If Feingold kills this bill tomorrow how many more thousands or people are going to die

[Maraya1969]

waiting for the "perfect bill"? What people do not realize is that this bill is just a base. Things will be changed, amendments will be added, parts will be stricken out. But without the base what do we have? NOTHING!

202 people are going to die today because they have no insurance.

You want to bitch about the problems in this bill? Tell it to their families.

[xchrom]

1. I come from a community that is and will continue to be

Devasted by ass holes who continue to put
out the slavish and victimized weak ass shameful
argument that 'the perfect is the enemy of the good'.

Only a monumental simpleton would spew that horseshit.

[Maraya1969]

10. Tell that to the families of the dead. And I'm going to take it out right now.

[xchrom]

16. We'll have to wait 3 to 4 years for moderates

To 'save' anyone.
The Iraqis must think you guys are teh awesome!

[tabasco]

54. Only a simpleton would expect utopian change overnight.

Realists want to get things moving in the right direction.

Idiots are "devastated" by reality.

[xchrom]

55. Only some one so stupid that doesn't know

The wheel has already been invented would
write a post like yours.

[ThePhilosopher04]

2. Spare me the "pass it or die" bullshit...

there's no concrete evidence anyone will die if this bill doesn't pass in this form; but there's plenty of evidence to suggest we'll be headed over the cliff towards private, corporate takeover and there are no guarantees that things won't be worse under this bill. There will still be millions who can't afford the premiums, or can't afford the deductables...nothing will change as I see it, other than we'll be forced to hand over money to the insurance companies, versus having a choice to be screwed or not.

[Maraya1969]

14. How about a study by Harvard University?

Study links 45,000 U.S. deaths to lack of insurance


http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58G6W520090917

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year -- one every 12 minutes -- in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday.

Health | Healthcare Reform

"We're losing more Americans every day because of inaction ... than drunk driving and homicide combined," Dr. David Himmelstein, a co-author of the study and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard, said in an interview with Reuters.

Overall, researchers said American adults age 64 and younger who lack health insurance have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those who have coverage.

The findings come amid a fierce debate over Democrats' efforts to reform the nation's $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare industry by expanding coverage and reducing healthcare costs.

President Barack Obama's has made the overhaul a top domestic policy priority, but his plan has been besieged by critics and slowed by intense political battles in Congress, with the insurance and healthcare industries fighting some parts of the plan.

The Harvard study, funded by a federal research grant, was published in the online edition of the American Journal of Public Health. It was released by Physicians for a National Health Program, which favors government-backed or "single-payer" health insurance.

An similar study in 1993 found those without insurance had a 25 percent greater risk of death, according to the Harvard group. The Institute of Medicine later used that data in its 2002 estimate showing about 18,000 people a year died because they lacked coverage.

Part of the increased risk now is due to the growing ranks of the uninsured, Himmelstein said. Roughly 46.3 million people in the United States lacked coverage in 2008, the U.S. Census Bureau reported last week, up from 45.7 million in 2007.

Another factor is that there are fewer places for the uninsured to get good care. Public hospitals and clinics are shuttering or scaling back across the country in cities like New Orleans, Detroit and others, he said.

Study co-author Dr. Steffie Woolhandler said the findings show that without proper care, uninsured people are more likely to die from complications associated with preventable diseases such as diabetes and heart disease.

[Raineyb]

47. And forcing people to buy insurance they can't afford to use solves this how?

People have that problem NOW and this bill doesn't do anything to address that.

[leftstreet]

3. How many thousands would survive if Obama had pushed Single Payer?

Obama had the political capital to rally the support of the nation for Single Payer.

Pissed. It. All. Away.

[Skidmore]

8. But those won't have a chance either for another decade or more

either if this bill is killed. There comes a time when saying you are progressive doesn't mean a damned thing--like when you stand in one place and just scream instead of taking a step no matter how small. How many small steps do you think it took before women were given the vote? Or civil rights legislation was enacted? Those fights took many years, as this one has. It will be what we make it but standing still will not advance much.

[Maraya1969]

15. NO. The children will be covered immediately. And the pre-existing refusals

go into effect immediately. And I think the subsidies for these go into effect immediately.

And the cap will go into effect immediately which means people will not lose their homes because of medical bills.

[Skidmore]

43. I think you misunderstood my comment, which was not directed

at you but the poster immediately preceeding me on the thread.

[Maraya1969]

53. Sorry. I liked your post. Thanks.

[napi21]

4. She won't. n/t

[undeterred]

11. She?

Russ Feingold is a HE.

[tblue]

34. Yeah, last I checked, he was a he. nt

[Hekate]

35. Feinstein -- Feingold -- what's the diff? LOL

:eyes:

Hekate

[napi21]

50. Sorry. It's EARLY! I read it as Finestein! I only slept for

2 hours & had to get yp to make sure the crockpot pene pasta I made for my son to take to work today was moist enough and he just left for work about 1/2 hr. ago. I turned on DU just to see what was happening this early, but I'm going back to bed. Looks like I better since I can't read very well!!!!

[yurbud]

5. the Democrats could have saved even more people, more money, and punished those

who caused tens of thousands of deaths.

Instead, they have chosen a form of reform that rewards those who have harmed and even killed so many.

They had the votes to do much better but chose not to pressure their most openly corrupt members of their caucus.

[kentuck]

6. This is a lesson for Progressives.

If Feingold kills this bill, think of the consequences. Democrats, at least in the House, will probably be in the minority once again. That means that many of them will lose in the 2010 elections.
Will the Progressives be blamed? Yes, most likely.

But, what will be the consequences if the Republicans win back the House? Can the President work with the Republicans or will it simply be more gridlock and partisan bickering? And what would it mean for the Democrats in 2012?

[jgraz]

9. What lesson? Never vote for a Democrat?

Cuz that's what it looks like from here.

[Maraya1969]

17. Exactly, if this loses now it could be ten years before we have another chance.

[jgraz]

24. If this passes now it could be 20 years before we have another majority.

But, I'm sure that won't result in any deaths. :eyes:

[tavalon]

44. Have you not been listening these last couple of weeks

Whether this bill passes or not, it's being seen as a heinous bill and the Democrats are going to pay dearly in 2010. There is going to need to be something fairly magnificent between now and the midterms to get the taste of this bad bill out of our mouths. Obama and Democrats in general are bleeding, nay hemorrhaging voters right now. And what happens tomorrow will not change anything about that. I'm in agreement with the Rude Pundit on this one - the only thing that will save the Dems from a massacre of their own making is getting some Bush administration prosecutions going well before the midterms so that we'll remember who is to blame.

Oh, and BTW, how will we know if the Democrats actually are in the minority, I mean, really? They act like a minority party right now. At least then they would have political cover again.

[jgraz]

7. How many new people will get insurance tomorrow if the bill passes?

Answer: ZERO.


Take your "pass it or die" bullshit back to the DLC. No one's buying it here.

[Maraya1969]

18. God-dammit how many times do I have to say, CHILDREN!

And people with diabetes and cancer and other pre-existing conditions who can't get insurance now. That will go into effect immediately.

[jgraz]

20. Pre-existing conditions don't kick in until 2014. And they can charge as much as they want.

Quit making shit up.

[Maraya1969]

36. I'm am not making shit up. You are. Here are the facts.

The manager’s package goes to the heart of health reform’s mission: decrease the number of uninsured, increase access to affordable care and make health insurance companies more accountable,” said Chairman Harkin. “This bill is a good foundation on which to build, and this amendment strengthens that base. It will provide more health insurance choices and specifically, improve access to care for children and vulnerable populations and further our prevention efforts.”


Immediate ban on pre-existing condition exclusions for children. Health insurers will be immediately prohibited from excluding coverage of pre-existing conditions for children.

http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=321039&

[jgraz]

41. Ah, you're just bending the truth to the breaking point

And people with diabetes and cancer and other pre-existing conditions who can't get insurance now.

Are these people covered immediately? No? So this statement is false, no?

So did you: a) make it up, b) forget what a child was, or c) think that it was already 2014?

[Skittles]

12. about the same that are dying right now

health insurance DOES NOT MEAN HEALTH CARE

[tavalon]

46. Thank you

That is a very important distinction.

[cali]

51. but it can. I actually have subsidized state administered private insurance

and guess what? It provides me with access to good medical care, dental care and scrips. I pay $60 a month for it.

[Joe the Liberal]

13. I've heard the bill won't take effect until 2013.......

so even if he does kill the bill it wouldn't matter because more and more people would continue to die until it actually takes effect years from now.

[Maraya1969]

19. only except the children. But go on.

[jgraz]

21. And I thought Repukes were the only ones low enough to use children as human shields.

I guess I was wrong.

[leftstreet]

23. What states aren't currently covering low income children?

Are children literally dying by the side of the road or something?

:eyes:

AutoUnRec for BushTerra Tactics Redux

[Maraya1969]

39. Word - S-Chip

Christ I can't believe the ignorance and greediness of some people here. That is what looks like Repukes.

[Maraya1969]

45. Un'Rec this

http://www.hopkinschildrens.org/Lack-of-Insurance-May-Have-Figured-In-Nearly-17000-Childhood-Deaths.aspx

Lack of Insurance May Have Figured In Nearly 17,000 Childhood Deaths, Study Shows


October 29, 2009
Fizan Abdullah img

Lead investigator Fizan Abdullah, M.D., Ph.D., is a pediatric surgeon at Hopkins Children's

Lack of health insurance might have led or contributed to nearly 17,000 deaths among hospitalized children in the United States in the span of less than two decades, according to research led by the Johns Hopkins Children's Center.

According to the Johns Hopkins researchers, the study, published Oct. 29 in the Journal of Public Health, is one of the largest ever to look at the impact of insurance on the number of preventable deaths and the potential for saved lives among sick children in the United States.

Using more than 23 million hospital records from 37 states between 1988 and 2005, the Johns Hopkins investigators compared the risk of death in children with insurance and in those without. Other factors being equal, researchers found that uninsured children in the study were 60 percent more likely to die in the hospital than those with insurance. When comparing death rates by underlying disease, the uninsured appeared to have increased risk of dying independent regardless of their medical condition, the study found. The findings only capture deaths during hospitalization and do not reflect deaths after discharge from the hospital, nor do they count children who died without ever being hospitalized, the researchers say, which means the real death toll of non-insurance could be even higher.

"If you are a child without insurance, if you're seriously ill and end up in the hospital, you are 60 percent more likely to die than the sick child in the next room who has insurance," says lead investigator Fizan Abdullah, M.D., Ph.D., a pediatric surgeon at the Johns Hopkins Children's Center.

[Maraya1969]

37. Some things start immediatly, some start in 2010 and some don't start until 2014

[Maraya1969]

22. Remember when bush vetoed the S-chip program for kids who families made over $40,000/year?

Up until $80,000? Where are those kids now? Do the insurance fairy come down when Obama was elected and just put those kids under the insurance? No. They need to pass this bill in order to get those kids help.

Remember the mother whose 2 twins had cancer and how they could not get any more health insurance for them because they had -pre-existing conditions? Those kids would be covered from day one.

But go on.

[jgraz]

28. Obama signed SCHIP reauthorization on Feb 4th, 2009.

Are you saying he somehow fucked up and didn't cover enough people?

[1]

32. no. schip was vetoed because the source of funding was bullshit.

schip is fine, was always fine. i agreed with the original veto. i wish obama had vetoed the bill too.

the source of funding was bullshit from the get go. was then, still is now.

but let's not let the facts get in the way of your poignant story...

[1]

25. never going to happen, relax...

[Maraya1969]

42. Thanks. I think I am just so upset at the people on this board and how insensitive

they have become. I thought progressives were supposed to be the party of caring. Well maybe it's just the bleeding heart liberals like me and some other who still care. So many others are just fighting over stupid things and not even giving a shit about the people that this reform will actually help.

As Dean said it, "If the Republicans hate it so much there must be something to it"

Here is what is in the bill now.

http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=321039&

[cornermouse]

26. And yet they are openly planning for another 24 million or so to not be

covered by the HCR as it currently stands. And let us not overlook the fact they project $29 billion in penalty taxes collected from those who won't be covered by HCR. Also it specifically states that underpayments to medicare providers may cause them to drop their medicare patients. Hmm... Won't that cause a shortage in doctors willing to take medicare patients which is not unlike the shortage of doctors willing to take medicaid patients around here? I tried to find a doctor for someone and was told "no" by most of them. One of them had an opening and was willing to take interviews to see if he was interested in accepting him as a patient.

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ActuarialStudies/Downloads/S_PPACA_2009-12-10.pdf

Reality is that what you see is as good as it will ever be. Once its passed it will be under continual attack from insurance companies.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

27. Terra terra terra. Yawn.... I'm one of those people and I say fuck this bill.

[jgraz]

29. you forgot: 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11

The demagoguery level has been raised to PLAID.

[tblue]

30. Yes, it's all Russ Feingold's fault.

He's probably saved more lives with the policies he's supported/fought against than the entire effing Republican party + Lieberman + even President Obama and a whole lot of other Democrats in Congress.

If a senator in good conscience wants to push for stronger reforms, God bless him for it. It's not Feingold's fault this is a crappy bill/giveaway to Big Ins.

And what law says healthcare reform has to die along with this one bill? Who says it can't be tried again? Where is it written? I'd really like to know.

[Hekate]

31. KnR Maraya. The fantasy that Obama had sufficient "political capital" to force single payer is...

... just that, a fantasy. He couldn't wave around a dead president's name, the way LBJ did. He didn't spend a lifetime in Congress first, the way LBJ did. And he never had a moment's cooperation from the Repubs, and I believe he never will -- also unlike LBJ.

I don't think Feingold is going to kill the bill. He's too smart a politician for that.

Hekate

[tavalon]

48. We'll never know because he didn't spend a penny of his political capital

and yet, he must have a huge hole in his pocket because he has a lot less political capital now than when this unholy sausage making process started.

[ChicagoSuz219]

33. They only need 51 votes tomorrow. n/t

[Better Today]

49. That's what I thought. The second 60vote cloture occurred today

and tomorrow's is only a 51 required to pass.

[Raine]

38. Exactly the same amount

that would die anyway, how is that going to save them tomorrow.

[Hannah Bell]

40. sure, it's the rank & file "killing people," not the leadership. pfft.

[GeorgeGist]

52. The base is PRIVATE health insurance ...

Can't count the lives lost because of it.