#Blue Dog whores strip health care bill of last worthwhile feature
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
buyin/
Democrats cede more on health bill, including Medicare buy-in
[Zepp note: the best thing Obama can do with this legislative abortion is
veto it and start over in 2011. Without public option and Medicare buy-
in, all it does is codify a system that is already a proven failure.]
By Stephen C. Webster
Monday, December 14th, 2009 -- 8:20 pm
Share on Facebook Stumble This!
liebermanprayerhands Democrats cede more on health bill, including
Medicare buy inSenate Democrats have ceded yet more crucial components of
President Obama's health reforms, dropping proposals for both a public
option and Medicare buy-in, apparently caving to push-back from
Republicans and centrist Democrats, according to a published report.
"The general consensus was that [...] we shouldn’t make the perfect the
enemy of the good and in order to get all the insurance reforms
accomplished and a number of other good things in the bill,” Senator Evan
Bayh (D-IN) told reporters, according to Bloomberg News. Dropping the
Medicare expansion “would be necessary to get the 60 votes,” he said.
Asked whether Democrats had truly dropped both provisions, Senator Max
Baucus (D-) said, "It's looking like that's the case," according to
Reuters.
Democrats had wanted to see Medicare expanded so that people aged 55 and
over can buy in to the government-run plan, which currently covers senior
citizens aged 65 or older. A public insurance option would have offered
competition to high priced private insurers and allowed citizens to
purchase low-cost policies through government markets.
"This bill, without public option, without Medicare buy-in, is a giant
step forward toward transforming American health care," said Senator Tom
Harkin (D-IA). "That’s reality, there is enough good stuff in that bill
that we should move ahead with it."
Story continues below...
Senator Harkin had formerly been the public option's greatest champion.
“Mark my word — I’m the chairman — it’s going to have a strong public
option,” Harkin said at an Iowa fundraiser, adding that it would pass “by
Christmas.” Harkin replaced Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) as chair of the
Senate Health, Education and Labor Committee.
Even Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL) appeared to back away from the key
provisions, in spite of his threat to filibuster any bill that does not
include a public option.
""I know how difficult it has been to get this far. My colleagues may
have forged a compromise bill that can achieve the 60 votes that will be
needed for its passage but until this bill addresses cost, competition
and accountability in a meaningful way, it will not win my vote," he
said, according to The Hill.
"I want to tell you, we could pass a health care reform bill this week
with more than 60 votes and it would be bipartisan if we just took a few
things out of the bill as it is today," Lieberman told CBS' Bob Schieffer
during a Sunday broadcast.
"Give me the list of things that have to be taken out to pass," Schieffer
prompted.
"From my point of view, no public option," the senator replied. "No
Medicare buy-in. Class act, which will add to our debt in the future, ah,
it doesn't take much more than that. You'd have a great bill left."
Lieberman's threat to filibuster the health reform bill if it included a
public option or Medicare buy-in sent ripples through the Democratic
party, prompting centrist Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) to join him.
It bears pointing out that they are the only two non-Republican members
of the upper chamber that have thus far opposed it -- with their support,
there would be 60 votes in favor of health reform.
With Democrats now agreeing to drop the public option and Medicare buy-
in, it would seem Lieberman's wishes have been granted.
The Senate's bill is designed to provide insurance coverage to nearly 31
million people and includes a mandate for all Americans to buy health
insurance or face a civil penalty. "It would expand the Medicaid health
program for the poor, set up online insurance-purchasing exchanges and
provide subsidies for those who need help buying policies," Bloomberg
added.
--
Slavery: The belief that people can be property
Corporatism: The belief that property can be people.
Milt
wrote:
> http://rawstory.com/2009/12/democrats-cede-health-bill-including-medi...
> buyin/
>
> Democrats cede more on health bill, including Medicare buy-in
>
> [Zepp note: the best thing Obama can do with this legislative abortion is
> veto it and start over in 2011. Without public option and Medicare buy-
> in, all it does is codify a system that is already a proven failure.]
This is the kind of rhetoric that makes progressives also-rans in the
political system. The above is absolute bullshit.
Without a public option, between 35-40 million people will be able to
buy insurance who weren't able to buy it before. Employers will still
have a mandate to provide coverage, and pay about 2/3 of it. Medicaid
will be available to people making up to 300% of the poverty level,
and it will heavily subsidize those making up to 150% of the poverty
level. Insurance companies will no longer be able to refuse to sell a
policy to anyone, and will only be able to cancel a policy for non-
payment. Also, insurance companies will be forced to cover everything
that doctors consider to be medically necessary, and will no longer be
able to refuse to cover any decision a doctor makes, as long as the
medical decision is legitimate, and the Board will decide what's
legitimate, not the insurance company. The bill also creates an
insurance exchange, wherein every employee will get to choose
insurance from every company operating in the area, and no one will be
forced to accept the coverage his employer forces on him. It also
eliminates the antitrust exemption the health insurance industry
currently enjoys, and it requires that 90% of all premiums go to
paying for health services.
There's actually more, but those alone make it insane to even SUGGEST
that the bill be tossed out and started over. I've read and heard
Kucinich's and others' bullshit about "giving the health insurance
companies more customers," but that's a load of bullshit, too, because
those customers have been available all along; if insurance companies
wanted those customers, they would be gladly accepting their $18,000 a
year for premiums. The fact of the matter is, even without a public
option or Medicare expansion, there is a shitload of reform. In fact,
there's so much reform, within a few years insurance companies may
themselves be clamoring for a public insurance system.
Seriously; if we have a choice between throwing out this bill and
starting from scratch or trying for a bill later that only institutes
a public option or an expansion of Medicare, which would seem to be
easier to pass, ESPECIALLY when it's clear the rest of the bill hasn't
worked well enough?
The problem is, progressives have turned the "public option" into a
Holy Grail, make-or-break component, but it's not. To throw out the
entire bill is just insane, and indicative of why most people don't
take progressives seriously, even when they agree with us on most
things.
By the way, you're forgetting something else. The House bill has
already passed, and it has a public option in it. The two bills will
have to be reconciled before it even makes it to Obama's desk. And
they can't filibuster that one; it will only need 51 votes to pass.
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
> On Dec 15, 9:14 am, "5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
> wrote:
>> http://rawstory.com/2009/12/democrats-cede-health-bill-including-
medi...
>> buyin/
>>
>> Democrats cede more on health bill, including Medicare buy-in
>>
>> [Zepp note: the best thing Obama can do with this legislative abortion
>> is veto it and start over in 2011. Without public option and Medicare
>> buy- in, all it does is codify a system that is already a proven
>> failure.]
>
>
> This is the kind of rhetoric that makes progressives also-rans in the
> political system. The above is absolute bullshit.
>
> Without a public option, between 35-40 million people will be able to
> buy insurance who weren't able to buy it before. Employers will still
> have a mandate to provide coverage, and pay about 2/3 of it.
Right. Someone working for minimum wage is going to get health coverage
because he only has to pay 1/3rd of $600 a month. You don't see that
that's about as useless for the working poor -- the people who need
health care reform the most -- as the GOP's endless parade of tax
deductions?
Medicaid
> will be available to people making up to 300% of the poverty level,
They just gave that one away, Milt. Read the story.
and
> it will heavily subsidize those making up to 150% of the poverty level.
> Insurance companies will no longer be able to refuse to sell a policy to
> anyone, and will only be able to cancel a policy for non- payment.
Great. They HAVE to sell to people who can't buy it, right?
Also,
> insurance companies will be forced to cover everything that doctors
> consider to be medically necessary, and will no longer be able to refuse
> to cover any decision a doctor makes, as long as the medical decision is
> legitimate, and the Board will decide what's legitimate, not the
> insurance company.
Don't count on it. That's on the table, too.
The bill also creates an insurance exchange, wherein
> every employee will get to choose insurance from every company operating
> in the area, and no one will be forced to accept the coverage his
> employer forces on him. It also eliminates the antitrust exemption the
> health insurance industry currently enjoys, and it requires that 90% of
> all premiums go to paying for health services.
They already abandoned the anti-trust features. That was last week.
Aren't you following this story, Milt?
>
> There's actually more, but those alone make it insane to even SUGGEST
> that the bill be tossed out and started over. I've read and heard
> Kucinich's and others' bullshit about "giving the health insurance
> companies more customers," but that's a load of bullshit, too, because
> those customers have been available all along; if insurance companies
> wanted those customers, they would be gladly accepting their $18,000 a
> year for premiums. The fact of the matter is, even without a public
> option or Medicare expansion, there is a shitload of reform. In fact,
> there's so much reform, within a few years insurance companies may
> themselves be clamoring for a public insurance system.
Of the six reasons you give, two are no longer even part of it, and two
are in danger, and two are useless.
>
> Seriously; if we have a choice between throwing out this bill and
> starting from scratch or trying for a bill later that only institutes a
> public option or an expansion of Medicare, which would seem to be easier
> to pass, ESPECIALLY when it's clear the rest of the bill hasn't worked
> well enough?
>
You think that will be clear to the public by next November? It took
them years to figure out what a shafting the 2003 Medicare reform was,
and it was so long ago that Republicans like to claim it was a Democratic
plan!
> The problem is, progressives have turned the "public option" into a Holy
> Grail, make-or-break component, but it's not. To throw out the entire
> bill is just insane, and indicative of why most people don't take
> progressives seriously, even when they agree with us on most things.
It IS a make-or-break component. The buy-in was a viable substitute, but
now that's gone, too.
>
> By the way, you're forgetting something else. The House bill has already
> passed, and it has a public option in it. The two bills will have to be
> reconciled before it even makes it to Obama's desk. And they can't
> filibuster that one; it will only need 51 votes to pass.
>
That, at least, is a valid point. It'll be interesting to see who is on
the reconciliation joint committee.
Milt
wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 06:45:52 -0800, Milt wrote:
> > On Dec 15, 9:14 am, "5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
> > wrote:
> >>http://rawstory.com/2009/12/democrats-cede-health-bill-including-
> medi...
> >> buyin/
>
> >> Democrats cede more on health bill, including Medicare buy-in
>
> >> [Zepp note: the best thing Obama can do with this legislative abortion
> >> is veto it and start over in 2011. Without public option and Medicare
> >> buy- in, all it does is codify a system that is already a proven
> >> failure.]
>
> > This is the kind of rhetoric that makes progressives also-rans in the
> > political system. The above is absolute bullshit.
>
> > Without a public option, between 35-40 million people will be able to
> > buy insurance who weren't able to buy it before. Employers will still
> > have a mandate to provide coverage, and pay about 2/3 of it.
>
> Right. Someone working for minimum wage is going to get health coverage
> because he only has to pay 1/3rd of $600 a month.
Go read the bill and get back to me. Anyone making up to 150% of the
poverty wage gets subsidized in full, with partial subsidies going all
the way up to 300% of the poverty wage. And the trust fund to pay the
subsidies comes from the insurance companies. If the company he works
is small enough to not have to provide insurance, they will be
eligible for Medicaid.
I think you'll probably agree that someone making minimum wage or
thereabouts will have to work a lot of hours to go above 300% of
poverty level.
> You don't see that
> that's about as useless for the working poor -- the people who need
> health care reform the most -- as the GOP's endless parade of tax
> deductions?
If what you said what true, yes, it would be. But what you say isn't
true.
>
> Medicaid
>
> > will be available to people making up to 300% of the poverty level,
>
> They just gave that one away, Milt. Read the story.
No they didn't give it away. Jesus Christ. They gave away the MEDICARE
buy-in, which the guy you mention above wouldn't be able to afford,
anyway. Right? Scroll down in the article; it says the bill EXPANDS
Medicaid for the poor.
>
> and
>
> > it will heavily subsidize those making up to 150% of the poverty level.
> > Insurance companies will no longer be able to refuse to sell a policy to
> > anyone, and will only be able to cancel a policy for non- payment.
>
> Great. They HAVE to sell to people who can't buy it, right?
Seriously, go read what's left in the bill and understand what's in
it, because you quite obviously don't.
In fact, the guy you describe above wouldn't have been able to get the
public option or Medicare buy-in, anyway.
Medicaid for those under 300% of poverty level who don't work or don't
have it available at work, 100% subsidies for those making less than
150% of poverty level, and partial subsidies up to 300% of poverty
level. The working poor will receive coverage under this bill. Under
no bill, they will not.
>
> Also,
>
> > insurance companies will be forced to cover everything that doctors
> > consider to be medically necessary, and will no longer be able to refuse
> > to cover any decision a doctor makes, as long as the medical decision is
> > legitimate, and the Board will decide what's legitimate, not the
> > insurance company.
>
> Don't count on it. That's on the table, too.
No, actually, it isn't. Try again. The only aspects of this bill that
are still on the table in the Senate bill are the public option, the
Medicaid buy-in and the antitrust exemption. Two of those three are in
the House bill, which has passed.
>
> The bill also creates an insurance exchange, wherein
>
> > every employee will get to choose insurance from every company operating
> > in the area, and no one will be forced to accept the coverage his
> > employer forces on him. It also eliminates the antitrust exemption the
> > health insurance industry currently enjoys, and it requires that 90% of
> > all premiums go to paying for health services.
>
> They already abandoned the anti-trust features. That was last week.
> Aren't you following this story, Milt?
>
It's in the House bill. They have to be reconciled. The House will
never give that up.
>
>
> > There's actually more, but those alone make it insane to even SUGGEST
> > that the bill be tossed out and started over. I've read and heard
> > Kucinich's and others' bullshit about "giving the health insurance
> > companies more customers," but that's a load of bullshit, too, because
> > those customers have been available all along; if insurance companies
> > wanted those customers, they would be gladly accepting their $18,000 a
> > year for premiums. The fact of the matter is, even without a public
> > option or Medicare expansion, there is a shitload of reform. In fact,
> > there's so much reform, within a few years insurance companies may
> > themselves be clamoring for a public insurance system.
>
> Of the six reasons you give, two are no longer even part of it, and two
> are in danger, and two are useless.
Bullshit. Please learn the difference between Medicare and Medicaid.
The Medicare buy-in is in danger, not Medicaid. The antitrust
exemption repeal may or may not be in the bill in the end, but the
fact of the matter is, both bills still create an insurance exchange,
in which employees choose their own coverage from all coverage
available in their area and it permanently alters the way health
insurance companies do business. In fact, it alters it so much, it's
quite possible the insurance companies themselves will lobby for a
public option at some point, to relieve them of their new burden. They
won't be able to turn people down based on risk.
>
> > Seriously; if we have a choice between throwing out this bill and
> > starting from scratch or trying for a bill later that only institutes a
> > public option or an expansion of Medicare, which would seem to be easier
> > to pass, ESPECIALLY when it's clear the rest of the bill hasn't worked
> > well enough?
>
> You think that will be clear to the public by next November? It took
> them years to figure out what a shafting the 2003 Medicare reform was,
> and it was so long ago that Republicans like to claim it was a Democratic
> plan!
That's another thing; this bill closes the donut hole caused by that
monstrosity.
I'm not worried that much about next November. The GOP is expelling
RINOs about now; what makes you think they'll have their shit together
enough to gain a majority?
In fact, your suggestion to scrap the bill and start over is probably
about the only thing that could conceivably give Republicans a breath
of life. Pass the 80% of the reform everyone agrees on, and the entire
system changes. Of course, I still think there will be either a public
option or a Medicare buy-in in the final, reconciled bill, anyway.
What you're suggesting is that total failure is better, politically
speaking, than massive reform that doesn't go as far as we'd like on
the first try. If that was a valid standard, we wouldn't have Medicare
right now.
>
> > The problem is, progressives have turned the "public option" into a Holy
> > Grail, make-or-break component, but it's not. To throw out the entire
> > bill is just insane, and indicative of why most people don't take
> > progressives seriously, even when they agree with us on most things.
>
> It IS a make-or-break component.
Of overall, complete health insurance reform, yes. But did you really
think we were going to get 100% of what we wanted in one bill, in a
Congress that is newly minted Democrat, some of whom represent
conservative states? And to throw out coverage of up to 40 million
people because the bill isn't perfect is just ludicrous.
> The buy-in was a viable substitute, but
> now that's gone, too.
No it isn't. It may be gone from the Senate bill, but there's the
House bill out there.
>
> > By the way, you're forgetting something else. The House bill has already
> > passed, and it has a public option in it. The two bills will have to be
> > reconciled before it even makes it to Obama's desk. And they can't
> > filibuster that one; it will only need 51 votes to pass.
>
> That, at least, is a valid point. It'll be interesting to see who is on
> the reconciliation joint committee.
>
It's all valid. Even without a public option or medicare buy-in, it
still completely changes the way private insurance does business, it
provides an employer mandate and it provides coverage for working
people. Yes, we need a public insurance system to fill in the gaps and
create even more competition. But it'll be a hell of a lot easier to
pass a public insurance bill on its own, anyway.
Steve
<de...@dead.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 06:45:52 -0800, Milt wrote:
>> By the way, you're forgetting something else. The House bill has already
>> passed, and it has a public option in it. The two bills will have to be
>> reconciled before it even makes it to Obama's desk. And they can't
>> filibuster that one; it will only need 51 votes to pass.
>>
>That, at least, is a valid point. It'll be interesting to see who is on
>the reconciliation joint committee.
>>
Oh come on.. don't tell me you two morons are so stupid as to believe
that the simple combining of the Senate and House bills triggers the
no filibister "reconciliation."
pyjamarama
wrote:
> http://rawstory.com/2009/12/democrats-cede-health-bill-including-medi...
> buyin/
>
> Democrats cede more on health bill, including Medicare buy-in
Waaah!!!
Steve
<de...@dead.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 06:45:52 -0800, Milt wrote:
>> By the way, you're forgetting something else. The House bill has already
>> passed, and it has a public option in it. The two bills will have to be
>> reconciled before it even makes it to Obama's desk. And they can't
>> filibuster that one; it will only need 51 votes to pass.
>>
>That, at least, is a valid point. It'll be interesting to see who is on
>the reconciliation joint committee.
>>
GaryDeWaay
@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, milt....@gmail.com Milt says...
> > [Zepp note: the best thing Obama can do with this legislative abortion is
> > veto it and start over in 2011. Without public option and Medicare buy-
> > in, all it does is codify a system that is already a proven failure.]
>
>
> This is the kind of rhetoric that makes progressives also-rans in the
> political system. The above is absolute bullshit.
>
Howard Dean was just on Olbermann and said pretty much the same thing as
Zepp, and I think he knows whats going on behind the scenes (and doesn't
like what he sees).
OTOH, Ezra Klien was on last night and agreed with Milt in this thread
pretty much verbatim.
I'm not sure what to think at this point.
--
--
So if the global warming scientists are wrong, nothing happens.
But if the global warming deniers are wrong, the planet earth is
destroyed.
Nothing wrong with this picture??
GaryDeWaay
dewaay2...@sio.midco.net GaryDeWaay says...
> In article <27436cf5-5ba4-41a9-b9ff-fdf1dc648db7
> @g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, milt....@gmail.com Milt says...
>
>
> > > [Zepp note: the best thing Obama can do with this legislative abortion is
> > > veto it and start over in 2011. Without public option and Medicare buy-
> > > in, all it does is codify a system that is already a proven failure.]
> >
> >
> > This is the kind of rhetoric that makes progressives also-rans in the
> > political system. The above is absolute bullshit.
> >
>
>
> Howard Dean was just on Olbermann and said pretty much the same thing as
> Zepp,
Correction... Dean wants to send it back to the House for reconciliation
if it was up to him. I just rewatched the interview.
GaryDeWaay
@p19g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>, milt....@gmail.com Milt says...
More on Killing the Bill:
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/12/15/kill-the-senate-bill/
On MSNBC, I was asked what I thought about Howard Dean?s call to kill
the Senate bill.
I agree with him. From what we know about the bill, it is worse than
passing nothing.
When urging its passage today, President Obama said two things that are
manifestly untrue. He says that the bill fulfills all of the promises
he made in his September speech before a joint session of Congress, but
it doesn?t.
What the President said in September:
They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of
coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime.
But while nobody was looking, Harry Reid slipped in an ?arbitrary cap on
the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year?:
A loophole in the Senate health care bill would let insurers place
annual dollar limits on medical care for people struggling with costly
illnesses such as cancer, prompting a rebuke from patient advocates.
The President Obama also said that ?what ever ideas exist in terms of
bending the cost curve and starting to reduce cost for families,
businesses, and government, those elements are in this bill.? Not true
either.
As we speak, Frank Lautenberg and Kay Hagan are destroying Byron
Dorgan?s drug reimportation amendment by making a bunch of bullshit
claims about drug safety. The danger of transferring drugs from a CVS
warehouse in Canada to a CVS store in the United States? Zip. But
they?re pretending that everything is coming from Chinese counterfeiters
to keep something that could save the government $19 billion and the
public over $100 billion from passing so the White House deal with
PhRMA can be upheld. The Dorgan amendment could have been a way of
honestly bending the cost curve, something the President campaigned on.
Instead, the ?bend? comes from taxing middle class insurance benefits,
which makes them worse. According to the CSM report released last week:
In reaction to the tax, many employers would reduce the scope of their
health benefits. The resulting reductions in covered services and/or
increases in employee cost-sharing requirements would induce workers to
use fewer services. Because plan benefit values would generally increase
faster than the threshold amounts for defining high-cost plans (which
are indexed by the CPI plus 1 percent), over time additional plans would
become subject to the excise tax, prompting those employers to scale
back coverage.
The cost curve gets ?bent? by making the insurance you have through your
employer worse. Remember Harry and Louise? They killed health care
reform during the Clinton administration by making this claim. Well, now
it?s actually going to be true.
Congratulations, President Obama. This is the ?win? you?ve been working
toward. Joe Lieberman kicks the entire Democratic party in the teeth
and you thank him for it. He writes the bill, and you go on national TV
and have to misrepresent what?s in it in order to find anything good to
say.
And Ben Nelson isn?t even done working his Bart Stupak magic.
If I wanted Joe Lieberman writing a health care bill, I would?ve voted
for John McCain.
Howard Dean is right. Kill LieberCare.
Milt
> In article <27436cf5-5ba4-41a9-b9ff-fdf1dc648db7
>
> > > [Zepp note: the best thing Obama can do with this legislative abortion is
> > > veto it and start over in 2011. Without public option and Medicare buy-
> > > in, all it does is codify a system that is already a proven failure.]
>
> > This is the kind of rhetoric that makes progressives also-rans in the
> > political system. The above is absolute bullshit.
>
> Howard Dean was just on Olbermann and said pretty much the same thing as
> Zepp, and I think he knows whats going on behind the scenes (and doesn't
> like what he sees).
>
> OTOH, Ezra Klien was on last night and agreed with Milt in this thread
> pretty much verbatim.
>
> I'm not sure what to think at this point.
Well, think what you want, of course, but to just scrap this whole
thing at this point is just madness, and as much as I like Howard
Dean, it is possible for him to be wrong about things. Right now, we
have 50 million uninsured, and we're losin 45k per year because they
don't have insurance. How can we be all about ending the two wars and
be all in favor of scrapping this for at least another 2-3 years, when
the bill without the public option still covers at least 35 million
people, especially the poor and working classes, and would cut the 45k
per year down to about 10k per year.
The mistake is in thinking that the public option or expanded Medicare
is the linchpin in this whole thing, and there is nothing else in the
bill, and there's nothing else to say but that such an idea is false
on its face. Insurance companies will have to change the way they do
business, and they will no longer be able to double or triple profits
every few years. They will have to treat people like humans rather
than cattle and they'll no longer be able to make money by denying
coverage. In fact, it's entirely possible, after a few years of having
to take on so much extra "risk," they will be clamoring for a public
option, as well. You go to the doctor, the doctor makes medical
systems, and they pay the bill. The medical system will save tens of
billions, because they won't have to have a huge bureaucracy
processing paper, and even insurance companies can save money, because
they won't have to have so many claims adjusters and they can get rid
of those people who routinely cancel policies or procedures due to
cold sores or acne.
It's just nuts to even suggest tossing out 80% of reform and holding
out for 100%; I don't care who says it.
>
> --
> --
> So if the global warming scientists are wrong, nothing happens.
>
> But if the global warming deniers are wrong, the planet earth is
> destroyed.
>
> Nothing wrong with this picture??
I like that sig. It's something that's always fascinated me. If we act
on global warming, and adopt renewable energy technologies and stop
burning fossil fuels, we end up with cleaner air and less dependence
on the most unstable region on the planet. I fail to see the downside
to this...
Milt
> In article <MPG.2592322a77ceaac4989...@news.astraweb.com>,
> dewaay2spike...@sio.midco.net GaryDeWaay says...
>
>
>
> > In article <27436cf5-5ba4-41a9-b9ff-fdf1dc648db7
> > @g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, milt.sh...@gmail.com Milt says...
>
> > > > [Zepp note: the best thing Obama can do with this legislative abortion is
> > > > veto it and start over in 2011. Without public option and Medicare buy-
> > > > in, all it does is codify a system that is already a proven failure.]
>
> > > This is the kind of rhetoric that makes progressives also-rans in the
> > > political system. The above is absolute bullshit.
>
> > Howard Dean was just on Olbermann and said pretty much the same thing as
> > Zepp,
>
> Correction... Dean wants to send it back to the House for reconciliation
> if it was up to him. I just rewatched the interview.
Well, I wish that was how it worked. Basically, what will happen is,
the Senate passes it without a public option or Medicare buy-in, and
they House and Senate form a conference committee to hash out the
details and merge the bills. They then have to put something together
that will pass both, although filibuster rules change a little in the
Senate after the conference report is issued, and they won't
necessarily need 60 votes; Reid could order the bill to the floor, and
it could be passed within a few days.
You know, I warned everyone that 60 votes was not as magic a number as
many Democrats think. But here's the deal; once this bill passes, even
if it's without a public option, many people will be enrolling in
health insurance plans for the first time in years, at about the time
they vote next year. I think we should go for 62 next year and 66-68
in 2012. THAT is how you build a "filibuster-proof" majority.
I have to say, I'm glad Dean isn't completely daft on this. :)
Milt
> In article <d58378dc-a3ba-41b6-b03a-775f9ea46970
>
> More on Killing the Bill:
This whole article is insane. Let me count the ways.
>
> http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/12/15/kill-the-senate-bill/
>
> On MSNBC, I was asked what I thought about Howard Dean?s call to kill
> the Senate bill.
>
> I agree with him. From what we know about the bill, it is worse than
> passing nothing.
So, keeping the status quo is preferable to covering 35 million
additional people and changing the way insurance companies do
business? Is she joking?
The bill, without the public option, would force insurance companies
to cover everyone. They can no longer deny claims based on anything
short of provable fraud. They will no longer be able to drop people
who actually get health care. They will have to spend almost all
premium money on health care. It will standardize coverage, procedures
and paperwork, saving hospitals tens of billions of dollars. There
will no longer be coverage limits.
The bill, without a public option, will require most employers to
provide coverage and pay 2/3 of the premium. Those who make less than
150% of the poverty level will be subsidized in full, but those making
up to 300% of poverty level will be reimbursed partially. Medicaid
will be expanded to include everyone without a job, or whose employer
doesn't fall under the mandate.
The bill also creates an insurance exchange, wherein employees make
their own insurance coverage decisions, instead of being forced into a
plan by a plan administrator where they work.
Yet, she thinks keeping the status quo for a few more years is
preferable, because she's obsessed with the "public option"?
Yes, I think a public insurance option is necessary. I think expanding
Medicare is the best option, but it wasn't going to happen for a few
years, anyway. Pass the rest of this, and work on expanding Medicare
by itself starting next year. But to toss the rest of it away
completely, just because it doesn't go far enough? That's like driving
from New York to Salt Lake City, and then trying to drive back because
you don't have enough money for gas to San Francisco.
> When urging its passage today, President Obama said two things that are
> manifestly untrue. He says that the bill fulfills all of the promises
> he made in his September speech before a joint session of Congress, but
> it doesn?t.
Yes, actually, it does.
>
> What the President said in September:
>
> They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of
> coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime.
>
> But while nobody was looking, Harry Reid slipped in an ?arbitrary cap on
> the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year?:
>
> A loophole in the Senate health care bill would let insurers place
> annual dollar limits on medical care for people struggling with costly
> illnesses such as cancer, prompting a rebuke from patient advocates.
Yes, but such a loophole is not in the House bill, and can be removed
in conference. It's also something that can be dealt with later.
Here's a question for Jane; if there was a "robust public option" in
the bill, but that loophole was there, would she be as adamant about
killing it?
>
> The President Obama also said that ?what ever ideas exist in terms of
> bending the cost curve and starting to reduce cost for families,
> businesses, and government, those elements are in this bill.? Not true
> either.
>
> As we speak, Frank Lautenberg and Kay Hagan are destroying Byron
> Dorgan?s drug reimportation amendment by making a bunch of bullshit
> claims about drug safety. The danger of transferring drugs from a CVS
> warehouse in Canada to a CVS store in the United States? Zip. But
> they?re pretending that everything is coming from Chinese counterfeiters
> to keep something that could save the government $19 billion and the
> public over $100 billion from passing so the White House deal with
> PhRMA can be upheld. The Dorgan amendment could have been a way of
> honestly bending the cost curve, something the President campaigned on.
This is a red herring. This bill is meant to get a handle on the
insurance system. The problem of drug prices is a different issue for
a different day. But to even SUGGEST that reimportation of drugs from
Canada would have more of an effect on reducing costs for everyone
than actually covering 35 million more people with insurance is insane
on its face.
>
> Instead, the ?bend? comes from taxing middle class insurance benefits,
> which makes them worse. According to the CSM report released last week:
>
> In reaction to the tax, many employers would reduce the scope of their
> health benefits. The resulting reductions in covered services and/or
> increases in employee cost-sharing requirements would induce workers to
> use fewer services. Because plan benefit values would generally increase
> faster than the threshold amounts for defining high-cost plans (which
> are indexed by the CPI plus 1 percent), over time additional plans would
> become subject to the excise tax, prompting those employers to scale
> back coverage.
>
> The cost curve gets ?bent? by making the insurance you have through your
> employer worse. Remember Harry and Louise? They killed health care
> reform during the Clinton administration by making this claim. Well, now
> it?s actually going to be true.
Even if the above was credible (and the link to the alleged report is
broken, so I can't check the source), it's nitpicky at best. What she
is suggesting is that we kill health insurance reform altogether right
now (because we can't get a bill to the president's desk without the
Senate passing one), which would have a hell of a lot greater effect
on the cost curve than passing the Senate bill and reconciling the two
in conference.
>
> Congratulations, President Obama. This is the ?win? you?ve been working
> toward. Joe Lieberman kicks the entire Democratic party in the teeth
> and you thank him for it. He writes the bill, and you go on national TV
> and have to misrepresent what?s in it in order to find anything good to
> say.
>
> And Ben Nelson isn?t even done working his Bart Stupak magic.
>
> If I wanted Joe Lieberman writing a health care bill, I would?ve voted
> for John McCain.
>
> Howard Dean is right. Kill LieberCare.
They're just wrong. I simply can't believe people who call themselves
"progressive" would want to kill a bill that covers 35 million
additional people because it doesn't cover 40 million. And to blame
Obama for this is insane.
Sorry, but the progressive side has its wingnuts, too.
Steve
wrote:
>On Dec 16, 2:10�am, GaryDeWaay <dewaay2spike...@sio.midco.net> wrote:
>> In article <MPG.2592322a77ceaac4989...@news.astraweb.com>,
>> dewaay2spike...@sio.midco.net GaryDeWaay �says...
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article <27436cf5-5ba4-41a9-b9ff-fdf1dc648db7
>> > @g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, milt.sh...@gmail.com Milt �says...
>>
>> > > > [Zepp note: the best thing Obama can do with this legislative abortion is
>> > > > veto it and start over in 2011. �Without public option and Medicare buy-
>> > > > in, all it does is codify a system that is already a proven failure.]
>>
>> > > This is the kind of rhetoric that makes progressives also-rans in the
>> > > political system. The above is absolute bullshit.
>>
>> > Howard Dean was just on Olbermann and said pretty much the same thing as
>> > Zepp,
>>
>> Correction... Dean wants to send it back to the House for reconciliation
>> if it was up to him. �I just rewatched the interview.
>
>Well, I wish that was how it worked. Basically, what will happen is,
>the Senate passes it without a public option or Medicare buy-in, and
>they House and Senate form a conference committee to hash out the
>details and merge the bills. They then have to put something together
>that will pass both, although filibuster rules change a little in the
>Senate after the conference report is issued, and they won't
>necessarily need 60 votes; Reid could order the bill to the floor, and
>it could be passed within a few days.
Bullshit... The only way it won't need 60 votes is if they go the big
nuclear reconciliation route, you ignorant clown...
GaryDeWaay
294f74...@z7g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, milt....@gmail.com Milt
says...
> On Dec 16, 2:18 am, GaryDeWaay <dewaay2spike...@sio.midco.net> wrote:
> > In article <d58378dc-a3ba-41b6-b03a-775f9ea46970
> > @p19g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>, milt.sh...@gmail.com Milt says...
> >
> > More on Killing the Bill:
>
> This whole article is insane. Let me count the ways.
> >
> > http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/12/15/kill-the-senate-bill/
> >
> > On MSNBC, I was asked what I thought about Howard Dean?s call to kill
> > the Senate bill.
> >
> > I agree with him. From what we know about the bill, it is worse than
> > passing nothing.
>
> So, keeping the status quo is preferable to covering 35 million
> additional people and changing the way insurance companies do
> business? Is she joking?
>
> The bill, without the public option, would force insurance companies
> to cover everyone.
And also force everyone to buy insurance.. without any option to keep
the insurance companies prices down. Thats my biggest issue with this.
Ya think the insurance comapnies aren't HAPPY with this? They get
subsidized to cover the poor people, and they get the government FORCING
the middle class to pay them too.
Yippee!! Happy times for the insurance campanies!! Maybe I should go
buy insurance stocks to benefit from this?
They can no longer deny claims based on anything
> short of provable fraud. They will no longer be able to drop people
> who actually get health care. They will have to spend almost all
> premium money on health care.
How so? Dean was mentioning they can take 27% straight off the top.
It will standardize coverage, procedures
> and paperwork, saving hospitals tens of billions of dollars.
How so?
Look... I'm obviously aren't following this as closely as you are, but I
am following this closer than prolly 90% of everyone else, and I still
don't know these prolly simple answers, and have my reservations also.
If all I am going to get out of this is being forced to buy insurance
(because I am almost certainly not elgible for any subsidies you
mention) I sure as hell am not going to be happy with it.
My TOTAL doctor bills over the last 20 years has been less than $500. I
am not making this up.
I'm sure the insurance companies had wished I had been forced to pay
them premiums for that time. What would that have been, even at $1000 a
year I woulda paid %20,000 for something that cost me $500 out of
pocket.
I don't overeat, I have prolly less than 10% body fat, I exercise
regularly, and have never smoked. Why should I be FORCED to pay for the
people that are slugs? Plus its the double whammy... more of my taxes
go to cover this and I am paying more out of pocket TOO??
And yes, maybe with more young/healthy people paying in, prices might go
down, but when has that actually happened? I sure as fuck don't trust
any company to voluntarily lower their prices simply because they are
getting more premiums... government subsidized or not. Thats why _I_
think the public option is so fucking important!
I just don't want to be sold a bill of goods here...
Milt
> In article <0b150a3d-f79d-4ac5-8463-
> 294f744dc...@z7g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, milt.sh...@gmail.com Milt
> says...
>
>
>
> > On Dec 16, 2:18 am, GaryDeWaay <dewaay2spike...@sio.midco.net> wrote:
> > > In article <d58378dc-a3ba-41b6-b03a-775f9ea46970
> > > @p19g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>, milt.sh...@gmail.com Milt says...
>
> > > More on Killing the Bill:
>
> > This whole article is insane. Let me count the ways.
>
> > >http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/12/15/kill-the-senate-bill/
>
> > > On MSNBC, I was asked what I thought about Howard Dean?s call to kill
> > > the Senate bill.
>
> > > I agree with him. From what we know about the bill, it is worse than
> > > passing nothing.
>
> > So, keeping the status quo is preferable to covering 35 million
> > additional people and changing the way insurance companies do
> > business? Is she joking?
>
> > The bill, without the public option, would force insurance companies
> > to cover everyone.
>
> And also force everyone to buy insurance.. without any option to keep
> the insurance companies prices down. Thats my biggest issue with this.
Everyone buying insurance will keep the insurance companies prices
down.
The status quo is this:
Insurance companies only sell policies to healthy people, and when the
healthy get sick, they dump them. Bills don't get paid, because too
many people are uninsured and insurance companies try to screw
themselves out of paying for procedures on those who are covered. So,
hospitals raise prices to make up the shortfall, and insurance
companies raise prices under the guise of increased costs to them,
even though they will do their best to dump anyone who might get sick
and will try not to pay any bills.
The more bills get paid, the less hyperinflation there is in the
health care industry, and the less cover insurance companies have for
raising premiums.
>
> Ya think the insurance comapnies aren't HAPPY with this? They get
> subsidized to cover the poor people, and they get the government FORCING
> the middle class to pay them too.
Oh, don't be silly. If they wanted more customers the numbers of
insured wouldn't be increasing by 3-4 million per year.
They don't WANT anyone who might cost them money. Yeah, they'll get
more people paying them premiums, but if that was enough to make them
a profit, then please explain why they're not selling them policies
now. It's because they would rather take $1000 a month from a family
man whose entire family is healthy and who only goes to the doctor for
a check up once a year. Close to HALF of the people who will now be
insured were turned down for insurance in the past because they have a
"chronic condition." Yes, insurance companies will get their $1000 a
month, but they'll have to pay their medical bills, too.
>
> Yippee!! Happy times for the insurance campanies!! Maybe I should go
> buy insurance stocks to benefit from this?
Not a good time for that.
>
> They can no longer deny claims based on anything
>
> > short of provable fraud. They will no longer be able to drop people
> > who actually get health care. They will have to spend almost all
> > premium money on health care.
>
> How so? Dean was mentioning they can take 27% straight off the top.
Only if they kill the Senate bill and we end up with nothing. Al
Franken proposed an amendment that required 90% of premiums go to
health care delivery. The CBO shot down the number, but suggested that
such a requirement made sense, so there are several amendments in the
works that will adjust it down to about 80-85%.
See, that's the problem with all of this hemming and hawing; there is
no actual final bill yet. Everyone's getting crazy over something that
isn't even in its final form.
>
> It will standardize coverage, procedures
>
> > and paperwork, saving hospitals tens of billions of dollars.
>
> How so?
Look, about 80% of both House and Senate bills are identical, and both
bills contain huge provisions to create a minimum level of care that
will be covered and standardize procedures for paperwork and billing.
>
> Look... I'm obviously aren't following this as closely as you are, but I
> am following this closer than prolly 90% of everyone else, and I still
> don't know these prolly simple answers, and have my reservations also.
>
> If all I am going to get out of this is being forced to buy insurance
> (because I am almost certainly not elgible for any subsidies you
> mention) I sure as hell am not going to be happy with it.
>
> My TOTAL doctor bills over the last 20 years has been less than $500. I
> am not making this up.
Mine (for me) have been less than that. But the fact of the matter is,
you could shake hand with someone who doesn't wash his hands, or be
coughed on by the guy behind you at the grocery store and contract
something. Or you can be shot by an NRA gun whack. That's the problem
with health care; you have no way of knowing when or where you'll need
it. And if you "choose" not to carry insurance, then everyone else
ends up paying your bills for you. it has to be mandatory.
That said, I do think there has to be a public insurance option. I
also don't think the insurance requirement is enforceable without it.
I just don't think we should throw everything else out if we don't get
it. We can pass the rest of this, get most everyone covered, and work
on just expanding Medicare, which is the best idea, anyway.
>
> I'm sure the insurance companies had wished I had been forced to pay
> them premiums for that time. What would that have been, even at $1000 a
> year I woulda paid %20,000 for something that cost me $500 out of
> pocket.
Yes, of course you could contract meningitis from the McDonald's
hamburger you eat tomorrow, because some kid who isn't insured
contracted it and can't afford to take a day off or go to the doctor.
Except for those occasional lucky souls who live their entire life
disease- and injury-free and then die in their sleep, the vast
majority of people will receive health care at some point. It's not a
choice. You and I have been lucky. But trust me; if someone on the
highway plows into you, their car insurance may not cover all your
medical bills.
It's a crap shoot, to be sure. But about half the people who go into
bankruptcy court these days do so because of medical bills.
>
> I don't overeat, I have prolly less than 10% body fat, I exercise
> regularly, and have never smoked. Why should I be FORCED to pay for the
> people that are slugs? Plus its the double whammy... more of my taxes
> go to cover this and I am paying more out of pocket TOO??
You already pay for them. Read my blog. I put up case studies the
other day of healthy people who suddenly contracted something, and now
have to hold fundraisers to pay their medical bills. One of them is a
14 year old athlete. My business partner's husband is about my age,
and he was like you, in near perfect health, when an aneurysm in his
brain burst. He's alive, but he'll be undergoing physical therapy for
the rest of his life. Thankfully, they have some really good
insurance, because the prescriptions also run a couple of grand a
month.
The problem with our system is that too many people get "free" health
care, and others who want to pay for it aren't allowed to. The goal of
health insurance reform is that no one gets free care, and everyone
pays. Otherwise, it doesn't work. Now, if someone wants to only pay
for a catastrophic policy, and prove they have the cash on hand to pay
the deductibles, in the form of an escrow account, no problem. but
just as everyone has to demonstrate financial responsibility in order
to drive a car, everyone should be able to cover their health care
bills, as well.
>
> And yes, maybe with more young/healthy people paying in, prices might go
> down, but when has that actually happened?
Like i said, the reasons costs keep going up is because so many people
don't pay their bills. More bills will be paid, which will stabilize
prices, which will remove the cover under which insurance companies
have been raising premiums with impunity for years. Prices will
stabilize at first, and eventually will probably go down, because more
people will be able to get treatment before conditions become
emergencies.
> I sure as fuck don't trust
> any company to voluntarily lower their prices simply because they are
> getting more premiums... government subsidized or not. Thats why _I_
> think the public option is so fucking important!
>
> I just don't want to be sold a bill of goods here...
Like I said; there are two ways to control prices; getting more people
covered, so that more bills get paid, and increasing competition.
These bills, even without a public insurance component, do that. To
toss them out is stupid, pure and simple. And to rely on the House
bill alone is also stupid, because in its current form, it can never
pass the Senate. Pass the Senate bill and hash out the differences in
the Conference Committee. Once the conference report is passed, then
the conference bill is sent straight to the floor, where the
Republicans can't fuck it up.
GaryDeWaay
@g12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, milt....@gmail.com Milt says...
So I wonder where Dean came up with the 27% number... he's never struck
me as a liar.
>
> See, that's the problem with all of this hemming and hawing; there is
> no actual final bill yet. Everyone's getting crazy over something that
> isn't even in its final form.
I thought we were in a rush to get this Senate bill signed before
Xmas... if its a bill that doesn't insist that at least 85% of premiums
go to coverage, and there is no form of public option, why shouldn't
this get killed and let the reconciliation process give us the good
stuff with 51 votes?
Can't we kill the bill and accomplish this more simply in
reconciliation?
I'd be fine with this as long as it were actually affordable. I simply
don't think it will happen without any sort of public option, or at
least a requirement our premiums pay for coverage (instead of CEO
billion dollar salaries).
I don't trust Dems to get this right... especially if all they are doing
is passing something/anything simply so they can feel like they
accomplished something.
>
> >
> > And yes, maybe with more young/healthy people paying in, prices might go
> > down, but when has that actually happened?
>
> Like i said, the reasons costs keep going up is because so many people
> don't pay their bills. More bills will be paid, which will stabilize
> prices, which will remove the cover under which insurance companies
> have been raising premiums with impunity for years. Prices will
> stabilize at first, and eventually will probably go down, because more
> people will be able to get treatment before conditions become
> emergencies.
>
> > I sure as fuck don't trust
> > any company to voluntarily lower their prices simply because they are
> > getting more premiums... government subsidized or not. Thats why _I_
> > think the public option is so fucking important!
> >
> > I just don't want to be sold a bill of goods here...
>
> Like I said; there are two ways to control prices; getting more people
> covered, so that more bills get paid, and increasing competition.
> These bills, even without a public insurance component, do that. To
> toss them out is stupid, pure and simple.
I still don't think I want a handshake that the insurance industry is
going to do anything besides suck every penny out of this into their own
pockets.
And to rely on the House
> bill alone is also stupid, because in its current form, it can never
> pass the Senate.
Reconciliation only needs 51 votes.
Pass the Senate bill and hash out the differences in
> the Conference Committee. Once the conference report is passed, then
> the conference bill is sent straight to the floor, where the
> Republicans can't fuck it up.
>
If this hurts the insurance industry one slim dime Pubs will fight it to
its death.
Milt
> In article <d16dae62-8672-456d-b919-5e52138b5f05
> @g12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, milt.sh...@gmail.com Milt says...
mistaken? With all the play-by-play commentary in the media, and
everyone saying all kinds of different shit, and with no one having
access to the actual bill as it stands right now, it's not surprising
that people are making errors.
>
> > See, that's the problem with all of this hemming and hawing; there is
> > no actual final bill yet. Everyone's getting crazy over something that
> > isn't even in its final form.
>
> I thought we were in a rush to get this Senate bill signed before
> Xmas... if its a bill that doesn't insist that at least 85% of premiums
> go to coverage, and there is no form of public option, why shouldn't
> this get killed and let the reconciliation process give us the good
> stuff with 51 votes?
Why Progressives Are Batshit Crazy to Oppose the Senate Bill
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/why-progressives-are-batshit-crazy-to.html
Check it out. It's Nate Silver crunching the numbers. And the numbers
are from the CBO, not just made up out of thin air.
We can't reconcile a bill that doesn't pass the Senate. You need two
bills to form a Conference Committee. And there is no way the House
version of the bill would pass the Senate, anyway.
First of all, you don't have a choice, except between Democrats and
Republicans. Second of all, there are at least 54-55 Democrats in
the Senate who are for this bill including the Medicare expansion, and
at least 51-53 who will support the public option. Therefore, to lump
all of "THE Democrats" together isn't fair or accurate. It's the
Senate rules that are the problem, not any particular problem.
Progressives thought 60 votes constituted some magical plateau -- as
if we were just like the Republicans and had expelled all the "DINOS."
Like it or not, many of the Senators who gave us that 60-vote majority
come from red states, like South Dakota, Nebraska and Montana. Perhaps
we should pass what we can now, and shoot to get 66-67 Senators in the
next two elections?
>
>
>
> > > And yes, maybe with more young/healthy people paying in, prices might go
> > > down, but when has that actually happened?
>
> > Like i said, the reasons costs keep going up is because so many people
> > don't pay their bills. More bills will be paid, which will stabilize
> > prices, which will remove the cover under which insurance companies
> > have been raising premiums with impunity for years. Prices will
> > stabilize at first, and eventually will probably go down, because more
> > people will be able to get treatment before conditions become
> > emergencies.
>
> > > I sure as fuck don't trust
> > > any company to voluntarily lower their prices simply because they are
> > > getting more premiums... government subsidized or not. Thats why _I_
> > > think the public option is so fucking important!
>
> > > I just don't want to be sold a bill of goods here...
>
> > Like
>
> ...
>
> read more »
Milt
> In article <d16dae62-8672-456d-b919-5e52138b5f05
> @g12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, milt.sh...@gmail.com Milt says...
>
> > > I just don't want to be sold a bill of goods here...
>
> > Like I said; there are two ways to control prices; getting more people
> > covered, so that more bills get paid, and increasing competition.
> > These bills, even without a public insurance component, do that. To
> > toss them out is stupid, pure and simple.
>
> I still don't think I want a handshake that the insurance industry is
> going to do anything besides suck every penny out of this into their own
> pockets.
>
> And to rely on the House
>
> > bill alone is also stupid, because in its current form, it can never
> > pass the Senate.
>
> Reconciliation only needs 51 votes.
It would actually only need 50, since Biden would break a tie. But
read my column on reconciliation; it's not that simple. A little
pitfall called the Byrd rule could end up gutting most of the reform
from the bill.
>
> Pass the Senate bill and hash out the differences in
>
> > the Conference Committee. Once the conference report is passed, then
> > the conference bill is sent straight to the floor, where the
> > Republicans can't fuck it up.
>
> If this hurts the insurance industry one slim dime Pubs will fight it to
> its death.
>
They haven't been doing that so far? ONE Republican vote in the House
and probably ZERO Republican votes in the Senate? Around 200
Republican amendments in the Senate.
The insurance wants this bill killed, period. They're not targeting
the public option; they've targeted the whole thing since the
beginning. Besides Olympia Snowe, name one Republican who said they
would vote for this bill with the public option stripped out.
Steve
wrote:
>On Dec 16, 1:10�pm, GaryDeWaay <dewaay2spike...@sio.midco.net> wrote:
>> In article <d16dae62-8672-456d-b919-5e52138b5f05
>> @g12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, milt.sh...@gmail.com Milt �says...
><continued>
>>
>> > > I just don't want to be sold a bill of goods here...
>>
>> > Like I said; there are two ways to control prices; getting more people
>> > covered, so that more bills get paid, and increasing competition.
>> > These bills, even without a public insurance component, do that. To
>> > toss them out is stupid, pure and simple.
>>
>> I still don't think I want a handshake that the insurance industry is
>> going to do anything besides suck every penny out of this into their own
>> pockets. �
>>
>> �And to rely on the House
>>
>> > bill alone is also stupid, because in its current form, it can never
>> > pass the Senate.
>>
>> Reconciliation only needs 51 votes.
>
>It would actually only need 50, since Biden would break a tie
By the way, you're forgetting something else. The House bill has
already passed, and it has a public option in it. The two bills will
have to be reconciled before it even makes it to Obama's desk. And
they can't filibuster that one; it will only need 51 votes to pass.
--Milt Shook Tue, 15 Dec 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/b81764c6712aa6b5?
Canyon Note: The process of combining the house and Senate Bills
is very different from the no-fillibuster reconciliation process.
Not Sure
wrote:
> http://rawstory.com/2009/12/democrats-cede-health-bill-including-medi...
> buyin/
>
> Democrats cede more on health bill, including Medicare buy-in
>
> [Zepp note: the best thing Obama can do with this legislative abortion is
> veto it and start over in 2011. Without public option and Medicare buy-
> in, all it does is codify a system that is already a proven failure.]
ROFL, the Democrats have the House, Presidency, and a supermajority in
the Senate, and they still can't get anything done. Well, other than
guaranteeing a Republican takeover next year. Fucking hilarious.
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
> On Dec 15, 6:14 am, "5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
> wrote:
>> http://rawstory.com/2009/12/democrats-cede-health-bill-including-
medi...
>> buyin/
>>
>> Democrats cede more on health bill, including Medicare buy-in
>>
>> [Zepp note: the best thing Obama can do with this legislative abortion
>> is veto it and start over in 2011. Without public option and Medicare
>> buy- in, all it does is codify a system that is already a proven
>> failure.]
>
> ROFL, the Democrats have the House, Presidency, and a supermajority in
> the Senate, and they still can't get anything done. Well, other than
> guaranteeing a Republican takeover next year. Fucking hilarious.
Really? Tell us what the Republicans have to offer us.
Milt
wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:20:13 -0800, Not Sure wrote:
> > On Dec 15, 6:14 am, "5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
> > wrote:
> >>http://rawstory.com/2009/12/democrats-cede-health-bill-including-
> medi...
> >> buyin/
>
> >> Democrats cede more on health bill, including Medicare buy-in
>
> >> [Zepp note: the best thing Obama can do with this legislative abortion
> >> is veto it and start over in 2011. Without public option and Medicare
> >> buy- in, all it does is codify a system that is already a proven
> >> failure.]
>
> > ROFL, the Democrats have the House, Presidency, and a supermajority in
> > the Senate, and they still can't get anything done. Well, other than
> > guaranteeing a Republican takeover next year. Fucking hilarious.
>
> Really? Tell us what the Republicans have to offer us.
>
>
bill passed very soon, even if it's not all anyone wants. That means,
by next November, tens of millions of people who haven't been able to
get insurance before will be signing up for it. Also, the economy
will be much improved, and Iraq will be all but over. If Obama's surge
strategy in Afghanistan actually works (and you KNOW I hope it does),
the casualties will slow to a mere trickle. And the face of the GOP is
Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and Sister Sarah, with their "leader" being
Michael Steele. And I wonder how many people they think they're
attracting when they kick out the "RINOs"?
That doesn't seem to be a recipe for success. But hell; they're
nothing if not delusional.
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
I hope you and Nate Silver are right. I'm going to hold fire for right
now and see what comes out of the joint committee meetings. But the
Republicans are intractable, and the Democrats, for some reason, keep
trying to appease them.
Not Sure
> On Dec 16, 10:05 pm, "5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:20:13 -0800, Not Sure wrote:
> > > On Dec 15, 6:14 am, "5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >>http://rawstory.com/2009/12/democrats-cede-health-bill-including-
> > medi...
> > >> buyin/
>
> > >> Democrats cede more on health bill, including Medicare buy-in
>
> > >> [Zepp note: the best thing Obama can do with this legislative abortion
> > >> is veto it and start over in 2011. Without public option and Medicare
> > >> buy- in, all it does is codify a system that is already a proven
> > >> failure.]
>
> > > ROFL, the Democrats have the House, Presidency, and a supermajority in
> > > the Senate, and they still can't get anything done. Well, other than
> > > guaranteeing a Republican takeover next year. Fucking hilarious.
>
> > Really? Tell us what the Republicans have to offer us.
>
> I hate to break it to him, but there WILL be a major health reform
> bill passed very soon, even if it's not all anyone wants. That means,
> by next November, tens of millions of people who haven't been able to
> get insurance before will be signing up for it.
No one is prevented from getting insurance now, they just have to pay
for it. I know that rankles dipshits like you who want taxpayers to
foot the bill for societal leeches, but it's the truth.
Also, the economy
> will be much improved, and Iraq will be all but over. If Obama's surge
> strategy in Afghanistan actually works (and you KNOW I hope it does),
> the casualties will slow to a mere trickle. And the face of the GOP is
> Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and Sister Sarah, with their "leader" being
> Michael Steele. And I wonder how many people they think they're
> attracting when they kick out the "RINOs"?
>
> That doesn't seem to be a recipe for success. But hell; they're
> nothing if not delusional.
Coming from the "mind" that dreamed up the above fantasy, that's
especially hilarious. Continue deluding yourself, dipshit.
> > >> that property can be people.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Milt
for Lieberman, who knows he's about to lose in 2012, and is probably
lining up a lobbying job with Aetna, this is mostly about blue
Senators representing red states, and finding a balance. To their
credit, none of them are against all health care; they just seem to be
having a problem explaining a public insurance plan to their
constituents.
By the way, Rockefeller ripped Howard Dean a new one, saying roughly
the same thing Nate Silver and I have been saying. We need to get a
goddamn bill through the Senate, with or without a public option, and
then negotiate what we can through the Conference Committee. If we can
get a conference bill, then the Republicans will be forced to
filibuster it, but only filibuster it. Of course, if they filibuster
it, the bill's not dead, it just goes back to conference. This is
going to happen, and they're going to pay for it in the next few
election cycles. When the economy was in the shitter, all they did was
block everything proposed to repair it. People remember that shit when
they go to the polls.
Usually, you can expect the party not in the WH to win 20-30 seats in
the House, and 3-5 in the Senate. They'll be lucky to break even, and
they could lose even more than they've already lost. They have no
money, and they have no candidates, with only a few months to go
before they have to start a campaign.
Gary DeWaay
bd6c4e...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, milt....@gmail.com says...
> Why Progressives Are Batshit Crazy to Oppose the Senate Bill
> http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/why-progressives-are-batshit-crazy-to.html
>
> Check it out. It's Nate Silver crunching the numbers. And the numbers
> are from the CBO, not just made up out of thin air.
> >
>
That looks like the best of two evils to me... either 9K or 19K spent on
health insurance when you only make 54K?
9k is still the 2nd biggest bill of the family... maybe even the first
in low housing markets.
Is this the BEST we can do?
Are you SURE I shouldn't be buying into insurance companies right now?
lol
Gary
Milt
> In article <032e163e-e624-47be-96c9-
> bd6c4e48e...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, milt.sh...@gmail.com says...
>
> > Why Progressives Are Batshit Crazy to Oppose the Senate Bill
>
> > Check it out. It's Nate Silver crunching the numbers. And the numbers
> > are from the CBO, not just made up out of thin air.
>
> That looks like the best of two evils to me... either 9K or 19K spent on
> health insurance when you only make 54K?
Yes, but under this bill, your employer will have to offer insurance,
and will have to pay 2/3 of the bill. If you make $54K, you'll
probably also receive at least a partial subsidy, depending on the
size of your family.
The bottom line is, yes, this bill will need some serious tweaking,
and I don't see any way it can provide universal coverage without a
public insurance option. And to be quite honest, I have a feeling that
without a public option, they'll also drop the mandatory option, as
well, anyway, since there will still be at least 4-5 million people
who fall through the cracks.
My main point is, without a public option this bill still covers 30-40
million more people than are covered now, which will solve most of the
hyperinflation problem in the health care sector. And insurance
companies will have to change the way they do business. And a Medicare
expansion can be tackled by itself, without it looking like a
"government takeover of health care" with a 2000 page bill.
>
> 9k is still the 2nd biggest bill of the family... maybe even the first
> in low housing markets.
>
> Is this the BEST we can do?
Of course it isn't. But then, Medicare needs some serious improvement,
and it's been around 40 years. For example, would someone explain why
someone with limited mobility gets a wheelchair, but someone who can't
hear can't get a hearing aid?
>
> Are you SURE I shouldn't be buying into insurance companies right now?
They're going to have a lot more money coming in, but they're also
going to have a lot more money going out, as well. In fact, there's
such a question as to whether they will be able to make a profit under
the proposed set-up, I wouldn't be surprised if they start clamoring
for a public option themselves in a few years.
> lol
>
> Gary
Steve
wrote:
<ROTFL> ...as if anything that can't pass the Senate now is going to
pass later on...
Oh wait, Jamieson is still under the illusion that what comes out of
the joint committee can't be filibustered.... thanks to Shook's
ignlorance o the subject (See below)
> �But the
>> Republicans are intractable, and the Democrats, for some reason, keep
>> trying to appease them. �
>>
>>
>This has nothing to do with Republicans. They're a non-entity. Except
>for Lieberman, who knows he's about to lose in 2012, and is probably
>lining up a lobbying job with Aetna, this is mostly about blue
>Senators representing red states, and finding a balance. To their
>credit, none of them are against all health care; they just seem to be
>having a problem explaining a public insurance plan to their
>constituents.
>
>By the way, Rockefeller ripped Howard Dean a new one, saying roughly
>the same thing Nate Silver and I have been saying. We need to get a
>goddamn bill through the Senate, with or without a public option, and
>then negotiate what we can through the Conference Committee. If we can
>get a conference bill, then the Republicans will be forced to
>filibuster it, but only filibuster it.
<LOL> Why just the other day Shook said: The two bills will
have to be reconciled before it even makes it to Obama's desk. And
they can't filibuster that one; it will only need 51 votes to pass."
--Milt Shook Tue, 15 Dec 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/b81764c6712aa6b5?
I guess I educated Shook about that.. and he didn't even that me,,
> Of course, if they filibuster
>it, the bill's not dead, it just goes back to conference. This is
>going to happen, and they're going to pay for it in the next few
Actually, it looks more like the Democrats are going to get their
butts kicked in the next few election cycles.
>election cycles. When the economy was in the shitter, all they did was
>block everything proposed to repair it. People remember that shit when
>they go to the polls.
>
>Usually, you can expect the party not in the WH to win 20-30 seats in
>the House, and 3-5 in the Senate. They'll be lucky to break even, and
>they could lose even more than they've already lost. They have no
>money, and they have no candidates, with only a few months to go
>before they have to start a campaign.
>>
Shook doesn't have a clue... Let's review Milt's past predictions..
"But I will make this prediction. The Dems will win the WH next year."
--Milt Shook 1999/09/15
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=7rpj0e%24j7j%241%40ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net
"Bush will lose because he can't win in the GOP at this point in time.
face it; he can only win as a moderate. But if he moderates enough
to win, about a third of Repubs will head elsewhere; either they
won't vote, or they'll vote for a third party. And if he plays to
the right wing, he loses the Dems."
--Milt Shook Aug 15 1999
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=7p74a2%249p3%241%40birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net
"I also predict 320 or more electoral votes for Gore, as well..."
--Milt Shook Sep 10 2000
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=x4Vu5.1826%24%25p2.89198%40newsread03.prod.itd.earthlink.net
"And I have never been wrong in predicting an
election in my lifetime."
--Milt Shook Dec 23 2003
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8c046319.0312230621.4eae5f2b%40posting.google.com
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
About one in ten Americans is denied coverage due to pre-existing health
conditions.
I know that rankles dipshits like you who want taxpayers to foot
> the bill for societal leeches, but it's the truth.
No, it's a lie.
>
> Also, the economy
>> will be much improved, and Iraq will be all but over. If Obama's surge
>> strategy in Afghanistan actually works (and you KNOW I hope it does),
>> the casualties will slow to a mere trickle. And the face of the GOP is
>> Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and Sister Sarah, with their "leader" being
>> Michael Steele. And I wonder how many people they think they're
>> attracting when they kick out the "RINOs"?
>>
>> That doesn't seem to be a recipe for success. But hell; they're nothing
>> if not delusional.
>
> Coming from the "mind" that dreamed up the above fantasy, that's
> especially hilarious. Continue deluding yourself, dipshit.
You just keep supporting Sarah Palin and Rush, bubbles. We're behind you
110% on that.
Milt
You're an idiot.
Tell you what;
Go fill out an application for an insurance policy, and put on the
application that you have any of about 400 different conditions. Watch
how fast they turn you down. And I mean TURN YOU DOWN. Not offer a
policy for three times the price; they simply won't let you buy one at
all. And don't think you can just go to another one and leave that
little detail out of the next application, either. Because they're a
cartel, they share information. It's estimated that a third or more of
the 50 million people currently without insurance can't get it,
because they're considered "high risk" and no one will sell them a
policy. Once you've been branded with a "pre-existing" condition, your
record is tagged, and you're screwed.
So, think about that. About 15-20 million people out there who have
conditions that make them "uninsurable." Yet, once their condition
gets bad enough, they're entitled to treatment at the local ER, even
if they can't pay the $100,000 bill that's incurred.
In other words, Stimpy...
You're already paying everyone else's bill.
Steve
....and where in very nearly every case the underlying reason ias that
the person waited until they got sick or hurt before they tried to buy
insurance... IOW, these are people who weren't paying in when they
were healthy so as to not be defraying the costs for other people who
were sick or injured, but who now, when they are sick or injured, want
the other healthy people to defray their costs.... I say let 'em
suffer...