What about the 30 million that would get insurance under this bill? Do they not count?

[FrenchieCat]

Many of the uninsured that would benefit from this legislation are minorities. Minorities are most likely to be uninsured, and to suffer and die due to preventable deseases.

In addition, it is the lower income working class that would gain the most benefits from the pending legislation on health care. The most impoverished; the down trodden.

We are also talking about children with pre-existing conditions who can't get insurance currently....as well as infusing big money into Community Health Centers to treat low income people right there in their own neighborhoods giving them access in the same way KO is working towards.

Why does providing these Americans with health care count less than getting the just-right bill that everyone thinks can be gotten (although I care to differ) or else the only other option is to just say NO?

I don't understand how some could be so concerned about our volunteer fighting force in Afghanistan, as well, concerned for Afghan lives, but somehow not be as concerned about those millions of Americans that will be helped by the HCR bill....to the point of deciding that gutting the bill is better than passing it?

I understand about not being overjoyed that this bill doesn't do as much as people anticipated. I also understand being pissed at those Democrats who don't seem to quite get the provisions that we want included.....

but still, at the end of the day,
to talk about killing this bill?

What kind of new progressivism/liberalism is that? :shrug:

"Of all the forms of inequality,
injustice in health care is the most
shocking and inhumane."– Dr. Martin Luther King

Racial and ethnic minorities in the U.S. are more likely to lack health insurance, receive lower-quality care, and suffer from worse health outcomes.

Kaiser Family Foundation Briefs Examine Impact of Health Reform on Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities

A new issue brief by the Kaiser Family Foundation, Health Reform and Communities of Color: How Might It Affect Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities?, examines some of the key provisions of health reform legislation that are likely to have a significant impact on people of color, and it highlights the specific provisions of the proposed legislation that focus on health disparities. A second brief, The Role of Health Coverage for Communities of Color, examines variations in health coverage by race and ethnicity and explores the role that coverage plays in improving access to health care services for communities of color. (November 2009)

Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies Report on the Economic Burden of Health Inequalities

The Economic Burden of Health Inequalities in the US discusses how disparities in health and health care affect the economy, either directly through the costs associated with providing care to a sicker and more disadvantaged group, or indirectly, such as causing losses in productivity due to illness. The report estimates these costs to show the potential economic benefits of decreasing racial and ethnic health inequalities, including how it could lower the cost of health reform. (September 2009)

Urban Institute Report on the Cost of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities

Estimating the Cost of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities looks at how the higher rates of disease among different racial and ethnic groups place an economic burden on public programs and the health care system at large. It estimates that disparities in preventable disease rates among African Americans, Latinos, and whites will cost the health care system $23.9 billion in 2009 alone. (September 2009)

HHS Releases Recommendations on Addressing Health Disparities in Health Reform

The Department of Health and Human Services Advisory Committee on Minority Health released Ensuring that Health Care Reform Will Meet the Health Care Needs of Minority Communities and Eliminate Health Disparities, A Statement of Principles and Recommendations. The report recommends that all health reform proposals be evaluated for their potential to eliminate health disparities and improve the health of minority communities. (July 2009)
http://www.familiesusa.org/issues/minority-health/

They’ve banned pre-existing conditions for children immediately, starting in 2010.

There are $1.25 billion in new resources for community health centers in the bill, totaling $10 billion overall (there’s $14 billion in the House bill). I’ve written about community health centers before, which could provide a base of low or no-cost primary coverage for all low-income Americans in communities throughout the country. I actually think this is the best thing in the bill. Bernie Sanders is actually talking about this now on CSPAN. He says that 10,000 more communities will have access to community health centers with this legislation.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x76215

Happy Holidays!

[Undercurrent]

1. Thanks so much for providing this vital information.

To quote from the other article you posted: "Among African-Americans, the share of those without insurance rises to 19.1 percent. Among Hispanics, the share of those without insurance soars to a daunting 30.7 percent, the Census found."


Folks, please. Stop and think about these numbers. Look around at your family as you gather for the holidays, and think how you would feel if 20 or 30% of them didn't have insurance.

That is that way it is for large numbers of our American family.

[FrenchieCat]

2. When deciding on a whole loaf of bread or simply none,

The health of millions is what we are truly talking about.....

I'll take a 1/2 a loaf, if that is all that I can get....
and really, there is no other choice that one should feel
that they could make, in all good conscience.

[Pirate Smile]

19. More about what is in it from Bernie Sanders:

$10 Billion More for Community Health Centers will Revolutionize Care

WASHINGTON, December 19 – A $10 billion investment in community health centers, expected to go to $14 billion when Congress completes work on health care reform legislation, was included in a final series of changes to the Senate bill unveiled today.

The provision, which would provide primary care for 25 million more Americans, was requested by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

He said the additional resources will help bring about a revolution in primary health care in America and create new or expanded health centers in an additional 10,000 communities. The provision would also provide loan repayments and scholarships through the National Health Service Corps to create an additional 20,000 primary care doctors, dentists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants and mental health professionals.

Very importantly, Sanders also said the provision would save Medicaid tens of billions of dollars by keeping patients out of emergency rooms and hospitals by providing primary care when then needed it.

Sanders has worked with House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) to include $14 billion in the House version of the legislation.

Sanders is also working with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) to improve language already in the bill to provide waivers for states that want to provide comprehensive, affordable health care and curb rapidly-rising costs for money-making private health insurance companies. The waivers could clear the way for a state-run, single-payer system.

For the health centers, the $14 billion in the bill that the House of Representatives approved on Nov. 7 would increase the number of centers from 20 million to 45 million over the next five years.

The investment would more than pay for itself by saving Medicaid $23 billion over five years on reduced emergency room use and hospital costs, according to a study conducted by George Washington University.

The system of Federally Qualified Health Centers began four decades ago under pioneering legislation by the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. Community health centers now provide primary health care, dental care, mental health counseling and low-cost prescription drugs for about 20 million Americans. The centers offer basic services like prenatal care, childhood immunizations and cancer screenings. Open to everyone, the centers care for patients covered by Medicaid, Medicare and private insurance as well as those who have no insurance.

Dan Hawkins, senior vice president of the National Association of Community Health Centers, testified before Congress earlier this year that the cost of care at health centers is 41 percent less than what is spent to care for patients elsewhere. The savings would grow if health centers were expanded to serve more patients, according to Hawkins.

In Vermont, eight health centers and 40 satellite offices provide primary health care to more than 100,000 patients regardless of their ability to pay. Sanders said that with the additional health care funding it was very likely that new centers would be established in Addison County, Bennington County and perhaps Windham County.

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=30b2a415-4ade-4367-af7d-4c3306e31b58

[elleng]

3. Thanks for this.

Too bad it has to be repeated here.

[fasttense]

4. I walk into a restaurant and tell everyone there they all have life insurance.

They all cheer. Then I tell them they have to buy life insurance from me and pay premiums until they die. Yeah, I give a few of them, the poorest, a big break on their premiums but all of them are required to pay me or the agents outside will be carting them off to jail.

They aren't cheering anymore, I wonder why? I just gave them all life insurance.

I walk out, much, much richer.

[FrenchieCat]

6. I think that most people would like to afford health insurance......

and that is why the subsidies are there.

People who have an ache, but can't go see a doctor,
don't quite see it the same.

Those who go bankrupt because their child has a condition
that is uninsurable.

To actually believe that what you are saying is a solution is inaccurate.
It's a cute analogy, but it doesn't solve the problem.....
while the HCR bill goes a long way to doing just that.

That's the difference.

Happy Holidays to you.

[LaydeeBug]

23. but the gov't isn't setting the prices a CORPORATION, a for PROFIT CORPORATION is. nt

[midnight]

5. The uninsured are that way for different reasons? They can't afford it, or they

are unemployed. Some who are uninsured and or underinsured have more medical issues to be dealt with because they have gone with out medical check ups for longer periods of time. Now, enter the details of this plan- Insurance co. will be allowed to charge those with certain diseases more. Shifting the cost curve onto the more sickly and or financially strapped.
The insurance co. will set the price... The insurance co. will still decide what is medically neccessary. These guys have the best paid attorneys shifting the details into the tall weeds. Countdown - CIGNA whistleblower Wendell Potter on the state of health care legislationhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOe8zpHWgio&feature=player_embedded#

" 7. Roughly how many people would in fact meet ALL of the following criteria: (i) in the individual insurance market, and not eligible for Medicaid or Medicare; (ii) consider the insurance to be a bad deal, even after substantial government subsidies; (iii) are not knowingly gaming the system by waiting to buy insurance until they become sick; (iv) are not exempt from the individual mandate penalty because of low income status or other exemptions carved out by the bill?

If people are “exempt” from the individual mandate because the private insurance companies made insurance too expensive for them to buy (which thanks to the 1:3 age rating would be the older sicker people most in need of insurance) what is the point of the individual mandate? This sounds like a recipe to price out the old (nonprofitable) and force only the young (profitable) to buy insurance. The individual mandate should only be used for an “everyone in” system. This is “everyone in” except those whom the private insurance companies price out of the market."http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/12/16/answering-nate-silvers-20-questions-on-killing-the-senate-bill/

[FrenchieCat]

8. So you are saying that the solution is to just Fuck it?

let the bill go down?

Cause that this point, I do not agree.
no matter how many repeat the problems
they perceive in the bill.

At this point, I don't even care if there is nothing in it for me....
and for those already insured.

The bill needs to go to conference.
That's my view.

Have a nice holiday! :hi:

[AllentownJake]

10. To quote your imaginary boyfriend

You don't solve homelessness by telling people they have to buy a House....who said that, I can't remember.

[FrenchieCat]

11. you have a heart of stone,

unless it's soldiers and Afghans I see!

Use a strawman, why don't you? Is that Good for you?
I am not the President, so you don't have to talk to me as if I am.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing every homeless person get a domicile.
My hubby grew up in the projects, so there is a way.

As far as a boyfriend, my husband was reading this over my shoulders,
and burst out laughing!

He said, the folks you discuss with are a trip!
Was he trying to insult you?

I just said, no.....
That poster is just a real smart ass.



Happy Holidays!

[AllentownJake]

13. Merry Christmas Frenchie

There is such a thing as an awful way to solve a real problem that actually exacerbates a situation. Candidate Obama recognized it. I marched all over my area carrying his literature that said he recognized it. President Obama, well I do not recognize this man. So I often ask myself who was the person I voted for in that primary. At least Hillary was honest about what she intended to do.

[FrenchieCat]

16. gotcha!

"Anyone who is “betrayed by their naiveté” should feel doubly ridiculous for thinking the change they voted for would come overnight. Status quo is not “kicked out of the door” like a weak, stray cat. Status quo has to be rallied against, systems have to be put in place to combat it, people have to put in work. Status quo will remain the “status quo” if people are too lazy to stick around for the entire fight."

[AllentownJake]

17. Yes

Well that still doesn't explain why he handed out literature saying that mandates were the bane of existence. If anything this resistance is a creation of his own making.

[AllentownJake]

18. Easier translation

The rhetoric I'm using right now, was taught to me by Senator Obama when arguing on his behalf in March of 2008.

Why do I think of mandates and public options the way I do, Barack Obama taught me to talk about them that way.

[donco6]

36. LOL! More than touche - that was a full fledged assault!

:rofl:

[FrenchieCat]

39. What are you? His Cheerleader or something?

30 million people, most minorities going without care is a funny thing, ain't it?

[donco6]

44. Nah. I just utterly despise shills.

Utterly.

[vi5]

7. I think I can speak on one part of this subject.....

...my 3 year old son has a host of medical conditions. He's so far in his short time here racked up $500,000 paid out by our insurance company to doctors, hospitals, etc. We have good insurance. I've seen the impact that our current system has on people who don't.

But his conditions will impact him for a lifetime. If we lose our insurance, to get him or keep him insured will be our main priority. So obviously the pre-existing conditions thing as well as the lifetime and annual caps are important to me. But here's the thing:

1) Who will enforce this? What are the mechanisms? What agency is being set up to monitor this, and who much money is being put towards it? Just hearing "You can appeal or file a complaint if any insurance company does this" is not enough. Even if the republicans when they are back in charge do not gut this system entirely, will they be the ones to staff this agency (if one exists?). Is it not safe to assume those people will be more industry friendly? Just putting these reforms on paper without the mechanisms to back them up means nothing.

2) Please explain to me how 31 million more people will be covered? Is there expanded medicaid coverage that will include all of them? Because the whole subsidies thing means nothing if the insurance companies don't offer comprehensive and inexpensive plans. The insurance companies will still get to decide who gets covered and how, they will just do it in different ways. Not having particular specialists in network, or just having fewer of them, etc. Can you let me know what part of this legislation gets around this?

It just seems like a lot of this bill is little more than political theater for all involved, without any real teeth. It seems stronger on political talking points than it does actual enforcement, which is what is needed. Again, I'll be happy to hear out any facts to the contrary. I want to be optimistic but it's just not working.

[FrenchieCat]

9. I only know what I have read.......

and it ain't the bill in its current form,
and the senate bill in its current form,
won't be exactly what will pass.

I've listened to Harkin, Wiener, Kerry, and other on the subject.

So that's what I know.

What’s In The Manager’s Amendment
By: David Dayen Saturday December 19, 2009 9:38 am


So I’m frantically trying to read the manager’s amendment (turn on CSPAN-2 and you can follow along yourself) and all the supplementary information that’s out there on just what’s now in this health care bill, and here’s what I’ve got so far:


• The CBO score is out. The top line numbers? The bill costs $871 billion and would save the federal government $132 billion over the next ten years. The changes in the manager’s amendment amounted to a net $2 billion dollar savings. The bill would cover 31 million people and leave 23 million uninsured by 2019.

• On the abortion issue: states could prohibit abortion coverage in the exchange if they passed a law. This basically punts the Stupak issue to the states, and if the exchanges expand over time as expected, essentially end abortion services coverage in states that pass a law. This becomes a huge culture war battle in states for years and years to come. Good for pro- and anti-abortion groups’ fundraising coffers, bad for women.

• The CLASS Act, the federally managed, voluntary long-term care program, is still in the bill. Lieberman may have mentioned it on Face The Nation, but he didn’t kill it.

• The public option is replaced with the OPM-managed multi-state plans in the exchanges. Not all of them have to be non-profits; in fact, only one of them has to be.

• The individual mandate penalty actually looks a little higher here, although it’s phased in over time. It would be the “greater of a flat dollar amount per person or a percentage of the individual’s income,” up to 2% by 2015.

• Apparently Nebraska and maybe a few other states get more money for Medicaid funding. I can’t get entirely worked up over a legislator securing more money for poor people in their own state. It beats kickback deals for local defense contractors of developers. I think Paul Wellstone would have done no less.

• Small business tax credits to purchase insurance have been expanded by $12 billion and phase in immediately, and are eligible to companies that pay higher wages. Every bill in Congress has to include small business tax credits, it’s the law.

• The medical loss ratio, which was floated to be at 90%, had to be dropped down because of a nakedly political act by the CBO, which said that a 90% MLR would have amounted to nationalizing the insurance industry. So the MLR is now 85/80%, but that apparently does not include the money insurers get through risk adjustment, which means that in practice it’s actually higher.

• They’ve banned pre-existing conditions for children immediately, starting in 2010.

• There are new insurance regulations, including the ability to ban insurance companies from the exchange if they raise their rates above a certain amount. And if an insurer denies a claim, there will be an independent board to which customers can appeal. The design of that board is crucial.

• The nationwide plans, which could have gutted state-level insurance regulations, have been dropped. This is a good thing.

• There are $1.25 billion in new resources for community health centers in the bill, totaling $10 billion overall (there’s $14 billion in the House bill). I’ve written about community health centers before, which could provide a base of low or no-cost primary coverage for all low-income Americans in communities throughout the country. I actually think this is the best thing in the bill. Bernie Sanders is actually talking about this now on CSPAN. He says that 10,000 more communities will have access to community health centers with this legislation.

• Increased debt forgiveness for medical students to work at community health centers.

• The “doctor’s fix” was removed (probably to improve the CBO score) and will be dealt with in separate legislation.

• There’s an increase to the payroll tax for high-income Americans to pay for the bill. Before the increase was 0.5% for individuals with income above $200,000 and for families with income above $250,000; now it’s 0.9%.

• They traded the Botax for a Boehner tax; there’s now a 10% excise tax on indoor tanning.
http://news.firedoglake.com/2009/12/19/whats-in-the-managers-amendment/

[newfie11]

21. Reading this the bill doesn't sound so bad. n/t

[vi5]

25. Again, my issue is....

penalties and enforcement.

Are the penalties going to be enough to dissuade the insurance companies from not breaking these rules? Or just nuisances to them which are cheaper in the long run?

Who, what, where on the appeals board? Will they be administration appointed or will they be civil service jobs with trained professionals? How much will it be staffed? Enough to deal with the deluge of claims? Insurance companies work in a numbers/odds game. They'll deny 10 claims in the hopes that only 8 people will know or be strong enough to fight it. Therefore they'll still make money on those 2 that didn't. If there's not adequate enforcement in place they'll handle this numbers game the same way and hope that it takes so long to appeal that people just won't bother or that they'll still make money in the meantime.

[vaberella]

12. Based on what I've seen on DU...It's a NO!! nt

[quaker bill]

14. They don't "get" insurance

they have to pay for it, (just like rest of us). Can't you see the injustice?

[FrenchieCat]

15. No, I don't....and most will be willing to pay for it if it is affordable.

First year's fine is $95.00.....

No one was going to get anything for absolutely free.....
and in anyone knows that, it is Black folks in 2009.

But yeah....healthcare should be free far as I'm concerned!

[Bluenorthwest]

29. Candidate Obama said that people did not need to be forced

if it was affordable and worth buying. Now he says people must be forced, which by his own logic means that it will not be affordable nor worth the money.
Candidate Obama also said that no one could dispute that his mandate free plan was workable. He also said his rival was awful for supporting mandated purchase. Commercials, in print, in debates, he sent people to knock on my door to slander Clinton over mandates and promise Obama would never do so. They had all those quotes from Obama.
So in a few short months, he showed himself to be a man whose word is without value.

[Laelth]

20. "Would get"? How about, "will be FORCED to buy"?

Very few people are "getting" health insurance here (the expansion of Medicaid to cover more of the desperately poor is the exception).

This bill is not something the Democratic Party is doing FOR the uninsured. It's something the Democratic Party is doing TO the uninsured (for the benefit of the more fortunate--those who already have health insurance).

Polls show a majority of Americans oppose the individual mandate. This is a terrible piece of legislation, and the Democratic Party will (rightly) be punished for it by the electorate if it passes.

Kill the bill.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the answer to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Sheri]

22. +1

[Sebastian Doyle]

46. +1000

[Armstead]

24. We can agree on the goa;s but disagvree on the method

I agree with the guy who was trying to get our votes in 2008 -- "Mandating health insurance is like trying to solve homelessness by telling the homeless they have to buy a house."

What happened to that guy? The one who said the first priority was to make healthcare affordable for everyone?

Where did he go? He morphed into a tool of the insurance companies and an opponent of real government backed health care. Yes I said an opponent, because his actions over the past year run contrary to the message of the candidate.

There are many, many ways that they could have expanded coverage and made it affordable.

But the Democratic leadership -- especially Obama -- chose the worst possible solution. Force people to buy insurance, b ut don;t control prices and don't provide any form of public health plan.

The subsidies, expansion of Medicaid, pre-existing c lause could have been done without totall;y caving into the insurance companies. But the Demlocrats chose to cave in, and chose an approach that DOES MORE HARM THAN GOOD FOR THOSE 320 MILLION PEOPLE.

[harun]

26. Insurance is not equal to Health Care. We want to get those 30 million health care

not a bunch of insurance that may or may not get them Health Care and may or may not be affordable to them.

[Bluenorthwest]

27. Barack Obama, just last year spoke the truth:

""Mandating health insurance is like trying to solve homelessness by telling the homeless they have to buy a house."

And this tactic of using the word 'get' to mean 'will be forced to buy' is not one I see as honest. Forced is forced and to imply that it is a favor or a gift is simply wrong.

[madmom]

28. I have insurance, but I can't afford to use it. The co-pays are to high

tests I may or may not need are up to the insurance company NOT my doctor and after all that I can't afford any meds, so this is what everyone else gets now too YAY!!!:bounce:

[Tom Rinaldo]

30. Many of the good provisions in this bill could have been passed seperately

It is easier for the right to posture and threaten to filibuster a bill that they can claim advances "creeping socialism" through a direct government takeover of the health care system (Public Option), than it would have been for them to filibuster eliminating imposing pre-exising conditions tests on children. When Democrats were cutting deals on HCR during the Spring and Summer those deals were being cut to advance a reform package that included a robust government role. Concessions to industry were made with the belief that those trade offs would result in a bill for a system that included a robust Public Option. If we never intended to fight for the Public Option we could have gotten BETTER legislation than what we are left with now without it.

Remember? Democrats won the elections. Bush never had more than 51 Republican Senators when he rammed through his tax cuts for the rich. Capital Hill is teeming with Democrats. This isn't just a bill to do the listed good things, this is Democratic Party's complete Health Care Reform plan. Obama cut deals with big Pharm and others early in this process assuring us that he would deliver real reform at the end of the process and that was just the price he had to pay to get it. This gives the private insurance industry full control and it MANDATES that the public buy their products. We paid the full price but we didn't get the real reform. The Democratic Party of 2009 has become the Republican Party of 1989. Hail the failed Private Sector!

[totodeinhere]

31. 30 million people will NOT get insurance from this bill.

Many of the uninsured are poor and won't be able to afford it. The so-called subsidies provided for in this bill are insufficient. Even with the subsidies many people won't be able to afford it. The health insurance lobby made sure that their clients will continue to be allowed to charge outrageous prices. This is a bad bill. Kill it now.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. This is off topic but I love the search feature!

I call it the Donnie McSearch. It is so fun! Shows who stands where. Shows the sort of 'logic' one deals with. God might be in the mix, but the devil in in the details.

[Better Believe It]

33. What are the "benefits" and how much are the premiums on the private insurance they must buy?

[stray cat]

34. No - not if it costs progressives or conservatives any money or requires any sacrifice

:sarcasm: I'm beginning to think progressives only believe in government programs to help others if they can get someone else to pay for it.

[donco6]

37. ?? Who has said progressives won't pay taxes?

I'd like to see that one.

[Vinca]

35. That's the problem with this bill. 30 million are not getting insurance.

They are getting a law that tells them they must buy it or face a fine. So let's tell the homeless they must buy a house and the hungry they must buy food. If Harry Reid was smart, he'd run "Medicare For All" through reconciliation at the first possible moment.

[hayu_lol]

38. Oregon presently has a medicaid program that really works...

takes care of men, women, and children who are really poor. Some states do not fund their medicaid like we do here. Another point is that poor women have been thrown off the bus with the language contained in this badly flawed bill. Obama claimed that abortion or choice...was a moral issue. It is not. It is a medical procedure that is clean, safe, and appropriate when needed by the poorest women in the country.

Kill this useless bill.

[treestar]

41. this one has been repeated several times and is irrational

If you get food stamps, you must buy food with it. If you get money under Section 8, you must buy housing with it. If you get money to buy health insurance, you must buy health insurance with it.

[Vinca]

42. You're exactly right. And we still have homelessness and hunger.

Ordering people to purchase private health insurance under penalty of law is not health care.

[treestar]

40. No they don't it's more important to screw over the insurance companies

Than that these people get health coverage.

They keep saying it's a gift to the insurance companies, but it's really a gift to the 30 million people, at least partially.

[Progressive_Angel]

43. they are

human sacrifies

[snot]

45. As I understand,

the bill would force us to pay up to 8% of our incomes to insurance cos. while leaving us on the hook for up to $11,900 a year in out-of-pocket medical expenses, fail to limit increases in insurance premiums, fail to end discrimination for most people based on preexisting conditions until 2014, and allow insurance companies to charge people who are older 300% more than others. And most of the vaunted additional insureds will be those who need it the least -- the healthy ones likely to generate more profits than costs.

We're being required to pay an awful lot for very little actual benefit to people in need. Reminds me of when conservatives argued we had to keep funding the Iraq war or they wouldn't be able to afford to bring the troops home safely. Our troops then were, and the few sick children who might actually be benefitted by this bill are now, being held for ransom by people who can't be trusted to fulfill their promises once we've paid up.

[Hello_Kitty]

47. Half of that number will be getting coverage through a long overdue expansion of Medicaid

Which is a good thing because as it is now Medicaid is pretty much only for poor single mothers and disabled people. The income thresholds are ridiculously low in many states and now they will be raised to 133% FPL, still ridiculously low, but that's where 14-15 million of the "30 million Americans who will be covered" will be getting their coverage. IOW, the insurance cos. get millions of new subsidized captive customers while sloughing the poorest of the uninsured (disproportionately minority and likelier to have health problems) onto the taxpayers. Like I said, it's a good thing and long overdue but it was not necessary to mandate the purchase of private insurance by working and middle class people in order to expand Medicaid.

[LWolf]

48. It depends

on how many of them can afford to actually use that insurance to get care.

Having insurance doesn't guarantee care. I know, because I have supposedly "good" insurance. Some of the premium is paid by my employer. The rest comes out of my paycheck.

I don't use it because, after paying the premium, I don't have anything left in the budget for the copays and deductibles.

I know many other people in the same situation.

It also depends on what kind of care they are allowed to access, and what kinds of care won't be "covered."

Which is why the point of health care reform should have been CARE, not insurance.