEMOCRATIC additons to medicare in this manner versus say those added by the GOP?

[ Parent ]
My brother - who has no insurance since... (4.00 / 2)
his company canceled its group policy and he was then dropped as an individual because of pre-existing conditions (sound familiar?) fell and injured his rotator cuff.

He went 10 months without seeing a doctor - because he could still move his arm - but when the pain got so bad that he stopped using his right arm, he was forced to go.  The RC wasn't torn, but because he had waited 10 months to be seen, it cost several thousand dollars out of his pocket to get better.  Not to mention 10 months of personal agony and worry.

BTW - he can't afford even $200 a month for any insurance right now - because his medications for his pre-existing conditions cost $650 per month and he only makes $30,000/year.  Thank heavens he single.

Our plan is to try and keep him well until next year when he is eligible for Medicare.  (And, did you know that he can then also buy supplemental insurance that has no pre-existing condition waivers...what a miracle!  What a relief!)


[ Parent ]
From a person now paying (4.00 / 1)
a premium of over $400 (for just myself). I am retired but still not old enough for Medicare.    Because I have UC (a form of IBD which creates a 20% high risk of colorectal cancer, I have to get a colonoscopy yearly...if I had not been a teacher and retired after 35 years where I could stay with the group, I would be denied insurance.) But I was lucky to have gotten my job way back when.  I was not screened and stayed with the district.  I have been getting colonoscopies yearly for over thirty years.   In the beginning, my co pay was $50 dollars.  As well I have to take drugs to keep in control.  In the beginning they were not so costly.

I have been watching the costs rise.  By the 1990's I was paying a $150 co pay.   But then our district's insurance decided it was smarter to get everyone (over 50) screened. So they pushed it by lowing the co pay to $75.   But then the insurance company decided I should pay more because it was not a screeing, in their view, because I had UC.  I argued but lost.  So then I paid $300 co pay.

Then our district decided retirees were too costly so they dumped us.  I had to buy into our retiree group.  Because I was a part of that group they could not dump me.  But now with Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, my last colonoscopy had a co pay of $565.   The "prep" cost $50.   The doctor co pay was $50.   And then I got a bill for $495 for the lab fees....to read the biopsies.  I am fighting this.  This is all on top of a $400 a month premium.  And I do not get 60K in retirement.  

For me, becoming eligible for Medicare in October, it's a one time thing.  For others like me, who are young (as the prime time for UC to hit is between the ages of 15 and 30..I was 16), it's bad enough to live with the disease itself, but the cost is ridiculous and for many the meds are out of reach financially.   It's wrong. It's just wrong.


[ Parent ]
From a person now paying (0.00 / 0)
a premium of over $400 (for just myself). I am retired but still not old enough for Medicare.    Because I have UC (a form of IBD which creates a 20% high risk of colorectal cancer, I have to get a colonoscopy yearly...if I had not been a teacher and retired after 35 years where I could stay with the group, I would be denied insurance.) But I was lucky to have gotten my job way back when.  I was not screened and stayed with the district.  I have been getting colonoscopies yearly for over thirty years.   In the beginning, my co pay was $50 dollars.  As well I have to take drugs to keep in control.  In the beginning they were not so costly.

I have been watching the costs rise.  By the 1990's I was paying a $150 co pay.   But then our district's insurance decided it was smarter to get everyone (over 50) screened. So they pushed it by lowing the co pay to $75.   But then the insurance company decided I should pay more because it was not a screeing, in their view, because I had UC.  I argued but lost.  So then I paid $300 co pay.

Then our district decided retirees were too costly so they dumped us.  I had to buy into our retiree group.  Because I was a part of that group they could not dump me.  But now with Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, my last colonoscopy had a co pay of $565.   The "prep" cost $50.   The doctor co pay was $50.   And then I got a bill for $495 for the lab fees....to read the biopsies.  I am fighting this.  This is all on top of a $400 a month premium.  And I do not get 60K in retirement.  

For me, becoming eligible for Medicare in October, it's a one time thing.  For others like me, who are young (as the prime time for UC to hit is between the ages of 15 and 30..I was 16), it's bad enough to live with the disease itself, but the cost is ridiculous and for many the meds are out of reach financially.   It's wrong. It's just wrong.


[ Parent ]
Only?? (4.00 / 7)
"Only" $200 a month?

Geezus, have you ever had to live on $30,000/year in an economy like this? Its far from poverty but it IS paycheck to paycheck! Another major monthly bill thrust upon those folks without choice will push many of them into a world of hurt!

This is progressive? This is to be lauded? This is good news?

We're all way beyond the looking glass on this.

undercaffeinated


[ Parent ]
Source data (4.00 / 1)
See Ezra's answer #1 here.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

[ Parent ]
And thus begins the stigmatization of the "free rider" (4.00 / 8)
pitting working families against their neighbors, to the delight of Republicans and corporate Democrats. Everyone has a story, and there may be a very good reason a family earning $60,000 can't afford a $400 premium (rising at 5-8% a year). College tuition perhaps. This is a progressive website, in case you didn't notice.

[ Parent ]
"Family?" (2.67 / 3)
Sorry, but the example we're talking about (and the numbers used) are for an individual. Secondly, however you want to frame it, free riders are a problem. Someone will end up paying.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

[ Parent ]
"Free riders"? (4.00 / 4)
Honestly? Are we going to start talking about "welfare queens" next?

[ Parent ]
Riiiggght.... (0.00 / 0)
$60,000 a year individuals are just like welfare queens...

Look, I and allot of people don't make $60k a year and I'm not sure how you defend the proposition that my taxes or part of my HC premium should go to cover that person if/when they have a catastrophic event. That's a veeerrrry progressive arrangement...

Meanwhile, my guess is you'd have absolutely no problem mandating a tax of $400/mth from the $60k person as premium for a single payer solution. So don't whine about how "unfair" it is to compel people of reasonable means to pay $400 for their health care. (No, the merits of single payer -- and there are many -- doesn't figure in here. This discussion is about compelled payment.)


Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans


[ Parent ]
Anyone making $60,000 a year is on his own (4.00 / 6)
There will be zero subsidy for any individual making more than $43,320 per year.

E.G. at $40,000 a year income, you're going to be expected to pay about $350 a month for your health insurance. That's going to be roughly 10% of your income.

So, if you wanted to buy a car, forget it. If you wanted to take a vacation, forget it. If you wanted to put some money into a retirement account, forget it. If you wanted to save for a down payment to buy a (very) modest house or condo, forget it. If you wanted to go back to school, forget it.

If you need dental care, if you want to see a doctor once a year for a checkup, if you need a prescription, if you need an eye exam and new glasses, forget it: you won't be able to afford it.

For the $4,000 a year you're going to be forced to pay for health insurance, you are being asked to give up the sum total of the little you might have been able to save for a rainy day.


[ Parent ]
Yes, there was post doing a budgetary breakdown on this subect (4.00 / 4)
a) Here's  my attempt to discuss the flaw with the excise tax, including its impact on the middle class

http://mydd.com/users/bruh3/po...

b) discussion of real impact of tax

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.c...

c) discussion of how the overall bill harms the middle class

"301% of Poverty Level: $66,370

Federal Taxes (estimate from this page, includes FICA): $8,628 (13% of income)

State Taxes (using MI rates on $30,000 of income): $1,305 (2% of income)

Food (using "low-cost USDA plan" for family of four): $9,065 (14% of income)

Home (assume a straight 30% of income): $19,275 (30% of income)

Health Care: $14,477 ($7,973 out-of-pocket + 9.8% of income; totals 22% of income)

Total: $52,750 (79% of income)

Remainder for all other expenses (including education, clothing, existing debt, transportation, etc.): $13,620 (or 21% of income)

401% of Poverty Level: $88,420

Federal Taxes (really rought estimate based on this page, includes FICA): $13,263 (15% of income)

State Taxes (using MI rates on $45,000 of income): $1,957 (2% of income)

Food (using "low-cost USDA plan" for family of four): $9,065 (10% of income)

Home (assume a straight 30% of income): $26,526 (30% of income)

Health care: $20,565 ($11,900 out-of-pocket + 9.8% of income-though note there is no limit on premiums for this income level, so this could be higher; totals 23% of income)

Total: $71,376 (80% of income)

Remainder for all other expenses (including education, clothing, existing debt, transportation, etc.): $17,044 (or 19% of income)

I'm going to start collecting other likely costs below, to try to round this out.

Transportation costs (assumes 1 car, 12,000 miles/year, at IRS rembursement rate): $6,600"

http://emptywheel.firedoglake....

Some of this data may have changed depending on the structure as the bill stands now, and it also may have changed due to premium increases that we actually know to have occurred are at least 39 percent, and I doubt the CBO fully accounted for it is assumptions of cost increases.  


[ Parent ]
Stop Troll Rating People! (3.20 / 5)
Simply disagreeing with people is not a reason for troll rating. Please stop doing that.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

[ Parent ]
he's probably troll rating your attempt to demonize the (4.00 / 2)
middle class. You can make your point without playing the typical DC game of demonizing the group you wish the crap on. Here, the middle class is suddenly a free rider despite understood problems of the middle class in decline in America.

[ Parent ]
Actually... (2.67 / 3)
...the troll rate is on Jason's post just below. Agree or disagree with it, there's not reason to TR it.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

[ Parent ]
Yes, this, in effect is about confiscating savings. (4.00 / 4)


"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

[ Parent ]
and me without savings! what's an insurance (4.00 / 1)
company to do?

[ Parent ]
I thought that Obama's bill actually had premium caps (0.00 / 0)
of some form or another.  Probably weak premium caps, but that still is a cost control.  

[ Parent ]
Again, I Don't Think Of The People On This Thread Whining Have Read The Bill! (3.00 / 4)
Please, support the claims Jane Hamsher made, that Ezra rips to shreds with actual financial and policy data here,  http://voices.washingtonpost.c...

Again, there are many problems with the bill.  That said, we have to get some momentum going; otherwise, we will be able to see any tangible benefits for God's knows when.  

If this a one shot deal.  Because, if that is the mind-set on this page, then you were fooling yourselves from the moment Obama and co. did not start with single-payer as the first policy of  choice.

If think all of the powerful lobbying interests were going to roll over, then you obviously don't understand their power.  And until we get a Fair Elections Act passed, we are always going to fighting an uphill battle. That's reality.


hey look it's an article by someone who isn't permanently affixed to Obama's ass (0.00 / 0)
http://www.ianwelsh.net/20-ans...

"this is a one shot deal"-  Please provide solid facts that support this, remembering that it is no longer 1993 and people forced into HMOs are no longer a small minority.  Thanks!


[ Parent ]
Silly Caricature (4.00 / 1)
1.  I work with PDA, and maybe if you did, then we had more people taking actions to get single-payer enacted.  As David Kailb noted somewhere, this is where is fight is going to be in the states.

2.  I guess Krugman, Reich, Hacker, et are up Obama's ass too.  The political climate is ugly; there were a lot of major tactical mistakes as Chris and Mike have outlined on this site; that said, there are not going to be to many chances to pass a bill that helps so many more people.  Read Kennedy's autobiography.

3.  Ian's first two points are factually wrong.

4.  That said, I do not think that the fight for health-care reform will be over.  Simply, because this bill is flawed, and too many people are going to be pushing for further reforms.  One important one is getting national exchanges w/ strong regulations, stripping the insurance companies of their exemption of anti-trust laws, etc.  There a lot more better things to include, but don't have the time now.

5.  Lastly, I have been fighting like hell for single-payer, "Medicair-for-All" since the beginning. Unfortunately, I have a pretty severe, chronic autoimmune disease where the health-insurance industry has prevented me from a stronger recovery. I had to go on a disability, and due to missing 1 quarter of work, I got Medicaid.  Medicaid is pretty bad.  Thank God, I have Medicaid straight--not HMO Medicaid.  However, without Medicaid, I would be dead literally!

6.  Still, due to what specialists I need and treatment therapy, Medicaid is too helpful. Personally, I would buy health-insurance as soon as possible when the pre-existing condition is banned.  However, one thing I cannot figure out is how much doctors and other medical professionals will get reimbursed.  Because, if it does not increase reimbursements--which I am sure that it does--it will help people from dying, some will even function pretty good, and others will recover completely with Medicaid.  Still, I think it is a stretch to expect a lot from Medicaid--so many doctors reject it.  Though, there are good doctors at teaching hospitals, in more urban areas, good community centers (which Sanders won a good fight for them)which have helpful medical professionals that work with Medicaid.  It will give people definitely some help on the whole, especially if we can improve the economy and the health of the states' economies.

7. Anyway, I don't think the fight for health-care reform is  over. Too many people hate the insurance-industry.  I do hope a lot people show up at Ritz in DC to protest.  Lastly, this bill pushes the psychology that health-care insurance is a right.


[ Parent ]
Mistake (4.00 / 1)
   I have not figured out if doctors will get higher reimbursements for Medicaid coverage.  This is hard for me to figure out in the bill.  It will probably depend a lot on each state.

   One last thing, while coverage is of the most important, reforming the medical system is huge, too.  I think there will be some good VAT taxes and other measure already outlined in the bill, health-care policy makers and others.


[ Parent ]
Good response, but this bit strikes me as naive at best: (4.00 / 11)
Simply, because this bill is flawed, and too many people are going to be pushing for further reforms.  One important one is getting national exchanges w/ strong regulations, stripping the insurance companies of their exemption of anti-trust laws, etc.

Point the first: Regulations? Those regulations will have to be enforced by an administration that "doesn't do regulation." Their "regulators" will come from the industry they are supposed to "regulate." See: Dept of Treasury, SEC and DOD for starters. So either we make things patently illegal, ban them outright or forget it. There will be no robust regulatory posture from this government.

Point the second: If the Senate passes the House bill elimanating the anti-trust exemption, I will eat at least two of my hats. More if I have room and I can find the appropriate wine to accompany the hats. Steamed or sauteed? I'm thinking a nice port wine, habañero reduction for the sauce.

Point the last: Yes, no one is going to be happy with this sloppy wet-kiss to industry, so the rafters will ring with the sounds of public outrage. The elites' response? "Sorry, we've already done healthcare, we're on to tax cuts for rich people now and taking away what's left of your rights as so-called 'citizens,' call us in say, ten years at least. Thanks for coming by. Now leave before I call security to go all Yoo on your ass."

Here's my thing on this: Obama desperately wants "healthcare" off his table. He wants it gone. All gone. He wants the most predatory bill he can possibly get away with and still call it "reform," so he can campaign on it in 2012. He is a fool if he thinks this will somehow help him in three years. In a recent Pew poll, only 29% of Americans think government listens to them and acts in their interests. The polity is fed up and this bill will only confirm for them just how awful governance and our political system really is.

While only 30-35% support this crappy bill, that means the rest are not happy with it. Progressives would do well to heed these numbers and decide just whose side they're on. Bills like this have a clarifying effect on the polity and progressives are committing political suicide by going along with this, just so Uncle Rahmboid doesn't slap us around in the supermarket next time we scream for organic vegetables.

Progressives can stop this fraud of a bill and demand to hit the RESET button. It's not without lots of risks, but if they don't, they will rightly be viewed as useless hypocrites. The folks in DC can delude themselves all they want as to how all this will play out. What I've seen thus far strikes me as magical thinking.

I don't know why so many progressives are always so eager to play Charlie Brown to the establishment's Lucy, but it's disheartening and demotivating to see this happening month after month after month. It's becoming clear to me, at least, that "progressive" elites have no real interest in their so-called values. Just their careers.

So this bill, outside all the blogoriffic debating, will pass. Just enough "progressives" will vote for this dog to make it pass. The base, however, will begin to bleed away, because it's obvious no one in DC gives a rat's ass about them. This has always been the penultimate failing of the allegedly "progressive" elites in my life time. I saw the same thing happen under the tutelage of the Clintonoids and now it's Deja Vu All Over Again.

You can view this as "whining" if you must, but just watch your fundraising evaporate every time you violate the interests of your "base." People aren't all that stupid.

That said, I'm glad you've managed to get good help with your problems. I've lost a couple friends to our system, merely for the crime of being insufficiently rich. I'm confident that most Americans have similar experiences and that's why 70-80% want this problem SOLVED, whether they be righties, lefties or jellyfish middlies. Here's an idea, run this bill by any diabetic and ask her how this is going to help her. I already know her response. Perhaps you should get it too.

The bill you support would not have saved them--it would only have bankrupted them somewhat more slowly. Nor will it save me should I fall victim to something similar. This much I do know. My friends are in my mind every time I write about this issue, as damn well they should be.

We all have to decide whose side we're really on here. That's the bottom line. As a so-called "movement," we can be on the right side or the wrong side. People will remember us for what we do as time goes on. No amount of spin can alter that.

Whose side are YOU on? Industry or the people? You can't have it both ways. Not this time.



"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates


[ Parent ]
very well said (4.00 / 1)
Regulations? Those regulations will have to be enforced by an administration that "doesn't do regulation." Their "regulators" will come from the industry they are supposed to "regulate." See: Dept of Treasury, SEC and DOD for starters. So either we make things patently illegal, ban them outright or forget it. There will be no robust regulatory posture from this government.

right, regulation enforcement is a career-ending move in dc


[ Parent ]
Au contraire, mon frere (0.00 / 0)
A banker, say, who goes and does "public service" by "regulating" his former and future employers will see drastic growth in his/her net worth after suffering the depredations of said "service."

Of course, if they were to do that in the actual spirit and letter of their charge, that would be a very different story, wouldn't it?

But that's what you were talking about anyway, so I guess you're right after all!

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates


[ Parent ]
My thing with Medicaid (4.00 / 3)
is the state adminstration of it.  i'm sure some states administer Medicaid brilliantly, and some are disasters that try and limit access because they resent having to pay out Medicaid, or they have high local hc costs anyway.  

[ Parent ]
I agree (4.00 / 2)
Let the federal government take over Medicaid, or roll it into Medicare.

[ Parent ]
Liveralmaverick, that would be the Best possible outcome (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
This is a one shot deal (4.00 / 1)
This is the last time Democrats will have a majority in likely a generation or more.  When Republicans come in, this issue will go far to the back burner.  Republicans benefit HUGE from the current healthcare system as they get much of their funding from big insurance companies.  This is the last chance to get anything done in our lifetimes.  

[ Parent ]
re: nostradamus (3.20 / 5)
This is the last time Democrats will have a majority in likely a generation or more.

settle down bob


[ Parent ]
It will be at least until 2016 or 2018 (0.00 / 0)
The Senate isnt coming back until 2016 at least.  For the House, it will probably be 2018 at the least if a Republican President is elected.  Then we would have to wait for another Democratic President to be elected and then have another two year race against the clock to get healthcare done.  It is now or never.  

[ Parent ]
re: congress (4.00 / 1)
I won't support what I believe is wrong

they can offer a po amendment in reconciliation, and all the yes votes will get my support (and from the netroots I suspect)

otherwise I won't lift a finger for the sellouts in dc...


[ Parent ]
Then you better learn to love the current system (4.00 / 1)
Because even if Democrats do somehow manage to get power back in the future, they wont touch healthcare.  They will remember what flying too close to the sun on the issue did to them.

[ Parent ]
flying too close to the sun? (4.00 / 2)
LOL!

[ Parent ]
Hey I got a bright idea (4.00 / 2)
Pass what the people want (i.e. the public option).

Then, get reelected.


[ Parent ]
Fair Elections Act (0.00 / 0)
Given the current purchase of candidates by Corporations with the approval of the Supreme Court how would we accomplish this?

[ Parent ]
Go To Congress Matter.org and Get Involved! (4.00 / 2)


[ Parent ]
Ha! I was very very involved with the Dem Party.... (0.00 / 0)
for forty years.  And what did I get for it?  Everything short of a sharp stick in the eye.

And I'm now wearing armor-plated sunglasses....just in case.

Been involved.  Never again!


[ Parent ]
Sorry, But CongressMatters.Org Has Nothing To Do W/ The Democratic Party (0.00 / 0)
It actually starts with the proposition to take as much money out of electoral process as possible.  It does not favor Democrats nor Republicans, its reforms favor democracy.

[ Parent ]
It's politics - and I have no interest.... (0.00 / 0)
anymore in having anything to do with that crap.

I tried.  I donated more money than my husband wanted me to.  I walked.  I talked.  I knocked.  I called.  And I voted.  Every.  Single.  Election.  Of.  My.  Life.

I am now out for only a handful of other people...me, my husband and our two children and their SO's and my sister and brother.  We will manage on our own, thank you.

And I do feel badly about that.  But I am so done.


[ Parent ]
Actually, I Often Feel The Same Inclinations (0.00 / 0)
and I might come to the same conclusions.

[ Parent ]
Then why are you here? (0.00 / 0)
If you're done with politics, then it seems like commenting here is a waste of time for you.

[ Parent ]
I have some serious personal matters to attend to (0.00 / 0)
I will always be active in some way, even if it's just very basic sorts of activism.

[ Parent ]
FINISHED WITH OBAMA, (0.00 / 0)
but will CHANGE the system.  

[ Parent ]
The people whining are those who say they need progressives (4.00 / 10)
to pass the bill but then whine because progressives say they should get something return. I think you confuse doormat with negotiation. If as you say we are whining, and the bill is okay, and you don't need progressives, then stop trying to hide behind them with regard to what the bill is.

If the bill is so great to you, be a man, own up to it, and just say I like the conservative/centrist bill.

That would be the non-whining thing to do rather than sitting here complaining because others don't see the bill as you do. My job and the job of others here is not to walk in lock step with something we think can be improved. Our job is to state our position and fight for it. If you got a problem with that, then may you need to decide which of us is whining. Nevermind. I expect you to say me because you refuse to look at yourself in the mirror.

It is like those who say this is about purism, but when I point out that they could have this bill today if they simply drop the mandate and excise tax, and they begin to tell me how important they think those provisions are. If you are not willing to change a single thing you want on the other side, then there is more than one group of purists here, but only one gets labeled as such. Why is that the case?  To answer my question would require being more than a robot regarding talking points.


[ Parent ]
bruhrabbit, read my second post (0.00 / 0)
That said, again I don't think the bill is that good.  Yet, I have more confidence in Al Franken telling me to get the bill passed w/ different fixes, rather than listening to people who are not in the arena telling me to kill it.

Who said to give up fighting for Medicaire-buy-in or the PO?
I certainly did not.


[ Parent ]
I don't need to re-read your post man (4.00 / 7)
it's the same typical "I trust a politician" and "oh, yeah, I am going to distort the debate that's going on right now" posts that I always see that people raise in defense of the bill. The debate is about how to negotiate and that progressives not only lack negotiating skills but also the basic ability to frame a discussion after they lose the negotiation round.

Piece of advice- this post is about the lack of negotiation ability amongst progressives. You don't help your case by pointing to the people who lacked the ability to negotiate this time around to claim they will negotiate a better deal as a source of comfort for negotiating future deals. this post is not about killing a bill. That's you projecting onto  the conversation what you want to talk about,a nd then proceeding to try to destroy that straw man.

And, Chris and others have acted in such a manner as to say give up. Why? Because they aren't attacking those who aren't producing the results. We don't have a vote. That's the only reason why politicians matter.Not because they are "experts." Most of them don't know shit other than what they see in some bill or some lobbist tells them. If you think they know more, you are fooling yourself.

Finally, yes, it is whining when you tell people what you are saying. You are basically saying why can't you all just do what I want. No one is obligated to do a damn thing you want. It is something that needs to be earned. That's how centrist role people like Al Franken.  You don't have to say the words give up. It is in your attitude over how to negotiate, what the process is about and what your role is in that process.  


[ Parent ]
I worked for a pharmacy HMO (4.00 / 4)
when Medicare Part D came in and the Senate version of HCR is just like Part D.

The private insurance plans get all the cash and provide crappy coverage for those who aren't very poor or very sick.

Premiums average $30 a month on top of co-pays and then you have the donut hole

At the time we were told "yes this isn't great but we can fix it later..." did they? No.

THAT is why I write what I do about the HCR effort. The Senate bill is crap and I doubt very much if it will be fixed in the future.

Yes it will be a "victory" if passed since there isn't anything like it now but it will be hollow victory that will only shift the status quo a smidge.

Isn't it nice that the insurance stocks gained when the it looked like the Senate bill would be the text of the actual "reform"?

Let's get with the program and remember history.


[ Parent ]
I don't give a fuck about history. I care about human nature (4.00 / 1)
i am telling as someone who negotiates a lot now, that the democrats do negotiate like a catholic girl does confessional. They mouth all the words, but every one knows the story ain't what they are saying.  

[ Parent ]
Damn Bruh! (4.00 / 2)
You're kick'n ass  and takin' names!

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...


[ Parent ]
Ok, your point is old news (4.00 / 1)
1.  Did you think that Democrats that were elected by supposedly just the progressives, "the base" (A fallacy a lot of people on our side bought into. . . The truth:  huge corporate donations and wealthy individuals w/ their own twisted interests helped elect the Democratic Congress. Yes, the liberal and progressive had a lot to do with helping the electoral victories, but let's not fool ourselves.) were suddenly going to govern as progressive as we would like. Sorry, it's not happening as long our conservative hegemonic power structures such as the power of corporations, media conglomerations, military-industrial complex, the health care industry, the banks and financial institutions.

2.  Bottom line:  There are Bush Dogs in both houses, and every liberal or progress idea gets hammered in the stupid MSM.  

3.  So, we have to realize that the progressive movement is nowhere near the supposedly "busted" conservative movement.  Hopefully, they will listen to voices like Paul's, yours, David's, Chris' and the rest. Right now, I think we need to build more parts to the progressive infrastructure.  

4. Also, not too many people in progressive circles--obviously a lot of exceptions--did not realize that the fight would be as hard as it was.  A lot of people thought that the demise of the GOP and a Democratic Party controlling all arms of the government were going to not have challenges that lay ahead.  Conservadems, GOP obstructionists, the MSM all of sudden grilling the President and Democrats (they just woke after an eight slumber), faux populist movements (actually David wrote a book on, Paul has written excellent diaries on many of the issues), and the list goes on.

5.  Now, do I think Obama has been a let-down? Yes.  A lot of that is his fault (the banks is the most glaring example).  Yet, a lot rests with his own members in Congress, too.

6.  It's a tough place to be a liberal:  Point out all of the sell-outs and hypocrisy of the Administration and the Democratic Congress, while the right is using propaganda of such magnitude that is of stronger magnitude than the Clinton era. Or, on the hand, do you we shut our mouths, and push as hard for the best possible outcomes--and get victories where we can?  I think it does not have to be either or. That's bad policy, bad politics. Yet, a lot of low level information voters get disappointed not just by the poor results, but when a lot of progressives criticize and impugn the President and the Democrats.  I hear it all the time from people:  "They are sell-outs, just as bad as the Republicans."  Well, this is not true.  The conservatives and GOP is a nefarious, selfish group of people.  Whereas, the Democrats are incompetent, and scared to use the power they were given--and a lot do not give a shit either.  

7.  So, I really don't see them negotiating stronger when they really have not won that many major progressive battles over the last 30 years in this conservative hegemonic dominated nation.  

8. I don't what to say: I feel where are doomed.  All of I see is some idealized form of large swaths of progressives leading people in acts of civil disobedience.  A pipe dream for sure. . .


[ Parent ]
Progressives were incredibly naive and stupid (0.00 / 0)
The Republicans and Conservative are stronger, smarter, and have greater media support than Democrats and liberals.  We were never going to beat them.  The best that we can do is pass the current bill.  The idea that we could pass anything else in this conservative hellhole of a country is simply laughable.  

[ Parent ]
Uhm no. they are only those things because you believe it (0.00 / 0)
your fears dictate reality more than reality does. You actually has more power in this situaiton than progressives were wiling to excercise.  

[ Parent ]
NO, RePUKES are just more RUTHLESS (4.00 / 1)
and lack a conscience.  They have no ability to know right from wrong, and they could care less, even if they had that ability.

[ Parent ]
You lost me with the first line. Seriously, I am not going to read someone (4.00 / 1)
who whines about how old or new my point is. Whether it is or new, the point is the Democrats are not negotiating. Period.  The rest is just not somehting I am interested in hearing or responding to.  

[ Parent ]
Sorry for the Confusion (0.00 / 0)
I agree that throughout a lot of last year, Democrats have negotiated against themselves.  Also, they did not have use more effective strategies, tactics and messaging to paint the GOP and conservatives in a corner.

Still, I think some of the ways the body politic reacted to certain bills/policy iniatives was skewed, because how powerful the conservative propaganda machine and all its allies in the fight to see the Democrats at every step.

PS  Can you relax with the arrogance?  I understand your anger, and see I agree that I missing the point on certain things--but the smugness if a bit annoying.


[ Parent ]
Confidence is not arrogance (4.00 / 2)
More liberals need to be like me. Not less.  

[ Parent ]
Well I Don't What You Do, (0.00 / 0)
but as far as a moral and intellectual stance, that may be true.  As far as organizing and starting a movement, your "confidence" will lose many citizens who need to be persuaded, not lectured.

[ Parent ]
If your organizing produced results , then I would be inclined to (4.00 / 1)
be impressed by it.

I would also be inclined to be impressed by someone with thicker skin.


[ Parent ]
Is Al Franken Majority Leader Now? (4.00 / 1)
No? Funny that.

What relevant committees does he chair? This strikes me as just name dropping.

Don't get me wrong. If there were any justice in this country, this would be the Al Franken Decade Parte Deux.

But it's not, is it?

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates


[ Parent ]
Confused (0.00 / 0)
After the strategy of not starting w/ a single-payer system, and going with the poorly defined "public option" (instead of Medicaire-for-All), progressives,and certainly not Democrats expecting a faux-populist movement aided by MSM--we are taken aback by the this flawed product.  I am not.  Especially, after Obama gave Baucus forever to work on his shitty conservative bill.
I don't know what the progressive movement could have done different.  That will be for all the leaders in the movement to figure out so we don't get this fucked again.

[ Parent ]
No, But A Liberal and Progressive Leader That I Trust (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
No , he's just some random liberal this (4.00 / 1)
person had latched on for the hope train. So, we all are supposed to wait with baited breathe over the personality based politics. Al Franke or no Al Franke, the questions are a) can the dems who are progressive negotiate and b) can they frame debates. The rest is just cold comfort  because the results tell the tale.

[ Parent ]
Christ (4.00 / 3)
I can't believe how fucked America is when good people are forced to this choice.

The only question that matters (4.00 / 2)
Is whether this bill will do more harm than good for Americans.

Not how good our concessions are. Not whether we did a good job negotiating. Looking at it through that lens alone is dangerously myopic political gamesterism.

What good will it really do for how many. What harm will it really do to how many.

Will this bill do more harm that good?

On the aggregate, it still looks to me that it does. I'm open to arguments that I'm wrong, but I'm not yet persuaded by the ones that have been made.

undercaffeinated


In that case it never matters whether we could have gotten more (0.00 / 0)
We should always settle for lesson because on average as long as that lesson results in good, it doesn't matter that we could have gotten even more good.

This makes about as much sense as any of the nonsense posted along this thread so long  as one doesn't take  second to think about how absurd you sound.  


[ Parent ]
Sorry if the logic is so straightforward its beyond you. (0.00 / 0)
But by all means, please go back to patting yourself on the back for your awesome intellectual superiority (and excellent skills of persuasion!).

undercaffeinated

[ Parent ]
I am using your logic to illustrate how absurd it sounds (0.00 / 0)
Clearly you don't have a response.

[ Parent ]
I'm confused - do you think that the Senate bill does do more harm than good, or that it does more good than harm? (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Do we get to add in the ROI? (0.00 / 0)
If so, it absolutely does more harm.   People in this country don't have the money for a mandate.  In case Obama forgot, Clinton and the Democrats gave away our jobs.   But hey, who's counting.  

[ Parent ]
I think (0.00 / 0)
It does more harm than good, but I'm definitely kinda torn up about it. Have been working on this issue most of my adult life.

undercaffeinated

[ Parent ]
If You Think (0.00 / 0)
it does more harm than good, why are you torn up about it? I think it does more harm than good, and I hate the bill. It's much easier when you're not spinning your own wheels. The bill stinks, ergo those politicians who vote for it will not get my support in the next election. Simple.

[ Parent ]
I'm torn up because (0.00 / 0)
it does do some good - and its good that I'd like to see become manifest. But it also does serious harm - and the latter looks to outweigh the former.

The thing is, those scales are made up of real people.

undercaffeinated


[ Parent ]
"We were fighting to expand public health insurance." We were? (4.00 / 6)
Perhaps we aren't all on the same page, after all.

I was fighting to lower the cost that America spends on health care, per capita.  And on a personal level, I was fighting for lower insurance premiums and co-pays without a reduction in service.

As a means to those ends, I support expanding the governmental role in the provision of health care, although I am flexible on the precise mechanism: whether through single-payer, a public option, insurance regulation, or some combination of them all.

But simply throwing money at the problem?  Just increasing the size of Medicaid and increasing funding for public clinics as a band-aid to address the problem that people can't afford health care?    Sorry.  I'm not against those things, but they sure as hell aren't what I call health care reform and they don't even begin to offset the damage being done by the inclusion of an individual mandate without a (yes, robust!) public option.


Bingo. Covering up the fact our system is fucked up is not a solution to the problem (4.00 / 1)
It just means we are harming americans, but now covering it up so they don't realize it as much.  

[ Parent ]
How do you say "fuck you" in D.C.? (4.00 / 4)
"We'll fix it later."

No you say fuck you by patting someone on the head while not giving (4.00 / 3)
one serious concession.  

[ Parent ]
And Progressives need to give a big fuck you (4.00 / 3)
right back.  I'd rather be part of a movement that is feared because it can destroy your political career than "appreciated"

[ Parent ]
I think you're confused about the value of the public option (4.00 / 6)
It's not a "bargaining chip" to be negotiated away for peanuts (with all respect to Medicaid and the CHCs, which I am very heartened to hear about).  It is an essential component of the jury-rigged health insurance system we're trying to create here.

We all agree that to make insurance companies treat everyone fairly, we have to have an individual mandate and subsidies.  What everyone ignores is that the public option is just as essential as the mandate and subsidies, for two reasons:

1. Moral: With no public option, the mandate forces Americans to either pay tribute to a private insurance company or pay a fine to the government that, as far as I can tell, simply disappears into the ether.

2. Practical: The public option is theoretically there to provide competition to the private companies and prevent them from arbitrarily and gleefully raising prices.  If we need an individual mandate to keep irresponsible individuals from selfishly increasing costs, don't we also need a public option to keep irresponsible businesses from doing the same?

A public option is non-negotiable.  It's necessary to hold costs down just like the individual mandate is.  No one is making this point and I think it's telling.  Everyone stresses the need to keep regular people from wrecking the system by having an individual mandate, but no one cares if big corporations wreck the system in the absence of a public option.

This is what happens when a country is so brainwashed into thinking that corporations are more important than people that even its so-called liberals have conformed their thinking to that bias.


Public option was the compromise... but pre-compromised (0.00 / 0)
was singlepayer. I am still angry at Obama for not allowing discussion of single payer in any of the discussion sessions...and the Dems for not having advocates in their hearings.

The progressives should have pushed hard on that and not given in until forced. Then the public option would be the compromise.

The progressives are lousy negotiators.

But there is enough in the bill that I think it has to pass. Even though parts of it are enough to make me sick (luckily, I have health insurance...so I can afford to hold my nose and call my congresspeople and ask for passage).


[ Parent ]
How is it enough? (4.00 / 2)
The lack of a PO will allow insurance companies to jack up their prices with impunity.

If the individual mandate were removed people would cry and moan about how premiums will go up.  No one is making the same fuss over how premiums will go up because there's no PO.  This is the pro-corporate bias I'm talking about that has infected even liberals.

Seriously, liberals, wake up: When you complain more about ordinary people than about the bad corporate actors that got us into this mess in the first place, you know you've lost your way.


[ Parent ]
"public option is theoretically there to provide competition" (4.00 / 2)
theoretically is the key word there. That was the idea behind the public option that Jacob Hacker originally proposed.

No public option considered by Congress provided the competition envisioned by Hacker-the number of people eligible was, deliberately, kept way too small for that; any public option that did compete with the private, for-profit health insurance industry and force cost containment would, in practical terms in the long run, be as threatening to that industry as single-payer and, similarly, could and would not be considered by those interested in maintaining the private, for-profit health insurance industry.

I think you're right about the theoretical effect of Hacker's proposed public option but that public option bears no resemblance to any that was actually under consideration.


[ Parent ]
True, but at least it was there to be expanded upon (4.00 / 1)
This is where the "this is a foundation that we can build upon in the future" argument that so many Obamanauts/Senate health care shills misuse kicks in.  If we got a weak, shriveled public option through, it could still attract support, develop a constituency and build on that momentum to get improvements further down the road.  With the current Senate bill, there's no public option to build on and there is a mandate that empowers the insurance industry.  An empowered and emboldened insurance industry will make it ten times harder to pass any public option or any government health insurance period in the future than it is now.

[ Parent ]
With friends like Obama, who need enemies. (4.00 / 4)
Rahm works for Obama!   It wasn't Lieberman and Rahm.  It was Lieberman and Obama.  Trust is a two way street, and the so called progressive blogs are rapidly losing credibility.   The one thing dailykos taught me is to shut my wallet.   No emails, no phone calls, no petitions, no money!   I do my job, let Obama do his or suffer the consequences.  One thing I know for sure is that if he wants my vote in 2012, he'll just have to "make me do it".



Ha (4.00 / 1)
"make me do it"


[ Parent ]
I'm with you (0.00 / 0)
And it's very unlikely he'll get mine.  

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...


[ Parent ]
Progress (4.00 / 1)
I really don't want "concessions".  I want DC and Obama to recognize that his base is his base. Period.

Progressives have made progress.  We've gone from "fucking retarded" to this:

President Obama's message to progressives who are dissatisfied with the Senate health care bill is two fold: First: Don't forget about the uninsured. Second: Don't forget what failure to pass this bill would do to the party and my presidency.

Now, obviously we're all going to be guilty of "killing" all the uninsured if we don't roll over to which I say bullshit and fuck you.  You're telling me it's my fault?  You run DC, you run the Whitehouse, you control the regulatory agencies, you can practically open Medicare to those 30 million with the stroke of a pen on an Executive order.  But this mess is MY FAULT?  Fuck you.

We are STILL NEGOTIATING, and we are one step away from having Rahm say it's "fucking retarded" to go against what Progressives want, what Americans want.

Always remember - it isn't about what Obama wants, it isn't about what Rahm wants, it isn't about what's best for the DC Democratic party, it isn't about what's best for the Obama Presidency.

It's what the clear majority of Americans want.  It's what's best for the future of American health care.

Am I willing to take down the Obama Presidency and the DC Democratic party for what's best for America?  In a fucking New York minute.  And I suspect the majority of Americans will act the same way.

President Obama - you want to save your Presidency?  Get elected in 2012?  Then start working for the American people, and we will start supporting YOU.

Otherwise, get ready for 2010 to look like Massachusetts all over again (but larger).  


THEY ARE SOOOOO DUMB! (0.00 / 0)
Without Progressives, the Obama Presidency is DOOMED!!!!!

[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox