The current public option will deliver national universal health care

[ProSense]

Sec. 202. Exchange-eligible individuals and employers. Defines who is eligible for participation in the Health Insurance Exchange including employers and individuals. In year one, individuals not enrolled in other acceptable coverage are allowed into the Exchange as well as small employers with 10 or fewer employees. In year two, employers with 20 and fewer employees are allowed into the Exchange. In subsequent years, the Health Choices Commissioner is granted authority to expand employer participation as appropriate, with the goal of allowing all employers access to the Exchange.

<...>

Sec. 313. Employer contributions in lieu of coverage. Requires an offering employer to contribute to the Exchange for each employee who declines the employer’s coverage offer and enters the Exchange via the affordability test outlined in the act. The contribution is generally 8% of the average salary for the employer.

<...>

Sec. 412. Responsibilities of nonelecting employers. Establishes a payroll tax of 8% of the wages that an employer pays to its employees for employers who choose not to offer coverage. Certain small employers are exempt from this or are subject to a graduated tax rate. An exempt small business is an employer with an annual payroll that does not exceed $250,000. The 8% payroll tax phases in for employers with annual payroll from $250,000 through $400,000.

link (PDF)

[flyarm]

1. Joe Wilson and AHIP Team Up to Write Max Baucus’s Health Care Bill

Joe Wilson and AHIP Team Up to Write Max Baucus’s Health Care Bill
By: Jane Hamsher

http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/09/11/joe-wilson-and-ahip-team-up-to-write-max-baucuss-health-care-bill/

Friday September 11, 2009 7:06 am


There really doesn't seem to be any limit to what the administration will do to pass Rahm Emanuel's neoliberal giveaway to the insurance industry. The "author" of the plan released by Baucus (and apparently by Mike Ross) is a former VP of Wellpoint. Now AHIP is boasting about their role in crafting it:

Many of the changes to the insurance system now under discussion are the ones that have been advocated this year by the insurance companies themselves, said Karen M. Ignagni, the chief executive of America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade group. "The industry has been the leader in creating the proposals everyone is about to endorse," she said.

No wonder insurance company stocks shot up after the President's speech.

But now we find, per John Aravosis, that Kent Conrad and Max Baucus are changing their bill to appease Joe Wilson:

"We really thought we'd resolved this question of people who are here illegally, but as we reflected on the President's speech last night we wanted to go back and drill down again," said Senator Kent Conrad, one of the Democrats in the talks after a meeting Thursday morning. Baucus later that afternoon said the group would put in a proof of citizenship requirement to participate in the new health exchange — a move likely to inflame the left.

As John says, if Wilson's outburst turns out to be successful, it'll keep happening over and over again. And it will work every time.

If you want to stop this travesty from going forward -- and it's turning into a complete travesty -- ask these members of Congress from strong Democratic districts, all of whom have cosponsored Single Payer in the past and know better, why they aren't pledging to vote against any bill if it turns out to be nothing more than an insurance industry bailout:

read the rest at the link..........

.....................................................................

Reid Endorses Wellpoint’s Co-op Plan
By: Jane Hamsher Friday September 11, 2009 9:46 am

http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/09/11/reid-end...

The Senate Majority Leader endorses the Mike Ross/Kent Conrad/Wellpoint authored co-op plan:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) endorsed the concept of health insurance cooperatives Thursday, siding with centrists in the House and Senate who want healthcare reform but oppose a public option.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) also hinted she could accept that approach a day after President Barack Obama delivered an address to a joint session of Congress that offered encouraging words for both centrists and liberal Democrats who have demanded a public insurance option.

I think I may have to adjust my prediction for the co-op "squeeze play" on July 20:

The easiest political path to passing health care is still running the "co-op" crunch. Regardless of what the House does, the Senate can pass Conrad's shitty fake co-op. The Blue Dogs band together and refuse to vote for anything else, and that's what comes out of conference. There's a PR blitz to sell it as a "public plan" (which is why we've worked so assiduously to define it as NOT a public plan), and in a rush to get something passed, Rahm starts twisting progressive arms -- which have been historically very easily twisted.

Blue Dog Mike Ross presciently submitted virtually the same co-op plan in a July 31 amendment that finally emerged this week in Max Baucus's Senate plan. But since it now looks like Pelosi is on board with co-ops, that means the Blue Dogs aren't going to have to take the hit.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

but don't you worry a bit..there is plenty of money for war and bombs abd killing!!

thank you to Orwellian _ghost for posting this..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6526239&mesg_id=6526239

SO, UH, THERE'S NO MONEY FOR HEALTH CARE?- Senate Panel OKs $128 Billion For Afghanistan, Iraq Wars
Senate Panel OKs $128 Billion For Afghanistan, Iraq Wars


ANDREW TAYLOR | 09/10/09 05:42 PM | AP


WASHINGTON — With hardly any debate, a powerful Senate committee Thursday approved President Barack Obama's $128 billion request for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the budget year beginning in October.

The move came as anxiety is increasing on Capitol Hill over the chances for success in Afghanistan and as Obama weighs whether to send more forces to the country.

The war funding was approved as the Appropriations Committee voted unanimously for a $636 billion spending measure funding next year's Pentagon budget. The war funding would implement Obama's order earlier this year to add 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan, which would bring the total number of U.S. forces there to 68,000 by the end of 2009.

There's ample skepticism in Congress that Obama's Iraq and Afghanistan funding request will be sufficient. A key lawmaker, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., predicts that an additional war funding will be needed next spring.

Senate panel chairman Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, would not say whether he believes $128 billion would be enough for military operations in the two countries.


wooo hoo..more war..more deaths..more killings ..more blood and guts spilled..but fuck you if you need health care..fuck the people who worked at ground zero and are dying or have died..because your democratic congress doesn';t give a shit about you!

[ProSense]

2. Does the OP link to Baucus' bill? n/t

[flyarm]

3. MaxTax Is a Plan to Use Our Taxes to Reward Wal-Mart for Keeping Its Workers in Poverty

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/09/11/maxtax-is-a-plan-to-use-our-taxes-to-reward-wal-mart-for-keeping-its-workers-in-poverty/

MaxTax Is a Plan to Use Our Taxes to Reward Wal-Mart for Keeping Its Workers in Poverty
By: emptywheel Friday September 11, 2009 3:41 pm

I made this point in this post, but I'm going to repeat it over and over and over until it sinks MaxTax, the Baucus health care plan.

MaxTax is a plan that will use your and my tax dollars to reward companies like Wal-Mart for keeping its workers in poverty. Here's why.

In most cases, the MaxTax fines employers up to $400 per employee if it doesn't provide its employees with health care. The fine is absurdly small (less than half of what individuals, themselves, would be fined if they didn't get insurance), but it could mean a company like Wal-Mart would have to pay up to $560 million if it refused to provide insurance to any of its employees.

The other option is to provide crap insurance for your employees. MaxTax gives very few requirements for this insurance (and it allows you to charge employees up to 13% of their income in premiums). But assume Wal-Mart decided to provide incredibly crappy insurance at a cost of $2,500 an employee. It would then pay $3.5 billion a year to meet its obligations under MaxTax.

So Wal-Mart chooses between paying $560 million or $3.5 billion right?

There is another option.

The MaxTax offers this one, giant, out for corporations.

snip: and do read the rest at the linkkkkkkkkkkk!



A $1.25 billion reward to Wal-Mart--a competitive advantage it would have--for paying shit wages.And who will be paying that reward to encourage Wal-Mart to continue to pay shit wages? Why, that'd be our taxes, yours and mine.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

9. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[David Zephyr]

11. The rationalization has begun. Public Option now means Co-Op.

I see you are watching the language changing now. The rationalization has begun.

Yeah, which health-care company?

:thumbsup:

[ProSense]

15. "Yeah, which health-care company?" You can't defend your BS, can you?

The OP has nothing to do with co-ops or Baucus, but since you have no argument: BS will do.

[David Zephyr]

22. The Insurance Corps have a good spokesperson here. You should get paid.

You've certainly earned it carrying the water for them. Don't work pro bono. Send them an invoice for your work. You do them proud.

[Oregone]

24. I disagree.

They would hire better in a heart beat. There is no significant turd polishing going on here

[ProSense]

27. Desperate whiners who make idiotic statements have a champion in you. n/t

[Aramchek]

34. the Teabaggers have a good spokesman here.

If it was up to you, nothing but Single Payer would pass.

[flyarm]

5. EXCLUSIVE: UnitedHealth Lobbyist Announces Pelosi Fundraiser As She Begins Backing Off Pub Option

thanks to kpete for posting this..this is a lovely piece of info as well..now isn't it op??????

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4055649
EXCLUSIVE: UnitedHealth Lobbyist Announces Pelosi Fundraiser As She Begins Backing Off Public Option
Fri Sep-11-09 07:07 PM by kpete
Source: Open Left


EXCLUSIVE: UnitedHealth Lobbyist Announces Pelosi Fundraiser As She Begins Backing Off Pub Option
by: David Sirota
Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 17:47

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for the first time yesterday suggested she may be backing off her support of the public option. According to CNN, Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "said they would support any provision that increases competition and accessibility for health insurance - whether or not it is the public option favored by most Democrats." When "asked if inclusion of a public option was a non-negotiable demand - as her previous statements had indicated Pelosi ruled out any non-negotiable positions," according to CNN. This was also corroborated by the Associated Press, and by Pelosi's own words, as quoted in those stories.

This announcement came just hours before Steve Elmendorf, a registered UnitedHealth lobbyist and the head of UnitedHealth's lobbying firm Elmendorf Strategies, blasted this email invitation throughout Washington, D.C. I just happened to get my hands on a copy of the invitation from a source - check out this OpenLeft exclusive:



From: Steve Elmendorf (mailto:[e-mail] )
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 8:31 AM
Subject: event with Speaker Pelosi at my home

You are cordially invited to a reception with

Speaker of the House
Nancy Pelosi

Thursday, September 24, 2009
6:30pm ~ 8:00pm

At the home of
Steve Elmendorf
2301 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apt. 7B
Washington, D.C.

$5,000 PAC
$2,400 Individual

To RSVP or for additional information please contact
Carmela Clendening at [phone] or [e-mail]

Steve Elmendorf
ELMENDORF STRATEGIES
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS SOLUTIONS
900 7th Street NW Suite 750 Washington DC 20001
[phone]



Read more: http://www.openleft.com/diary/15066/unitedhealth-lobbyi...



thank you David Sirota..but i am sure the op will throw you under the bus as he has so many others who tell the truth!

[ProSense]

7. Exclusive: Some people on the left are too friggin gullible

While effusively praising Obama's speech from the night before, Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada signaled separately the president may not prevail in his call for legislation that allows the federal government to sell insurance in competition with private industry.

Reid said that while he favors a strong "public option," he could be satisfied with establishment of nonprofit cooperatives, along the lines expected to be included in the bill taking shape in the Finance Committee.

Pelosi, who has long favored a measure that allows the government to sell insurance, passed up a chance to say it was a nonnegotiable demand.

As long as legislation makes quality health care more accessible and affordable, "we will go forward with that bill," she said.

Democrats are divided over the public option in both houses, liberals strongly in favor and many moderates against it. Critically, though, it appears that any chance for Republican support would evaporate if legislation permits immediate, direct competition between the government and insurance industry.

<...>

"They hit us with their best shot; distortion, misrepresentation, and obstruction," Pelosi said. But she said Democrats had "sustained the effort admirably" and now "we're in a better place to go forward."

link

Not only did CNN leave out that last point (which is the same thing Obama said), but AP claims the Dems are divided in both Houses"?

[flyarm]

8. aren't you..or are you as someone else asked..employed ?????? eom

[ProSense]

10. Isn't that the lame argument the desperate use when they've got nothing else? n/t

[Divine Discontent]

12. now you're making ME laugh. it's a valid question, it's not like they're saying did you or did you

not possibly kill someone in 1990, like some say Glenn Beck did and he won't respond to. Why not just answer the question that is posed, since it is relevant to the discussion of health care?

[ProSense]

13. No, it's an idiotic question. n/t

[Divine Discontent]

14. it is? really? there are people who are paid to post on behalf of agencies or causes all over the

world. Just saying I think they have the right to ask it and it's not that idiotic for them to do so. But, of course, you don't have to answer anything you don't want to, or aren't allowed (hahahaha... had to throw that in there for my own laugh!)

[ProSense]

16. " think they have the right to ask it " Yes, people have a right to be idiots. n/t

[Aramchek]

33. so, because you believe the media every time they tell us what Obama, Pelosi, or Reid are thinking,

ProSense needs to tell you where he works?

That makes absolutely no sense.

How many times will you fall for Repuke Subterfuge?

[Oregone]

26. I, among others, have recently wondered about the same thing

[Junkdrawer]

17. I see the writing on the wall now...

A crap bill will be passed that won't go into effect until 2013...

And we'll get 4 years of OUTRIGHT LIES about what's in that bill.

[ProSense]

18. That's not the writing on the wall

It's your determination to ignore the reality of the situation: here and here.

[Oregone]

25. After the election, mind you

Im somewhat disturbed Obama noted that he wanted to be the last president to tackle health care. Im sorry....even if he implemented single-payer, it wouldn't be the end of the road. Health costs are too high. Either he is delusional or lying to think allowing profit in the paying and delivery side will be a cure all forever.

[ProSense]

31. "Either he is delusional or lying " or you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

I vote the former.

[HopeOverFear]

19. I recced this

[ProSense]

20. Thanks. Have you noticed not one of the other responses deals with the OP? n/t

[HopeOverFear]

21. Yep. Funny aint it?

[flyarm]

32. MaxTax Is a Plan to Use Our Taxes to Reward Wal-Mart for Keeping Its Workers in Poverty

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/09/11/maxtax-is-a-plan-to-use-our-taxes-to-reward-wal-mart-for-keeping-its-workers-in-poverty/

MaxTax Is a Plan to Use Our Taxes to Reward Wal-Mart for Keeping Its Workers in Poverty
By: emptywheel Friday September 11, 2009 3:41 pm

I made this point in this post, but I'm going to repeat it over and over and over until it sinks MaxTax, the Baucus health care plan.

MaxTax is a plan that will use your and my tax dollars to reward companies like Wal-Mart for keeping its workers in poverty. Here's why.

In most cases, the MaxTax fines employers up to $400 per employee if it doesn't provide its employees with health care. The fine is absurdly small (less than half of what individuals, themselves, would be fined if they didn't get insurance), but it could mean a company like Wal-Mart would have to pay up to $560 million if it refused to provide insurance to any of its employees.

The other option is to provide crap insurance for your employees. MaxTax gives very few requirements for this insurance (and it allows you to charge employees up to 13% of their income in premiums). But assume Wal-Mart decided to provide incredibly crappy insurance at a cost of $2,500 an employee. It would then pay $3.5 billion a year to meet its obligations under MaxTax.

So Wal-Mart chooses between paying $560 million or $3.5 billion right?

There is another option.

The MaxTax offers this one, giant, out for corporations.

snip: and do read the rest at the linkkkkkkkkkkk!



A $1.25 billion reward to Wal-Mart--a competitive advantage it would have--for paying shit wages.And who will be paying that reward to encourage Wal-Mart to continue to pay shit wages? Why, that'd be our taxes, yours and mine.

[Oregone]

23. It depends on your definition of "universal"

Hell, we actually have universal care now. The uninsured can go to the hospitals for treatment. Either they become indentured servants or the public picks up the tab.

If we are willing to take great liberties with the term, we should also accept some forms of "universal" coverage are shittier than others. Some are also much more costly (to the individual and to the nation's ability to be competitive).

[ProSense]

28. "Hell, we actually have universal care now. The uninsured can go to the hospitals for treatment."

Wow, the RW would love you.

[Oregone]

29. No they wouldn't. I have standards. I think "universal" care should actually mean something

You are kinda the one lowering the bar here. To each their own.

Respond with a quote, quip, or a lie & a confused smilie. I don't give a fuck.

[ProSense]

30. " I don't give a fuck." Breathe, losing the argument is no reason to give up. n/t

[nightrain]

35. not likely to deliver. Even Obama said only 5% if this POS passes.

It doesn't have the substance to deliver.

I don't think you've been keeping up with Jane Hamsher, Cenk, Pelosi, United Health Care, Reid and co-ops news lately. It's not looking good for any real health CARE reform--Congressfolks and some liberal/progressive groups have apparently been bought off.