31DEC09: GOP senators get earful on health reform

[thotzRthingz]

GOP senators get earful on health reform

Sens. Mitch McConnell and Orrin Hatch anticipated they would go home for the holidays and hear the anger regarding the health care reform bill. They are right; I'm angry.

I'm angry because the GOP is using this landmark legislation as a political wedge to position itself favorably for future power and elections and deepening the partisan divide.

I'm angry because even though there was a bipartisan alternative presented by our own Sen. Bob Bennett, still the Republicans offer nothing more beyond "no" as an alternative.

I'm angry because after most of a year of negotiations, our own Sen. Hatch distills an extraordinarily complex issue into a simple and very unhelpful "We need to start over."

I'm angry because Hatch and his ilk had the audacity to complain about not being consulted ("backroom deals"), despite making it very clear that he was non-negotiable.

I'm angry because the public option was killed in part because it would provide a competitive option to the insurance companies, which would benefit Americans but threaten insurers. It's therefore clear who our senators favor. And those favored are being awarded 30 million new customers.

I'm angry because Republicans paint the legislation as being a huge expense, yet the nonpartisan Congressional Budge Office has indicated that the cost savings associated with the plan offset the expenses.

I'm angry that many of the same Republicans stonewalling the current bill and the "moderate Democrats" who insisted on dramatic compromise are the same folks who voted to dramatically expand Medicare in 2003 with no payment/savings mechanisms.

I'm angry because opponents of health care reform conveniently neglect to associate "higher premiums" with "higher taxes." Whether we pay for health insurance via taxes or premiums, we will pay. Yet our senators don't acknowledge this salient fact.

I'm angry because my ratio of premiums and co-pays to HMO payments for my care over the past seven years has been 4:1, and this deplorable ratio will not change.

I'm angry that despite this much-vaunted "reform," my premiums will continue to rise at four to eight times the annual inflation rate. If the current trend of 7-12 percent annual increases continues, a family of four could be paying more than $20,000 a year in premiums in 10 years. Yet a public plan that was initially projected to cost approximately $1 trillion to implement equals approximately $3,000 for every American.

I'm angry <...snip...>

I'm angry <...snip...>

I'm angry <...snip...>

I'm angry <...snip...>

I'm angry <...snip...>

So you are right, Sens. Hatch and McConnell. I'm angry.

source: http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_14102647

[thotzRthingz]

1. yes, MOST of America is "angry" about FAUX REFORM -- but will that stop it? (n/t)

[thotzRthingz]

2. ACT NOW (or forever hold your peace?)...

Polls indicate that progressives will not turn out to vote in this year's elections if they are unhappy about the final HCR bill. Now is the time to scream for the changes we want. Force the passage of meaningful insurance regulation which cannot by law occur through reconciliation. Use reconciliation to pass a meaningful insurance exchange and Medicaid or Medicare expansion. Kick Lieberman to the curb.

- source: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/1/22490/64972

Many people I hear talking about the current health care reform proposals (currently being touted in Congress) *KNOW* that reform is needed. And I would even venture to say that only a very few Americans would argue against reforms in our health care system. But what SHAPE should reform take?

Should it wholly benefit the FOR-PROFITs of the health care industry, or should it completely replace the GREED_MONGERING "middlemen" (insurance companies) with a PUBLIC program? Or should we step somewhere in the middle (i.e., retain insurance moguls, but regulate the hell out of them)? IMO: we should have a single-payer system, but I am willing to settle for a STRONG PUBLIC OPTION as an alternative to "health insurance moguls" which should result in much meaningful cost containment. But a PUBLIC OPTION is where I personally draw the line!

Assuming what gets passed and signed into law will be some "compromise" of the current HOUSE & SENATE bills... less a "public option"... I am 100% convinced that CONGRESS will NOT (in my lifetime) "revisit" anything they pass. If they were seriously considering a REVISIT, they would, at minimum, put a TRIGGER into the "law". But, no one is even talking about a TRIGGER anymore... <sigh>

What I sincerely HOPE does not happen, is that PROGRESSIVE & INDEPENDENT "voters" turn to a period of dark apathy. We've had enough of that... and the time to ACT is now (not waiting until after some abortion-of-a-bill gets passed... and CONGRESS has to move on to other pressing matters).

...just my 2cents

[thotzRthingz]

5. the time to FIGHT is now, don't wait until terrible reforms are set in concrete!

<...snip...>

"This fight isn't over," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "I guarantee you, the people who voted for this bill are going to get an earful when they finally get home for the first time since Thanksgiving."

While Republicans expressed outrage, several Democrats and their lobbyist allies talked of winning changes in the bill in the conference committee.

Key differences remain between the House bill, which includes a government-run "public option" insurance plan and pays for health care with a millionaire's tax, and the Senate bill, which lacks the public option and funds programs with a tax on premiums. The House bill also has stronger provisions for ensuring that public money does not pay for abortions.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka warned that the Senate version "includes exorbitant new taxes on middle-class health benefits."

"It's political suicide," he said.

Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) told reporters that a House-Senate compromise was inevitable.

"It's pretty clear to me, and I think pretty clear to all of you, that nobody is going to be happy with this," he said, and added, "Everybody is going to have to give."

- source: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/unclean_bill_AhRSuJIFVCdozkmlA0y22N

[thotzRthingz]

6. whether he's on vacation, or back at work -- tell OBAMA we want a PUBLIC OPTION NOW!

(also let him know that we will support him... and we've got his back all the way!)

02 January 2010
Obama visits Sea Life Park on last full day of vacation

President Barack Obama began his last day in Hawaii with his typical morning workout and a trip to Sea Life Park.

Obama spent about an hour at Waimanalo marine park, where aides said he was visiting with his daughters and other family and friends. Spotted with the president's party were his sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, and her husband.

The motorcade returned to the Kailua vacation compound around 10:30 a.m. A small group of demonstrators had gathered holding signs that ranged from "we love you" to "support the public option," according to a media pool report.

<...snip...>

source: http://www.starbulletin.com/news/breaking/80507447.html

[thotzRthingz]

7. A PUBLIC OPTION would not only be budget neutral, but could SAVE individuals 1000s of $$$/yr

...from the OP:

I'm angry that despite this much-vaunted "reform," my premiums will continue to rise at four to eight times the annual inflation rate. If the current trend of 7-12 percent annual increases continues, a family of four could be paying more than $20,000 a year in premiums in 10 years. Yet a public plan that was initially projected to cost approximately $1 trillion to implement equals approximately $3,000 for every American.

Me personally? I am angry that a "public option" is being written-off by far too many as being unnecessary... and I am also angry that far too few are SCREAMING (at our elected officials) that a PUBLIC OPTION is a non-negotiable *MUST HAVE*!

[thotzRthingz]

8. GET MAD, GET ANGRY, DO IT NOW... help your: self, loved ones, and fellow Americans... like this one:

As a passionate Progressive, I'd love to fight this thing to the end. But I'm also someone who lost her family, her job, will soon lose her COBRA and also, having several "pre-existing conditions", has already been refused by private insurance. I hear my leader say he needs my help, but if he can't be bothered to press for the main reform measure that will help me (and the millions like me), what good will it do to press on?

The Blue Dogs have been bought, lock, stock and barrel. They will never negotiate from their position of comfort--provided as it is by our tax dollars, as well as corporate contributions--on behalf of those of us who are vulnerable. And if Obama won't carry the public option fight to them, what's to be done?

We, the "expendable", the collateral damage in the battle for healthcare corporate profit, cannot afford to wait a few years for a trigger to kick in; or for the watered-down, insurance company-friendly notion of co-ops.

If our "leaders" allow the public option to expire, they may well be killing many of US. We are flesh and blood, not just dry ciphers or actuarial figures. But it looks like our leaders and lawmakers {sic} don't see it that way.

So what are we to do?

source: http://tinyurl.com/yht8kb4 (redirects to broken link at: hillbillyreport.org)

[stevedeshazer]

3. Kicked

[thotzRthingz]

4. thanks for the kick, steve ... now, perhaps someone can "riddle me this"?

Concerning the proposed "Cadillac plan taxes" which EMPLOYERS (and perhaps others) might find themselves facing...

RIDDLE: Will the GOVERNMENT, regarding its own health care plans (such as those covering: MEDICARE/MEDICAID recipients, Military/Active/Reserve/Veterans/Retirees, Federal Employees--and CONGRESS ITSELF), get the same "cadillac tax treatment"? That is to say, will our government have to pay itself taxes, as well... for example: for the health care plans which it offers to our SENATORS? If not, why not?

My point? Of course I don't think that our government (as an EMPLOYER offering rather excellent health care plans) will be taxing itself... I also think what's good for the goose...

IOW: let's just do away with PREYING on people's state of health (charging ridiculous mounts to insure it against, and to treat... its inevitable failure).

It's time that we all stood-up for SINGLE-PAYER (with standardized FORMS and CLAIMS' PAYOUTS) for everyone... or at least a STRONG PUBLIC OPTION, for those who unfortunately have yet to have MILLION$/year trickle down to their level, so they would be able to afford good health care coverage (in both the short & long term).

[ThomWV]

9. No answer from me, but there is one slight correction - The Federal plan is no Cadillac plan.

The Republican right wing talk machine would have you believe that the FEHBP (federal employees plan) is the sweetest deal around - it is not. It is expensive, it has all the normal co-pays, it has plenty of exceptions, and the paperwork it generates will drive a person crazy. In short its no different than any other large employer's plan. Also, without any knowledge of every option available in the plan I can tell you that the most common selection in the Government plan, the Blue Cross/Blue Shield family coverage plan costs a litle under $12,000 per year in total with the employee picking up about 5,000 of that cost and the Government the other $7,000.

By the way, that $5,000 per year that Government employees pay in - that part is already being taxed as it is. What they are talking taxing is that $7,000 that the employer pays in.

[thotzRthingz]

10. thank you, for taking the time to post your clarification...

My parents are nearing 90... dad being a many-year retired GS-12 (he retired some 30+ years ago after working his way up from a Gov't employee/apprenticeship program... following his WWII service as a paratrooper, fighting on European battlefronts). I have no first-hand knowledge of the Federal system/benefits, other than what I have observed from their lives. And personally, I myself am 20+years retired (military with access to TRICARE, which I have never used).

Your insight into the Federal employee's struggle is important, helpful, and much appreciated!

What I neglected to state, is my perception/outlook, IF the current proposals become law:

Current "cadillac plans" will become obsolete as both companies & individuals begin DOWN-grading. What I call "good plans" (not currently considered to be the great cadillac types), "Federal Plans", will then become the new *cadillacs*.

The deal is proposed to be that "cadillac plans" will be TAXED, and those taxes will help to offset overall cost (of the proposed reforms). But as those *cadillacs* disappear, so will the TAX BASE they were suppose to provide... thus my rather rhetorical question (i.e., will the government then have to begin TAX its own *cadillacs*).