What do people here think they are gaining by threatening to kill healthcare reform?

[BzaDem]

I see many people here say "no public option, no bill," as if that is somehow a threat to the blue dogs. For those who say that, what do you think you are gaining? Many blue dogs have made it clear that they would be MORE than happy not to have a bill if the only possible bill had a public option. Usually, when people make a threat, they state a consequence that the other side actually fears. That is usually the purpose of such a threat. Are people just being irrational, or is there something I'm missing?

[Hello_Kitty]

1. Not getting fucking Romneycare, that's what. eom

[BzaDem]

3. In other words, screw the people with pre-existing conditions?

Is the new "progressive" position really "screw the poor people?" Boy have things come full circle.

[Hello_Kitty]

14. I'm going to reprint a post I did on the topic of the uninsured:

The talking point du jour seems to be that young, uninsured people really have enough money to buy insurance but they are selfishly withholding it to buy cell phones, flat screen TVs, and the latest fashions. Seriously. I've gotten this argument from more than one DUer defending mandatory private insurance.

Let's examine the situation regarding uninsured young people, shall we? Per Wikipedia:

Uninsured children and young adults

According to the Census Bureau, in 2007, there were 8.1 million uninsured children in the US. Nearly 8 million young adults (those aged 18-24), were uninsured, representing 28.1% of their population. Young adults make up the largest age segment of the uninsured, are the most likely to be uninsured, and are one of the fastest growing segments of the uninsured population. They often lose coverage under their parents' health insurance policies or public programs when they reach age 19. Others lose coverage when they graduate from college. Many young adults do not have the kind of stable employment that would provide ongoing access to health insurance.<7><8>

So that means that slightly over 70% of 18 to 24 year olds HAVE insurance. Which also means that there's a really good chance that the young person you see with the flashy gadgets and gear either has insurance through his/her job or is still covered by their parents' policy. Which means that people should stop ASSuming things about the uninsured based on the characteristics of some people of a certain age demographic. As for those uninsured young people, honestly, why on earth would a young healthy person working at a shit job with no benefits, who had a lick of common sense, buy the kind of craptastic catastrophic coverage that's available to them? I mean really? Let's see, you get stuck with a monthly premium of maybe $150 to $200 AND you may be out thousands of dollars before the coverage even kicks in! You probably wouldn't get insurance either, and you know it.

While we're at it, why do people hold this fervent, and unfounded, belief that the ONLY thing that is keeping health insurance from being dirt cheap is the fact that a few million healthy young adults haven't been forced to buy it? Let's not forget that the uninsured includes those deemed "uninsurable" for various reasons. 5 million of them, according to the Census. I've been trying to find a study that shows who among the uninsured causes the most costs and haven't been able to locate one. But it seems reasonable to conclude that the people with the "preexisting conditions" - who would tend to be older and sicker - might be causing more costs than the young and healthy ones. Again, I don't know that for sure but it just make sense.

I did find this study from back in 2001 about the uninsured and overall medical costs. It's a bit dated but I don't think things have changed that drastically since then:

We collapsed the sources of payment identified by MEPS into five groups: self (out-of-pocket), private insurance (including Tricare, CHAMPVA, and workers’ compensation), public insurance (Medicare and Medicaid), other public sources (Veterans Affairs, or VA, other federal programs, and other state and local programs), and other sources (other private and other, unknown source).7 Information on insurance coverage is reported on a monthly basis, which enabled us to distinguish full- and part-year uninsured and to identify insurance payments for people with part-year coverage.

We also adjusted the MEPS data to include an estimate of uncompensated care from private providers. (MEPS imputes the cost of uncompensated care provided by public hospitals and clinics.) The estimate was based on the question, “How much would providers have been paid if the uninsured had been covered by private insurance?” The difference between this estimate and the amount providers actually received in payment from explicitly identified sources other than private or public insurance is an estimate of the value of care delivered by private providers with no explicit payment linked to a specific patient.8

We generated the amount of expected payment using MEPS data on total charges for both privately insured and uninsured people. We calculated the ratio of payments to charges for those with full-year private insurance coverage and then applied this ratio to the total charges for care received by people who were uninsured for at least part of the year. (Charge information is provided even if there is no payment.) Overall, payments (from all sources, including out-of-pocket) for care received by the full-year privately insured covered 81.5 percent of providers’ charges for that care.

We applied this ratio to the total charges for care received by the full- and part-year uninsured, excluding care paid for by private insurance, public insurance, or other public sources, to estimate the total payments that providers would have received if the uninsured had been covered by private insurance. This calculation produced an estimated “expected” payment of $54.6 billion. Actual total payments from these sources (self, other private, and unknown) made for the full- and part-year uninsured were $38.8 billion, which implies that $15.8 billion of uncompensated care was delivered by private medical care providers.

Amount of “uncompensated care” provided. Exhibit 1 presents the estimates of medical care spending by insurance status and source of payment. People who were uninsured during any part of the year received $98.9 billion in care, of which $34.5 billion was “uncompensated care” (that is, not paid for either out of pocket or by a private or public insurance source). This represents 35 percent of the care received by the uninsured but only 2.8 percent of total personal health care spending of $1,235 billion in 2001.9 The other 65 percent was paid for out of pocket and, mainly for the part-year uninsured, by private and public insurance sources...


...Uncompensated care accounted for 60 percent of the care received by the full-year uninsured, with almost all of the rest ($14.1 billion, or 35 percent) paid for out of pocket. The part-year uninsured also received a substantial amount of uncompensated care, $9.9 billion, which accounted for 17 percent of their overall care

Even taking uncompensated care into account, the full-year uninsured received about half as much care ($1,253 per person) as the privately insured received ($2,484). While some of this difference is attributable to differences in age and health status between the two groups, research that takes these factors into account still finds about a 50 percent differential.10 Thus, even though uncompensated care is the primary source of care for the full-year uninsured, it does not make up for or offset the effects of being uninsured on access to and use of care.11

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hltha...

IOW, it looks like the meme that those dirty, rotten, selfish, deadbeat, freeloading uninsured people are to blame for health insurance premiums being so high is not quite fair. They're not even using that much health care, relative the overall population and amount that is spent. Yes, certain areas, like hospitals, are hit hard by the uninsured but it's pretty obvious that the current system - even with most people being covered - is horribly expensive and forcing a few million young and healthy people to buy into it is not going to it, miraculously. The young and uninsured are not a super-race. Which is not to say that the added costs of the uninsured are insignificant:

When the uninsured cannot pay for the care they receive, health care providers shift costs to Americans with insurance in the form of higher premiums. A new report from The Wonk Room’s Ben Furnas and Peter Harbage concludes that a failure to continuously cover all Americans accounts “for roughly 8 percent of the average health insurance premium“:

This cost-shift amounts to $1,100 per average family premium in 2009 and $410 per average individual premium. By 2013, assuming the cost shift remains the same percentage of premium costs, the cost shift will be approximately $480 for an individual policy and $1,300 for a family policy.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/24/cost-shift-uninsure... /

So yeah, you might be paying 8% less, on average, if they were mandated to buy insurance (assuming they complied with it). Does that 8% justify spouting "welfare queen" type Freeperisms when talking about people who are uninsured? Really? Can we please cut it out? It's not helping.

[BzaDem]

23. How does anything you just said have ANTYHING to do with my question?

My question was, do you or do you not want to stop discrimination on pre-existing conditions? Or do you not care? Your long post might be entirely correct, but it does nothing to convince me that your position is anything other than "Let the sick people eat cake."

[Hello_Kitty]

30. It has everything to do with it. No public option, no mandates.

A plan without a public option is basically forcing people to buy expensive-ass private policies. It's corporate welfare of the most egregious kind. And people like you will be all "oh but we have to have a mandate!" Even with no public option.

I mean, you're for the mandate, right?

[BzaDem]

47. I would MUCH rather have an end to health condition discrimination and a mandate than neither.

The mandate would be to buy private insurance on a government-run-exchange that sets prices and benefits. In exchange, getting sick means you are no longer unemployable and uninsurable. Is this a good idea? Of course it is (compared to nothing). I can't even believe any real Democrat would disagree with that.

[Hello_Kitty]

53. Right. So how much would that cost?

How much will it cost the average person and how much will it cost the country to subsidize it?

Frankly, the problem of the uninsurable could be solved right now. If you can't get insurance you should be eligible for Medicare.

[BzaDem]

59. Sure, it could be, if 218 Congresspersons and 60 Senators voted for it.

But considering that will not happen, I don't know what you mean by "could."

The penalty for violating the mandate is an 8% tax. So no one would lose more than 8% of their income. The actual cost of the health plans allowed on the exchange would be decided by an executive agency reporting to the President. Switzerland and the Netherlands both have 100% universal private health insurance, so the idea that it is not possible is just made up.

If we need to raise taxes to pay subsidies, the rise would primarily affect the very wealthy. I don't see how you have a problem with that. An equivalent tax increase would be needed if we had single payer (just like what happens in any other country with universal healthcare).

[Hello_Kitty]

76. But Switzerland and Holland have non-profit systems for basic insurance.

So premiums are not being used to service profits and shareholders. They have private for-profit companies for luxury plans and extras but it's nothing that compares to what we have here. Besides, I think a vote to extend Medicare to uninsurable people would look a lot like the SCHIP vote, which was 66-32 in the Senate. Who wants to be on the side of denying care to people who can't get private insurance? It's not a substitute for reform but it's something we could do right now for the 5 million uninsured people with preexisting conditions.

[JeanGrey]

75. I cannot believe that ANYONE believes the government

is "going to set insurance rates". Are you joking?

[Hello_Kitty]

77. They actually do with Medicare supplements.

When you go on Medicare it doesn't cover everything so if you do one of the Plan A through Ks, there's a set premium they can charge. So it can be done but that program was put in place 40 years ago so you're probably right that they wouldn't have an easy time doing it in this post-Reagan We Luurve Capitalism America.

[NoSheep]

90. Would you look at my post below yours here and tell me if that is correct...

[JeanGrey]

94. They won't on this. Trust me. Insurance companies

want their profits and they will get them.

[NoSheep]

89. And the reason why Hello Kitty is right, is because the government is the only

one representing the elderly. The insurance co is cut out of many of those dollars. The hospital and docs have to negotiate with the govmt. NOT the ins co to get the business of the elderly. I think that is correct. Let's see if Hello Kitty can confer.

[Hello_Kitty]

92. That was true until Medicare Advantage plans

They were part of Medicare Part D in 2006 and were presented as an alternative to the traditional Medicare supplements. They function like an HMO and typically charge less than they do when you first sign up, but the out-of-pockets can skyrocket quickly, whereas the traditional supplements have out-of-pocket caps. But yeah, if you are in a Plan A through K, no matter where you live, you will pay the same premium and have the same out-of-pockets.

[JeanGrey]

95. I don't know anything about Medicare Advantage plans

except it is never a good idea to sign away your Medicare.

[Hello_Kitty]

102. They're not very good.

You are far better off in a standard supplement.

[dflprincess]

26. Many people with preexisting conditions won't qualify for any subsidies

you don't have to be poor to be unable to afford insurance. Really, from a health care perspective, you may be better off if you're poor and able to qualify for Medicaid.

With no public option (even with one the way HR3200 is written) people with preexisting conditions may not be refused but they will have to find a way to pay for insurance and, in fact, will be forced to pay for it if the mandate sections pass. They will probably wind up having to pay too much for policies with high deductibles and copays which will still leave them with little or no access to health care.

But it looks like whatever passes, the insurance companies and their profits will be protected as will all those campaign "contributions" Congress and Obama get.

[Amos Moses]

28. Even if people can get "coverage"

it doesn't mean the insurance companies will stop making up BS reasons to deny payment on claims.

[BzaDem]

31. Yes, it will. That's what the law does.

Corporate executives aren't going to risk spending years in prison just to deny claims. You saying that the law won't prevent that is like Sarah Palin saying that the law contains death panels.

[dflprincess]

39. Yeah, just like Walmart executives don't break labor laws because they're afraid of prison

The worse that will happen is the company has to pay some fines, when they get caught and successfully prosecuted. Like Walmart and labor laws, they'll write the fines off as the cost of doing business.

[Amos Moses]

63. You deny that it's going on now and that it won't go on in the future?

[brentspeak]

104. What law? Where are the details?

Put up or shut up.

[BzaDem]

29. People with pre-existing conditions will not have to pay significantly more than people without them

That's what "community rating" means. Instead of having to pay 10 or 20 times the cost of normal insurance, they would pay 1 to 1.5 times the cost of normal insurance. Even without a subsidy, you don't think reducing the cost of insurance by a factor of 5-10 for sick people is a good idea?

[dflprincess]

44. It depends on what the cost of "normal" insurance is

Theorhetically, I'd qualify for "normal" insurance - but the current rate would would be over $400/month - I couldn't afford that. And that's just the premium - don't forget the copays and deductibles.

What do people pay in Canada? Isn't it like $200/month - and that pretty much covers everything. Of course, they don't have to help their insurer make up the money spent lobbying the government for protection.

[BzaDem]

51. Most Canadians pay FAR MORE than 400/month in extra taxes that go towards single payer.

[dflprincess]

64. Canadians don't have the additional costs of thousands of dollars

in deductibles and copays. Whatever they pay in taxes they get back in health care. In the U.S. you may pay premiums but that's not guarantee that you'll get care when you need it.

[BzaDem]

66. Any healthcare bill would make paying premiums much closer to a guarantee of healthcare. n/t

[dflprincess]

If you have large copays and deductibles

you still may not be able to afford to see a doctor.

Last year, when I had good insurance, it cost just over $6K to find out the spot on the mammogram wasn't cancer. I payed around $800 out of pocket for the whole deal. I was lucky, I could afford that, some people might not be able to.

Someone with a big deductible may not even bother to have the preventative test, because what's the point when you can't afford the follow up?

An article in the Star Tribune last winter indicated that large deductible plans save money in the short term but cost more in the long run. People, especially those with chronic conditions, put off care until they can't avoid going into the doctor. This is resulting in an increase in hospital admits and longer stays. If they had actual access to health care, they wouldn't be winding up in the hospital.

[Joe Bacon]

93. Not in the Baucus Bill

The Baucus Bill allows insurance companies to charge FIVE TIMES the standard rate to people with pre-existing conditions.

Wow, that's some elimination of discrimination, isn't it? :sarcasm:

[brentspeak]

105. Do you get paid by the insurance co's or the DLC?

Maybe both?

[Hello_Kitty]

34. Yes. This is what's happening in MA.

They recently had to exempt several thousand people from the mandates because their out-of-pocket costs would exceed 12% of their income. In the house plan the ceiling is also about 12%. I don't know about you, but I haven't started to make 12% more all of a sudden.

[dflprincess]

49. In the House plan, that 12% of your income just for premiums

if you're single you can also have annual out of pockets of $5,000 plus any other expenses the plan doesn't cover like vision and dental for adults (kids up to 18 are covered for this). Familes will have out of pockets of $10K. Try not to get sick at the end of the benefit year because if your illness straddles two years you could be looking at coming up with the maximum out of pockets twice in just a few months.

I've begun to suspect that, with the high out of pockets, not only is this bill a gift to the insurance companies, but to the credit card companies as well. I imagine a lot of people will have to continue to put their medical expenses on plastic.

[inna]

61. thank you for your posts. i just had to say it.

:hi:

unfortunately, most people on this site don't seem to realize that this sad joke of a reform has very little to do with Universal Healthcare, and it has a lot to do with being a bonanza for the insurance industry/health"care" corps.

[dflprincess]

65. Thank you

:hi: back

[Hello_Kitty]

78. I realize it. eom

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. For me it is quite simple, they have the majorities and the mandate

they don't get it done, it is clear now that the corporations rule. I refuse to play the game, and will vote for another party... no, not the other corporatist party, but a third party.

What will that get me? Resistance to fascism in the only way I can do it.

[BzaDem]

6. What makes you think that public-option advocates even have the semblence of a majority?

I know that Democrats have a majority, but the Democratic party has many different viewpoints on that issue. It seems that because you (and like-minded folks) failed to actually get a majority for progressive policy, you are going to quit. That just seems kind of silly to me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. The country wants reform

has wanted reform since the 1940s. since Truman

They don't get it done, I am not quitting, Fascism is here. I am actively resisting.

Understand?

Here is the definition for you

When the interest of corporations and the state become the same... and the person who gave us this gem was Mussolini.

[BzaDem]

16. If the country wants reform, why have they elected close to 15 Presidents and 30 Congresses

who were not in favor of whatever "reform" means to you?

At some point, don't you actually have to win to say that "the people want reform?"

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. Spoken like a true Neo liberal

you do know the other definition of third way don't you?

[BzaDem]

25. I don't know. All I know is you seem to be happy watching sick people suffer decade after decade

in your never-ending search to get what you want.

We could have had an end to discrimination based upon pre-exisitng conditions in the early 70s if Ted Kennedy accepted Nixon's deal. (Not to mention an employer mandate, which has no chance of passing now.) Kennedy at least realizes his error (and calls it the biggest regret of his life). You don't seem to.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. Read on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism_in_international_relations

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

http://www.globalissues.org/article/39/a-primer-on-neoliberalism

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/neoliberalism.html

Oh and by the way it has always been the CORPORATE part of the party who's stopped reform, together with the party of the corporations.

So stop blaming the rest of the country...

By the way the very short definition of third way is corporatist... which is the other definition of fascist... so go on, keep doing whatever you are doing to keep your corporate masters happy. Me. I am done. Not passed, I will fight fascism, which IS exactly what this is.

I don't care about you blaming others for what you are doing.

Now read something and either find a conscience or go on. Given I once worked in a medical system that didn't have these issues... I think I have more of a fucking clue of what a HUMANE patient centric medical system looks like. You, on the other hand, like the corporate centric system. Have fun. We re done.

[BzaDem]

38. I still think that blue dogs are more damaging to this country than people like you

(people who will screw the sick people for some greater ideological purpose). But only by a hair.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. Then why the hell are you defending blue dogs?

By the way, there gets a point that a party needs to stand for something...politics 101

But I am sure you don't realize that.

As to ideology... stuff it... it is ideology that is bringing us to this point, the ideology of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation.

[BzaDem]

54. Where do I defend blue dogs?

I simply accept the reality that most will not vote for a public option in the House (and their equivalents in the Senate) and that alone is enough to mathematically ensure its defeat. I would happily vote against them and campaign for their primary opponents. But that doens't change our current Congress.

If "standing for something" means allowing sick people to continue to suffer because we don't get the "something," then no. No party should ever stand for anything. (Of course, I really doubt "standing for something" is defined in politics 101 as you would define it.)

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. Read on 1994

and have a good day... night, whatever ...

Egads... there are days...

[John Q. Citizen]

36. Well it will even seem sillier when Dems stay home in droves come 2010. You might not

remember 1994, but i do.

When Dems act and vote like Repos, Dems lose.

When Dems act and vote like Dems, Dems win.

The Dems who vote against a public option will lose come 2010. Don't feel bad for them. They will get great jobs with the insurance industry.

But they won't be working to screw us while we pay them.


How many people do you know with pre-existing conditions who have moved to MA so they can buy Romney Care? I don't know any. Why do you suppose that is?

[BzaDem]

41. I don't know, because people don't want to leave their jobs in this economy?

There are loads of reasons why people don't move. You still haven't explained why you support bankrupting sick people over passing a bill without a public option.

[John Q. Citizen]

48. Why not outlaw pre-existing conditions without a personal mandate? I would support that. Would you?

[Hello_Kitty]

58. Why not just let people with pre-existing conditions get Medicare?

It would be a quick fix that could be passed as a BRB, I'm pretty sure. The GOP wouldn't dare oppose it.

[BzaDem]

60. That is even less likely to pass than a public option.

I'm talking about helping people in the context of what might actually pass.

[John Q. Citizen]

67. The personal mandate is fascism. Even if fascism has enough votes to pass, I'm still against it

I'm all for outlawing the use of pre-existing conditions by our criminal insurance industry.

I will work against any bill that mandates fascism though, even if it provides money for sick cats or for old people.

See, we don't need or want fascism. And we aren't going to take it with sugar on it.

Has it ever occured to you that if the American people has wanted Romney Care that we would have elcted Romney? He was running you know. There is a reason he lost, and it's the same reason the Dems will lose if they pass what he passed.

[BzaDem]

73. You don't have a clue about what fascism is and what it is not. n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

81. The merging of government and corporations is one thing that it is.

Mussolini himself said so.

[John Q. Citizen]

82. If you don't trust me on fascism, perhaps you would trust Benito Mussolini ?

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/fascism_should_more_appropriately_be_called/163211.html


The insurance industry loves "Romney Care." Why do you imagine that is?

[Hello_Kitty]

50. You haven't explained if you're for a mandate or not. eom

[dflprincess]

69. Actually, John, if (when) they go to work for the insurance companies

we will stil be paying them to screw us. Only they'll be paid with our premium dollars instead of taxes.

[John Q. Citizen]

45. We are definatly a majority of the Dem party. It's the Dem's who are really Repos who

are in the minority of their party.

Let them switch sides if they want to. Fuck those fascists, if they want to vote with the Repos.

[Hello_Kitty]

87. The majority of Americans want a public option.

Most Dems and Independents and quite a few Republicans. When they ask the question in the polls the right way, without the OMG SOCIALIZM canard attached to it, support for a public option goes up to over 70%.

[inna]

70. +1, nt

[Marsala]

4. Whenever I didn't get the Christmas present I wanted, I always burned the rest of them

That sure showed my parents.

[Wapsie B]

5. To quote Malcom X, “If you don't stand for something you will fall for anything.”

There comes a time when you have to take a stand. This is one of those times.

[BzaDem]

9. Now could you actually answer my question?

I don't see how you quoting Malcolm X means anything in this context. My question is, what do progressives gain from killing healthcare reform? A huge reluctance for any president to bring it up again? For touching our healthcare system to be as politically damaging as touching Social Security? I mean, I just don't understand how this helps people with progressives views at all.

[Wapsie B]

19. Oh so we just give in to the Blue Dogs wishes?

Progressives aren't killing healthcare reform. Trying to appease the gop and the blue dogs accomplishes nothing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. +1

[BzaDem]

27. What makes you think you have any better choice?

You talk about "giving into the Blue Dogs" as if you actually have a choice to get something better. If the Blue Dogs don't want a public option, it doesn't happen. There is NOTHING else to it mathematically. As far as I'm concerned, you can campaign against the Blue Dogs at election time, but in the meantime pass a bill that significantly reduces the number of sick people that die and go bankrupt.

Sure, you do have another choice ("no bill"), but you being in favor of that choice makes me wonder whether you care about sick people at all.

[Wapsie B]

33. I'd rather have no bill than something contrived by insurance companies.

Sometimes you simply cannot give in to corporations. This smells just like the giveaways to the banks.

But hey, go ahead and have the last word.

[DJ13]

7. It goes like this

We all understand that the costs of health care are growing exponentially, so if theres no bill passed now the pressure to come back in a year or two or three when things get truly desperate will result in true reform.

Passing a half assed bill without a public option wont solve the looming crisis, just delay it so the insurance industry can milk it for a few more years.

[BzaDem]

13. Weren't healthcare costs growing exponentially in 1994?

Weren't they also growing when Nixon proposed healthcare reform far beyond anything being considered today? Weren't they also growing when Medicare was passed? And when Truman proposed universal healthcare? What makes you think that this will be any different than the other failed attempts in history?

Is the progressive position "screw people with pre-existing conditions, since allowing them to suffer will speed up the move to single payer?"

[DJ13]

20. Its near the breaking point now

Look, you cant give the corporations every bloody thing they want.

A public option will force them to reign in costs and overhead or the public option becomes so big it truly will be universal.

Now a question to you.

Would that be a bad thing?

[BzaDem]

35. Of course a public option wouldn't be a bad thing.

I enthusiastically support and would be extremely happy if we had a public option. But I don't see how that is relevant at all. I am not talking about what would be a good idea. I am talking about what can actually be accomplished. By acting as if I don't support a public option, you are making a straw man argument and changing the subject entirely.

[DJ13]

46. Without a public option how will those with preexisting conditions afford coverage?

[BzaDem]

62. By law, insurance companies won't be able to charge more to the sick than the healthy.

[DJ13]

68. That doesnt answer the question

Those already denied because they have preexisting conditions (the same people you're rightfully concerned about) have likely already gone so far in debt with their illness and reduced incomes they couldnt afford current policies even if the government forces the insurers to carry them.

Thats why a strong public option needs to be part of any reform passed.

[BzaDem]

71. A public option wouldn't help any more than a private option in that case.

Do you think that anyone in Congress is considering making the public option free?

All public options currently being considered have to be self-sustaining through premiums. The private options that would be allowed on the insurance exchanges would be of comparable cost to the public option. Subsidies would either cover both or neither (depending on one's income).

[DJ13]

84. Most every public option is subsidized by the government to some degree

Mandating coverage for those with preexisting conditions doesnt mean much to those who cant afford private insurance in the first place.

[dflprincess]

72. There's a lot of healthy people who can't afford insurance

The bills do nothing about lowering what the insurance companies are currently charging for their shoddy products. And, the bills do allow for premiums to increase with age.

[Hello_Kitty]

83. So they just charge everyone more.

And maybe for a while they'll get subsidized enough by the government that the average working person doesn't feel it as much. Then the Republicans get back in power and they start their usual round of tax cuts to the rich and cuts to government programs. Since the subsidies for the mandated private insurance are not an entitlement like Medicare or SS they will cut the shit out of them. But the mandate will stay. So we either get drastic raises in premiums or drastic raises in co-pays or drastic cuts in coverage. Or all three.

[xchrom]

8. what a weird op. nt

[Wapsie B]

21. +10

[debbierlus]

10. It isn't about gaining anything, it is about stopping bad legislation

If there is no real public option, we will have government mandated private insurance. It will be a HUGE MEGA CHRISTMAS DAY COME EARLY present for the private insurance companies.

Mandated private insurance won't work. The same insurance companies that have brought us to this desperate place, they will be given millions of new customers without any competition, and they will continue to financially drain and break the healthcare system.

If there is no public option, health care reform will have been killed by the insurance companies. See my journal for many posts on this subject including links to the Physicians for National Health Care.

[frazzled]

17. It will be 15 years before you get any attempt at legislation again

So think about it.

You could get cancer and get kicked off your insurance.

You could lose your job and be unable to get any insurance at all, because you have a pre-existing condition like high cholesterol (yes, they will deny you insurance for that).

You could get hit by a bus.

Your premiums will rise by another 100%, which will mean you and your employer will earn less.

And 47 million more people will lose their insurance. 1/3 of America will have no insurance.

So think about it. "Bad" legislation is not what we want. But NO legislation is worse than less-than-perfect legislation.

[debbierlus]

37. No. Legislation empowering the corporate leeches is NOT a good thing

Look, we have mandated private insurance in MA. My sister's husband lost his job and their health insurance coverage.

They went to the group pool provided by the state to purchase supposedly affordable health insurance (you know, pool your resources and be able to buy in at 'affordable rates'.

The cost for a young family of three....

1,400 dollars a month for a family making 70,000 a year and that does not include significant co-pays and deductibles.

They can't afford it, but to avoid tax penalites they can buy the worthless crap ass catastrophic coverage that provides only minimal reimbursemen for crisis situations.

You seem to be under the impression that this insurance will be affordable. It won't. And, the cost of the program is not sustainable. Massachusett's program will be financially insolvent in a year.

If you think health care is tough to solve now, wait to see what happens when this mega-beast gets even more money and power from the government. Millions of new customers. A bailout for the leeches who created the broken system and a mandated purchase of their crappy product.

No legislation beats bad legislation. The health care crisis will only worsen, and perhaps, the reality will have hit enough people square in the jaw for a true grassroots movement for single payer, the only long term solution.

[inna]

52. +1. i appreciate your posts. nt

[frazzled]

56. Your story ...

I assure you that if your brother-in-law lost his job and there were no legislation, he wouldn't be able to get any insurance at all, at any price. It has happened to at least 5 people I know. Turned down altogether for extremely minor "pre-existing conditions" ranging from a finger fracture to minorly elevated blood pressure. And even if they weren't turned down, you think it would be any cheaper without legislation? What do you think healtlh insurance costs for the rest of us?

Massachusetts made the mistake of deciding to cover everybody (i.e., requiring coverage) first, and worry about cost reduction later. Many economists said that was a mistake. Cost reductions is really the heart of the problem. The plans on the table right now in Congress try to avoid that by attacking both coverage and cost-savings in the system at the same time.

Are you willing to accept the status quo for the next 15 years? Not even the status quo but increasing prices and less and less coverage. It was 15 years ago that the last health-care reform was attempted. It was defeated, and we now have stratospheric insurance prices, more uninsured, and a weaker bill. Fifteen years from now, that situation will only be worse. And we still won't get it.

No legislation is not the answer at all.

By the way, I'm not young. I'll be dead before your Naderesque scenario of things getting so bad we'll have to get Nirvana occurs. Which it won't. People are dying now. Stop being selfish.

[dflprincess]

74. Well said!

:applause:

[kath]

109. Wish I could rec your post 100 times, debbierlus. What they call "affordable" is a freakin' joke.

Maybe you shoud start a thread on this "affordability" bullshit, and give examples of what they call "affordable".

It's absolutely mind-boggling that they would consider $1400/month, PLUS all kinds of co-pays and deductibles to be AFFORDABLE. Unreal. I think this really needs to get out there that their definition of "affordable" is not in the least bit reality-based.

[Mojambo]

22. This.

And what will these companies do with those massive new profits?

Stuff it into the pockets of future politicians who are going to have to try for real reform in the future.

We need to dig in NOW.

[debbierlus]

40. Amen

[asdjrocky]

11. We are the people with spines.

We are the ones who don't want to give an even bigger gift to the insurance companies. We are the people who know when we're being led down a rosy path.

[scheming daemons]

15. They will win the "purity" contest, silly!

Don't you get it?

100% or 0%

In all things


No settling.


Because they're "pure" progressives... better than you or me.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

57. +100 brazillion

What's not an option is more people dying for lack of coverage, or undercoverage or being denied because of pre-existing conditions.

[John Q. Citizen]

86. That's what you said about single payer too, if I recall. How's that work? You an insurance agent?

We are better than you, you are right about that.

You have absolutely no principles or integrity. You will trade anything and everything away and that's what you mistakenly call "pragmatism."

You are corrupt is what the problem is.

You will sell out the reform the American people worked for, faught for, so that some blue dogs can accept the big money from the criminal insurance companies.

I think that makes us better than you, from at least a moral perspective. And we are also better that you from a policy perspective. Romney care doesn't work. It doesn't contain costs, which means people's benefits are cut. And from a political perspective, if the Dems fold on the public option, they will lose very big in 2010.

So every way you slice it, yes, we are better than you. You are correct.

[CakeGrrl]

43. Hopefully those who live in Blue Dog states

are going to work as hard to unseat their Congresspeople as those who can't wait to find and support a primary challenger to the President.

[grantcart]

79. i have a prexisting condition but i don't want coverage w/o a public option

its called solidarity


by not providing universal care with real change they are trying to divide us and then never have real reform.



Better to wait for real reform than support a bill that has a universal mandate and helps the insurance company and has no public option.

[Hello_Kitty]

85. +1

As someone who worked in the health insurance industry for a time I can tell you that if you're over 30 there's a damn good chance you have a "pre-existing condition" of some kind.

Like I said upthread, if they can't come up with a bill with a public option, scrap the whole thing but let the uninsurable people get Medicare.

[Mystayya]

80. A bill without a public option is worthless. Do you have healthcare?

[LiberalAndProud]

88. Looking for another chance in 2012.

I don't think we'll have another chance for another 15 years, but my crystal ball is probably as good as theirs.

[Sebastian Doyle]

91. There is NO GODDAMN REFORM without at least a true Public Option

RomneyHillaryMandatoryPayCorporationsWhateverTheFuckTheyWantForTheRestOfYourLife is NOT FUCKING REFORM, it's worse than what exists now.

No Public Option, NO DEAL.:grr:

[Warren Stupidity]

96. a chance for real health care reform?

If the pull is only from the right we will get rightwing 'reform'.

[CTyankee]

97. I say fight like hell for the public option and keep the pressure ON FULL SPEED.

We can always re-evaluate when/if the time comes.

I am not backing down now. It's not over until it's over and even then it's not completely over. Negotiate for the best damn deal you can get and keep on fighting for ways to get the public option at some point if it comes to that.

Just don't lie down and die beforehand...

[Teaser]

99. +!!!

because sometimes numbers aren't enough

[Jennicut]

98. If health care goes down then it won't be addressed again for a long, long time

I hope we get a public option as it seems worthless without one. I have a pre-existing condition (diabetes) and would like to see these conditions covered. I am not ready to give up on the public option yet. I've got too much to fight for. I am currently covered but worry about losing that insurance every day. Without insurance..well I wouldn't want to imagine the cost.

[Enrique]

100. it's not aimed at the Blue Dogs

it's aimed at Obama and the democratic leadership. They very much want some legislation to pass and will think twice if they saw a real threat to it.

[Autumn]

101. I see no reason for

the insurance companies to get everything they WANT when our so called leaders cant see giving us what we NEED. I agree completely with "no public option no bill." It isn't a threat, some of us are sick of seeing the blue dogs and pukes getting everything they want while we get nothing. This old yellow dog has reached the point to where she will vote for ANYONE who runs against a blue dog or just stay home.

[Hello_Kitty]

103. In revisiting this thread what I find unbelievable about the OP:

Is that he is accusing supporters of a public option of threatening to kill the bill when it is the Blue Dogs who are the ones threatening to kill it if it has one thing on it that their corporate masters don't want.

[brentspeak]

106. The thing you're missing is that most people here aren't idiots.

They understand that a mandate to purchase private insurance without a universal public option means the opposite of reform.

Are you related to Squealer, the spokespig from Animal Farm?

[Overseas]

107. My president told me to "make me do it" so I am calling out for the Best Public Option.

I am calling out for the option that will give my party deep popularity for decades to come--

Open up Medicare to all who choose it.

Open it up and improve it. Reconciliation. 51 votes.

We've heard from the "genuine grass roots" movements encouraged into outrageous fear and hatred by amoral professional right wing PR firms hired by the private sector we are supposed to be concerned about making things fair for.

Our president asked us to let him know what we want. I want Single Payer now.

OPEN UP MEDICARE-- SINGLE PAYER NOW !

That was my chant last night at the vigil. Open up and improve Medicare and phase us all in if we want it.

A new plan with triggers or cockamamie coops would invite years of planning and discussion and delay things for another decade in which millions more could be dropped from coverage or forced into choosing bankruptcy for their families or an earlier death.

EXPAND AN EXISTING PROGRAM WITH HIGH CUSTOMER SATISFACTION AND LOW OVERHEAD; it's called Medicare.

Cut the crap on "revenue neutral" solutions. Just tell the public the plan will pay for itself in ten years. Just like the Bush Cheney Gang told us about their war.

[TheKentuckian]

108. If we cover everyone without a system to reduce costs

we'll be drowning the pig in the bathtub our own damned selves.

The wrong action here will do serious hurt to the budget and probably kill big social programs like Medicare and Social Security too.

Blame the blue dogs they are greatly in the minority. It is they that are killing the bill and being fiscally irresponsible. You are asking us to consent to a trillion dollar bribe to the insurance companies in the hopes that they'll be more responsible citizens.

I'm not sure the bill should be absolutely killed without the public option but a bill with no component to cut costs is suicide not only to our current crop but our whole belief system. You can't reasonably assure folks that giving on this will actually have an effect on any of the issues that we hope to correct. You're insisting on doing something that cannot be fiscally sustained even in the short term that may well do little to affect the raw number of uninsured and plausibly making the under insured a much greater problem.

Without the option we are sitting on a timebomb that when it blows it won't blow on the leech class at all but on the public sector. The individual mandate with no mechanism to control costs is insanity, no matter how good the intent.