Howard dean is intellectually and factually dishonest.

[BzaDem]

Howard dean keeps coming on TV and saying that the Senate bill doesn't even help people with pre-existing conditions. Over and over and over. People seem to believe him just because he says it.

It is an outright, blatant, bald-faced LIE.

And you can tell it is a lie because of what he uses to justify his claim. Last night, on Countdown, he said it again:

"It is not even insurance reform. Take for example this. There is a lot of talk about people who have pre-existing conditions can get health insurance. Well not exactly. The fine print in the Senate says the healthcare industry gets to charge you three times as much if you are older than if you are younger, and that's in the Senate bill."

While I don't have the transcripts in front of me for his other appearances, he has said the same thing about pre-existing conditions (often in stronger language) multiple times.

Charging based upon age is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than charging based upon pre-existing conditions. Under the Senate bill, a 42 year old person with a pre-existing condition will not pay one PENNY more than a 42 year old person without a pre-existing condition. The same goes for a 62 year old person, or a 22 year old person. (Incidentally, this provision is meant to prevent a 22-year old from having to pay 3 times as much for health insurance as they are paying now.) Yes, a 62 year old person will pay more for insurance than a 22 year old person, but it will have nothing to do with whether either person has a pre-existing condition.

If Howard Dean wants to have an intellectually honest discussion about the amount of age-variation allowed under the Senate bill, he wouldn't use arguments about age variation to pretend that the Senate bill does not prohibit (that's right, PROHIBIT) price discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions.

Howard Dean's argument is like saying that the House bill does NOT have a public option because its subsidies are too weak. In reality, the house bill DOES have a public option. You could argue about whether the subsidies are too weak, but that has NOTHING to do with whether the bill has a public option (just like price-age-variation has nothing to do with pre-existing condition discrimination).

And for those who think Howard Dean is simply misinformed, think again. The House bill (which Dean supports) allows people to charge older people more too. The difference is that the House bill only allows 2-1 age variation, while the Senate bill allows 3-1 age variation. But you don't see Howard Dean coming on TV and saying that the House bill doesn't help people with pre-existing conditions.

The truth is, Howard Dean wants to kill this bill, and he is using distortions and outright lies to do so. If people want to kill this bill because it allows the private industry to exist, people should have that debate separately. They should not use lies about other parts of the bill to help their cause.

[DJ13]

1. The marching orders must be out

[BzaDem]

2. And the Howard Dean sheep start coming.

[readmoreoften]

13. Hey, I get it. We all need an income. How much are they paying?

And is it the insurance reps? The Democratic Party? The Republican Party? Enquiring minds want to know!

[natrat]

40. i 'drather be a smart sheep than sellout whore snake

[joeybee12]

64. I'd be uncrec'ing your crap even if it was Michelle Bachman who

was telling the truth...the truth is the truth, not what you wish it to be according to your love affair with the Big O.

[sellitman]

The DLC was here.

And now is apparently trying to post propaganda to keep it's corporate masters happy.

I stand with Mr Dean thank you!

[Warpy]

27. Being allowed to pay for an insurance policy is one thing

and having that policy actually cover things related to a pre existing condition is another, and one I have heard nothing about.

The last time a price was quoted to me, $700/month 15 years ago, the policy wouldn't have covered anything remotely related to my pre existing condition. Since that condition can be partially implicated in any disease process requiring hospitalization, that policy became an ultra high priced accident policy, no thanks.

Now, of course, they won't even write that much of a policy for me, something that has been the case for over 10 years.

To say I am furious at every single member of the Senate over this is a massive understatement.

I hope they're all thrown out of office this year, both parties, in favor of Democrats who know what the word means.

[closeupready]

52. You can throw them out of office, but you can't take away their health insurance.

Once they get it, they get to keep it forever.

[leftstreet]

3. Message Discipline Fail

try again

[Ignis]

4. If he's lying, what's his motivation for doing so? (nt)

[BzaDem]

11. Simple. He wants to kill the bill.

He (like others here) want to kill the bill, because it increases the role of the private sector in providing for healthcare (subsidized by the government).

And I would agree that it is obviously better to have a public option and allow people to choose. But given that that is not going to happen, he wants to end the hopes of 30 million people to get subsidies for health insurance, solely because he doesn't want the private sector solely involved in helping them. He wants to kill the bill so badly that he is using other parts of the legislation to lie about it.

[Ignis]

35. So he's risking his political career, integrity, and prog. support by lying?

I just don't see why he would do that. Could you spell it out for us?

[BzaDem]

51. I don't think he feels he is risking anything. Those who lie about complicated and convoluted issues

are rarely called out in a way that would destroy their political career/integrity. Just ask Joe Lieberman. He lied over and over about the public option. He just made it up as he went along. But the media never called him on it, and his political career is flourishing. The reason is that the issue is complicated enough such that the lie isn't obvious. If he said that "Obama wasn't born in the US," then that is an obvious lie and he would be called out in an obvious way.

[Ignis]

111. I disagree, but thanks for the thoughtful answer.

Your point about the ease of lying (or lying via omission) is a good one, given the attention span of most viewers. But I don't think that's what Dean is doing here.

[Hippo_Tron]

113. What political career?

Howard Dean was finished in electoral politics when he lost in 2004. He's been finished in pretty much any capacity since his term expired as DNC Chair. And it's not like he's saying anything that Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold aren't also saying.

[Ignis]

114. That's a narrow parsing of "political career."

Even if we postulate that Dean will never run for office again, I think it's a bit strained to say that he's had no "political career" since 2004. That's like saying that Rahm Emanuel no longer has a "political career."

Perhaps you recall the 50-state strategy that resulted in our winning the oval office and both houses?

[Hippo_Tron]

115. What capacity do you see him serving in at a later date?

[Ignis]

118. My crystal ball is in the shop this week.

But I wouldn't be surprised if he re-ran in the 2016 primaries.

[Hippo_Tron]

123. He'll be 68 in 2016, I'd be pretty surprised

Howard Dean is more or less finished in any official capacity in Democratic politics.

[Ignis]

129. So, he wasn't done in 2004 after all? But now he is? (nt)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. You say "private sector " as if that's a GOOD thing

confirming my suspicions that the only difference between the Republicans and the DLC is that the DLC doesn't actively court the support of the megachurch crowd and the racists.

The private sector had its chance, and its greed and callousness destroyed any credibility it once had.

[BzaDem]

43. I would much prefer a public option.

But I am not going to say "LET THEM EAT CAKE" to everyone with pre-existing conditions just because I didn't get my wish, like you are eager and willing to do.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

47. But unless the insurance companies are required to offer coverage to

people with pre-existing conditions and older people AT THE SAME PRICE as younger, healthier people, it's an invitation to rip those two groups off.

If I had a pre-existing condition, 3 x my current premium would be absolutely unaffordable. I'm already penalized for being over 50, even though I'm unusually healthy.

[BzaDem]

55. The premium will have nothing to do with your hypothetical pre-existing condition.

Right now, you are probably paying far more than 3 times what a 22-year old is paying, even without a pre-existing condition. This bill will likely lower your premiums dramatically (and raise those of 22-year-olds).

But even if you HAD such a condition, you wouldn't pay one penny more just because you had that condition. You might pay more because of your age, but not because of your condition.

The reason for age variation is so that a 22-year-old's premiums don't skyrocket. If that happens, they will all drop insurance (dramatically raising the cost of insuring everyone else).

It is a perfectly valid argument that the variation is too wide. Maybe it should be 2-1 or less. There are trade-offs involved. Maybe there should be no variation -- this is a question that has no right answer.

But REGARDLESS of the answer, it has NOTHING to do with pre-existing condition discrimination. Those with pre-existing conditions will not pay ONE PENNY more than a similarly situated person without pre-existing conditions.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

110. Here's a wild and crazy idea

Why don't we make the insurance companies OBEY the law instead of dictating the law?

Somehow other countries, including those that base their system on private insurance, get along just fine without discrimination on the basis of age or condition.

I know, I know, the CEOs of the insurance companies would earn only single-digit millions instead of hundreds of millions, and that's a sacrifice we can't ask them to make. Better that ordinary Americans pay more than their rent for a policy that doesn't cover anything, as long as the CEOs are OK.

[PassingFair]

76. So craft a bill that JUST forces for-profit insurance companies to cover pre-ex. conditions

and forget the rest of it.

I could go for that.

But the MANDATES preclude my endorsing
this bill for ANY reason.

[BzaDem]

78. Then premiums will be 50 times what they are now.

The only people who will continue to pay are the people with pre-existing conditions. No healthy people would pay into the system. This is true even with the public option. The public option's premiums would be insanely higher (completely unaffordable for all those who aren't rich) unless there were a mandate that healthy people also pay.

If you are calling for 50 times higher premiums, then you should be explicit.

[PassingFair]

82. 50 times higher?

Is that an exact number?

This will be a windfall to the for-profits.

Younger people paying into MEDICARE would have
relieved the cost of the program somewhat, but
this will do nothing to stop the escalation of
health care and insurance COSTS.

[BzaDem]

84. "Younger people paying into MEDICARE" was never going to pass this Congress. n/t

[PassingFair]

86. Why not.

55 IS younger, and even Joey L. supported that a minute ago....

[BzaDem]

88. Because 12 Democrats were refusing to support it.

It didn't even have a majority in the Senate, much less a 60-vote majority. Lieberman was the only one threatening to filibuster over it, but that hides the fact that it didn't even have 50 votes if there were no filibuster.

[PassingFair]

91. So we twist their arms and threaten to defund their states.

They are not serving the interests of their
citizens.

Let them face the consequences.

[BzaDem]

92. "Let them face the consequences."

What you really mean, is, let those who are uninsured and have pre-existing conditions face the consequences.

Your idea of a democracy is really a dictatorship. A majority of the senate was against the Medicare buy-in. It was not going to pass. Your proposal is to either enact it by fiat, or to do nothing and let those with pre-existing conditions die.

[PassingFair]

104. It could have passed if the DLC had been as down on insurance whores as they are on progressives.

This bill will NOT help anybody.

They will still face bankruptcy if they
become critically ill, and in the long
run, it does nothing to rein in the COSTS,
in fact it is a carte blanche for the insurance
companies and medical providers.

[Sebastian Doyle]

37. "because it increases the role of the private sector in providing for healthcare"

Well, even if that were true - which it isn't - wouldn't that be reason enough?

The "private sector" (i.e. criminal insurance companies) ARE THE GODDAMNED PROBLEM. Rewarding them with 40 million forced mandated customers is simply fucking insane.

[BzaDem]

45. Yes, the private sector is the problem.

However, you are assuming that something is going to happen (now or ever) that is going to eliminate the private sector from health insurance. This is denial in line with the first stage of grieving. Just wishing for that to happen doesn't make it so.

I realize that, and given that the private sector is unfortunately here to stay and grow, I want to help people with pre-existing conditions.

[lapfog_1]

50. Those Americans aren't getting coverage for free.

Taxpayers will have to pay for it. Only now, there isn't a limit on how much it will cost.

So to pay for it, Democrats will have to raise taxes. And that will be the end of the Democratic majority.

Only even then, there will be copays and some amount of premium payment from those 30 million people. Most of whom are poor. So now it's a mandatory regressive tax. You must buy the insurance company crap at the rates they set or you will be fined.

Fuck that.

[BzaDem]

57. Why do you pre-suppose that the "fix" will be to raise taxes?

Once this bill is enacted, it would be much easier to start a public option or have rate controls than it would be to raise taxes. Heck, a public option could be enacted by reconciliation if/when rates go too high (or even if they don't).

[lapfog_1]

70. No, you can't.

That's a load of crap. The Senate will not revisit this subject for a decade (how long since the last time they visited it?).

And you can't enact new programs or new laws or even new regulations via reconciliation.

All you can do is increase funding or decrease funding. That's it.

And if it's not paid for with new taxes, then it will add to the debt (and deficit). And the Democrats lose anyway.

[BzaDem]

77. "And you can't enact new programs or new laws or even new regulations via reconciliation."

You cannot enact new regulations. But you most certainly CAN create a new program if its main purpose is to reduce the deficit (per the CBO).

The reason the Senate didn't revisit the subject for 2 decades is because the effort last time FAILED. If this effort succeeded, they will have to revisit it, if only just to work out the kinks.

Once there is an entitlement that everyone in this country can afford health insurance, the government will have to get in and change it often to make it affordable (and this is a good thing). The reason this didn't happen before is that there wasn't this entitlement or expectation that people should be able to afford healthcare, so the problem was simply solved by telling 48 million people to go to hell. Not anymore.

[walldude]

124. Spoken like a person who has no fucking idea who Dean is..

and it's not a fucking lie. There will be no cap or a very high cap on what pre-exising condition people will have to pay and there will be a seriously low cap on what insurance companies have to pay out. This bill is a fucking scam and if you can't see that then I have some land in Florida for sale. Never used, with a huge water supply :rofl:

[madfloridian]

5. Bull hockey

There is a mission beginning.

[BzaDem]

22. Thank you for your informative, fact-based critique of what I posted.

It was just as substantive as your other informative, fact-based critiques.

[MNDemNY]

6. THIS BILL MUST DIE.

[BzaDem]

15. You and Howard Dean should use actual arguments to support your position.

If Howard Dean wants to say "THIS BILL MUST DIE," he should argue truthfully about why (he thinks) it must die. Not create bullshit out of thin air.

[MNDemNY]

25. it is just a windfall for the insurance industry.

KILL IT.

[BzaDem]

29. MNDemNY: Kill the people with pre-existing conditions. Or, failing that, let them go bankrupt.

All because you don't want the insurance industry to be given one penny.

I am QUITE HAPPY that this bill is going to pass and that you are completely powerless to stop it.

[MNDemNY]

34. You are foolish this does more harm than good.

It sets in stone for decades to come the hold of the private insurance industry. It does not control costs, it hurts the middle class, There are still annual caps on benefits, the industry can raise your rates at will, they are the only winners. This is shit-on-rye, a complete corporate sell-out. you eat it. I will not, and i will not be swayed by your child-like guilt trip!! !

[BzaDem]

41. And not withstanding EVERYTHING you said, you are still sentencing people to death and bankruptcy

relative to the alternative.

It is hard to imagine that a bill that gives thousands of dollars to the middle class to insure themselves is "hurting the middle class." But EVEN if I accept that bullshit at FACE VALUE, it doesn't change your position one bit. You are still telling people with pre-existing conditions to EAT CAKE.

[MNDemNY]

46. This bill will help too few to be worth it.

Yup I said it. Would you support the bill if it only helped 3 or 4 folks in Jersey? Of course not, I just have a different line drawn. This bill, as it stands, is not worth the harm it will cause.

[BzaDem]

59. No, not it if it just helped 3 or 4 people. Instead, it subsidizes 30 million people

and on top of that, helps EVERY SINGLE person in the nation that has a pre-existing condition.

All for much less than the cost of our wars.

If you don't think it's worth it, that's fine. However, I think there are other boards with different ideologies that you should probably be spending more of your time at. There are plenty of boards that have tons of people who think that it is not worth it to help a sick person in need.

[MNDemNY]

63. But it does not do those things.

[BzaDem]

68. Of course it doesn't. Up is down. Left is right. War is peace. n/t

[MNDemNY]

71. In this administration, yes.

[lapfog_1]

100. No we're aren't

and I am one of those with pre-existing conditions. And I can't get any private health insurance (last quote from BCBS of California was $1200 a month with a $10,000 deductible for just me).

This bill will hurt me, not help me.

[stevietheman]

147. I say "Let the system fall apart". Blame the deaths on the GOP. n/t

n/t

[asjr]

7. I trust Howard Dean.

[Hello_Kitty]

8. Um, not really.

Having sold health insurance in the past, I can tell you that "preexisting condition" is shorthand for age most of the time. Yes, you will get lumped in that category for specific health problems too but, basically, everyone over 35 has a "preexisting condition" as far as the insurance cos. are concerned.

[Kitty Herder]

83. Exactly. Age is a pre-existing condition.

[anigbrowl]

95. And age also increases your likelihood of having health problems

That's a fact. Subsidies (paid for by taxes) even that out somewhat, as taxes paid by young people offset the cost of paying for those who are retired, but it's a basic fact that the older you get the more likely it is that your medical care will be expensive. Same way life insurance costs more for people who smoke.

[BzaDem]

97. Yes, this is true just as much as the sky is blue. But that doesn't change anything I've said.

Dean was saying it wouldn't help people with pre-existing conditions. That is a lie. It may not help older people (regardless of their health history) as much as younger people, but it will absolutely help those with pre-existing conditions relative to a similarly situated person who doesn't have such conditions.

[anigbrowl]

101. Quite so.

I am not enthused about this bill and think it has serious flaws - I would much prefer a single payer system. However, I think objections to the bill that are not grounded in truth, logic, or reason are a complete waste of time. As on so many threads nowadays, a lot of the people who disagree with you are just saying 'you're wrong' without bothering to explain the reasons for their opinion. The debate has now degenerated into one group of idiots shouting at another group of idiots.

[Sparkly]

103. Thank you

especially as you speak from experience.

[cynatnite]

9. I trust Howard Dean a hell of a lot more than the insurance companies...

and this bill is a gift to them.

[David Zephyr]

10. This bill must die.

.

[VMI Dem]

12. Kill the bill.

[NRaleighLiberal]

14. Have you listened to anyone on the progressive shows? Weiner?

Stein? others? From what I can tell, the bill is a disgrace to progress and a complete sell out to Pharma and Insurance Companies, as well as a very, very weak hand being played by Obama. It is much, much more than Dean. It is a capitulation to special interests, it is a bad bill, it is a testament to how badly this whole thing has been mishandled (and how the Dems have been played by the republicans)

[BzaDem]

18. Anthony Weiner is going to vote for this bill. Bank on it.

[NRaleighLiberal]

28. Not what he said on Ed Schultz today

[BzaDem]

31. Well let me put it this way. If he is the deciding vote, he will vote for it.

Regardless of what he says on Ed Shultz or any other show.

If there is room to spare, maybe he'll cast a symbolic vote against it. I don't particularly care about symbolic votes -- they really have nothing to do with reality.

So I will rephrase. If the final decision to approve the bill is left to Anthony Weiner, he will approve it. He himself said that progressives weren't letting to let the bill fail because of this.

[tblue]

62. And Wendell Potter. He says the same thing. nt

[lapfog_1]

16. As one of those older Americans that can't afford health insurance

because of pre-existing conditions, I'm much more inclined to believe Howard Dean than you.

[On the Road]

33. I Think You are the Kind of Person Dean Had in Mind

However, if the original poster is representing Dean's comments fairly, I do believe there's a legitimate point to be made. Certainly there are younger people with preexisting conditions who would benefit from changing the rules.

[NRaleighLiberal]

17. Oh yeah, I forgot. KILL THE BILL.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

19. The age bias in both bills is just one more outrage. "only 2-1" in House Bill

vs. 3:1 in Senate. Hip Hip Hooray. The Kaiser Family Foundation has a great study showing how those 50 and above are a demographic who can LEAST afford healthcare and here we have our guys giving us twice or three times the cost and we're supposed to be happy about that?

[BzaDem]

26. And yet Howard Dean supports the house bill. n/t

[jsamuel]

44. yeah, and they are exactly the same bill

:eyes:

[madfloridian]

125. No, he spoke out against that part of the House bill.

and other parts.

[ThePhilosopher04]

20. Go back to your hole...

Dean is spot on.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[cascadiance]

23. With the bill in the state it is in now that has been stripped to the bone, can you really trust...

... those who are pushing it through now? Any more than Howard Dean?

Howard Dean in my book is more principled. Even though he was screwed earlier in being pushed aside for a cabinet position when he seemed to be logically the most qualified, he kept pushing for us to support the bill early on and said he felt ultimately it would have a public option in it, etc. when it made its way to the vote. I think he tried to help something constructive get through.

There's only so much "compromising" one can take before it becomes acquiescence. I think that's where we are now. Kudos to those like Jeff Merkley who are taking Dean's lead on this.

[BzaDem]

38. I trust the legislative language.

If you have legislative language that contradicts what I'm saying, please post it.

[sendero]

120. You asshole..

... do YOU have a complete copy of the bill? No, you are speculating just like you accuse Dean of doing.

Are you PAID or are you just STUPID?

[Bluenorthwest]

141. Jeff's office has been flooded with phone calls

from the very people who worked hard to get him elected, and the people of Oregon stand with Merkley and with Dean.

[quinnox]

24. Sorry but I'll go with Dean over Lieberman

I'd rather be on Dean's side instead of a bill that should be titled "The Joe Lieberman Health Care Reform Act"

[cascadiance]

42. Probably more aptly named "The Joe Lieberman Health Care DEFORM Act"...

[Individualist]

30. DLC is full of shit

[Sebastian Doyle]

32. Well it's clear what today's DLC talking points memo was

BASH THE LIVING FUCK OUT OF DEAN!!!11!!!!11!

[tsuki]

66. Maybe they can get CNN to show the "doctored" scream again.

All I see are Democrats talking about the wonderful things in this bill, and to churn up the fear, say that if we don't hand health care to the insurance industry NOW, we can never talk about it again. It will be forever verboten.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[OneGrassRoot]

65. This little exchange just made me LOL....

:spray:

I know you didn't mean to be funny, but it was. To me.

Then again, I'm grasping at straws to keep from crying, so I appreciate the chuckle.

;)

[natrat]

74. so let me guess you think dean is wrong and the dlc is right, don't even bother buddy

[mistertrickster]

48. I disagree with your assessment. Charging people 3000 dollars a month is

denying them coverage, no matter how you spin it.

[grantcart]

49. In the end there will be no rate control on the health industry

The only hope was to have them face competition in the marketplace.

[T Wolf]

53. What they charge and what they cover (PAY FOR) are two different things. There is

NOTHING in the bill that requires the insurance corps to actually pay for medical care if they do not want to. They will still be able to "deny coverage" for any specific care they decide to challenge. It will not be a policy that allows the patient YOU to go to the doctor and get the care you need without worrying (a) whether the company will approve your care and (b) whether the policy will pay (something, anything?) for that procedure, etc.

All you get is a mandate to purchase the policy.

[dgibby]

56. the trap door the insurance cos are going to use to get around pre-existing conditions:

Annual cap loophole. Once you max out, they will no longer pay. If you max out on 01Jan, there goes your coverage for the year, but you'll still be making payments. There is no $$$ associated with that cap, so the insurance cos. get to decide what they want to pay. Clever aren't they?

[MNDemNY]

58. They just cant be "unreasonable"

But let's see who gets to decide what is "reasonable"

[BzaDem]

60. The government (HHS secretary).

An Obama appointee.

Glad you asked.

[dgibby]

67. Yea!

Just like Geithner, Summers, Bernake are Obama appointees. I feel ever so much better now!

[MNDemNY]

69. That does not make me feel any better.

why on earth would it? Obama has already shown his willingness to capitulate to the industry.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted sub-thread

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

[dgibby]

61. My point exactly!

Thanks. I couldn't remember the exact terminology.

[Hello_Kitty]

126. Same people who decide what "affordable premiums" are. eom

[MNDemNY]

130. Yup, them.

[EFerrari]

73. What would you like with your FAIL?

[truebrit71]

75. LOL!!

:rofl:

[BzaDem]

79. Hmm. I post with facts and evidence and you just blabber. I wonder who's failing here.

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

81. It's not even close.

:hi:

[BzaDem]

85. I agree. :)

[muriel_volestrangler]

90. I can't see evidence from either side in this argument yet

Dean asserted one thing; you've denied it. I can't see any quote from the bill, any link to the bill or to any analyst you we could assume has read the bill properly.

I'll search the net now, but so far this thread seems to be evidence-free.

[BzaDem]

96. "The House bill doesn't have the public option because its subsidies are too weak."

That statement is a lie (though he didn't say it, this is an example), and the fact that it is a lie is self-contained in the statement. It has nothing to do with what is in the bill. A public option might not be in the bill and that statement would still be a lie. Subsidies have nothing to do with whether a public option exists in a bill. If he were to say that the House bill doesn't have a public option because page 23 section a says it doesn't, its truth or falsity would rest on whether or not page 23 section a actually said that.

Similarly, saying that the bill doesn't ban pre-existing conditions because of age-variation is also a lie on its face. Age variation has nothing to do with pre-existing condition discrimination (regardless of whether or not the bill prohibits such discrimination). His statement was a self-contained lie, requiring no external source of information to recognize it for what it was.

If you want information on whether the bill allows discrimination for pre-existing conditions, look up the bill on Google and search for the "community rating" section.

[muriel_volestrangler]

99. My point is you've asserted this without evidence; I've searched, and you're basically right

Premiums may be varied for age, geographical area, and tobacco use (and number of people covered, of course):

(page 80)
7 "(a) PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATORY PREMIUM
8 RATES.—
9 "(1) IN GENERAL.—With respect to the pre
10 mium rate charged by a health insurance issuer for
11 health insurance coverage offered in the individual
12 or small group market—
13 "(A) such rate shall vary with respect to
14 the particular plan or coverage involved only
15 by—
16 "(i) whether such plan or coverage
17 covers an individual or family;
18 "(ii) rating area, as established in ac
19 cordance with paragraph (2);
20 "(iii) age, except that such rate shall
21 not vary by more than 3 to 1 for adults
22 (consistent with section 2707(c)); and
23 "(iv) tobacco use, except that such
24 rate shall not vary by more than 1.5 to 1;
25 and

1 "(B) such rate shall not vary with respect
2 to the particular plan or coverage involved by
3 any other factor not described in subparagraph
4 (A).

(page 83)
18 "SEC. 2705. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INDI
19 VIDUAL PARTICIPANTS AND BENEFICIARIES
20 BASED ON HEALTH STATUS.
21 "(a) IN GENERAL.—A group health plan and a health
22 insurance issuer offering group or individual health insur
23 ance coverage may not establish rules for eligibility (in
24 cluding continued eligibility) of any individual to enroll
25 under the terms of the plan or coverage based on any of

1 the following health status-related factors in relation to
2 the individual or a dependent of the individual:
3 "(1) Health status.
4 "(2) Medical condition (including both physical
5 and mental illnesses).
6 "(3) Claims experience.
7 "(4) Receipt of health care.
8 "(5) Medical history.
9 "(6) Genetic information.
10 "(7) Evidence of insurability (including condi11
tions arising out of acts of domestic violence).
12 "(8) Disability.
13 "(9) Any other health status-related factor de
14 termined appropriate by the Secretary.
http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act.pdf

Showing what's in the bill would have been better than just stating "he's lying".

[BzaDem]

102. I was more asserting that his IMPLICATION was a lie. Not the outcome of the implication.

Of course, he is wrong about the outcome as well. And thank you for presenting the bill for others to see.

But even without the bill as evidence, his implication (that age variation implies pre-existing condition discrimination) is a lie, just based on the definition of "age variation" and "pre-existing condition discrimination."

[stevietheman]

149. Should we suggest what you can do with your "facts and evidence".

The bottom line is that this bill is a shit sandwich that we refuse to eat.

LET THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM FALL APART!!!!

[burning rain]

109. I really *did* laugh out loud there.

Good one, E Ferrari. :D

[inna]

80. K&U

It's Obama who is totally dishonest.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[Enrique]

89. you're exaggerating when you say he's lying

maybe you disagree with his interpretation, maybe he misspoke, maybe you're even misquoting him, you don't provide a link in your OP.

And why call Howard Dean a liar with so little to support it? My guess is that it's an attempt to protect Obama. Must protect Obama.

[BzaDem]

93. That quote was an exact quote I took out of the video.

You are free to go to msnbc and watch the video and compare what he said word for word.

[suffragette]

94. I told myself I would not use the unrecommend button

You just changed my mind.

[Chisox08]

98. The Lieberman wing is coming out of the wood works

[Odin2005]

105. -1

[Sparkly]

106. Face it: This bill is a windfall for the insurance companies and does nothing to prevent them from

sending premium costs through the roof.

Whether they can charge enormous costs for people with "pre-existing conditions" or for people based on age is a distinction without much difference.

"Yay! Although I once had a yeast infection, I'm paying 3 times as much as younger people, just the same as other people my age who didn't have a yeast infection! What a bargain!!!"

Do you hear what you're saying??

[mdmc]

107. YOU LIE!

[burning rain]

108. There's no lie there.

"It is not even insurance reform. Take for example this. There is a lot of talk about people who have pre-existing conditions can get health insurance. The fine print in the Senate says the healthcare industry gets to charge you three times as much if you are older than if you are younger, and that's in the Senate bill."

"It is not insurance reform" is a fair use of rhetorical overstatement, to make a point pungently. It is certainly not a lie. As for pre-existing conditions, the Senate bill also still allows rescinding coverage in cases of "fraud" or "willful misrepresentation," which they do already do, so there's room for insurance company chicanery there. "Well not exactly" is not a lie, either. He's not denying that there's any reform regarding pre-existing conditions, he's emphasizing the punyism of the reforms relative to what we could reasonably expect.

That said, I disagree with HoDo, whom I love, taking the view that this mediocre bill still represents a significant improvement on the status quo, though goddamn, it's weak stuff for a Senate Demopcratic caucus 60-strong to be passing. They should be ashamed of themselves for serving us such a baloney sandwich.

And here is your recompense for hysterical accusations leveled at Dean: :spank:

[dorkulon]

112. Isn't being old a preexisting condition?

[sendero]

116. Can you show me specific language..

... that will PREVENT them from charging more for pre-existing conditions?

Because if you can't - then you are a liar.

[depakid]

117. If you want to pay TONS MORE and get junk insurance

and sell that as a good policy- be my guest.

The vast majority of us aren't buying it.

You'll get as far with that as you will with persuading us that Dean's liar for standing up and finally- after months and months of being the good soldier- coming to the conclusion that the tireless pandering of this administration has resulted in bound to fail policy.

[Puglover]

119. So Dr. Dean is wrong.

And Thom Hartmann? And Big Ed? And Rachel? And Olbermann? And Bernie Sanders? And Bill Press?

And who exactly are you again? I don't recall seeing you on DemocraticUnderground before.

Give this article a read and see what you think. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/12/16/white_house

Oh and if I didn't say it before. Welcome to DU!

[Matariki]

121. BzaDem - would you kindly pass this message on to whoever you work for

What's being proposed, at least according to the limited information available, isn't Health Care Reform - it's Insurance legislation.

The only thing that hasn't been negotiable is a Mandate. A law that requires people purchase a shoddy product from a private industry? You call that reform? It's obscene. It's unprecedented. And hopefully it will be found to be Unconstitutional.

By the time Congress is done with us, we'll all be spending as much or more on insurance as we do on housing. Without having a choice in the matter. I would rather be paying additional taxes and have Universal Health Care - like every other Civilized First World Nation on the planet.

I'm very angry and disgusted. I write and call my Senators, but they do whatever their corporate donors tell them to do anyway.

Thank you. I hope you'll pass that on.

[jgraz]

122. I really hope you didn't spend too much time thinking up this weak-ass excuse

[laughingliberal]

127. OMG! You're right! How could I have missed that!

The fact is most of the people with preexisting conditions are older. There are exceptions to every rule. The truth is what I have said all along and written to legislators and the administration about continually. My question, repeatedly, has been what the hell is to keep them from pricing people out of the market. Nothing! The reason Dean supports the House bill over the Senate bill is 1) The difference in 2 times and 3 times is significant 2) The House bill retained a public option which could offer people an alternative and might force the insurance criminals to keep premiums within this stratosphere.

Your arguments are weak and a real stretch. Howard Dean is a known entity who established his honesty among Democrats quite a few years ago. You're going to have to do better than that to discredit him, here. Go dig around in the dirt. Maybe you can dig up an old affair or something to try next.

[Raine]

128. Two BIG thumbs down

on this post. :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:

[peace frog]

139. The Unrec's have it

Nice try but as KO said last night: NO SALE. :nopity:

[Fire1]

131. Whether he's right or wrong, I still don't like the idea of

seniors on a fixed income paying higher premiums! That's just wrong.

[BzaDem]

133. They are currently paying 5-10 times as much. This bill reduces it to 3 times as much.

This bill will be a HUGE benefit for seniors on a fixed income.

[Fire1]

134. Ok then but I'd like to read this bill as it stands now. Do you

have a link or is it on WH.gov.?

[BzaDem]

136. Here is a nice section-by-section summary of the bill by Debbie Stabenow.

Without all the legalese.

http://stabenow.senate.gov/healthcare/Patient_protection_section.pdf

[Bluenorthwest]

143. People ask for the actual bill

you hand them a 'summary'. What industry do you work in?


So a patsy, a shill and a hack walk go fishing. The shill falls into the shark infested water, but the sharks don't circle, they guide him gently back to the boat. The Patsy says to the hack, "that's amazing!" The Hack says "No. That's just professional courtesy."

[Fire1]

144. Yeah, there are some good provisions but no comparative

costs except for no deductions or co-pays for well or preventive care (insurance co. pays 100%), which is great. BUT, there is no indication that seniors are paying more now in premiums vs. the proposed legislation. I've heard proponents (senators) of this bill say that seniors are currently paying upwards of 300% of the premium costs but I'm going to search for data to validate that claim.

[Tailormyst]

132. Spin spin spin spin spin spin spin !

Aren't you dizzy yet?

[walldude]

135. Wow, you only have 5 threads on the first page

Every one of them attacking Dean and supporting the bill. You sure 5 is enough? I mean, wouldn't 50 be better. How about every thread on DU? Will that make you happy? Go back under your bridge will ya...

[Canuckistanian]

137. Who's YOUR hero then?

Who's got it right? Who is YOUR "truth-teller" if the majority here are SO WRONG?

[shadesofgray]

138. I'll believe Howard Dean over the sell-out White House any day.

[TexasObserver]

140. Unrecommend

<0

[freddie mertz]

142. Unrec-ing.

[Forkboy]

145. Pfffft.

[Fire1]

146. Still no comparative data but it's another good synopsis

of improvements to medicare that simply indicates seniors "paying less." That's not a very definitive comparison. Interesting reading.


http://healthreform.gov/reports/seniors/index.html

[treestar]

148. He can chatter on the M$M all he wants

He doesn't have a vote. If he wants to help, why doesn't he help try to convince Lieberman or a few Blue Dogs?