Bernie Sander on the health care bill

[ProSense]

§ Perhaps most important, let Obama be Obama. Bring back one of the great inspirational leaders of our time, who is more than capable of taking on the powerful special interests and rallying the American people toward a progressive agenda and a more just society. We have too quickly cast aside the audacity of hope as being too audacious. We need to aspire to more, not less: healthcare for all, education for all, a secure retirement for all, a world at peace and a nation bound together by looking out for what the Constitution called "the general welfare" rather than a series of special interests looking out for their own financial wellbeing.

§ Pass the strongest healthcare reform legislation as soon as feasible - making it clear that it will be significantly improved in the near future. While it was a tragic mistake to believe that a strong bill could pass under the provision that required sixty votes--there was a procedural route that would have required only a simple majority--this legislation does contain a number of provisions that will profoundly help tens of millions of Americans in every state in the country. It is a bill that can be successfully defended in a campaign because, whatever its many weaknesses, it is an indication that we are finally, after countless decades of futility, moving forward. A president and a party that can provide insurance for 31 million more Americans is far preferable to most voters than a party that only says "No."

link

Bravo!

[gateley]

1. Bernie is one of my bellwethers. I trust him. I don't think he sold out,

he understands the machinations of Washington far better than we do.

Thank you for posting this. I feel a LITTLE better. :7

[slipslidingaway]

2. And bravo for these comments ...

"...The result of all this is that Democrats of every stripe and many independents are perplexed, dispirited and sometimes disgusted. Constituency after constituency has been ignored or rejected. Some examples:

Progressive activists are angry that a Medicare-for-all single-payer approach was totally ignored during the healthcare debate. They also cannot understand how, despite overwhelming support for a strong public option in healthcare reform, there will not be one in the final bill. Trade unionists, many of whom voted for Obama and against McCain because of the latter's position on taxing workers' healthcare benefits, are apoplectic that Obama and Senate Democrats now support the McCain position. Women are outraged that the Democratic House was put in the position of having to support major restrictions with regard to abortion rights. And seniors, who for the first time in forty-five years will not be receiving a Social Security cost of living adjustment, are responding to the hypocritical Republican attacks about "cuts" in Medicare.

Now, I may not be the greatest political strategist in the world, but I don't know how you win elections by ignoring the ideas of the progressives who have worked hardest at the grassroots level for your victories, or the trade unions that have provided significant financial support and door-to-door volunteers for Democratic campaigns. I don't know how you succeed politically when you insult women, who far more than men consistently provide you with great margins of support. How do you preserve a big majority in Congress when you fail to be aggressive in protecting the interests of seniors, a huge voting bloc in off-presidential-year elections? In other words, it should not surprise anyone that the Democrats are in serious trouble..."

[bvar22]

36. And THESE comments:

"One year later, the new electoral majority is disintegrating under the weight of continuous Republican attacks and, more importantly, an unwillingness of both the Congress and the President to rally the American people behind the kind of fundamental changes they were anticipating as a result of the election.

We can learn from the past. The last time our nation faced economic challenges as great as our own, Franklin Roosevelt embraced progressive social policies and major financial and economic reform. The nation did not ignore or forget his commitment to help American families, provide aid to the disadvantaged, and take on the moneyed powers of Wall Street. Roosevelt's greatest political legacy was to build a coalition of Americans from across the country who understood that, if they stood together under a progressive banner, life could be better for the average person. Now is the time to remember that lesson."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/where-do-we-go-from-here_b_424585.html

[slipslidingaway]

55. YES, they were in the original thread, as is usual another thread is started ...

Original thread - this has become so predictable.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=129626&mesg_id=129626

[Mimosa]

57. ^ Good stuff! ^ n/t

[stevenleser]

3. K&R *10000000000000000

:-)

[jenmito]

4. Thank you for posting this! I wonder if he's now going to be thrown under the bus!

[Schema Thing]

6. you know it.

The people who didn't get their personal pony in this bill, seem quite willing to kill any and all donkeys in their rage.

[Bluenorthwest]

50. People who respect Bernie read all of what he says

excerpting is a dubious device at best. Consider this quote from the same piece:
"n my view, the Democrats--including the president--have absurdly continued to stumble along the path of "bipartisanship" at exactly the same time the Republicans have waged the most vigorous partisan and obstructionist strategy in recent history.

Instead of making it clear that the first two years of the Obama administration would be about digging the country out of the incredible mess that Bush's eight years left us in, (deep recession, financial collapse, record-breaking deficits, disintegrating healthcare system, two wars, lack of respect from the international community, neglect of the environment), Obama, incredibly, has enabled tens of millions of Americans to now believe that Bush's failures are his as well.

Unlike FDR in 1933, who consistently denounced Hoover's Republican policies as the cause of the country's perilous condition, Obama appears very reluctant to be partisan and point out to the American people the cause of our current crises. Can one imagine Obama, for example, telling the American people as Roosevelt did in 1936, "I welcome" the "hatred" of the "economic royalists" whose greed has devastated the country?"

So do you agree with those quotes too? Context is a vital part of any message communicated. Millions of people listen to Bernie. He needs no editor to skew his point for him.

[OHdem10]

5. One of my favorite Senators. He Stands FOR Somthing.

[CTLawGuy]

7. korprit sellout!

NT

[burning rain]

8. Who is this extremist who suggests we pass anything with fewer than 60 votes?

Love the guy. k & r

[Political Heretic]

9. Sanders gains nothing by talking down the bill he's going to vote for.

His lines read as though they are hot of the DNC talking point press.

Sanders is a good guy, but I think he overestimates the positive impact of this bill and underestimates the long term negative impacts on working class families.

Just as a side note, I'm disappointed that there has not been more discussion going beyond the cost of premiums. Many health plans, including most that are affordable to low income families continue to require copays, yes? I believe health care reform should be about health care not insurance reform. Families that experience catastrophic conditions, long term illness, or a host of other common yet high cost situations are still faced with a cost of care beyond their ability to financially afford.

25,000$ translates into enough debt to severely harm struggling families. Not to mention deductibles, or the ability of insurers to charge up to three times more in certain limited situations.

Possibly worst of all, Sanders is endorsing a bill that isn't even done yet. One of the biggest things left to be decided is where regulatory and oversight decisions will primarily rest - at the state or federal level. If it goes to the state level, which it seems likely to do, this puts millions of Americans at the mercy of their conservative state governments.

There's no system for breaking up insurance monopolies, so that in many if not most of the major metropolitian areas choice and competition is hamstrung - and without any absolute cost targets, it means there's literally no reason not to predict a continuation of exponentially increasing premiums.

Taxing so-called "Cadillac" plans has the effect of encouraging employers to deliver crappier insurance at higher costs.

As outlined by the NNU:

Major loopholes in the insurance reforms that promise bans on exclusion for pre-existing conditions, and no cancellations for sickness. The loopholes include:


* Provisions permitting insurers and companies to more than double charges to employees who fail “wellness” programs because they have diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol readings, or other medical conditions.
* Insurers are permitted to sell policies “across state lines”, exempting patient protections passed in other states. Insurers will thus set up in the least regulated states in a race to the bottom threatening public protections won by consumers in various states.
* Insurers can charge four times more based on age plus more for certain conditions, and continue to use marketing techniques to cherry-pick healthier, less costly enrollees.
* Insurers may continue to rescind policies for “fraud or intentional misrepresentation” – the main pretext insurance companies now use to cancel coverage.

I could literally go on for hours.

The net result is an insurance reform bill that runs substantial risk of long term negative outcomes for working families.

This isn't a starting point. It's going backwards and will require future legislators to undo the damage, not build on a solid foundation.

Bernie is a great guy. Bernie is wrong on this one.

[ProSense]

10. This is absolutely ridiculous

"Taxing so-called "Cadillac" plans has the effect of encouraging employers to deliver crappier insurance at higher costs."

First, the tax is on insurance companies, and employers have no reason to protect high-priced plans. This saves them money. This line of thinking is completely flawed.

[daa]

11. And they NEVER revisit or fix anything nt

[Political Heretic]

14. Who is they?

[daa]

47. Dems or repugs nt

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

12. You are missing the entire point

Remember when Obama said, "And if you like the plan you have, you keep it." Except if you like your plan and you happen to have a cadillac plan, you WON'T keep it because it will be taxed out of existence - 40% to the insurance company for every dollar over the cap. The insurance company does NOT CARE - they have ALWAYs simply passed through costs and just added on a profit margin. So the Cadillac plans will disappear because the employer WILL NOT absorb the costs.

What were Cadillac plans in the first place? They were expensive because they offered low deductables and co-pays - EXACTLY WHAT WE ALL WANT! Instead of raising the level of insurance responsibility a la the Cadillacs, we are lowering the standards of people who once had those plans to a new lowest common denominator plan which will be less expensive because it will offer less coverage and have higher co-pays and deductables.

It was the employer's right to offer those plans if they could afford it and were able to, and as many have pointed out, a lot of the Cadillacs were in union plans.

But at any rate Obama's quote in my first paragraph should be changed to "If you like the plan you have but it doesn't meet our new lowered standards, we will tax it out of existance, and no, you can't keep it."

[Political Heretic]

15. That's exactly right. And calling them "cadillac plans" is a disgusting insult.

It's called quality health care. It's not some frivolous luxury. It's what every American ought to be getting.

[ProSense]

18. The plans that will ultimately be affected will be

those held by people who can afford to pay $24,000 for a plan, basically the wealthy.

Plans for police, firefighters and other high-risk workers are permanently exempt

It really ironic to watch people who have been complaining that insurance is unaffordable and nothing will change now complaining that something is being done to scrap high-priced crappy insurance plans.

Ludicrous.

[Political Heretic]

21. Why should we want the best plans scrapped?

I don't want shitty insurance for the uninsured.

The goal of health CARE reform should have been QUALITY care for every American. But instead, its simply "get most people covered under any shit health insurance plan and call it a victory." Nothing done to address cost of accessing that those plans. Nothing done about the scores of other points I outlined that you continue to willfully ignore in favor if robot talking points.

[treestar]

26. So you'd rather they have no insurance than "shitty insurance."

[Political Heretic]

28. If its shitty it doesn't matter.

If you can't access it, then its just for political show.

And yes, I would rather not pass legislation that codifies shitty insurance, even if that means having no insurance (which I don't have by the way) and trying again for something that ordinary Americans deserve

[treestar]

34. If you have it, you have it

what is the "access" crap?

[Political Heretic]

42. If you can't afford to use it (access), it doesn't matter.

Cost of care. Deductibles.

Quality of care. Coverage.

[treestar]

43. What the hell does that mean, you can't afford to use it?

if you have a health disaster, it will cover the costs. The costs it does not cover are still there, but they are little compared to the overall costs.

Who says the quality is bad? I'm sure there is nothing any doctor can do for you that is enough.

What a bunch of bullshit. Would you rather owe $500000 for an operation or for cancer treatment, or just the deductible.

Some people are never happy about anything. And these premiums would be paid for you. So you're saying to the American taxpayer, fuck you, if you dont' give me insurance with no deductible and make sure I get the best doctors on earth, it's not enough.

Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth. If I gave you a VW, you'd be whining that it wasnt' a Mercedes.

[Political Heretic]

45. They are not little at all when they bankrupt a family.

30,000 in medical expenses with a 20% copay is enough to sink a poor family.

Know how I know this? Because I watched it happen.

I don't care whether I owe 500000000000000 dollars or just the co-pay if both are unaffordable. You're thinking like a member of the upper class.

This was supposed to be health care reform, not insurance industry reform. What we got instead was insurance reform that fails to address the funademental failings of our insurance system and leaves millions of people still at risk.

All you care about is "hey we got 'them' covered" like you're keeping a scorecard or something, concerned only with a political victory. I'm concerned about the quality of care, and the fact that coverage does not matter if using it can still bankrupt you.

What I'm saying to the American tax payer is, we have the worst health care system among our top 20 peer OECD countries and we spend more already on that worst care. We have examples of functioning health care systems providing universal coverage at either no cost or affordable costs that will not brankrupt poor families in most of these peer nations. And yet somehow, its too much to ask for our citizens in this supposedly best country in the world.

I don't think it is. And yes, I think if you are too poor to afford co-pays for care, or the bill exceeds a certain amount of your income, it should be completely subsidized by me, a taxpayer. Why? Because I believe that no one should be bankrupted by medical expenses in this, the richest country in the history of the world.

[ProSense]

17. Who likes paying a lot for crappy insurance?

Who?

[Political Heretic]

13. Prosense, you took the most minor point, ignored everything else, and labed it "ridiculous"

Seeing as how my personal opinion about taxing insurance plans was an incredibly minor point, would you be interested in responding to anything else. Most specifically talk of out of pocket co-pay costs of care? Or hell, any of the numerous other points I listed that you didn't even touch?

As far as taxing insurance plans goes - it goes like this I think:

1. Insurers drop better insurance plans (high-priced is a euphemism, they are BETTER insurance plans) or jack the cost exponentially due to taxation. Employers have no incentive to purchase or offer BETTER insurance plans.

What is "ridiculous" about that, exactly?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

16. And I remind everyone that the "Cadillac" insurance plans offer coverage

equivalent to what I had with an ordinary policy in 1994 and equivalent to what people in most CIVILIZED countries get now as a right of citizenship.

[Mimosa]

58. ^That is so true, Lydia!!!^

Self-employed, my BC/BS healthcare insurance policy in 1994 had terms which were fair and affordable rates. Things have definitely changed.

[ProSense]

19. You miss the biggest point of all

Reform.

That is, employers will now have more choices among better affordable plans.

[Political Heretic]

20. Are you ever going to answer any serious questions?

Most specifically - again, the issue of out of pocket cost of care, though there's about seventeen points written above all of which, in my opinion, create critical, show stopping problems for the quality of current proposed insurance reform?

Employers will not have more choices at getting "better" plans. They will have more choices at getting shittier plans.

[ProSense]

22. Your logic is flawed

"Employers will not have more choices at getting "better" plans. They will have more choices at getting shittier plans."

Where is your proof of this? Given that basic benefits are defined in four progressive categories, tthat statement is bogus.

[Political Heretic]

23. ARE YOU EVER GOING TO ANSWER ANY SERIOUS QUESTIONS?

Most specifically - again, the issue of out of pocket cost of care, though there's about seventeen points written above all of which, in my opinion, create critical, show stopping problems for the quality of current proposed insurance reform?

[ProSense]

25. Stop shouting, your question was based on a ridiculous premise

"Insurers drop better insurance plans (high-priced is a euphemism, they are BETTER insurance plans)"

Fact: The majority of these plans are high-priced and crappy.

[Political Heretic]

27. THAT WASN'T THE QUESTION. I'VE ASKED IT FOUR TIMES NOW

EDIT - I'm sorry for the namecalling. I edited it. But damn man, your refusal to get serious is very frustrating.

And I think it says a lot about your motives and agenda.

[GreenArrow]

29. She's waiting for her corporate masters

to give her the talking point.

[ProSense]

30. Got them:

You're an idiot.

[Political Heretic]

32. Still no answer, eh?

Common Prosense!

[ProSense]

33. Is this your question:

1. Insurers drop better insurance plans (high-priced is a euphemism, they are BETTER insurance plans) or jack the cost exponentially due to taxation. Employers have no incentive to purchase or offer BETTER insurance plans.

What is "ridiculous" about that, exactly?

here

answer

[Political Heretic]

37. No, its not and since I've written it EVERY TIME I'VE ASKED YOU, you know its not.

Here's one of my many questions you ignored. (And you did ignore them, because in order to drill down on "cadillac" plans you had to skip several paragraphs of issues)

Most specifically - again, the issue of out of pocket cost of care, though there's about seventeen points written above all of which, in my opinion, create critical, show stopping problems for the quality of current proposed insurance reform?

Ignored point #1:

I'm disappointed that there has not been more discussion going beyond the cost of premiums. Many health plans, including most that are affordable to low income families continue to require copays, yes? I believe health care reform should be about health care not insurance reform. Families that experience catastrophic conditions, long term illness, or a host of other common yet high cost situations are still faced with a cost of care beyond their ability to financially afford.

25,000$ translates into enough debt to severely harm struggling families. Not to mention deductibles, or the ability of insurers to charge up to three times more in certain limited situations.

Ignored point #2:

Possibly worst of all, Sanders is endorsing a bill that isn't even done yet. One of the biggest things left to be decided is where regulatory and oversight decisions will primarily rest - at the state or federal level. If it goes to the state level, which it seems likely to do, this puts millions of Americans at the mercy of their conservative state governments.

Ignored point #3:

There's no system for breaking up insurance monopolies, so that in many if not most of the major metropolitian areas choice and competition is hamstrung - and without any absolute cost targets, it means there's literally no reason not to predict a continuation of exponentially increasing premiums.

Ignored points:

As outlined by the NNU:

#4 (generl) Major loopholes in the insurance reforms that promise bans on exclusion for pre-existing conditions, and no cancellations for sickness. The loopholes include:

Point #5* Provisions permitting insurers and companies to more than double charges to employees who fail “wellness” programs because they have diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol readings, or other medical conditions.
Point #6* Insurers are permitted to sell policies “across state lines”, exempting patient protections passed in other states. Insurers will thus set up in the least regulated states in a race to the bottom threatening public protections won by consumers in various states.
Point #7* Insurers can charge four times more based on age plus more for certain conditions, and continue to use marketing techniques to cherry-pick healthier, less costly enrollees.
Point #8* Insurers may continue to rescind policies for “fraud or intentional misrepresentation” – the main pretext insurance companies now use to cancel coverage.

[ProSense]

38. Those aren't questions. That's your rebuttal to Sanders.

Good grief. LOL!

[Political Heretic]

39. STOP DODGING, STOP MAKING EXCUSES, STOP AVOIDING AND ANSWER

They are questions.... every point starts with the implied "How do you respond to...."

Not to mention I did specifically ask a question about out of pocket costs of care that you continue to willfully ignore. Because you've got no answer. Nothing.

I came over to GD:P just to see if the opposition to my position was remotely worth it.

If this is the best you've got in only confirms how vacuous and hollow blind support for the bill really is.

[ProSense]

40. No matter how much you scream. They aren't questions.

They're not even good rebuttals.

[Political Heretic]

41. Then address the "points" instead of playing pathetic semantics

I wonder if you have any idea how pathetic you look right now. Do you honestly think anyone out there reading this is doing anything other than laughing at you right now? At your unbelievable complete refusal to address points... oh because I mistakenly called them questions to be answered instead of points to be addressed?

How stupid to you think readers are? You must care, since you spend so much time blanketing the forums with talking points. I'm sure you're not doing that for your own benefit. It must be to convince others.

So what do you think it looks like when you steadfastly refuse to engage when specific, point by point issues are raised? How embarrassing.

Please address the points I raised, because they are substantial enough to warrant any level of skepticism or opposition to this bill.

Unless, they're wrong. If they are, how are they wrong? ESPECIALLY when it comes to addressing cost of care concerns, though every POINT (not "question", apparently) is important.

Please address them.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

49. Your points....

Are a series of lightly substantiated allegations, spun in the most negative possible way, and thrown at the wall in the hopes that something will stick.

For example, health insurance being sold across state lines. In nearly all states, healthcare insurers operate under near-monopoly conditions. In many states, eighty percent of health plans are offered by one or two companies. The XYZ Insurance Company can control the local market AND the local authorities who are supposed to regulate it.

However, if the insurance market is regulated by the federal government (i.e., coverages and requirements are set to federal standards and not at the state level), the XYZ company is going to have an infinitely harder time trying to game the system. What's more, and this gets to your point about the break-up of insurance monopolies, consumers who find a better deal from a plan half-way across the country will now be able to sign up with that insurer.

[Political Heretic]

56. That's untrue.

First, no response to discussions of cost of care. Noted.

As to the ONE point you decided to address, you fail to acknowledge that, as it stands right now, it looks as though regulation and oversight will be punted to the state level - which was what my criticism is all about.

Simply saying "well if its regulated at the federal level...." really doesn't help, because that was being negotiated posst bill passing and all signs currently point toward state and not federal control. If its federal control that will potentially solve one of a multitude of serious problems, I'll grant that.

[niceypoo]

53. Mindless shilling and honest debate do not go hand in hand

Thus the need to duck, dodge and avoid.

[GreenArrow]

35. Clever,

but as usual, wrong.

[Cha]

44. Some points are just too

obvious.

[Political Heretic]

46. It's pretty pathetic.

[Political Heretic]

31. ProSense is a she? That's disappointing :(

[ProSense]

24. delete n/t

[Armstead]

48. Sanders n/nt

[niceypoo]

51. From same article

"In my view, the Democrats--including the president--have absurdly continued to stumble along the path of "bipartisanship" at exactly the same time the Republicans have waged the most vigorous partisan and obstructionist strategy in recent history.

Instead of making it clear that the first two years of the Obama administration would be about digging the country out of the incredible mess that Bush's eight years left us in, (deep recession, financial collapse, record-breaking deficits, disintegrating healthcare system, two wars, lack of respect from the international community, neglect of the environment), Obama, incredibly, has enabled tens of millions of Americans to now believe that Bush's failures are his as well."

I love brutal honesty. Go Bernie!

[Armstead]

52. That's soooooooo inconvenient

We can't see anything that suggests Bernie is anything but filled with unbridled enthusiasm for this travesty.

[niceypoo]

54. Ironically, 90% of what the article says, the OP rails against constantly

When I read the article, I just had to laugh.