It is amazing how every "criticism" of HCR seems to rely on incorrect information.

[BzaDem]

It is really amazing how every criticism I have seen along the lines of "this is worse than nothing and should not have passed" relies on information that has no relation to reality. You would think that when people realize that each of their criticisms along these lines is actually not accurate, they would be open to changing their opinion. But instead, these inaccurate talking points keep simmering, are repeated as much as possible, and re-enforce a preconceived narrative that some people are apparently unable to live without. When every talking point against the bill along these lines is actually false, that starts to tell you much more about the talking points than it does about the bill.



With the mandate, people might have to pay half their income for premiums! Except, nope, the mandate doesn't apply if you would have to pay more than 8%.

Someone working minimum wage can't pay $xxx for healthcare! Except, someone working minimum wage gets free Medicaid.

My premiums just went up xx% It's the healthcare bill's fault! Except, the bill doesn't even take into effect until 2014, and premiums have been going up by double digit percentages for YEARS.

Insurance doesn't provide healthcare, so my mandated premiums are worthless! Except, actually, the bill requires that all plans cover a large minimum set of benefits, with a minimum actuarial value, and mandates that 85% of premium dollars are not used on administrative expenses/salaries/bonuses/overhead/marketing/etc (rebating the rest).

The bill still allows people with pre-existing conditions to be charged more! Except, no, actually, it doesn't. It only allows variations based upon a small number of things, such as age/location/family size/smoking, and the variations are minuscule compared to what exists today. They primarily exist to make insurance somewhat cheaper for young/healthy people, so they don't just not buy insurance leaving everyone else holding the bag.

The healthcare bill makes my life worse, because it will make me pay tens of thousands every year before my insurance even kicks in! Except, no, you only get tens of thousands by adding up the premium, max deductible, and max cost sharing amount. If you spent anywhere near the max, you would be getting at least 5-6 times that amount in care that you would have had to pay for out of pocket if you did not have the plan.

Under Obama's bill, someone with pre-existing conditions will have to pay $xxxx/month! Except, that is under the temporary high risk pool, which goes away when the bill is set up in 2014.

I make 400% of FPL but I can't afford 5-10% of my income for healthcare! Except, someone making that much would be paying AT LEAST that much in additional taxes than they would otherwise to fund a single payer system (such as PHNP's system, which is 9%).

and on and on and on....

[MannyGoldstein]

1. How about "it does nothing to reduce health care costs"

except for the "Cadillac tax", which will raise taxes on many working Americans.

Is that a wrong statement?

[BzaDem]

3. Cost controls

Ezra Klein: The five most promising cost controls in the healthcare bill:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/the_five_most_promising_cost_c.html

"One of the problems Democrats have had is that it's very easy to understand the one thing the bill does to spend money -- purchase insurance for people who can't afford it -- and considerably harder to explain the many things it does to save money. Another is that a lot of the savings have to do with changing how medicine is practiced, which people are less familiar with than how insurance is purchased.

But the fact that the cost controls are complicated and numerous doesn't mean they're absent, or that they won't work. "

--snip--

It would be accurate to say that the bill could do MORE to cut costs (such as direct price controls, public option, etc). I'm not saying that every criticism that exists is false. I'm saying that basically every criticism I have seen here along the lines of "the bill is worse than nothing" is false. The fact that it could be better in cost controls is not an argument that the bill is worse than nothing.

[MannyGoldstein]

30. That article confirms the middle class tax hike

As to the rest... it's all experiments and guesses.

For example, #1 won't control health care costs at all. It will simply control the mark-ups taken by health insurance companies. As long as health care costs rise equally for all insurers, they're fine.

[BzaDem]

33. Yeah, the tax hike for those who have a health plan that costs more than 27,500/year.

The truth is that if you subsidize every marginal dollar going into the healthcare system, it encourages employers to spend more on care versus other things and shields insurance companies from having to lower their costs. The subsidy for people with good jobs was an accident of history (specifically World War II wage laws). What we really need to do is end the subsidy entirely, and use the money we get in return to give a general middle class tax cut (that doesn't favor the people with good jobs over everyone else).

#1 will have a role in controlling healthcare costs. The insurers who negotiate more strongly with providers to lower their costs will get more customers (as opposed to now, where the market is a complete jungle, and insurers rarely compete on price at all, meaning they have little incentive to tell the providers to shove it).

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

37. A plan that costs $27,000 per year

I have family health insurance through my employer, and we split the cost of the premiums 50/50. So the actual cost of my insurance plan is about $9,000 per year. Even if my plan had a $0 Deductible, it would still not be costing more than about $12,000.

God as my judge, I can't figure our what kind of health insurance plan costs more than $27,000 -- other than coverage for extremely high-risk employees.

[dsc]

64. the 27 is for a family

the line for singles is considerably lower. Using about 8% inflation factor would make my, no where near Cadillac plan, get taxed within five years.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

92. Mine is family coverage....

I repeat, I have no idea how one spends more than $27,000 on health insurance other than for covering high-risk or chronic conditions -- which should be exempt if they are not already.

[dsc]

98. and my point is that many singles, I know we don't matter, but many singles

will be paying this tax on plans that are far from Cadilliac. I also could easily see older couples (say in their 50's and 60's) but not medicare eligable paying this tax as well.

[MannyGoldstein]

40. Insurers certainly compete on price now

My company has 400+ employees. Each year we do a thorough evaluation of health insurance plans, price is an important consideration.

[BzaDem]

48. I'm talking about the individual market, not the employer market.

In the individual market, insurers compete on how many people they can deny due to pre-existing conditions, how many people they can remove coverage for once they file a claim, etc.

In 2014, none of this will be allowed (in fact rescinding isn't allowed now), and all insurance plans will be purchased on an exchange. You can go to a website, enter your age/location/smoking status, and get a price quote from all insurance companies that serve your state. Without even giving your name.

[MannyGoldstein]

56. In fact, rising medical costs are in insurer's best interests

Since their non-medical costs are capped at a percentage, as medical costs increase they can also increase their profits.

This would be much better if we'd gone single payer, or if Obama had at least tried to keep his promise for a public option.

[BzaDem]

71. You are now claiming that Obama didn't try to get a public option??

Obama to Endorse Public Plan in Speech
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125240777810092069.html?mod=rss_com_mostcommentart

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/15/obama-takes-up-public-hea_n_215736.html
Obama Takes Up Public Health Care Option In AMA Speech

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/20 ...
OBAMA: PUBLIC OPTION NOT DEAD....
""I absolutely do not believe that it's dead," Obama told Univision's "Al Punto" of the public option's fate. "I think that it's something that we can still include as part of a comprehensive reform effort.""

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_09/020034.php
"In the last week, however, senior administration officials have been holding private meetings almost daily at the Capitol with senior Democratic staff to discuss ways to include a version of the public plan in the healthcare bill that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) plans to bring to the Senate floor this month, according to senior Democratic congressional aides."

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/reid-to-announce-opt-out-public-plan-today/
"Senator Reid Announces ‘Opt-Out’ Public Plan"

are a few of a tens or hundreds of examples.

[MannyGoldstein]

108. He'd already bargained it away

while he was pretending to encourage it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/policy/13health.html?_r=1

Very disingenuous of the President - sort of like promising to partially save us from the committee he founded to slash Social Security.

[Exilednight]

57. Post one single solid cost control device within this bill .......

Many people point to the state exchanges, but those are not cost control mechanisms. They're devised to be welfare for corporate health care companies.

Prescription drugs from Canada? Drug companies were able to force the administration to publicly acknowledge that the administration held closed door discussions where lower cost prescription drugs were traded away for big pharmas support of the bill.

(1) Create a competitive insurance market: This is a very misleading part of the bill. The exchange, which is nothing more than a middle-man broker that has to be non-profit, but the insurance companies are for profit corporations. The corporations will still get their full pay, and the government makes up the rest if the policy is subsidized. I will also point out that several states have filed lawsuits against this provision, and although it may not reach the SC, it will certainly make its way up to the Court of Appeals in each district. This means that certain courts will overturn this (most likely the 10th, 8th, and depending on which courts hear it first, the 5th, 6th, 7th and 11th might follow suit. And if the SC does decide to hear this case, we all know that the current composition of this court will throw this part of the bill out.

(2) The Medicare Commission: So, right now this is going to be a 15 member board that is set up by nominations by the President, and confirmed by the Senate. Just like we pick the SC. What happens when people start leaving this board and a rethug is in office. Which is going to get cut when conservatives make up most of the board? I bet their not going to confirm anyone who is willing to cut corporate profits. I am willing to even bet that rethugs will hold this board hostage while they are still the minority.

(3) A tax on "Cadillac plans": Unions are already starting to look to trade fully paid insurance plans for their members in exchange for keeping employees or avoiding pay cuts. Now, not only are union members who get fully paid health care going to have to contribute to their health-care, they are also going to be taxed. I would also point out, many policy wonks, union leaders, and economists are saying that this part of the bill will never take effect.

(4) Medicare "bundling" programs: This might actually save a little money, but not enough to actually make a difference to anyone.

(5) Changing the politics of reform: Ezra argument is that the mandate will make everyone get insurance, and thus put pressure on people to put pressure on Congress to bring down health-care costs. This is going to go to the SC, and when it gets there is going to be ruled unconstitutional - which it should. When this is ruled UC, it will hopefully force Dems to seriously look at instituting a single-payer system, or at least a truly government run PO.

Ezra can try and polish this shitty bill up by putting it in a tux, but at the end of the day when it takes that tux off it's still a pile of shit.

Are there some good parts to this bill? Yes, but they only work if the first thing you do is take a serious stab at controlling costs.

[harun]

67. People don't care how much it costs, they only care about how much they have

to spend.

Wrong metric bub.

[MineralMan]

2. Thanks for that. I'm sorry that you will be attacked for it shortly.

[MrModerate]

4. I accept that something is better than nothing in this case . . .

And that many social programs we now rely upon needed several iterations through subsequent Congresses before they began to work properly.

However, many of us saw this as a golden opportunity to leapfrog over the wasteful and ultimately unnecessary iteration process to where health care provisioning inevitably must end up: single payer, with a severely reduced role for insurance companies. That opportunity appears to have been wasted due to political cowardice and excess of caution.

Also, the provisions allow for insane self-aggrandizement by the insurance companies up to and following 2014, and if anyone thinks they won't use that money to further deform the progress of health care reform, then I have some beachfront property in Atlantis I'd like to show them.

HCR coulda' been a contender in 2010 and instead we got this patchwork that many of us distrust.

[BzaDem]

5. This wasn't a golden opportunity for single payer. It wouldn't have gotten 10 votes in the Senate.

Obama specifically ran against Single Payer. His ads called it "extreme." I'm not sure why people thought it was a golden opportunity when the presidential candidate specifically disavowed it in his campaign.

The truth is, you are not going to get single payer without a national campaign of persuasion that is continuous and active for years or decades. 85% like their plans as they are now. 85 %. You are not going to get a complete overhaul in one step when such a high percentage would have to leave plans they like.

[MrModerate]

6. And the passengers on the Titanic were enjoying the cruise up to the point . . .

When they ran into the iceberg.

The insurance company protection racket has reached a critical point. We've seen a trickle of smaller companies forced to end health insurance for their employees. Next we'll see medium and large businesses abandoning plans wholesale. Push has come to shove. Obama knows this as well as anyone.

[BzaDem]

9. The new exchanges are meant to deal with employers dropping insuranace coverage

by providing a one-stop comparison shop to look for defined plans on the individual market, which are heavily subsidized by the government.

Without telling the extremely high percentage of those happy with their employer coverage to shove it.

Whether or not you feel like this is analogous to the Titanic, the truth is that massive change like single payer simply doesn't happen when most people are happy with what they have.

[MrModerate]

I'm afraid you're right. I don't like it very much, however . . .

Especially having lived in places where single payer is the rule.

[BzaDem]

29. The question is not whether you like it compared to single payer.

The question is whether you like it compared to the status quo jungle we have now.

[GreenArrow]

21. His ads called it "extreme."

And that's the rub, isn't it? It's simply appalling that something as intrinsically sensible, reasonable, humane, pragmatic and fundamentally civilized is branded as "extreme." Instead, we end up with something "uniquely American", which is simply another way of saying that a small coterie of parasites is allowed, with full weight of the law, to bleed the vast majority of us with impunity.

[BzaDem]

31. Just because you think something is sensible, reasonable, humane, pragmatic, fundamentally civilized

etc etc etc

doesn't mean that OTHER people think it is intrinsically sensible, reasonable, humane, pragmatic, and fundamentally civilized.

I think your post proves another point. That is that so many people here think that all of their views are shared by everyone else, and that it is just some corporate conspiracy preventing them from being enacted (as opposed to the fact that many people WHOLEHEARTEDLY DISAGREE with basically all of your opinions).

When everyone thinks that Single Payer is intrinsically sensible, reasonable, humane, pragmatic, and fundamentally civilized, we will have Single Payer. We will not have it when 85% are happy with what they have.

[GreenArrow]

43. Just because other people don't think

it is intrinsically sensible, reasonable, humane, pragmatic, and fundamentally civilized doesn't mean it isn't, either. Either those words have meanings, or they don't. But people certainly won't be persuaded of that when the President of the USA calls it "extreme". If 85% of the people are satisfied with what they've got, then frankly, they'll get what they deserve.

[Safetykitten]

7. Under Obama's bill, someone with pre-existing conditions will have to pay $xxxx/month!

It's the XXXX's that get you. The point of having healthcare is to HAVE healthcare, AFFORDABLE and available.

But no, it has to be in the future of course, and we have to have this high risk pool thingy, and in the meantime those with insurance will never fucking get it.

But of course this will not stop them asking people with no jobs or healthcare who are they going to believe? Them or their lying eyes?

[BzaDem]

11. So your argument is that we shouldn't have passed a bill at all? If it can't start

now, then let's just wait another generation until we have 60 seats and a Democratic president so we can try again? In other words, waiting another generation is BETTER for you than just waiting until 2014?

Think about how silly that argument is.

[Safetykitten]

8. XXXX's a month!

It's the XXXX's that get you. The point of having healthcare is to HAVE healthcare, AFFORDABLE and available.

But no, it has to be in the future of course, and we have to have this high risk pool thingy, and in the meantime those with insurance will never fucking get it.

But of course this will not stop them asking people with no jobs or healthcare who are they going to believe? Them or their lying eyes?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. What you call amazing I call perfectly predictable.

[Hello_Kitty]

23. As predictable as your bullying. eom

[MajorChode]

105. Pot/Kettle

:eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

107. Bullying?

This is the internet. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

[Safetykitten]

12. The funniest part is

That all these stop complaining/you don't get it/what do you want/this is the best/I have health insurance devotees will soon find out in the next two years how living without will be.

The gleaning process has begun, thanks to this HCR bill, and if you think for a monment that you are safe with your gold or platinum plan, you better think again.

[BzaDem]

13. What will be more funny is watching you eat your words when they turn out to be false. n/t

[Safetykitten]

14. Amazing, cheerleading this clusterfuck as others told you about

premium increases, HC companies becoming even more emboldened, huge groups of people this would not help...

There is a big plate of crow already at your table, now you want seconds?

[BzaDem]

16. Your post is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. It illustrates my point perfectly.

You are attacking HCR in this post for 3 reasons. Let's look at each of them.

Premium increases: Hmm. Last time I checked, premiums have been increasing every year for the last several decades. So you would have us believe that this bill is worse than nothing... because... premiums will still go up. FAIL.

HC companies becoming even more emboldened: Except what they really are becoming is more regulated. 85% MLR, rebates for any amount below that, banning risk pricing, throwing them off the exchanges if they can't justify their rate increases, prudent purchasing, etc. So this is an example of a point of yours that is just completely false. Not even a shred of truth.

Huge groups of people this would not help: It helps far more than it doesn't help. For the people it doesn't help, is that really an argument not to pass the bill? We shouldn't help 31 million people, because that wouldn't help everyone?

Thank you for proving my point (that most "the bill should not have passed" criticisms of HCR are bogus) so well.

[stevenleser]

119. + 999999 Most criticism from the left of Obama is just as flawed as what you illustrated

shame really.

[dflprincess]

122. Criticism of the insurance bill is criticism of Obama?

Are we no longer allowed to have positions on issues that differ with the president's?

[Skittles]

26. that's the way it works for some DUers

yup

[SammyWinstonJack]

95. +1 nt

[Hell Hath No Fury]

99. I like you.

:D :hi:

[MadMaddie]

15. The ultimate solution is to make Hospitals non-profit

and put price control on pharmaceuticals. This will never happen.

Corporate profits rule over our lowely lives (I would put a sarcasm smilie but I am serious). Given the HCR is not perfect it is a chip at the establishment Healthcare monster. It can only be strengthened by moderations and time.

If people choose not to vote in November it is guaranteed that no additional changes will be made.

GET OUT AND VOTE IN NOVEMBER!!

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

39. The majority are already non-profit

Just over 80% of all hospital in the United States are either non-profit or government-run.

The trick, I think, is to make insurance companies non-profit. That used to be more common, but during the 1980's and 1990's many formerly non-profit insurance providers became for-profit entities. With HCR demanding that 85% of costs be spent on actual health care, there are going to be very small profit margins in these new insurance pools.

I suspect that many for-profit companies are going to spin off their "government work" as non-profit entities.

Just a prediction, which may be up to 100% inaccuracte.

[Bitwit1234]

17. I am sorry it is not incorrect information

IT DOWNRIGHT LIES. And the tea bags and republicans know darn well they are telling them.

[rug]

18. Kindly point out where the act makes one earning minimum wage eligible for free Medicaid.

Thank you for this information.

[BzaDem]

19. Sure.

$7.25 * 2080 hours/year = $15,080/year.

Plug in $15,080/year into subsidy calculator:

http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

And you get...

Medicaid.

[rug]

20. That doesn't work in 13 states that have a higher minimum wage than the federal.

"someone working minimum wage gets free Medicaid" is an inaccurate talking point.

[BzaDem]

25. Even people in some of those states would qualify for Medicaid.

For example, people in Ohio, Michigan, and Rhode Island will qualify for Medicaid in 2015 instead of 2014.

People in Nevada only have a higher minimum wage than Federal if they do not already get health benefits through their employer.

Though none of this is really the point I was making. They created the 133% threshold to meet the federal minimum wage and the federal poverty limit (FPL), because this is the federal government creating a national healthcare law. They can't know what states might do in the future with their minimum wages or poverty levels.

[rug]

32. Which is why it's inaccurate to equate the minimum wage with medicare.

Sounds good, but is not correct.

And it is not a national healthcare law. No national health care of any type has been enacted. What was enacted was a myriad of scenarios to help a myriad of people, in a myriad of situations, to purchase private for-profit health insurance.

Repeating that it is a national healthcare law does not make it so.

[BzaDem]

34. The more accurate statement is your repitition that this is NOT a national health care law

does not make it so. Your critical mistake is the idea that helping tens of millions of people to get Medicaid and for-profit insurance won't also simultaneously provide them healthcare. Of course, you can keep repeating that over and over, but just because you repeat it doesn't make it true, anymore than "the sky is green" will become true if I repeat it over and over.

I would be happy to clarify my post to say "FEDERAL minimum wage" if the editing period hadn't expired.

[rug]

38. And your critical mistake is believing and disseminating the false notion that merely purchasing

insurance, along with its premiums, its copayments, and its noncovered services and facilities, is the equivalent of a national healthcare plan. You ignore - or disregard the reality - that the cost of using this insurance will often deter the policy holder from in fact using it to obtain actual health care.

This act does patch some holes in the insurance industry but, following your OP, let's have some truth in advertising.

[BzaDem]

45. "Along with its premiums, copayments, and noncovered services and facilities"

which are all limited and partly subsidized by the government. (And in the case of noncovered services, the government now decides what is in a health plan.)

You are misapplying how insurance use to be to how it will be after 2014.

[rug]

63. You are misinterpreting what real change is, 2014 notwithstanding.

[BzaDem]

66. I think someone is in our conversation, but it isn't me. n/t

[rug]

69. That's accurate.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

113. And the "subsidy" is a tax credit

which is an affluent person's idea of a good deal and does nothing for the person who has trouble actually coming up with the premium money every month.

Ask one who is self-employed and is already for a 100% tax credit on insurance premiums. Namely me. Getting a reduction in my income tax of a couple hundred dollars is NOT HELPFUL when I, with my variable income, can't afford the premium payment, which the insurance co. automatically withdraws from my bank account. (And that's for a policy with a $5000 deductible and a 20% copay thereafter.)

I broke my elbow last winter and had to pay the entire cost of treatment myself. It took me seven months to pay it off. That was WITH insurance in what is supposed to be one of the "best" states for insurance in the country.

All the insurance company did for my hundreds of dollars per month was mail out letters telling me that I hadn't made my deductible.

That's why I dropped my insurance. And there is nothing in the current bill to prevent people from going bankrupt.

That's why I will resist any attempts to force me to buy private insurance unless, as in Germany and Switzerland, the insurance companies are put on a choke chain.

I'm old enough to remember when paying for insurance got you NO DEDUCTIBLES and a 10% copay.

Any health insurance law that still permits deductibles is just an excuse for the insurance companies to print money.

That's REALITY, not think tank theory, not DNC PR babble. It's REALITY, and many, many people are worse off than I am.

REALITY. Sometimes it conflicts with political PR.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

41. In most cases, income is not the deciding factor...

While one must be poor in order to be enrolled in Medicaid, in many states poverty alone is not sufficient. In California, where one finds the highest minimum wage in the country, families with small children would, in fact, qualify for medicaid as would preganant women and persons who are disabled.

However, being an able-bodied single person, however poor one might be, makes it all but impossible to qualify for Medicaid. It's a significant gap in Medicaid coverage, as these people are not less prone to illness of injury than any other portion of the population.

I'm not sure what HCR does for this demographic.

[BzaDem]

46. That will not be true in 2014. Income will be THE ONLY factor.

Anyone making over 133% of the poverty level will get Medicaid.

[dflprincess]

53. Most of us make over 133% of the poverty level.

I think you meant 133% of the povery level or less and that sounds good when it's said "133% of the poverty level" but when you do the actualy math, it turns out that 133% of the poverty level for a single person is just under $14,403.90 ($10,830*133%) & for a family of 4 it's $29,326.50 ($22,050*133%) (both numbers are slightly higher in Alaska & Hawaii)

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/10poverty.shtml

[BzaDem]

72. I was responding to a post that claimed even people making under 133% won't get Medicaid.

They will.

[dflprincess]

83. Check what you wrote. You said anyone making OVER 133% of the poverty level would get Medicaid

that is not true.

And again, 133% of the poverty level only sounds impression when you use the percent - the acutal number, not so much.

[LostinVA]

86. Exactly

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

93. As the subsequent replies to your thread indicate

I think think needs some clarification. Do you mean that people making UP TO 133% of the FPL will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid? That seems somewhat questionable, as I believe states have a degree of discretion with regard to coverage.

[BzaDem]

102. Yes, I meant up to, not over. Over was a typo and would make no sense

(after all, rich people don't get Medicaid).

States used to have discretion for Medicaid. Not anymore, starting in 2014. Anyone making up to 133% of the poverty level MUST qualify for Medicaid. This expands Medicaid by 15 million people and is where half of the insurance expansion comes from.

[Hello_Kitty]

22. Make slightly more than that, 150% FPL or $17250 a year you are not eligible for Medicaid

You now have a premium of around $57 a month in after tax income that you have to scrounge up to stay "legal". That's for a 26 year old. Since they're subsidizing the premiums so much at that level why not just raise Medicaid eligibility?

[MrModerate]

24. Yeah -- like make it available to everybody! Like just about every other developed country. n/t

[BzaDem]

27. $57/month that gets them health insurance.

And at that level, deductibles AND cost-sharing are HEAVILY subsidized as well.

They had to have a cut-off somewhere. If they raised Medicaid eligibility, the next level up would still need to be heavily subsidized, and all of the above levels would need to be slightly more subsidized to reflect that (to keep the scale linear). Would more subsidies for everyone have been nice? Of course. But that is not an argument for why the bill shouldn't have passed.

[Hello_Kitty]

35. $57 that is really easy to find when you're making that little money.

Oh but, wait, I'm sure young adults at 150% FPL have buckets of disposable cash lying about.

[slipslidingaway]

81. You really have to look at who are the providers in these plans...

there are a whole host of other problems when one tries to get the best care for a loved one.

Insurance does not equal care.

[LostinVA]

87. $57 that will be impossible for most people at that income level to find

That's a bill, or eating for seven to ten days, or buying clothes for your child to wear to school. That amount of money is a fortune to someone at that income.

[stevenleser]

120. So how would they pay for the tax increase that would come with single payer?

dont act like single payer is "free"

[dflprincess]

123. With the money they would have used paying premiums to private companies

and the out of pocket expenses private insurance would have?

:shrug:

[subterranean]

28. You mean the health care bill that became a law in March?

Sorry, but this is one of my pet peeves. Why are we still calling it a bill? It's a law (or an act).

Terminology aside, I appreciate your effort to clear up misconceptions about the new health care law.

[dflprincess]

55. My pet peeve is why anyone calls the Health Insurance Company Profit Protection Act

health care reform.

Nothing in the bill does anything to guarantee most of us access to health care - only a requirement that we continue to pay for the same products we've had all along. And, from the looks of things, it appears we are going to pay more and more and get less and less.

Even Obama admitted the companies were dishonest when he said the bill needed a public option to "keep them honest". But, in the end, he decided signing a bill with with "health care" in title was all that was needed.

[BzaDem]

74. "only a requirement that we continue to pay for the same products we've had all along."

What utter bullshit. The bill makes insurance cheaper for those under 400% of the poverty level by 200 billion per year total.

[LostinVA]

88. People under 400% of the poverty level already get free health care

And, what the fuck is 400% under the poverty level, anyway? The homeless?

[BzaDem]

103. Under 400% of the poverty level is under 88k per year for a family of 4.

If you think they all get free health care today, I want to see what you are smoking.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

110. My pet peeve...

is people who don't know that access to health care insurance is required for access to health care.

If you show up at my hospital with a less-than-life-threatening condition and don't have insurance, we're going to pat you on the head and send you on your merry way. If you have health insurance, you're going to get treatment. I'm not required to treat you unless your condition is life-threatening, and even then, all I have to do is get you stable enough to go away.

The bill provides access to health care (insurance) that had been beyond the reach of 30 million people.

Health Care Reform doesn't fundamentally change how I (personally) get health care, because I have insurance provided by me employer (for which I pay half the premium). HCR will undoubtedly lower to cost of those premiums, because healthcare provided to dangerously ill and uninsured people (those who we ARE required to treat) is included in the cost of my current insurance premium. When we get these people treated early, it drives down the cost of health care. HCR also contains several cost-containment features that will bring down the cost of healthcare.

[dflprincess]

111. People who have insurance policies with large deductibles and

other out of pocket expenses (also known as the "underinsured") know that having insurance does not guaranatee that they will be able to get care when they need it because they still won't be able to afford that care.

Many employers are switching to these "consumer driven" plans despite the growing evidence that they save money only in the short term. The longer a person has this kind of "coverage" the more apt they are to put off seeking care because of the cost. This is especially true of people with chronic conditions who may start filling the prescriptions less often or delay check ups with their doctors until their condition worsens and cannot be ignored.

The insurance bill allows these kinds of plans to continue and nothing in the bill says we must have access to care only that we must have insurance.

People in civilized countries, where there is some form of national HEALTH plan, do not need to worry about coming up with large amounts of money in addition to what they have paid for a premium or in taxes.

[aikoaiko]

36. How about this criticism: my pre-tax flexible spending card is being capped at $2500 instead of $6K

which means I'll have about $750-1000 dollars less to spend on health care.

Is there any "Except...." to that? :shrug:

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

44. Except...

that the average contribution to an FSA nationwide is only about $1200, which means that the new limit is nearly TWICE what the average person spends. If you're withholding $6,000 per year on an FSA, you're better off withholding the $2,500 maximum to pay your annual co-payments and deductibles, allowing your insurance plan to cover the rest.

[aikoaiko]

49. I do have insurance and I still need the benefit of the $6000 tax free FSA

It pays the in plan and out of plan deductibles as well as dental and over the counters for each of my family members.

Your point about the average contribution to FSA is just an extra slap in the face because its like HCR targeted people like me who are already on health insurance but because of chronic illnesses were using every tax dollar saved on by maxing out the FSAs.

[BzaDem]

50. If you have chronic illnesses, your premiums will be lower now, because of the ban on considering

pre-existing conditions when setting premiums. These plans must have minimum actuarial values, so that should lower your copayments and deductibles.

[aikoaiko]

52. I don't see anything that will require my premiums to go down.

Sure, in principle they could, but are they going to go down $75-100 a month to cover what I'll lose in taxes?

[BzaDem]

54. I don't know the details of your current plan. If you are on a plan that rates based on risk, they

will go down FAR more than that. If you are with a huge employer that has a large enough pool as to not rate based on risk, it may not go down as much.

If you make less than 400% of the poverty level and premiums are more than 8% of your income with your employer, you can go to the exchange and get heavily subsidized plans. If you make more than that, you wouldn't get subsidies.

If your current plan has a low actuarial value, your deductibles/cost-sharing would go down once the mandates for the higher actuarial value plans go into effect.

It is impossible to tell without knowing this and other information.

[aikoaiko]

58. I'm not in plan based on risk and yes I'm in a large organization pool.

I just got a promotion and make too much.

My family and I are just losing out on this one.

As I said before, it just stuns me that the administration is going after people who are sick enough to justify using the full FSA accounts.

I'll just have to suck it up.

[BzaDem]

61. Amazingly it was ultra-liberals like Raul Grijalva who wanted to kill savings accounts entirely.

"Grijalva takes issue in particular with increased health savings accounts, one of the four Republican items added to the president’s proposal.

That provision "was, when we were in the minority, something that we fought tooth and nail to keep out ," Grijalva said of the HSA’s.”I find that ironic -- something that we had fought to keep out, and indeed were successful, gets back in as part of reconciliation. And a public option that enjoys great support in the House and up to 30 senators gets left out. That's something I just don't understand."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/03/whip-count-no-4-in-a-series-grijalva-leaning-toward-voting-no-.html

[aikoaiko]

65. I think I get one more year of $6K on the FSA.

I think the cap goes into effect 2012.

I know you wouldn't know this from my comments, but I support HCR.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

115. Because Health Savings Accounts are a lousy deal for anyone who isn't affluent

I looked into them. The premiums were higher than for a regular policy. All you're really doing is prepaying your deductible, besides which, a $5000 deductible was all I could afford, and HSAs don't allow a policies with deductibles that high.

[amandabeech]

96. Age will set premiums.

I'm 55 and have a pre-existing condition. I cannot get health insurance now except under the temporary high-risk pool.

I live in the DC area. The best policy is in Maryland. For me, it will cost $365 (about) with a $1500 deductible, and nearly complete coverage thereafter.

In Virginia, a $2,600 deductible with poor coverage after that is $616, which is too much for me.

D.C. doesn't have its risk pool up and running even though it, like Virginia, has asked the federal government to manage it.

When the risk pool ends in 2014, the Kaiser study group estimates that I will need $950 a month for insurance, because I will probably make just enough to disqualify me from a subsidy. There will be no subsidized high risk pool like Maryland, nor will there be a very high deductible option.

My best option, really, other than being the beneficiary of a miracle and getting a decent job at my then age, is to learn less so that I can qualify for the subsidy and just find the cheapist of everything.

Perhaps I really won't be able to get sick until I qualify for Medicare in 2020, if Obama and his successors haven't ended it by then.

There are a lot of older workers or older people who want to work like me. We work temp jobs, or jobs without insurance, or don't work at all now because employers want the young ones. Some of us, like me, have chopped up resumes because we've had to quit work for family reasons. Others, also like me, have had something terrible happen in their lives outside their control that have taken productive years away.

We're going to be very hurt by these changes because we haven't been able to earn much money in our lives, aren't being allowed to make money now, and our old age supports are being removed one by one.

A lot of us are single women, but some guys.

In ten years, American seniors are going to be the poorest and sickest seniors in the developed world, I fear, right along with American children, who are already probably the poorest and sickest.

What has our country come to?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

116. Yes, another REALITY check that conflicts with DNC press releases

Sigh.

[BzaDem]

47. What I am wondering is, what about all the positive benefits.

If you add up all the positive benefits, such as subsidized insurance, no pre-existing conditions, and then subtract your flex savings account situation, are you better or worse off?

If you are spending so much on your FSA, you would probably benefit from the huge insurance reforms (meaning you wouldn't need to spend as much on your FSA).

[aikoaiko]

51. There are no benefits to me and my family that I know of in our current situations

We won't be subsidized and my insurance didn't exclude preexisting conditions. I don't see how I will have to spend less out of pocket with HCR.

I'm just a middle class guy supporting a family who are all suffering from chronic illnesses.

In truth, I will get by, but it burns that this change targets someone like me who was already using every tax dollar saved by maxing out my FSA.

[slipslidingaway]

60. Yes, that will hurt us as well. n/t

[Orsino]

42. Heck, quite a bit of HCR *praise* does, too.

It's weak enough that even its good points are fuzzy and difficult to grasp for the TV generation, what with all the FUD.

[laughingliberal]

73. +1 nt

[HughMoran]

59. Of course you're 100% right on, and people who don't want to hear the truth are unreccing

Excellent post :thumbsup:

[slipslidingaway]

62. Explain how other countries provide HC to all for 50% less and why ...

didn't Obama invite people from other coutries to speak about this at the WH meetings?

He did not have to endorse anything, just let them speak.

:shrug:

[BzaDem]

68. Your post is not an argument for how the current bill is worse than the status quo.

Obama campaigned against single payer and called it "extreme." His lack of embrace of single payer is not surprising, and it shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

[slipslidingaway]

77. If you say that you want to provide HC for all then you have to remove...

the profit incentive, not give them more customers to support their business. The way to advance that argument is to open the discussions, instead we had the opposite and the Dems, including Obama, did nothing to promote those ideas. I'm not surprised by his lack of support of SP, it was pretty obvious in the debates that the big money wanted that idea silenced. When the idea did creep into the debates there was never any follow up discussion, instead we got a bunch of BS about who said what between the top three candidates.

Remember Obama said in January 2009 that he would look to "entitlement spending" as a major component in reducing the deficit, he had not been inauguarated yet, so no criticism was allowed. So far the deficit commission has done a good job of having people believe SS needs to be reformed, let's see what they and administration say about Medicare in the months to come.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9157886&mesg_id=9161542

"Well the insurance companies were losing customers, layoffs meant...
more people losing insurance. Also the insurance companies know that a large pool of their customers will be moving to Medicare beginning in the next year or two, they needed customers. Of course the insurance/drug companies had to play nice, they really feared a national system funded by taxes, good thing the Dems barred the door.

And Medicare saving will be used to subsidize some of the purchases of for profit health care - makes perfect sense.

If needed...
:sarcasm:

[girl gone mad]

121. And those who supported the Public Option should have heeded this warning sign.

First, he came for the Single Payer supporters.

He will throw every faction to the left of Reagan under the bus before he's done.

[dsc]

70. Since you are so concerned about accuracy

it would have been nice not to have been inaccurate while stating what people said.

Here is one example:

Insurance doesn't provide healthcare, so my mandated premiums are worthless! Except, actually, the bill requires that all plans cover a large minimum set of benefits, with a minimum actuarial value, and mandates that 85% of premium dollars are not used on administrative expenses/salaries/bonuses/overhead/marketing/etc (rebating the rest).

That isn't what people have said. What they have said, and what is accurate, is that due to the fact that any plan that those mandated will be buying will have massive deductables and copays they will not be able to afford to use the insurance unless they get a lfie threatening illness. So they will be paying some premiums (up to 8% of income) for insurance that they will not use. If they are a realtively healthy person who spends little to no money on health care now they may well be worse off if they get an illness than they would have been if they had been uninsured. Say they get an illness that costs 5k to treat and make 35k. The 8% they pay in premium would be 2600. They would have a 1000 deductable and 20% copay. Uninsured they pay 5k, insured they pay 2600 + 1000 + 800 or 4400. Or about 600 different. Increase the income or decrease the cost of the illness and they either pay more or save nothing.

[BzaDem]

75. "That isn't what people have said."

Actually, it is EXACTLY what people have said. What I described as completely accurate. You may be more reasonable, but that does NOT mean that everyone else who bashes the bill is.

As for your point, of course someone who is uninsured and never needs healthcare gets off better before the bill. The whole POINT of insurance is to get these healthy people to PAY into the system to help people who are sicker (which will eventually be them).

If a young and healthy person does not have insurance because it is cheaper for them not to have insurance, that is not a good thing. That is a PROBLEM that needs to be CORRECTED. No healthcare system can last without young and healthy people paying into it. If you don't have young and healthy people paying in, you would have to charge orders of magnitude more for people with pre-existing conditions.

[dsc]

78. I have no problem with a mandate

I supported Hillary in the primaries in part because I felt her plan was more realistic than Obama's because she had a mandate. I do have a problem though with a mandate and no public option. I also think that requiring people to buy insurance that they won't use due to massive copays and deductibles will serve to piss people off. $2600 is a lot for someone who makes only 35k. It is more than their entire SS contribution for example. I think the very least they should get for that is insurance that pays for medical expenses that people typicaly have.

[Fumesucker]

80. Your sole function under health insurance reform...

... Is to funnel as much money as possible to the insurance companies.

Any actual health care you might get in the process is purely incidental to that function.

[LostinVA]

90. This is exactly what it is for

And, I have one Republican friend, and she and I agree on how the HCR sucks and we agree on why it sucks for the same reasons. The HCR isn't fooling anyone except those who wish to be fooled for some reason.

[BzaDem]

106. 80% of Democrats approve of the bill. Guess according to you, they all wish to be fooled.

Or, perhaps you are simply wrong in every way. But that wouldn't coincide with your faith based narrative.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

118. That's because they don't understand the bill

During the time the bill was being debated, nearly everyone I talked to (at the gym, at church, in the neighborhood) was under the impression that it would create a European-style health system. Only political junkies like me knew what was actually in it.

A typical remark (and I live in Minneapolis, where Republicans can't get elected dog catcher), "People are dying. We need to have a system like Canada or Europe. Why is there so much objection to the bill."

When I explained the bill, that it was based entirely on private insurance, they were shocked and dismayed. They had no idea. Then they'd stammer and say, "Well, it's sort of a start."

Considering that my random sample of people in Minneapolis didn't understand the bill (probably because there was more publicity from right-wingers who called it "government health care" than there were clear, consistent explanations from the Dems).

I still occasionally run into people who think they'll be getting a single-payer plan in 2014.

They're going to feel as if they've been subjected to bait-and-switch.

Our only chance to overcome the insurance vultures is to support the single-payer plans in the individual states.

[SammyWinstonJack]

97. +1 nt

[Hell Hath No Fury]

100. Ding ding ding!

And we have a winner!

[BzaDem]

82. I think you are misinterpreting what a public option would have done.

Public options would have still had copays and deductibles. There is always a trade-off between high premiums and low copays and deductibles (and vice versa), and the public option would have had the same tradeoff.

The only thing a public option would do is reduce additional profit that health insurance companies might make if they are in a non-competitive market. But the 85% medical loss ratio already limits profit/admin expenses/salaries/bonuses/dividends/marketing/etc to 15% of total premium dollars. So beyond that, a public option would have not been that helpful in reducing copays and deductibles.

"I think the very least they should get for that is insurance that pays for medical expenses that people typicaly have."

One thing I didn't mention is that preventive care is now free (in 2014). No deductibles, no cost-sharing, nothing. All insurance companies have to do it this way, by law. So it will go far to cover medical expenses that people typically have.

[flamingdem]

114. Thanks for helping untangle the myths around HCR and the public option! nt

[spin]

76. Before HCR we had the most expensive healthcare in the world ...

and after HCR, it looks like it will be far more expensive.


Total Health Expenditures Per Capita, U.S. and Selected Countries, 2003

http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm

To top everything off, our heathcare system sucks compared to other countries. I hate to say it, but I'm beginning to believe that it may suck even more after HCR. Surely we could have done better.

(Reuters) - Americans spend twice as much as residents of other developed countries on healthcare, but get lower quality, less efficiency and have the least equitable system, according to a report released on Wednesday.

WASHINGTON | Wed Jun 23, 2010 4:48pm EDT

The United States ranked last when compared to six other countries -- Britain, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand, the Commonwealth Fund report found.

***snip***


The current report uses data from nationally representative patient and physician surveys in seven countries in 2007, 2008, and 2009. It is available here

In 2007, health spending was $7,290 per person in the United States, more than double that of any other country in the survey.emphasis added

Australians spent $3,357, Canadians $3,895, Germans $3,588, the Netherlands $3,837 and Britons spent $2,992 per capita on health in 2007. New Zealand spent the least at $2,454.

This is a big rise from the Fund's last similar survey, in 2007, which found Americans spent $6,697 per capita on healthcare in 2005, or 16 percent of gross domestic product.

"We rank last on safety and do poorly on several dimensions of quality," Schoen told reporters. "We do particularly poorly on going without care because of cost. And we also do surprisingly poorly on access to primary care and after-hours care."
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65M0SU20100623

[Fumesucker]

79. Given that the insurance companies profit is set as a percentage of their cash flow..

Those same insurance companies have an overwhelming incentive to see that health care is as expensive as possible.

Exactly the opposite of what a system that was rationally designed for the benefit of the average consumer of health care would do.

[spin]

85. That sounds like a good reason for heathcare expense ...

my problem is why the people that we elected failed to come up with a system that favored the citizens of our nation far more than the medical and insurance industries. I do realize that what Obama and the Democrats accomplished was a start and over time healthcare will be improved, but I suspect we still will have the most expensive system in the world and other countries will have far better results than we do.

Of course, I also can't understand why everything our government does seems to favor the big corporations and the expense of the common citizen. For example, I was and continue to be amazed at how our government kisses BP's ass after they managed to screw up the Gulf of Mexico.

I suspect that our problem is that we have become a nation of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations.

[BlueCheese]

84. The "better than nothing argument" gets old

Any program that wants to spend nearly a trillion dollars over the next decade had better be "better than nothing."

Taking a trillion dollars, setting half of it on fire, and then spending the rest on insurance subsidies would be better than nothing in terms of health care, but still a bad idea.

Was this law the best we could have done, or close to it? No way. Way too much was given away at the start to the insurance and pharmaceutical companies in order to buy their cooperation. The whole charade about the public option, which Obama recently compared to world peace in its feasibility was especially frustrating.

Will there be stories of widows with cancer who can afford some insurance now that they couldn't before? Of course. You spend a trillion dollars, you'll do some good in the world. But in this case, not as much as you could have.

Almost all of the arguments I've heard in favor of this law and the way it funnels things through corporations could be said about Medicare Part D, which I remember most Democrats were against. What's changed now other than which team is playing on which side?

[NNN0LHI]

89. Now you see how Bush the idiot ended up with a 90% approval rating

We are surrounded by stupids who believe anything you tell them.

Don

[LostinVA]

91. Calling out the OP like that is agaisnt DU rules

[NNN0LHI]

94. Appears I hit a soft spot with you

You know I wasn't talking about the poster.

You weren't part of that +90% by any chance were you?


Don

[Hell Hath No Fury]

101. I heart you!

:loveya:

[BzaDem]

104. Says the person who can't refute anything in the OP and is consumed by your own narrative

[Fumesucker]

109. I for one was a proud ten percenter..

I didn't buy Bush's bullshit and I don't buy health insurance reform bullshit either.

[USArmyParatrooper]

112. Perhaps you can clear some of that bullshit up

By factually refuting information in the OP.

[Fumesucker]

117. I already have on this thread..

You just missed it, it's a long thread by now..

[Greyhound]

124. What's amazing is that disparaging subject lines making patently false statements are allowed to

stand as long as possible. There are many factual arguments against this corporate welfare plan, the most fundamental being that placing a parasitic industry in charge of the system they've already destroyed is corrupt and serves no one other than the parasites that make their fortunes stealing health care from the people that paid for it.

Straw is so easy to knock down. Is that why it is the only substance from which you construct your arguments?
:kick: & U

[court jester]

125. Where in the Constitution are the Feds given the power to mandate that Citizens purchase anything?

Commerce Clause? Really?

~124 posts and no one has asked if the feds should be telling us what to buy.

Oh well, I'm sure that if the (R)'s had single payer advocates arrested and passed a mandate to purchase insurance from a for profit company without a public option and then claimed a lack of commerce was actually commerce everyone here that supports this would still support that. Absolutely sure! :D

And don't even *think* about complaining when the (R)s mandate the next big thing...And they will..