I don't know if we won tonight or not.

Women clearly lost. I don't know if there's anything even close to a public option in what squeaked through(or if anything other than the public option actually means anything).

Did the bill have to get watered-down to next to nothing? Is there any reason to think it won't just get worse in the Senate?

And, in the end, do partial victories really end up being worth anything at all?

It's nice that something CALLED a health care bill passed. But was this anything other than symbolism?

I'm willing to be persuaded, but the icky feeling is there in the pit of my stomach.

And we can all agree that it's a good thing THIS Congress wasn't the one debating the Civil Rights Act of 1964, if this is what it would've been reduced to.

But the back streets got f***ed tonight.

We might not have to worry about pre-existing conditions denying us insurance, but now we'll just be priced out of the market. And since we'll be required to have insurance now -- under penalty of an "excise tax" that, if we can't pay it, means we go to jail -- some of us will either be healthcare outlaws or forced to pay our entire year's wages for a BS health insurance plan.

The folks here who make decent money and/or already have good insurance may be celebrating, but the working poor are rightly concerned. But then, class warfare against the poor has always been acceptable, even among self-described liberals. So it's par for the course.

(Note the following is based on the baucus bill, when is not the House bill)

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/29/patients-first/conservative-group-says-youll-be-imprisoned-not-ha/

Conservative group says you'll be imprisoned for not having health insurance

<SNIP>

So let's recap. It is a significant exaggeration to say that the Baucus bill's "health care mandate will require imprisonment and fines for Americans who can’t afford to purchase insurance or pay hefty government penalties." It won't "require imprisonment and fines" — those are simply two of the options for enforcement, and experts say that neither a prison term nor a fine anywhere near that high is likely to be used.

The official responsible for the Patients First release acknowledges that his headline overstated what the Joint Committee on Taxation chief of staff said, but the release does accurately report the penalties in the body of the text. The notion that one could go to prison for not buying insurance is certainly attention-grabbing, but based on past patterns of prosecution, the likelihood of it happening is extremely small. So while the fear seems to us to be overheated, the possibility exists. We rate the statement Barely True.

<SNIP>

If they're not going to enforce it? :shrug:

Even if the fine is 1/100th of the maximum -- $500 -- that's too rich for my blood, as will be the insurance I'm able to get. Thus, because I can't pay the fine, I get jail time instead. Sure, maybe its only 90 days instead of five years, but I'd still be a convicted felon.

And you know how honest and trustworthy he is/

To go with that stink bait?

As repeating "propaganda from rightwing astroturf groups"? Is it just so that you can preserve all those warm-and-fuzzies?

The difference is that I read the whole thing, not just the last two paragraphs. For example:

The headline would have been correct if it had said the mandate "could require imprisonment or fines." In fact, further down, the text of the release reports more accurately that "under the health care bill outline in the Senate Finance Committee, uninsured Americans who fail to pay a stiff penalty for not purchasing insurance would face up to one year in prison or a $25,000 fine." That part of the release, with its "or," acknowledges that violators would likely face just one of those penalties. (Emphasis in original)

and

Much more common in nonpayment cases are fines. On this point, the critics of the Baucus plan have a point: the $25,000 fine in the plan is unusually high compared to fines for other tax matters involving such a small amount of money. (Emphasis mine)

But here's the kicker: What if you're too poor to pay the fine? If precedent from nearly every state and federal case out there involving non-payment is to be taken into consideration, then jail time is a very real likelihood. That's the point you miss, have missed and will continue to miss.

...& I don't think it will come to that.

more customers = more profits

Never seen so many on DU before

:rofl:

the winner.

The question is do they really count,
or do they only count when there is nothing
on the horizon that can be done to help them?

That's the problem.

I'm not going to play that vague "this bill ain't shit cause I said so" game.
It is intellectually dishonest to do so.

A one liner post may sound witty,
but it does not provide a doctor to anyone.

They took care of one side (pre-existing conditions, etc.), but left the other one (guaranteeing coverage that everyone, including the poorest of the poor, can get) hanging in the air.

There are no price controls, so private insurance will be priced out of range for most poor and working people -- even with the so-called "subsidy" provided. And the mandate will require that the poor take on a second or third job just to get the absolute minimum coverage demanded by the law, or else risk legal problems.

What is intellectually dishonest is to pretend that this bill solves all the problems for everyone, when it only solves the problems for those who can already afford the high cost of private insurance.

And I wrote a one-liner because it's 4 a.m. where I am, and I'm trying to finish up some other work so I can get to sleep and be ready for my union meeting tomorrow.

This will help those who normally see a doctor by going to the emergency room.....

Insurance companies could no longer deny coverage to people because they've had health problems in the past, nor could they charge hugely different rates for different groups of people (premiums could only vary by age, geography, tobacco use and family size).

The House bill bans recissions -- the insurance industry's habitual practice of collecting premiums until someone gets sick, and then digging through their histories for an excuse to cancel coverage.
Insurers wouldn't be allowed to cancel an individual's coverage for reasons other than failing to pay the premium.

Insurers would no longer be permitted to impose annual or lifetime caps on benefits.

Insurers that sell insufficient, cheapo plans that leave people vulnerable to medical crises would be required to disclose that fact to their customers.

All insurers would be required to disclose how much of their spending is on health care and how much goes to costs like overhead, advertising, etc.

The legislation (especially the Senate HELP bill) creates new tools for fighting insurance fraud and abuse.

3. Medical Bankruptcies Would Plummet

One of the most significant of these regulations is in the House bill: a cap on out-of-pocket expenses. If the measure passes, individuals would face a maximum of $5,000 in out-of-pocket expenses a year, and families no more than $10,000. For poorer families, the limits would be much lower: $500 per year, for example, for a family making less than 1.33 times the poverty rate.

In 2007, Harvard researchers studied thousands of bankruptcy filings and found that medical causes played a role in more than 6 in 10.

4. People Who Could Never Get Decent Coverage Will Finally Be Able To

So far, one of the great victories for the anti-reform movement has been convincing many small-business owners that health reform will put them under.

The reality is that small-business people, their employees, independent contractors, freelancers, entrepreneurs, part-timers and the "marginally employed" would be the biggest winners from the legislation if it passed as currently drafted. Small business owners and their employees -- as well as those other groups -- would, for the first time, be able to get decent coverage at a fair price, and if eligible, both employer and worker would be able to get extra help paying for it.

Under the current system, most of the largest employers in the country self-insure -- they pay their employees' claims directly and cut out the middleman.

Big firms that don't self-insure buy insurance on the large-group market, where risk is spread out over a large pool. Large-group plans tend to be more or less comprehensive and, relatively speaking, affordable.

But those forced to purchase coverage on the individual or small-group markets have little buying power and are routinely forced to pay budget-busting premiums for the worst possible coverage -- plans with high deductibles, caps on benefits and strict limits on what is and isn't covered.

This gets to the heart of the "public insurance option" -- the most contentious point of debate in the reform battle. It would work like this: The government would establish regional exchanges, or "gateways," that would be open to those who would otherwise be forced into the individual and small-group markets. These gateways would have relatively large insurance pools just like large employers -- and public programs like Medicare -- have now.

Within these large purchasing pools, people would be able to choose from among different insurance plans -- one a government-run "public option" and the rest offered by private insurers.

In order for private insurers to sell plans through the exchanges, they would be required to offer a standard set of benefits (which the public option would have to offer as well). They'd also be permitted to offer plans with more bells and whistles at a premium price.

For those enrolled in the public exchanges, the process would be quite similar to what employees in many large companies experience -- they would simply choose from among a variety of plans, with slightly different levels of coverage and costs.

Compared to the plans now available in the individual and small-group markets, they would pay a lot less for significantly better insurance (which, in reality, is what those "teabaggers" are protesting).

Because of pressure from Republicans and conservative Blue Dog Democrats, the public exchanges will phase in slowly, over a period of four to six years.

5. (Almost) Everyone Gets Covered
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/141916/10_awesome_things_that_would_happen_if_health_reform_passes/

And, since conference committees never do anything but water bills down to nothing, we can't assume that.

Bills don't get more progressive later in the legislative process.

I am on medicare and not many doctors are accepting new medicare patients.
So what happens when additional 38 million show up waving their new insurance
cards? Where will the doctors come from? And nurses? And hospital beds?

I guess we could import them from India and China using H1B visa's! Those
countries have a shortage of paying patients. And to overcome hospital bed
shortages we could fly the patients to Thailand, Singapore, etc where I heard
one can get excellent medical care for less than half the price in US.

We lost.

because you didn't want the bill to pass,
But that wasn't the question.

with plattitudes, non-sensical cheerleading and nonsense that the bill that comes out of the Senate is going to be magically better when the characters in the senate make the characters in the house look like princes of moral virtue.

So I'm not even going to into it with you. My concern is on the front page of DU if you want to read it.

and who will when this bill passes.

It is obvious that we have different "concerns".

they will just have useless mandatory insurance pushed onto them by threat of retaliation by the full force of the federal government.

How does that help anyone?

:hi:

I can't wait to move on to something else. No one knows what will happen in 4 years from now and how this thing will really work.

So I think that is the internet god's way of telling me to log off and get some sleep.

Some people are ok with victories in name.

Sounds like you weren't, and you aren't.


Good night and sweet dreams!

I'm sick of being told we have to settle for next to nothing.

And why shouldn't I assume that everything else will be taken out in conference?

This ended up being the health care version of the Civil Rights Act of 1957-a bill that changed nothing.

while some others are making shit up as they go along...
shit they read somewhere, but not in the bill.

Your argument is intellectually dishonest
and lacking any credible sourcing.
For a folk calling himself liberal,
that's
sad.

No personal offense intended.

being able to see a doctor....

while others care more about being right about how fucked up everything is.

I know who I stand with, and it ain't with the "know everything, but can't fix shit".

To seeing a doctor. That's the situation I'm in.

Perhaps you should think before looking down your nose at the people who disagree with you. But then, I suspect that's like asking someone to not breathe, since the class arrogance is flying fast and thick tonight.

That you speak of?

I am 37 years old. I have been poor all my life, never making more than $22,000 a year. I was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma in 2001, for which I went through chemo. However, that chemo (called CHOP, an acronym for the four chemicals in the treatment) has since caused me to be diagnosed with Stage IV congestive heart failure (ischemic cardiomyopathy); I was diagnosed with it at the same time as I was diagnosed with asthma, hypertension, diabetes and high cholesterol -- all of which are, at the very least, aggravated by the existence of the heart failure. The CHOP treatment was the only kind that the health insurance I had at the time would allow me to get (and they knew it had this horrific side effect).

I lost my health insurance when I was laid off in 2006. Because of the failing economy and my failing health, I was never able to find another job. I am still a member of a union because I pay my dues out of pocket through "in-kind" activity (I volunteer to do admin tasks in exchange for my dues being written off).

I finally began to receive Social Security disability last July (to the tune of $924 a month -- huzzah!), but I am still fighting with the state of Michigan to get Medicaid coverage until I qualify for Medicare. I've applied three times, and each time they have either "lost" my application or denied me, saying I didn't provide them with some obscure piece of information.

My wife is a part-time college instructor who makes a grand total of $1,500 a month (gross pay). She brings home about $1,000 a month ... when she gets to teach three classes, otherwise it's far less. Because she is part-time, she gets no benefits. Her union is new and weak. Sometimes she is able to get underemployment insurance, which usually amounts to only about $400 a month.

Together, we don't make enough to cover rent, bills, food and expenses. The only thing keeping the lights and gas on are once-every-three-weeks letters from my doctor telling the power company that it is a medical necessity to keep lights and gas going here. Rent sometimes gets paid, and there are days where food is an option. The meds my wife and I have to take are rationed out to prolong time between refills, and going to the free clinic, which is the only place I can see a doctor outside of the ER and hospital, is a process of saving up ... even though I only have to pay $20 a visit.

So, yeah, you'll excuse me if I don't get all fired up about a bill that says I'm still too poor to get decent medical coverage.

which you won't without the bill.

Insurance companies could no longer deny coverage to people because they've had health problems in the past, nor could they charge hugely different rates for different groups of people (premiums could only vary by age, geography, tobacco use and family size).

The House bill bans recissions -- the insurance industry's habitual practice of collecting premiums until someone gets sick, and then digging through their histories for an excuse to cancel coverage.
Insurers wouldn't be allowed to cancel an individual's coverage for reasons other than failing to pay the premium.

Insurers would no longer be permitted to impose annual or lifetime caps on benefits.

Insurers that sell insufficient, cheapo plans that leave people vulnerable to medical crises would be required to disclose that fact to their customers.

All insurers would be required to disclose how much of their spending is on health care and how much goes to costs like overhead, advertising, etc.

The legislation (especially the Senate HELP bill) creates new tools for fighting insurance fraud and abuse.

3. Medical Bankruptcies Would Plummet

One of the most significant of these regulations is in the House bill: a cap on out-of-pocket expenses. If the measure passes, individuals would face a maximum of $5,000 in out-of-pocket expenses a year, and families no more than $10,000. For poorer families, the limits would be much lower: $500 per year, for example, for a family making less than 1.33 times the poverty rate.

In 2007, Harvard researchers studied thousands of bankruptcy filings and found that medical causes played a role in more than 6 in 10.

4. People Who Could Never Get Decent Coverage Will Finally Be Able To.

http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/141916/10_awesom... /



The House bill would address this affordability problem by providing premium subsidies for health insurance purchased through the new health insurance exchange by individuals who have incomes that are below 400 percent of the poverty line but too high to qualify for Medicaid. The subsidies would cover the remaining premium cost after applying the individual’s required contribution to the cost of the health coverage, which would be set on a sliding scale based on income. Individuals just above 150 percent of the poverty line (the level at which the Medicaid income limit would be set) would be required to contribute 3 percent of their income for premiums, with the required contribution rising to 12 percent of income for people just below 400 percent of the poverty line. Subsidy-eligible individuals would also qualify for significant help with the deductibles and cost-sharing charges under their insurance plans, which would reduce the out-of-pocket costs that individuals who purchase coverage through the exchange would incur.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2905

And I hope those specific provisions on affordability hold all the way to Obama's desk. But now it goes to conference, where it has to merge with the Baucus bill, then back to each house for final passage. Historically, that means it gets watered-down even more (as Burch is pointing out). In any event, if they do hold, then we can talk again in a more positive environment.

I want the most coverage for the least amount for the most of us.

I think we will get most of that (especially for low income earners)...even if there's other things that we wanted that we will not get right away.
But the fight is not over...

So I do believe that we will get there......
just not overnight, and not without a sincere fight!

You gotta see how this effects the competitiveness of America's businesses, per capita health expenditures, and intergenerational mobility

So far, the support of this uniquely American health insurance experiment is based on pure conjecture and catchy political rhetoric that may not pan out

Yes, it will expand coverage, but what will be the cost? Will the drawbacks be justified, or will it create a yoke on the backs of what is left of the middle class, finally decimating their ranks between rising premiums and taxes (for subsidies to cover the poor who must pay rising premiums).

Who really knows. Its nice that the multitude of different successful variations of health care systems around the world were utterly ignored in a pursuit to make everyone happy all at once while attempting to experimentally fix a problem

At the end of the day, this is it. Learn to live with it, for better or worse. Its not like anyone but you gives a damn about your opinion.

...but that still put some points on the board.


Bitching and moaning that you wished we would've missed the damn field goal since we didn't get the touchdown puts you with the other team.

The quarterback dropped the ball in the end zone and dove on it. He didn't even get past the 5 yard line on the drive.

unless you can be guaranteed not only a win,
but you want to be assured as to how many points you will win by....

Since that ain't gonna happen,
you decide to take your ball and go home and be pissed
that you couldn't have it your way.

The House of Representatives has just voted to turn every working poor person into potential insurance cheats who face either fines or imprisonment and you are jumping for joy.

However, I'm the bad guy for pointing this out.

BTW I'm only repeating rhetoric from March 2008, of course than your favorite politician agreed with me so it was ok to say such things.

but only you don't act like it.....
Seems like those who could get something out of this
no longer count to you.

I only responded to your own game analogy.......didn't initiate it,
if you did'nt notice. Doh!

I support Senator Obama March 2008...not this bill.

You are still back in March of 2008,
and many of the rest of us have progressed and adjusted to present reality,
which is November 7, 2009.

Think about what has happened since March of 2008, and catch up....
cause laggers usually don't know what in the hell is going on.

and realized the mandates are great, just like a whole bunch of other things are now great!

This is getting tiresome.....I wish he would have just started out each speech with what I'm saying is bullshit right now.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

n/t

This bill helps millions of people.


Those people don't matter to ATJ... because the bill apparently doesn't help everyone.


So... since there aren't enough lifeboats to save all the passengers, NONE of them are to get on lifeboats and must all go down with the ship.

Go read FreeRepublic.

If they're pissed to high heaven and threatening armed revolution over it... then we won. Big time.



Guess what. I went over there. They are pissed and talking revolution.



We won.

by what FREEPERS think?????

but it's a fun one. :evilgrin:

And chances are if the Freepers don't like it, it's a good thing.

There are of course many other ways but those assholes are always on the wrong side of history.

If the Dems had put up a bill affirming that the sky is blue and grass is green, the Republicans would have voted against it, the teabaggers would have protested against it, and the FreekRepublik would have plotted to overthrow it (openly, on a public thread, like the complete idiots they are). Judge the bill by its merits, not by what a broken record tells you.

n/t.

on the table as a bargaining chip says a lot about where the democratic party has moved to and it ain't toward the left.

they will change the rest of the language....

This is not the final bill.

And it is ironic that just about every single "D" woman in congress that this should have outraged,
still voted for the bill? That they are smarter than you?

"My child needed medicine that cost $70,000 a year. The insurance company didn't want him on the rolls so they doubled the premium. When we found a way to pay the doubled premium, they doubled it again a few months later. (hint: no caps on what they could charge...) Since then my child no longer requires the medicine and although its been years, when I tried recently to get health insurance for my child, I was still unable to get it. I was told that since my child has medicaid, my child has "insurance" and is therefore covered. Unfortunately, finding a doctor who will accept medicaid is nearly impossible around here.

What has been passed will be a financial disaster for many, many people and when the next election takes place, I predict, a disaster for the democratic party. I can't believe the party leaders were dumb enough to pass this."

Already posted elsewhere. Been there. Done that. Lost our home and completely wiped out financially for at least 10 years. What they just passed wouldn't change a thing that was already done to my family. I know what this is going to do and the fact that they felt free to put women's rights on the table as a bargaining chip in addition to everything else is an outrage.

it ain't worth it?

I empathize with your plight, and you have just gave a reason why
we need health care reform ASAP.....and that the current bill
is way better than the status quo, because this bill will help people
who were in your shoes at one point.....

But I see clearly why you don't like it, it doesn't personally help you get restored
to where you were years ago! I'm sorry that it doesn't....but this wasn't going to be
a magic bullet. That reality has been there for some time....unfortunately.

Wake up. "It took 10 years to recover" is a clear indicator that it is in the past at this point in time. The bill would not have done anything to help us recover and its not going to help anyone unlucky enough to find themselves in the same position now. Add in the fact that they felt justified in putting women's rights on the table to achieve it indicates a clear turn toward the right and is unacceptable as far as I'm concerned.

I have read the bill,
and I believe that it is wayyyy better than the status quo.

Now, I start fighting for passing something thru the senate.

Perhaps one day, when you are better off as far as medical issues are concerned,
you can think of me.

They're clearly in the driver's seat of the Congressional bus and, unfortunately, they'll make sure nothing will change. The reason congress hears what the corporations have to say and ignore what John Q. Public says is because they have the money (mostly ours) and we don't. The only cure would be campaign finance change by banning corporate dollars but that means less money in the campaign coffers and reality is they (congress) aren't going to vote for limits on income to their campaign coffers and potential for re-election.

It basically says that not only is any woman that potentially makes less than 88k is banned from abortion services but also just plain old any woman that is put into the exchange for any reason (like being employed by a small business or who's company drops coverage) is banned.

It is a lot to swallow. Do I think this bill will actually help a great many that are left behind by the current system? Yes, but the price is now more than money and more than mandates.

The bill in no way challenges a woman's right to an abortion. It reinforces existing federal laws that bar tax dollars from being spent to assist women in having them unless its a case of rape, incest or life endangerment. That means if a woman decides to have an abortion just because she doesn't feel like carrying a fetus to full term, she will have to find her own way to pay for it, same way its ALWAYS been. So it changes absolutely ZERO in regards to actual rights and where they stood before there ever was a bill.

I know some like to exaggerate the impacts of that amendment and make it out to be a larger deal than it actually is, but the truth is, it really doesn't mean a damn thing other than it made some religious types feel better.

Can a woman get an abortion for a pregnancy that would render her sterile? NO.
Can a woman get an abortion for a pregnancy that would make her suicidal? NO.
Can a woman get an abortion for a pregnancy that would make her homicidal? NO.
Can a woman get an abortion for a pregnancy that would make her crippled? NO.

"just because she doesn't feel like carrying a fetus to full term"... betrays your medical ignorance.

I don't consider being pregnant a legit excuse for feeling homicidal, and if it makes you feel suicidal, grow the fuck up. And you are 100% wrong on all 4 questions, a woman can get an abortion for whatever reason, it just won't be covered by any tax payer subsidized plans, which is no different than how things were before there was a bill.

I would have to look at the language again, but my understanding is that it still covers medical complications caused by pregnancy, it just doesn't cover getting an abortion because a woman doesn't feel like having a baby, thats the intention anyway. I would imagine if something crippling could happen as a result of it, then it would likely still be covered.

:eyes:

It is different from before there was a bill, in that plans that are *not* taxpayer subsidized, plans that are 100% paid for out of private pockets, *cannot* cover abortion (with exceptions) if they are listed on the exchange.

Please tell me you didn't actually MEAN to post that.

No woman has ever had an abortion for any reason THAT frivolous.

(on edit)

You owe every woman in the country an apology for that vicious remark, now that I think of it.

Women with MS won.
Women with breast cancer won.
Women with liver failure won.
Women with Alzheimer's won.
Women with AIDS won.
Women with diabetes won.
Women with arthritis won.

I could keep going, but that would be cruel.

Women with unwanted/dangerous pregnancies lost.

Women, however, are not defined solely by their pregnancy status, and do not "win" or "lose" on such factors.

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

to defending all the members of the coalition that elected it. Not the first time, but can this PLEASE be the last time?

(and if poor women can't afford abortions or contraception, they don't, because it's barbaric to demand that the poor be celibate)they have no rights at all. They have no dignity. They have no respect. They are at the mercy of their wombs.

I DON'T define women as baby factories. I defend their right NOT to be.

You have no respect for women if you feel choice can be sacrificed to some bland, watered-down notion of the "greater good".

Part of the legacy of my generation, who grew up with AIDS, was making contraception *free* for everyone in the US. We carry condoms, and share them or give them away at nightclubs, schools, parties, etc.

Older generations didn't have as much access to contraception, but since the 80's, when sex without protection became potentially lethal, things have changed.

That being said, there's always still more work to do.

That's the way they roll in the Beltway. Pass one bill to get some of what you want, then use the momentum of its passage to push for passage of the next bill that gets you more.

Though I'm not happy about the Stupak Amendment - hopefully, it'll get stripped in conference committee.

and we know how well that worked out.

I'm baaaaaaack! :hi:

Or has it been 4?

We need to reconnect again. Send me a PM--although I still have the same e-mail address I had way back then.

If you had any, you'd get that.

You want to be a "victories in name are enough" type, that's your call.

sure, Dennis get's his ass kissed for sticking to his 'principles'
but who did he really help?
the Repukes.

n/t.

That demonstrates your lack of understanding (whether willful or not) of politics and the legislative process.

That fight is lost.

it can never be removed.

Especially since conference committees never do anything but make bills MORE conservative.

into law it will mean I will be able to get the medical care I need to keep me mobile in my advancing years. Without a hip replacement I could very well find myself a customer of the Scooter Store in a few years. Despite my chronic pain, I'm a very active person and that would be devastating.

they wouldn't dare to strip out of this is "pre-existing conditions."