Dear Progressive Congressional Dems: Kill it.

[cali]

Please.

Yes, I know it's hard to do given that any such failure will seriously weaken the President and the party as a whole re both other legislation and the 2010 and 2012 elections, but at this point, proposed healthcare "reform" legislation is a travesty. I wish I could find a stronger word than that. In any case, it will not serve us well. It will serve the Insurance companies quite well.

Without a public option or Medicaid buy in, without taking away the insurance companies privileged status re anti-trust laws, with loopholes for insurance companies to discriminate and cap, this legislation is an abomination. There. I found my stronger word.

I don't know the particulars as to how this legislation became such a disgrace to progressive values. Big money surely played a part. In any case, the legislation has become worse than nothing. And I'm not someone who expected single payer or some progressive dream bill. To be frank, I don't expect that much from Congress- or the President.

The Democratic party is going to take substantial losses in 2010. It doesn't take a reader of tea leaves to know that. Maybe you think it's the loyal thing to do to pass, well, anything, but your first duty, quaint as this may sound, is to your constituents. I think you know that. You are Progressives after all.

So please, vote against this atrocious legislation. Don't con yourself into thinking you can tinker with it to make it a bit less awful. Don't put the party over the people.

Do the right thing: KILL IT.

[BzaDem]

1. Let those with pre-existing conditions go bankrupt and die.

Why such a position is even legitimate (on a Democratic message board) I don't understand.

[cali]

2. you are wrong.

this legislation will not help those with pre-existing conditions. Furthermore this legislation will diminish healthcare benefits in states like VT and MA.

[BzaDem]

3. You don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Have you read any part of the legislation? Have you read the subsidy schedule? Have you read the community rating section? I seriously doubt it. Because I don't think you would outright lie. You just don't know what you are talking about.

[cali]

4. I've read parts of it.

I suggest you read this:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/12/15/814244/-Call-to-Defeat-the-billits-time-

[BzaDem]

8. Your own link doesn't even purport to say what you are claiming.

You are claiming that the bill doesn't help people with pre-existing conditions.

With regards to community rating, your link says this:

"And to avoid patients with costly, complicated medical conditions, health plans could include in their networks relatively few doctors who specialize in treating those conditions, said Mark V. Pauly, professor of health-care management at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. "It would probably increase the incentive for cherry-picking," Pauly said. "I'm strongly motivated to try to avoid you if I'm not allowed to charge you extra."

Let's compare the situation of a middle-income person on the individual market with a pre-existing condition today and in 2014 if the bill is enacted.

Today, health insurance probably will cost this person 50-100% of his annual income. This means he either pays almost all of his income for health insurance, or he goes to the emergency room and is bankrupted.

In 2014 (with the health bill), even if we assume (for the sake of argument) that your link is true at face value, health insurance premiums for this person will not cost any more than 9.8% of this person's income (for a 70% actuarial value plan). It will be less than 9.8% if they make less than 300% of poverty (and exactly 9.8% in the 300%-400% band). They may have fewer specialists for their conditions (per your link) within the network then they would have under the health insurance that costs 50%-100% of their income today (without the bill).

You would SERIOUSLY say the 2014 situation is NO BETTER than the status quo for this person? Seriously?

In case you are interested in the actual facts (as opposed to the demagoguery espoused by some here), here are some more points about the link you sent me. That link is full of completely misleading points.

---"Forcing people to buy private health insurance when there will be no lifetime cap on health care costs."

The supposed justification for this sentence is a link to a site saying that some annual limits will be allowed. However, the only annual limits that will be allowed will be limits that the HHS secretary (appointed by Obama probably until 2016) approves. These would be limits for things like elective procedures (not for emergencies). And the actual limits would have to be approved by a government official.

---"Forcing people to buy private health insurance when the private health insurance companies can continue their unethical practice of rescission."

The link cited on the kos cite is simply an article about the status quo with respect to recissions. NOT the situation under the healthcare bill. Under the healthcare bill, coverage could only be canceled in case of fraud. And since discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions is banned, coverage cannot be canceled just because someone forgets to mention a pre-existing condition (the cause of almost all recissions).

---"Forcing people to buy private health insurance when the 90% medical loss ratio will not be in place."

That is true -- the CBO has basically rejected a 90% medical loss ratio. But what the kos article conveniently neglects to say is that the CBO would be PERFECTLY FINE with an 85% medical loss ratio (the same ratio as in the House bill). This convenient omission is just one of many examples of the misleading gibberish that infects that article.

[regnaD kciN]

13. Documentation, please...?

But what the kos article conveniently neglects to say is that the CBO would be PERFECTLY FINE with an 85% medical loss ratio (the same ratio as in the House bill).

Is that "would be" (i.e. your own estimation) or "is" (i.e. they already signed off on it)? From what I've read in numerous places, the decision by the CBO basically applies to any imposition of medical-loss ratio. In other words, for the CBO to not score it as a "nationalization of the health-insurance industry," the bill would have to drop any ratio, and basically let the insurance companies spend as much or as little of premium cost on actual medical care as the market would allow.

[BzaDem]

17. Here is the actual CBO letter from the CBO site.

https://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10731/MLR_and_budgetary_treatment.pdf

"Taking those differences into account, CBO has determined that setting minimum MLRs under the PPACA at 80 percent or lower for the individual and small-group markets or at 85 percent or lower for the large-group market would not cause CBO to consider transactions in those markets as part of the federal budget."

Furthermore, the House bill itself had an 85% medical loss ratio (for large group plans). If that were objectionable to the CBO, the House bill wouldn't have passed.

[regnaD kciN]

25. One further point...

In 2014 (with the health bill), even if we assume (for the sake of argument) that your link is true at face value, health insurance premiums for this person will not cost any more than 9.8% of this person's income (for a 70% actuarial value plan). It will be less than 9.8% if they make less than 300% of poverty (and exactly 9.8% in the 300%-400% band). They may have fewer specialists for their conditions (per your link) within the network then they would have under the health insurance that costs 50%-100% of their income today (without the bill).

...and, if you're in the 400.0001% band (easily possible on not that high of an income if you're a single parent -- or a divorced parent counting as an individual but still owning hefty child-support payments), your health-insurance premiums will cost you whatever the market will bear. You will have zero price protection (and, of course, zero subsidies). If you're an older individual in such a condition (55-64), your premiums might well come to 50%-100% of your income nonetheless.

If this were really a consumer-friendly (as opposed to insurance-company-friendly) bill, there would be an income-percentage cap for anyone for the so-called "silver" plan...or a public option to keep insurance affordable. Guess what? We get neither.

[democracy1st]

5. whats with the bs attitude ur talking crap when the legislators don't even read bills only one

confused is you, Max Baucus and the insurance industry wrote this horrid bill

[BzaDem]

9. You can't even write an insult in plain English. Forgive me if I don't take you very seriously. n/t

[democracy1st]

11. ur right take those foolish politicians in DC serious,ur a fool

[jefferson_dem]

21. True.

It's sad to see.

Basically, the poster is saying that ALL the Democrats who support this bill (the entire caucus) are wrong. And ALL the Repugs who oppose this bill (the entire caucus) are right...in opposing this reform legislation. Amazing.

[yurbud]

6. I don't agree with killing it, but do agree with your analysis

This should have been a turkey shoot and instead, the Democrats shot themselves in the balls, then aimed the gun at their own heads.

[cali]

7. so what do you think should happen? Do you think it should be passed

without a public option or Medicaid buy in or reform of the anti-trust exemption or with a cap on payments?

[yurbud]

10. I would prefer all the good and none of the bad. I thought the private non-profit

set up was less than ideal but acceptable--until I heard about the cap and how high the premiums would be.

Congress isn't working for us, and they aren't even trying to hide it anymore.

It's like we went to the town square thinking we were going to see criminals flogged, and instead, we are dragged up on the block and sold to the highest criminal bidder.

[pampango]

19. As Yogi said, "It ain't over til it's over" in terms of the final Senate and conference bills,

but if the final product is similar to what the Senate is talking about now, I agree with you. I hope the progressives in Congress vote against it.

If Obama is playing 3-D chess on this, I'll give him time, but it sounds like things will happen one way or another pretty fast. There is still time to rescue something worthwhile in the Senate, though it looks bleak right now. The House's role in negotiating conference bill may change things for the better.

It meaningful HCR is destined to die in the Senate, Obama might as well make it political poison for those opposing it. I think that the killing Medicare expansion/buy-in would be the most difficult for repubs and Blue Dogs to defend in 2010. They know Medicare is popular and can't cry "socialized medicine" without alienating people on Medicare.

If progressives do vote against the final bill, what will Obama do if enough Blue Dogs and republicans vote for it for passage? Will he let it die or sign a bill that progressive legislators opposed? (I know each of us "knows" what Obama would do, but it would be instructive to see what would actually happen.)

If progressives in congress do vote for the final bill, I would have to take another look even if it is not "my" bill. I tend to want to support them as much as possible.

[chimpymustgo]

12. Travesty, abomination, sham, farce, perversion, sellout...BULLsh*t. Pick your word.

I'm leaning toward your conclusion. The entire process has been a sham (travesty, perversion, abomination), seemingly designed for failure. The only reason to support it now is to support the President and the party - who, as you rightly point out - would be terrribly weakened by its failure.

I think that's what they were counting on. Serving us this sh*t sandwich, expecting our loyalty to supercede our own best interests. Hmmm...is this the other side of a coin we've grown familiar with?

The bill would ostensibly prevent healthcare companies from denying and limiting coverage to millions of people, but can we really expect even that? Surely our Congresstitutes have put in enough loopholes to allow business as usual.


This is so very disgusting, so very sad, for so very many people.

[dmosh42]

15. If it still has the Rockefeller amendment......

then at least it wouldn't be a 'gift' to the insurance cos. (the amendment requires 90% of premium money to be spent on actual healthcare, not on admin costs or bonuses) Otherwise, I agree, kill it! There are no other containments that I know of, and would just be a windfall for the industry.

[yourout]

18. I would love to know when and how they would enforce this...

Who will audit the 90%?
What would happen if they did not the 90%?

[Hannah Bell]

14. +1

[snot]

16. K&R'd.

It's a travesty.

They'll beat us up as far and long as we let them.

[jefferson_dem]

20. I'll be sure and share your sentiments...

with the next person I talk to who was denied coverage because of some bullshit pre-existing condition....or was dropped from their coverage after getting sick and falling too far into the "risk pool". Surely, they'll admire your brave stand on "principle".

[cali]

22. Even with subsidies, many, many people will not be able to afford coverage

And insurance companies, from what I'm reading, will still be able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, due to loopholes. Really, do you think the insurance companies are all of the sudden magically going to become wonderful corporate citizens. They'll be able to refuse coverage for fraudulent claims? And just what do you think they'll call fraudulent?

I'm glad you have so much faith in insurance companies and the Congress. I sure as fuck do not.

[eridani]

23. It will NOT weaken the president and the party

PASSING the bill is going to kill the party and make Obama a one-term president.

[cali]

24. history teaches us that it will indeed weaken the party and the president.

[regnaD kciN]

27. Nowhere near as much as the general perception...

...that "the Democrats just enacted a new law requiring you and me to buy expensive private insurance or get fined" will.

Seriously, this is a blueprint for a new "Republican Revolution." A bill that benefits big business at the expense of the American consumer, and one the Republicans can blame on Democrats...what's not to like?

[eridani]

30. Bingo n/t

[Cetacea]

32. +1

[Waiting For Everyman]

26. Yes, kill it.

A simple law banning precogs would save all the good that's left of it.

If they put this thing through with mandates...

[RC]

28. Instead of fighting over this piece of corporate welfare that was written by

by our so-called 'representatives' and the health insurance companies that bought them, we should be making all kind of noise about how other countries have already solved the problem.
We need to let Congress know in no uncertain terms that Single Payer, Universal Health Care is the only humane way to go, and will put more money in the economy to help the recovery, because we then will not be paying the greedy middle men for their excesses. We would be getting more bang for our health care dollars.
Other countries know how to get the government's attention to get what they want, why can't we?

Single Payer, Universal Health Care. It is a right. It is part of the general welfare. Read the Constitution.

[maryinthemorn]

31. You can send a FREE fax here and let them know--as Bernie Sanders ammendment will be heard...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x57848

[RC]

36. Done.

I wiped what was there and put my own words in.

[KharmaTrain]

29. Easier To Ammend A Bad Bill Than To Start Over...

As others have noted, there are elements still in the healtchare reform bill that have value and will help people who are the most vulnerable...those with pre-existing conditions. Letting it drop now is like condemning those people to death as an energized insurance lobby will tighten who is insured and raise rates on all to ensure they profit from all their "troubles" in spending millions to kill the bill. Let it die and the bastards win...pure and simple. Yes it will cripple both this administration and the Democratic party...and then what? Try again? With a bunch of gunshy Democrats, a smaller majority (if it isn't wiped away) and slime like Liebermann just waiting for another shot to ram it up this country's behind.

There is no such thing as a perfect bill and thus why I see it easier to ammend existing legislation than to try to start all over. In the meantime, we now know who our "friends" are...and who needs to be challenged and beaten to move other reforms forward.

Wishing for this bill to fail is what the insurance lobby has been working hard to do and they surely appreciate your support.

[Cetacea]

33. Didn't work so well with Welfare Reform.

[Faryn Balyncd]

34. Sometimes that is true, but not with this monstrosity.

[chimpymustgo]

35. Kill from the Progressive side. Make them come to US, if they want this passed.

[PufPuf23]

37. I agree with your post Cali. Thanks. nt