Dr. Marcia Angell Tells Bill Moyers: Obama Gave Away The Store. Too Little, Too Late.
Honestly, at this point, I don't even care whether or not this crappy healthcare bill passes. I see so many serious problems with it, and I simply do not have any trust in the integrity of the Obama administration and the commercially-sponsored Congress to fix them.
The only reason I can see for supporting the bill is political - and no, I don't think that's an insignificant reason. (I'd guess it's the only reason Wendell Potter still supports it.) However, as Dr. Marcia Angell points out, the bill is such a confusing mess, what are the odds that its passage will work in the Democrats' favor? It's a complete and utter crap shoot, and for that, I blame the consistent lack of leadership from the top. I have never been so disgusted with the political process in my entire life:
From Bill Moyers Journal:
BILL MOYERS: So, has President Obama been fighting as hard as you wished?
MARCIA ANGELL: Fighting for the wrong things and too little, too late. He gave away the store at the very beginning by compromising. Not just compromising, but caving in to the commercial insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry. And then he stood back for months while the thing just fell apart. Now he's fighting, but he's fighting for something that shouldn't pass. Won't pass and shouldn't pass.
What this bill does is not only permit the commercial insurance industry to remain in place, but it actually expands and cements their position as the lynchpin of health care reform. And these companies they profit by denying health care, not providing health care. And they will be able to charge whatever they like. So if they're regulated in some way and it cuts into their profits, all they have to do is just raise their premiums. And they'll do that.
Not only does it keep them in place, but it pours about 500 billion dollars of public money into these companies over 10 years. And it mandates that people buy these companies' products for whatever they charge. Now that's a recipe for the growth in health care costs, not only to continue, but to skyrocket, to grow even faster.
BILL MOYERS: But given that, why have the insurance companies, health insurance companies been fighting reform so hard?
MARCIA ANGELL: Oh, they haven't fought it very hard, Bill. They really haven't fought it very hard. What they're fighting for is the individual mandate. And if they get that mandate, if everyone does have to buy their commercial products, then they're going to be extremely happy with it.
BILL MOYERS: But this is all about politics now. It's not about pure health care reform. So given that reality, what would you have the President do?
MARCIA ANGELL: Well, I think you really do have to separate the policy analysis from the political analysis and I'm looking at it as policy. And it fails as policy. Moreover, a lot of people say, "Let's hold our nose and pass it, because it's a step in the right direction." And I say it's a step in the wrong direction.
You're right. Politics is different and there are a lot of people who say, "Look, it's a terrible bill. Even a step in the wrong direction as policy goes. But we need to get Obama elected again and we need to continue with the Democratic majority in Congress. And so we need to give Obama and the Democrats a win. If we don't, the Republicans will come in and take over Congress in the fall, and then the White House in 2012. But the problem with a political analysis is sometimes you're right and sometimes you're wrong. And Democrats and particularly liberals have a history of outsmarting themselves.
And I'm not so sure that if this bill goes down, it's going to make it any harder for them politically. So I think it's difficult times for the President and for the Democrats. But if you look at it as a matter of policy, the President's absolutely right that the status quo is awful. If we do nothing, costs will continue to go up. People will continue to lose their coverage. Employers are dropping health benefits. Things will get very bad. The issue is will this bill make them better or worse? And I believe it will make it worse.
BILL MOYERS: The President, with all due respect, would disagree with you. Let me show you something he said--
MARCIA ANGELL: Yes.
BILL MOYERS: --in his speech on Wednesday.
MARCIA ANGELL: Yes.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: My proposal would bring down the cost of health care for millions, families, businesses, and the federal government. Our cost-cutting measures mirror most of the proposals in the current Senate bill, which reduces most people's premiums and brings down our deficit by up to one trillion dollars over the next two decades. Brings down our deficit. Those aren't my numbers. Those are the savings determined by the Congressional Budget Office, which is the Washington acronym for the nonpartisan, independent referee of Congress.
BILL MOYERS: Not good enough for you?
MARCIA ANGELL: Well, first of all, you have to look at what the CBO is looking at.
BILL MOYERS: Congressional Budget Office.
MARCIA ANGELL: Yes. They're not looking at the cost to the system as a whole, to the larger system. They're not looking at the private system. They're simply looking at the federal budget as a budgetary item.
BILL MOYERS: Right. They look at the government--
MARCIA ANGELL: The government part of that. So if they can save money in Medicare, then they come out ahead, no matter what happens out in the private sector. And so that's what he's talking about. It will take money out of Medicare and put it into the private sector. Medicare is the source for a lot of the funds that are going to go to subsidize the private health insurance industry. So that's the first thing. The second thing is the CBO has to build in assumptions. And those assumptions are arguable, to put it mildly.
And as far as cost-cutting, there are sort of promissory notes. ˜We'll get a committee to look at the cost of effectiveness, of various medical procedures.'
BILL MOYERS: Well, you remind me 45 thousand people, as Wendell Potter said earlier, die every year for lack of health insurance. That should be-- they're--
MARCIA ANGELL: It's not lack of health insurance. It's lack of health care. There is a difference between health insurance and health care. You can have insurance offered that is too expensive to buy or too expensive to use. What good does it do? And what happens when this occurs, is that what you see is instead of improvements, look at my state of Massachusetts.
Instead of seeing improvements, you see it shredded even further. You see more people denied access anyway. Now they're about, I think over 60 thousand people in my state who are exempted from the plan for financial hardship and this is also in the Obama plan. If you're really poor, you don't have to participate, and these are the very people who should be in a plan to cover them.
BILL MOYERS: But, the very poor do get Medicaid.
MARCIA ANGELL: Yes, yes. And one of the things about the Obama plan that I do like is that it expands Medicaid up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level and that's fine. The problem is that could have been a stand alone measure. You didn't need to have it incorporated in this massive Rube Goldberg apparatus.
BILL MOYERS: Is there anything else in there you like, in the Obama plan?
MARCIA ANGELL: Oh yeah. I mean--
BILL MOYERS: What?
MARCIA ANGELL: First of all, the intention is very good. The expansion of Medicaid is very good. Raising the age of dependents to 26, and saying that they have to be covered under parents' plans. I think that's very good. Looking at the cost-effectiveness of various procedures is a good thing to do in its own right.
So yes, there are things in it. But the bill as a whole, the more I look at it, the worse it gets. It's going to increase costs, not decrease them. And it's going to increase the rate of growth. It's not going to bend the curve, except in Medicare.
I think in order to look at a reform and to measure a reform, you have to look at the problem it's designed to answer. You have to look at what's wrong with our system, in order to evaluate a reform. You have to ask yourself, "Why is it that we spent over twice as much per person on health care and yet don't manage to cover everyone?"
There is absolutely nothing in this bill to prevent the insurance companies from raising rates. In fact, to meet Wall Street's expectations they will have to do so. Ultimately this will kill them. It may take a few years but this will force so many people to seek a cheaper public option that it will be inevitable.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
I've noted the premium issue from the beginning.
Sure, they have to cover pre-existing conditions and keep coverage on when people get sick, but they will just manipulate the market through rate discrimination.
That is good business...but health care shouldn't be for sale.
I do disagree, however, that this issue will cause the downfall of insurance companies and sound the call for a public option.
It took a few years but people were forced to . . . . Hold it. People were forced to pay the prices and nothing was reformed. People needed fuel and it was pretty much the only game in town.
And they weren't even mandated by the government to purchase the product.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
health care was a non-renewable resource which is increasingly expensive to locate, extract and refine. Really Fiver, even Angell admits there are good things in this bill and you have to ask yourself why the insurance companies are so vehemently against the whole thing if it was such a boon to them. This thing is going to force a public option for the uninsured and then they are going to be in the awkward position of denying people health care and opposing any alternative for them. Once a public option is in play that delivers lower cost health care the insurance companies will simply be unable to compete except for the gold plated packages. I think is irrelevant what form the public option takes although a buy-in for medicare seems the most straightforward.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
And just how are the insurance companies against this plan?
It was written, in large part, by Liz Fowler, a WellPoint executive.
Why would health insurers draft legislation they didn't approve of?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
a public option. I said it will make a public option absolutely inevitable. The insurance company's are being fenced in by this and they know it.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
. . . so we can get the public option at some time in the future?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
and probably expressing it better. One thing she didn't say though, Obama is a POS.
on HCR but stopped as soon as I heard him say "Health Insurance Reform." If I hadn't been let down so many times already over the last year I would have been more shocked to hear him use the Republican term "Insurance Reform." At that point I knew the end result will be mere tinkering (it would appear from this article for the worse) with the insurance industry.
Only one question Re Obama remains unresolved: did he get co-opted or did he perpetrate an unusually massively fraudulent campaign?
you will see a militarist, corporatist, Wall Street fanny-kisser. One of the most vocal cheerleaders for the Bush-Paulson Wall Street Giveaway. Didn't that alone tell you he was a corporatist?
Why anyone thought a President Obama would be any better than Senator Obama utterly mystifies me.
free reign for a few years so they can maximize their profits and grab as much as they can before the public option becomes inevitable. Let the insurance companies crash the system (and kill a few hundred thousand people in the bargain).
to suck in campaign mega-bucks from the insurance/hospital/pharma in time for the 2012 presidential campaign and before the POS bill is enacted and sh*t hits the fan.
this is the best analysis I've read on this bill. Thanks for posting it here.
...whatever they want to charge, unless governed by anti-trust of other legalities.
The point of this bill, or anything related to this bill, is to create a situation where people are guaranteed an opportunity to actually "GET" insurance coverage.
If you want to test the current system, cancel yours and see if another company will pick you up...or better yet, tell them you have a pre-existing condition and get back to us.
This is the bill Obama wanted. He just couldn't come out and *say* that he wanted to hand the insurance industry a massive windfall in the form of mandates, subsidies, etc., etc. He needed time to whittle public expectations down to size using proxies in the Senate.
. He got exactly what he (and Rahm) wanted
Now that the bill is established as a corporate giveaway. Obama leads the charge, just like any good (R)aygun democrat. (R)ahm and the clintons must be wetting themselves.
In one year, OHoover has shown that as a president, he makes a pretty consistent corporatist senator.
________________
common sense matters as much as truth
Republicans going to be worse?
I can't even believe I'm saying that. Just goes to show how far Obama's fallen from what he campaigned on. I guess he can join the republican party because it's apparent he's a man without a conscience.
This IS what he campaigned on. In fact, if you look at this bill and the bill Obama proposed as candidate this bill is more liberal than that one.
A lot of people just saw what they wanted to see during the campaign and not what was there.
Also to correct a few things thrown around. 1. There are safeguards in the bill to insure that they don't raise their rates such as the new regulatory commission, the provision that they spend 85% towards health care, and an insurance exchance which can bar groups from entering that don't follow minimum standards.
There are LOTS of benefits to passing this bill other than political. The status quo, not the bill, is the giveaway to the insurance companies.
i told anyone who wanted to talk politics before the general election that he wasn't a real progressive liberal and that he was going to be clinton again. In fact, i don't really remember him advocating any change other than changing from bush back to clinton.
All that being said, those who say "we might as well have a republican" or "i don't want this bill" are ignoring the facts. this bill does help many, while not perfect, we need to keep pushing for improvements
This bill will help people like NAFTA reduced the trade deficit. The Democrats have become such corporatists, they make Republicans look like liberals.
and, as Dr. Angell pointed out, worse than nothing because it heads 'reform' in the WRONG DIRECTION. Towards privatization, soaring costs and corporate control; it's a disastrous bill imo.
Then Obama when he was the only real choice.
Too.
Sorry insipid. Go back and look at the debates with Hillary. The prime difference between Obama and her was that he said, "NO MANDATES".
This was the ONLY reason I chose him over her.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
.
He campaigned on universal health care Without a Mandate. He's fallen so far from what he campainged on it's incredible. The only thing he's basically kept his word on is his desire for bipartisanship and keeping the war going in Afghanistan.
Close Guatanemo, prosecute war crimes, no ones above the law (wait, he said dozens of times he wanted to move forward), yeah, he really meant what he said.
Regulations will limit the Insurance companies time at the trough and they won't be allowed to raise rates double digits every year. This will drive insurance companies to other less regulated enterprises. This will force the US government into providing the needed insurance. Single payer by default.
but HOLY FUCKING SHIT - Ha!
Regulations on insurance companies?? Stopping premium increases???
ROTFLMFAO
. . . administered by AHIP.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
controls provided by Americans for Prosperity and The Heritage Foundation.
why would anyone have any faith in regulation, especially with our country's sterling track record?
The government regulates industries all the time. They can do it for this industry too. Why do you think the insurance industry is fighting this so hard if it's such a "giveaway"?
this situation in the first place.
The insurance industry isn't fighting this. They are writing it. How many insurance industry funded commercials have you seen on the tube in the last month declaring the pitfalls of this bill?
The people of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." J.K. Galbraith
and it either never gets out of the senate. or he vetos it. dems and the house need to keep the pressure on
If this is possible in any way, they have already thought about it and there is something in the bill to prevent it from happening. We are dealing with major professional weasels here, and not amateurs.
.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
or not.
Yesterday I attended a meeting with a group of Single Payer/Improved Medicare for All activists here in So. Cal.
Jackie Goldberg and others who have led the fight for a Single Payer healthcare system in California were there.
One of the founders of the campaign for "California OneCare" was at the meeting. **Website is www.CaliforniaOneCare.org
He gave this explanation of how things are anticipated to go down in California, Obamacare or no Obamacare:
The campaign for California OneCare, which is based on former State Senator Sheila Kuhl's SB 810, was just launched on March 1, 2010. This state campaign is organizing statewide in support of passing SB 810 which is coming up in the Assembly shortly and is expected to pass....again.
Schwartzenegger is expected to veto it AGAIN. Hopefully Jerry Brown will prevail over Meg Whitman's multi-million dollar self-financed campaign this November (her crass carpet-bagging and the fact that she went years without even voting won't settle well with the voters...plus after Ahhnold, who in their right mind would choose a Republican??).
If Brown wins, the State Senate will AGAIN pass the same Single Payer bill and the Assembly will pass it and sometime around September of 2011 Brown will sign it into law. The only reason he will do so is because the conservative Lewin Group did a cost analysis of the bill in 2005 and it shows that after all the dust settles California will have a $300 BILLION SURPLUS OVER TEN YEARS if SB 810 were to be implemented: (Scroll down to 2005 for info.):
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_system...
But, according to the representative from California OneCare, the popping of champagne will be short-lived because come January of 2012 the major insurance corporations of California (with financial help from insurance corporations from the rest of the country) will launch a statewide initiative campaign to KILL CALIFORNIA ONECARE.
That initiative will be RESOUNDINGLY defeated in November of 2012 and on January 1, 2013 the state of California will begin California OneCare statewide. It will be the first statewide Single Payer system in the country, exactly the way Tommy Douglas' Single Payer system (Saskatchewan) was the first in Canada.
Once the rest of the country sees how much Californians love the system, other states will demand the same.
This is the ONLY way I can imagine we will ever be able to divest ourselves from the "rapacious health insurance corporations" (that would be a quote from Sen. Jay Rockefeller).
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
prediction.
That would be wonderful.
I agree that I don't care if the bill gets passed or not. I think that if it is passed it will be an excuse to do nothing for a long while. So on that basis I oppose it. Not that it really matters what I think, or for that matter what the average person thinks.
The very wealthy own this guy and his administration, we got nothing in the last election. A bit here and their on the edges, crumbs from the rich mans table is all.
I absolutely agree, but it's worse than that. The only solution to fixing insurance-out-of-control is for people to wake up and stop paying for it. If the purchase of insurance becomes mandated, then this option is removed.
If employers would deposit funds into individual savings accounts instead of paying for health insurance (like an IRA, but designated for out of pocket health costs), nobody would choose to opt for the insurance. With this choice, premiums would come down and competition for all "services" would re-enter the equation.
we have a winner.
STOP BUYING THE PRODUCT.
but we would have a hell of a lot more medical bankruptcies.
or, just an idea, maybe we should recognize the right of americans to more fully share in the bounties this country provides, we might even find that by giving people their due, this country would become more productive.
we might even find that by giving people their due, this country would become more productive.
spot on derek! Working hard, getting educated, whatever, and still just treading water is not something that inspires people. Maybe we should pay less to the people at the top and more to everybody else?
Arkansas's Senator in Middle, Hit on All Sides
By SHAILA DEWAN
Senator Blanche Lincoln, a moderate Democrat, is caught between antigovernment ire and the frustrated left.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/08/us/politics...
________________
common sense matters as much as truth
. . . on the kindness of Bill Clinton.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
.
Obama has been trying to shape this bailout in a way that follows his pro-corporate deals he made before the issue was ever taken up. Obama has helped maim the public option again and again. It's not hard to look back and see how he always jumped in front of the reform issue when the public option was gaining ground or other real reform was growing. Obama would jump up and try to force the progressives inline and/or shift reform back inline with the corporate deals.
I have for months hopped I was wrong but it’s real hard to see past what I wrote above lately. Seriously why at a time when the Public option was coming back to life release a plan without it? Why is he pushing for so little? The only answer I can come up with for all these so called missteps is what I wrote above. It’s that or obama is insane and/or stupid.
as long as said proposal didn't include a public option.
I'm going with that one.
Program Will Pay Homeowners to Sell at a Loss
By DAVID STREITFELD
The Obama administration will offer distressed homeowners $1,500 to sell for less than the mortgage balance, along with incentives for banks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/08/business/08...
________________
common sense matters as much as truth
Oww, my heads spinning.
If you have a problem with crap shooting
Maybe you need to see a good proctologist.
Hit the ground, backfire!!!
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Bush: Start illegal war with demonstrable lies, tortures people in violation U.S. and international law, shreds constitution with grossly illegal intrusions in people's private lives.
Resistance/Consequences: No biggie.
Obama: Wants to help all the citizens of America receive better and cheaper access to medical care.
Resistance/Consequences: Its the fucking apocalypse.
in which Obama has framed this debate, I would question your assumption of his intention to help citizens in the regard stated.
By the tone of the doc in this piece, I would say Obama has done very little to achieve what you state as his goal.
The point stands. One guy was screwing everyone over in a way that made corps a lot of money, and there was no big deal. The other pretended to attempt to help everyone in a way that might be bad for corps, and all hell broke loose.
It was written, in large part, by a WellPoint executive.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
The intent was to help American's by giving them all insurance in a way that reduced insurance co's profit.
it's the republican bill he wanted (read:Romneycare!)
President so he can pass a law where the Entire U.S. is forced to purchase my product.
still at "war"
still no regulation of the thieves on wall street.
still no healthcare reform.
still no accountability or reckoning for the obvious crimes of the previous administration.
still no hope, still no change.
but you do have a lovely wife.
did she select this week?
oh no you di'int
"To me, truth is not some vague, foggy notion. Truth is real. And,
at the same time, unreal. Fiction and fact and everything in between,
plus some things I can't remember, all rolled into one big "thing."
This is truth, to me. "
-Jack Handy
“Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010" that was just introduced Thursday coming at us.
I'm sure this one will pass with full Democratic/Republican support (except Kucinich and Paul). It seems both parties are trying to one-up the other as to which can be the most despotic against the Bill of Rights for the American People.
Scary times people. VERY scary.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
They sure have their priorities straight, don't they? I feel safe now.
I don't want come off as unduly cynical but I can't help but think that the above statement isn't an unintended result.
Best possible outcome now: failure of any bill to pass, voter unrest with both parties leading to high turnover rate in DC and a higher level of criticality of HC in the 2012 election.
Mandate without a public option is a mugging of the citizens by the govt on behalf of the insurance industry.
Not to mention the potential for language to be inserted that rolls back reproductive rights.
I support a HIGH (100% turn over rate) except it will encourage the right-wing to think that overt racism, bigotry, insanity and threats of violence are rewarding. And frankly they are but its possible if Dems do well this cycle, some sane people on the right might urge people to tone it down.
There are some very doable subsidies in this program to bring everybody into the market. ( I know, I checked. Even my college-student son and his wife could afford coverage under either the House or the Senate version.) And because the government is subsidizing premiums, it won't be long before the government is insisting on cost controls. Already, the Obama administration is pressing for a change to the bill to allow the regulation of rate increases. That's how it's going to get done.
This is what I've been screaming on these pages for months.
Once the health insurance corporations are granted this TEN YEAR BILL, they will get their hooks sunk into not just "some" of the American public, but practically ALL of them.
And it will be IMPOSSIBLE TO EXTRICATE OURSELVES FROM THEM!
This is why I am glad to be in California right now. At least I can put my heart and soul into fighting for Single Payer here (unless the House Democrats manage to take that right away from the states when the final bill is passed).
There is A LOT of confusion regarding states rights to opt out.
****Susie: Perhaps you can do a little digging with your sources to find out the skivvy on where the bills stand right now related to states rights to opt out???***
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
OT. To Susie: I happen to have in my hot hands a copy of the RNCC's latest letter to my mom outlining their "Battle Plan". Would be happy to share it with you if there is some where I can send a scanned copy. Thanks.
There's a contact form at the top of my blog: http://susiemadrak.com.
A former award-winning journalist and lifelong class warrior, keeping a jaundiced eye on the Washington elite.
not the golden rule, is what we have in this country.
leaving moral considerations aside, our lack of capital no longer allows us to reward lack of production. health insurance, derivatives trading, currency trading, none of these activities do a damn thing to improve our current account balance.
all we are doing is fighting over the scraps from masters table.
insurance companies provide no health services, they produce nothing, all they are is a drag on the system, other countries realize this, and put them in their place, we can't do this because our government is owned by the corporations.
we need to get this done so that we can move on to issues like how to keep this country afloat in the coming, resource scarce, times ahead.
this bill is pathetic, single payer is the only moral, and financially sound, solution to the health care problem, but it ain't happening, it was never discussed.
sad to say, successful famine theory at work here, won't get real reform till the system totally collapses.
as winston churchill said "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities."
Better than I could . . thanks.
Our economy is mostly people making money for shuffling money around.
...the effort to kill Obama's base by folk who attribute corporatism to OBama is blatant and throughout this thread.
oh no, i would certainly beg to differ, as someone who had obama signs stolen, and had to keep going back to get more.
he fooled me real good, i believed his highness and his promises is all, and it hurts when someone like sister sarah "warrior princess for god", can sneeringly say "hows that hopey/changey stuff working out for ya?" and have a point.
oh no, i just expect the o to do what he said he would, not pack his cabinet with gs alums, and sell us down the river on hc, thats all.
I can't disagree with much you said but I still believe that Pres. McCain and VP Palin is unthinkable.
how stupid of me to actually think Obama was going to change things.
i do blame myself.
If he's not a corporatist, then what is he? Huh?
. . . but many of use were part of his base.
The base is definitely leaving (not dying), but hey, what do you expect from a bunch of fucking R******.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
and try to handle the truth.
Obama and the Democrats in Congress are corporate tools.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
I pray every day that this bill passes, because if it doesn't I have no idea what will happen to my daughter. She is 18. She has ongoing medical conditions and is unlikely to be able to carry a full load in college next year, which means she will a) no longer be eligible for coverage on our family policy, and b) is not insurable on the private market.
Frankly, listening to all of you whine and complain about the academics of this makes my blood boil. My daughter could die without this bill. Sure, a better bill would be nice. But I'll take her life over your hair-splitting crapola any day of the week.
helps her.
I would gladly give more taxes so that she and EVERY other American could have ALL health needs covered without this endless debate.
As an American, I actually care about the health of my country's citizens and know that lack of access to health care is stopping thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of humans, like your daughter, from finding their potential.
It is wrong.
Because there is nothing in Obama's plan that will offer any help whatsoever for years.
And I, for one, don't need insurance. I need health care, and it's profitable for my carrier to deny it to me.
I remember that, aside from the first few minutes of Sicko everybody in the movie had health insurance. They just couldn't get health care.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
There are two things in the plan which would make a huge difference. The first is that it allows kids to stay on their parents' policy to age 27. It's not forever, but it's something.
The other is that it ends exemptions for pre-existing conditions. I realize that this doesn't fully invest until 2014, but she would be able to stay on our insurance until then. (The reason the exemption isn't implemented immediately is because there wouldn't be enough money in the insurance pool to cover all the people who have been denied coverage until mandated coverage has expanded it. Even if you limit insurance company profits, which I think should certainly be done, you still can't have the one - coverage for all - without the other - all must purchase coverage.)
As to taking college classes, yes, this may be necessary because unless we toss our fragile daughter into the world to make her own way, which is tantamount to throwing her off a bridge, she won't qualify for Medicaid. So she'll sign up for classes. She does, though, have to pass them because if she doesn't, she flunks out.
But this plan will, at the very least, take this issue off the radar for a very long time.
The entire House and 1/3 the Senate face us in the voting booth this fall. Let's take Medicare for All into the elections. Put up or shut up for everyone running.
If that fails, we can still pass this crappy bill two years from now with no delay in implementation.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
this s a poor option, but if she is really sick and she can stay on your insurance plan if she is full time in college, she could certainly sign up for the necessary classes.
Nobody said she had to pass.
But if her health is that dire, this country and how it apportions health care pushed folks into poor choices all the time.
this bill will help you, then that is the trouble with not knowing what you're talking about. Get you daughter on Medicaid or SSDI. That is, if you really have one who needs it.
replies to the conversation.
"All the leaves are brown....."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_o_oC22fs84
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
It's fixed now. Sorry.
She would have to be declared disabled by her illness to qualify for SSDI or Medicaid.
The people of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." J.K. Galbraith
I know of children who even received SSDI for the disability of one of their parents and it continued through their early 20's. Don't give up until you've exhausted all possibilities.
And she's not there yet. Alternatively she could be genuinely impoverished. Such a plethora of choices to access the 'best heath care' in the world.*
*For the irony-challenged, this is sarcasm.
like Jonathan Kellerman's books.
Not that it's relevant, but I do enjoy Reacher. Not fond of Jonathan Kellerman, though.
:-)
Now, to Savannah - we won't give up. But seeing all these people for whom the problem is academic say, 'Oh, never mind, let's don't do anything,' drives me batty.
I know it's not what we all wanted, but I'm saying it really, really is better than nothing! Those of you who have decided Obama is the enemy and the bill is some kind of hoax have bought the insurance company propaganda hook, line, and sinker!
Get a grip!
The corporations are fighting Obama tooth and nail, the media ignores the Administration's messages to us, and you're mad at Obama? So, defeat the bill, embolden the corporations and their GOP minions, and let's see how much we all enjoy our shiny new health care next year.
How do you know it's better than nothing? How is it better than what exists now? I'm not being snarky, but are you assuming some things? Like the reason parts won't take effect until 2014 is because the insurance pool has to accumulate money?
The health sector gave him $20 million; Finance, Insurance and Real Estate gave him $40 million.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?c...
Hey, with enemies like that . . . .
Corruption favors the wealthy.
And into funding extensive ad campaigns to defeat health care?
You show me yours.
Teabaggers provided a distraction, but after months of their BS, it hadn't worked. People don't dislike Obama's plan because they believe it will kill grandma; that was never a concern for any but the far right loonies.
But Obama did something the wingers couldn't do. He beat Medicare for All. Republicans couldn't beat it. It's immensely popular and attacking it would be political suicide.
But Obama simply took it off the table and dangled a "public option" in front of the left as an acceptable substitute.
The tens of millions invested in him by the health industry have paid off handsomely.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
The current bill isn't perfect, but the combination of community rating at the national level with an individual mandate is likely to be the beginning of the end for private health insurance as we know it. Medicaid expansion and insurance subsidies will provide access to healthcare for 30 million more Americans. Caps on out-of-pocket expenses will prevent countless medical bankruptcies. The cost containment measures — including, yes, the hated excise tax — may be modest, but they're the most substantial effort on this front in decades. And most important, this bill, for the first time ever, officially commits the United States to the proposition that every legal resident should have healthcare coverage. That's a huge change both culturally and politically.
And what are the holdups? The absence of a watered-down public option that would have had a modest impact at best? But look: If we pass the current bill, we'll have a meaningful public option before the decade is out. If we don't, we won't.
Read him here.
I have work to do.
. . . and we'll have a "meaningful public option" in ten years.
P.T. Barnum was right.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
and I'm sorry that people find themselves in the position of needing to support this bill because of their loved-ones' situations. I simply don't believe that this proposal, with all its compromises and giveaways to the health insurance industry, is worth supporting. It sucks that your daughter is facing death because our broken health care system, but I'm not going to mortgage the futures of millions in order to save one or two. As cold as it sounds, I think we NEED to see people dying needlessly because they can't afford or can't get insurance, or are "covered" by insurance that doesn't happen to cover their particular problem. Until that starts happening, the true magnitude of the problem will not be made apparent to those who have the power to make change.
The only real solution is single-payer. That's the only acceptable solution. Any other solution is no solution at all, and I oppose it. Health care must not be used as an opportunity to make private-sector profits, or inevitably there will be "losers" who don't get to have health care; and that is unacceptable. This bill is unacceptable.
Nothing. No public option. No expanded coverage for the poor. No elimination of pre-existing conditions. No regulation of rate increases. No single-payer.
Last time we let the health insurance industry defeat a bill, we waited fifteen years for someone to address the problem again - and in the interim, the Bush administration hacked away at Medicare's solvency with a giant Pharma axe. Make no mistake. The crapola you're spouting here is their line. They're rubbing their filthy little hands in glee at having hooked you so completely.
Thanks for your suggestion that my daughter be the sacrificial lamb for your fucking idealism. I'd rather it be your daughter. 'Kay?
people cannot see how obviously true this is.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
and having your head up your ass? Because one or both of these can cause people to ignore the obvious truth. Too bad, huh?
requires regular visits to the doctor. I have insurance, but insurance refuses to pay for a cent of it, so I go to the doctor half as often as I should.
My payments to the health insurance industry are actually resulting in my visiting the doctor *less*, and being completely broke when I do.
I don't give a shit about health *insurance*. I need health CARE. They are not even close to the same things.
Health care and health insurance aren't the same thing. But since our efforts to disconnect them have failed, those with immediate needs are going to have to find a way to get coverage.
We should have been fighting for single-payer. I've done everything I could humanly do - written letters, signed petitions, worked for candidates I believe will get us where we need to be, never missed an opportunity to vote. Corporations own this country, from the media on up, so we may have to get to single-payer through the back door. In the meantime, we need a toe in that door. The current bill is a start which is better than some of you seem to realize. It's comprehensive enough to make a genuine difference, and much of what it needs to make it truly effective can be added later.
will not be discussed for at least 20 years, until people become disgusted again. This bill is not even half a loaf. It's a crumb.
A lot of people thought the original Medicare program was a crumb. It got expanded and improved, and now everybody signs up at age 65 and they're happy with it.
Yes, Republicans have managed to damage it over the years, most notably via Bush's horrific drug benefit to Big Pharma.
But the progam's still hugely popular and important.
Link please.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
The link is my memory. I was fifteen in 1965. My parents were political people. I remember the hoop-la.
Now, really. I have work to do. I'm out.
And most republicans.
It is the beginning of the end.
Right now the only light I can see at the end of this tunnel is that California will pass Single Payer and I am a California resident (only requirement for coverage).
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
my loved ones death' framing. 100s of thousands of deaths and millions of bankruptcies if this bill passes, thanks to Obama the self-centered corporatist Democrats. Progressives are trying to get a 1/2 decent bill that will prevent this from happening. A little gratitude, please.
I'm putting the blame on a) the health insurance industry and their lobbyists, b) our corrupt political system, c) Republicans, d) spineless Democrats, and e) idealists who are willing to hold out for more because it won't cost them a damn thing.
Fifteen years ago, the health insurance industry defeated a comprehensive plan which was much farther-reaching than this one. Now a new bill is on the table - thousands of deaths and bankruptcies later - and this bill is less generous because the health insurance industry is more powerful now than it was then.
Fifteen years from now, what do you think you'll see? A resurgence of progressivism? This is it! This is our resurgence! Stop blaming the Obama administration for the intransigence of the Republican party and for-profit health care and start pushing for this bill to be passed, or this moment will be gone, quite possibly forever.
I'm living with a debilating illness, and work occassionaly at my wifes company. We don't have any insurance and will more than likely never have any (I don't think I'll make it to 65).
I have no problem saying the presidents proposal is majorlly flawed. It's so bad I'm not sure it should be passed. There are so many things wrong with this bill.
O.k. the good ones. Those with pre existing conditions can't be denied coverage - at what cost? Covering an additional 30 million americans - well I'm sure the insurance companies will be happy at that. Setting up regulatory agencies to make sure the insurance co.'s won't be able to charge exorbitant amounts - by whose standards?
Yeah I'm pissed. There is no reason a real reform bill couldn't have been passed. There is no excuse for not trying. All this does is solidify the hold of the insurance companies on an ever increasing amount of the country's GDP.
Really unacceptable when Leadership would have led to a different result.
the Congress won't pass it. Couple the GOP's batshit-insane refusal to allow government to proceed, with the millions of dollars flowing out of the insurance industry specifically meant to defeat this bill, and it's a miracle we've gotten this far.
Single payer is a) not politically possible unless the filibuster rules are rewritten, which is going to take an even bigger effort to get done than healthcare has cost; and b) not feasible in the short-term because it will take years to implement.
As to your objections - the Obama Administration has answered these questions repeatedly. They have a multi-pronged approach to paying for this - an actual plan, which is likely to work! If the problem is that you can't or won't trust anybody, then you aren't going to be happy with any program. Single-payer will still contract with private providers, will require a mandatory buy-in, and will still have to hold costs down through regulation. There is no magic wand here.
Completing the bill we have right now will make it possible for you to get coverage, will hold rates down, and will subsidize your buy-in if your income is too low. Why slap away the help that's being offered - and not just deprive yourself, but all those other desperate people?
So broken, they can't even fix themselves. I agree with Ms. Madrak. I am also to the point where I no longer care whether or not any HCR passes. In fact, it's such an unrecognizable mess, I HOPE it doesn't. This has turned into being the biggest waste of time and money, a distraction of massive proportions. It only proves to me that our Government is not only broken, it's paralyzed. It is of no fault of our President, other than dropping most of the responsibility into the lap of Congress. The very people whose last thoughts have anything to do with actually helping their constituents. The thought of anything other than 'business as usual' terrifies them.
At this point the thing terrifies me, is that due to this massive failure, folks are going to start putting Republicans back in. They're worse than the Democrats.
Government + the Federal Reserve = organized crime
the Head????
"It is of no fault of our President, other than dropping most of the responsibility into the lap of Congress." - JerryO
This is exactly where Obama blew it. From day one.
Had he shot for what he REALLY knew was the best system for our country that would cover everyone, simplify the billing system and control costs, he would have thrown out "Improved Medicare for All" at the beginning, explained it to the American People in a "fireside chat" THEN would have asked Congress to get it done.
The public would have been all over their Republican and Democratic representatives to "JUST DO IT!!"
Instead, he invited the CEO of United Health Plans to lunch at The White House a few weeks after the Inauguration, assigned Max Baucus's aide, a former executive at Wellpoint, to write the Senate Bill, had doctors and nurses arrested at the Baucus hearings for demanding a discussion of Single Payer, and made sure his own personal physician of twenty years, a Single Payer supporter, was DISINVITED FROM ABC'S "PRESCRIPTION FOR AMERICA".
The fish stinks from the head rings true.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
I would rather see NOTHING enacted into law, than to have this passed. At a MINIMUM, there ought to be a public option (single-payer would have been better, but...). I think Obama will sign this because (A.) he's become a shill for the health insurance industry and/or (B.) then he can pat himself on the back and say "I've accomplished what no President since Teddy Roosevelt could". I enthusiastically voted for Obama, but now I'm beginning to regret it.
Good luck with that if you lose your job or (as is more likely) your health benefits, and then develop diabetes or breast cancer or you slip into a clinical depression.
But, you know, it's better to see nothing enacted than to get the whole frickin' cake and eat it too. Because, you know, Obama could have enacted this all by himself and he just refused because he's such a shill.
Jay-zus. Grow up.
We disagree. TTFN
someone differ in opinion from you. That must be it.
Is this the top of the line REAL progrssive argument?
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
begin to solve the problems, it moves things in the WRONG DIRECTION. I agree with her that the bill needs to be killed. Reform would be addressed again within 5-10 years because it would HAVE to be; this bill doesn't kick in until 2014 anyway.
whatever the failings of pbho the LACK of support from dinos, left over lefties,HRC-ers (who'll never forgive the loss of the nomination)and faux progressives had no impact on HRC at all...right?
ha!
AAs will have to figure out where to place votes as the democratic party has splintered. btw AA all the way and didn't vote for pbho
The pres wants to jam this past progressives, with the "republican/conservative" faux bipartisan ideas from the summit (in exchange for no votes) included.
House Progressives know that the Pres and Senate can't be trusted, and they are right. They need to stand on the principle of the PO being included in the reconciliation fix and probably in the senate first. The only way to get it is to have it packaged with the reforms the pres wants and dare him to veto it. He's come out against it again "we don't have the votes", well Begich is now on record to be the 50th vote, whats his excuse?
When Reps say the pres wants to ram it through, they are right. The pres wants to ram it through without the public option so that the madates he agreed to with big insurance has no price controls.
He wanted to ram it through before support built up again.
Don't discount conservatives using that phrase, "jamming it through". They know what he's up to and know that his rush to jamming past progressives will give them the air of legitimacy.
Would you be saying this if a member of your family was facing serious consequences without some sort of help from the government?
I honestly don't think so.
The only way a private-insurer-based health care system works is to do what the Swiss do:
1. mandate insurers offer basic health insurance at no profit
and
2. subsidize the unemployed and impoverished.
Why shouldn't we have non-profit health care insurance?
All those health insurance workers would still have jobs. Of course there would not be any more exorbitant salaries for the CEOs, but they already have too much already.
The insurers can make their profit (if they want to be for-profit) by offering upgrades to private rooms, etc, in the more expensive plans.
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
~
Corruption favors the wealthy.
But considering that the health-insurance industry owns the Congress, how do suppose this sort of thing is going to be enacted into law?
I have a new theory. I think this is part of the Obama blue dogs attempts to make progressivism/liberalism look bad and get blue dog democrats elected. Obama won on this huge progressive change momentum. Then he hired all Clinton/blue dog people. They are trying to move the party right and by doing nothing with this huge majority, they make us progressives look bad. Then they are also telling us to fall in line and do what they say. So that when this november's election happens, people are "mad at progressives because they did nothing that people liked" (this is Obama posing as a progressive and acting like a blue dog) and they vote either republican or they vote democrat blue dog (like that Massechuttes brown guy). And so all of us that want the banks fixed, want single payer, etc. we are left standing in the wind while "business as usual" continues in washington. And what we will have is a "bi-partisan" 2 party system that works only for the special interests and the rest of us (progressives, tea partiers) will be considered the lunatic fringe that doesn't understand how things really work.
Again, Obama is failing to make progressives look bad and punish us so that the New Democrat blue dog party can reap in millions from special interest.
Why does it always come back to Obama? You could say this stuff and be convincing if he had dictatorial powers.
But he doesn't.
Denied trials for prisoners;
Immunized torture and other war crimes;
Immunized illegal spying;
Targeted American citizens for assassination;
Expanded the War in Afghanistan to Pakistan;
Had Canadian drugs declared unsafe for re-importation;
Cut back room deals with slime like Billy Tauzin of PhRMA; and
Took single payer off the table.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Single Payer was never on the table. It was never in the room. It was never even in the house or on the freakin' property!!!!
This is why if you went out into the public and stood in front of your local supermarket and asked a hundred people what Single Payer means to them, maybe 5% would actually understand it.
We've been had.
By Obama, the Democrats AND THE MEDIA.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
truman said "the buck stops here". he's head of the party. now i cling to those conspiracy theories that a secret kabal runs everything.
and what i am describing he was doing didn't take dictatorial powers. just basic political strategy.
I live in CA, have Berkley Values & will vote against anyone who supports this Bill, especially Obama, Big O is very competitive w. Shrub for WPE & very much smells like you know what. Jeers all around.
Is your name Ralph Nader, by any chance? Because this worked so well in the 2000 election.
If you really want to make a difference, start lobbying for election reform.
Nader can spell Berkeley. He just can't get more than 3%.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
The property briefly served as the headquarters of Ralph Nader's Congress Watch and Public Citizen in the 1970s. ;)
Study the symptoms not the virus...
When Ralph Nader sold out to the Chritianistas, did he include the classic Corvair collection he kept in the garage or did that go with the property?
Classic link. Much amused.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
:)
Study the symptoms not the virus...
operation in Berkeley. Just sayin.
We already tried it your way for 8 years with Clinton, again with a Democratic Congress starting in 2007, and now for another year with Obama. This *pragmatism* has never resulted in anything progressive, and has only further empowered corporations and the GOP. Remember Al Gore telling us how NAFTA would be good for the country? It didn't turn out that way, did it? Of course now that it's in place, you can't undo it, which is precisely progressives need to do everything in their power to block this corporate healthcare bill.
solution to a major economic problem has done anything but consolidate corporate power in the long run. The question is whether such reforms improve things sufficiently to improve lives and prevent the kind of deterioration of things to the point that more drastic measures must be undertaken and can be undertaken successfully.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
You're talking DLC gibberish.
Comments are closed on this entry