Based on Responses to Posts on the Healthcare Reform, I'd say we have a few Health Insurance DUers

[berni_mccoy]

I have a hard time believing that all the of the negative responses to the current draft of the Healthcare Reform Bill are out of progressive concern. Some of the arguments are completely deceitful or change direction if their negative response is shot down. It makes me wonder how many lobbyists for the Health Insurance industry have completely penetrated progressive groups and have wolves lying wait in sheep's clothing.

Responses like "It'll never pass" or "It's not single-payer" or "It's not like any other system in the world" or even "it costs too much" (yes, there have been those responses) seem so unfounded compared to what this bill really is: a life-saver for the tens of millions of uninsured, who either can't afford healthcare or who have been denied healthcare because of their pre-existing conditions. Literally, tens of thousands of Americans lives will be saved by this legislation. And based on the economics of this bill, it will have it's own stimulating effects on the economy.

Either we have Health Insurance lobbyists with high post counts here or some people here have completely fallen prey to the deceit of the Healthcare industry.

[bobbolink]

1. A few?

Wonder how much they're getting paid....

Hmmmmmm?

[SharonAnn]

27. Or a few hundred, or a few thousand. Remember, these lobbying groups have plenty of $$$ to do this.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

2. Or maybe they disagree with you for legitimate reasons.

But it's much easier to say that they is teh eevilz!!11!1

[LynneSin]

3. God forbid a DUer might actually have a different opinion - oh the humanity

:eyes:

seriously

[bobbolink]

5. Oh, definitely... we should be bipartisan all the way!

:eyes:

[LynneSin]

10. No, we should allow people to form their own opinions

Sorry, I don't work like the republican party. Although not with this issue there may be other issues I support that perhaps other DUers disagree with. That doesnt' make me a DLCer, a right-winger, a freeper, a corporate pawn or whatever tern you want to use. It makes me someone who has an opinion and can think for herself. That's the way congress was suppose to work and that's the way DUers think.

Last time I checked, the admins do not require that new members to DU take a litmus test to assure we are 'liberal' enough for their liking. All dems are welcomed to DU - I've pro-choice and anti-choice, pro-guns and anti-guns, pro-isreal and pro-palenstine, pro-<this issue> and pro-<the other one>. Thing is I like DU like that. I like to think that each of us who post here can form an opinoion and I would rather be friends with someone I may disagree with then someone who insists we all think alike.

Geez

:grr:

[bobbolink]

14. Actually, you're mistaken. The Admins HAVE made some things quite clear.

It was posted a while back that those who disagree with gay rights are out of bounds at DU.

So, why aren't other "litmus" tests OK?

Especially in issues where lives are at stake?

[LynneSin]

18. that's also CIVIL RIGHTS

And the admins would say the same thing if I decided to post against the rights of women, minorities and disabilities too

[bobbolink]

21. You're right. Health care is not a right. Let 'em die.

[LynneSin]

30. If you don't understand this difference then I feel sorry for you

One may support rehaul of healthcare but may differ on the way that it's done. How you can equate that to the civil rights for GLBT shows that you're grasping for straws.

[bobbolink]

36. I'm soooo very relieved I have your sympathy.

Demeaning people is the favorite tool of the RW.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

37. What makes you think those are the only two options? n/t

[masuki bance]

19. Would Obama be welcomed as a DUer? nt

[bobbolink]

24. Yup, he's all about bipartisanship. Make nice with the GOP, and they'll be nice to us.

Oh, wait....

:shrug:

[masuki bance]

25. Object to the answer as non-responsive. nt

[bobbolink]

28. Object to self-righteousness.

[masuki bance]

29. It was a simple question. nt

[bobbolink]

34. You're right.. Very simple. And I mean that sincerely.

[masuki bance]

41. You won't answer it will you?

Fear? Cognitive dissonance?

He opposes gay marriage, is that a disqualifying stance at DU?

[bobbolink]

44. Your attacking is really interesting. As for your questions, you need to ask the admins,

don't you?

Now,enjoy your little superiority trip.

It's quite becoming.

And every sooooo "progressive".

[masuki bance]

49. Funny, you started off on this so sure of yourself, and

superior to the other DUer. Good day.

[bobbolink]

50. I'm sick of the DU elites who personally attack others. I'm shooting back.

You don't like it?

Then act in a respectful manner.

As you said.... quite simple.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

22. Because health care isn't a civil right.

Health care is a societal responsibility.

[LynneSin]

32. And there is no one clean answer as to the right way of rehauling healthcare

whereas with civil rights either you support the GLBT community in having the same rights as straight people or you don't.

[lumberjack_jeff]

42. "DU: love it or leave it", is sooo 48 hours ago.

Today, freethought rules.

This healthcare bill is not only as good as we are going to get, it is also good, period.

I agree with the OP. There is far too much outrage from people who are shocked, SHOCKED, I TELL YOU, that the bill doesn't make healthcare free. Angst! Teeth-gnashing! Rending of garments! We want the status quo until single payer health care drops fully formed from the sky, and we're willing to wait as long as it takes!

Or,

"It doesn't take effect until 2012???? Give up! Do over!"

The objections to the healthcare bill are based on uncharacteristically, nay incredibly, ignorant beliefs.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

16. Uh, as far as I can tell...

...there is currently no overall consensus within the Democratic party about the correct way to do health care reform. I'm not sure how partisanship even enters into it at this point.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

13. How much did you get paid for that post, Caligula? n/t

[LynneSin]

15. I'm still waiting for my paycheck but willing to take counter-offers

I'm cheap - what can I say

:eyes:

[berni_mccoy]

4. I don't have problem with disagreement, but there appears to be a campaign against the bill

and some people here are promoting that campaign.

[LynneSin]

11. and?

:shrug:

Perhaps on other issues with DU they support.

I hardly think DU has any impact over what the rest of the country does or think.

[Oregone]

6. Yes, everyone you disagree with is a paid conspiratorial nemesis

:)

[LynneSin]

12. damnit, someone owes me money!!!

:eyes:

oh and :sarcasm: since some folks just take this shit way too seriously!

[masuki bance]

7. ...

[Warpy]

8. We've been fucked over on health insurance since the 80s

and the rules for insurance companies changed so they could fuck us over.

My guess is that a lot of us are trying very hard not to raise our hopes too high that this country will ever deal fairly with its people on this issue or any other.

That's the reason for the negative posting. We know they want to keep on cheating us and killing us with impunity. We're just afraid they're more powerful than we are, still.

[ipaint]

9. As one of the evil ones

I fall more into the group that agrees with these folks and others like them

Dr. Sidney Wolfe
Dr. David Himmelstein
Bill Moyers
All the medical professionals at http://www.pnhp.org/

Those nasty people. ;-)

[Ian David]

17. Or they could just be secretaries and admins at health insurance companies...

... who think they will lose their $20-$30,000 a year job photocopying and fetching coffee.

[Donnachaidh]

20. oh please - didn't get multiple high fives and a race to the greatest page

So it's a conspiracy. :sarcasm:

Sorry if some of us aren't in cheerleader mode over this bill. :shrug:

[Laelth]

23. Believe it. The bill stinks.

And, while there may be some right wing shills here (we're pretty good at spotting them), I can assure you it's concern for good legislation and progressive change that's fueling my objections.

1. We're forced to buy it (if we have neither insurance nor medicaid nor medicare) and we suffer criminal penalties if we don't. Bad idea. Mass. tried it, and from what I have heard, it has been a boon to the insurance industry, and nothing more.

2. The public option has to compete with private insurers on a "level" playing field. Why? Does that help health care? No. It just protects private insurance company profits.

3. Doctors and hospitals can opt out. They don't have to accept patients with public option insurance, and the bureaucracy is set up to make them not want to take it. What good will this insurance do if doctors and hospitals won't take it?

See this post for details on that: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6075298

4. The only positive thing the bill accomplishes is that private insurers can no longer turn down people for having pre-existing conditions. Big deal. They can still find every excuse in the book to deny treatment.

No wonder the hospitals and insurance companies support this bill. Looks like a boon for them, but it stinks for us. Doing nothing would be better than this.

:dem:

-Laelth

[bobbolink]

31. That's not what conservative Dems are objecting to, and I think you know that.

They think this bill is too LIBERAL, and would have a heart-attack at your suggestions.

[Laelth]

38. Republicans said they hated Bill Clinton too.

Then they laughed all the way to the bank as Clinton "passed" NAFTA, destroyed AFDC, passed Telecom 1996, and repealed Glass-Steagal. Republicans and Blue Dogs always do this. They argue that anything a Democrat wants to do must be bad. Then they craft the legislation in a way that enriches their buddies and quietly celebrate when it passes.

I am not sure why Blue Dogs say they dislike this bill. Before it's done, though, it looks like it will stink worse. I already think it stinks now, and this is the unadulterated House version.

:dem:

-Laelth

[LynneSin]

35. Thanks for that overview

I'm just paranoid that the healthcare will turn into "Don' Ask Don't Tell" type policy. At the time DADT seemed like a great idea as a step forward for gays in the military but ended up only making things worse.

[Laelth]

40. My pleasure.

I am still reading whatever I can find on it. What you see above is my initial reaction to the things that stuck out for me while reading. I was trying to keep an open mind. I know Obama has suggested that he wants to institute the public insurance option in order to drive the health insurance industry, ultimately, out of the business, but I don't see how this law will accomplish that, not if the public option must compete on the "level playing field" that is designed to protect private insurers, and not when doctors and hospitals can refuse to treat people on public insurance.

If someone could explain to me how this bill would do anything to get the insurance companies out of the loop, I would reconsider my opinion, but I haven't seen a good argument to that effect yet.

:dem:

-Laelth

[LynneSin]

43. I'm still 'listening and learning'

The biggest thing for me is 'pre-existing conditions'. I don't want to lose health insurance because I'm 25lbs overweight or I have fair skin and a risk for sun cancer or some other crazy issue. I'm not keen on forcing people to have insurance unless there is something in play that insures that the insurance is affordable to everyone. I definately do not like the 'opt-out' feature but could see it used in a limited basis. I'm up in the air about that one.

[Laelth]

46. Here's what I can add.

The people on the left pushing for reform wanted to make it such that all doctors and hospitals that took medicare had to take public insurance. So, our default position was, "At least make all the worst hospitals and doctors take it (plus the saints--good doctors who take medicare patients because it's the right thing to do)." Instead, because the AMA got what they wanted, this bill requires no doctors and no hospitals to take public insurance patients, and it's set up to pay only slightly more for services than medicare does. Doctors and Hospitals will still want to take people with private insurance. So, only the very worst hospitals and doctors (the ones who have too few patients and want more), plus the saints, are likely to take people with public option insurance. And yet, people will be forced to buy some insurance. As such, the incentive will be to buy private insurance that pays doctors and hospitals more and avoid the public option altogether. Net result--everyone must buy insurance, and you should, if you're intelligent, buy it from a private insurer.

What good is that?

:shrug:

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--clarity, accuracy, changed medicaid to medicare.

[ipaint]

45. Here is something that may have started the process

This may have begun to phase out for profit corporations but all but four dems decided against it.

Posted on July 14, 2009
Senate HELP rejects enabling legislation for state single payer experiments


Senate HELP Committee
July 14, 2009

Sen. Bernie Sanders just offered an amendment to the Senate HELP health care reform bill that would allow a limited number of state experiments with single payer systems. The proposal would have provided waivers from federal regulations such as ERISA, and would have authorized current federal spending on programs such as Medicare and Medicaid to be transferred to the state to be used in the single payer program.

Those voting for the amendment:

Bernie Sanders
Tom Harkin
Sherrod Brown
Jeff Merkley

All Republicans and all other Democrats voted against it.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/july/senate_help_rejects_.php

[Laelth]

48. Needless to say, I would have supported that.

Of course, it's already dead in the water.

:dem:

-Laelth

[lumberjack_jeff]

47. One by one

1) Yes. That is what is meant by universal. If you don't buy in, you can choose to participate in the form of a 2.5% tax. You'll still have the wonderful ER care you currently have.
2) Even on a "level playing field", the public option has tremendous advantages.
3) The administration has already negotiated with the major hospital organizations to accept medicare/medicaid changes. Doctors will get 5% more for public option patients than medicaid patients. With the expansion of medicaid and the subscribers to the new plan, fewer doctors will be able to reject them. Also, because the uninsured are all but eliminated, reimbursements to doctors and hospitals need not be so high. Besides, the price pressure on private insurers will make privately insured patients less of an attractive cash cow. Bottom line, doctors and hospitals will have less motivation and ability to reject patients because of their insurance.
4) is only a big deal if you get sick, I suppose. It is a huge deal, and the standards established for insurers will drastically reduce the insurer's ability to deny treatment. Besides, in event of treatment denial by "insurer A", the patient can always do business with "insurer B"... or better yet, the public plan.
5) you forgot to mention that, unlike today, 80% of americans will get healthcare free, or subsidized, and that in the interest of preventing medical bankruptcy, we ALL are given the security of a cap to our possible costs.

Have we lost all sense of reality? There are only two doors;
a) this reform
b) the status quo

No pixie dust, no Dr Crusher's sickbay, no pony, no magic potions. Don't say something stinks unless you compare it to something reality-based.

The house bill is a very good bill.

[Laelth]

51. Thanks for this response, though the snark was unnecessary.

Let me respond so I can fully understand. I need more information.

As to our point #1, that's not what "universal" has to mean, but that is what it means in this case. Most industrialized countries don't do "universal" this way. Nevertheless, we both understand what the bill intends on this point.

As to our point #2, advantages? Like what? Looks to me like buying private insurance would be a better choice. I refer to the OP of this thread that lead me to this conclusion: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6075298. Private insurance will still pay doctors and hospitals more, and no doctor or hospital will be required to take public insurance patients. Yet, all of a sudden, lots more people will have insurance (by law). What will be the incentive to buy public insurance? How is this going to get the health insurance industry (eventually) out of the loop?

I'll give you point #4. Another advantage of "no denial for pre-existing conditions" is that you could, theoretically, switch to insurer B if insurer A is treating you badly. I am skeptical about how this would work, however.

Your point in #5 is the goal, but (as in Massachusetts), I suspect compliance with this law will be closer to 75%, and that lots of people will still not buy the insurance because they can't afford it. Paying $5,000/year when you earn $42,000/year is pretty steep. Doesn't sound "affordable" to me. And if doctors and hospitals won't take public option insurance (and there's no requirement for them to do so), no one will buy it. The end result then will be merely a boon to the insurance industry. If doctors and hospitals do take public option insurance, and if a lot of people buy it, perhaps we can get close to the coverage numbers you quoted. Perhaps.

As to your ultimate point, sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something. We might be able to get a much better law passed with 63 (or so) Senators in 2011. I would rather do nothing than pass a law people resent and hate (as is the case for many in Mass.) Do you want the party to get blamed for that in 2010?

It's a trap.

:dem:

-Laelth

[lumberjack_jeff]

54. I apologize for the snark. Healthcare reform is something I've been pushing for for 30 years.

But frankly, I think "universal" means "not optional". Having the option of buying coverage or paying a 2.5% tax is about as much option as the definition of universal can encompass.

Doctors have the luxury of rejecting medicaid patients today because 50% of patients have more lucrative forms of insurance. When that pool becomes 30%, fewer doctors will will do that. They are particularly less likely to do it when the private insurance companies must compete with the public insurance on price. I'm willing to believe that doctors income will probably drop, and I'm okay with that - the AMA has been the enemy of reform for a century.

Doing nothing is what we did in 1912. We did it again in 1930. We did it again in 1948. We did it again in the 70's. We did it again in 1992. We've developed all too much comfort with doing nothing.

The experience of ANY state is not analagous to what will occur under a federal plan. PhRma, major insurers and hospital giants have more power in this system than any single state. The only match for their combined might is the federal government.

If the main argument against this plan is that it doesn't make health care cheap via magic incantation, it's not a good argument. Health care costs this country 16% of our GDP. No solution, not even single payer, will change that reality instantly. 16% of GDP is roughly $6000 per person. Whether it's you, your employer or the government, someone currently pays that on your behalf. Someone will still have to pay that after reform, but what you will get;
1) a cap on the total amount you owe in event of major medical catastrophe. You shouldn't lose your house because of medical bills.
2) a guarantee that if you change jobs, or become self employed, you'll be able to get insurance
3) the knowledge that public insurance plan is competing in the market for customers, and that those pressures are helping to reduce costs
4) for those of us in the lower 75% of incomes, taxes will be used to subsidize our costs.
5) the fact that (almost) everyone is in the system, with the exception of those few who would prefer to pay the tax penalty than buy coverage, guarantees that when you visit a doctor, your charges are your charges, and not padded to enable the doctor to treat the next uninsured customer.
6) and lastly, if those weren't enough, no one need die because they can't afford care.

[Laelth]

56. Thanks for this response too.

I am afraid I will be unable to comply with this law (not a good thing for an attorney). I suspect lots of people like me will resent "the heavy hand of government" forcing us to buy insurance we can not afford. I don't want to sound like a concern troll, but I really do worry that we'll get beaten over the head with this law in 2010.

We need health care, not insurance. In the event that either my wife or I get sick, it will be nice knowing we won't lose the house over it. We might lose the house anyway due to the economy.

In any event, I appreciate the time you gave me in writing out that thoughtful post.

:dem:

-Laelth

[lumberjack_jeff]

55. sorry for the dupe. self delete

self delete... double-tap

[Coyote_Bandit]

26. Health care reform

is my line in the sand. While I would much prefer a Democratic Congress and President I have no intention of voting for any candidate to retain office if they oppose some form of single payer. Fuck 'em. I'd prefer to have someone in office that actually works to advance and protect my interests.

Car insurance is mandatory in this state. Yet the most recent estimate is that well over one third of the vehicles on the road do not carry minimum liability coverage. You think health insurance will be different?

And somebody who can barely afford a health insurance policy with a $10,000 deductible and a co-pay is still going to be underinsured and go without health care.

You can pretend that this represents "reform" but the simple fact is that many millions will still go without health care and health insurance. Hell, you can't even opt into the public option unless someone deems you worthy of doing so. That makes this a windfall for health insurers. This so-called "reform" is pretty much worthless. But, hey, I'm glad some folks are able to pretend otherwise and feel better.

And, guess what? Nobody paid me for my opinion.

[bobbolink]

33. I totally agree with your first paragraph, and feel the same way about low-income housing!

I'm done with the lesser of two weevils.

[Cerridwen]

39. "private health insurers, who are going to gain 40 million customers in a reformed system"

From this link quoting:

Insurers are among the last segment of the healthcare industry that have not pledged to help fund the estimated $1 trillion reform that aims to rein in soaring costs and provide medical coverage to millions of the uninsured.

Drugmakers have committed $80 billion and the hospital sector has offered $155 billion, both over a decade.

"We need the insurance companies to step up to the plate," Schumer said. "It makes sense that private health insurers, who are going to gain 40 million customers in a reformed system, should pay their fair share."

"It'll never pass" - it won't, at least as written. Surely you know that.

"It's not single-payer" - it's not. It's a conglomeration of for-profit companies who are gaining 40,000,000 new customers.

"It's not like any other system in the world" - it's not.

"it costs too much" - it does, because it leaves profit in for private insurance companies.

I'm one of those evil people who want the freaking profit motive removed from health care.

[superduperfarleft]

52. +1. n/t

[Laelth]

57. Well done. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[superduperfarleft]

53. The idea that there are paid "shills" for various industries who are compensated to post on DU

is one of the stupidest myths out there. It may come as an enormous shock, but no one other than DU really cares what happens on DU.