LEAKED: More Than Fifty House Progressives Privately Commit To Oppose Weak Health Care Bill

[babylonsister]

Ryan Grim

LEAKED: More Than Fifty House Progressives Privately Commit To Oppose Weak Health Care Bill

Posted: 07-15-09 07:01 PM


Progressive Democrats are taking a hard stand on health care reform, with a majority committing to oppose any health care reform package that doesn't include a robust public option. On Wednesday, they got an inadvertent assist by an anonymous leak of their "whip list."

A whip list, which is generally tightly guarded, is used by congressional leaders to keep track of the private pledges made by members before a vote. The list is kept private to encourage frank answers from members so that leadership can gather accurate intelligence.

The whip list was obtained by mcjoan, a DailyKos diarist. It names fifty members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) who have firmly pledged to oppose any bill that doesn't meet the group's standards. Without those fifty votes, Democrats would be unable to pass the reform effort without Republican support. (Once Judy Chu is sworn in, there will be 256 Democrats, and one "closet Democrat"; 218 are needed for passage, leaving Democrats 12 votes short.)

Rep. Diane Watson (D-Calif.) is in charge of keeping the whip count for the CPC. Watson spokeswoman Dorinda White confirmed that the list is accurate but slightly out of date and that more members have since confirmed that they'll oppose the bill if it isn't firm enough.

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/15/leaked-more-than-fifty-ho_n_234425.html

[robinlynne]

1. bout time!!!!!!!!!!

[marmar]

2. Every time I'm ready to completely write off politicians.....

.... the Congressional Progressive Caucus restores a little bit of hope.

[snake in the grass]

3. marked for later n/t

[aquamarina]

4. Good - the last thing we need is a healthcare bill that works

like Don't Ask Don't Tell. Sometimes it's not good to compromise.

[GinaMaria]

105. +1 You can't compromise in a crisis

and we have a health care crisis. What's needed is immediate, direct and decisive action aimed at neutralizing the crisis. Nice to see some backbone :-)

[madrchsod]

5. at least 50 democrats can see it`s a sham

there`s nothing in the bill that fundamentally changes the insurance costs. publicly funded insurance-medicare-is the plan that will work. private insurance can sell only supplemental and boutique plans.

at least 50 democrats know the bill is `t worth the paper it`s written on.

[Laelth]

6. Finally! Real Democrats speak! k&r n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Mojambo]

7. That's really terrific news

A feeble success does more damage than no success at all, IMO.

LOVE to see progressives flexing on this.

[Davis_X_Machina]

8. If everyone can see it, and it's been there for weeks....

how can it be leaked? A public whip count is on firedoglake.com, updated daily, and been there for weeks.

[ipaint]

9. Congressional Progressive Caucus

The Congressional Progressive Caucus calls for a robust public option that must:

Enact concurrently with other significant expansions of coverage and must not be conditioned on private industry actions.

Consist of one entity, operated by the federal government, which sets policies and bears the risk for paying medical claims to keep administrative costs low and provide a higher standard of care.

Be available to all individuals and employers across the nation without limitation

Allow patients to have access to their choice of doctors and other providers that meet defined participation standards, similar to the traditional Medicare model, promote the medical home model, and eliminate lifetime caps on benefits.

Have the ability to structure the provider rates to promote quality care, primary care, prevention, chronic care management, and good public health.

Utilize the existing infrastructure of successful public programs like Medicare in order to maintain transparency and consumer protections for administering processes including payment systems, claims and appeals.

Establish or negotiate rates with pharmaceutical companies, durable medical equipment providers, and other providers to achieve the lowest prices for consumers.

Receive a level of subsidy and support that is no less than that received by private plans.
Ensure premiums must be priced at the lowest levels possible, not tied to the rates of private insurance plans.

In conclusion, the public plan, like all other qualified plans, must redress historical disparities in underrepresented communities. It must provide a standard package of comprehensive benefits including dental, vision, mental health and prescription drug coverage with no pre-existing condition exclusions. It must limit cost-sharing so that there are no barriers to care, and incorporate up-to-date best practice models to improve quality and lower costs. All plans, including the public plan, must include coverage for evidence-based preventive health services at minimal or no co-pay. All plans, including the public plan, should be at least as transparent as traditional Medicare.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/15/753811/-CPCs-Whip-Count-on-Public-Option

All names at link.
The story I read is firedoglake was filming their replies individually over some time and it was leaked to show all those in support of a robust public option all at once.

[bvar22]

10. I want that list.

That will be the list of Democrats who will receive direct donations from me.
No DNC.
No DSCC.
No DCCC.

[MindMatter]

122. They are missing the most important point

With one additional change, they could blow the industry apologists out of the water.

The public options will be funded by the premiums of its participants and will receive no special support or subsidies that are not generally available to for-profit insurance companies.

If that were the plan, there would be absolutely no argument against this. By not making this simple covenant, it leads people to conclude that the hidden agenda is actually to have the taxpayers (general revenues) subsidize the plan, and that would be unfair to the private companies.

I want to kick their sorry asses on a level playing field to put an end once and for all to that GOP bullshit about the "free market" always being the best choice.

[Lasher]

129. Insurance companies already got a chance to compete on a level playing field.

They got Medicare Advantage, AKA Part C. They couldn't compete with traditional Parts A % B so GWB and his Bush league lapdog GOP Congress started giving them higher per capita government subsidies than those going to traditional Medicare. Obama has said he's going to fix that so that these Medicare Advantage insurance companies get the level playing field they pretend to want.

[Raineyb]

131. I'm not interested in a level playing field

I don't think for profit insurance companies should be in the business of being the gatekeepers between you and needed medical care at all. Let them do what they do in other countries. Cover things like cosmetic boob jobs, more cushy hospital rooms and other extraneous stuff like that.

[MindMatter]

134. I don't blame anybody for being suspicious

if we aren't willing to say we think a public (not profit driven) option can do the job better than for-profit corporations. If we aren't willing to say there would be no taxpayer subsidies giving the public option an unfair advantage, then we shouldn't cry when this goes up in flames. Because what we are really saying is not that public is more efficient, but that we really just want to dump this on the taxpayers.

That's a different concept. That's single payer and that isn't going to fly this year.

What DOES have a chance is a head-on confrontation between a public program versus the profit-driven programs on a level playing field.

I'm not saying there can't be any taxpayer support. Indeed, that is probably necessary in order to cover the most needy. All I'm saying is that the taxpayer support should be in the equation equally for the for-profit and public options and let's see why approach produces the better results.

I'm no great lover of big bureaucracies, but the profit motive simply doesn't belong in something as fundamental as our health, and I believe the public option would prevail on a fair, level playing field.

Those who don't embrace the level playing field are sending this historic opportunity up in flames because that is the only way to get the other side to agree to a robust public option -- and they have every right to that position.

[RBInMaine]

136. You are right on target ! Nice post. Dems MUST come together on this, PERIOD . Public option is

our ONLY option right now. All Dems will see this. There is a long way to go in the final crafting, but the progressives are too smart to allow the R's ANY victory on this issue.

[Stinky The Clown]

11. YeeeeHA ..... K&R

[Douglas Carpenter]

12. good

[HughMoran]

13. K and mother fucking R!!!!

Glad we're finally seeing some backbone from at least some Democrats.

[ibegurpard]

14. I want to know what they mean by a "robust public option"

Adding another layer of complication to our already existing system and forcing everyone to buy insurance is not what a lot of people had in mind when they envisioned health care reform.
I want taxpayer-funded single-payer government funded HEALTHCARE. This can be paid for by the money that my employer and I now funnel to for-profit health insurance companies.
Let's start there and then look at compromises...let's not start with this bullshit "solve the crisis by making everyone buy insurance" option.

[dflprincess]

138. For sure it's NOT what's in this bill

they are setting it up for failure. This bill would not have been acceptable as a compromise and it can only get worse once the full House starts working on it.

[JimWis]

15. K&R

[earth mom]

16. Hell has frozen over, I recommended this thread.

:wow:

[hootinholler]

17. WTF?

All the cats are moving in the same direction?

:woohoo:

-Hoot

[defendandprotect]

18. kick

[abumbyanyothername]

19. Excellent, babylon.

I would have said, bs, but that would be open to misinterpretation.

[karynnj]

20. I hope they are using this just for leverage

and will consider if the bill as written is better than the status quo.

[dflprincess]

21. And I hope they stick to it if the bill isn't improved

this is not reform.

[ibegurpard]

22. agreed

a mandate to purchase health insurance is not what most people had in mind when they envisioned health care reform.

[karynnj]

65. That is what Edwards and Clinton both proposed

[quakerboy]

77. And notice that neither won?

just sayin.

[Bluenorthwest]

83. The guy who won said 'no mandates'

and in addition to that, he said Clinton was for mandated purchase and that mandates were bad, so we should vote for him to have no mandated purchase.
So what about that? Why are mandates part of the plan the President is pushing, when he himself stood clearly against them, and strongly said Clinton was the wrong choice because she was for mandates?

[dflprincess]

118. The guy who won also once said he supported single payer

(when he was just a state senator, I know he didn't say that while running for president)

The further he moves up the political ladder, the more he caters to the corporations and ignores the people who voted him into office.

[quakerboy]

144. I don't know

other than he seems to be kowtowing to the other side on this. Its disappointing. I'm still hoping against hope that what comes out in the end will be superior to my expectations.

Unfortunately the only one singing the single payer tune also saw aliens. And is lacking in charisma, much as I love him.

[lumberjack_jeff]

27. It is fundamental reform.

It is a great first step and is a life or death issue for millions.

[ContinentalOp]

32. First step my ass. It's the only step we're going to get.

Whatever passes this year is the best we can ever hope for. After that prepare yourself for decades of Republicans turning the public against the system and stripping it of all of its funding.

[lumberjack_jeff]

48. Just like social security and Medicare. I remember when Reagan dismantled....

Oh wait.

This is a progressive opportunity unlike any we've had since Social Security was first formed. In the beginning, Social Security was nothing like the comprehensive system we now have, it evolved over time.

And the public insurance pool is self-supporting... there's is no funding to strip. The only funding is the money given to low and middle income taxpayers to subsidize their costs.

[ContinentalOp]

59. OK, I'm still pigheadedly skeptical but maybe I'm not being fair. I'll reconsider. -nt-

[Bluenorthwest]

85. The plan you support discriminates against GLBT couples and families

And will destroy the family life of millions of Americans in order to please the religionist bigotry of Obama's preacher pals, and of Josh DuBois's Office of Faith Based Hate.
Such an unjust plan can not be allowed to become law and further codify the prejudices and theologies of hate filled religious people into our secular law.
The Heterosexual Community needs to get their activists in line and stop pushing hate. If you are straight, it is your job, and if you fail it will be on your hands. It is being done for you, to please your preachers and your priests, this immoral treatment of your neighbors.
And many here celebrate it because it will help them and they do not care if it destroys other families. I got mine is the new DU motto.

[karynnj]

64. and get nothing?

That is the more likely than everyone going back and creating a better bill.

[UTUSN]

26. Yip, as opposed to one component of the Democratic coalition

doing what Blue Dogs and Repukes want done: Defeating whatever (even a first step).

(Where's a smilie for Poster being shot by a firing squad?!1)

[karynnj]

63. I have never supported what the blue dogs and Republicans have done

I hope that Kennedy can get a public option through the Senate - but if he doesn't, there looks like there is enough good, that it would be terrible to defeat something better than the status quo, if it is the best we can get.

[UTUSN]

102. I was agreeing with you. One of our own coalition components (the purist "Progressives") would

rather shoot down anything less than "perfect." The end result of defeating a bill --whether by the purist "progressives" or the Blue Dogs or the Repukes--- is the SAME, regardless of the different rationalizations for defeating it.

[karynnj]

140. sorry

It was my fault

[quakerboy]

78. A mandate to pay private insurers

is not better than the status quo. I for one will not rest, nor stop pushing, until we have real reform.

When was the last time the sausage that came out the other end was better than the ideas shoved in from our end? I hope that the progressive caucus is pushing for us with every ounce of political power they have. I hope they are deadly serious and this is the start of the democratic party as a whole finding their spine. I hope that they will stand strong and resolute in not accepting anything less than a real solution. Anything less will mean more suffering for Americans.

[scheming daemons]

23. That's just great.... Health Care Reform dead for another 20 years....

(sigh)

...who would've thought progressives would kill it?


The "perfect" has become the enemy of the "good".



The house plan is a GOOD plan. It is not a PERFECT plan.


And because purists want a PERFECT plan, they're going to kill a GOOD plan.... and end up with *NO* plan.

[lumberjack_jeff]

28. I'm getting pretty pissed off at the purists. n/t

[masuki bance]

24. Wait a second, what about all the posters here at DU who have been accusing

people of being paid corporate shills for questioning the perfection of the bill that was announced?

[lumberjack_jeff]

25. I don't get it. I see a very good bill.

The only limitation is relying upon the health insurance exchange to set premiums, but I can see some good pragmatic reasons why it must be so.

[scheming daemons]

29. Again... the progressive who will accept NOTHING BUT a single-payer plan, are going to kill it

...and there won't be another chance like this for decades to get a good health care plan.


It's going to die... and it will be progressives who killed it.


...and then the Dems will get hammered in '10 and '12.... and the window to get this done would've closed.



All because a group of 50 purists decided that they wouldn't vote for anything short of their "perfect" bill.

[ibegurpard]

31. this isn't even CLOSE to perfect

[scheming daemons]

35. It's a good bill. Not great... but good. It accomplishes most of the goals.

...and it is something that is palatable to enough Americans to get acceptance.


But go ahead... kill it.


I've got good insurance... I'll survive. But millions won't survive.



Can some things be changed? Of course.... but this bill is pretty damn good.

[Enthusiast]

82. Agree, not close to perfect.

But blue dog Democrats might even vote against these meager changes.

[prayin4rain]

80. The democrats are in charge for once... why shouldn't they push through a single payer plan? n/t

[babylonsister]

93. These progressives aren't talking about single payer but

a 'robust public option'. That sounds good to me. If there's not at least that, what's the point?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

99. The plan of the Republicans and Blue Dogs (same difference) is their

typical passive-aggressive tactic of PRETENDING to solve the problem and then, when it turns into a huge mess (like the Massachusetts plan), they can say, "See, health care reform doesn't work."

I find it really revealing and infuriating that if you look at the readers' comments in the New York Times on a daily basis, there is OVERWHELMING support for a single-payer option, and yet, as these same readers complain, the Times doesn't even MENTION single-payer when it discusses "all" the options.

[Enrique]

113. that's completely false

I don't know of any dem that demands a single-payer plan. Certainly this article says no such thing.

[ibegurpard]

30. What you don't get

is that many people see insurance as the PROBLEM not the solution.
Yes, I fully understand that single-payer is pie-in-the-sky but starting from this compromised position is not sitting well with a lot of people who had very different ideas about health care "reform."

[scheming daemons]

33. Yup... no compromises, right?

The bill must be perfect, or it must die.


Got it.


See you in 2028, which will be the next time we have a chance to do anything with Health Care.


because if this bill dies, it will be 1994 all over again. There won't be another chance for decades.

[ibegurpard]

36. no compromises?

Jesus Christ, they sat down with the insurance companies AT THE TABLE and came out with this.
I'll compromise but not from my minimum break-even point which is what this is...

[scheming daemons]

38. What *IS* your minimum acceptable bill?

Like lumberjack said... SINGLE PAYER AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN IN THIS BILL.


Now... once you accept that... what kind of bill would be acceptable to you?

[Imperialism Inc.]

127. The same thing the progressives are standing up for. The bill must

have a public option. Personally I wouldn't vote for anything that didn't include open enrollment requirements but I wouldn't demand that from any of my reps. Public option just like the article says. Not single payer which is mentioned nowhere. If you are going to hound people you should at least take a class or something to help you comprehend basic English.

[MessiahRp]

58. The "compromises" are like banks not only letting bank robbers go but giving them a huge bag of cash

on the way out.

People in large majorities are sick and tired of letting the bank robbers (HMOs) come in and clean them out. Raising premiums all the while they pay less claims out and find ridiculous reasons to deny claims for profit even allowing them to exist is saying that the criminals run the show and the the sheriff is too big of a fucking coward to do anything about it (or worse, in cahoots).

Your plan keeps the criminals robbing us. Most Americans are tired of being robbed.

Rp

[lumberjack_jeff]

34. *gouging eyes out*

Are we idiots?

Why is "pie in the sky" an actual goal?

We. Know. Right. Now. That. Single. Payer. Won't. Pass.

What we have is this, and it is good. I know unicorns are supposed to be cool and all, but I want to keep this fucking pony.

[ibegurpard]

39. That "pie-in-the-sky" is REALITY

in many other industrialized countries
And, no, people aren't dying in emergency rooms contrary to the stories the insurance and pharma company propagandists are pushing.
We have the biggest majority we've had in DECADES and we're starting with this???
are you fucking kidding me?

[lumberjack_jeff]

41. No, what we started with was Obama, and a bunch of corporatist democrats.

This is as good as it gets.

[Jennicut]

91. True. Its even worse in the Senate. But I am glad to see these Reps stand

up for us.

[Laelth]

37. I honestly can not afford any extra expenses right now.

I am going to be ordered to fork out an extra $3,000/year (as I calculate it) to comply with this bill if it becomes law, and I will not be able to do it. I am a self-employed attorney, but business has been bad due to the economy. Not crippling--there's just no extra money. None. I will not qualify for an adequate subsidy. I will have to violate this law (not good for an attorney).

This thing is great for you. It's good for people with pre-existing conditions who can afford insurance but can't get it. It's great for people with chronic conditions because it removes the lifetime limits.

But it sux for me because it will make me a criminal. In addition, it's bad for the party because lots of people in my position will resent being ordered to pay this extra bill. It may even cost us Congress in 2010. Is that so hard to understand?

:shrug:

-Laelth

[scheming daemons]

42. I don't think you are understanding the bill

If you already have insurance (which you don't indicate in your post, but I'm assuming you do), nothing changes for you.

If you don't have insurance, and you make less than 43K a year (individual) or 88K a year (family), then this plan costs you nothing


The only way you are affected, is if you make more than 43K/88K and do not currently have insurance.


Are you in that position?


You admit in your post that this bill is good for many many people (those with pre-existing conditions, etc)... but NOT good for you in particular.


As Hillary said during the campaign, universal health care doesn't work unless EVERYBODY is paying into it. She's right.


You don't have a choice as to whether you pay into Social Security... and this plan will not even be that restricting. If you have insurance, you don't have to do anything.

[Laelth]

47. Um ... self-employed. That means I have no insurance.

If I could afford insurance, I would have already bought it. I can not afford it. Ordering me to buy it when I can't afford it (but telling me that, by law, I can afford it) will cause massive resentment.

And it's hard to say what I make, honestly, because it varies dramatically from year to year. My biggest problem is a whole lot of student loan debt that needs paying off. I feel like I can't afford insurance even if (last year) I might actually have been able to do so. I certainly can't afford to buy a policy this year. Of course, under this plan, my last year's tax returns (presumably) would be used to determine my income. That's how I came up with the $3,000 figure. I couldn't afford to shell that out this year.

In any event, thanks for trying to explain this cumbersome apparatus to me.

:dem:

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--added 2nd paragraph.

[scheming daemons]

49. Is your income less than 88K?

If so, you'll pay nothing.


I'm curious though... what do you do NOW if you need to go to a doctor? Pay out of pocket?


You're one bad trip down a flight of stairs from being bankrupt.

Wouldn't it be better to buy into a $3000/year plan?

[dflprincess]

51. $88,000 is the limit for a family of 4

$43,000 is the limit for singles. Keep in mind these limits are gross income. They do not take into account what you pay in FICA, federal and state taxes. Nor does it consider what your housing, utilities and other expenses might be and there is no adjustment for regional cost of living expenses.

[Laelth]

54. I thought they were planning to add regional adjustments. n/t

:shrug:

:dem:

-Laelth

[dflprincess]

121. I didn't see that - but I haven't finished reading the full bill

we can only hope they do that, but I think it would be something new. I recall hearing that New York City tried to get higher income limits for SCHIP and was told "no". (But I don't know if NYC already had different limits for that and perhaps thought they should be higher.)

[Laelth]

52. I don't go to the doctor. Period. Haven't been to one in 10 years.

For dentist and optometrist I pay out of pocket. I'm very close to being bankrupt now. In fact, I am legally bankrupt (my debts far exceed my assets). I just haven't filed for it yet. It would be pointless. Student loans can't be discharged.

As for your other questions, I think I have already expressed enough about my personal finances on a public forum.

My understanding was that the public plan would be free for those who were under 133% of poverty and "subsidized" up to the 43/88 level, with premiums capped at 5K/10K. I am in the "subsidized" range, and the subsidy will not help at all.

:dem:

-Laelth

[lumberjack_jeff]

70. Within the "subsidized range" premiums could be from $510/year to $9000.

... but the cap is $5000 for a single person.

[Laelth]

73. Yup. I calculate mine should equal about $3K/year.

I can't afford that this year. No way. Might be able to next year, but who knows?

I loathe this idea, and I think it's almost always wrong to criminalize people who can't pay. We eliminated debtors' prisons a long time ago.

:dem:

-Laelth

[scheming daemons]

50. One more point: Most states REQUIRE auto owners to buy auto insurance

This is no different.


Why is there no massive resentment and upheaval in the country from being forced to own auto insurance?

[Laelth]

53. I resent that too.

Lots of people do, and lots of people drive without insurance. I would resent it a lot less if there were adequate public transportation in this country, but for most people driving is a necessity. If driving were truly an option, I would not resent the state forcing me to buy insurance for the privilege of driving on the roads.

Is health care a privilege? Is that what we're saying?

:dem:

-Laelth

[scheming daemons]

55. No.... but unless EVERYONE pays into it, it won't work

And when you fall down those hypothetical steps and are taken to the emergency room, then the rest of us will be footing the bill for you.


If you want to opt out, then you should be forced to sign a waiver saying that you will not use medical services on the taxpayer dollar.


Why should *I* pay for your emergency care, because you decided that you weren't going to be in the system?



(Please understand, when I say "you" in the above sentence - I don't mean YOU in particular. I mean anyone who doesn't buy into the system).

[Laelth]

56. I agree. Everyone must pay in.

There are two ways to do that, though--taxation and premiums. This bill advances a premium model. I can't pay the premium, and I'm warning anyone who will listen that this is going to cause a lot of resentment and could hurt the party.

The taxation model (which the UK has) is a much better way to insure that "everyone pays in," imho.

:dem:

-Laelth

[karynnj]

66. However, the tax should equal the premium

People already insured would have to pay nothing. Otherwhise every company will drop there plans, because the value to employees would be less than the amount they pay because they would still have to pay a surtax for everyone else's insurance.

[Laelth]

69. The tax should equal the premium?

No, I'm talking about general tax revenues--not an individual tax on the individual insured.

Let companies drop their employees' insurance. Increase corporate taxes to cover the difference (since those companies will gain a lot of profit by dropping insurance coverage).

:dem:

-Laelth

[karynnj]

89. My point is that otherwise, this will be a political negative

for the roughly 54% of the country that have employer paid insurance.

The companies will NOT gain as much as the full cost for everyone. They are not paying even the full cost for their employees now. I know my husband and I pay more than double the $3000 you are speaking of - and that is with the company paying money itself. Clearly the amount they now pay for insurance in aggregate, which is less than the full cost of all the employees cover, is nowhere near the cost of all their employees and all people not insured and those buying it themselves.

[Laelth]

110. I hear that, and you may be right.

I still can not support a massive new tax on the uninsured (the people least able to pay for it). If this bill passes as written, it will drive people away from the Democratic Party in droves. People will deeply resent a massive new tax. My bill, I calculate, will be an extra $3K/year. That's a big new tax burden to smack down on the uninsured within the struggling middle class. We will deeply resent it.

:dem:

-Laelth

[karynnj]

139. A new "tax", but you do get something for it

Although it may have been so in the past, it is unlikely that you will forever avoid medical expenses. Could you be risking something more essential than $3000 by never getting medical insurance?

[Laelth]

141. It's true. I do get something.

It gives me pause, however, that no doctor and no hospital will be required to take any patient with public insurance. Even with this insurance, I am unlikely to go to the doctor because I am unlikely to be able to afford the co-pays.

In civilized countries a progressive tax that puts the burden on those most able to afford it pays for the system. The proposed, regressive tax that we're talking about now puts most of the burden on the shoulders of those who can least afford to pay for it--the uninsured, themselves--in the form of a new tax of between 1.5% and 11.5% of gross income.

That's insane, and it will drive people away from the Democratic Party in droves.

But I will get something for my new, heavy tax burden. I don't deny that.

:dem:

-Laelth

[ibegurpard]

57. Forcing everyone to buy medical insurance

is not ensuring anything about fixing the incredibly overvalued medical "services" we are dealing with.
That is one reason why I am so leery about a plan so heavily invested in insurance.
Not unless it has EXTREMELY strong controls on pricing and STRONG oversight.

[Laelth]

60. Better for me to die than for you to pay higher taxes?

And please, understand, that my use of the word "you" above refers to your standard, greedy Republican, and not to you, personally, at all.

Trust me. I am doing my best to save the taxpayer's money. That's why I haven't been to a doctor in 10 years.

:shrug:

:dem:

-Laelth

[scheming daemons]

67. What difference does it make if you pay a $3000 premium or you pay $3000 more in taxes?

Please explain that....


And while it is fortunate that you haven't been to a doctor in 10 years.... can you GUARANTEE that you won't be in an accident and need a ambulance and emergency care? No matter how healthy you are, you can't control things like that.

Some drunk driver runs a red-light and slams into your car, you're going to the hospital.


Who pays for your emergency care in that case?


Right now... the taxpayer does. Under this plan, at least you're part of the "pool" paying in.

[Laelth]

68. LOL. I got an earned income tax credit year-before-last.

I don't pay income taxes, most years, because I don't make enough money to owe them. I pay sales and property taxes. I have, in the past, paid significant capital gains taxes, i.e. I've already paid a lot into "the system," and I will again when my income improves.

I just can't do it now, and a law that forces me to do it now will hurt--a lot, and I am not the only one. Such a law will also drive a lot of people away from the party. Personally, I hope we can pick up some seats in 2010. This bill, if it becomes law, will drive people away in droves.

And you do sound like you're saying it's better for me to die than for your taxes to go up. I am sorry to hear that you feel that way.

:dem:

-Laelth

[scheming daemons]

75. I'm absolutely NOT saying that

I'm saying it is better for you to be paying into the system, and that goes for anyone who is uninsured, so that the rest of us aren't footing the bill for you.


And actually... if you die, there's no health care costs for you at all anymore.

My hypothetical was only badly injuring you, not killing you. ;-)

[InkAddict]

98. I work PT and am not eligible for benefits

except ones in which Goldman-Sachs robs me of earnings, so I don't participate - I am the only one working in my "family" of 3 adults. I work for FI*&(*G doctors. The "manager" doesn't want to "go to jail" so I was told to keep hours under 30. Unemployment has erased any chance of saving in any way/shape/form once my loved ones roll off, and it's getting close. I can't bury myself either - guess who gets to pay for that?

[Gwendolyn]

79. You don't really make a lot of sense.

You're complaining that you'll be forced to provide for your own healthcare (which you would be doing under single payer, and it would be "forced" as well) even estimating it at the $3000 range, which seems to imply that you have a a source of income from your small business venture.

And yet in other posts you veer in the opposite direction and claim that you make no money. Technically, under the new system if you have no income you'll be subsidized, covered completely, with others footing the bill for you. So which is it? Do you make no money, or are you in the average range but can't see yourself forking over anything because you have other expenses? Hate to break it to you, but even if the new system was single payer, you'd still be out of luck with the expenses excuse. You'd STILL have to pay up, regardless of student loans or other fiscal obligations. And the government WOULD take it from you, one way or another.

[Bluenorthwest]

88. That is a tactic too cheap for this discussion

That poster is NOT complaining that she will have to pay for health care. She is saying she can not afford to be forced to buy Insurance. health care and insurance are not interchangeable terms. They do not mean the same thing.
And this bill you support is prejudiced and bigoted and will tear my family apart. So thanks for your thoughtless and fully ego based opinions on the subject. But again 'health care' is not the same as 'Insurance'. Try to learn at least that much, as you support the destruction of my family.
It is common for bigots to play disingenuous word games as they support law to express their prejudices willy nilly and with no regard for the lives of others. So it is not like I am surprised that your argument is weak and mean in style and expression.

[Amos Moses]

96. thank you

:applause: :yourock:

[Gwendolyn]

137. Oh please...

:eyes: You won't find a more staunch supporter of single payer, and as much as I know about this proposed system, it doesn't thrill me. Getting the insurance companies OUT is the only way to go. I grew up in a single payer country and understand full well how it works and what the benefits are.

The poster just doesn't seem to get even the basics of single payer however. Under the single payer system, the fee is taken at source out of your paycheck before you get it. If you are self-employed you pay it as per your assessment. There is no, "nah, I can't afford it this year, thanks though" business under single payer, so that works in the same way as this proposed scheme. If you are self-employed and don't pay your taxes, the government WILL come after you and you WILL pay fines. Same thing.

Under single payer in Canada, there is a sliding scale payment, which is augmented through sales and federal taxes. Ontario has a 13% sales tax. On top of that, a portion of federal taxes also goes toward health care. The rich provinces kick in to help the poor ones.

This is Ontario's sliding scale for health care user payments.

http://www.rev.gov.on.ca/english/taxes/healthpremium/rates.html

On top of this, as I said, people also pay a higher sales tax, and a higher tax rate.

From what I could tell, the poster wants health care for FREE, and seems to think that single payer countries get that. This is ABSOLUTELY not so. If Canada is not enough of an example for you, also go look up the tax rate in the UK for example. It's scary to an American. It looks to me like the fees offered up in the new system are sort of within the ball park. Sorry if that sounds bigoted (?) or party pooperish.

But all that aside, I hope your rant made you feel better. I doubt your family will be torn apart by the new health scheme, but I agree single payer would be a better option.

[Jennicut]

90. Not going to a doctor in 10 years is a very bad thing for the health care system

if you had something you could have prevented from getting worse. That costs more money in the long run. As a diabetic I am horrified when people tell me they have not been to a Dr. in years. I am a seemingly healthy 33 year old. You never know what you could end up with. Please, go to a Dr. and get a normal checkup.

[Laelth]

109. I would love to go see a doctor.

I can not afford it. I don't know how to make that more clear.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Jennicut]

111. Sorry, didn't see that. People like you are getting so screwed over by the current system.

It really does piss me off...and like I said if people actually had the health care insurance to visit the doctor more money could be saved in the long run. Its a ridiculous system.

[Laelth]

117. If this bill passes, I will also get hit with a new, $3K/year tax bill.

I can't afford that, either. If I could, I would have already bought insurance.

This bill, if it becomes law, will help people with pre-existing conditions who can afford insurance but can't get it, and it will help people with chronic illnesses. It will really hurt most of the uninsured, however, people who don't have insurance because we simply can not afford it. While the rich are being asked to contribute a little to the cost, the majority of the cost will be passed onto the uninsured, themselves--the ones who don't have insurance because they can't afford it. I, and other uninsured people, will get hit with a whopping new tax bill equal to 12% of our gross income.

This is insane, and it is unconscionable. I hope the Progressive Caucus can prevent this bill from becoming law.

:dem:

-Laelth

[kjackson227]

135. I might be misunderstanding the proposals, but it looks like there will be exceptions granted...

for financial hardships. Please see here...

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/healthreform_tri_full.pdf

[Laelth]

142. That's a neat pamphlet.

But in it, I could not find the exceptions to which you are referring. I hate to be a pest, but could you at least direct me to the page that has them?

Thanks.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Enrique]

112. they're not opposing the bill as it is now

they're saying if it's weakened they won't back it.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

40. The title makes it sound like they are opposing *THIS* bill, but the article sounds like they

are talking about any bill w/o a strong public option in general.

[lumberjack_jeff]

43. Good point. This is unattributed

Where's my towel.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

45. It all depends on what "robust" is defined as.

I think a lot of people will be disappointed when not all progressives on this list agree on that term.

[defendandprotect]

115. Agree ... it was confusing --

[annm4peace]

44. I am making another Campaign donations to my "PROGRESSIVE" Rep tomorrow

and giving him a call to thank him for standing up for the people.

and then calling my moderate (almost blue dog) senator.. and my moderate just sworn in Senator (hint,hint) and telling them to do the same.

[scheming daemons]

46. And then have a beer ... and be proud of doing your part to kill Health Care reform for a generation

[Fading Captain]

61. Waah .. take your insurance industry scam and shove it

eom

[harun]

87. Progressive Caucus is the only group that is actually in our corner.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

100. What harun said

The rest are all in the pockets of the insurance companies. They are NOT your friends, whether they have a D or an R after their names.

I'm self-employed and under-insured, but frankly, I truly rather would see no reform than one that the corporatists have designed to fail, because it sure looks like that's what they're doing.

[808]

62. Maria Cantwell Dem, Wa State, UNACCEPTABLY VAGUE

WASHINGTON STATE RESIDENTS - CALL MARIA CANTWELL'S OFFICE NOW. Toll Free: 1-888-648-7328

Maria Cantwell does not support a single payer health care system, and she has remained UNACCEPTABLY VAGUE on supporting a public option. She is in the pockets of Big Insurance while millions of Americans suffer.

She calls herself a Democrat! Let her know you will not support her in the next election - if she does not support you now. She must show a spine and support Single Payer or a Public Option NOW. 



SENATOR MARIA CANTWELL'S Office Toll Free: 1-888-648-7328

[Laelth]

71. Welcome to DU.

:dem:

-Laelth

[dflprincess]

120. Same problem with Amy Klobuchar

All you get is that she supports "affordable health care".

[lumberjack_jeff]

72. Don't panic.

This is hyperbole.

The progressive caucus has been on record for a long time that they will oppose any bill which lacks a strong public option. Their support is WHY the tri-committee bill HAS a strong public option.

[Bluenorthwest]

86. Not hyperbole- this crap bill is opposed by the people

who vote the Progressive caucus into office, and they are going to stand with us, or they will have no job next year.
The bigoted law will not stand. The codified prejudice you are promoting here will fail, because it is immoral, inhuman and wrong. Because the people are sick of it.
The heterosexual community needs to back off the bigotry. And fast.

[lumberjack_jeff]

108. WTF are you talking about?

This thread is about healthcare, do you have any observations on that topic?

[reflection]

133. What?

I obviously missed something.

[PretzelWarrior]

74. kick

[Occam Bandage]

76. That should be enough to kill any broken "reform" attempt. nt

[Liberty Belle]

81. Anybody have a link to the healthcare bill Obama wants?

Does it include dental care, eye care, and alternative medical like chiropractic, acupuncture and massage therapy?

[Laelth]

143. To my knowledge, Obama hasn't said exactly what he wants.

As usual, he sets broad goals and tells Congress he won't sign the bill unless what they produce meets those broad goals. He holds his cards close to his chest.

If this works like the stimulus, after Congress debates this a few weeks, he'll whip out his own plan and ram it through in a couple of days. That may not happen this time, however. I have no clue.

:dem:

-Laelth

[tekisui]

84. Good! We need real reform.

[Bluenorthwest]

92. The current bill is bull

Discrimination against millions to please the faith community. Yet again. Who are these people, and what deity is it that they really worship, that is so in need of blood sacrifice on a daily basis? What Moloch do they finally serve?

[bluescribbler]

94. I just wrote to my Congressman

Ed Markey is listed as uncommitted, so I wrote to give him a friendly little nudge.

[mmonk]

95. Evidently, the CPC is tired of being kicked around. Now they are

the swing vote on legislation.

[Amos Moses]

97. K&R

[fascisthunter]

101. kick!

[Chisox08]

103. I'm glad to see that there are still some good Dems in Congress

The American people want strong health care reform. The only thing mandates will do is push people into the arms of the insurance companies that has ripped us off for years. The Repubs want a weak plan so once they get in power they can dismantle it. They are doing this so that they can say a public health care plan will not work.
One last thing Health Care and Health Insurance are two differnt things. The Health insurance system we currantly have is showing itself to be the scam it is.

[mike_c]

104. EXCELLENT NEWS!

I'm very pleased to hear this!

[BrklynLiberal]

106. Come on Progressives!!! Dp your thing!!!

[Hepburn]

107. Proud to be the 199th Rec on this OP....

....bravo! :applause:

It is about time the Dems flexed some muscle!

[defendandprotect]

114. We need to move more Dems onto the list --

and I wonder if e-mails and telephone calls alone are going to do this?

This would be a momentous change for our nation and our citizens -- and the GOP

knows that! It would be pretty much the end of the Repugs . . .

What will it really take to get MEDICARE FOR ALL --?

Is there more we should be doing?

People expected our leaders to act positively the last time and finally it didn't

happen. This is good news but I wouldn't be overconfident.

[Better Believe It]

116. 200 + Recommended this. About 100 tried to censor, unrecommend.

That's my best guess. But the /administrators/mods can post the actual numbers ....if they want to.

K & R for me!

[Uncle Joe]

124. I agree the numbers should be reflected, rec and anti rec, pro and con.

:thumbsup:

[BlooInBloo]

128. Until they show the numbers, you're just making shit up. And I strongly support showing the numbers.

[jwirr]

119. That is good. We need this bill to be good and then if nothing else

works for us this term we may still be standing good in 2010-2012. President has already done a lot of things to change but many of the hardest are still ahead of us and the economist are pessimistic. We need this success more than anything else.

[glinda]

123. The way I understood the Bill made me sicker.

[myrna minx]

125. K&R. It's about time! n/t

[katty]

126. good, some people have balls!

[dana_b]

130. very cool

keep it up! I wish more would join them.

[kjackson227]

132. K & R