Well said.

I can only cheer for so many posts a day. This is one of them. FBed.

A sad day week month year for this country.

It’s a terrible bill, you are right. It’s sad to see this opportunity squandered.

Obama’s sell-out to the insurance companies has led to a bad bill that he’s forcing the whole democratic party to swallow.

I agree completely Jon. That’s why I’ve been against both the House and Senate bills, and now this compromise that is coming out. Months ago I posted two diaries on what the hcr messaging strategy should have been: here and here. The second of these built on one of your early diaries advocating the Administration vigorously backing a public plan. I concluded that analysis with:

I agree with Jon Walker, that passing health care reform requires mobilization of the activists who were so important to Obama in the past. But, I think that to mobilize them and to maintain that mobilization in the difficult fight to come, the President needs to backtrack from his earlier positions and guarantee that he will veto any health care reform bill without “Medicare for All.” Since “Medicare for All” will socialize insurance for basic health care, and provide freedom from the insurance companies; that is what will mobilize the activists. That is also what will mobilize the 85 co-sponsors of HR 676 in the House, who thus far have been awfully quiet and unwilling to commit to vote no on any bill lacking a robust public option. And that is what will mobilize masses of Americans in back of health care reform, because everyone understands what Medicare is, and 86% of their parents and grandparents say they’re satisfied with it.

Looking back on things now, I think that if the push from the left had been for Medicare for All from the very beginning, and if the PO had never gained traction, it’s quite likely that we could now be in a position where we had a Medicare expansion coming out of Congress that would have been an incremental movement in the right direction.

The other thing it does is set a horrible precedent. Obama and the Dems will indeed be able to check health care off their list for the next 20 years or more. I already have heard how weary the reps all are for talking and fighting for health care for a year. It’s like fighting and talking about a person you want for president for a ywar, and finding out he’s not anything he said he was. You don’t surrender and vote for him anyway. It isn’t going to give you what you wanted. But I call this the hope and prayer bill.

Many good hearted people think/hope/pray this bill is going to do something for someone. I still have no answers to all the questions asked about how it will guarantee care to the magical 31 million. All it does is force insurance on them. I have no faith or hopes in insurance companies. I have faith they will make sure more suffer. They are the problem not the solution.

I have no answer to how it stops those with existing conditions from being priced out of health care. It might help some. But it saddens me so that we as a people settle for so little. I guess that’s the Democratic party’s new mantra-helping a couple people, letting the rest suffer because that’s the best we can do.

There are 2 points you hear people talk about that support this:
1. ending the pre-existing condition denial
2. insuring people below poverty-level for free

So what about these points? Would someone please explain the tradeoffs against these? thanks…

I think it makes life interesting to try to learn something every day. Today I learned Kucinich is NOT Presidential material.

The other thing it does is set a horrible precedent. Obama and the Dems will indeed be able to check health care off their list for the next 20 years or more.

For what it is worth. I think this does so little that it will quickly be a failure though it may show more as escalating a collapsing economy. Health care may well be revisited as single payer to calm the impoverished masses bound to be restless. Many of these big corps even are going to fail.

A good question would be, why do party faithful and supposed progressives, think this will be reopened and improved down the line? IF a better way was to be had, it would be done now, not 10 years from now. They’ve all just shown they really don’t care if you have healthcare at all, as long as you have insurance.

You’re right, Jon. I could forgive a lot with this bill if there was some hope this could be the “foundation” for future reform. Let’s count the ways that hope’s been killed.

1. No public option – even a weak one – to apply cost containment and competitive pressure to health care industry.

2. No rate regulatory authority – to apply cost containment to the health care industry.

3. No Medicare buy-in – because that would destroy private health insurance.

4. No drug reimportation or price negotiation – because that would hurt big pharma’s profits (and save Americans at least $100 billion over the next decade)

What are we left with? A bill that taxes health insurance for the first time in 60 years? A bill that taxes medical devices and prescription drugs? And a bill that forces people to buy private health insurance – whether they want to or not; whether they can afford to or not (with a sleezy “hardship” exemption).

It DOES harm, not good. On balance, there’s more to hate about this bill then to like, and what little there is to like about it could all be done separately. And of course, passing this bill also takes away our chance to pass something better down the line. It in no way makes that more likely, because the politicians will all say “we did health care reform… let it work” (or more likely, “we’re not getting involved in THAT mess again!”)

Proponents of this intentional breakage dropped facts long ago. (See kos on television last week)

I mean seriously.. the cognitive dissonance of all those who spent weeks pushing the bill by saying first “we will fix it later” still makes me laugh.

I’m a newbie here at firedoglake, but, frankly, I think that this healthcare “reform” bill that’s about to get passed is so dangerous and disasterous that it’s worse than no healthcare reform bill, imho. This bill will do nothing what. so. ever to rein in healthcare costs. People will continue to pay exhorbitant premiums, deductibles, co-payments, etc, and costs will rise so steeply that many people who already bought their own healthcare insurance prior to this bill will be forced to ratchet down what they’ve already got in the ways of healthcare. This “Obamacare” bill, as many people are calling it, will not save lives, nor will it help uninsured people. Presently uninsured people will end up buying healthcare insurance that they can’t afford, and will be not be receiving improved healthcare as a result, either. They’ll also end up paying the same sort of exhorbitant premiums, etc., that other people will, and many people won’t use it, as a consequence. Lives will not be saved with this healthbill. After campaigning for single payer during his campaign, Obama took it off the table, which is disgraceful. Equally disgustingly and disgracefully, the Obama Administration hijacked abortion rights in order to get that stinker of a healthcare “reform” bill passed, which is equally dangerous.

There’s much anger and frustration over this trainwreck of a healthcare “reform” bill, and what happened here in the Bay State with the election of Scott Brown to take the late Senator Ted Kennedy’s seat should be a lesson to everybody, but it won’t. Not withstanding that Martha Coakley not only ran a lousy campaign but very arrogantly and lazily failed to do any work and campaigning on behalf of herself, Scott Brown rode on the coattails of people’s justified anger and frustration over this “Obamacare” healthcare “reform” bill, and got himself elected to the Senate….in a huge landslide.

Sorry, I also forgot:

5. No ERISA waiver – because that could revolutionize state insurance regulation, and maybe even pave the way for single payer (if the feds kicked in some $$$).

With the pre-existing denial, if you keep the system of private insurance in place (as this bill does) it is only a matter of time before the insurance companies will revert to this practice. They are in charge, just as the banks own Washington, D.C. So who will really regulate them?

Again, it’s probably only a matter of time before politicians will be saying: this feature of the health care bill is too expensive. By cutting support to “these deadbeats” we’ll save lots of money.

This bill really contains no features that are good and the ones that appear to be good, will easily be changed back to what we have now. BUT, the mandate will stay in place.

How is Rhambama going to get the seven or eight blue dogs to commit political suicide by voting for this bill? Will those blue dogs hold the line or will they fold?

These blue dogs are correct in assuming that their yes vote will kill their reelections. Are there eight ambassadorships available?

1) It actually doesn’t. It stops them for doing children immediately, but everyone else has to wait 4 years. And even after it kicks in, they’re allowed to charge you 3 times as much than if you didn’t have a preexisting. The subsidies do not cover that.

2) there’s no such thing as insuring someone for free. The money is coming from medicare and taxes on the middle class.

As I posted on Facebook Crackbook last night:

I wonder whether health care “reform” legislation is actually gonna pass later this week, and, assuming it does, whether it’ll make any visible difference for the vast majority of people in the next year — or four years. The more I learn about it, the less I seem to know.

Ask yourselves: do you REALLY think nearly all of us will not yet remain one serious accident or illness away from financial ruination/bankruptcy in the wake of “reform” passage? Even those of us with “insurance coverage”?

Great post. I can’t even verbalize it anymore without my head exploding.

LUCKY – in answer to your question:

1) Pre Exisitng condition had to be ended in trade-off for the Individual Mandate. The loophole is that while they can’t deny anyone coverage they can set their policy and rates “accordingly, based on industry standards” and charge “proportionately” (as also defined by the industry) for having to take on high risk insureds. For the elderly population as one example, the rate differential is predicted to be 3 times higher than the average. There is no control mechanism for rates or incremental increases thereof.

2) We already have programs in place that insure people below the poverty level, hence the argument for simple expansion of the Medicare and MEDICAID plans. Simple expansion of these would be cheaper, more cost effective and provide immediate relief to millions of people. And under the Sentate plan nobody is insured for free. This will be paid for by people already insured under a private employer plan. At last word this will be done by increasing the so-called ‘Cadillac’ Tax which means that if you have a fantastic medical/dental/vision plan from your employer it will result in higher payroll taxes.

Guess you haven’t been listening to the spin coming out of the WH and the halls of Congress. This is the greatest piece of health care legislation in the history of the world. To say otherwise is unpatriotic. It’s only a matter of days before the corporate media begins to sing the praises across the airwaves to the bobbleheaded public whose heads will bounce in collective agreement.

All too true, but we live in a plutocracy, and have to make the most of this. If the tea-baggers are in denial about the bill, so are we about the American political situation. Obama is a very intelligent politician, as was Clinton. Neither thought they could go up against big business and win. There’s something in that point of view, even if we hate it. We live where we live. (I live in Canada, but that’s just dumb luck).

You forgot the whole “throwing women under the bus” part.

It makes me sick to root for those I’ve always considered “the bad guys” [i.e., Republicans and Blue Dogs], but while their reasons for opposing the bill may stink, their votes are correct.

However, if the Repubs were really serious about defeating this monstrosity, they’d be out beating the drums and throwing ads up on the teevee.

Look, there’s gonna be some popping of champagne corks in the Republican cloakroom if this thing passes. It will screw Democrats 100 ways from Sunday for decades to come.

Really amazing that Obama managed to construct a “win-win” for Republicans and a “lose-lose” for Democrats.

Are ALL Democrats so stupid they don’t see this?

Amazing that Rachel Maddow NOW has a guest on who talks about the big steps backward on women’s health. Does she think anything can be done at this late date? Or does she think Obama won’t sign this major rollback on women’s reproductive rights?

Very well said.

It is really sad that it all sank so far. What is even sadder for me is I attended the NAACP rallies supporting the public option and real reform, and yesterday I received an email from the same organization asking me to pressure my congressman to vote yes for this POS. I immediately removed my name from the email list. Health care reform should have put people first and profits last.

Yeah and unfortunately we also got to learn that neither was Barack Obama.

Too bad we found out AFTER the fact.

I’ve heard that although it will be against the law to deny coverage health insurance corporations still have the freedom to deny treatments. Plus the fine for denying coverage is a whopping $100.00 dollars a day. That will certainly bring them to their knees.

In every advanced industrialized country for profit health insurance is illegal. In the U.S. the health of it’s citizens is merely another profit center.

All these truths Jon Walker presents can’t be shouted loudly enough or too many times. If the bastards in Washington, DC, are going to do this to us, then let us all stand in angry, shouting witness to their act. Let the digital hillsides ring with the sounds of our angry voices.

I hope you were able to provide them with a “reason” why you didn’t want to hear from them any further.

don’t need to give away the whole store to Wellpoint and Pharma (500billion/10yrs) to accomplish those two points.

1 or 2 free standing pieces of legislation and voila.

LOL I call it face crack all of the time.

The media praise and fanfare will not last a month. Once the bill is passed, the tables will turn so fast it will make one’s head spin.

The corporate-republican-owned media will do backflips in support of the Republicans and their contention that the bill is a piece of shit and the square-jawed, lockstep Republicans were correct all along (and they’re manly*, hawkish and pro-torture = pro-American and lets bomb Iran).

*Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell and Eric Cantor notwithstanding

I agree. I think the worsening of the economy will render all of this moot. Healthcare will become either a way to buy off the restless masses or be a further cause for revolution.

Sorry, Jon,

Mostly hysterical nonsense. Note that I outlined for you yesterday how much the cost of widely used drugs have been driven-down. You had no response. Is this bill wonderful and great? Not at all. Should be have a public option? Absolutely. But this kind of blathering as to how the sky is falling adds pretty much nothing to the solution. Sorry if that seems harsh, but that is the way I see it.

Yes. The little box popped up and I used all the 200 characters it would allow to tell them why. I don’t think I was the only one.

it seems that the only ‘restless masses’ may be on the right of the political spectrum. If that remains the case the left will loose the opportunity to affect the outcome of whatever is coming up that tunnel.

All citizens should simply line up and obey, while applauding.

In Vegas we uniformly call it “Crackbook.”

Back to my point. Obama loftily claimed it to be wrong for people to have to face financial ruin over serious medical malady.

THIS.FUCKING.BILL.WILL.DO.ESSENTIALLY.NOTHING to change that extant reality, IMO.

If the Republicans were really serious about defeating this bill, they’d have proposed a reasonable alternative. ANY reasonable alternative. Pretty much anything beyond “interstate competition” and tort reform that could plausibly expand coverage would peel off enough wavering Democrats to defeat this thing.

Clearly, President Obama would endorse it, because he can’t incorporate crazy Republican ideas fast enough while rejecting “disruptive” ideas from the Left (his quote from a Fox News interview).

Obviously, Republicans really don’t mind if they pass this bill. I mean, they’d rather the bill fail, but they aren’t so committed to defeating it that they’d give Obama a way out (i.e. a bill with bipartisan support).

What a dumb blog.

You don’t want to do anything for the actual uninsured? That is, young-to-middle-aged adults? We are the most uninsured demographic.

We’ll fix the bill later. The check is in the mail.
This bond is rated AAA. I’ve had a vasectomy.
Even the liberal New Republic …

1. ending the pre-existing condition denial
2. insuring people below poverty-level for free

1. Nothing restricting pricing, so these (including the interim ‘high risk pool’) will be unaffordable to the vast majority of those in need.

2. Most if not all of these are already covered by Medicaid. You may have heard the complaints about low Medicare reimbursements to doctors, Medicaid is something like 20% less than that. Unsurprisingly, docs are not tripping over each other to take these patients into their primary care practices. So unless one is lucky enough to have a community clinic, this is just ER coverage.

It’s in the media’s corporate interests to support Obama. With another impending economic collapse comes the real possibility of social disruption and chaos not seen since the First Great Republican Depression. After Obama, le deluge.

Welcome to the Lake, and many agree with this view. This was from the start an insurance bill, not a healthcare bill. It has always been about the money, and zero about the actual care.

Actually, under the prevailing wisdom of the day, it’s not whether a bill does too little good or too much harm, it’s whether it undermines Barack Obama that counts. If progressives have to discredit themselves and their movement to make the president look good, so be it.

TalkingStick,
The revolution is more likely to come from the right than the left under the present circumstances.

the drugs are still 50% plus less expansive outside the US. Isn’t that price discovery and obvious collusion between our representatives and a already well subsidized (R&R) Drug Industry?

My understanding is that they cannot technically deny treatment. Although there are loop-holes aplenty and no doubt they will continue to do what they always do.

What they still have is the loophole of “recision under fraud” meaning they can claim you acquired insurance fraudulently by giving false information on your paperwork and then deem you ineligible.

Now I know what you are thinking – “if it’s the law to have health insurance how can anyone be accused of buying it fraudulently and how can anyone be ineligible?”

Where this loophole would most likely be used is in cases where you already had a fantastic plan from some other source (employer, privately, whatever) and then you get sick and try to use it. The insurance company could claim you were never really eligible for the really good, affordable coverage and then immediately revert you to the crappy, overpriced trash can plans for coverage – which is really no coverage at all.

Essentially they could claim you are no longer a low to moderate risk and immediately shove you into the “high-risk category” which leaves you with dismally bad health care coverage and now makes them eligible for a tidy government supplement for taking on yet another “untouchable”.

Fantastic country isn’t it?

You hit on precisely the problem. I’ve been arguing since the Senate bill came together toward the end of 2009 that I would rather scrap the entire thing – rather than entrench the problem – in favor of a Medicare buy-in EVEN IF IT WERE ONLY TWO YEARS EARLIER THAN CURRENT ELIGIBILITY. The point being, a marginal Medicare buy-in would be a “harmless” first step; but at least it would be a precedent, and a step in the right direction.

To quote Senator Harkin: “A Medicare buy-in for people at age 63 is a starter home, not a mansion. However, a buy-is is far better than the original Senate bill since the original Senate bill is like building an extravagant vacation home for the insurance industry at which sick people are unwelcome.”

Isn’t that what he said?

The children’s immediate coverage provision, plus the fact it spends a lot on subsidies that can later be redirected to paying for a subsidized Medicare buy-in, are the the only in this bill.

The bad of killing it is that we will not get even this far for the next 10 years as the GOP kills everything.

Progressives do not have the power – and the moderates are in bed with the insurance folks. Only after the financial disaster this insurance based system causes will there be change.

It’s funny because none of you even know what’s in the bill.

we don’t want insurance, we want care!

Mod note: Edited and released by mod.

Jon,

I’ll explain it for you.

This bill will implode the private insurer’s business models. They can’t cover every American…have never even wanted to, nor have they ever pushed for legislation that would make it so. Simply put, the insurance industry cannot cover every American AT ANY PRICE.

With the sick and people of pre-existing conditions being added to the rolls, private insurers will one by one begin to lose the reserves necessary for them to do business as insurance companies. They will fold, as they are mandated to by Federal law.

The price controls inside of the bill will eliminate attempts by insurers to raise prices to ungodly levels, and will also eliminate any chance insurers have of saving their business model. In essence, due to the sheer numbers of claims made by people never before allowed insurance, and without a mechanism for raising prices high enough to cover that cost, insurers will, one by one, die. Republicans get this; I should know, I debate with them over these issues almost daily. They know this bill will kill private insurers.

What’s going to happen then? The only thing that can happen: Single Payer. It will happen quickly, unless you can imagine a scenario where we leave America’s health care providers flapping in the wind without payment for a year while we try to write an acceptable bill.

In the meantime, the wealthy execs of each insurance company will begin raiding the reserves, ensuring their wealthy retirements. You’ll probably see a few of them do it even before they are forced to cover pre-existings. The long and short of it is this:

The bill doesn’t need to be perfect, It just needs to corner insurers on pre-existings and cost increases, which it does very well. With those two things in place, insurers in America are finished…and they know it, which is why they are fighting this so hard.

Don’t make their job easier.

It is always good to see some come here, unaware apparently of the hundreds of posts and discussions on every aspect of the healthcare debate we have had over months, and blithefully dismiss us as dumb, without of course bothering to make any argument or put up any evidence of their own.

The GOP complaining about a bill that the GOP in effect wrote in 93 as an alternative to Hillarycare will be interesting. Damn good thing we did not nominate Hillary.

Obama equals the GOP – it is 1984 and the enemy is whatever our leader says it is.

That headline sums it up for me perfectly.

It sounds an awful lot like a lot or most of us do, given that the contents of this bill have been articulated in substantial detail in the web site posts for quite some time now.

Just to add two more points.

The pre-existing condition prohibition doesn’t do people any good if the insurance that is made available is unaffordable. Since there are no price controls in the bill. It will be unaffordable.

As far as Medicaid for poor people is concerned; Medicaid is already in trouble because Doctors won’t accept patients who must rely on it. Since the bill doesn’t lift Medicaid’s compensation reimbursement levels to those of Medicare, I doubt that many of the people newly added to Medicaid will be able to find services; so the expansion will do them little good. They will be covered by insurance that is unacceptable to Doctors.

So in essence U.S. health care likely will move from 37th to 34th place, at best, in the rankings by the World Health Organization. Somehow I don’t think France (#1) or Italy (#2) will be looking over their shoulders.

What a dumb blog.

Well stated. Thank you for coming and dazzling us with your brilliance. Please excuse yourself though as I don’t think I can stand the ecstasy of any more such incredible remarks.

I have no problem fighting for incremental reform as along as it is improvement done the right way, or at least with a pathway in the right direction.

Amen!

I would gladly fight for a smaller health care bill that just gave Medicare to people over 50 who don’t want to keep their current insurance.

Ditto!

That would help fewer uninsured people, but would do it the right way. It would be real help, and it would be done in a simple, cost effective, and fiscally conservative manner. It would be a small step, but, importantly, it would be a step in the right direction. That would actually be a health care reform foundation I would be proud to build on.

Yes, yes, yes and yes!

Honestly, how is it that we ended up here instead of there?

All they had to do was through a Medicare buy for 55-64 year olds in the stimulus.

It is impossible to assess what aardvark is talking about. Generics cost less when drugs go off patent. But the newest and most pushed drugs aren’t generics. You also run into a problem with vaccines and older meds like the penicillins where most drug manufacturers won’t touch them because the profit margins aren’t big enough on them. Then there are the biologics to which Jane refers. These are top line anti-cancer meds. If you don’t have top line insurance to go with them, you can kiss them good-bye.

Honestly, how is it that we ended up here instead of there?

Money.

I call BS:

Insurers can deny claims, deny coverage, deny treatment, make all manner of bogus claims against the insured like they do now. The penalty if applied is $100 a day. Whoop de doo.

wrong friend.

What will actually happen is we’ll turn a good chunk of Americans into Criminals because even with the subsidies the industry can jack up the prices however they want still. They won’t have insurance for lack of payment, and hence will have to pay the fine and will be denied care.

Politicians, being so exhausted from a year and a half process will run away from healthcare for decades..leaving us all to rot.

Exactly. Health insurance is junk when you still can’t get health care.

By requiring insurers to cover everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions, healthcare reform will make it more difficult for insurers to control their costs, or “bend the cost curve,” by avoiding sick people.

That leaves insurers with the other big cost-containment tool: turning down requests to cover treatments.

“There are going to be a lot of denials,” said insurance industry analyst Robert Laszewski, a former health insurance executive. “I am not setting insurance companies up to be villains. But we are telling them to bend the cost curve. How else are they going to bend the cost curve?”

Experts said the legislation under consideration does not significantly enhance patient protections against insurers refusing to cover requests for treatment. Most people currently have no right to challenge health insurers’ treatment decisions by suing them for damages.

Instead, Congress will totally Institutionalize Private Insurance Industry as an integral part of our HCS.

Making bad worse, that’s Obama.

Mind you, the Medicare buy-in is an old idea promoted through out the ’90′s by that old lefty Bill Clinton. Really, it would have been an easy pass, and a very good first step.

I should say, for older Americans. Clearly, the Democrats have never done something smart, like advance the idea of universal Medicare.

Your Check Is In Your Mouth…

I have a different take, which I concur with. She stressed that the situation as to access to abortion is already so bad this bill is not going to make it much worse. Of course the provisions in the bills are abhorrent but the Senate one is a done deal along with all the other bad law.

88% of the counties in the US do not have abortion providers today.

Well no need to waste a vote for DK in 2012, or for a progressive.

I don’t know where you read that, but you’re information is wrong. The denial of claims can only be accomplished, now, by PROVING fraud. In other words, the procedure was never necessary, or the equipment “sold” was sold to a dead guy.

This bill focuses on insurers like a laser beam. Why do you think Republicans call it a government takeover of healthcare? Because one of their private pets is being bitchslapped by the Feds, that’s why.

thanks, jon. much more articulate than my position: the bill sucks and should not be visited on the american people.

I agree but I also believe there will likely be shifting coalitions as people become more impoverished. If there could be new leadership and new messaging there could be some joining of forces. But we will see. It’s all just speculation right now.

The price controls inside of the bill will

Would that this bill had price controls of any sort! They’re not even going to include that weak-ass “rate review authority” Feinstein (theoretically) wanted to include. Private insurers WILL cover the sick and uninsured who can afford their products by increasing costs even more than their expenses.

Unfortunately, while they take their money off the top, the tax credits won’t be enough to make their overpriced products affordable for ever-increasing numbers of Americans.

Private insurers will be healthier than ever after this bill. Now, the American people, on the other hand…

(golf clap)

Fuggit, I’m gonna drink wine now.

Firepeople: Keep shouting from the digital hillsides across the digital valleys below! If we’re going to get nuked by our own supposed ‘natural allies’, let them hear us shout out that we know what they’re up to, who they are, and what they’re about!!

I’ll assuredly come back to contribute my own tiny little voice.

Jon: Good points, but we need to dig deeper and use the actual math of what this will cost workers. For a brief summary of how my union has done this see Peter Knowlton’s article of a few days ago on the Labor Notes web page.
http://www.labornotes.org/blogs/2010/03/health-care-bills-hidden-pitfalls

Run your own numbers; if the current bill passes, employers will dump coverage en masse and you can calculate the savings when they merely pay the minuscule $2,000 or $3,000 “penalty” per worker, per year. If you know what your own insurance coverages cost your boss, run your own numbers by A. multiplying your premiums family/single (total cost annually including what the boss and worker pay)times the number of workers. Then B. multiply the same number of employees times $3,000 for a lower wage shop (less than $10 hour and full time), $2,000 for better. Subtract B from A and this is what your employer will save by canceling your insurance and kicking you out into the exchange. Many willl even give you a letter blaming the “federal government” for making them do this.

At UE we seem to be the only union that I know of that feels the need to “run the numbers.” Why? Perhaps it’s because any union that does this will find itself incapable of supporting the current scheme and therefore put in the position of defending the membership over defending the Dems. We should be reading this bill and looking forward to massive cash savings, not scratching around in the dust to find out how much more it will cost us all. The labor “movement” behavior on this has been appalling, truly appalling. A new low in my 31 years in the labor movement.
Chris Townsend
UE Washington Office

The situation is right there plain to see.

The Obama plan gives subsidies to lower income people to buy private insurance rather than simply including them in Medicaid (or Medicare).

It’s simple really. Expansion of Medicaid got shot down, but subsidies to private insurers with a 20-30% cut off the top for marketing/costs/profits…no problem.

Question: If you can cover more people for less money, what’s not to like?

Answer: Not enough vig to spread around to your cronies.

And if you can’t afford life-saving treatment out-of-pocket, not only will you die, but your next-of-kin is barred from suing your insurance company for damages.

Patient advocates point to the continuing struggle of Hilda and Grigor Sarkisyan, whose daughter Nataline died in 2007 when insurance giant Cigna Corp. refused to cover a liver transplant.

The parents’ wrongful-death suit against Cigna over the transplant denial was thrown out this year by a federal judge, who cited a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. That ruling said ERISA bars suits for damages over health benefit decisions…

Still, [Rep] Schiff [D-Burbank] said there were not enough votes to overcome industry support for the ERISA ruling.

Obama will do whatever is necessary to stop drug importation from Canada, or make sure there’s an excise tax that punishes the middle class. However, when it comes to making sure people with health insurance can actually get life-saving treatment – he won’t lift a finger.

Lynn Woolsey, co-chair of the Congressional Faux Progressive Caucus, on Countdown. Now she’s saying that she’s for single payer. What a fraud.

What have all of you been reading? Nothing here makes any connection with the final reconcilliation bill up to and including “throwing women under the bus”. As one who spent YEARS walking women into clinics, this is important to me,and this bill changes NOTHING for women that has not existed for all the years since Henry Hyde. This bill will cover millions with existing problems – friends who’ve been without care now can get it and pegged at percentages of their income that are lower than what would be paid by the proposed CA single payer plan. I am a tireless worker for that plan, want single payer, but am over the moon that we’ve gotten this far.

Consider this: if you’re furious at this plan, do you have health care coverage? If so, think about whom YOU are willing to throw under the bus. Ideological purity does not cure diabetes, or asthma, or anything else under the sun. Consider whom you are willing to sacrifice – if it’s not yourself, willing to wait at least another decade for health care coverage, then you’ve returned to the “politics of me – just so I got mine.” And then how are you different from the tea bag folks?

Something about armchair liberals and progressives just does not smell good. This is about PEOPLE and what they need.

Oh, and by the way. This bill reflects exactly how Germany, Switzerland, and France started their single payer plans. Might be interesting instead of kvetching to think what our next steps need to be. Dennis finally figured that out – we should, too.

Thanks for the numbers and facts. Sure seems like a probable scenario- companies drop the coverage, pay the fine, move on. All of which will be dumped in the uninsured pool, who will be fined for not having insurance.

Regressive is too polite a word for this dead skunk of a bill.

Mr. Stern and Mr. Trumpka have some explaining to do.

Progressive Senators and Congress people– is anyone capable of negotiating for anything worthwhile.

I was thinking of a theme that went through K’s press conference. It seemed like the big deal for him, was “supporting the presidency.” Like you just knew that Obama was feeding him the same bull, that HIS presidency was on the line, yadda, yadda..And of course that was no substantive reason for a man of integrity and principles whom we thought Kucinich to be, to compromise down his position on universal health care. The fact that Kucinich went on Amy Goodman’s program recently and spelled out his opposition to the HCR bill, made it all the more disturbing that he did a sudden turnaround. So there’s the underlying fear that Obama will be destroyed unless all the Dems hustle up to line up for the crap bill. We the People are extraneous.

About like everything else he’s done in the last year.

Seriously, was the guy we-the-people voted into office replaced by a double from the ‘mirror, mirror’ universe between election day and inauguration? The difference between the two is extreme. And at this point, I’m about ready to support an impeachment move, if it means getting a better president.

Is that a statue of Bailout Ben? I guess not.

If DK folds I hope the D’s get 100% – minus Rep. Stupidpack.

Bill still sicks so the Senate better fix it, and then they better execute on fixing it & introducing bull for 1. Medicare for all (up or down vote), 2. Robust PO, 3. PO… after that it will be to repeal the Obamacare tax by R’s.

I would support if D’s put all their party on the line against every R. Then of course it would have to work out & then progress.

Right, we’ve only been discussing it for what, nine effing months, watching every maneuver and every change and all the bargaining (and the lying).

You’ve missed all the examples of coverage being denied by fraudulent claims on the part of the insurer. They lie, and they have more and bigger lawyers than most of us can ever afford, so they get away with it.

Not only will claims still get denied, but claim denials could actually go up.

Despite growing frustration with the way health insurers deny medical treatments, major healthcare bills pending in Congress would give patients little new power to challenge those sometimes life-and-death decisions.

“Right now, the deck is stacked against patients,” said Bryan Liang, director of the Institute of Health Law Studies at California Western Law School in San Diego. “Healthcare reform is not going to change the ball game.”

Yet a patient’s ability to fight insurers’ coverage decisions could be more important than ever because Congress, in promoting cost containment and price competition, may actually add to the pressure on insurers to deny requests for treatment…

“There are going to be a lot of denials,” said insurance industry analyst Robert Laszewski, a former health insurance executive.

And health insurers have other tricks up their sleeves.

Being uncooperative on insurance claims can chase away the chronically ill. For people who have few medical bills, it is less of a factor, said Karen Pollitz, research professor at the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute.

And to avoid patients with costly, complicated medical conditions, health plans could include in their networks relatively few doctors who specialize in treating those conditions, said Mark V. Pauly, professor of health-care management at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School.

Would have been nice if she’d said that about a year ago, when it might have made a difference. It looks like the ‘good pol, bad pol’ theory is correct. They change their claims to whatever looks most advantageous at the moment, and they assume that we never remember the previous statements.

…and I won’t cum in your mouth. So, when the dust settles, won’t it be massively ironic that the one rep that will end up looking like a hero, albeit for the wrong reason will be … BART STUPAK?!?!

Have fun wrestling that money from AHIP once they get their hands on it.

Hey KO, miss ya. Peace to ya’ll & yours.

I just watched Woolsey on Countdown too. It was painful. She was for single payer, she led the fight for a robust public option (until she didn’t), but rather than “vote with the Republicans and against the President of the United States” she’s voting for this bill, “it’s a start, it can be fixed later. They can add a public option if they actually have a bill; if they don’t have a bill, they can’t add a public option.” She was sure Dennis would come around. Seriously convoluted logic; for a minute I thought maybe she had been drinking. No mention of her pledge to vote against a bill without a strong public option, no mention of the rollback of reproductive rights, no mention of a mandate, no mention of the higher excise tax, just a lot of nervous smiling and giggling and babbling. Way to go, progressives, that’ll show ‘em.

God, we are truly, truly fucked.

What are you talking about? Insurance companies can deny claims for any damn reason they like. I had a claim denied, and they refused to tell me why the claim was denied. I had to appeal the denial while not even knowing the reason for the denial.

In fact, I once had a claim denied after they had pre-approved the care.

And the bill does not fix this.

Even within the exchanges, there could be limits to consumer protections. The health committee bill would not explicitly guarantee consumers the right to an external appeal when a health plan refuses to pay for medical services.

Apparently you think so if you want to follow the nonsense in this thread.

You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.

Lyndon B. Johnson

They can deny treatment. There is nothing in the bill to make them cover any particular treatment. As for fraud, since they are allowed to raise premiums based on risk factors, all they have to do is claim that you didn’t disclose something that would have raised your rates to rescind.

Exactly. Their job is to delay or deny care and hope that you’re too sick and/or too poor to fight about it. Heads they win, tails you lose.

Since you have no idea what you are talking about, this is what is happening now in California:

CNA/NNOC researchers analyzed data reported by the insurers to the California Department of Managed Care. From 2002 through June 30, 2009, six of the largest insurers operating in California rejected 47.7 million claims for care — 22 percent of all claims…

Claims denial rates by leading California insurers, first six months of 2009:

• PacifiCare — 39.6 percent
• Cigna — 32.7 percent
• HealthNet — 30 percent
• Kaiser Permanente — 28.3 percent
• Blue Cross — 27.9 percent
• Aetna — 6.4 percent

You’re confusing rescission with denial of care. They have to prove fraud to rescind the whole policy and provide no coverage at all. In order to deny any particular procedure, they don’t have to prove fraud, it’s just a business decision, same as it is today. Your doctor says you need biologics. The drug companies charge thousands for them because they are allowed to for 12 years plus possible evergreening. The insurance company says they won’t approve it and you only get surgery or some cheaper drug or whatever they don’t mind paying for. You have no recourse.

Modern marketing is based on the principles of very good research in social psychology from the 1950′s, wherein the goal was to be able to market an inferior product on par with a superior product. My personal opinion is that in the future, the last thirty years will go down as a tribute to the ability of the drug companies to market worthless products, especially antidepressants. I spend a goodly portion of my clinical time getting people off of useless psychotropics. So, I am not a fan whatsoever of the pharmaceutical companies. But, to conclude the conspiracy notion you assert I also think is nonsense. There is more complexity here than most folks posting want to deal with.

a very good point that is rarely mentioned by so called progressives. As it is, medicaid recipients get the worst doctors outside of university hospitals…But…in case people don’t know the reality of medical care…let me clue you in…At the VA, residents see most of the people…the same applies to medicaid patients…. Doctors with any experience don’t take medicaid.

Thank you.

Just so you don’t feel ignored with that waylay you landed on the sisters you walked into the clinics, just thought I would hit reply.

I guess that’s the most surprising point of this whole thing. Reminds me of AARP members’ silence when it supported the Repubs ’06 HC Bill, the silence was deafening because it made NO sense.
Near as I can figure, the Repubs role in Obama/PhRMA Bill has not been to defeat it, it’s been to earn their PhRMA bucks by “playing” the opposition. Recognizing how far rhetoric’s moved since Repubs passed their HC Bill 4 years ago, it’s impossible to conjure a Bill more favorable them. So, which interested party with access to air-time is going to make it an issue? Certainly not Pelosi.
In a not to distant leap, my guess is Obama’s planning to use the “potential” of readdressing the Dorgan amendment to extort continued PhRMA contributions. There’s NO other plausible explanation for not including it.

that made me laugh

How true.

I invite you to to prove your assessment of what we can or cannot deal with. This place is hungry for truth without much prejudice as to where it is to be found. So, having made an implicit offer, do not let ‘complexity’ get in the way of sharing information.

Please share.

By “complexity”, I assume you mean complicated deal-making.

Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion…

After reaching an agreement with Mr. Baucus, Mr. Tauzin [head of PhRMA] said, he met twice at the White House with Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff; Mr. Messina, his deputy; and Nancy-Ann DeParle, the aide overseeing the health care overhaul, to confirm the administration’s support for the terms.

“They blessed the deal,” Mr. Tauzin said

And they stuck to the deal.

President Obama and the Senate leadership can’t whip up the votes necessary to pass a public option or even a Medicare buy-in compromise, but they didn’t have any trouble persuading 30 Democrats to vote against prescription drug reimportation Tuesday night — thus preserving the deal cut between the Senate Finance Committee, the White House and Big Pharma.

The amendment’s sponsor, Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), was asked after the vote if Democratic leadership opposed his amendment in order to preserve the deal.

“Well, and they apparently did,” said Dorgan. “The last seven days, we’ve seen a lot of votes stripped away.”

First off I absolutely can not believe that Kucinich caved and totally sold us out and for what, a plane ride with “THE ONE” ??? I cant help but to believe that he was offered a hell of a deal for his Yes Vote. Sorry folks I just had to get that off my chest.

As for the do more harm than good, total crap, HealthCareReform, This monstrosity of a bill needs to die right where it is! period. This failed legislation has cost us far too much already. Now going on a year and a half our dear leaders have accomplish nothing other than a wide spread of backroom deals and broken promises.

Incumbents be damned

I agree! The problem is many here on the left don’t want to face up to how our political system REALLY operates. For some reason many believe that these blogs, marches, calling and writing your Congress critter and the WH really count for much when up against huge Corps. with deep pockets that pay huge sums to the Pols and expect , no demand a return on their INVESTMENT. This is business and we are not seen as anything more then customers. So, when we demand stuff like Single payer and they say off the table it’s because they’re bosses are talking through their mouths and moving their arms and legs. they’re puppets of these interests . That’s how it really works and we believe other wise at our hazard. We’d be better off finding out who really tel-operates these mannequins and talking directly to them and protesting them with boycotts and the like. The pols are JUST front men/women PR flunkies is all. We need to get @ their REAL bosses.

Well, I think the proof is in plethora of unsubstantiated assertions through out this thread, especially those such as yours that conclude universal complicity of Congress with whatever corporate entity of the day you choose.

But, you know what, Fuck No, in my day to day living I DO something about these issues, I don’t just talk about them. I am a constant thorn in the side of physician’s who prescribe nonsense meds; doesn’t mean it always changes what they do, but because I have an educated opinion, at the least they have to justify their actions. As I have posted before, I am the only psychologist in my state to publicly support abortion rights, and did so last year before a joint house and senate committee of the state legislature; in the past thirty years, not a single female colleague–I am male–has been willing to do so. And you know, to listen to the women whine about how the health bill surrenders women’s rights makes me want to puke; where have all the women psychologists, social workers, lawyers, physicians, been the last thirty years, here in Kansas to support this issue; well, they have been absent; I haven’t been.

So, Fuck NO, what do you do, on a day-to-day basis, that has real and substantial impact on real people?

Getting back to the answer to your question, I think the black and white nature of so many of the posts, validates my contention.

Your beef with your female colleagues there in what’s-the-matter-with-Kansas doesn’t give you the right to disrespect women on this thread whose “whining makes you want to puke.” (Are you this disrespectful to your patients?)

And you might want to be specific about the “plethora of unsubstantiated assertions” you so haughtily allude to. Most of us have been following these issues very closely for a very long time.

Such is the nature of the sandbox. Doesn’t mean it is right, it is just the nature of how things are. Now, I personally see the current state of the Republican party as fascist. By the dictionary definition, actions, whatever, I think that is an accurate characterization. But, they are the elected bozos and they have to be addressed.

I don’t know; have the women on this thread put their butts on the line as I have? That would be interesting.

Either financial ruin or doing Iran is closer at hand than I want to believe, so yeah, get in, sit down, buckle up and shut up and hold on.

It all changes sooner than the politics will . . . by force of reality, call it nature, call it what one will.

It’s all gonna change before we are ready for it.

Cost of widely used drugs gone down? For what segment of the population?

I’ve got GREAT coverage and mine went up again this year.

I dismiss your messaging. And you have the gall to lecture Jon Walker?

I scoff at your impetuous intent, ridicule your positioning, and dismiss your findings.

I fart, in your general direction, Monsieur.

Your post attempts to establish your credentials and authority by claiming a biography as sufficient to validate your position. That, as you should know well is BS.

Otherwise you are totally unresponsive. WTF?

If you think antidepressants are useless you’re either a scientologist or a fool.
They help people when they’re properly used, but they’re not a cure-all. I know enough people who are minimally functional without them ….

Congratulations. You win “This is What a Feminist Looks Like” from Ms Magazine for 2010. You’re up there with the best of them, bud.

I’m sure you know every doctor in the country, too, in order to make a statement like that.
It isn’t true.

You’re hitting a lot of the square for Troll Bingo. Are you sure you want to go there?

The author would “gladly give Medicare to people over 50 who did not want to keep their insurance”…He states that this move would constitute “real help in a cost effective manner”….He admits that this idea “would help fewer uninsured people”….REALLY?..Now THAT’S an understatement! Let’s assume that the gop somehow misses the single-payer path that the author’s offering (you’re just too smart for them Jon!). Here’s a few questions: Are there subsidies?..How do we cost justify this reform?..Would you REALlY be excited over this if you’re not in the 15 year ‘target zone’ (age 50-65)…If you’re NOT subsidized, do you think you can afford Medicare over your private insurance? (think again)…Tell me how this stops private insurers from suspending plans, striking folks with pre-existing conditions and capping the 250 MIL Americans outside of that 50-65yr old crowd??…This idea would be expensive, restrictive, offer NO cost-containment and it would blow up the deficit. It would offer NO relief to most Americans. It would NEVER pass in an environment where everyone’s freaking out about deficits..Otherwise it’s great!

!@#$%^&) troll.

As to my patients,well, I call them clients, what you have thrown here is an ad hominem argument, which suggests you have little else to avail yourself with. I think you would be amazed at the respect my clients have for me, and feel from me.

You know, hotflashcarol, amongst my clients who value me most are elderly black ladies. Probably because I am the first white male, who sits there and really listens to them.

“Deficits don’t matter” Ronald Reagan

You don’t fucking listen, you reek of narcissism, Monsieur.

Your arrogance makes me want to puke. How dare you ask if women here have put their butts on the line for abortion rights.

You’re right about one thing: I am certain I would be amazed at the respect your clients have for you.

Do you even have any clue how condescending you are? “Troll” would be a compliment.

aardvark @ 126

“As to my patients,well, I call them clients”

That brings much clarity as to who you are as a shrink, you work hard on shrinking your clients pocket books.

For the love of God and your clients, – defenestrate!

This is really disastrous. [And I want to know why Kucinich really caved.] Sooo… I have been thinking about this since they first proposed the idea that it would be “illegal” for people not to buy health insurance. It’s bad enough that Republicans subscribe to a system where the so-called ‘free market’ determines whether or not you will be able to get health insurance and then whether or not you will be able to afford to go to a doctor; but now the Democrats idea is to actually make it ILLEGAL to NOT pay money to still be denied coverage. The poverty level is pretty low, by the way… So… how will this work exactly? Let’s think about it: A LOT of people can not currently afford health insurance, so if it becomes law will they arrest people or fine them if they don’t buy insurance? And how will they know? I would guess that people will not be able to go for any medical treatments at all because when they go to pay they will be shown not to have insurance. So it will become like back alley abortions, you’d have to try to get medical attention in secret, or just not get medical attention at all. I think someone should bring that scenario up at a press conference. Just how are you going to enforce this Mr. President? Arrest the sick people when they’re in the hospital? Or are you just hoping that they won’t show up, just like they aren’t now, because they can’t afford healthcare?

have the women on this thread put their butts on the line as I have?

You have seriously got to be kidding.

Or else have the wrong blog.

I don’t know for sure (I bet someone here does), but since the IRS is the enforcement arm, I suspect you will have to show proof of insurance when you file your taxes. It remains to be seen how aggressively they will enforce it, but as many of us have discussed before, if you get thrown in jail, they’ll have to give you healthcare there!

Unfortunately Obama has alienated the gang here because in 2010, deficits DO matter. That’s why we got the individual mandate coupled with excise tax after he campaigned on employer mandate coupled with tax on wealthy in 2008.

Or have delusions of grandeur. Psychologist, heal thyself.

Who needs us women folk. He’s got it covered. Damn, wished I had known that before now.

I’m concerned about our new guest. Can someone please show him the door [no defenestration, if you please] to some other, more suitable blog, so that he/she may find a more compatible place to fit in?

It’s a he, a white he, who is heroic and kind and takes time to fight for abortion rights and listen to the elderly black ladies of Kansas, who adore him. His brilliance is wasted on the likes of us.

Well, have they? Two years ago, I gave testimony before the joint house and senate committee of the Kansas State legislature on the validity of Dr. Tiller using depression as a reasonable mental health diagnosis, and the potential of post-partum depression, for justifying abortion. So, tell, me Fuck No, you got any resume at all of hanging your butt our there? I’d like to hear about it if you do.

What are you asking for, my name?

Ha! Yes, that is ironic. But, seriously, it would be terrible PR if they actually arrested people. Although if the MSM doesn’t show it then, for the sheeple, it didn’t happen. I really am curious, and I think just raising the question in a really public forum such as a press conference would maybe make this sink in for the idiots out there still voting and working against their own best interests. Maybe they would finally get it. I can always dream.

I think you missed my point. fuckno commented that there was “obvious collusion” between our representatives and the drug industry. You dismissed this as a “conspiracy notion” – but this collusion just played out in front of our eyes.

Enough Republican Senators supported Dorgan’s amendment to allow prescription drug importation that Olympia Snowe, a lead co-sponsor, thought they had to votes to pass it.

Then Tom Carper, a Democratic Senator who had publicly defended Obama’s deal with PhRMA, put a hold on the amendment, which gave the White House time to persuade Democrats to switch their votes and vote against drug importation.

Let’s see, asking if others have put their butt on the line as I have, is arrogance? At least I have been willing to stipulate how I have done that.

Why I know just the one.

http://angryblackbitch.blogspot.com/

I’ve seen interviews with the actual abortion doctors who have been threatened and shot at and none of them display such hostility. Why are you putting your butt on the line if you hold women in such disregard?

No one has to give their real name here. But you do have to tone it down if you want anyone to listen to you.

People here give their opinions and are respected for what they have to say, not their resumes or their education. There are plenty of people here with unbelievable resumes and sterling education: that is not why we listen to them.

You need to show respect for your fellow commenters here if you want anyone to consider your ideas.

Well, thank ya, thank ya for the support that we are incapable of making decisions on our own. That, ya know, we ain’t in our right mind. You did us all a huge favor on that one.

Obama on Fox.. Did anyone catch his comments on how “centrist” he is.. and that he refused to go along with ideas “from the Left” that would have been “disruptive.” Wish the interviewer would have followed up for specificis. Obviously Nobama was flashing his Right of center credentials on Fox.

Thanks very much. I’m trying to find something good about this bill and really having trouble..

Ok,maybe I did. This is not dismissive, but it seems to me to easy to see conspiracy. Now, that said, I also am a strong believer in the power of the game of “Prisoner’s dilemma,” of which I am sure you are aware. There does not have to be any active collusion between the two, just an explicit knowledge of how the game is played.

asking if others have put their butt on the line as I have, is arrogance?

So what? You’ve gone out there and done something wonderful. Congratulations! So have many, many people who are working here and commenting here. Not all of us see fit to brag about it on thread, nor do we use our accomplishments as a weapon to lord it over other people.

Your accomplishments do not give you any authority here, nor any right to try and push other people around in the comments. We are all equal here, unless your name is Jane Hamsher.

Well, seems your reply does answer the question of why no women in Kansas, professional or otherwise, have publicly supported abortion rights. Sheesh.

Gosh, it is good to know that putting one’s professional butt on the line is of no consequence.

Wow, with friends like you who needs enemies.

Absolutely no consequence, if you are trying to use your accomplishments to say you know more than other people here at FDL. You might be surprised at the background, life history, and just downright courage of many of the other commenters here.

A little respect can go a long way, is what I’m saying. I can’t believe I have to spell this out for a professional psychologist.

Well, now, that is really a canard. Another non-sequitur. Let’s see, you fault me for being angry and frustrated because no women professionals in Kansas have been willing to publicly support abortion rights; I am the one you see at fault. Right? Seems to me, your disdain should be for those professional women in Kansas who have not been willing to support abortion rights.

It’s logical to assume that women – and men – posting on a progressive website founded by Jane Hamsher have done their share in the fight for abortion rights. Women appreciate men who put their butts out there, but it’s the height of arrogance to barge in here and right off the bat insist that you’ve fought harder than we have, especially in such condescending language.

Thanks, Hugh. You’re right about the “Obamacare” healthcare “reform” bill being an Insurance companies bill.

Glad to be here, btw.

Hmmmm, project much? Your anger and frustration about your colleagues has absolutely nothing to do with me or anyone else on this blog. You’re the one who is guilty of the non-sequiturs. I just called you out on your whiny women comment, which was presumably directed at readers here.

Do you have a psychologist colleague (not one of those awful women!) with whom you might make an appointment? This blog is really an inappropriate place for you to air your personal issues.

The White House and PhRMA acknowledged that they forged a deal to take prescription drug importation off the table. It’s not much of a conspiracy when both sides admit to the deal in the New York Times:

After reaching an agreement with Mr. Baucus, Mr. Tauzin [PhRMA head] said, he met twice at the White House with Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff; Mr. Messina, his deputy; and Nancy-Ann DeParle, the aide overseeing the health care overhaul, to confirm the administration’s support for the terms.

From the same article:

A deputy White House chief of staff, Jim Messina, confirmed Mr. Tauzin’s account of the deal in an e-mail message on Wednesday night.

It seems that when both sides publicly admit that they’ve been colluding – they’ve probably been colluding.

Sing, bird, sing. And please tell us how your singing about the silence of the women who didn’t fight with “you” in Kansas are better off now. Please tell us more about the Prisoners dilemma.

Talk about no respect. Haven’t said I know more than others, have asserted than I have put more on the line than others–no one has asserted otherwise; tell me, you speak of the courage of others; well, I’d like to hear about that; I would like to know there are others out there posting on this thread, or FDL in general, who have been out there on the front line. Seems to me, most of the posters are arm chair warriors, long in eloquence, short in action. So, if acting is of “absolutely no consequence” then where are we?

Take a minute and think about what you posted. You asserted that putting one’s (professional )butt on the line is of “absolutely no consequence.”

And the opposite is exactly why none of my female colleagues have put their butts on the line; they feared the consequences of doing so in Kansas.

Holy crap! A few months back, we had us a real skidmark of a commenter who talked all about his accomplishments and sacrifices, then proceeded to post multiple diaries suggesting that the number and severity of sexual assaults perpetuated upon men was higher than for women. But since the feminist-manipulated ‘Liberal Media’ was running the show, it was both under-reported and flatly denied.

You don’t think this courageous and selfless dude is cribbing him, do you?

I have an idea. The word ‘stipulate’ seems to be bandied about a lot in here…

Let’s ask our guest if he will stipulate that lacking a uterus disqualifies anyone from claiming the mantle of ‘fearless advocate’ for reproductive freedom, over the frightful plight already endured by testicularly-challenged.

how will it lower costs ? rachel maddow a couple months ago made the point that 7 out of 0 people that go bankrupt because of medical problems have insurance . that little talking point is off the table now that she’s not allowed to criticize obama . she say she’s “trying to increase the amount of useful information in the world.” telling the truth about “health care” would be a start .

Seems to me, most of the posters are arm chair warriors, long in eloquence, short in action.

What on earth would lead you to that conclusion? Seriously? I would tend to assume exactly the opposite.

Once again:

“Absolutely no consequence, if you are trying to use your accomplishments to say you know more than other people here at FDL.”

The entire sentence is necessary.

Seems to me, most of the posters are arm chair warriors, long in eloquence, short in action.

From your, what, 30 days of commenting here? Your long experience reading the front page? What data bring you to this singular conclusion, other than it “seems to you”?

You have no idea. You’re simply wrong in this matter.

I fear he has taken his arm off his armchair and placed it in his lap. He got the fucking rise he wanted. Fucking penis envy pervert.

Let’s see. Where, anywhere, did I characterize any of my female colleagues as “awful.”

Well, in response to 166 as well, you didn’t respond to what I posted.

The fact remains, I have been the only professional in Kansas to support abortion and gay and lesbian rights. If that counts for nothing with you folks, than it counts for nothing with you folks.

That I find it really frustrating that no women professionals in Kansas have publicly endorsed abortion and homosexual rights, and you folks think that is my problem, well than you see it as my problem. So, for all of you pups, that have really put your butts on the line as I have, here’s to you.

As to you, Fuck No, your moniker says it all. You want my resume and credentials, my email is aardvark at powwwer dot net.

Bye now.

“You want my resume and credentials, my email is ~~~EDITED IN MODERATION~~~”

Fuck no, spare me.

Keep on tapping your foot on the floor from a bathroom stall in Kansas. One day your shame in the shitter that you project on others will catch up to you.

The fact remains, I have been the only professional in Kansas to support abortion and gay and lesbian rights.

Wow. What would be your diagnosis of a patient who made such a claim?

This crazy day has done me in. Goodnight everybody.

It was AHIP & PHARMA all the way controlling this dog and pony show played by Senate and Executive branch for public consumption. They simply masked the presence of Individual Mandates and public uproar by all this bait and switch stuff of Public Option.

Gate crashers at the White House State Dinner last year inadvertently showed to the public who all the invitees were if you look at the articles. It was all insurance & Pharma company executives and if you think they were about to get lecture and investigation on Premium increases done prior year we must be naive. Current outrage on premium increases is just a show and a staged event. They simply dont care. It was all about deals ignoring the havoc these mandates will cause to social fabric of our nation, how it will destroy our economy in the long run, how immoral and unprecedented in the world history this is.

KILL THE BILL.

Vote the GREEN Party which does not take a single corporate dime as its party charter and so I know how they will vote before elections and after the elections. This will at-least keep my conscience clean that I doing the right thing for next generation.

when purging, be asidious.

The original is still hanging out at 169.

It is to the author of a comment, and not others, to define and decide the exposure of personal information.

Shouldn’t they have had a psychiatrist and not just a psychologist at that Kansas committee hearing?

Don’t even bother with the “original”. It was all a “game” (#150) to that [edited].

test

Need to go back and read Freud. Penis envy is an alleged female defect:)

Now, here is really a hoot for you. My doctoral dissertation was in defense of failure of women to have orgasms during intercourse as a dysfunction.

That is, I concluded that the idea women SHOULD be orgasmic during intercourse, and that the failure to do so was dysfunctional, was nonsense. Indeed, it was merely applying a male model of orgasm to women. The statistical analysis was a discriminant function analysis. My work was the first to most clearly delineate this scientifically. A subsequent paper on the role of the muscle spindle in women’s orgasm, was the featured paper in the Journal of Sex Research, and was subsequently published as a chapter in B. Graber’s The Sexual Function of the Circum-vaginal Musculature. This paper was recently cited in Komisurik and Whipple’s book On the Science of Orgasm.

I have also been a reviewer for The Journal of Sex Research for twenty-five years.

So, posted is my email.

My name is Doug Mould, and if you have any questions about my wife’s murder, well, let there be transparency; her name was Carol and we are easily googled.

Well, if it wasn’t true, I was say they were delusional. You have any names of other professionals in Kansas who have done so? I really don’t know of any. Please, provide we with names of brothers and sisters in arms.

I meant arsehole. Black Irish thing, ya know. We can call it ya know. 180 pretty much says it all.

“define and decide the exposure” – how do quotation marks make his disclosure my disclosure, he offered it up himself right above my re-post of his quote?

I’m done interacting with you. I’m truly sorry about the loss of your wife and I can’t imagine how traumatizing it must have been for your and your family. That said, I think it is completely inappropriate for you to post the amount of irrelevant personal information that you have presented here. I wish you the best of luck but I have no interest in discussing any of this any further with you.

They did; the other side had Paul McHugh of Johns Hopkins. But, your suggestion is that a psychiatrist is of higher training. Simply isn’t true. Psychologists have a markedly higher level of training than psychiatrists. Because I had been active in pro-choice in Kansas–I knew George Tiller–when the issue of inappropriate diagnosis reared its head with Phil Kline, I approached Kan-Do, and offered my support. No one else, psychologist or psychiatrist was willing to do so.

In MHO, pretty cowardly. The personal is the reality.

Not that a psychiatrist is of higher training, but a psychiatrist would be able to appropriately manage medication during a pregnancy in the case of depression.

Holy fucking shit. What a day.

I went without health care insurance for more than 25 years. Nearly every company I worked for in that time offered insurance, but I couldn’t afford the premiums and my living expenses–at the same time. If this mother of a boondoggle passes, wait till you get your bill for insurance and then get back to Jon to tell him, again, what a dumb blog.

And, lest anyone has lost the thought, health insurance is NOT health care. Premiums, deductibles, and co-pays can make actually using insurance prohibitive and many people with health insurance, including Medicare–here!–know that.

COMMMOOOOONNNNNN
The health care bill is a HUGE leap forward for America, although I do agree that more can be done. A NATIONAL/federal insurance scheme is one. But do not get rid of private insurance totally, it is good for competition (which we in Sweden do NOT have)

Personally, I don’t have a dog in this fight but just finished an article about anti-depressants and they don’t work on the physical level. They do work if people believe they do. There’s plenty of evidence for this conclusion, it’s not just another medical crackpot theory. And too many AD scripts are written by doctors unqualified to make psych diagnoses: you feel down, worn out, no energy? You’re depressed, get this filled. For the people I know who are chronic AD users, ADs are just another form of denial.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/232781

The private sector gets in the way of the federal government, so, in order for the government to succeed in imposing ‘social justice’ on Americans, it must do all it can to discredit, demonize or eliminate the private sector.

Yesterday it was the ‘fat cat bankers’, under Bush it was the eeeevil oil companies and war-profiteering Halliburton, today it is the eeevil insurance companies. Only ‘favored’ industries of the administration and party in power will be allowed to succeed. See Goldman Sachs or GE or Big Pharma.

Cronie capitalism is replacing the free-market at the fastest pace ever under President Obama and the Democrats.

To ‘transform’ implies a major change in form, nature or function. To change in composition or structure. This is what Obama said he would do to our country.

America will not be the same IF this bill passes. Those who oppose this bill as independents, libertarians, or conservatives realize this and that is why this bill is meeting such fierce opposition.

Why do we not see Democratic support for free-market, private sector solutions to control health-care costs, such as tort reform and selling insurance across state lines? Well, the Dems count on big bucks from trial lawyers and giving more power to the free-market naturally leads to a lack of power and control in DC.

Obamacare supporters favor government assistance and control over the private sector and self-reliance. Fortunately, most Americans still prefer limited government.

This bill will fail.

Oh yeah, I remember you whining about your endless sacrifices while disparaging women for not being you from months ago. Still the same shtick huh? Poor you.

I’ll tell you the same thing I told you before, women do not need your advise regarding their views on their rights. One dick = no vote.

You’re a troll pleading for attention, internalize that fact.

“During my last night’s shift in the ER, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient with a shiny new gold tooth, multiple elaborate tattoos, a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and a new cellular telephone equipped with her favorite R&B; tune for a ring tone.

Glancing over the chart, one could not help noticing her payer status: Medicaid.

She smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and, somehow, still has money to buy beer. And our President expects me to pay for this woman’s health care?

Our nation’s health care crisis is not a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. It is a crisis of culture – a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on vices while refusing to take care of one’s self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance.

A culture that thinks I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me.”

http://spotlight.vitals.com/2009/10/dr-roger-starner-jones-muses-crisis-culture/

Thanks for writing this Jon. These are my sentiments exactly. The so called HCR missed the boat entirely on what’s wrong with the current system. There’s no way we’re going to get to a more affordable, accessible, and equitable health care system from here. As you stated, when the government is taxing us and cutting Medicare to subsisdize an insurance cartel with the IRS acting as enforcer it’s pretty much over.

“The price controls inside of the bill will eliminate attempts by insurers to raise prices to ungodly levels, and will also eliminate any chance insurers have of saving their business model. In essence, due to the sheer numbers of claims made by people never before allowed insurance, and without a mechanism for raising prices high enough to cover that cost, insurers will, one by one, die.”

If it were true, the likely outcome is off balance sheet accounting. ie., before the executive class will take a hit to its pay out, it will turn AETNA into Enron so it can loot the company.

Even if this were true, and I think its questionable, I don’t see why I should be forced by fedgov to funnel my money into that rat hole just so that it can be so. Does that make sense to you?

If you want to voluntarily bequeath your personal funds to psychopathic Enron looters on the way to the implosion, that’s your prerogative.

As for my healthcare dollars, and everyone else’s taxes–this can be put to better use.

You’re doing the same bullshit thing Reagan used to do to justify slashing our social safety net (which is already being gutted to the point of non-existence): using a false, racially-coded anecdote to prove how your precious tax dollars are being wasted by “Welfare Queens driving Welfare Cadillacs.”
If I may be so bold, take that shit elsewhere.

Here is something we all can do to make a statement. There is a page on FB whose premise we can all believe in..it is not Green, Teabag or Coffee..it is just NO. ..we will not vote for a democrat or republican ever again. Read the “voices” tab, the purpose of the group and help boost the membership. I would love to see this mentioned on the news the membership gets so high..people bailing like rats our of our failure of a two party system.

On the post re activism ( reply 198) by Declaring Independence the link on FDL did not work so here it is so you can cut and paste it..Thanks

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Independents/273947939969

I would like to see alot of people say to hell with either party..sign the petition which is sent to the president and your congressmen and your newspaper if you like.