I like Kucinich.. but I have to say this.

[Raine1967]

I tire of the cult of personality that I see regarding him. He's a good guy, he DOES look out for people. He's a fighter. I will never take that away from him.

Here is my personal bottom line, he is voting against HCR, and when history is written, his *no* vote will not come with a disclaimer. A nay is a nay vote.

Bill Clinton said the following, and I think it applies to far more than the primaries :
"Folks, go ahead and fall in love, be for somebody, but when the primaries are over, let's fall in line."

This is politics, and politics is about the art of compromise. I consider myself a progressive, but that makes be part of a big bowl of other political ideologies. When he casts that vote, he will be left in casting a vote no different from the Republicans.

The time to fight for a more progressive bill is about over. We have a glimmer of hope regarding the Public Option, but in the end, it all comes down to a yes or no vote.

Doing nothing is no longer an option. Doing nothing will be worse than this bill getting passed. I wish Dennis would see that. HE fought the good fight, but WE have to deal with the reality of things now.

And -- we need a yes vote from him. His principles are admirable, but those principles aren't going to help the many many people who will suffer or die if we don't get Health care reform passed into law.

HE has good health care -- too many Americans do not.

[Oregone]

1. He is nothing but a Nihilist, which isn't much

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

12. Vhere is ze money Levowski?!!!

[rudy23]

37. That must be exhausting! n/t

[kjackson227]

2. Great post :)

[The Magistrate]

3. Well Said, Ma'am! Hear Hear!

[nevergiveup]

4. You said it very well.

[angelicwoman]

5. Isi there proof that you really like Kucinich?

Or you are just saying?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Clearly this person needs to take a loyalty oath.

Ia! Ia! Kucinich fhtagn!

[tridim]

7. It's not that hard to believe.

Probably 95% of DU likes DK in general.

Constructive criticism is a good thing.

[PVnRT]

13. Constructive criticism is good, yes

Most of what has been post the past couple of days about Kucinich is not in the least constructive.

[DevonRex]

8. And he has good health care for life. He has many plans to choose from

and those companies cannot refuse to cover him. He can switch providers within those choices no matter what his preexisting conditions are.

I can, too, because I'm covered by a Federal plan. My sister cannot, because of her husband's heart condition. She is stuck with the company she has now, until the end of her life, unless HCR is passed. She cannot shop around for better coverage. If her insurance company decides it won't cover this or that, she has no leverage. Because that company has her over a barrel.

Kooch doesn't care about people like her. He's just a grandstanding egomaniac. No is no Mr. Kucinich. If you vote no on this go join the Republicans.

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. You do know that this plan does NOT offer your sister his plan, don't you?

That with this plan, the company may be forced to cover her, but at a cost she can't afford. It will STILL have her over a barrel. And worse, because this bill IS the 'fix', it will not be fixed.

Without a public option for force insurance company compliance through competition, your sister, like millions of others, will be NO better off, but in fact be WORSE off because there is no hope for improvement.

[Spazito]

9. Well said!

Recommended.

[Lil Missy]

10. Just what we need - another fucking ralph nader.

[quiet.american]

11. "HE has good health care -- too many Americans do not." - That's what it comes down to.

I don't care what his arguments are, if he is enjoying the benefit of taxpayer-funded insurance - the benefit of insurance that is not single-payer - the same insurance that will be subsidized and offered to the rest of us - and it is good enough for him, but not for anyone else - what justifies that?

[Oregone]

14. Sounds like a circumstantial Ad hominem

Hell, if thats all people have to win arguments by, then go ahead I guess

[quiet.american]

20. Love the glibness about people's lives. Good show. nt

[Oregone]

21. People's lives are political footballs. Lets pretend to care and kick em around.

[quiet.american]

22. You've made my point. That's what Kucinich is doing. nt

[Oregone]

25. And you have no shame in joining him

But you forget to pull the ultimate, "We need to do it to save the children!"

[quiet.american]

32. Ask youself this: who benefits the most from a "no" vote - insurance companies - or us.

Because a "no" vote gives them free reign to keep on keeping on EXACTLY as they are doing now. A "no" vote holds NO benefit for the people who sent Kucinich to Congress. That's simply a fact.

[Oregone]

36. And its isn't quite deteremined who benefits the most by this passing, whatsoever

[quiet.american]

39. "No" gets me "no" insurance. "Yes" gets me insurance.

That's really all I have to say.

[Oregone]

45. Oh yes, you might get a policy, but not actual access to health care.

There is a difference that many of the lower class know all too well.

[quiet.american]

51. Yes, I know that's a popular cynicism here, but it's not true. nt

[Oregone]

56. Yes, because low actuarial valued plans don't deter access to care

Riiiight.

[quiet.american]

60. How much value do I get out of "no" plan?

A requirement for 80% or 85% of revenue to be put back into customer care
an 85% subsidy for premium costs
a yearly out-of-pocket cap
no denial for pre-existing conditions
no being dropped from coverage
a guaranteed essential benefits package
free preventive care
a few new community health centers in my neighborhood

Yes. I say "yes" to that.

[Oregone]

64. Just about the same

If you can't afford to go to the doctor, insured or not, you don't go.

[quiet.american]

65. If I am insured, and the gov't is paying 85% of my premium, why would I not be able to afford to go?

[Oregone]

67. Co-pays and deductibles

The same reason many people with insurance can't afford appropriate access to care today.

[quiet.american]

69. The bill offers cost-sharing on that, and strips them away from preventive services.nt

Edited to change "other" to "preventive."

[Oregone]

70. LOL, its like free healthcare! Amazing....

Im never goin have to worry about putting gas in my care anymore!

[quiet.american]

72. I get it. Your car needs gas. Why don't you go ahead and take care of that.

Yes. Facts are inconvenient.

[Oregone]

74. I don't have to

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg98BvqUvCc

[Lydia Leftcoast]

90. "No" leaves me free to drop my insurane and pay out of pocket, which

in the case of my latest injury, would have actually been affordable.

"Yes" means that we have to just take whatever premium increases and benefit cuts the companies throw at us.

[quiet.american]

95. And if someone doesn't have your exact same circumstances, what then? nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

103. And if someone is forced to buy insurance that they can't afford (due to

other expenses), despite what some formula designed by millionaires says, what then?

The ideas of "affordability" are just plain out of touch and make no allowances for regional adjustments in cost of living, and people WILL blame the Dems.

There are lots of people who want the bill passed because of what they THINK it is (affordable and accessible health care for all Americans) and when they find out that it's a mandate to buy private insurance that is not necessarily affordable and may still leave health care unavailable, do you think they're going to say, "Love them Democrats!"?

This is no "health care reform." This is a DLC plot to discredit the very idea of health care reform.

[quiet.american]

105. Uh-huh. Yes, dear. nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

123. Uh-huh, yes "dear"

You have no answer for me, do you?

[girl gone mad]

116. Isn't that the argument you're making by pushing this crappy bill?

Aren't you the one that just said a few posts ago: "With this bill I get insurance"?

What happens if someone doesn't have your exact same circumstances?

My uncle, for instance, could lose out on the care that he's getting now.

[Raine1967]

50. Did you read what I wrote?

Seriously, I appreciate people who have fought like hell -- but now is the time to get it done, no matter what. Doing nothing is no longer an option.

There was no hyperbole in my post. Why mock others with that tactic?

The time for debating is nearly over. It's time for people to fall in line, the bill while far from perfect, is better than nothing.

My point stands -- a no vote from Kucinich is not going to be any different from a no vote from any republican when people look at the records.

[Oregone]

58. "It's time for people to fall in line"

Hurry. The sky is falling




Fuck that. Its been that time for over a year. There was never any real internal debate about this. The only debate was the one about how much to capitulate on the already shitty plan to the right.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

107. There's no virtue in voting for a bill that is going to place an unaffordable burden

on a lot of people.

When people start getting hit with huge insurance premiums that still cover only 70% of costs, Kucinich is going to be able to say that he didn't vote for it.

[mkultra]

86. here come the cheerleaders

[John Q. Citizen]

18. You obviously haven't read the bill if you think this bill means you are going to get the

same coverage as congress.

Truly, PT Barnum was right: there is a sucker born every minute.

[quiet.american]

19. I love these kinds of replies that are pure projection.

Laughable.

[John Q. Citizen]

23. Where in the Senate Bill do you think it says people will get what congress gets?

Please point it out, since you are somehow trying to equate voting against a bad bill with denying you what congress gets.

That would be laughable, if it weren't so sadly pathetic.

I don't love misinformation. Your post somehow makes it sound as if Kucinich is voting against people getting what congress gets. That is flat out wrong.

I assume you burden are under some misconception. Of course it's possible that you know what you wrote is non-sense and you don't mind misleading people for some perceived political advantage.

[ProSense]

27. You're criticizing a bill and don't know what's in it?

Please point it out, since you are somehow trying to equate voting against a bad bill with denying you what congress gets.

That would be laughable, if it weren't so sadly pathetic.

I don't love misinformation. Your post somehow makes it sound as if Kucinich is voting against people getting what congress gets. That is flat out wrong.

The Senate bill offers a plan similar to the one Congress has, and it even goes a step further by including a non-profit plan.

More Health Insurance Choices

• Multi-state option. Health insurance carriers will offer plans under the supervision of the Office of Personnel Management, the same entity that oversees health plans for Members of Congress. At least one plan must be non-profit, and the plans will be available nationwide. This will promote competition and choice.
  
  
• Free choice vouchers. Workers who qualify for an affordability exemption to the individual responsibility policy but do not qualify for tax credits can take their employer contribution and join an exchange plan.

PDF

[Oregone]

28. "the same entity that *oversees* health plans for Members of Congress"

LOL. What a fuckin distortion! This shit is RICH

:rofl:

[ProSense]

29. Do you ever make sense? Are you implying that members of Congress have poor health care benefits? nt

[Oregone]

31. I'm implying they wont be the SAME plan as Congress gets, despite the distortion

Sure, it may be offered under the same office but the language CLEARLY does not indicate it will be the same plan, as you mischievously suggested.

You know, and I know, these plans will have different benefits and actuarial values than what Congress gets.

Feel free to respond with a blatant lie.

[ProSense]

33. "I know, these plans will have different benefits and actuarial values than what Congress gets"

Really?

[Oregone]

35. I think the problem here is a bit semantic

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=215766&mesg_id=215947

[ProSense]

40. No, the problem is people making claims when they have no clue what they're talking about

That's the problem.

[Oregone]

44. I agree

And I think this poster is making some grave assumptions

[quiet.american]

30. Who am I to believe, you, or my own eyes? Here is the bill language:

HR 3590, Sec 1312, Pages 157-158:

(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE.—
18 (i) REQUIREMENT.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are—
(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or
(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).
(ii) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(I) MEMBER OF CONGRESS.— The term ‘‘Member of Congress’’ means any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate.
(II) CONGRESSIONAL STAFF.— The term ‘‘congressional staff’’ means all
full-time and part-time employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC.

Edited to take out the "23" (that was a line number in the bill)

[Oregone]

34. Hang on a minute

This is sort of a semantic cluster really. When someone suggests they want the same plan as Congress, they are suggesting they want what Congress has *today*. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what you pointed out, this sounds like Congress will be downgraded actually (unless their is an equivalent plan in the exchange). But even if so, that could be a top tier plan with high actuarial values, which remains out of the reach of any subsidized or middle-income person. Just because what they have available is potentially available for all, its doesn't make it affordable for all. Even today, you can get a top notch program (not a Congressional one) if you have the dough...most don't.

[quiet.american]

38. No. It's not semantics.

Someone told me I was pathetic because I thought that it was in the bill that we would have access to the same coverage as Congress. I post the language in the bill that proves my assertion. Now, you say it sounds like Congress will be "downgraded" in order to meet that requirement.

At the Health Reform Summit, Obama stated more than once that the Exchange will be required to, at a minimum, carry the same standard of coverage and benefits Congress now receives. So, there is no downgrading involved.

[Oregone]

43. So you believe Congress will have the same plans that poor subsidized people can pick up?

You think there is a single tier of plans with the same co-pays and deductibles, which Congress and poor people will get at affordable premiums?

Seriously...do you think this?

What do you suppose the actuarial value of these plans will be? It must be what Congress has today, since there is no downgrading for them, and everyone gets exactly the same thing.

Are you serious? I hate to post this and all.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg98BvqUvCc

[John Q. Citizen]

46. That doesn't say "At a minimum." It says the Feds will shop on the exchange

for congresses' coverage.

Obama lies sometimes, like about mandates, or maybe you just misunderstood what he said, I don't know.

But what you posted doesn't say all Americans will receive plans as good as or better than what than what congress gets. It just says the Feds will shop for one of the plans on the exchange.

I said it is pathetically sad that you believe the bill will guarantee all Americans receive benefits as good as or better than congress.

I stand by that observation. It is pathetically sad, because that isn't in the bill. Yet you apparently think it is in the bill. I feel sorry for you and I worry about your reaction when you discover the truth. It's going to be terribly upsetting for you, I fear.

[Oregone]

47. "I said it is pathetically sad that you believe the bill..."

I wont have to worry about putting gas in my car anymore!

[quiet.american]

54. I wasn't referencing you in that reply. nt

[Oregone]

55. Its a joke

Something someone said when Obama was elected. Yes, it is pathetically sad.

[quiet.american]

53. I was not speaking to that point when I posted.

I've posted further downthread on that point.

[John Q. Citizen]

41. That doesn't say Americans get the same coverage as congress. It says that

The Federal Government will only be able to offer congress one of the wide variety of packages, good bad and ugly, that are offered on the exchange.

You can go buy the exact same insurance congress has right now, if you can afford it. The same will be true after this bill passes.

But the bill doesn't mean you will be able to afford the coverage congress has.

You thought it did? Well it doesn't.

[quiet.american]

48. What takes care of that is the Essential Benefits Package (minimum standard of coverage).

At a bare minimum, insurance plans sold on the Exchange will be required to cover:

(A) Ambulatory patient services.
11 (B) Emergency services.
12 (C) Hospitalization.
13 (D) Maternity and newborn care.
14 (E) Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment.
17 (F) Prescription drugs.
18 (G) Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices.
20 (H) Laboratory services.
21 (I) Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management.
23 (J) Pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

There's more, but I don't have time to bring it all over.

And not with a high-deductible. Those types of plans are prohibited from participating in the Exchange.

[Oregone]

59. What will be the minimum actuarial value of the lowest tier plan?

"And not with a high-deductible"

Come on...you can look that one up... :)


Tick tock, tick tock

[quiet.american]

61. Why don't you look it up and get back to us. nt

[Oregone]

I already know it

Both silver and basic plans will have an actuarial value of 70% (that means the subsidized plans that many of the poor will get will only be designed to pay for 70% of health care expenses of the risk pools).

[quiet.american]

66. And what is their subsidy and gov't cost-sharing for these plans?

Because that's what's never cited in this kind of argument.

[Oregone]

73. Insufficient

In the Senate bill, you only see em below 200% poverty, and you can be damn poor and still be expected to pay 10% of your health costs


I am fortunate I have not a single copay or deductible (and I wouldn't even qualify for subsidies under this plan). You can not have egalitarian healthcare using this private model that is essentially engineered so that the house always wins

[quiet.american]

76. No, that's not quite correct.

The figure of 10% of income for premiums is arrived at only for those that are at the upper end of the income scale and who are still eligible for tax credits. The Senate bill limits it to 2.0% of premium costs for those on the lower side of the scale.



For cost-sharing, the Senate bill covers 90% of the costs. The President's Proposal improves on the Senate's numbers and covers 94% for those on the lower end of the scale:

Families with income below $55,000 will get extra assistance; the additional funding to insurers will cover between 73 and 94% of their health care costs. It provides the same cost-sharing assistance as the Senate bill for higher-income families and the same assistance as the House bill for families with income from $77,000 to $88,000.

[Oregone]

78. "For cost-sharing, the Senate bill covers 90% of the costs. "

Yes, leaving the poorest with 10% of the costs. That is quite substantial when you are poor...and amount that only climbs up too quite quickly to 30%.

And I'm not entirely concerned with the president's proposal. I don't mean to be a dick, but I'm not going to take a kick at that football, despite what Lucy is promising. There is a piece of black and white legislation to go off of right now.

The bottom line is that this is going to be a private, for profit, non-egalitarian, multi-tiered system, of which, participation is required by law. To assume that struggling families can easily deal with their end to get appropriate access to care is naive to negligible. These were part of the reasons everyone abhored the Senate Bill so much during its drafting; concerns which have suddenly evaporated.

[quiet.american]

80. No, there is a distinction between 10% of income, and paying 10% of the costs.

If medication costs $100/bottle, and the gov't picks up 90% of the costs, then you're paying $10 for medication that would ordinarily cost you $100. That's different than paying 10% of your income.

As for the rest of it, we're obviously not on the same side of the political sprectrum, as I don't casually use words like "egalitarian," so we're not going to agree on whether this bill is a good thing or not.

I happen to think it is. Not the least of which is that between the draft and its passage, Bernie Sanders managed to procure billions for community health centers and debt forgiveness for medical students who go into primary care, amongst other things. How he did it, I don't know, but I love those items in the bill.

But more than that, the families that are left out in the cold would still be left out in the cold with a "no" vote prevailing. And insurance companies would still be free to operate free as a bird with absolutely no further restrictions, except one or two things that may be able to make their way to passage.

That's not a better scenario.

[Oregone]

81. No shit, eh?

Seriously, you think I don't get that? I already explained the proposed actuarial values indicate what the plan is designed to pay for an entire risk pool (leaving those covered to pay the rest).

My remark about income concerns the applied actuarial (with cost sharing) climbing up as ones income does. It starts at 10% of costs, but when someone reaches above 200% poverty level, its climbs to 30%. Having people pay 30% of the cost of their health care when they are a family making those kinds of wages is a clear cause of rationing.


"Bernie Sanders managed to procure billions for community health centers..."

And thats great. Its also something that could have been passed alone, like a CHIPS expansion, so I find that its neither here nor there.

I'm not sure how anyone can say with a straight face that the US government determining a multi-tiered, for-profit, inefficient, private system is permissible and necessary--and making participation in such required by law--is the better scenario. This is absurdity if this is what the most liberal party in play can come up with, and it perpetuates a system that is disproportionally hard on the poor.

[quiet.american]

83. And I don't know how anyone can say w/straight face -'you're on your own.'

The way you explain your take on HCR leaves out every mitigating factor in how you arrive at your conclusion that helping people pay their medical bills adds up to actually hurting them.

But how is it that leaving insurance companies to their own devices is better for the poor?

[Oregone]

85. how is it that leaving insurance companies to siphon wealth to shareholders is better for the poor?

This crisis is reaching critical mass, and this preemptive bill is only going to sustain a completely unsustainable industry and waylay egalitarian reform.

No one here is suggesting "leaving insurance companies to their own devices". Some are just far more benevolent to the crooks than others.

[quiet.american]

89. A no vote leaves insurance companies to their own devices because there would be no new restrictions

There are stipulations in the bill that insurance companies will only have 15% or 20% of their revenues to play around with to "siphon" to their shareholders. The rest has to go into customer care, and up to 2013, they have to rebate every dollar spent under that to their customers.

Since the crisis is reaching critical mass, how does voting "no" to insurance reform and regulations, as well as to helping people get insurance, in itself also not also waylay egalitarian reform, while also doing nothing to relieve the pain and suffering out there, which will only get worse.

[Oregone]

91. And a yes vote leaves them siphoning funds to their shareholders

And voting no doesn't mean reform is waylaid, but that this reform is (which some view as a positive thing). At least with a no vote, people can choose to opt-out of an unfair system designed only to generate profits for private owners (its a decision I made years ago which allowed me to save enough money to immigrate to a civilized country)

[quiet.american]

97. What about those who need help now, more so than opting out of an "unfair system?"

While you're safely tucked away in the country of your dreams, what about those who need the help now that this bill provides.


Edited for grammar

[Oregone]

100. This bill guarentees help getting insurance policies, not help getting access to care

So, while the sky may be falling, you don't have anywhere to run to.

[quiet.american]

102. Uh-huh. nt

[eridani]

120. Like fucking HELL they are! High deductible plans are ENSHRINED in the bill!

The only tier eligible for subsidy is the one paying only 60% of expenses.

[ProSense]

52. That makes no sense, and has nothing to do with the fact that the plan is the same as Congress' n/t

[Oregone]

62. You hear that world. Congressional health care for everyone! The exact same thing!

Poor people, come one, come all. We are subsidizing egalitarian health insurance!

[John Q. Citizen]

63. PT Barnum was a friggin genius!

[quiet.american]

68. And Kucinich has that same kind of genius. nt

[girl gone mad]

117. "the plan is the same as Congress"

:crazy:

[RaleighNCDUer]

75. Just because the same plan offered to congress is offered to me

that does not mean I can AFFORD that plan.

That plan offered to congress is a plan offered to MILLIONAIRES - they can afford ANY plan. I take home 30k yr. I have decent insurance, but it is nothing like what THEY have

JUST BECAUSE IT IS OFFERED THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT IS AVAILABLE.

I have the right to that plan, just as I have a right to own a Lamborgini - but how am I going to pay for it?

[quiet.american]

77. If you have decent insurance, what's the problem?

If your job offers you decent insurance, you're set. With added protections.

But if you lose your job/insurance, then you can purchase from the Exchange and based on your income at the time, the government will pay between 73%-94% of your costs, probably somewhere between 80%-94% of your costs.

[Oregone]

79. "the government will pay between 73%-94% of your costs"

:rofl:

Now thats a tad dishonest.

BTW, if someone loses their job and has to work as a temp, coming up with the 10% to 30% isn't going to be easy.

[quiet.american]

92. How is it dishonest. And by the way, I've been there, and would welcome this.

If the person is making $30k now, one would assume their income would go way down if they were on unemployment. Therefore, their subsidy category would increase. Although, I will say, COBRA would also probably kick in, and even without the bill having been passed, I personally know of someone who's currently working temp and under the stimulus plan saw her COBRA payment reduced by a little over $300.00. She's happy as a clam with that, because the payment is now very manageable.

[Oregone]

99. Because thats a promised proposal, not a plan worming through Congress

Its suppossed to be fixed at reconcilation; a meme used to garner support to pass it, then fix it. But that is not guarenteed. Right now we are talking of actuarials starting at 70% going up to 90%.

[quiet.american]

101. Okay, I'll concede I'm a couple points off, having looked at the wrong column of numbers.

I would still take a subsidy of 70%-90% over no subsidy, or no insurance.

[Oregone]

104. And for many of the people who need access the most, its all the same

30% can lock you out in the cold as easily as 100% can (especially with an expensive "pre-condition" or were too poor to afford insurance in the first place). Its a big problem. And its a problem that mostly the lower classes have to face. And what may prevent minor rationing for minor illnesses, ignored problems spiral out of control until care costs a fortune (which undermines the entire argument about lowering costs by letting everyone in to prevent major illnesses from taking hold).

Why is a system being codified that makes the poor choose between a doctor or heat? Why do the upper class have but a negligible amount of their wealth on the line when they get sick? Do they have a more inherent right to health care than the poor? Do the insurers have a more inherent right to profit than the poor have a right to health care? If a system is drafted that is emphasizing those right over the lower classes, can we ever be sure the bill will move in the proper direction to rectify these problems? Or will a lobby so powerful to prevent only be more integrated with the government than before?

This bill--this absolute rejection of socialism as a means to address the people's problems--is built upon an idealogical foundation that doesn't guarantee, or even suggest, it will move in the necessary direction to extend appropriate access to everyone and eliminate the high premium that must be paid to allow private industry to operate. Not only will still hinder intergenerational mobility for the poor, it will sustain a system that is strangling the nation's industrial competitiveness.

So the US has set forward on a direction, but it doesn't seem to be headed in a very progressive pathway (being that it emphasizes private industry, profit, and multi-tiered access above the people's access to care). And this is the better scenario?

[quiet.american]

106. I just don't get your reasoning. nt

[Oregone]

108. I don't suppose you are trying

To spell it out: policies with low actuarial values cause economic rationing (dental plans are the finest example of this). The poorer someone is, even a minor amount of fees at the POS will deter access. These systems are primarily designed to produce profit. Implemented across a society, rich people will get the access they need without effort, shareholders will get rich, and poor people will be the holders of financial instruments designed to help someone else profit.


This is why international governments that use single-payer plans often have no deductible, no co-pays, and no premiums. They understand the reasoning, and these such populations are healthier and cheaper to cover. Regardless, even with a private and mixed market approach, greater steps can be taken to not implement a system that will disproportionally hurt the poor.

[quiet.american]

109. Correction: I don't get your logic.

You keep talking about the poor. The poor in this country are covered by Medicaid. If they make too much to qualify for Medicaid, this bill steps in and helps them afford insurance. If they can't afford it even with the subsidies/cost-sharing, they can be exempted with no penalty.

You're talking about rationing because things aren't caught in time. Well, the bill requires free preventive services, and required coverage of many items that expands access, not limits it.

You talk about not passing this bill as though the remaining status quo would be better for people, when in the absence of any reform or subsidies, I still must ask, how is that better.

International governments don't have our political setup. How do you get Blue Dogs on board to pass a bill that deliberately destroys an entire private industry in our capitalist-based society?

That's one of the $64 thousand-dollar questions.

[Oregone]

110. You have to be *trying* to not follow along

"If they make too much to qualify for Medicaid, this bill steps in and helps them afford insurance"

You admit that people who do not qualify for Medicaid still need existence, but you fail to recognize the established system will not provide adequate aid to prevent economic rationing due to the 10% to 30% that is left up to these people. That is no small amount.


"You're talking about rationing because things aren't caught in time."

No. Im talking about rationing not allowing things to be caught in time. If someone has to throw down $20 dollars they need for their power bill to go see the doctor, then they may skip it and hope for better days (ending up with pnemonia in the process). Thats self-imposed rationing due to POS fees, which can be more expensive than free, overused access.


"when in the absence of any reform or subsidies, I still must ask, how is that better"

Im not talking about not doing reform. Im suggesting that they not do THIS reform. Nice strawman though.


"How do you get Blue Dogs on board to pass a bill that deliberately destroys.."

How do you get any liberal legislation when the liberal party constantly makes excuses for their capitulation and never grows a spine? Well, you dont. So if you think you are going to pass a bill, then fix it, you got another thing coming. THIS is what you are going to be stuck with, minus what the Republicans strip out of it the next chance they get so they can hang it carcass around the Democrats necks

[quiet.american]

111. It's not a matter of "trying." It's a matter of here and now.

I've read the bills and run some of the numbers. So, for you to keep insisting that the bill will place burdens on families doesn't add up.

$22,000/year x 2 percent (maximum amount of income paid for premiums) = $440/yr for premiums

$440/year divided by 12 mos = $37.00/month for insurance for a family of four

Additionally, their costs will be covered on the higher end of the subsidy scale up to 90% or higher, and according to the bill, that can include items like the hypothetical co-pay you cited. (But if you're that strapped, you probably could qualify for Medicaid).

"Im suggesting that they not do THIS reform. Nice strawman though."

There is no other reform on the table now. This is it. So if it fails, the insurance companies are free to do as they please.

I think your last answer is a complete non-answer. It doesn't address how to get things done right here, right now. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party is infested with conservative Democrats, that's the reality. And since the Republicans are determined to shut down every effort, how do you get the Blue Dogs on board, because nothing gets done unless everyone is all in.

[Oregone]

112. If you don't think an actuarial valued plan of 70% isnt burdensome, you are living on another planet

"There is no other reform on the table now"

This was the only approach the Democratic leadership allowed (and there was a time they directly opposed this model). While I'm suggesting reform, I may as well also suggest the leadership learn what "liberalism" means and grow a spine. Just because they put a piece of shit on the table doesn't mean anyone has to eat it, and it doesn't mean they can't be told go get something better. Im sure this is something else you fail to grasp

[quiet.american]

114. Enjoy your life.

And I'll enjoy mine.

[girl gone mad]

118. If this bill passes. we will very rapidly move to a two-tier system.

Those who can pay in cash and seek insurance reimbursement later will get state of the art care with no rationing and limitless treatment options.

Those who have to rely on the subsidies and/or don't have any savings will get herded in and out of clinics and hospitals to receive bare bones treatment with limited options and outdated tech. Those who can't afford the co-pays and deductibles might not even get this.

It is a type of rationing, but its the one Democrats have decided is acceptable. The poor and the young will bear the brunt of it.

[HughMoran]

124. y

[HughMoran]

127. b

[RaleighNCDUer]

82. OK, let's look at that.

I have decent insurance. My job goes south.

I can purchase from the exchange, and based on my income at the time (at what time? my last employment, or my current ZERO income?). Assuming it is at ZERO income, and I get government subsidies for the max 94% - I STILL HAVE ZERO INCOME. I still have to pay rent, utilities, buy food, and then come up with 6% of a policy - say the policy is 10k annually, or merely $800/mo. I have no income, my savings are gone, I have to come up with only fifty dollars - where does THAT come from? And that assumes a CHEAP plan, which would undoubtedly have a $1500 minimum for deductible (very optimistic - the cheaper the plan, the higher the deductibles and co-pays - I'd be LUCKY to have a 4k annual deductible). So I'm paying $50/mo plus paying at least $1500 out of pocket, while trying to pay the rent and keep the heat on - the phone went away long ago.

Of course, I'm over 50, so my chances of getting a premium of 10k/yr are about non-existent. And, of course, the deductible will NOT be $1500 - with my good, current insurance my deductible is $2000. And that assumes my esophageal problems are not regarded as a 'pre-existing condition', kicking up the policy which they cannot deny me into stratospheric costs - if I choose not to pay 20k/yr for my insurance, that's MY choice; they offered it, right?

Of course, I wouldn't have zero income - I'd have unemployment for a few months. And I can always cash in my 401k - that would keep me going for six months or so. It would take me close to a year before I'd have to shoot myself.

[quiet.american]

93. Why wouldn't zero income qualify you then for Medicaid? nt

[ProSense]

84. "That plan offered to congress is a plan offered to MILLIONAIRES " This is nonsense

The plan is a plan offered to all federal employees, and they are not all millionaires.

[mkultra]

88. FUCKING OWNED!!!

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. If this bill offered everyone what HE has, I'm sure he'd support it.

It doesn't. Not even close.

That is a strawman.

[quiet.american]

57. Who is paying for HIS plan? And why are our dollars good enough for HIM, but not us.

But even if he has private insurance, he has insurance that is not single-payer, and he is enjoying the benefit of it. Why must it come down to, for us, "no insurance for you unless it's single-payer."

[Oregone]

87. He is obviously an evil genius who just wants your millions

He eats kittens too

[quiet.american]

94. No, I'm not saying that. But what is the answer, then? nt

[Oregone]

96. Clearly his answer is to rip off all the nation's children on Christmas eve

[quiet.american]

98. Seriously, is it cocktail hour where you are? What are you having? I'll have a bourbon. :) nt

[John Q. Citizen]

15. Bill Clinton eroded the unions with NAFTA. Thanks. He said it was better than the status quo.

He was very very wrong.

The art of compromise? Obama chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel said success was passing a bill, any bill, regardless of what it contains. That's politics. Don't confuse politics with good public policy.

The time to fight for peace, justice, and social equality is never over. It's an ongoing and continuos struggle. Fortunately not everyone subscribes to patting ourselves on the back and going home because something was passed.

Doing nothing isn't an option, but then again is doing things worse preferable to doing nothing? Because this bill is worse than the status quo. Just as Romney care resulted in the highest cost health care in the nation, so too will this bill because they are both based on exactly the same faulty premises.

Forcing people to buy private health insurance with or without government subsidies is an open invitation to bigger and better rip off - just look at Massachusetts.

I haven't had health insurance since 1993. My kids have CHIP, but this bill will take that away. They will end up with worse coverage for more money.

No thanks. Please don't do this to my children. Please. They need their insurance and you want to take it away.

Please have a heart and reconsider your political reasons for supporting this bill. It's going to really hurt a lot of people and it's going to make the insurance industry a lot of money, money that could otherwise go to health care.

[Jester Messiah]

16. Absolutely right. Have a rec.

:kick:

[HughMoran]

17. I think you've said what most of us who have criticized him are thinking as well

Thanks for saying it in the more reasonable way - the way that most of us would, were it not for the back-and-forth 'gotcha' politics at play here.

[Orsino]

42. His record IS the disclaimer. n/t

[SeattleGirl]

49. I feel the same way. n/t

[Bobbie Jo]

71. Nicely done.

K&R :kick:

[EffieBlack]

113. Kucinich has always been more about getting publicity than actually getting things done

And his hometown media has always played right along with it, so he's worked it to his benefit.

[Raineyb]

115. And there's not a damn thing in this bill that guarantees anyone good health care.

I'm glad you can afford to pay for shitty insurance. I actually need a plan that I can afford to use. Of course since I'm an adult and have a preexisting condition I have to hope I don't drop dead before the "no preexisting condition" clause kicks in. AND I probably have to come up with even more money that I don't have to pay extra for it as well.

Yeah, I see a lot of win in my future with this POS.

But go ahead celebrate forcing people into bankruptcy.

I prefer to wait for a bill that will actually FIX something.

[eridani]

119. Where in fucking hell do you get the delusion that this bill is going to help anyone?

This bill is fucking over plenty of the people it is supposedly going to help. If all you want is changes in Medicare and Medicaid, just psss them separately.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

121. Exactly.

[Radical Activist]

122. Sometimes with Dennis it seems like a contest to always be "the only candidate who..."

It's almost like he's in campaign mode. He likes being the progressive hero and prophet.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

125. Yeah I admire his stand but it is time for him to fall in line. I think enough of his

constituents would want him to make that choice and it is about representing in the big picture. There really isn't anything stopping him continuing the fight for single payer if this passes. IN fact I would encourage him to step it up but is wisest he helps pass this bill. Or a host of opportunities may close for a generation.

[freddie mertz]

126. Whatever. Kicked up.