HOUSE PASSES HEALTH CARE BILL!!

[tomm2thumbs]

Source: cspan

Live from Cspan - The US House of Representatives passed the Health Care Bill, moving the process on to the Senate now to take up their own version of a Health Care plan.

The historic bill garnered Republican support from a single member, Joseph Cao (pronounced Gow) from Louisiana. The final vote 220-215.

In the end, only 39 Democrats voted against the legislation and, again, Republican support from across the aisle was gained with a single vote of support by Rep. Cao (R-LA)

For breaking updates and a vote timeline of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/07/house-health-care-vote-br_n_349468.html

Read more: http://www.cspan.org

---

For those of you who are interested, and want to send a note of support to Cao, his website link is below:

http://josephcao.house.gov/Contact/

[BadGimp]

1. it's a step in the right direction and certainly a victory

[KatherineEgan]

26. How much will I have to pay

every month? Where can I find the information?

[pnwmom]

42. Nothing if you already have health insurance.

If you don't, the final bill will only come after the House and Senate bills are reconciled, assuming the Senate bill gets passed.

[mullard12ax7]

68. How much does health insurance cost a person or family? Do you even know?

I do, anywhere from $300 to $2000 a month, hardly "nothing". That's for basic catastrophic insurance too, with $5000 deductibles and up.

[truedelphi]

88. As someone who was paying $ 957 for the two of us

On Cobra each month, I am glad to see someone else understands that no one out there will be paying NOTHING.


People wil be paying for their premiums, and then possibly co-pays and deductibles.

The good thing about the bill is that it means fewer people will be without anything in the way of insurance.

The bad news is that in terms of cost containment, the only cost that was contained was Congress coming up with the notion that to keep the health CR bill affordable, so that the Federal Government pays only 890 Billion bucks, (Over about a six year period) then huge fines will be levied against those who avoid the insurance mandates.

One is left wondering why it is that the insurers get to continue their excessive gauging, and the treatments that people need may still be unaffordable.

This could well be the case for some people whose deductible is costly enough to prevent them from seeking treatment doing without needed health care. Except this time around, you are paying the insurers a premium.

[pnwmom]

115. If you already have employer provided insurance, this won't add to your cost.

You can just stay on your current plan.

[Techn0Girl]

122. Very true...

But 36 million (perhaps a lot more) Americans without insurance now will be required to make payments to the insurance industry that they were not able to make before

[ooglymoogly]

162. And that my friend is the rub that will make the aftermath of this bill

go down in infamy as one of the worst bills passed ever and will not bode well for the coming elections.

[pattmarty]

234. Thank you very much! I have been saying EXACTLY the same thing on different threads.

[Leopolds Ghost]

270. Some Dems have already written off the working class as "religiously insane deadbeats"

Who don't pay their health insurance when they can obviously afford to eat steak, and drive a Cadillac.

(Hillary called the uninsured deadbeats while actively campaigning to drive a wedge in the New Deal Coalition)...

Social justice is for us folks who want to revive the "outdated" New Deal coalition of leftists, working class, and the upper middle class. or worse, revive the 60s safety net. Who needs a working class when we have successfully gotten rid of working class jobs under the national policy of offshoring and cap rates? Now it's just the upper middle class and highly (assumed to be expensively, you can't just let anyone in) educated that is the core of the party.

Meritocracy, not democracy

:shrug:

[No Elephants]

297. Not necessarily meritocracy, either. Not everyone who has money got it via his or her

merits.

[Techn0Girl]

315. Some Dems have already written off ...

Too true my Brother. In fact when I told the originator of this thread about the woman's issues and how it negatively impacted them all he responded with was "Yawn". With friends like these ....

[bornskeptic]

228. It is still totally false that anyone would be required to purchase private insurance.

Posters can make that claim 10,000 times, but that won't make it true. The individual mandate does not go into effect until 2013, at which time the exchange, including the public option, will begin to function. Everyone subject to the mandate would have the choice of purchasing either a public plan or a private plan. It is true that the Senate Finance Committee bill would require some people to purchase private insurance, but neither the House Bill or thw Senate HELP Committee bill would do so.

[Leopolds Ghost]

272. If that's the case, then why "require" them to purchase it?

collection agencies for those who dont? (That's worked so well for the subsidized student loan industry...)

Why not just offer it to them? like other services?

You could tax the profits of the insurance industry. Instead of relying on fines... does the house bill rely on fines?

Guilty of being uninsured!

No one is required to purchase stamps if they don't use UPS, but the USPS exists as a national carrier service.

Would you have to justify (on your tax return?) why you aren't paying for private insurance before becoming eligible for a limited public plan?

I for one don't want to be asked to justify my personal health care decisions on a tax return.

Health care privacy is very strict, no?

[pnwmom]

293. Because the only way to make it affordable is to have a pool including

healthy people. If you let people wait to pay premiums until they're sick, then it won't be affordable for anybody.

[Techn0Girl]

331. I really don't mind paying for health insurance....

But give me something that I can afford ...
Under this bill I would be paying 2000 a year (I make right now only 24,000 a year - hard times :( ) and I would be getting a policy WITH A $2000 deductable - WTF ??? That's like a crappy catastrophic plan for me.

Got the flu - got bronchitis? It will STILL cost me a couple hundred OUT OF MY POCKET to see a doctor.

At my income level I am barely keeping afloat - THIS bill will cost me $4000 out of pocket before I ever see a dime in benefit.

And I'm not alone - Families of three and four making in the thirties are in the same boat.

If you're wealthy then you benefit fro this bill and it's additions to your already existing insurance.
If you're barely getting by then you will be screwed.

[pnwmom]

350. Does that figure take into account the subsidy?

Since you are barely keeping afloat now, what happens if you have an accident and end up in the hospital for a week -- and you have no insurance?

[northernlights]

275. good.

By that time I should be through MLT school and pretty mucy hirable anywhere in the world.

[Techn0Girl]

317. It is NOT totally False :(

No, I am afraid that you are wrong.

Look here :
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_hcr_complete_summary.html

It's the house ways and means report regarding the bill. Look at the paragraph that says "Individuals"on page 2. It says:

"Individuals are required to obtain health insurance coverage or pay a fee equal to lower of 2.5 percent of their adjusted income above the filing threshold or the average premium on the Exchange."

You are REQUIRED to obtain this insurance (if you have no other) or else pay a federal additional incone tax of 2.5%. You make 50K and don't wan't to pay Blue Cross (or whoever)? Prepare to fork over a $1500 fine on your next tax return.

[pitohui]

257. oh ffs what a bunch of hooey (thanks bornskeptic)

if you can't afford insurance then you weren't getting care to begin with, you were only receiving emergency stabilization and otherwise you were being told tough titty, see if you live to be 65 and maybe we'll give you treatment then, if you can find a doctor who is accepting new medicaid patients -- THAT'S THE CURRENT SYSTEM and it needed to be attacked

people who don't have any $$$ are not going to be "required" to "make payments," i'll tell you a secret, there is no way to get blood out of a turnip

HOWEVER the corrupt health industry will now be "required" to provide treatment to those who previously weren't able to get treatment

i love it when defeatists individuals want to snatch defeat even from the jaws of victory

we must start from somewhere better than nowhere

the current system kills, it is unacceptably bad

[pnwmom]

294. +1. nt

[Techn0Girl]

325. Blood out of a turnip

"people who don't have any $$$ are not going to be "required" to "make payments," "

Did you read the report in the bill? Did you read it at all or are you just mouthing platitudes that you heard?

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_hcr_complete_summary.html

That's the bill.

I make 24,000 a year right now. I can barely pay my rent.
This bill says that I am REQUIRED to purchase crappy private insurance at 2000 a year (that's the subsidized rate by the way) and STILL have a 2000 deductible. Read The Report.

I can't afford that.

If I don't then I will get an additional FEDERAL FINE on my taxes of about 400 bucks a year.

" i'll tell you a secret, there is no way to get blood out of a turnip"

You ever default on a STudent Loan or your Federal taxes there, Sparky?
I'll tell you a secret - not only CAN you get blood out of a turnip - you can mash it to pulp while you're doing it.

Read the Bill (summary) and let people know what is REALLY going on.

[superconnected]

356. Love your post. You are sooo right.

Nothing like someone who can't afford insurance at all complaining about this. I suppose if he suddenly did have an emergency room visit (average 6 thousand) he may have a clue. And if he ever does really have an on going medical issue, then he would also wake up instantly. But instead, ignorance is rolling the dice. It's not a good bill but it's a start and it's a heck of a lot better than the current, which is what that poster is on - no insurance, welcome to bankruptcy and possible death from avoiding to get help because of the cost, when you suddenly need help.

[pnwmom]

292. Not true. They can choose the public option, and if their income is low

they will be subsidized.

[Techn0Girl]

318. You need to read the Bill.

1. There is NO public option.

2. The "subsidy" still requires that you pay 2000 premiums each year to Blue Cross (or whoever) even if you make as little as 25000 each year - WTF ?? Oh yeah , by forking that over you will STILL get a crappy policy that allows you to pay a $2000 deductible each year.

Read the bill

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_hcr_complete_summary.html

It's not what you think.

[DemBones DemBones]

186. Premiums will go up if this bill becomes law.

Employers will also drop employee health insurance and tell them to go on the government plan. This is going to be one big clusterfuck.

[pitohui]

259. premiums ALREADY go up and up and up and up

one yr my husband's plan thru his employer went up 100%!!!!

there is no worse clusterfuck than what we already have, a system where people pay and pay and pay and get damn little back

small business ALREADY has had to drop employee health insurance and tells them "well, get on the plan at your spouse's company," of course you're fucked if you don't have a spouse with a high end job

apparently half the people on DU has a spouse in a six figure a year job with a gold plate plan, a job from which they can never get fired mind you, and so they are happy with the current system which fucks everybody else, insured and un-insured alike

i'm amazed, where do all these rich fucks come from? i thought people like that were maybe 1 percent of the population and that's why we die so much younger than people in countries with universal health insurance

seems to me the statistics don't lie, we are dying younger than all these people in all these other countries with universal health insurance but for some reason there is a large loud contigent on DU who thinks that's just fine

[pattmarty]

299. I totally agree with you. When you look at the 1% rich fucks you have................

...............to remember that we are a country of 304 million people, so 1%=3 million people. Think of Chicago. 3 million is an awful lot of dickheads driving around in Lincoln Navigators and "Cadillac" health insurance.

[superconnected]

357. worse, they have no insurance and are rolling the dice hoping not to need it.

"apparently half the people on DU has a spouse in a six figure a year job with a gold plate plan, a job from which they can never get fired mind you, and so they are happy with the current system which fucks everybody else, insured and un-insured alike"

If they actually do get sick, they're screwed far worse than the health bill's payment requirements.

[niceypoo]

260. Both illegal under this bill

You sound like a republican

[truedelphi]

330. I don't think that employers will be able to drop insurance

At least not while they remain the same business entity that they are.

So if Roscoe's Pizza in suburban Anaheim Calif. doesn't like this bill, they would dissolve and become Suzannah's Pizza. And then they weould turn to hiring people here illegally, who don't care whether Soc. Security is paid, and don't care if health insurance is paid. So in states like Arizona, California, New York and Illinois, it will continue the policy of many jobs going automatically to the underclass, rather than to Americans born here. (This is already one rason why those in the 19 to 24 category cannot find work. To find work in areas with high concentrations of people from the other side of the border, a person must know enough and be willing to tell the employer they will work under the table.)

[pattmarty]

233. Except when the rates go up or your employer changes plans and...............

............your RX is dropped and your co-pays and deductible go up.

[CrispyQ]

371. +1

:applause:

[glinda]

246. Medicare Advantage is in the hole because of the Insurance Companies. No health

care plan is worth anything if it does not either eliminate them or keep them in line. They can't seem to keep the Banks or big corporations in line though so I hope the final Bill is strong for consumer rights and pocket book.

[Techn0Girl]

92. The problem is ...

That if your skimping on health insurance because you are too darn poor (because maybe your job has been outsourced or you were replaced by an H1B worker) then you no longer have that option. 2.5% of your income MINIMUM will be taken anyway and given to the insurance industry.

That's what this bill just did.

Oh, and it MANDATED that insurance companies who participate in the new exchange - every one of them - will NOT pay for abortions. Rape, incest - you name it - it doesn't get paid.

[MajorChode]

124. Here's the part you're convieniently leaving out

You can say the same thing even with countries that have a single payer system. If you have a job, you pay for health insurance. Period. If you are too darn poor, your health insurance will be heavily subsidized or it will cost you nothing.

The Stupidass amendment has about as much chance of reaching the President's desk as a fart in a whirlwind. The process is far from over. A bill will have to go through the Senate, it will have to go through a compromise committee, and it will have to be voted on again. Few (if any) blue dogs will be invited to the compromise table and their amendment, which was never anything more than an attempt at a poison pill, will be nothing more than a bad memory.

[Techn0Girl]

126. I do hope that you are right...

About the Stupack amendment. But my guess is that it will not be withdrawn unless there is an incredible outcry against it.

And by the way - here is how to ragister your displeasure with it to your State Senators...

http://advocacy.barackobama.com/healthcare/campaigns/13/call_scripts/36/call_sessions/new?source=20091103_vic

Regarding your assertion that if you are poor than your health insurance will cost you very little....
I disagree.

In other threads here I pointed out how the Bill itself says that if you make only 25,000 a year (pretty darn little!) you will be required to pay about 2,000 in premiums PLUS you will have a 2,000 deductible on top of that.

As someone currently living on 25,000 a year (unemployment) I can assure you that an additional 4,000 dollars out of my pocket is impossible. Completely impossible.

The figures came from the Ways and Means Committe report Oct 29,2009 that can be obtained here:

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_hcr_complete_summary.html

[MajorChode]

138. You are reading the numbers wrong

It isn't a $2,000 deductible, it's a $2,000 cap. What that means is that if you manage to pay $2,000 out of your own pocket in a given year, you will pay nothing more. That's not the same as a deductible. It's a catastrophic limit that prevents you from going bankrupt if you have very high medical expenses.

[Techn0Girl]

143. That's an excellent point...

It is a 2000 Cap. Nothing will force insurance companies to make their annual deductible for these lower cost policies equal to the annual cap. Nothing will stop them from doing it either. You will have to pay for the policy no matter what they do.

However there is nothing in the bill that limits what an insurance company can charge as a deductible.

Now given the insurance company's record so far....
Do you honestly believe that they will not charge the maximum (the CAP) for the deductible to maximize their profit for these low cost policies? There is nothing stopping them from doing this in the current bill. Nothing at all.

Of course we don't know whether insurance companies will create policies that maximize their deductibles to the CAP limit . They could decide to be nice and have much lover deductibles for their policies, right? It could happen.

But you know what I'm thinking .....

[MajorChode]

152. They wouldn't be very smart if they did

For one thing, the bill does say that they can't charge a deductible or even a co-pay for preventive services.

I haven't read every single line of the bill, but even if insurance companies are free to set whatever deductible they want, I don't think they are going to be able to set the deductible on a per person basis. Since the cap works on a sliding scale, how are they going to establish a deductible that meets everyone's cap, which is based on income? Furthermore, insurance companies have to compete and monopolies are going to be nearly impossible in most markets. Since coverage probably won't be that much different, I suspect most people are going to make their choices based on the deductible.

[Techn0Girl]

156. Wouldn't be very smart ....

"For one thing, the bill does say that they can't charge a deductible or even a co-pay for preventive services."

That's good to keep in mind I suppose. But remember that preventative services are usually (unfortunately) lower cost services. Flu shots cost a lot less than getting a cast in the E.R. :)

Since people are being required to take this insurance - Literally required by an additional Federal tax on their income of from several hundred to several thousand dollars a year - what possible incentive would insurance companies have to make a lower deductible than the maximum allowed by law? They have a captive audience.

Did the passage of "no-fault" auto insurance lower premiums at all? NO, it was an insurance industry initiative to make it illegal to not have auto insurance - ? Premiums rose radically in each state within a few years after the "no-fault" law passage. Why should they have lower rates? No insurance and you can't drive - you can't even register you car in most states without insurance. There is no free market when you are REQUIRED to buy the product.

They have never shown any interest in being generous or having a social conscious thus far.

Don't get me wrong - I am FOR universal health insurance for everybody.
But this ain't it. It's not even close.

[MajorChode]

168. Did anyone actually think that anyone would be able to opt out of buying insurance?

In all countries that have universal coverage, those that can pay, do pay. The only question is how much.

Under the bill that passed today, Medicaid gets expanded and will cover more people, which is a great thing. Those who are struggling and still not covered by Medicaid or Medicare will be subsidized or even if they do have coverage it may get subsidized, which is also a great thing. Where people keep getting wrapped around the axle is they think they are being forced to subsidize private insurance. Not many people are going to fall into that category. The reality is that the vast majority of those who don't presently have coverage are going to either get free coverage or a subsidy. So it's more accurate to say that someone else will be subsidizing private insurance, not them.

Private insurers already see the writing on the wall. No longer are they going to be allowed to rape consumers without getting checked. That's why they lobbied so heavily against this bill. Whether you like it or not, the public option is there and it has its foot in the door. The more private insurers profiteer, the more they will be checked by it which could include putting them out of business entirely as the legislation is expanded. So at the very least it makes them more accountable, which is also a great thing.

[Techn0Girl]

180. Did anyone actually think ....

"Under the bill that passed today, Medicaid gets expanded and will cover more people, which is a great thing. Those who are struggling and still not covered by Medicaid or Medicare will be subsidized or even if they do have coverage it may get subsidized, which is also a great thing."

I'm not sure where you're getting this all from. Firstly the expanded Medicare coverage will only cover an extremely small percentage. No individual who makes more than 15,000 a year will benefit from it at all. Secondly, as I've already pointed out and linked to numerous times before ...this bill will require someone making a barely subsistence wage of 24,000 a year, who has no insurance, to fork over an ADDITIONAL 2 grand a year to a private insurance firm and THEN pay an additional 2000 a year more for his deductible.

That's not a great thing.

This bill requires that all participating insurance companies not pay for abortions be it by rape, or incest or anything else.

That's also not a great thing.


"Where people keep getting wrapped around the axle is they think they are being forced to subsidize private insurance. Not many people are going to fall into that category. "

Actually each and every person who dies not have insurance falls into that category. This bill requires that you pay up to a private insurance company whether you want to or not. Whether you feel you can afford it or not. And if you choose not to then you will be fined by additional Federal Taxes, close to half the amount you had to fork over to the private insurance company.


That's what this bill currently does.
Read the bill.
Read the Ways and Means committee report that I linked to half a dozen times in this thread.

Read. Don't assume



The reality is"

[winyanstaz]

182. Thank you for your information...and for telling us like it is.

I dont see much in this bill except a big handout to the insurance companies and another kick in the butt for the working poor.
Just where is a family barely making it now going to get another 4 thousand a year to pay for insurance and deductables?
If this is the best they can do..to hell with it.

[Techn0Girl]

190. You're Welcome ....

I appreciate the thought.

Some times ...ok most times :) I feel that the Progressive movement's biggest obstacle isn't the GOP but rather the people within the cause who can't see beyond their own noses.

For far too many people, the political process is more like some reality TV episode and they have this single minded team mentality where they're only interested in voting some other team off the island. And it's such small minded thinking that enabled politicians, be they GOP or Democrats like Liberman (and many others) , to continue to screw us over while they kowtow to Big Business and rake in the bucks.

We have to grow bigger than "Yeah Team!".
We have to grow smarter than that.
We have to put in the effort.

[winyanstaz]

194. exactly....

I think a lot of the art of critical thinking has been lost due to todays educational system..or something...hell maybe it's too much tv.
All I know for sure is a large majority of people don't stop to think things out..or even research before they open their yaps.

[musicblind]

266. You ignored all of the information she just gave to you

it seems in political debates... information just isn't important to some people.

[Techn0Girl]

332. What information am I ignoring...

You will have to be specific.

I think that MJ and I are just concentrating on differing aspects of the bill. I am concentrating on the impact it will have to the lower and lower-middle class ,

What is it do you feel that I am ignoring?

[Techn0Girl]

199. ---

[whathappened]

227. health care for all , bs

my wife and i are on disability and she has just got her medicare , to show u what this bs bill will do , it will take from the poor and give to the rich , well wife was waiting to get her disability i was getting my part d plan paid for , as soon as she got her 550 buck check a month , the gov decided we make to much money and took my part d away from me and denied her for part d , we make 1200 to much a year , beware about this new health care , it may end up costing everybody more then it gives , i say vote it down and go after single payer and raise the limit on how much the min amount , we bring in 22,000 , and were turned down , they got allot of loop holes no body see's tell you get into the nuts and bolts , this is just another part d plan , made over to look like a health care for all bill

[No Elephants]

140. That's like saying, if you have a job, you pay payroll taxes, period.

[MajorChode]

145. In some countries, yes

Some single payer plans do implement premiums that way, others have specific income limits. In the House bill, Medicaid is expanded so if you are 150% over the federal poverty level or lower, you pay nothing and if you are as much as 400% of the poverty level your premiums will be subsidized.

So yes, some people who may not be all that well off are going to be paying some out of pocket if they don't have health insurance now, but in some cases they will be getting a lot for very little which is a damn site better than what they have now which is nothing for nothing.

[No Elephants]

157. We should not be mandated to buy from private companies, only from government.

That is very fundamental. It doesn't have to be single payer, but people who are mandated should have AT LEAST the option of purchasing from the government, if not the requirement. This is no different from a government imposed tax. It should not enrich private companies. This is worse than taxation without representation. It's taxation by government that benefits private interests instead of the general population.

I am not even sure this would pass Constitutional muster with any SCOTUS to date, with the possible exception of the shameful Roberts Court.

[MajorChode]

170. On what basis do you think it wouldn't pass USSC muster?

Do you have any relevant case law you can cite? I keep hearing this, but I have yet to see one iota of anything relevant that proves that assertion. I'm not saying it's wrong, I just haven't seen a proof of it or even much of an attempt.

There's all sorts of private entities that enrich themselves off tax dollars. That's nothing new. The difference here is that many people do benefit from this. There are lots of winners in this bill who aren't insurance companies. The biggest losers will be the uber rich who are hit with surcharges to help pay for those in need.

[No Elephants]

173. Sorry, but you would have to read a lot of cases before you come to that

conclusion because it is not any single case or handful of cases. There's never been a bill like this, so, of course, the existence of direct SCOTUS precedents is impossible. However, both conservative courts and liberal courts have been picky about taking private property for a private purpose. A notable exception is a case involving eminent domain being a relatively recent exception.

In that case, Connecticut used its eminent domain power to take private property, supposedly at an unfairly low price, and a private developer was to develop that property and others to improve a blighted area. The case caused a huge outcry. The land remains undeveloped today, and the original property owner remains screwn. With this bill, we don't even have the due process that goes with an exercise of the power of eminent domain.

And, please don't mischaracterize what I posted. I never said I did not think this bill would not pass Supreme Court review. I said the constitutionality of this bill is uncertain, but this court might uphold it. Two different issues.

Remember, the Supreme Court has made some shameful decisions, like Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson, among others. So, just bc a Supreme Court upholds something, doesn't mean something is Constitutional in the abstract. Yes, we (as a nation) had to live with those bad decisions, but the Constitution existed separate and apart from them and so did the issue of the constitutionality of both the laws AND of the SCOTUS decisions.


"There's all sorts of private entities that enrich themselves off (sic) tax dollars."


Yes, but this is different. You are conflating a number of issues. This is requiring one group of private individuals to transfer their money to private companies--amd on an ongoing basis. No use of eminent domain. No use of general tax funds, etc. Could the government tax everyone who doesn't own shoes and give the mooney to my friends and me to build a shoe factory (and allow us to deny a Constitutional right of women while we were at it)? Even if we sell these folks reasonably priced shoes?

That example is a lot closer to this bill than, say, offering developers across the country tax incentives to build affordable affordable housing for anyone who qualifies. We are forcing people to buy something they chose not to buy and doing that, not for the benefit of the Treasury, but for a handful of rapacious companies.

Without at least a strong public option, I don't know where in the Constitution you find that power--and despite the Commerce clause cases, the federal government is still a government of granted powers. So, let's turn this around the way the Constitution was always supposed to work: Where in the Constitution do you see Congress being empowered to do anything like my shoe factory example, or, more to the point, what is being done via this bill?

And, even if the bill is Constitutional, which I sincerely doubt, it is not a good one and forcing people to buy something from private corporations that have proven themselves rapacious and ruthless is not a good direction in which to expand the law. Certainly not a direction that I ever expection the Democratic Party to take.

[MajorChode]

187. I can't follow your argument

conclusion because it is not any single case or handful of cases. Both conservative courts and liberal courts have been picky about taking private property for a private purpose. A notable exception is a case involving eminent domain being a relatively recent exception.

In that case, Connecticut used its eminent domain power to take private property, supposedly at an unfairly low price, and a private developer was to develop that property and others to improve a blighted area. The case caused a huge outcry. The land remains undeveloped today, and the original property owner remains screwn(sic).

You mention the taking of private property for a private purpose, but this doesn't even come close to reflecting the proposal. I'm well aware of the eminent domain case you cited, but in this case the government is not confiscating private capital for direct transfer to someone else. In this bill they are simply imposing an additional tax if you choose not to buy insurance, and the courts have long upheld that congress can impose taxes based on income. So the person most certainly can opt out of buying private insurance. This may not be much of a choice, but neither is not buying auto insurance in just about every state.

And, please don't misquote me or change what I postedd(sic). I never said I did not think this bill would not pass Supreme Court review. I said the constitutionality of this bill is uncertain, but this court might uphold it. Two different issues(sic).

Actually what you said was that you didn't think it would pass SCOTUS muster on any previous court. Whether it would or wouldn't pass in this particular one is largely irrelevant because they happen to be the final arbiter of the US Constitution right now. Any speculation about what they would or wouldn't do is pretty much academic, but one thing I'm reasonably certain is they won't simply author a decision based on words they pulled out of their ass. I would expect some relevant case law in there somewhere. If I were to speculate on what they would or would not do, and I did assume they were heavily biased politically, I can't see that bias working in favor of the Democrats.

Yes, but this is different. You are conflating a number of issues. This is requiring one group of private individuals to transfer their money to private companies--amd on an ongoing basis. No use of eminent domain. No use of general tax funds, etc. Could the government tax everyone who doesn't own shoes and give the mooney(sic) to my friends and me to build a shoe factory (and allow us to deny a Constitutional right of women while we were at it)? Even if we sell these folks reasonably priced shoes?

Actually, yes I think it can, at least as far as tax that is based on income. Congress is free to tax your income at will. Those taxes usually go into the general fund and congress is more or less free to draw money out of the general fund and spend on expenses they deem necessary, including the funding of private enterprises, but that's not even a good analogy because there's no guarantee any money generated out of additional taxes will be specifically earmarked for health care spending whether it be public or private. So the bottom line is that Congress has the ability to levy taxes based on income, and they are free to spend money out of the general fund for expenses they deem necessary. I don't see the conflict with the Constitution.

[No Elephants]

209. A point by point response to your post would be too much work because we seem to be talking

at cross purposes.

However, let me point out again that requiring individuals to buy something from a private company does not involve Congress's taxing power OR its power to spend from the Treasury. This is private individuals being required to take their own money and spend it with private companies when they do not want to do that. That is unprecedented in this country, in every possible meaning of the word.

And eminent domain is a very different "process" from simply enacting a law that requires one group of Americans--not the general population--to spend money with private companies in ways they do not choose to.

Nor is Congress's power to spend from the Treasury unlimited by Constitutional constraints. A statement like that is antithetical to the very concept of our federalist system.

But again, Constitutionality/court was never my main point. It was an aside in my original post, and all I said about it orignally was that I was not sure. Nonetheless, it was the only point from my original post that you chose to try to address.


So, again, I'll end my participation on this subthread with:

"Forcing people to buy something from private corporations that have proven themselves rapacious and ruthless is not a good direction in which to expand the law. Certainly not a direction that I ever expection (sic) the Democratic Party to take."

[MajorChode]

274. I'll end this discussion with this thought

I recognize that you no longer wish to discuss this subject and I'm not going to claim victory just because I happened to get the last word. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I can't agree. You keep assuming (incorrectly IMO) that citizens will be 'required' to buy health insurance, and this just plays into the already over abundant rhetoric that's being thrown out there like shit against a wall. You've built the rest of your argument around that premise and if that fails, so does the rest of it. This bill doesn't require anyone to buy anything. They may suffer on their taxes come April 15th if they don't, but that's not the same thing. You can make all sorts of decisions throughout the year that affect your taxes. Almost every state in the union requires its members to buy auto insurance if they want to put their cars on public roads and this has been universally upheld. You may say that people aren't technically required to buy auto insurance because they can just leave their car parked in their driveway, but I would argue that neither will they be required to buy health insurance under this bill.

[No Elephants]

291. Please see Reply 63. The obligation is not a matter of your opinion or mine.

I didn't want to discuss constitutional law with you anymmore. However, I cannot let a misstatement about the very contents of the bill itself go with no comment.


The bill contains mandates for both individuals and employers. If you do not obey the mandates, you pay a penalty. See, among many, many others, http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/1556149.html It's nothing like a garden variety tax planning decision. And if you don't pay the penalty, you could get your property seized or go to jail.

You can dress it up in any language you want, but, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck, not tax planning.

[MajorChode]

302. I'm not going to let that one go either

I'm not going to argue based on someone's opinion of the bill which doesn't even answer the question. The bill itself is crystal clear and needs no interpretation by anyone.

TITLE V--AMENDMENTS TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986(emphasis added)
Part VIII:
Sec. 59B. Tax(emphasis added) on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3962:

It walks like a duck (amends the tax code), it talks like a duck (they specifically call it a tax), so yes it is a duck. So you may offer rhetoric about it being a penalty and in defense I suppose you could technically call all taxes the penalty for living in a society ruled by laws. Taxes and deductions are often used as carrots and sticks by congress. Nothing new there or even remotely unconstitutional. The property seizure you cite can happen to anyone who doesn't pay their taxes. Nothing new there or even remotely unconstitutional. And the question is not whether such is morally or ethically consistent, but rather constitutionally consistent and from where I sit it obviously is. YMMV.

Don't forget that private businesses have been similarly compelled to buy private health insurance for their employees for decades. Had this been a valid Constitutional question, it would have been asked and answered many years ago.

[No Elephants]

313. Reply 63 cites chapter and verse from the bill, not opinion. You need to look at it.

I understand the tax code and its utility in social policy, and maybe better than you do. Cut the condescension.


Contents of the bill, tax code fine. As far as the constitutional issue, though I said two posts ago that I would not be discussing that one with you any further and I didn't and I won't. You can keep going solo on that one as long as you like.

[MajorChode]

328. Bull butter

There's no section 7203 or 7201 in the bill(dooh!). That's the peril you face when you let others do your thinking for you. When you can actually cite the bill itself, and not what someone else thinks is in the bill, then we'll talk. Fair enough? As you say, you need to look at it. There may have been such language in an earlier version which never made it to a vote, but it would have been redundant anyway. Willfully refusing to pay your taxes has been punishable by jail time for at least the last 60 years or so.

Nothing I posted previously was condescending. I was supporting my assertions with facts and cites from the bill itself, unlike you. You however, most certainly are condescending and if you want to go down that road, that's fine too. I can give a lot better than I get. Most people learned at an early age not to dish it out if you can't take it.

Cheers!

[No Elephants]

334. I did not let anyone do my thinking for me. That's is nothing but more

mischaracterization cum condescion from you.

I did rely on another poster's having looked up the accurate section numbers. The existence of penalties is the substantive point, not the section numbers. Besides, finding a section number is looking something up, not "thinking." And, oh, look, here are two more authors who disagree with you about penalties. They give section numbers, too. http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/66879-pelosi-bill-jail-for-no-insurance.

"Nothing I posted previously was condescending."

Perhaps you are clueless about that, even though I am not the only poster on this thread to point that out to you. Old saying: "When one person calls you a jackass, get offended. When two people call you a jackass, get a saddle."

In other words, when two people reaching the same conclusion about you independently of each other, you should at least consider the possiblity that they are right. But, of course, one who condescends habitually is not likely to do that, either.


Here's a clue. Purporting to "educate" me on tax code, with as though your knowledge of the tax code is vastly superior to mine, is indeed condescending--especially when the information you were purporting to convey to me is about as fundamental and basic as "the sky appears to be above us." And I gave other examples elsewhere on this thread. Direct quotes, with post numbers.

"Most people learned at an early age not to dish it out if you can't take it."

Back atcha. I let several remarks from you to me go by before I said anything at all about it. And I did so only after another poster and that poster called you on the same kind of thing.


"I can give a lot better than I get"

LOL. That would seem to be an accurate statement of your opinion of yourself. So far, though, I have not seen a lot of evidence that your opinion of yourself relative to others is accurate.

BTW, I'd love to know why you think I can't take "it," especially when "it" requires you to mischaracterize or spin something before you can even begin to criticize it.

[Techn0Girl]

319. They may suffer on their taxes ....

"This bill doesn't require anyone to buy anything. They may suffer on their taxes come April 15th if they don't, but that's not the same thing"

Isn't that like saying "We don't REQUIRE that you adhere to the speed limit but if you don't then you may suffer a $500 penalty"

[MajorChode]

338. I don't think so

It's two different things, and remember I'm not judging this bill based on the merit of whether this is right or wrong, just on the constitutionality. I think it's a cold shot in the ass to expect someone to pay higher taxes when they can't afford insurance to begin with. It's kinda like your bank charging you an inflated overdraft fee. I might be able to see it if they could get health care costs down to the level of other countries and it weren't such an inflated burden to the have nots.

[bornskeptic]

236. No, they shouldn't be mandated to buy from government either.

They should have a choice, as they do under the house bill.

[No Elephants]

295. Please see Replies 63 and 309. Congress and supporters of this bill (or of whatever Congress

chooses to hand them) can play all the semantic games in the world. However, the only so called "choice" the house bill gives you is to purchase insurance (unless the government does that for you), or to pay a penalty in return for absolutely nothing, or to be a criminal. That is not a "choice" as most people understand the term "choice."

And speaking of choice.... damn Stupak to hell. Oh, sorry. Too late for that.

[No Elephants]

174. Still, the point is that most of what government pays for is funded by people with

income and most people with income are working people. So, saying people who work pay for single payer health care is not very different from saying that people who work pay for public roads.

People on welfare don't pay taxes. Therefore, they don't pay for anything publicly provided. People who work do. And, it is not only people who work, but all people with taxable income, who pay for anything publicly provided. Taxes pay for things that government provides to all of its citizens (or public borrowing, when government income from taxes does not suffice).

This is not a surprise, nor is it limited to single payer.

[pattmarty]

235. Oh, okay. Now I understand. As the bill moves forward it gets "better".

:sarcasm:

[MajorChode]

285. As the bill moves forward, it changes

Suggesting otherwise is woeful ignorance of the political process.

[pattmarty]

296. Did you see the sarcasm "thingie"? It AIN'T gonna "change" for the better.

I know how the shit works, but thanks for your suggesting my "woeful ignorance".

[No Elephants]

300. That's okay.

Major Boor suggested I pull things from my ass and throw shit against walls.

If it's any comfort, IMO, most people reading your other post would have understood it as implying that the bill was likelier to get worse with Senate input, not more progressive.

[pattmarty]

301. BINGO!

[MajorChode]

304. I guessed this thread would eventually descend into name calling

I didn't guess it would come from you as I didn't previously believe you were so intellectually bankrupt to resort to such childish tactics. I didn't suggest anything of the sort. I stated that there most certainly is wall shit rhetoric out there and if you don't believe there is, you have been living under a rock for the past few months. Any other inferences are your own.

Have a nice day.

[No Elephants]

311. Meh. I think you were careful to avoid direct statements, but you did IMPLY about me and

Pattymarty pretty much what Pattymarty and I (respectively) said you implied about each of us.

From your reply 197 to me (after you asked me to cite SCOTUS precedents to support my Constitutional comments (which I had said I was not sure of in the first place) and I replied--accurately--that SCOTUS precedents exactly on point simply do not exist yet):



“Any speculation about what they would or wouldn't do is pretty much academic, but one thing I'm reasonably certain is they won't simply author a decision based on words they pulled out of their ass.”



If that was not an implication that my comments were not words that I had pulled out of my ass, it was a very odd remark.



Then, from your reply 208 to me:

“You keep assuming (incorrectly IMO) that citizens will be 'required' to buy health insurance, and this{(meaning my alleged continual, incorrect assumptions} just plays into the already over abundant rhetoric that's being thrown out there like shit against a wall.”



Sure, you implied nothing at all about me. What you really meant was that everyone else’s “over abundant rhetoric” is shit, but what I “incorrectly” add to the pile of manure is nothing but platinum, right?

:rofl:



Then Pattymarty implied, with a sarcasm symbol, that the bill was going to get “better” as it progress and your Reply 208 to him was


“As the bill moves forward, it changes Suggesting otherwise is woeful ignorance of the political process.”


Except Pattymarty never suggested the bill would never change as it moved forward. You mischaracterized Pattymarty's post, then dissed your own spin.

I guess this does not imply that I’m intellecually bankrupt, either.



“I didn't guess it would come from you as I didn't previously believe you were so intellectually bankrupt to resort to such childish tactics.”



I think describing those gratuitous comments as boorish implications is accurate. Then again, when I want to diss someone, I have the courage to do so directly, rather than hiding behind your technnique.

If you don’t like being called on your game of implying things without stating them directly, trying dialing back the spinning of other people's posts cum condescension when posting to those who disagree with your position.

And I almost always have a great day. Thanks anyway.

[MajorChode]

333. Let me see if I can remember how this goes again...

Oh yes, here it is...

And, please don't mischaracterize what I posted.

I'll ask you to follow your own advice, but I doubt you will.

The first quote was clearly aimed at the USSC, not you. I find it quite odd that you'd even suggest otherwise. Kinda seems like you're grasping at straws at best, and duplicitous at worst.

The 2nd quote was clearly aimed at others which even you acknowledge and I clearly qualified that it was just my opinion that you were incorrect, which you conveniently ignored. Again one can only guess at your intentions here. Your inferences aren't within a cab ride of my implications and I was very respectful of your opinions at all times and clearly implied as much several times.

And no I don't believe you have the courage you claim. Your name calling reply wasn't to me directly, but rather to someone else, so you didn't even have the stones to offer it straight up to your target of opportunity. And name calling is still a personal attack so let's not pretend otherwise, OK? Your defense of your behavior is quite lame. I followed the rules of this board, you didn't. It's that simple. I could have easily alerted on your post and it would have been removed, but I prefer to let it stand as evidence of your intellectual failings. It reflects much more on you than it ever will on me.

If you had the character, you'd be shamed by your own behavior, but I'm not holding out much hope for that.

This is all I have to say to you in this thread, and unlike you, I actually mean it. You shot any chance at intelligent discourse straight to hell with your childish name calling and ridiculously false accusations. Congratulations.

If you feel the need for the last word, fire way. It means nothing to me.

[Techn0Girl]

335. Name Calling....

"I could have easily alerted on your post and it would have been removed, but I prefer to let it stand as evidence of your intellectual failings. It reflects much more on you than it ever will on me."

I put on ignore the person you are talking about so I don't know who it is but I have noticed ( as has everyone else here lol ) an interesting number of trolls on DU that exhibit the behavior that you describe.

You and I do not agree on this bill either but at least I feel we could discuss it together and at worst agree to disagree on some aspects of it. Unfortunately there are others here who descend into the most childish of rhetoric, name calling and innuendo. I have no idea why they are allowed to remain here and frankly it makes me regret becoming a member here sometimes. I just wish the place were policed better :( .

I am sure that at least some of these people are plants and astroturfers designed to obfuscate the debate to the benefit of the opposition - but unfortunately the vast majority of them are likely just misguided individuals who act like this everywhere.

I suggest that you ignore whoever this is as have I (and likely a lot of others) and place your efforts where they matter.

Best of luck to you - we may disagree but we can learn from each other.

[MajorChode]

337. I have respect for people who disagree with me

Sometimes even more so than those who agree. What I will agree on is yes, we can learn from each other. Nobody is right all the time, and most of us are doing well to stay north of 50%.

I'm not going to claim I always take the high road, but I try very hard to be respectful of other people's opinions so long as they are willing to be respectful of mine. I may ride the line of what is considered appropriate behavior here, but at least I try to stay on the correct side of it. I'm not always successful. However I don't have any tolerance for blatant name calling or false accusations. I just won't play those games. I'm not going to ignore the offender unless they just go ape shit and start licking the wrong frogs or some other type of bizarre behavior. I have only one on my list that I think meets those qualifications. If you've ever been a moderator of something like this, you learn that it's never an easy chore. There's always the risk of under or over moderating and few can agree what that means. Even the few instances that were dealt with recently nearly caused a meltdown and I don't think more than a handful were involved.

I do have at least decent health insurance so perhaps I don't fully understand the situation people like you are in, but I do try to interject empathy in my reasoning. I understand we face a real danger of getting nothing, and I've already seen this effort fail once. Failure will mean adversity to a large group of people who can ill afford failure. I have empathy for them too. I don't think I'll be affected much no matter how this turns out, but I would like to see the US move towards universal coverage and I remain optimistic that we'll get there sooner rather than later.

[Techn0Girl]

340. Amen my friend ....

Amen.

[MajorChode]

305. Your crystal ball must be quite clear

n/t.

[pattmarty]

306. I'm just going to say this once, because of my "woeful ignorance"................

..............Look at where the "reform" started earlier this year. Now if you can actually say with a straight face that shit has not deteriorated since then you are truly an eternal optimist. Now you do know the Senate has to come up with a "single" bill AND pass it, then it will go to a Senate/House conference for more "changes", THEN it has to be passed AGAIN by BOTH Houses BEFORE it even gets to "Bill" Obama's desk for signature, right?

[MajorChode]

307. My comments were in regard to the Stupak amendment

So you can continue to pretend they were about something else, but I'm not going to play those silly games.

Have a nice day.

[Techn0Girl]

320. It Changes

Yes, it has already changed from "Universal Health Care" to a "Public Option" to "Mandated Purchase from Private Insurance"

How many more changes so I have to see to realize I've been screwed.

"Wait and see" is not a sensible option.
I waited. I trusted. I saw. I got screwed.

[pnwmom]

114. I said nothing IF you already have it. In other words, if your company

already provides you with health insurance, this bill won't cost you anything.

[truedelphi]

118. Your argument was poorly worded.

I took you to mean that you believed that now those who have insurance will be paying NOTHING.

You apparently mean that those who have insurance will not see a difference in premiums? I guess that is what you mean. (?)

But that may not be true either.

[No Elephants]

142. Even that is not entirely accurate. Bosses have been skipping raises because of the rising

costs of health insurance.

[Leopolds Ghost]

258. Why do you assume everyone here's A) employed B) adequately insured? this bill has nowt to do w/them

I find these assumptions questionable in light of the fact that the bill is putatively designed to "help" the uninsured and people who can't afford coverage -- by forcing them to purchase (95%) private insurance.

The fact that industry lobbyists wrote the bill is incidental.

Why don't you force them to purchase phone service under the next Telecom Act? That'll lower phone rates.

[Techn0Girl]

326. "The fact that industry lobbyists wrote the bill is incidental."

ROTFLMAO !

[DarleenMB]

189. $317 a month with a $10,000 deductible and that's just for ME

BCBS has raised my rates TWICE this year just because they could.

this bill is a joke. Forcing people to buy insurance is not going to contain the costs. Putting a choke hold on the insurance "industry" is what is required.

I'm so mad my hair is on fire. I just emailed Pelosi telling her and the Dems thanks for selling us down the river.

all hail the corporate state.

[christx30]

284. I look at it like this:

If the government is forcing people to buy something, then there is no incentive for the company that provides it to lower the rates that it charges, or provide good service. It's not like the customer is going to be allowed to make their own decisions now. If everyone in the country was required to buy a pizza each week, then Pizza Hut could charge whatever they wanted to. There is no floor. If you don't like what Pizza Hut charges, if you don't like pizza at all, or, if you feel you can't afford it, it's not their problem. You either buy the product, or you take the consequences.
The same thing happened with the digital converter boxes for television. If the government is giving $40 vouchers for each one, there is no reason for the manufacturer to charge anything but $40 for each one.
The insurance companies will charge whatever they want to. They can't deny coverage for anything or raise rates, but they can force you to buy coverage for whatever they want. Can't deny coverage to smokers? No problem. We'll just jack up the rates for the non-smokers. Can't tell the heroin addict to go to hell. No problem. We'll just force EVERYONE to buy drug/alcohol coverage, whether they drink or not. People that make good decisions are going to pay for the people that make bad decisions.
It's the law of unintended consequences. This is a major power grab by Washington. Don't be fooled. Control of your health care is control of YOU.

[Scruffy1]

289. Just looking at my rates for 2010

My policy is going to over $1450 per month from about 1200 per month or an increase of over 20%. This bill will do nothing for me but perhaps it is a start to universal health plan.

[Swede Atlanta]

218. I don't necessarily agree................

In principle you are right. Although I haven't read the bill in detail I understand it prohibits denying of insurance based on pre-existing conditions, cancellation of insurance due to illness or medical condition and excessive premium increases based on age or health.

What the insurance companies will say is that now that they can't make "business decisions" based on risk, they will be incurring greater expense covering sick people. So they must increase premiums significantly to account for that increased risk or cost.

So I full well expect that when these provisions go into effect in the next several years, we will see the premiums paid by employers and the portion of those premiums paid by employees will increase significantly.

The only mechanism that will counter this trend is if there truly is a strong public option that serves to counter private insurers. Without that or if participation in that is so limited as to have no deterrent effect on Cigna and company, I fear a significant increase in the premiums for private policies.

[glinda]

247. bingo!

[Leopolds Ghost]

256. Why do you assume people here already have health insurance? Under this bill, ALL individuals "must"

PURCHASE (not be eligible for, purchase) health insurance.

That is the central provision of this bill. Anyone who thinks
they will take it out, is a fool, or worse, actively deceiving
DUers into thinking this is UHC.

Anyomne who says "if you don't have HIC wait until the final bill
before complaining about how you're being forced to purchase insurance"

knows perfectly well that's a strategy to shut up the "deadbeats"
in the party

(Note that it's always "you" -- i.e. "poor deadbeats" -- not "we" --
i.e. the supporters of the current bill -- who are telling people this.)

BTW, "must" does not cover civil disobedience, folks. Keep that in mind.

Private health coverage is a matter of personal health privacy rights,
same as abortion and SELECTIVE SERVICE.

[Techn0Girl]

321. "Why do you assume"

Because Democrats can drink as much Koolaid as Republicans apparently.

I was a member of Organizing for America for a short while but I got out.
It was too much like selling Amway.

[Obi_Wan_Kenobi]

377. The cost is nothing? Did you take the blue or red pill - LOL

Your message subject line read as if you answered "what with this cost me" with a "nothing" for those who already have health insurance. If I understood you right, here's a few words ...

Covering more people, especially with mollasses government intervention, will cost the entire country more. All that extra cost is going to catch up with every person in every corner. Even the illegals. Say some migrant in El Paso goes into the store to buy milk with cash from being paid under the table. Even that illegal will pay more for milk. Because the milk, the container, the shelf it's on, the fuel that delivered it, the salary of teacher of the clerk who took the money, will all go up incrementally.

There is no way to escape paying for this. It would be like trying to escape the machines in the Matrix which were after Morpheus' ship. Only 1 in a million by a miracle may evade for a while. But the expense will almost be like fluid.

[Techn0Girl]

85. You can find tha information here....

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_hcr_complete_summary.html

and a summary of it here:

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/heres-lowdown-are-affordability-credi

Bottom line - if you don't have health insurance you will have to pay
about $3000 if you make about 30,000 a year. Plus you will have $1000 deductible - another grand

If you choose not to opt in then you will be federally fined via an additional tax of up to several thousand a year.

[creeksneakers2]

128. I'm, not sure it reads that way

The percentages at crooks and liars appear to be percentages of plan costs, not income. Politico has a different method of calculation which is 2.5% of income over $9,350 for singles.

[Techn0Girl]

131. Read the bill yourself....

This comes from the House Ways and means committee...

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_hcr_complete_summary.html

(it's a politico link but links directly to an Acrobat document from the W&M committee)

The table there says "Premium Limit as Percent of Income"

You have to go ahead and read it. It will take time

[lovelyrita]

286. If that table was correct, health insurance would not be affordable

for me.

I have an unusual situation with my husbands coverage. He was laid off in January and is still looking for work. I could add him to my insurance at work but my employer plays the vast majority of the premium for the employees but none of it for family members. So adding him would be an extra $100 a week which is a lot when you're take home is in the $500 range. Cobra is cheaper for him and that's what he is on. When that runs out, I don't know what we'll do besides hope he can actually find a job.

[Techn0Girl]

322. The table comes ...

directly from the House Ways and means Committee - October 29 revision.

It's correct and it's what the supporters of this bill do not want you to know.

[Sebass1271]

261. what? This is total bullshit!. My expectations for pelosi wer

high. Why the fuck did she do this to us? I respected her tennacity and interest in reforming healht care, but i would have never thought in a million years he would sitck it to us like this.

Why?

[samsingh]

99. how much will you save if you get sick?

[pnwmom]

116. Some people are certain they're the ones who will never need it.

At least, not till they hit Medicare age.

[No Elephants]

154. Wish that were the only reason to oppose this bill. I really do.

[No Elephants]

153. That argument works the same if no bill at all had passed. This bill was

supposed to improve health care and make it more affordable, not transfer more wealth to insurers.

[No Elephants]

137. Self delete.

[rury]

37. Wonderful, wonderful

news!!!!!!

[No Elephants]

149. Why? Do you have some need to enrich the health care industry even more?

[SandWalker1984]

71. Did you also cheer the passing of NAFTA?

There were Democrats that cheered when NAFTA passed and signed into law by Clinton. Did you happen to be one of them? Gee, think that had anything to do with our current high unemployment rates? Detroit thinks so.

What about the Patriot Act? There were Democrats that cheered when that was passed too. Where are they now?

I could go on and on, but I think many of you will get my point.

I refuse to cheer a bill that was written by the health insurance corporations. Not only that, the Senate, which is even more owned by the corporations, will make this bill even more regressive and to the advantage of the corporations that are already abusing us, their customers.

Tell me how MANDATES to buy their insurance will make them treat us better?

[Techn0Girl]

87. Thank you!

Thank you for making that point.
My industry (Computers ) was decimated by NAFTA and H1B visas. Wages in my industry are ONE THIRD of what they were 10 years ago.

Thanks again.

People are so quick to cheer .
Bread and Circuses.

Same old formula still seems to be working for a lot of us.

[Leopolds Ghost]

264. The "haves" on DU no longer assume anyone here is a "have not".

And since the mandate only affects "have-nots", it's like talking to the folks who cheered mandatory voter ID on the grounds that "most people already have an ID."

so anyone who doesn't is acting outside the norm and must be brought "into the system" by force if necessary.

That's the grounds for most "progressive" policy these days -- regimentation, not social justice or social safety net.

we're back to the concept of America as a vast "melting pot" where there is only one solution, that must be applied by force, one approved viewpoint, one approved culture/language, one approved income group (class has replaced race).

The decline of liberal discourse in print has not helped.


Oh yeah, and: states may be able to opt out of providing public plans, but individuals may not opt out of purchasing private plans. It's the British Colonial system of commerce all over again...

[No Elephants]

135. It's a victory for private insurances companies.

[pecwae]

202. Must have been some great parties

with the insurance lobbies last night in DC.

[No Elephants]

237. Not only insurance. Health care is big, big business. The stocks will go

down some short term, I think, but they will come back.

[Blandocyte]

2. Wooo effin hooooo

Yeah, baby!

[nyy1998]

3. Who was the lone Republican to vote for it?

Was it the COngressmen from new Orleans?

[alp227]

17. yeah, Joseph Cao, who succeeded convicted felon William J Jefferson

I wonder if Jefferson, a Democrat, would've voted for this?

[quiller4]

35. I'm so glad he did so GOP leadership can't claim that Rs didn't give a single vote.

Thank you Mr. Cao.

[tomm2thumbs]

147. A bi-partisan bill -- the GOP must be steaming themselves alive

with the smoke coming from their own ears. bwahahahahah

[pitohui]

265. jefferson would have voted for it

say what you like abt jefferson, he tried to take care of his constituents

don't know much about cao, he sorta came out of nowhere, but i think he realizes that a lot of his constituents are poor/unemployed

the destruction of the public hospital system including charity hospital after katrina means that the un-insured should they get hurt or sick face serious problems in new orleans that they wouldn't have previously faced (charity treated on a sliding scale based on income/resources)

this community would be well served by a public option and/or a new public hospital

[Scurrilous]

4. Great news!

:thumbsup:

[Turborama]

5. 1 Republican just voted yea

I wonder who that is.

[nsd]

8. Rep. Joseph Cao (R-La)

He beat William Jefferson, who was under indictment. Very Democratic district, went 75% for Obama.

[Secret_Society]

6. By Senate standards, the House just passed a bi-partisan bill

Thanks Congressman Cao

[bluevoter4life]

7. WOO HOO

Not perfect, but a small step in the right direction.

[Turborama]

9. The chairman of the Republican National Committee thinks being on the phone to Faux

...is more important than doing his job.

[Best_man23]

14. Of course its more important for the RNC chair to talk to ClusterFox

He serves THEM. ClusterFox comes before the American people.

[No Elephants]

176. Being on the phone to FAUX is a big part of his job. And I don't say that sarcastically.

Don't know what you think his job is, but a huge part of the job of the RNC chair is to raise money for the RNC and to get Republicans elected and re-elected.

Most of that is done via public relations, of one kind or another, including explaining and supporting the Republican agenda and positions taken by Republicans. If I were the Republican Party Chair, I'd be on TV every chance I had, a lot of it on Fox.

[Turborama]

351. If he wanted to actually explain the Republican agenda and position

He should have been there and had running interviews with all the media, not just sit at home on the phone to Faux and preach to the perverted. The main reason I'm pointing it out is because it's yet another example of Faux being the RepubliCON's communications arm.

[UTUSN]

10. K&R #8!1 n/t

[BumRushDaShow]

11. Phase 1 complete.

Now for the Senate.

[Enthusiast]

12. I hope the details are

acceptable.

Now for more football!

[high density]

13. CNN.COM asleep at the wheel

"New mom inspired to lose 71 pounds"
"Close vote on health care expected tonight"

At least everybody else has banners.

[alp227]

19. Well CNN.com finally got to it

they're just tardy, i guess.

[still_one]

48. CNN is crap, like most of the other cable/satellite pseudo-news channels

I can only assume they will have every republican commenting on this, without a counter Democratic point of view

[ooglymoogly]

148. They will do what they always do; Trot out a DINO or DINO's

AKA as bluedogs to fill in for a real Dem.

[No Elephants]

161. "Real Dem?" What the hell does that mean anymore? The whole (I think) Progressive Caucus

with the exception Kucinich just voted for a bill that requires people to pay their money to private insurance companies and forbids payment for abortion, even in cases where the mother may or will die as a result of the pregnancy. Maybe we should be surprised that costly AIDS medications were not excluded, too.

House members asked for a meeting with the President on this in August. He gave them a conference call in September instead. On the conference call, though, he agreed to meet with them, but the meeting never happened until the last couple of weeks. At that delayed meeting, he advised them to declare victory, no matter what kind of public option passed.

And this was supposedly the more liberal of the two Democrats who had a realistic shot at the nomination of the Democratic Party.

As far as I can tell, oh so slightly right of moderate Republicans ate the lion's share of the Democratic Party some time ago and haven't burped yet. And all thirty true Progressives who somehow escaped the cannabalization of American politics by Republicans post here. We're aging, though. Soon, the Republicrats and Demlicans will have the country to themselves.

Wake up, America.

[euphoria12leo]

15. It's about time!

[question everything]

16. Great. Even baby steps are better than none

No doubt, most of us wished it were different, but we have to show the voters that the skies are not falling and that what we have right now can only get worse.

[No Elephants]

155. Not when the baby steps are mandatory and they benefit private insurers.

[question everything]

308. Well, yes. The whole idea of insurance is to have a large pool

so that the young and the healthy "carry" the old and the sick.

When you have a single payer, this, too, is a wide pool supported by our taxes. For many here to object to "mandatory" and to "taxes" is either ignorance or simple wishful thinking.

I have not doubt that, down the road, we will straighten many of the bills. But we have to start someplace, and this is as good as any.

[newspeak]

359. yes, mandatory with a strong public option or single payer

where there is a large pool of participants and low overhead costs because it is not A FOR PROFIT ENTERPRISE that must meet profit requirements and keep their shareholders happy. If you think that the insurance industry will be lowering cost for the consumers without strict regulation, think again. Because, there first priority is for profit and shareholders. So, yes a large pool of mandatory participants is great for a government program not so much for a corporate one.

[mystieus]

18. Rep. Joseph Cao (R-La) Thank you!! lets email him :)

[janet118]

33. You can't email from his website . . .

unless you are in his district or enter a phony zip code.

[Hekate]

40. Phony ZIP code would work. It's how I write to Harry Reid: I use my son's ZIP with my own address...

Son lives in Las Vegas.

Hekate

[tomm2thumbs]

49. you can use the local office zip code on that page - 70119

[Posteritatis]

109. Unless he did so to deprive the Dems of the "not one republican supported this" talking point (nt)

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stevedeshazer]

22. You can't afford not to.

Party pooper.

[Patchuli]

25. You mean YOU'RE PAYING FOR THE HEALTH CARE BILL?

Whoaaaaaa....thanks!

[emsimon33]

21. Thank you for the post. Who were the 39 DINOs?

[ourbluenation]

28. Don't know about the dino's but I think Kucinich voted no. n/t

[Techn0Girl]

159. If Kucinich voted no ....

That tells you something right there.

Wasn't he one of the few who voted against the war?
Wasn't he one of the few outspoken against the Patriot Act?

Think.

[zoff]

163. Would he have voted the way he did IF his was the deciding vote?

His NO vote would have been in protest, knowing that the bill would still pass.

[No Elephants]

167. Yes, I believe he would have. The vote was quite close, despite the one Republican.

So, he had no guaranty his vote would not be the deciding one.

[zoff]

193. All principle, no politics.

We truly need more like him.

[No Elephants]

243. Apparently, we need at least 209 more like him in the House alone.

I don't know of any other Democrat who voted against this bill because the public option is weak and it withholds funding for abortion.

[zoff]

160. Kucinich voted NO,

[winyanstaz]

183. Because he read the damned bill.....

And once again we will be kicking ourselves in the tush for not listening to Kucinich more.

[winyanstaz]

184. Women are the big losers in this bill too.....

No help for abortions even in cases of rape...incest..etc..this bill sucks and once again the religious right are writing the laws.

[pitohui]

267. whereas right now many women are big losers getting nothing for nothing even cancer

please i'm a wimmen and i went 15 yrs w.out any health insurance or health care

yes it would be better if women got help for abortions HOWEVER they are not getting help for abortions now plus they are not getting help if they have fucking cancer -- during my time w.out insurance i was twice found to have growths that could have been serious -- i had to scramble to find a way to have them remove and tested

a friend of mine also had to have growths removed and tested, w.out insurance he frankly has not gone back for any of the aftercare, he simply can't do anything other than hope for the best

don't let an ideal world that's never gonna happen be the enemy of doing something that saves lives now

[winyanstaz]

375. I am also a woman and I also have no health care.....

and I am in urgent need of a doctor.
But women will DIE like they did before there was abortions available..in back alleys and bathtubs with coat hangers stuck in their wombs...we CANNOT let that happen again!
And do not give up women having equal rights and settle for just any old crumb.
We can have what we need for everyone but ONLY if we fight for it.
(actually I do have an insurance through tri-care...but my co-pays are so large and my military widows pension so small...I cannot afford to see the Doctor anyways..I would have to chose between heat and food if I did..they want us to pay the first 150.00 of every visit...sheesh thats more than my heat and half my groceries so to me..its useless.)

[Herrlk]

352. Women's healthcare and privacy

Stupak-Pitts Amendment is a direct attack on the freedom and privacy of American women. www.HERR2010.com

[DemBones DemBones]

188. Bingo. Kucinich voted against the Patriot Act and the Iraq war.

Kucinich actually reads bills before voting.

[Justyce]

251. When Kucinich and Howard Dean both are against something, you

can bet your ass they're right.

[BluDemocratGirl]

41. The 39 Dinos were listening to and hiding behind LIEberman

LOL

[bjobotts]

127. Nonsense.there are some unacceptable parts to this bill to the point of rejection.

[bjobotts]

130. especially if your pro-choice or not allowed into the PO

[bjobotts]

132. It's always the progressives that have to compromise their positions.

[No Elephants]

171. No, they don't have to. No one has a gun to their heads. And even then, they'd have a choice.

They choose to compromise their positions. Over and over, they choose to.

I voted this week in the Boston Mayoral election. Depending on the final bill here, that well may have been my last Democratic vote. I was planning to vote for Capuano to fill Kennedy's seat in January bc he is far more Progressive and more experienced than Coakley, the frontrunner. (Yes, the more conservative and less experienced Democrat is the frontrunner in "liberal" Massachusetts.)

If Capuano had voted against this bill, I would have written him the biggest check I could. Now, my plan is hang on to my money and check into the third party candidates more closely. If I can't vote for them, maybe I'll write in Kucinich, just so Joe and Mahtha (sic) get the message.

I am done with people who vote for their re-election or for their corporate donors, rather than for what they say are their Democratic principles. I can see it now and again, but this is the most important bill since the Civil Rights Act. I would never have voted for a Democrat that had voted against that and I will not be voting for any Democrat that voted for insurance companies and against choice. (And, I am even against abortion for me, but for choice for all other women.)

(RIP, Dave. I"ll never betray you.)

[BlueDemKev]

50. 39 Defectors

The vote is posted at www.house.gov.

Some names included Shuler, Boyd, Adler, Taylor, mostly southern Dems from rural districts.

[Crosseyed Jesus]

64. Reject The Rejects

The 39-Rejects should be kept on a list. And come next election, do everything possible to eliminate them from power, altogether. In my opinion most have just set their epitaph's.

[Divine Discontent]

86. not likely, unfortunately

in these backwoods districts, they're not writing their epitaphs (no apostrophe in plural words), they're writing their readmission tickets back into another 2 years into the House.

[No Elephants]

172. Can't this time. The bill sucks for progressives as much as it does for Purple Snakes.

[makeanoise]

248. why did Kucinich vote against it?

he's one of the most liberal Reps out there, anyone know?

[BlueDemKev]

353. Kucinich

Because Dennis Kucinich is a little like Ralph Nader. He won't support something unless it is purely, 100% progressive. Unfortunately, it's an unrealistic goal.

[newspeak]

360. because he actually read the bill

and knows that in the end, the public is going to be royally screwed by health industry interests.

[tekisui]

341. It's is the same old blue mutts.

[Liberty Belle]

93. I couldn't find a vote on the bill, just the amendments.

Can you post the link to the actual vote?

[BumRushDaShow]

103. Link to vote

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll887.xml

[Farzan]

192. The Difference between Dems & Reps

Reps stick together no matter what. That is how they have been doing such effective damage.

[No Elephants]

232. Demlicans and Republicrats are BOTH getting what their big donors want.

Sometimes, folks in Congress hit exactly what they aimed at.

[No Elephants]

215. Kucinich.

IMO, the biggest defectors are those who broke The Pledge to vote for this bill.

[alp227]

23. Great job House...but disappointed to see they sucked it up to the antiabortion crowd

I mean, without public funding for abortion, what are we gonna do about all the pregnant teens and other unwanted pregnancies? I don't see how conservatives would rather pay much much more for welfare for pregnant teens etc but not less for the immediate solution. Even worse, guess which party in which the amendment author is affiliated?

Otherwise, this is a good sign in the right direction, as the bill will help the poorer Americans get health care and drop the pre-existing condition clause.

[StreetKnowledge]

117. According to Politico, it can still be stripped in committee......

......And supposedly Obama promised Congressman Waxman he's gonna campaign for that.

Fingers crossed. That would be a nice f--k you to the religious right.

[Stardust]

24. HOT DIGGITY!

[LatteLibertine]

27. Thank you

to the overwhelming majority of the Democrats that voted for the bill and thank you to the one Republican. It's not near perfect or done and we've got the door open and the ball rolling in the right direction. To the Democrats that voted against it and to the overwhelming majority of the Republicans who did the same, here is a one fingered salute for you.

[aquart]

29. Who was 220?

[mckara]

30. At Least, The Process is Moving Forward...

Next, to the Senate...

After Their Approval, We Need to Elect More Progressives in 2010!!!!!!!

[RBInMaine]

31. WAY TO GO DEMS !! Drive the knife right into the hearts of the f-ING Grand Old A-HOLES !

[LatteLibertine]

56. Meh

they're getting too small to be a party, they're just a Group of Psychos now :)

[tomm2thumbs]

104. soon they'll be a therapy group - if only they would see the help they need

:)

[Le Taz Hot]

226. That was said in 1974 as well.

Six years later we had Reagan.

[Posteritatis]

112. This is a defibrillator, not a knife. (nt)

[No Elephants]

175. Bingo. But shhhhhh. The emperor's new clothes are too pretty for anything but cheers.

[FarLeftFist]

32. YAY

[dsharp88]

34. Cao (R-La) didn't cast his vote until 218 had already been reached without him

so it was essentially meaningless.

Cao is a staunch anti-abortion Repub who doesn't really care about anything else but abortion. The only Vietnamese-American in the House, he, a first-time politician, was elected in New Orleans because the Democrat, William Jefferson, was about to go to jail.

[still_one]

46. I disagree, it was not meaningless, unless you believe that the republicans will not hold it

against him, which is possible that this was all planned, to give him cover for some reason, then you are right

[BluDemocratGirl]

36. Hell to the yeah!

We won, baby! Thanks to Rep. Cao for open up his eyes and saw what the health care reform bill is all about: the goodness for US. The American People. And shame on the 39 who voted against, but fuck it. It still passed! And fuck the RePUKEs as well. Payback is a motherfucka!

[BlueDemKev]

38. House Passes Health Care Bill

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[AnnieBW]

39. Next up, the Senate!

It's a good start. Let's keep it going!

[mzmolly]

43. Wonderful

step forward!

[sharesunited]

44. I Will Look For Every Improvement and Pass this Along To The Senate To Vote On And Pass.

As aforesaid.

[Techn0Girl]

45. Before you start to cheer....

You should check out what exactly this bill does and DOES NOT do...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/20/health/policy/20health.html

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/06/19/tri-committee-bill/

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/heres-lowdown-are-affordability-credi



1. You are going to be fined if you do not have health insurance. That fine (or tax) will amount to up to several thousand a year. This is EXACTLY what "no-fault" insurers pressed for in car insurance. You don't have insurance now ? Expect to be forced to take it and pay for it. Just like your auto insurance. It might surprise some of the younger members of DU here but there was a time when no one in the country was forced to have auto insurance - by law. Within a few years of everyone being forced to take it - rates went through the roof. You had no choice. So they raised the rates.

2. Almost no one here will be covered for free. You have to make less than 10,800 a year for that to happen. If you're say on unemployment and getting 25,000 a year (top rate in highest state) - you STILL will have to pay - BE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO PAY - $4000 a year in insurance costs. Don't want to pay it? You'll be fined by the feds in the form of an extra tax.

3. A woman's right to choose have been financially canceled bu this bill because this bill requires that ANY INSURANCE COMPANY PARTICIPATING IN THE EXCHANGE NOT COVER ABORTIONS. So once again, only the wealthy among us can choose what happens to their bodies.

What this bill is, is an incredible money maker for the insurance industry. It's the same scam that the "no-fault" auto insurance industry pushed through the entire U.S. in the 70's and 80's.

Now all you people who can't afford health insurance (because maybe you're on unemployment like myself and get less than 2000 a month - living in California where my rent alone is over a thousand) - all you people are now LEGALLY OBLIGATED to pay the insurance companies several hundred dollars a month out of your meager income.

Yeah, lets all party like it's 1899.

[BumRushDaShow]

51. This is not the final health care bill

Don't fall for the M$M spin and the Rovian obfuscation.

It still has a long way to go. The Senate has to finish merging their 2 versions, then they have to pass that, and then this House bill and the Senate's bill have to be merged into one, debated by both sides, and finally voted on, before anything "final" goes into effect.

[tomm2thumbs]

53. Plus Gov. Dean supported both bills and knows the process

You are totally right. I don't think the Democrats who put this together would be stupid enough to try to ruin their own chances of re-election by creating a bill that would literally ruin the country, not to mention turn away women and lower income Americans and families, but nice try by earlier post. More BOO!

Some people think doing nothing is the solution.

[Techn0Girl]

57. The Democras just voted ....

for a bill that eliminated abortions for woman. They just did that.

With regard to your assertion that Dems would not vote for a bill that would ruin the country...

Hellooooo.... !
Remember the Patriot Act - remember the financial deregualtion bills that got us all into this mortgage mess?

Yeah. The repugs put the Bills into play and a LOT in fact most Dems went blissfully along.

OPen your eyes. I'm here to tell you you are about to get screwed - and complaining about it 3 years from now when you're forking over 3 -4 grand of your income to the insurance industry won't help.

Read the link - check out the payment tables...

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_hcr_complete_summary.html

[tomm2thumbs]

60. yawn

[No Elephants]

223. "Yawn" to deaths of poor women? Am I understanding that post correctly?

[tomm2thumbs]

343. quick reply

the yawn was to what was there before they edited their post - people play that game all the time and then your reply looks out of place

[laconicsax]

344. Yes.

Some DUers couldn't give a shit about women. Pitfall of a big-tent.

[tomm2thumbs]

348. thanks for telling someone else what my word 'yawn' meant

when you have no idea of what I responded to in the original post prior to it being changed by the OP

[laconicsax]

363. No problem

Techn0Girl edited her response before you posted your yawn. Either it took you 3-4 minutes to read Techn0Girl's comment, click reply, type "yawn," and click "post," or you're lying to cover your ass.

Looking at the information available at hand:

-You don't seem inclined to even suggest what Techn0Girl changed, and accuse her of editing her post after you commented (clearly false).
-After posting response #106, it took you just two minutes to read LatteLibertine's response #56, type a lot more than just "yawn" and post response #108.
-After posting response #207, you read Techn0Girl's response #205 and posted another "yawn" in just a single minute.

I'm inclined to believe it's the latter. Don't you just hate how everything is time-stamped?

You could, of course shed some light on what exactly you were yawning about if it had nothing to do with women's reproductive rights.

[tomm2thumbs]

364. yes I did reply to it quickly

the yawn was only after I worked on writing a comeback for awhile and then realized I was wasting my time and it was just one of those posts that people put out there to try and get you to pick up the other end of the rope to pull. I am not suggesting she changed her post because of my reply, just that it wasn't what I replied to.

[laconicsax]

366. Alright then.

[tomm2thumbs]

368. :)

[FarLeftFist]

121. But you can stay under your parents until 27...

Seriously, after that ,your approaching 30 and should probably think about getting Health insurance of some sort for you and/or your family anyway, at least now you know you WILL be able to get it at a much more affordable price and NOT be turned down. That alone is a big weight off a lot of people's chest. And the fact you can't lose your HC, and no lifetime caps, all HUGE weights off people's chest. Your forgetting that MOST people want health insurance, they just can't afford it. Also a HUGE part of the population has insurance and none of this will affect them anyway. This is for those that don't. Out of 2000 pages if that's the worst you got I think we'll be okay. Let's see what the senate does with it before we rush to judgement.

[michaz]

203. And remember that is you stay on your parent's health insurance

until the age of 27, you as the parent are paying for that. So the insurance companies are getting more money longer. The child is being covered, yes, but the insurance companies are gaining also.

[No Elephants]

241. "Your forgetting that MOST people want health insurance, they just can't afford it"

NO ONE is forgetting that, certainly no one who is criticizing this bill. Now tell us how this bill helps people who are not eligible for its lame public option helps people afford to pay for insurance from private companies.

"Let's see what the senate does with it before we rush to judgement."

Why is it necessary to wait for the Senate in order to comment on the House bill? That is what this thread is about, passage by the House of this House bill. No one thinks he or she is commenting on the final bill.

Talk about the flaws in this bill now, so you know what to ask your lawmakers for in the final bill. Talking about a bill right after it becomes law may pass the time, but that's about all it will do.

[No Elephants]

222. Safe abortions for poor women anyway. Wealthier women will pay for safe abortions..

Poorer women will do what they did in this country before Roe v. Wade.

[pitohui]

271. "no elephants" have you ever met a poor woman?

i tend to doubt it because if you had you would have been outraged and taken action years ago, when access to choice was systematically eliminated by GOP administrations and rightwing gun-toting assassins

for some reason i didn't see you there offering any complaint when the last clinics were closed on the gulf coast for example

i'm deeply suspicious when folks who never cared about poor women being forced to have unwanted babies, something that has NEVER stopped and certainly wasn't stopped by "roe vs. wade" suddenly wake up and care about poor women when it's time to attack the democrats

hmmm is all i'm saying here

[pitohui]

269. oh ffs they didn't eliminate abortions for women -- that's been gone for years

what eliminated abortions for women is guys shooting at doctors and clinics getting closed, such that most of us wouldn't know where to go to get an abortion anyway -- think there might still be a clinic in jackson mississippi but that's unattainable to underprivileged in louisiana

access to abortion is a separate issue and has been for years, abortion is cheap enough that it would fall under your deductible anyway, the issue is one of access and lack of doctors more than it's an issue of cost -- thanks to steady republican hammering over the years, a woman too poor to have her own car hasn't had any such fantasy as "choice" for years on end, the democrats can hardly take any blame/credit for THAT

the poorest of the poor are having babies because they don't have transportation to where an abortion doctor might happen to be and nothing in THIS bill has anything to do with that

[BumRushDaShow]

58. What's interesting is

that Boner asked each of the Dem. Committee Chairmen (as each came up during the day to control their portion of the debate) whether they would support not stripping the Stupak amendment out of the final version during the Joint House-Senate Conference Committee session and all 3 answered "How would we know what will happen?!"

That was priceless! :rofl:

[FarLeftFist]

123. Boner's on his religious crusade to overpopulate the planet with unwanted children

[adamuu]

355. Grow up to be sociopaths

Unyielding Republicans in training

[No Elephants]

179. Dean distinguishes clearly between real health care reform and a bill that relates to health care

in some way.

Dean has always said that a bill without a strong public option is fine: Just don't call it a health care reform bill. And I know that he thinks Romneycare has given health care reform a bad name because it lacks a public option.

I don't know if Dean's support extends to the abortion amendment, either.

So, I'll be interested in hearing more from Dr. Dean, especially on the Ed Shultz Show. Ed has been one of the strong advocates of health care reform anywhere in the media, having Rockeller and Weiner and Grayson on a lot (before they voted for this bill, of course). So far, though, Ed has not had to criticize an actual Democratic vote in order to advocate for real reform, though. So, we'll see.

[Techn0Girl]

54. Well I hope that you are right...

But the essence of the bill IS that you will be fined 2.5 percent of your income if you choose not to get insurance. Can't aford insurance because you only make 25,000 a year? Surprise! You're now out ANOTHER 600 bucks anyway. It's not main stream media spin - it's in the bill - and it's a key give away to the insurance companies. You can see it right here (caution adobe reader needed)

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_hcr_complete_summary.html

That very same bill also mandates a 10 percent premium limit on people making as little as 33,000 a year Check out the table in the link above - know that the FPL <federal poverty limit> is currently at 10,800 for an individual. That means that if you make 15.85 an hour (not very much for people here in CA where our rents are well over $1200 a month) you can expect to pay $330 a month premium for the new program PLUS you have a $1000 a year deductible.

WTF ?

This isn't MSM scare - it's the essential part of the bill - it's the bill of goods we're all being sold on.

[SandWalker1984]

63. Don't forget the fines and jail time if you refuse to pay or pay

Thanks Techn0girl for some intelligent, thoughtful and rational analysis of this farce of a bill.

However, you left out the fines and penalties if you refuse to pay the premiums or pay the fine, as taken from the legislation:

Criminal penalties

Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:

• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.”



Ask yourself, why would the House put such harsh penalties into their legislation, unless they already know the insurance corporations plan to raise your premiums sky high and this will compel you to transfer your wealth and equity to the CEO's in premiums or the government in fines.

Obama promised he would not raise the taxes on the middle class. He also said, during the campaign, that we shouldn't pay twice as much as any other industrialized country for our health care - he would reduce the costs. This bill throws another trillion towards health care, which will make our health care costs up to THREE times as much as any other industrialized country pays. More Obama lies.

[SammyWinstonJack]

242. Obama said a lot of things which mostly can be taken with a grain of salt.

x(

[BumRushDaShow]

67. You are citing RW rags

And this is still not the final bill. Too many DUers have had panic attacks too early in the process. When the final House and Senate bills get into that joint committee, anything might go and THAT is when we do the final push to get the proper language in there. If one shows their hand too early, the enemy has time to torpedo the thing before it ever sees the light of day. Since they are too lazy to even read it, they could just assume substitute H.R. 676 language in that final conference version and get that passed if naysayers think it is something else. The key is to find out who is going to be on the Committee.

Don't call the House version "the bill" because it isn't.

[Techn0Girl]

72. Citing right wing rags???

Crooks and liars is right wing now. And firedoglake and the new york times? Politico?

I don't think so.

I'm not sure what planet you live on but on mine those are pretty progressive blogs and newspapers.

[BumRushDaShow]

78. I live on a planet that realizes that THIS is NOT the final bill

What planet are you on? Progressive blogs commenting on ONE piece of the whole pie is interesting but not relevant to what the reality may be come December.

All summer long, the lunatic fringe media that you cite like Politico & NYT (yes, they are all corporate) have claimed that "the (final) bill" (wrong) WAS "H.R. 3200" (wrong again) and that "one (final) bill (at that time)" (wrong once more) belonged to Baucus of the Senate Finance Committee (wrong yet again).

Let the process play out and contact your legislators to strip the crap out and make it more palatable and able to be tweaked down the road once each chamber's versions hit that Joint Committee to produce "the bill".

[Techn0Girl]

84. You need to focus....

You claimed that I was citing right wing rags when I cited Crooks and liars , firedoglake and the new york times and Politico.

That's what I was referring to by "what planet etc..."
Focus.

If you aren't aware of what is a right wing or progressive source how can we trust your opinion on the other things?

[BumRushDaShow]

91. I'm afraid you need to read up on the legislative process

That's really the type of "focus" that you need. ;)

[Techn0Girl]

94. Same answer....

If you're not aware that Crooksandliars, politico, firedoglake and frankly the new york times are not right wing organizations (OK the NYT is debateable :) ) - than I can hardly trust your opinion on other matters can I?

Ignored from now on.

[BumRushDaShow]

98. Cool!

Politico is not a RW rag although it was created by RWers? That's a hoot! :rofl:

A shame you won't see this: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/04/politico_funding/

[tomm2thumbs]

102. I saw it and reposted it

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/04/politico_funding/

since apparently if someone ignores me they ignore the thread bwhahahahahha

[BumRushDaShow]

105. LOL

:rofl:

[Techn0Girl]

108. The politico reference...

Came from Crooks and liars here ...

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/heres-lowdown-are-affordability-credi

And if you actually took the time to open that politico link instead of wagging your mouth about things you obviously do not understand ,than you would find that the document coming from the politico link is actually a direct print from the Committees on Ways & Means, Energy & Commerce, and Education & Labor
October 29, 2009.

Heres the link again:
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_hcr_complete_summary.html

Open it and look at it. It;s from the Ways and means committee

Reading is fundamental.
Fundamentalists do not read.

For people who DO want to be informed - that Ways and Means Committee link (via politico) does answer a LOT of questions about what this bill is going to cost you.

The C&L link summarizes it.

[tomm2thumbs]

113. yawn

[pattmarty]

245. Wake up. The only thing "progressive" in the "bill" is it has..............

..............gotten progressively worse as the process has moved along. The Senate version will have to pass yet, then the reconciliation process, THEN BOTH houses have to pass the reconciled bill AND finally the President will sign the final POS. You really think it's going to get "better"?

[BumRushDaShow]

273. Wake up, the deck has been stacked against progressives

This is a sad fact. The 56 blue dogs in the House will see to it. If progressives (and I count myself as one although I don't try to do purity tests) can't run candidates in those blue dog districts, then the progressive agenda gets screwed. And with the current odds, the only thing that one could hope for is to wound this massive greed-is-good whale of a system and then try to pull it apart piece by piece and replace it with something more palatable. Otherwise it will go down like it went down in 1993 and the Democrats will be the laughing stock of the nation. The masses will sit home and turn on "Dancing with the Stars", and the fascists will take over with BecKKK, Limpballs, and Caribou Barbie leading the pack.

So you think that the provision to torpedo McCarran-Ferguson and strip them of their anti-trust exemptions is not "progressive"? :shrug:

[pattmarty]

298. That could have been done with a lot less TIME and aggravation..........

For the 3 or 4 "good" things in this bill you didn't need 8 months and all the "cable hoopla" that has taken place. I have seen NOTHING that is going to control the cost of a policy. The so called public option is now just a worthless phrase in the bill. It would have taken less time and effort to just pass a law revoking the anti-trust provision and regulating the companies. For instance, no more pre-existing conditions (I know, that's one of the "good" things in this bill), no lifetime caps, a true max out of pocket, a maximum on deductible per year, maybe 85-15 copays (or better) AND strict cost controls with heavy fines if the company fails to comply. THEN, down the road we incrementally phase in Medicare for all.

[BumRushDaShow]

309. You are correct

I've been waiting for a simple bill giving food agencies recall authority for the past couple decades, but the $$$ pumped into the appropriate congresscritters from those industries precludes this from happening year after year.

But one other thing that may happen as a possible after-effect, is that if done right, for the first time since the 1940s - the entire insurance industry may finally be forced to come under federal regulation. Currently, insurance of every type is regulated by the states and their useless, bought and paid for "insurance boards". It would be interesting to see if (and this is thinking in terms of the financial industry and shitstorms like AIG for example) federal regulation of the entire insurance industry could occur if they can successfully repeal McCarron-Ferguson rather than modify it.

[tomm2thumbs]

73. +1

I like how the comments are phrased 'the democrats' and 'you' vs. 'we' so can only assume that says it all.

[Techn0Girl]

77. Dude...

It's reactionary "me vs you" poeple like yourself that helps get these bills passed.

Open your eyes and open your mind.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is against Progressive ideas.
Not everyone who claims to be a Democrat in Congress is actually working for you and me as oppossed to Big Business (can you say Joe Liberman?)

Normally I would just put you on ignore but you unfortunately started this thread.

You need to wake up and look around you - the bad as well as the good or you'll be screwed over in a few years and wonder what happened.

[tomm2thumbs]

95. please please please

please ignore me I beg of you - I wish you would just do just that

[No Elephants]

240. Um, the poster has actually read the 2000 page bill itself. Prove her wrong.

the House bill is the one this thread is about. Calling it "the bill" on this thread is perfectly correct, unless some idiot forgets what the entire thread is about.

[BumRushDaShow]

288. I read it too

since it has provisions that affect my agency. Surprise surprise. The issue is that too many are assuming, whether here on DU or out in the lunatic fringe media, that this particular enactment, word for word, is it. The end. No other changes will be made, and this is now law.

The same cited media made the argument that Baucus' mess, already without any public option at all in it, was going to be "the" final bill. The end. And then suddenly this debate happened all day yesterday and the media essentially ignored it because their meme was that Baucus' bill was "the (final) bill". CNN delayed reporting on their website, MSNBC relegated it to the side after a brief banner, and the flurry of nonsensical reporting that happened this morning once they got their talking points after being forced to step out of their virtual faux worlds to somehow explain this inconsistency of some "other" bill in existence, began with idiocies like "The House passed a healthcare reform bill in the 'wee hours' of the morning"... This despite the fact that it was done by 11:15 at night, not a 2 am or 3 am which would be "wee hours of the morning". :eyes:

So no, hand-wringing about this bill as if it were the final legislation that is headed for Obama's desk, is not "perfectly correct". There is nothing stopping the joint committe from removing whole sections of the fee structures and other technicalities and replacing them with something else. For example Medicare rates vs Medicare + 5% vs negotiated provisions, etc. This could all change. It's been widely expected that Stupak's amendment would get stripped.

What happened last night was an interesting "test vote" as it were... It speaks volumes to the sense of the members and what they are focusing on as interests, and hopefully that will help to hone the strategy in the joint committee.

[tomm2thumbs]

354. wow, I want you on my debate team (grin)

I'm not team captain or anything, but no doubt you have a handle on what is actually being said that has merit and those that are just mud slings against the bill from those that may wish to undermine the Democratic Party and Obama altogether

[Bette Noir]

70. So, instead of moaning and whining, hows about you write your Senators?

[Techn0Girl]

76. Excellent Idea!

Thank you!

According to Organizing for America it's actually better to call your Senators. That's what they told us - calling and leaving a message on the machine is actually more effective than writing.

Here is an OFA page to do that
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/callcongress/budget/

Of course my guess is that most people here would rather yell "K&R!"and have another beer than call but I suggest that you do call - I did!

[truedelphi]

79. Thank you for the update.

Do you have an idea of how soon this could all come to pass?

[BumRushDaShow]

89. This could literally take until December

Reid will need to be pushed to get the 2 Senate versions merged, debated, and voted on. That's where the first cloture vote comes to play - to at least get a bill out of the Senate and into Conference. It's possible that they may be able to take a merged Senate bill right into conference and then have both sides vote on it, which would speed the process up. Push come to shove, the Senate does have the nuclear option if needed.

In any case, it will take awhile.... But given the holidays are coming up, they will be under massive pressure to get it done by that weekend before Christmas (Sun. Dec. 20) so they can adjourn until the State of the Union timeframe (I expect).

[tomm2thumbs]

100. that sounds like a map of the process in a nutshell

thanks for posting it because the next steps are always the most unclear to me given that there are going to be two bills at some point

[BumRushDaShow]

111. As a sidenote

Since this bill involves money (power of the purse), it must originate in the House and the House has produced their version first for Senate consideration. Technically, the Senate could actually vote on the House's version straight up and drop their own version, but since this thing is so politicized, they will most certainly attempt to merge each chamber's version and allow each side to vote on whatever becomes that final version.

I have a feeling (and I may be wrong) that the abortion thing may get stripped (or modified) and the opt-out may be inserted in the final bill, with the argument pointing to Canada and how they handled phasing in universal healthcare.

[tomm2thumbs]

181. good to know that - would be a unique twist if they voted on it directly

thanks again

[No Elephants]

220. The Senate has always had the nuclear option. The issue is whether

the Senate will use it and whether any of the bills currently under any real consideration are worth exploding a nuclear bomb that the Republican majority will have sooner or later. (And, probably sooner, if this bill is the best Democrats can do by the American people, and the sales job to date of health care reform is the best sales job Democrats can do.)

[BumRushDaShow]

239. They still have some work to do

and the sense was that (assuming one threatens LIEberman's chairmanships or at least calls in chips from him), the 60 that caucus with the Democrats could lockstep to invoke cloture with the assumption that hard core blue dogs could then go on and vote against the final bill later - but they will need at least 4 of the them to get enough to barely enough to pass.

This is all academic in any case and now the real fight will be at hand. The faux beleaguered industry, that may be privately cheering gaining more customers, is about to have their anti-trust exemption stripped, so they will start ratcheting up their final assault very soon.

[No Elephants]

146. Do you really think that Senate involvement is going to make the bill more progressive?

The House Progressive Caucus was the biggest hope we had in this process and all but Kucinich sold out.

[BumRushDaShow]

211. Harkin

and the spirit/memory of Ted Kennedy. Many on DU point to Harkin, who has taken over the Senate HELP Committee, as being one of the more progressive Senators in the Senate. If he is part of the joint conference committee (which he probably would be as Chairman), then there is some hope for further shifting this thing back left. If anything, the modified Senate bill they will eventually vote on WILL have a public option put on it despite the M$M spin all summer long (i.e., they will gut Baucus' nonsense but will try to find elements of it to use in a final bill). However Harkin would need to ratchet it up in the assertiveness department to get as much poison out of this as he can.... The strategy in the Senate is to get enough to invoke cloture to halt endless debate and then any blue dog who helps with cloture can go on and vote against the final bill in an up or down, as there would only be 51 needed for passage.

This whole thing, like so many massive bills before it, can be modified further down the road, as Medicare has been. Some of the thought process was that there would need to be time given to phase out an entire industry of tens of thousands of private claims adjusters and perhaps move them into the public sector.

[No Elephants]

231. I agree that Harkin is liberal. But so are the Progressive Caucus of the House,

the almost 100 co-sponsors of HR 676 (which I don't think ever even made it as far as the CBO), the 60 who signed a letter to Sebelius and the 18 or so who signed The Pledge.


"This whole thing, like so many massive bills before it, can be modified further down the road, as Medicare has been"


Yeah, I've seen that meme here before. Huge differences between Medicare and this bill render that comparison invalid, though.

Medicare was a strong single payer option and therefore members of the general public loved it, whether they were rank and file Republicans or rank and file Democrasts. Still do. Everybody but Republican politicians loves them some Medicare and want only that it cover MORE. And if we did not keep lowiering taxes and spending on wars, people would not even mind funding a deficit.

Even at that, how many years was it between enactment of Medicare and the addition of Part D? Forty or so? We cannot do what we want now, when we have more power in D.C. than we have had in a long time. How long will it take before we have even this much clout again?

Since the Civil Rights Act, you will not soon see the majorities in Congress LBJ enjoyed, if anyone ever sees them again. So, even he should have thrown in medications when he had the best chance of getting it done, instead of having seniors dying because they could not afford rent, food and skyrocketing medication costs. That is not an argument for contenting ourselves with next to nothing now.

This bill is NOT going to be as beloeved as Medicare, by either the left or the right, because of mandates without a strong public option and the abortion issue. And, because it is nowhere near like Medicare, it will not work anywhere near as well. The public option is going to be way costly and so will mandated private insurance.

Welfare was modified down the road, too, to be more restrictive under Clinton than it had been since the 1960's. No guaranty whatever that modfications down the road are improvements, from a progressive point of view.

[BumRushDaShow]

263. In coliquy

I agree that Harkin is liberal. But so are the Progressive Caucus of the House, the almost 100 co-sponsors of HR 676 (which I don't think ever even made it as far as the CBO), the 60 who signed a letter to Sebelius and the 18 or so who signed The Pledge.

The problem is the blue dogs. A number of them are relatively newish and a threat possibility of pulling chairmanships doesn't exist. They claim 56 in the House (which may include "New Democrats"). If they all lockstepped against something like H.R. 676, then that would be DOA. I believe the Progressive Caucus has ~80 (not counting the delegates).

"This whole thing, like so many massive bills before it, can be modified further down the road, as Medicare has been"


Yeah, I've seen that meme here before. Huge differences between Medicare and this bill render that comparison invalid, though.

It's not that huge a difference. Some gov't infrastructure will need to be put in place to manage the public option "exchanges".

Medicare was a strong single payer option and therefore members of the general public loved it, whether they were rank and file Republicans or rank and file Democrasts. Still do. Everybody but Republican politicians loves them some Medicare and want only that it cover MORE. And if we did not keep lowiering taxes and spending on wars, people would not even mind funding a deficit.

I agree and always felt that "Medicare for all" (Medicare Part E) would have been the easiest way to go to get something in without reinventing the wheel like they have attempted to do here. This may still be able to happen once you create your initial federal entity. What is now "CMS" (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid) wasn't called that until Chimpy got into office. Before that it was HCFA (the "Health Care Finance Administration") and before that, there were other-named entities that eventually merged to get where we are today. The creation of the ridiculous Dept. of Homeland Security is an example of merging existing agencies under some supposed umbrella of similarity. Whatever gets created from the final bill could, in the future, roll right into CMS and will at least provide the trained staff necessary right off the bat, to manage the massive influx into a hypothetical single-payer system. Right now, not enough infrastructure exists in the gov't for it.

Alot of people forget how when the passport rules changed, the State Dept. was completely overwhelmed having been starved to death like all the rest of the domestically-focused gov't agencies, thanks to Raygun, Poppy, Clinton, and Chimpy's "less government/gov't off our backs" crap.

Even at that, how many years was it between enactment of Medicare and the addition of Part D? Forty or so? We cannot do what we want now, when we have more power in D.C. than we have had in a long time. How long will it take before we have even this much clout again?

The insurance companies weren't as cold-blooded as they are today. They essentially ratcheted up their greed-is-good embrace with a massive signal above their original noise level after Glass-Steagall was torpedoed in 1999. The result woke people up to demand relief and the (poisoned) "relief" became Medicare Part D, with the ridiculous donut hole.

Since the Civil Rights Act, you will not soon see the majorities in Congress LBJ enjoyed, if anyone ever sees them again. So, even he should have thrown in medications when he had the best chance of getting it done, instead of having seniors dying because they could not afford rent, food and skyrquote]
ocketing medication costs. That is not an argument for contenting ourselves with next to nothing now.

I think this is why that push to get something in there now, even if imperfect. And it seems the Progressive Caucus realizes that the price that our party is paying for getting a "majority" came with some toxic strings attached. Ironically, this past year was probably the most that I have seen Democrats lockstep vote, in years. However that won't last (as we saw last night).

This bill is NOT going to be as beloeved as Medicare, by either the left or the right, because of mandates without a strong public option and the abortion issue. And, because it is nowhere near like Medicare, it will not work anywhere near as well. The public option is going to be way costly and so will mandated private insurance.

Agree and this is not the final bill either. The DNC doesn't have enough spinmeisters to sell single-payer or arm-twisters (Clyburn is a joke as is Durbin) to muscle something like that in there - at least right now.

Welfare was modified down the road, too, to be more restrictive under Clinton than it had been since the 1960's. No guaranty whatever that modfications down the road are improvements, from a progressive point of view.

Right. But me as a usual pessimist, has ironically decided to take to heart something my mother always used to tell me for almost 50 years - "No one told you that life was fair". I will definitely be monitoring and will try to catch if/when Bernie Sanders comes on Hartmann next week to get his take on what might happen in the Senate and what he is willing to do to help Harkin temper the mess...

[Name removed]

74. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[truedelphi]

97. We gave up a woman's right to have an abortion

FOR THIS ABSOLUTELY SUCK-EY BILL

Women will die becuase of this -even if what is happening is that they are suffering a miscarriage.

But like you say, LET'S GET OUR PARTY GROOVE ON!

[Techn0Girl]

125. Yes we pretty much did....

This bill REQUIRES that any insurance plan participating in the exchange (which will be all of them because this is a cash cow for them) not pay for abortions. No option - it REQUIRES it.

Incest. Rape . Under Age. HIV Positive rapist.

Sorry - you are not covered.

This is a Huge bone thrown to the insurance industry and a slap in the face to women anywhere.

"Sorry, we'd LIKE to cover your 14 year old child who got raped but unfortunately government regulations won't allow it. We're so sorry. That will be $1500 dollars please. "

[winyanstaz]

185. Right..another kick in the teeth to women everywhere..

Kucinich is right to not vote for this..and those that did just gave away a big bonus to the insurance companies and screwed the little guys once again...and yet we have people cheering about it..sheesh.
And yes I know its not the final bill..but it has a long ways to go before it is anything to be happy about.

[totodeinhere]

282. Poor women are always the first to get thrown under the bus.

I applaud Rep. Kucinich for standing up for principle and voting no. I just wish we had about 200 more of him. Then maybe we could get somewhere in this country.

[creeksneakers2]

110. If you make $25,000 a year

Your payment would be $391.25 a year - 2.5% of everything over $9,350. If you can't pay it you can apply for a waiver.

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_hcr_complete_summary.html

[Techn0Girl]

120. Actually that's just the fine that you would pay....

The 2.5 % figure is the fine that you would pay.

I don't blame you for misreading that - I had to read the darn thing myself several times just to get it down.

The Federal Poverty Level is currently 10,800 for a single person. So at 25,000 a year you are at just under 250% of the FDL.

According to the table (look under "Premium Limit as Percent of Income" ) a single person will pay at 250% will pay 8% of income for premiums. Which would be about $2000 a year and on TOP of that you would be responsible for the first $2000 of medical expenses (see "Annual Out-of-Pocket Cap"). Ouch :(

That's a chunk of change for someone making only $480 week!

As I said - as with most things govt it's difficult to read. Took me several tries :)

[truedelphi]

134. What you are explaining is proof of how UGLY this bill is

So you make $ 450 a week. You are required to pay $ 2,000 a year for premiums and then you re required to offer up another $ 2,000 as a deductible.

What this indicates to me is that many people at that level will forgo treatment -- if there is even a $ 5,000 treatment that they need, they have to somehow find that
$ 2,000 to cover it. Rich people do not get this - I remember way back when I caught Hillary Clinton on CNN (circa 1993) bragging about how under her plan, someone making $ 24,000 a year, and with three other family members would only have to come up with $ 4K a year. Apaprently when someone like that is thinking about the situation, they think such a person can just give up the yearly trips to the Riviera, or maybe they must sell the yacht or WHATEVER.

Anyway, when someone who is making $ 25,000 a year and they need to cough up $ 2,000 for a treatment, they will forgo it. SO what happens to their premiums then? I surmise that then that poor person's premiums are helping offset the cost of the treatments that the rich so easily schedule into their lives.

SO it is really really SUCK-EY!

[creeksneakers2]

139. Thanks

But isn't that also limited by plan costs? Somebody making $25,000 pays 15% of plan costs. If the plan cost $800 a month (plenty for an individual) then the payment would be $1440, which would be a little less than $2000.

[Techn0Girl]

151. It's easy to misread ...

It's really easy to misread that stupid Ways and Means Committee document lol :)

That 15% that you saw meant that a family making 25,000 a year would be paying a 15% premium (or 3700 a year) rather than the 8% single premium of about 2000 a year.

And the Family cap (or deductible if you;re a pessimist like me) would be 4000 more.

ouch :(

[Hekate]

47. Thank gods that part is over. The suspense was killing me. Now on to the Senate...

... and maybe we can get a few positive tweaks to the Bill.

It is a big step forward, but not the end to the story. In the future we can hope that the Freepers, teabaggers, and corporatists worst nightmares come true, LOL, and we get closer to Medicare for all -- with comprehensive health care for all women, no exclusions based on pious hypocrisy.

Hekate

[AzNick]

52. People it's still 100 times better than the current mess

This is a first step.

Let the right winger make fool of themselves.

[Techn0Girl]

66. Is it really better?

I'm on unemployment right now and I make 24,000 a year on it. I can't afford health insurance . I can barely afford my rent, food and my required 40 a month auto insurance payment (minimums) .

Under the new bill I would either be required to pay ANOTHER $200 a month to the insurance industry or face a roughly a $100 a month fine. If I pay the $200 a month I will STILL have to come up with ANOTHER $1000 a month for my deductible. $275 a month more will put me on the street because I won't be able to pay my rent - or will have to default on my car payment.

How is this better for me?

P.S. OK, I lied a bit. I am actually covered under the V.A. because I served in the 70's and 80's - but you know what? The vast majority of people did not serve and are exactly in the position that I mentioned above. How will this help them? They'll have some sort of health insurance (what will be covered is unknown) but they won't be able to make their rent. Sounds GREAT for the insurance industry - not so great for you and me.

[AzNick]

96. I understand and I used to be there

They plainly refused to cover my wife and my stepson and I was making about that on my own.

I wrote an aggressive resume and found work in IT making much more and with coverage. I hang on to my current job like my life depended on it.

Oh wait... it does.

[bornskeptic]

255. Your fantasy victim would only be required to pay $1579 a year,

or about $130 per month for insurance.

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

Most single individuals without dependent children who make 24000 a year can figure out a way to afford that. Would it be better to be one of the thousands who die annually because they lack health insurance, or one of the millions who are forced into bankruptcy because they either have no health insurance or have inadequate insurance?

It strikes me as beyond bizarre that anyone could think a bill which forces insurance companies to compete on cost with a nonprofit public insurer would be beneficial to insurance companies. If the public insurance agency is properly run, it will force the insurance companies to either sell individual basic insurance on a nonprofit basis or to drop out of selling basic coverage entirely and leave that market to the public agency. Thus it would put us well on the way to a healthcare system similar to those in Switzerland and Germany, which are by any reasonable standard among the best in the world.

[Techn0Girl]

327. You are Promoting Industry MISINFORMATION

Your "calculator" comes from KFF.ORG which is a major health insurance company.

It is complete and total BS.

The REAL figures are HERE:
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_hcr_complete_summary.html

The House Ways and Means committee report on the bill.

You are spreading misinformation and I don't know why or wish to speculate why.

My figures cam from the government report - YOURS came from the HEalth Insurance industry.

[Le Taz Hot]

229. Really?

'Cause right now I'm not MANDATED to pay insurance. Did I mention that after paying my mortgage (which isn't outrageous) all that's left over from my husband's unemployment check is $400.00 a month? Maybe one of the Party Faithful can explain to me how I'm supposed to pay for gas, electricity, car insurance (MANDATED), phone and internet access (necessity for looking for work), and food AND pay health insurance premiums.

[Ozymanithrax]

55. Finnally a piece of sausage that I can be thankful for.

I know this won't be popular, but people sh ould send thanks to Representative Cao. There is a good chance that he just lost his seat with this vote and he sould be commended for doing the right thing.

[BREMPRO]

59. an historic step forward- kickiin teabag repuke and blue-dog ass!

now lets see how it merges with the senate bill.

[Ed76638]

61. Joseph Cao

Never doubted you brother. Never did. Even though you a (R)

[Rosa Luxemburg]

62. At long last! Good! A victory.

step in the right direction to single payer!

[harry_pothead]

65. K&R

Time for the senate, then the conference, then the final bill, then our great president's signature.

[placton]

69. Huge loss for all Americans

Choice - shitcanned
Single payer - shitcanned
universal coverage - shitcaned

promises made, promises broken

Democrats in Congress? well, no word can describe how I feel for these folks

[Divine Discontent]

90. I believe it was watered down tremendously too, but we gotta push the senators to make a good bill

we cannot give up. Gotta call my blue dog senator again Monday.

[Techn0Girl]

101. But big WIN for the Insurance industry !

Now an additional 36 MILLION Americans will be either forced to become insurance industry clients or else face additional federal taxes at the end of the year.

Oh and insurance companies now don't have to cover abortions caused by incest or rape either.

[phasma ex machina]

290. +1 nt

[Ed76638]

75. ITT: I see a lot of people shitting on Cao

"He didn't vote til the last minute".

Of course he did. Why would you expect him to put himself on the line like he did? He did the smart thing while still representing his district.

[tomm2thumbs]

106. in the end, it was easier to vote it down - so kudos to him

where were the other Republicans with a conscience? no where to be found

[Name removed]

80. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[underpants]

81. Away from DU and reason the MSM made this sound like it was impossible

I LOVE IT

[stevenleser]

82. Great news!

Thank you House Democrats!!!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

83. well now there is a chance I'll live long enough to GET HEALTHCARE!

Sheesh, I wonder how much longer I can go without access to health care.

Many of us would go bankrupt if we tried to get our health needs taken care of now.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Deep13]

119. A five vote margin?

You have got to be fucking kidding me.

Who are these 39 assholes who voted against the flagship cause of their party?

[Posteritatis]

133. I imagine some think the party itself jumped ship. (nt)

[BumRushDaShow]

136. The 39

From here: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll887.xml

Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Baird
Barrow
Boccieri
Boren
Boucher
Boyd
Bright
Chandler
Childers
Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
Edwards (TX)
Gordon (TN)
Griffith
Herseth Sandlin
Holden
Kissell
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Markey (CO)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
McIntyre
McMahon
Melancon
Minnick
Murphy (NY)
Nye
Peterson
Ross
Shuler
Skelton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague

[tomm2thumbs]

144. somehow they think their 'nay' will save their butt in their district?

I highly doubt it - we'll see in a year

[Deep13]

372. Boccieri is no longer on our Christmas card list.

This county is split between two districts. We're in OH-13, Sherrod Brown's old district and are represented by Betty Sutton. The district south of us used to be Ralph Regula's, the guy who tried to kill PBS. We supported Boccieri with cash in '08 to flip that district. A few weeks ago, he telephoned by wife at the office and she gave him an earful about the need for healthcare reform. She complained about the burden employer-based HC on her business and said they needed a public option.

[mstinamotorcity]

129. ok everybody lets take a

deep breath. The bill only passed the house. Remember school house rock. Its on to the Senate. We have never been this close before we have a bigger job to do we have to push these blue dogs to do whats right. It will be hard with the American people fighting against corporate dollars. I kinda feel sorry for the lone Republican he will be the ridicule of his party. I must say my hat is off to you Rep. Cao that took guts. But i want to say that to do the right thing despite all the problems that it will cause is something to see out of a republican. To stand on the side of history is also a brave thing to do.We still do not have any faith in the republican party but we are big and bold enough to give credit where credit is due. So you have struck a blow for history. To members of the democratic house who did not vote for the bill, we see you and we will remember you at the ballot box. I know you think we don't see you but rest assure that we do. We also know you monitor this site, f--k you. I know there are some hidden taxes, but i was never stupid enough to think that this was going to get passed without some form of payment. I would much rather my dollars be spent healing people of the nation instead of killing people in other nations. Still waiting to sing with one voice.Love you DU

[ooglymoogly]

141. This Orwellian bill is a bad omen for the democratic party

When the people of this country understand what has been passed into law they will not be happy and the pugs will say I told you so, but hey we voted against it. The bill in its present form is a pig with lipstick and it will only get worse from here. If this bill only pretends to help the masses but instead harms them the masses will hemorrhage and the democratic party will lose their majority in the next election and you can say goodbye to democracy as we once knew it.

[Name removed]

150. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zoff]

166. I understand your sentiments.

It is a bad omen for Democracy if the final bill buys another undeserved mansion for a CEO.

[Arrowhead2k1]

158. Ok, this is a great first step in the right direction.

But in the mean time, check out all the crying in Freeperville. :rofl:

[pundaint]

164. Dennis is right

This bill is worse than nothing, it's moving us in the wrong direction.

You supporters have been sold out and you think its a win.

Don't give me it's the best we can do bull, is there anybody who voted to cement health insurers ownership of our healthcare, give them tens of billions of additional dollars, and guarantee no competitive pharmaceutical prices for at least the next 8 years?

Congress could not have made it clearer that they will and have sold us out to keep their jobs. I say 434 members need to be fired next November. It's now clear that nothing else we can do matters.

Fire Congress in '10 if that doesn't work, do it again in '12.

[tomm2thumbs]

165. playing chess isn't a single move on the chessboard - wait and watch

if you think Obama is so dumb as to support something useless, worthless and less than what we have, you should have voted for Palin and McCain.

[DemBones DemBones]

191. I predict that you will eat those words.

Obama doesn't have a clue about chess and he is going to let down the people who voted for him on this.

[tomm2thumbs]

197. Pawlenty could use some funds

http://www.timpawlenty.com/

Give generously

[Techn0Girl]

195. Smooth Logic there Tommy ....

"if you think Obama is so dumb as to support something useless,"

Your political expertise and awareness of the DC scene is impressive. Your "Obama ain't dumb" argument is certainly the stuff of talking heads everywhere. Have you considered applying for a television position?

"you should have voted for Palin and McCain."

And demonizing the opposition when you really don't have any facts or intelligent rebuttal is also an astute move that I've seen practiced on Fox much too successfully- which is why I hate to watch that channel.


What our party needs Tommy is intelligence and careful thought and free thinkers who aren't afraid of dissent or differing ideas.

Let the Republicans have the market on reactionary thinking, demonization and group-think.

Yawn.

Clinton wasn't "dumb" either Tommy.
And he pushed NAFTA down our throats.

[tomm2thumbs]

198. yawn

[LatteLibertine]

169. I'll

be monitoring conservative commentary this week for a laugh :)

As Alan Grayson said, "The party of no is well on their way to becoming the party of nobody."

[cmd]

177. Teddy is smiling today.

Thank you, Congress.

[PatrynXX]

178. Awesome timing too....

Was in the middle of watching the last main battle in God's and generals. So it had this war like music running in the background and up pops this headline popup from cnn. Inexplicably giddy. Don't know why. :P

Ironic because it was Stonewall Jackson's assault on the Yankee encampment. But hey open minded looking at both sides. the movie Elizabeth does the same thing. Dislike that queen, but the movie makes her look good.

[moondust]

196. Republicans renew their lease

on their permanent residence on the wrong side of history.

[Techn0Girl]

200. We Waited For Universal Health Coverage

And it didn't happen.

We waited for a Public Option.
And it got voted down.

And what we now have is a bill that will force each and every American too poor to afford insurance to pay between 500 and 5000 dollars a year to a private insurance firm - or face a federal tax penalty of close to half that amount.

True if you already have insurance you will make out better - you now have a few more protections against the shady insurance companies.

True if you are among the poorest of Americans and are making about 14 thousand a year your insurance will be close to free.

But for the current estimated 36-60 million Americans with no coverage what so ever - you've been screwed over. You will be FORCED to pay an additional 2000 dollars a year for crappy coverage (2000 a year deductible and cap) to a private company like Blue Cross that you couldn't afford to pay before . Now you HAVE to pay - or you will be fined by additional Federal taxes of 500 - 5000 a year.

If you're reading this now and you have no insurance. You just lost from 2.5% to 5% of your current income if you are a single person. More if you are a family. Do the math.

And some people are telling us to just wait a little more and it will all work out....

Well this is how it's worked out so far: We went fro Universal Health Care to me paying ANOTHER 2.5% of my income to a private insurance company.

If I wait any longer for it to work out I'll probably have to declare bankruptcy.

[tomm2thumbs]

201. Congratulations to the House who voted in Health Care Reform

Those that seem to only want to disparage your efforts don't seem willing to put in the work to make it happen or the results would be that the vote would not have been as close as it was. Guess everyone likes to talk on chat boards but if the votes were there it would have been done months ago.

Oh, but there is that thing called reality. Some folks don't know what that is about.

[No Elephants]

225. "Oh, but there is that thing called reality. Some folks don't know what that is about."

Yes, but it may not be the group you have in mind.

In 20008, reality finally set in with the general public on the repeal of Glass Steagall--but only with those who understood the causes of the Great Depression, Glass Steagall and why Gramm wanted to repeal it.

It also set in on Ronnie's love of de-regulation and "small government" that allegedly costs less, but only with those who understood the connection between de-regulation and the collapse of 2008, along with the bailout of "too big to fail" companies. And, on de-regulation and small government, I'll throw in Madoff, Sanford and other pyramid schemers who went unchecked by the SEC.

Sooner or later, reality will set in, including with those who think they are smarter than everyone else about how bills get passed, but probably aren't.


So, take your condescension and your yawning about abortion and stuff them both in a drawer for a few years and then see how smart it looks then.

Meanwhile, try to come up with a post that are as fact-based as Techn0Girl's.

[tomm2thumbs]

367. are you saying I should then post false information?

You say come up with posts that are as 'fact-based' as your little buddy? Hmmm - 'fact based' - like some certain someone repeatedly presenting as-fact that abortions won't be covered in the cases of rape or incest -- when in fact it will? Is this the 'fact-based' knowledge of which you speak? Let's see, I think the wording of the actual amendment excludes federal funds...

'...except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.'

if you want to search for those multiple examples of this supposed 'fact-based' knowledge you've taken a shine to, just search this thread for 'incest' and I'm sure you'll find more than a few instances where facts had nothing to do with what was said on the subject.








link of entire amendment for those that seek facts from the source
http://documents.nytimes.com/the-stupak-amendment#p=1

[michaz]

204. Is this one step toward removing Roe vs Wade? n/t

[tomm2thumbs]

205. I think that would have been a vote for McCain/Palin

there would be a massive revolt if anything of that ilk made it into the final bill

[Techn0Girl]

206. I think it is ....

It's an awful move back to the 60's where only the wealthy could afford necessary abortion.

This legislation MANDATES that insurance company's who participate in the insurance exchange (which means pretty much all of them) not cover abortion.

This amendment, and the bill as it now stands, makes abortion financially impossible to lower and middle income families. I think this was one of many reasons why Kusinich voted against this bill.

Make no mistake - this is a calculated step backwards if this bill passes in it's current form. It will REMOVE a woman's right to choose by imposing an impossible financial penalty on those who can least afford it.

[tomm2thumbs]

207. statement from Rep. Cao on his vote for the Health Care Act

Cao said: “Today, I obtained a commitment from President Obama that he and I will work together to address the critical health care issues of Louisiana including the FMAP crisis and community disaster loan forgiveness, as well as issues related to Charity and Methodist Hospitals. And, I call on my constituents to support me as I work with him on these issues.

Cao said: “I have always said that I would put aside partisan wrangling to do the business of the people. My vote tonight was based on my priority of doing what is best for my constituents.

[BumRushDaShow]

214. He took over William Jefferson's seat

in New Orleans and everyone including himself, assumed he'd be a single-termer. Appears that he likes the trappings of Congress now and is apparently positioning himself to actually compete for re-election in a majority-Democrat District, now having this (and whatever becomes the final version that he'll probably vote for) in hand as his credentials...!!! If the dysfunctional Democratic party in Louisiana can't put up a candidate for that district and this guy decides to do the maverick thing and actually listens to his constituents and moves leftward rather than lockstepping to the repuke tune, then he may actually have a chance...

Of course the RW lunatic fringe break-off group may then try to primary him (like they intend to do to Crist in FL) as punishment now.

[tomm2thumbs]

217. true, but if he then goes Independent on 'em, would be justice served hot

sounds like he has been able to make some good agreements for help to his long-ignored district and that could benefit him all around with voters across the board. smart fella

[BumRushDaShow]

280. Yup. n/t

[handmade34]

221. Cao's message box is full

I called to thank him. Good for him.

[chatnoir]

250. Ugh, knuckle-dragger having a fit over Cao

From http://wonkette.com/412080/republican-voting-for-health-care-dachau-too#comments

More from this moran:

@FoxieNews Ya think? That rat bastard sold the G.O.P. up the river! and After all the Americans that went to ‘Nam and Died. :-/ Pissed.about 2 hours ago from TweetDeck in reply to FoxieNews

And:

Remember ‘41 people, this was their revenge on us. Ceo is a fucking Commie Plant in the G.O.P. #tcot #hcr #killbill #VTOabout 2 hours ago from TweetDeck


Yeah, and this is the charming man himself:

http://our.gop.com/RightBloggerPat

[tomm2thumbs]

369. gawd - they just really want to make their party 15% of the population don't they

I hope this manages to get the GOP on the sh*t list of the vietnamese community now - they have worked on most of the rest already, may as well do a full-house and go for broke

[ixion]

208. *sigh*... another screwing

just freakin' great.

[DailyGrind51]

210. Once the President signs the bill and this thing has been implemented,

people will find it as indispensable as Social Security and Medicare.

[newspeak]

287. well, I don't think it will be as indispensable as medicare

if most of us will be beholden to private insurance sector. So, I really don't see the comparison.

My thought is when it hits the Senate it will be even more compromised, seeing as how many senators are beholden to the health insurance corporations. We'll see, but I see it becoming more of a web of sell outs to the health industry over us.

[Techn0Girl]

323. I know the insurance companies will find this indespensible....

40 Million new marks that will be FORCED to purchase from them.

Indespensible

[liberal N proud]

212. Not the House but the House Democrats

The Washington Post headline says "House Democrats pass health-care bill"


ONE republican voted for the legislation. "1"

[tomm2thumbs]

213. Cantor promised tea baggers 'not one Republican will vote for this bill'

I guess he was off by 100% on that one.

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) sure knows his stuff, that wascally wabbit

[BumRushDaShow]

216. Plus they were chanting

"We're not leaving the Hill until we kill this bill".

I suppose the sleeping bags are all setup now so they can have a permanent slumber party in the lounge? :rofl:

[tomm2thumbs]

219. why do they always say things they can't back up??

it always makes them look like dunces and must undermine their own enthusiasm and self-esteem over the years

sort of like that crazy old lady screaming at the DNC about 'let me tell you - John McCain WILL be the next President of the United States...' oops

[chatnoir]

252. Is that why he was sitting next to Cao trying to intimidate him?

Someone on Wonkette commented:

Apparently Eric “I’m with stupid” Cantor stormed out of the House chamber after Cao voted. He and another Republican had been sitting on either side of Cao in order to intimidate him into voting no.

[tomm2thumbs]

342. I think Cantor was cruising him for sex actually

and of course I'm kidding - Cantor is a happily married man

[Name removed]

346. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[landdesignguy]

224. health care bill

thank you for this post

[SHRED]

230. 2013 here we come!!!

:sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[toopers]

238. All government employees will immediately go on this plan . . .

right?

[No Elephants]

244. In a way. The more accurate way to look at it, though, is that state and federal

governments already give their employees health insurance coverage, and usually very good coverage . And part of this plan is to leave that kind of existing employer provided insurance in place. So, in a way, they will be on this plan. However, this bill will neither help nor hurt them, at least as far as paying for health insurance.

[PurpleChez]

249. Leave it to Democrats....

...for months we've been hearing about how the push for reform started with Teddy Roosevelt and is a century overdue. Now we actually take a step toward reform and all I see are complaints. The last thing I'd want to say is that a Democrat must not disagree with party line (that would make us little different from the rethugs) but once again I see how it is that we lose elections, even when the other side puts up clowns like Dim Son.

[No Elephants]

339. Once again, Gore won, even with crooked Diebold machines, vote caging and the rest of it.

Kerry most likely won, too, but you can't take exit polls to the Supreme Court.

And, if all you see are complaints, you have not read this thread very well.

No worries, though. Apparently, the Republicans now have to battle the Conservative Party. Maybe one day there will be three parties, Progressive, Moderate and Conservative.

[PurpleChez]

361. The opening posts

or, rather, the ones that show up at the top of the list, were overwhelmingly negative at the time I logged in. And if that is their sincere opinion, then so be it. But it's when faced with that sort of thing that I can see the kernel of truth behind the bullshit Limbaugh claim that liberals are all unhappy whiners. Repubs, right or wrong, will vote for whoever is put in front of them (the idea that conservatives would somehow abandon McCain was a crock from the start...they just needed Sarah Palin as an excuse to come back to the fold....) but Democrats.... as I've said many times, the Democratic candidate could be a lifelong vegetarian and people would be logging in to whine about how they couldn't vote for him because they're vegan and they could never vote for a guy who eats eggs.

[Cleita]

253. More like the insurance welfare bill.

Sorry if I'm not high fiving. Also what a slap in the face for women's health with the Stupak amendment being passed. But as a glass half full person that I am, when the final bill comes off of President Obama's desk, it's time to inject the Trojan Horse we want in the insurance exchange. Medicare should be offered up to people who want to participate in it as part of the exchange.

[AngryOldDem]

254. So what?

This is a bad bill, gives the GOP a lot to work with in order to further galvanize the nutjob Right against the idea of health care for all, as well as anything else that Barack Obama supports. The massive tax increase, the threat of fines and imprisonment if people don't take part -- just terrific fodder as we head into midterm elections.

A bad bill is NOT better than no bill at all. Please stop that meme.

Furthermore, the Senate will gut this bill and at the end of the day we'll be back to where we began, with jack shit to show for it all, but we WILL have an even more angry and confused electorate who will associate the Democrats with it.

No celebratory toasts raised here. And I still say that it is shameful and disgusting that we are having such a long, protracted clusterfuck over something as basic a right as health care, in supposedly what is the "greatest nation on earth."

[high density]

262. I see the purity trolls are back with ferocity in this thread

Maybe they can all move to Kucinich's district. They can come together and dream about the far-less-than-218-votes available for a single-payer plan.

[A R S]

268. I know, right?

:crazy:

[ProleNoMore]

279. Is One Labeling DUers with Derogatory Statements - That Is Against DU Rules

eom

[No Elephants]

303. Said high density while making one of the most trolling posts on the thread.

Apparently, you don't get the definition of "troll," but here's a hint: It is not making a post that disagrees with your views of this bill, or with your views on any other point of substance.

It's a post like the one of yours to which I am responding.

Hope that helps.

[high density]

310. well, here's the point:

There's a lot of bellyaching here about the bill is a handout to insurance companies. We got 220 votes. Show me the votes for a more liberal plan. Thanks.

(You responded with a post that as substanceless as mine, so don't act like you're above the fray.)

[No Elephants]

329. And? If this bill were the only bill Congress had ever passed in its entire existence,

substantive criticism of it would still be a valid post.

No one has to show you House votes to post a criticism on a political about a highly important bill that just passed the House.

As far as your personal comment, that's just more trolling. I'll label it for what it is, but that's all I'll do.

[Obi_Wan_Kenobi]

378. You only see 218 votes ?

Some people are looking at 218 votes these days. Others are looking at the millions of other votes.

[YewNork]

276. That's one hurdle. We still have the senate and then the bills have to be merged.

[ProleNoMore]

277. Progressive Democracies Took Another Hit Last Night

eom

[liberalhistorian]

278. Cao

Cao presents a problem to the Republicans. Not only did he vote for this bill, but he is a minority from a generally Democratic district.

The moderate Republican leadership (if there are any--certainly they would like to keep up the pretext) will want to keep him on board, but the hard core right will want to drum him out of the party.

Oops, I just posted this under my wife's user name.

[Techn0Girl]

336. Cao is irrelevant...

I have no idea why some people are fixated on him. One member of the opposition of of a couple hundred votes as we do and some here are jumping up and down like we just defeated the Nazis or something.

It. Doesn't . Matter.

What matters is that this bill is a HUGE give away to both the Insurance Industry and Big Pharma and that it places a HUGE financial burden on the lower economic classes (those making between 17000 and 30,000) and new families.

That's what matters.
Cao is a distraction.

[change_notfinetuning]

281. Watch the health insurers' stock prices to see how good this bill is. The U.S.

Treasury should load up on their stock and, at least, get something out of this boondoggle. Better yet, the U.S. should buy up all of the stock of all of the insurers, throw the bums out, close them down, and turn it all into single payer.

This is a sad day for progressives. This is not change or even fine tuning. This is pure business and health care as usual. The devil is always in the details. How many details are in 1,990 pages? A slew of them, and 95% or more are there because of the lobbyists who work against the interests of the American people. Obama railed against lobbyists in the campaign, but played footsie with them in the White House.

President Rahmbama, we hardly knew ye, in almost every way.

[INdemo]

283. Reading the brief summary from the link given this

"reform package" is nothing close to what we were promised during the campaign.What kind of healthcare reform is it when we are required to carry health insurance and nothing in the bill to limit amount of premiums charged..We are required to carry auto insurance but the rates for coverage are regulated..Not so with health insurance. Is this really a victory for the Democrats?

[Techn0Girl]

314. Limit the Premiums ...

Respectfully, there is a limit on the premiums that are charged. It is income based and starts at about 1 and a half percent of your income if you make around 13K a year and rises to 12% if you make 44K.

I am NOT a supporter of this bill btw and believe it is a HUGE hand out to the insurance companies.

You can find the premium limits here:

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_hcr_complete_summary.html


Look at he table under the column "Premium Limit as Percent of Income"
The FPL (Federal Poverty Level) is currently at 10,800 by the way.

[INdemo]

324. I gues I understand about the income based but

I am so disappointed with this bill and agree this is a handout to the insurance companies.I would expect something like this from a Republican Majority but I certainly didnt expect to see so many Democrats walking and talking to the demands of the insurnace industry.
We need some big changes in Washington and term limits would be a great start.

[Obi_Wan_Kenobi]

376. Government become cattle herders prodding people into insurance co. doors

"I am so disappointed with this bill and agree this is a handout to the insurance companies.I would expect something like this from a Republican Majority but I certainly didnt expect to see so many Democrats walking and talking to the demands of the insurnace industry.
We need some big changes in Washington and term limits would be a great start.

Heard virtually the same thing in a comment under a local Oregon news story yesterday. I would expect something "like" this from Republicans myself, but would expect something exactly like this from current Democrat representatives. A lot of voters just need to get honest with themselves - this is what they wanted to do. And if such a beast as universal health care was not being payed for before, certainly the increased burden is going to be laid on the backs of everybody. There is no other option. Trickle-down economics never fails to follow through.

Basically, the government would become cattle herders, using prods of the law to push people right in the doors of insurance companies.

[roody]

312. Is it a health care bill or a health insurance bill?

[MarlaM]

316. Kicked for a much-needed victory n/t

[tomm2thumbs]

345. * * * Link to Stupak Amendment * * *

For those that wanted to read, it is about 3 pages - just posting here since I hadn't seen it earlier. The first page is a cover so you must click to page 2 to start the text

http://documents.nytimes.com/the-stupak-amendment#p=1


Also: note that you can switch between image and text versions of the document on the left side of the page (above the document window) but the text conversions can sometimes misread characters and you should take note if any words need to be corrected in the process. Text readers are alas imperfect as yet.

[Techn0Girl]

347. We already know what the amendment says -

It prohibits insurance companies who participate in the exchange (which would be all current companies) from providing abortion services to any woman what so ever - thus saving insurance companies millions upon millions of dollars and making abortion a de facto impossibility for any but the wealthy.

We already know what the amendment does - and so did Kucinich and Dean did when they voted their conscious against it.

Thank you for the link.
Does it show anything we didn't already know? I'm curious about that.

[tomm2thumbs]

349. posting for those that want to read the short 3 pg amendment in its entirety

see post labled * * * Link to Stupak Amendment * * * above or click below for the .pdf version - starts actual text on page 2.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/nytint/docs/the-stupak-amendment/original.pdf

[tomm2thumbs]

362. some un-named people have been saying rape or incest exception is not included - FALSE

Excerpt from the bill amendment:

Abortion coverage using federal funds is noted to be excluded

'...except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.'

Note: I'm definitely not saying that this current amendment language restricting federal funding for women's health care issues on abortion won't eventually be removed/altered anyway and I'm not in favor of restricting a woman's right to choose at all, whatsoever, but as it stands, that language is from the actual amendment and I think it is wrong for some people on this board to be posting that women won't be covered by federal funding even if raped or in cases of incest. You know who you are.

The full approx 3 pages of the amendment is here:

http://documents.nytimes.com/the-stupak-amendment#p=1


again, some folks are misrepresenting this so please don't assume everything you hear from people is accurate on these boards

[superconnected]

358. The bill is further and this is good.

I figure after a few years of paying the levy and having insurance people won't want to go back, instead they'll demand more flexibility and better costs as well as regulating the health industries overblown prices and insurance company behavior.

This reminds me of the seatbelt law in my state. It started 23 years ago as a secondary offense that everyone was mad about, now it's a primary offense that people would demand if it went away. They can't imagine letting people drive around without seat belts now.

I bet in a decade our demands will be melded with a belief that it is our right and we won't take less. The health companies will keep giving up more because they won't be able to handle losing us or worse a few big corporations become very competitive for our business. By that time we'll be demanding regulating them and the health industry. Right now we're acting like we don't even have a right. This is a start. Not a great one, but we do need to start.

[LeftishBrit]

365. Hope this really leads to something!

Definitely encouraging!

[mares]

370. This now former lifelong lib dem has been against this scam since learning what was hidden within it

My senator, Jack Reed (RI-D) dismissed my request for assistance, when I turned to him for help for the very first time ever (had campaigned, contributed to and voted for him for years), when my husband, a patient awaiting a transplant, had lost his job and health insurance, and after fighting for 2 years, I got him medicare disability, only to learn that our public hospital refused to take medicare patients unless they had an expensive supplemental policy. Reed refused to help, claiming medicare wasn't a 'federal matter'. My husband died on June 14th of '06 of Burkets like lymphoma, 3 weeks after his diagnosis. The oncologist told me that had he been given the normal blood tests his condition required as a transplant patient, to monitor the progression of his condition, the lymphoma would have been diagnosed in a very early stage, when it was treatable and very survivable. Why would I trust Reed's claims about this legislation, when he had behaved in a callous and cruel manner when my family truly needed and deserved his assistance? He and the rest didn't even consider this so called plan good enough for themselves, and wrote in exemptions to protect themselves and their families from being subjected to it's not so tender mercies.

Only 6 pages in the entire legislation deal with health care. The rest of the bill is about eradicating our rights and freedoms, it includes kickbacks and giveaways to fat cat contributors. The democrat party (nothing democratic about them) have regressed to their shameful former status as the party of slavery and Jim Crow, and all of you know it. If you think you're safe from their corruption, you're as deluded as any Bushista who kept voting for him, even after it was painfully apparent that he was selling them out. Call me a right wing troll if you like, I simply don't care. I haven't posted here in a long time, because of the serious denial, and severe moral relativism that has infected this community for far too long. I sincerely hope that the lot of you wake up before it's too late. Remember the issues that most here used to claim to care about? Are you willingly blind and deaf to the untold millions of homeless Americans, the malnutrition that exists in the US? How it's democrats who are profiting from selling us all out to corporate and foreign interests. Do you truly believe that sidling up to human rights violators in China, India, Iran and Latin America is ethical? Again, wake up, because they're reflecting their support for that corrupt status quo, by imposing it here.. and yes, they will blithely send you to jail for not complying with their demands.. be cognizant of the fact that they wrote this scam of a bill at a time when more of you are and will lose your jobs. This is fascism, about government controlling all aspects of our lives.

[ProudDad]

373. Typical POS legislation from POS democrats

So the House passes the "Health Insurance and Drug Corporation Stimulus Act" of 2009. Big whoop...

Exactly what one would expect from the near-right wing of the big business corporate party...

The confused, scared, timid, facts challenged, corporate funded democrats with their utter lack of interest in anything but their re-election chances and how to pitch their "message" to the loudest of their corporate constituents...

Able to completely ignore the wishes of the large majority of USAmerican People...

To protect their rare corporate funded pResident...

Have scored a coup...

And destroyed any chance of meaningful HEALTH CARE reform for another generation...


While they cheerfully and with great show of "patriotism" and jingoist fervor pass another fucking military supplemental for Obama's wars...

God Damn the USAmerikan Empire!

[vaberella]

374. I totally missed reccing this thread. But I give it much Kudos and love. n/t