Pelosi Unveils House Health Care Bill

[kpete]

Source: Talking Points Memo

Pelosi Unveils House Health Care Bill
Ben Frumin | October 29, 2009, 10:42AM

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is unveiling the House health care reform bill this morning. In her opening remarks, she said, "Today we are about to deliver on a promise of making affordable quality health care available for all Americans, laying a foundation for a brighter future for generations to come."

Pelosi said the bill will "insure 36 million more Americans" and "will not add one dime to the deficit" -- covering 96 percent of Americans and costing less than $900 billion. The bill includes a public option and will end "discrimination for preexisting medical conditions."

She said the plan will be put online "for all Americans to see."

Early in her remarks, a there was some loud off-camera noise -- apparently from protesters nearby.

Read more: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/pelosi-to-un...

---

FULL TEXT OF BILL:
http://health.burgess.house.gov/UploadedFiles/House_HCR...

[dipsydoodle]

1. Hopefully the loud noise

was the ground opening up and them falling into the abyss.

[ChiciB1]

18. Sounds Good To Me!!! Talk About "Watered Down" THIS IS IT!! n/t

[onehandle]

2. Great. Pass it and in a few years, make it single payer.

Progress.

[dnricci]

55. Bingo

I think that is the plan. Once they get any form of HCR passed the Dems can change it later. I think once the door for HCR is open, they can move to a single payer later. Think about Medicare, they have altered it over the years, and are up to part D.

[pattmarty]

84. Both of you are WRONG. Once ANY legislation is passed OR repealed..........

...............it is hard as hell to get it reinstated (Glass-Steagal) or repealed (the upcoming shitty healthcare bill). We fucked up after Obama was elected. ALL of us should have organized healthcare rallies (just like the "anti" rallies of the teabaggers) and demanded "Medicare for all". What's going to happen in my opinion on this crappy bill, is the Dems will get blamed (rightly so) for passing whatever abortion comes out of conference. Depending how actually fucked up the final bill is, Obama may get a primary opponent or two and in fact may lose the general election in 2012. Now, this depends how he handles Afghanistan, the economy and any other "problem" that arises too. But almost a year in on the Obama presidency, I really don't know how ANY liberal/progressive can be happy with "Bill" Obama at this point. Let's face it folks, he ain't gonna get more progressive in his 3 yrs left and may get worse (like Bill Clinton) if the Dems lose big in the House and Senate. So fucking much for "change we can believe in". I'm pretty much done with the "hope" thing too. In the famous words of our last great leader; "we got fooled again".

[placton]

139. patty - you are so right

this is a sell out. like we always knew it would be. just like Obama wants. Hey, if he loses in 2012, he's a multimillionaire - and free health care for life. I plan to make sure there is a primary challenger that beats him and then the next GOP candidate.

[AlbertCat]

144. Hey, if he loses in 2012, he's a multimillionaire - and free health care for life.

Yeah! That's why he ran for Prez in the 1st place!!!


Jesus.... you're as nutty as a Palin supporter!


Well, there are loopy whiny fruitcakes on both sides of everything I guess.

[Lagomorph]

197. So why it the bill ceremony closed to the public?

Open government is what we were promised and this isn't it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPMUJ6PPHJg

[Go2Peace]

156. Yep, and it will be dogged and it is too weak to be defended.

This is too important to half ass it. This bill as written will not deliver in the way the American public expects. And when the huge holes start appearing the public will have no patience to hear a nuanced story of how this is not the fault of healthcare reform.

How in the world do we get the public to strengthen a bill that was innsufficient to begin with.

[Vidar]

226. Welcome to DU.

[JNelson6563]

72. Yes. "laying a foundation"

Sadly too many think not getting everything we want now means not getting it forever.

Julie

[zogofzorkon]

125. if your building a house you don't lay the foundation for a shed

[we_are_all_It]

159. If your goal is to have a house,

and you can't have one yet, you build the foundation for the house. Then you build a shed on it to live in while you continue to plan & build.

[Go2Peace]

162. This foundation IS NOT STRONG. It will be propaganda fodder and will hurt more than help in the end

Corporations and Republicans are smiling in glee, they got the Dems to pass something that is not strong and can be anhialated politically. We cannot do this in "small steps". One mistep and we are driven back 10 years!

[New Dawn]

223. In what way will they be "covered"? By forcing them to buy a service from a private company?

No thanks, that is fascism.

Edit: I was responding to the original post, not you.

[ooglymoogly]

81. Ahhh pie in the sky....thats the ticket to sooth the savage beast

whose pockets are being picked and the gold removed from his teeth.

[chimpymustgo]

108. Keep dreaming. We have been sold out. Again.

[totodeinhere]

134. We have no assurance that it will ever lead to single payer.

By then the political pendulum may well have swung back in the other direction, and if the pukes get back in power there is no way they would ever pass single payer.

Do you think they won't ever be back in power again? Think again. In 1964 LBJ won by a landslide, and the Dems had even more seats in Congress than they do now. Many people were ready to write off the GOP for good. But we all know what happened. Four years later Nixon was in the White House.

Or was it Viet Nam that ruined LBJ and allowed the GOP back in? Yes, that was part of it. But remember that some people are already calling Afghanistan Obama's Viet Nam.

President Barack Obama is considering sending large numbers of additional U.S. forces to Afghanistan next year...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iqyaF...

It could happen again.

[swilton]

166. Well as far as I'm concerned

This proves that the Democrats (with extremely few exceptions - perhaps, Kucinich and a few others) and Republicans are cut from the same cloth anyway. When they put on their politician hats, they lost their hearts.

Somewhere it has been said that you can't serve two masters.

[No Elephants]

209. Bingo. We don't even have assurance that it will ever lead to a stronger public option.

[Umbral]

140. I wont be 'fixed' in my lifetime, I'll be dust before Congress revisits health care. nt

[BREMPRO]

143. agreed- an important step and progress. Here is a link to a summary of the bill:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/hr32...

[Go2Peace]

165. Nope, glad your on a fantasy cloud. It is an epic fail

It would have been better to strip out everything except a few provisions and make it a subsidy bill for the uninsured. As it exists it weakens long term efforts

[BREMPRO]

189. so, give up all the benefits we gain because you don't get exactly what you want.

that's just fukin stupid. sorry but i'm so tired of the lack of understanding of reality here. You and lots of other DUers here are living on a fantasy cloud if you think you'll get another chance to set in motion significant reform of health care. Give up all the hard work, stakeholder courting, weak democratic majority (because of the blue-dogs).

If the progressives join the republicans and kill this effort, we are going to be worse off. What do you think you'll get? single payer? that's a fantasy. This is reality. Please take off your blinders, read the bill, and stop siding with the republicans.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/hr32...

[No Elephants]

208. Are you expecting more than 60 Democratic Senators in a few years?

[mikelgb]

3. why 96%? who are these 4% (Millions) that won't be covered?

[BREMPRO]

14. we have nearly 15% uninsured now- reduced to 4% is a significant improvement n/t

[Raineyb]

29. Not if you're one of the 4%. Other countries cover ALL their citizens. n/t

[BREMPRO]

36. not true.

most european countries have between 1% and 2% who are not covered by insurance. Massachusetts is a better example to compare with because it's a mandate on American soil. 3% are now uninsured, but 97% are, the highest rate in the nation.

[liberation]

42. Which European countries don't have 100% coverage?

At least I can't think of any in Western Europe.

[BREMPRO]

54. they have universal coverage, but that does not mean some are still uninsured

just for example the dutch system has 1.5% uninsured, switzerland about 1%.

http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/01/21/commonwealth-on-the-swi...

[liberation]

64. Those are people who did not paid their premiums and are/were being penalized

Both the Netherlands and Switzerland don't have universal health care, they have hybrid public/private systems. The example you provided is not the same as being not covered from the get go.

[BREMPRO]

76. yes, but many people are under the impression that all of Western Europe and Canada

have ALL their citizens covered. I was just pointing out that there are some that don't have 100% coverage. The most natural evolution of our system would be closer to systems existing in switzerland/the netherlands, a public/private hybrid. This bill gets us much closer to their coverage percentage than we have now and should reduce costs over the long run. I'm particularly pleased to see the stripping of the anti-trust exemption and the inclusion of comparative effectiveness research. We can improve it each year, bill by bill, but we have to start somewhere that can actually pass congress.

[liberation]

78. Technically, both Switzerland and Holland have all of their citizens covered...

... your are listing the percentage of "dead beats" who did not pay their coverage and/or opted out completely and went purely private (which is an option in a lot of the EU countries). Which is something completely different than the current proposal in this bill... which leaves 5% of citizens out from the get go.

It is not the same to opt out of tourist class because you bought first class tickets, than not being allowed in tourist class because there are no more seats.

[BREMPRO]

90. The press indicates 96% will be covered, so which 4% are left out?

are these also expected opt-outs and so called "dead-beats"? or some other catagory? do you know who are we talking about?

[liberation]

98. I don't know who these people are, I also don't know how someone can be considered a deadbeat or...

... opt out of a system which does not exist yet.

That to me is why we can't use the canard of Holland and Switzerland to try to justify this clusterf*ck of a legislation.

[BREMPRO]

128. let me know when you find out, and then we can have a real discussion instead of engaging in

ignorant nay-saying.

[AlbertCat]

157. he dutch system has 1.5% uninsured, switzerland about 1%.

Well....both percentages are less than who got Bush tax cuts for the rich!


We just emerged from 8 years of no governing and the starting of 2 unnecessary wars... with the government still full of Bush/Cheney operatives.... with less than 1/4th the term over.... and people are up in arms that something is not 100%!

To me the most disheartening thing about this whole process is how the Dem leaders of the House and Senate are all content with "we can't get everything we want and blah blah blah" Did we hear such from Tom Delay????? And I don't just mean Health Care.... I mean everything they take up. Starting with lowered expectations may be the worst effect of the Bush Years. But it's also foolish to expect everything to change instantaneously after 8 years plus of Repug sabotage.

[No Elephants]

211. One percent of the population the size of Holland's is a lot different from 4% of a population the

size of ours.

[No Elephants]

212. By definition "universal" means everyone. If everyone is not covered, it is not "universal."

[pattmarty]

94. Not only did the "coverage" in Ma go up, but also premiums BIG TIME.

[BREMPRO]

129. because they neglected to include comparative effectiveness and cost controls

that come out of "fee for service" delivery. MA also didn't increase the number of primary care physicians. Comparative effectiveness research is included in this bill and the Sec of HHS has broad authority, especially in Medicare, to make binding recommendations that should reduce costs. Estimates up of 30% of our health care costs are from unnecessary procedures, and "fee for service" models that encourage doctors to do more tests and procedures.

[pattmarty]

154. What's in "this" particular bill (you do know that this IS NOT the final bill)...........

is crap and if you're honest will admit. Whatever "comparative effectiveness" is or IS NOT, ain't gonna help this piece of shit. It's awful already and it is only going to get worse before it reaches "Bill" Obama's desk.

[BREMPRO]

187. the fact that you don't know what "comparative effectiveness" is shows you aren't knowledgeable abou...

this health care debate. I would suggest before you call this "crap" before even reading the bill or understanding it, read the following:

The Cost Conundrum : http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_...
The Dartmouth Atlas: http://www.dartmouthatlas.org /

once you've read them, then i'll consider your opinion.

or you can join the republicans who say that the bill "will ream the American people" and are unified against it. That should tell you something.

[pattmarty]

188. Uh, huh, sure.

[No Elephants]

213. A big reason for the cost in Massachusetts is lack of a public option.

[totodeinhere]

132. I am deeply disappointed.

Is this the best they could come up with? Those insurance company lobbyists did a good job protecting their insurance industry clients. No wonder the insurance industry donated so much money to Democrats. Now that investment is paying off for them.

Edit - This was meant to be a reply to the OP.

[No Elephants]

210. Massachusetts is an expensive failure because it lacks a public option.

And because Romney lied about the cost of "Romneycare." And because the overwhelmingly Democratic state legislature wimped out, in the name of the possible, much as the House seems to have done.

[Kokonoe]

152. The people who do not give $thousands$ to insurance companies..

I guess their saying millions willfully refuse to give money.

[bigdarryl]

4. The bill SUCKS!!!!

Health-care my ASS!!!!

[tridim]

5. It's not perfect, but it also doesn't "suck"

Why are you so pissed off?

[BREMPRO]

11. large group here doesn't understand compromise.

they'd rather have no health care reform because it's not single payer. Given the reflexive response, not much thought behind it. the perfect is the enemy of the good

[Raineyb]

30. We're talking about people not being able to see doctors due to lack of insurance

we're talking about the difference between life and death. Are going to volunteer to be one of the people who aren't covered at all?

I didn't think so.

[merh]

34. As an uninsured all I can say is - thanks for compromising

at the risk of my well being.

How big of the folks that represent "we, the people" - well we the 96%.

[Ms. Toad]

107. As an uninsured, you will be one of the FIRST covered. n/t

[merh]

115. What if my state opts out?

What happens then?

And how do you know I won't fall into the 4% that won't be insured?

[Ms. Toad]

123. In the versions I have read, the first eligible

are the uninsured and micro-employers. You have declared yourself uninsured - that puts you in the first wave.

If your state opts out of the public option, you will still be eligible for a policy from the exchange (mandatory issue, non-discrminatory premiums, etc.) - you just won't have the added choice of the public option.

[Raineyb]

141. I'm sorry? I'm not suggesting we compromise in such a manner at all

Frankly we need a single payer system that covers everyone. Barring that a public option that covers EVERYONE not one that only covers 96% of those who are currently uninsured and which also forces people to accept sub-par insurance because their cheap bastard employer offers it to them.

Insurance companies should stick to extras like private hospital rooms, non necessary cosmetic surgery and "platinum services" that are not necessary to keep healthy but are nice to have like they do in the countries that have universal coverage.

[BREMPRO]

40. I'd like to get everyone covered too, but look at the example in MA

they have had a mandate for 4 years and still have 3% uninsured. I'm just being realistic. we can reduce significantly the number of uninsured with this bill. That's a good step. Even western europe have on average 1% to 2% not covered by insurance. 100% is a good goal, but not going to happen under any circumstances. Many hospitals now provide free coverage for those below the poverty line- so even now they shouldn't die if they are sick. Those who don't have insurance by choice are taking a HUGE risk, that we all pay for. This bill "guarantees affordability"- now the devil is in the details on that, but again, its a good step. If we get more people covered, more will make a habit of regular doctor visits and screenings, and more people will NOT get too sick for early intervention and not die as a result, and costs will be reduced. This is a good thing. I keep saying here don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[dflprincess]

52. Having insurance doesn't mean you can get care

not if you still can't afford a visit to the doctor or a procedure will cost because you haven't met your deductible.

Not only should the insurance companies like this bill, it will be a boon to the credit card companies as many people will have to continue to use plastic to pay medical bills.

[SandWalker1984]

69. Having insurance definitely doesn't mean you get health care - it's the loopholes

The premise is a mandate in which every American shall be forced to buy private insurance. Apparently that is uncontroversial, to our leaders, but the notion of providing a government-backed plan for those who do not want their health and welfare tied to the same companies that have been screwing them over for decades, now that is a bridge too far.

But absent a public option open to ALL Americans, and absent meaningful reform of the existing private system, it is nonsensical. It is worse than nonsensical, because it mandates a marketplace for a product that will not substantively assist people in actual need of healthcare.

Each company will price an insurance option to be whatever the subsidy turns out to be; that insurance will be provided to be as shoddy as possible, with massive deductibles, gigantic loopholes, and all the other tricks of the insurance trade rolled into whatever bottom-rung "package" is deemed the minimal necessary.

If someone were to actually get sick, an insurance policy with a $20,000, or $50,000, or $100,000 deductible -- so-called "junk" insurance, of the sort that is becoming more and more prevalent as insurance companies price their other products steadily out of reach of more and more consumers -- will not prevent bankruptcy. It will not provide preventative care, of the sort that would stop illnesses before they became catastrophic. It would do nothing to curtail costs.

IT WILL NOT FIX THE PROBLEMS WE ARE NOW FACING, IT WILL ONLY MAKE THEM WORSE!

THAT IS NOT THE MEANINGFUL HEALTHCARE REFORM WE WERE PROMISED!


This is more of Obama/Orwell's change we cannot believe in.

[chadmak09]

95. dead on!

I agree 100%

Mandating insurance on people is not going to get people healthier.
Its just going to make more people have money problems.

Most people that file for bankruptcy HAVE INSURANCE!!!

Its the deductibles and co-pays that get them.

And people die from lack of healthcare with insurance just like those without.

This bill is a total joke.

Some of you guys are wanting to claim a victory (any victory) for obama so bad that you cannot see this bill for what it really is.

And thats a gift to the insurance industry.

Forcing people to pay huge amounts for insurance is a HORRIBLE IDEA.


We need single payer!!!!

Not a public option that 90% cant join and states can opt out of.And on top of that, an insurance mandate without competition being provided.
Thats not reform.

Lets stand up and let obama know that we WANT REAL REFORM.

Not some watered down joke of a bill created just so they can claim an empty victory for political/election points.

[Ms. Toad]

113. Read the bills.

>>Each company will price an insurance option to be whatever the subsidy turns out to be; that insurance will be provided to be as shoddy as possible, with massive deductibles, gigantic loopholes, and all the other tricks of the insurance trade rolled into whatever bottom-rung "package" is deemed the minimal necessary.

If someone were to actually get sick, an insurance policy with a $20,000, or $50,000, or $100,000 deductible -- so-called "junk" insurance, of the sort that is becoming more and more prevalent as insurance companies price their other products steadily out of reach of more and more consumers -- will not prevent bankruptcy. It will not provide preventative care, of the sort that would stop illnesses before they became catastrophic. It would do nothing to curtail costs.<<

There are minimums that must be met to qualify - and they don't include $20,000-$100,000 deductibles, and prohibit many tricks of the insurance trade - such as lifetime caps, and most require preventative care.

The bills are far from perfect - but they also aren't the gloom and doom you are suggesting.

[swilton]

131. You Nailed It!

We have a public option that has more loop-holes than Swiss cheese......The first mistake was compromising from the get-go and taking Single Payer off the table.

THIS IS A BIG GIVE-AWAY TO CORPORATE INSURANCE AND BIG PHARMA.

[pattmarty]

110. EXCEPT for the 5000 dollar deductible plans that will surely be offered.............

..........by your friendly insurance company. Also, the "copays" can be juggled by the companies. For example instead of 80-20 (which is bad enough if you have a $20,000 bill) they are talking of "streamlined" plans of 65-35, whoopee, such a fucking deal. It's bullshit and dreaming of "change you can believe in" ain't gonna change that fact.

[liberation]

45. A fairly large group don't understand negotiation...

Hint you start high, and then you compromise. You most certainly don't start with a compromise, and then expect to negotiate your way back to where you wanted to be at the beginning.


I thought it may be useful for some of you... especially if you are planning on visiting countries where haggling is still used, and/or are planning on making a big purchase like a car.

[BREMPRO]

56. this is a good point, and in hindsight keeping single payer on the table

for negotiation might have improved our current position. However, you could also argue and imagine that having single payer on the table would have immediately pushed the heavy lobby and advertising guns of the insurance industry into full assault, and the single payer advocates not willing to compromise, that may have killed any attempt at reform. It was a political calculation and consistent with Obama's campaign platform.

[liberation]

68. In restrospect?

Some of us we've been saying that from the beginning, and then we were told things about ponies and what not...

It is starting to become more and more tiresome to be ALWAYS correct when it comes to matters of common sense, and being asked to subsume said common sense in the name of some weird voodoo double plus secret winning strategy by the DC politician d'jour.


The funny thing is that I have a great job, a great coverage, and I am married to a doctor. So as far as I am concerned I am A-OK, I don't even know why I give a rat's ass any more. Enjoy the shafting guys!

[Raineyb]

150. Thank you.

Retrospect? People have been saying this FROM DAY ONE. In fact people are saying it now. I've never stopped saying it. Taking single payer off the table guaranteed that we wouldn't get reform that would actually do us any good. But I'm sure the insurance companies are creaming their pants. They get us ordered to buy their shitty product without having to do a damn thing to fix their egregious business practices.

Insurance companies are leeches! They do NOTHING to improve access to health care. Quite the opposite actually, and if we had only ONE entity paying the doctors and hospitals we could use economies of scale to guarantee savings across the board without health care providers having to worry about getting paid! Economies of scale are perfectly fine for Walmart when it's undermining American manufacturing by forcing down prices to the point where the companies send their manufacturing and jobs overseas, in the service of getting cheaper plastic widgets but when it comes to something as our health and well being it's not worth looking into. This country is truly fucked up.

[No Elephants]

215. One could just as easily argue the opposite.

That, if single payer had not been removed from the table prematurely (AND the Democrats, up to and including OBama, had shown leadership and persuasion skilss), there would have been a groundswell from the publicc in favor of single payer.

[ooglymoogly]

97. A fairly large group understand we are talking

about life and death and that is something one cannot, in good conscience, compromise; And for what? A few beads and trinkets; Chew on that for a while and see if you can turn it into a malleable and nondescript, bland, lifeless gum that will assuage the crime bosses and their brainless zombie followers and the cheap whores they buy for a farthing .

[liberation]

104. I agree completelly...

... I am just tired of being told to shut up because the Dems are having some sort of double plus secret negotiation-fu to put the repugs right where they want it.

When all the indications point at the fact that their shitty negotiations... are just that: shitty negotiation. At this point, my visits to DU serve to get some comedic relief by reading the justifications and denial exercises by a lot of the perennial apologists. Might as well some lemonade from the lemons we seem to be getting, and will be getting in the foreseeable future it seems.

[Ms. Toad]

118. Current system: 15% or so uninsured and without access to care.

Bills: around 4% uninsured and without access to care.

Demand 100% coverage, and settle for no less - overwhelmingly probable result: The current system remains.

I'll take the improvement.

Those 11% are hardly a few beads and trinkets - especially when the realistic choice is 11% more covered or the current system.

[ooglymoogly]

135. I think you need to read the bill and listen to the credible rumors

and experts about what that bill really means and what is in the pipeline. I will bet a silk purse that this will turn out to be nothing more than an Orwellian smoke and mirror shell game, sows ear, trumpeted as a "good thing". Gee I have only the past dismal record to base this assumption; Need I list the shams trumpeted as a "good thing" of that record that has brought this country to its knees?

[Ms. Toad]

146. I have read every bill introduced, aside from the one linked to

in this thread which was just introduced.

Most of the "credible" rumors I have read (including the most recent one that the public option will be just another private insurance plan) perpetuated by people who either have not read the bill or do not understand how to read a bill.

Might I suggest you read the bills yourself - including the sections of the Medicare statutes (for example) which are incorporated by reference, and forget about listening to "credible" rumors unless those rumors are supported (or, at a minimum not contradicted by) the bills themselves.

[ooglymoogly]

168. It will not be too long before the proof of what is and what will be in

the bill and it will be far less than what is being now proposed. It is my position that we should be screaming as loud as possible that this is not enough and more has to be done to make this a good bill for the common man; Otherwise it will be negotiated down to next to meaningless. We have gotten this far by speaking loudly and carrying a big stick and we must ramp that up to make sure they continue paying attention to us. To be mollified at this juncture will mean failure in the end.

[Ms. Toad]

180. It is pointless to scream that it is not enough

if what you are screaming about is "credible" rumors, rather than what is actually in the bill.

Read the bill and scream intelligently.

[ooglymoogly]

219. If you think that there is nothing to scream about in this bill

you are on the wrong board.

[Ms. Toad]

225. I didn't say there was nothing to scream about

But random, uninformed screaming is pointless. That is what the teabaggers do.

Until you have read the bill, know what is in it, and know what is wrong with it, screaming just hurts the cause.

[ooglymoogly]

227. Nobody here is calling for pointless screaming....I am calling for screaming

at what is wrong with this bill. I like many here have skimmed the bill and have learned enough to scare me to the boiling point and that is the point at which I start screaming.

[Ms. Toad]

228. You could have said that several posts ago,

instead of just insisting that we need to scream. My entire point is that screaming without doing the necessary homework first is pointless - you repeatedly responded that we need to scream. All I ever suggested was that you needed to read the bill so you are doing informed screaming.

[chadmak09]

99. unless universal healthcare was never what you wanted

unless universal healthcare was never what you wanted in the first place.
I dont think obama and the gamg wanted single payer to begin with.
They never even gave it a chance.

Your not going to get lobbying dollars from those that benefit from single payer,
you get lobbying dollars for creating an insurance mandate to make insurance companies rich, and creating an illusion of a "public option" that noone will qualify for.

[ooglymoogly]

112. Exactly...snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Making a sows ear out of a golden purse. They are experts at this kind of flim flam. It is an Orwellian "victory" signifying just more of the same. Anything for the rich, sending the bill to the middle classes and the poor,

[pattmarty]

103. It's a piece of shit and if you're honest you would call it that................

...........Fuck compromise, this is 60 years fucking overdue. Medicare for all, or nothing. This "bill" will NOT hold costs down and exactly WHERE are the "reforms"???? The Dems are going to pass "shit" and call it victory AND they will pay at the polls in 2010 and 12.

[ooglymoogly]

114. When logic won't cut it, sophistry will just have to do. nt

[pattmarty]

116. I fucking DO understand compromise. This ain't compromise, it's................

...............taking a 4 ft broomstick in the ass. here's a small list of the happy campers if this piece of shit is passed; Insurance companies, Republicans (will be the largest beneficiary of the "compromise"), Banks (because people will be using the charge cards to pay for all the shit the bill DOESN'T cover), drug companies (no surprise there).

[BREMPRO]

190. SO if Republicans will be major beneficiaries of this bill as you suggest

why will not ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN SAY THEY WILL VOTE FOR IT? Think about it. Your analysis is bunk.

[dflprincess]

195. Because the Republicans will oppose anything the Democrats come up with

even when it helps their pals. And, when the public wakes up and figures out what a POS this bill is, the Republicans will remind people it wasn't them who thought we should be forced to buy shoddy products from the crooks who broke the system in the first place.

[pattmarty]

200. Yep. I think that's referred to as "having your cake and eating it too".

The Dems are leaving themselves wide open here. Medicare is another good example of doing it right. It's been over 40 years now, and the Republicans are still trying to undermine it any way they can, but they definitely DON'T badmouth it. This bill they can sit on their hands and may come out looking like "heroes" to the voters.

[pattmarty]

199. If this "dogshit" bill is passed who in the fuck will get the credit OR blame?

If as I (and many others in the "know") suspect this bill will be a disaster, the Republicans will have to be really stupid NOT to capitalize on it. They can say that they didn't vote for it EXACTLY because it is crap. So where the fuck is the "bunk"?

[BREMPRO]

204. and how does it help democrat to craft and vote for a bill that will be a disaster?

Your reflexive assessment that this bill is going to be a total disaster suggests the Dem's know it will be a disaster and are selling out (rather than compromising to get a bill passed through a shaky majority) and are willing to sacrifice their political careers, reputation, and majority in congress for this bill to do the bidding of the insurance industry and republican friends. Not plausible.

Many progressives in congress including Anthony Weiner support this bill with the exception that they want a more robust public option. I'm all for that if they can convince their blue dog colleagues in the upcoming debate on the bill on the floor. If they can't get the votes, they will take what they can get and go on to fight another day. There are too many good things in this bill to sacrifice it for an attempt at perfect legislation. They will also have to reconcile the bill with the Senate bill where more compromises may have to be made to get the votes needed to avoid a filibuster. This is the way legislation works. Teddy Kennedy knew this and over his 40 year career accomplished more than any president for civil rights, health care, and progressive causes by fighting for ideals, and settling for steps towards those ideals. It took Canada 37 years to accomplish full single payer health care. I believe this bill puts in place the foundation for a trajectory towards that ultimate goal.

did you read the links I sent you yet?

[pattmarty]

205. You must have conveniently missed my reply. I believe you're wrong............

......about Canada. Tommy Douglas first proposed single payer in I believe Saskatchewan in the 40's and it was finally adopted in all of Canada in 1971. So even your 37 years is bullshit. "Most" European countries had some form of "government healthcare" by 1950. Truman tried to implement a similar plan in the US in 48 and failed. So yeah, it's been OVER 60 yrs since we SHOULD HAVE HAD some form of government health plan. And yes, I read your links. Did you read my reply? Simply stated, we should wait before passing something we all will be sorry for. This crap whoever you listen to won't be implemented until 2013 or 2109. What the fuck kind of "reform" is that? If you thought about the whole bill, you too would say "bullshit". If you want reform, then shitcan the bill and regulate the shit out of the healthcare industry. Oh, and the antitrust provision WON'T be in the final bill. You can take that to the fucking bank.

[BREMPRO]

220. I did read your response, apparently you ignored mine.

You did not address the point that Democrats (including many progressives) are supporting a bill that you suggest they know is a disaster and therefore would be undermining their political careers. Response? And no response to the links you say you read? Your point that its better to have no bill than this one is short sited. We will NOT have another chance at this- the Republicans are going to win seats in the next election cycle and it will be impossible to get any traction then. We need to take the positive changes in this bill and build on it in the future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada

The universal Canadian health care system was implemented over decades and depends on where you count. You are right about Tommy Douglas implementing the first province wide universal coverage plan in 1946, and that was eventually extended to all provinces through the "medical care act" in 1966, but not until 1985 with the "Canadian health act" was it fully implementation-preventing doctors and hospitals from charging extra fees. SO yes you're right not 37, but 39 years from a pilot program in Saskatchewan to full universal coverage. Keep in mind Canada has only 10 provinces, instead of 50 states, a much smaller population, less divided political fault lines, and a more socialized culture. We have a much more difficult task.


There are other who claim the Canadian system actually took over 50 years to implement and it was not without monumental efforts and political battles:

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/a_brief_history_universal_hea...

7.One Canadian lesson — the movement toward universal health care in Canada started in 1916 (depending on when you start counting), and took until 1962 for passage of both hospital and doctor care in a single province. It took another decade for the rest of the country to catch on. That is about 50 years all together. It wasn’t like we sat down over afternoon tea and crumpets and said please pass the health care bill so we can sign it and get on with the day. We fought, we threatened, the doctors went on strike, refused patients, people held rallies and signed petitions for and against it, burned effigies of government leaders, hissed, jeered, and booed at the doctors or the Premier depending on whose side they were on. In a nutshell, we weren’t the stereotypical nice polite Canadians. Although there was plenty of resistance, now you could more easily take away Christmas than health care, despite the rhetoric that you may hear to the contrary"

Your facts are correct about Truman introducing the idea of universal coverage, but it never got off the ground because it was vilified as "socialism" during the cold war when anything that smelled of communism was a non-starter. So, yes, there were efforts made for universal coverage 60 years ago and the same arguments used against it then are being used now, but nothing like the universal program in Saskatchewan was ever implemented as a model to be build on. Not an equivalent comparison since we enacted a mostly private system at that time for the majority of the population and a public welfare system for the poor - the seeds of medicaid and medicare.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/a_brief_history_universal_hea...

"it was Truman who proposed a single egalitarian system that included all classes of society, not just the working class. He emphasized that this was not “socialized medicine.” He also dropped the funeral benefit that contributed to the defeat of national insurance in the Progressive Era. Congress had mixed reactions to Truman’s proposal. The chairman of the House Committee was an anti-union conservative and refused to hold hearings. Senior Republican Senator Taft declared, “I consider it socialism. It is to my mind the most socialistic measure this Congress has ever had before it.” Taft suggested that compulsory health insurance, like the Full Unemployment Act, came right out of the Soviet constitution and walked out of the hearings. The AMA, the American Hospital Association, the American Bar Association, and most of then nation’s press had no mixed feelings; they hated the plan. The AMA claimed it would make doctors slaves, even though Truman emphasized that doctors would be able to choose their method of payment.

In 1946, the Republicans took control of Congress and had no interest in enacting national health insurance. They charged that it was part of a large socialist scheme. Truman responded by focusing even more attention on a national health bill in the 1948 election. After Truman’s surprise victory in 1948, the AMA thought Armageddon had come. They assessed their members an extra $25 each to resist national health insurance, and in 1945 they spent $1.5 million on lobbying efforts which at the time was the most expensive lobbying effort in American history. They had one pamphlet that said, “Would socialized medicine lead to socialization of other phases of life? Lenin thought so. He declared socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the socialist state.” The AMA and its supporters were again very successful in linking socialism with national health insurance, and as anti-Communist sentiment rose in the late 1940’s and the Korean War began, national health insurance became vanishingly improbable. Truman’s plan died in a congressional committee. Compromises were proposed but none were successful. Instead of a single health insurance system for the entire population, America would have a system of private insurance for those who could afford it and public welfare services for the poor. Discouraged by yet another defeat, the advocates of health insurance now turned toward a more modest proposal they hoped the country would adopt: hospital insurance for the aged and the beginnings of Medicare."

Since our health insurance system and health care has historically been primarily private and employer based, and a majority polled say they are satisfied with their coverage, to modify the entire system to a single payer government run system in one legislative session is wildly unrealistic. A robust public option would be a good goal, but there are political obstacles to getting this. It's also wrong to focus so much on insurance, while ignoring the costs in the system involved in a "fee for service" model of delivery. If you read the Cost Conundrum, you already know that. The bill does have provisions for "comparative effectiveness" research to begin to lower costs and improve care. What we CAN also do and what the bills in congress begin to do, is reign in the unethical private insurance industry, enact a public option that can be expanded in the future, just as the Canadian system did.

As far as the 2013 timetable- All qualified experts who have evaluated the changes being proposed have said this time is necessary to allow for the adjustment to the new rules, regulations, and benifits by all parties involved. You can't turn an ocean liner on a dime.

[derby378]

119. Compromise = Capitulation

The bad is the enemy of the good. And the House version of the bill is, well, bad. No actual public option. That means fail.

[No Elephants]

214. Wroong. Single payer was the perfect. A strong public option is the good.

And it's time to put away that overworked cliche from this discussion. It never belonged in it in the first place because it was always a lie. Now it's a played out lie.

[SandWalker1984]

57. Why are we pissed off? This poster said it better than I can.

This was posted on dailykos in August and says it better than I can:

No More Faith: The Senate Topples Into Incompetence
by Hunter
Wed Aug 26, 2009

It seems absolutely assured that there is no American problem or catastrophe that will not be dealt with by our government by lavish, staggering public giveaways to the very corporations most directly responsible for the problem. We are currently mired in a Great Recession, to use the term that seems most commonplace at the moment; the result of which has been trillions of dollars in giveaways and subsidies to the banking and insurance giants whose foolish, outright stupid acts caused the very collapse we are saving them and us from.

They are Too Big To Fail, and you and I are not, and so you and I can suck eggs, from our elected leaders point of view. There is apparently no war too costly for us to fund indefinitely; there is no apparently stimulus package that can exist unless it funnels money only to the top of the economic chain, and not the bottom. We talk glowingly about putting Social Security in the hands of Wall Street tycoons, a new and immense treasure chest for them to play with, to collect fees on, and to gamble with at will. We provide lavish tax breaks to extraction companies, to oil companies that make record amounts of cash. America's auto industry has mismanaged themselves for decades, fighting every government request; we will come to their aid now, yet again, because they are also Too Big To Fail.

So it should have been transparently obvious from the outset that the only response our glorious and wizened Senate could come up with, when facing a failed healthcare system that has been steadily bankrupting the country, its businesses and its citizens for decades, would be to invent a solution in which the companies most responsible for the problem would be given cash hand over fist. And indeed, that seems to be the "solution" that is closer to fruition than any of the others.

The premise in this case is a mandate in which every American shall be forced to buy private insurance. Apparently that is uncontroversial, to our leaders, but the notion of providing a government-backed plan for those who do not want their health and welfare tied to the same companies that have been screwing them over for decades, now that is a bridge too far.

Let me be clear. To me, such a plan represents the very pinnacle of corruption, of corporate toadyism, and of the complete dissolution of effective government into merely being a legal framework for corporations to most efficiently extract wealth from the nation. And the day such a plan passes, I will no longer be a Democrat.


Max Baucus is a crook. There, I said it outright. Ben Nelson? A crook. Grassley, Boehner, McConnell, Hoyer and the others? Crooks. Not "conservative", not "fiscal watchdogs", not "representing their own peculiar constituents", none of that hogwash and drivel that churns up our airwaves on a daily basis. They join the long line of leaders that rake in more cash from health insurers, pharmaceutical companies and the like than you or I are likely to see in our lifetimes, and in exchange for that they are the unquestioned _kingmakers_ of reform, and all the nation must bow down to them and to those that have paid them more cash than any of their own constituents have been able to shell out. With regularity, every industry under the American spotlight will turn to "friendly" senators and representatives, where friendly means nothing more than plied with cash, and in them they will find regulatory salvation for a relative pittance. It does not represent corruption under our system of government simply because we have carefully designed our government to freely allow it. Corporations are people, after all, and people have freedom of speech, and dollars represent speech, and therefore the person with the most dollars is entitled to the most representation.

That, then, is the American way. Anything else you may have learned in school is a farce meant for children.

The current premise is that a public option -- that is, the government providing the same sort of insurance program as Medicare, but for all their citizens and not just the elderly -- is very nearly a nonstarter, because we Americans are apparently supposed to believe that our government providing insurance to a seventy year old is a noble service, but providing that same service to a fifty year old is socialism, and providing that same service to a twenty year old or a ten year old is something that only a goddamned Hitler would do. We can have public fire departments, public police departments, federal disaster relief, flood insurance and whatnot, but keeping you alive and out of bankruptcy if you get sick is an abomination. Never mind that we are alone among the most advanced countries in this regard; never mind that our current system is both among the most expensive and least effective. We are supposed to believe chaos will ensue if we follow the same path as other nations, because the industry that has the most profit to lose if a "public option" is available has sent phalanxes of lobbyists out to assert that everything is, in fact, Just Goddamned Fine, and a hellscape elsewhere. Because the lobbyists say it, the legislators say it. Because the legislators say it, the partisan press says it.

Doesn't matter that it's not true. Doesn't matter that there are no death panels, that there are no death booklets, that Stephen Hawking is not, in fact, dead from being British. We have yet to punish any politician or any news organization for baldly lying to us, so long as it is a lie that satisfies us to hear.

Fine; let us presume that we are too corrupt, as a nation, to consider promotion of the health and welfare of our citizens as being equal in importance to the health and welfare of, say, Goldman Sachs. Still, then, at the very least we ought to be able to come up with some solution that does not make the problem explicitly worse than it was when we first tackled it, some solution that does not take a solvable problem and turn it into nothing more than an excuse to funnel yet more money into the hands of corporations already sucking the well-being of their own nation dry. We should be able to, but given the basic structure of our Senate, which cannot pass any legislation that harms a corporate interest in any substantive way, so long as that interest has made the appropriate donations to the appropriate legislators, it seems evident that even that small request might be too much.


The so-called "private mandate" made sense in the context of a truly national solution: like Social Security, all Americans would pay into it, or opt out in favor of their own private insurance, and all Americans would in turn receive benefit from it, or from their own private insurance. It provides universal coverage. It does not rely on each American making a Vegas wager on whether or not they will be injured given a during year, and being reduced to destitution or death if they make the wrong guess.

But absent a public solution, and absent meaningful reform of the existing private system, it is nonsensical. It is worse than nonsensical, because it mandates a marketplace for a product that will not substantively assist people in actual need of healthcare. Each company will price an insurance option to be whatever the subsidy turns out to be; that insurance will be provided to be as shoddy as possible, with massive deductibles, gigantic loopholes, and all the other tricks of the insurance trade rolled into whatever bottom-rung "package" is deemed the minimal necessary.

If someone were to actually get sick, an insurance policy with a $20,000, or $50,000, or $100,000 deductible -- so-called "junk" insurance, of the sort that is becoming more and more prevalent as insurance companies price their other products steadily out of reach of more and more consumers -- will not prevent bankruptcy. It will not provide preventative care, of the sort that would stop illnesses before they became catastrophic. It would do nothing to curtail costs. It would do nothing to fix our broken emergency rooms.

It would act only as massive, all-encompassing national subsidy to the very insurance companies who have made healthcare so unaffordable in the first place. It would be exactly the same as placing Social Security in the hands of the private sector, bidding them farewell, and letting the retirement accounts of the entire nation be funneled into the same barely-regulated, never-accountable companies that have sent the economies of the entire world into a tailspin.

Enough is enough -- that is all I can think of to say. I know full well the underlying premise: the notion is that the insurance companies will, in exchange for having every single American in the country as captive consumers of their products, give up their policy of denying coverage to people who are actually sick. They will begrudgingly trade away their ability to deny "preexisting conditions", which at this point consist of every illness, proto-illness or maybe-illness you have ever had in your entire life, and will be more hesitant to retroactively revoke every cent of your coverage (but not refund your money) if you have the audacity to start costing them serious money.

But a trade of mandated purchase of a for-profit, private product in exchange for a meager promise to not abuse customers is -- let's all say it together, for good measure -- goddamned asinine. The government of the United States should not have to bargain to get an abusive industry to be slightly less abusive. Especially when (1) the industry in question has a historical pattern of rampant customer abuse, and (2) when our Noble and Brilliant Goddamn Legislators have no recent history of being able to enforce corporate competence or fairness on any industry, at any point in the last several decades. The notion that suddenly, in exchange for a windfall of a trillion dollars or so, one of the most hated, manipulative, dishonest industries in America will suddenly become worthy of nationally mandated fealty is so preposterous that it could only be dreamed up by someone as crooked as a politician.


So count me against, without reservation, the Worst Possible Goddamn Outcome Yet Devised. I have to believe that a mandate for all Americans to buy private, for profit health insurance, absent a public option, absent serious regulation, is not going to happen. Yes, it looks like there are members of the Senate willing to go for it, but I have to believe that more sensible heads would gut such a moronic plan, such an obvious and transparent corporate giveaway on such a massive scale, as being a ridiculous and humiliating premise even by recent piss-poor standards.

But I am probably wrong, because underestimating the willful cronyism, the absolute craven crookedness in favor of corporate giveaways by both Republicans and Democrats alike is at this point little more than a parlor game: no matter how cynical you may be, you can bet that the reality is worse. You can bet that the outcome will be worse than you thought, that the regulation will be pathetic than you could have imagined, that the oversight after the fact will be totally non-existent.

It is not even about the so-called "public option", at this point. It is not, narrowly, even about the so-called "private mandate" itself. It is about how the Senate can take absolutely any national crisis and turn it into a corporate giveaway. None of these people deserve to be trusted any farther than they can jump to snatch a dollar from your hand; the whole institution seems bent on proving itself irrelevant at best, and devoutly crooked at worst.

So yes, I am spitting mad that such asinine proposals are even being considered. The Senate has totally lost any pretense of being able to effectively govern, and there seems little left to do about it short of running every last one of them out of town on a rail. The notion of forcing every American, by law, to purchase a crappy, barely-regulated, for-profit product that won't actually do them anything but a bare trickle of goddamn good if they do get sick is proof enough that the jury is unabashedly rigged, and the notion of repairing our American healthcare system because it is the right thing to do is a distant and despised thought.


I do not know what the outcome of this legislative dance will be, but all the players have made their intents absolutely clear. If once again, the only outcome acceptable to our senate, our representatives or our president is, yet again, after all this, after every other fight, yet another corporate giveaway piled high on the backs of every last American, I will not support even one of the goddamn politicians that vote for such a thing.

We have been more than patient; we have been more than accommodating. But no more. Our parties are kept properties of those that finance them; our politicians are so intent on not biting the hands of the most powerful one percent that the needs of the other ninety-nine percent are continually reduced to begrudging afterthought. The Republican Party has joyfully reduced themselves to a band of bigots, of know-nothings and nihilists, who to a person would rather peddle the most absurd, fear-mongering lies than engage in actual governance of the sort they were elected to -- they stand for nothing, at this point, and can hardly be called a political movement at all. The Democratic Party continues to be at war with itself, trying to toe the line between being bought and remaining in power, knowing that there is only so many corporate fanfares that can be blared out from Capitol Hill before the public comes to the conclusion that they, too, represent no one but themselves.

Yes, it is a harsh pronouncement, but there are only so many years that a nation can be patient, and only so many crises that can be resolved by funneling cash to America's corporate behemoths. We are either a nation or we are a subsidiary.

So I am done. It is this fight, or nothing. We have been asked to put up with war crimes, because "moving forward" is the more conciliatory path. We have been asked to stomach the politicization of the highest offices in our system of justice, because investigating it would be divisive. Time and time again we have asked for nothing more than our government to enforce its own goddamned laws, or to take action against the worst and most corrupt abusers of its citizens, whether done by government or by balance sheet, and we have gotten between nothing and jack-squat in return. We have gotten worse than nothing: we have gotten corporate immunity for lawbreakers, we have gotten tacit approval of the methods of murdering thugs, we have set in stone the notion that there is absolutely no corporate fuckup so damaging to the economy of the entire nation that it would result in substantive regulatory restraints.

No more. This fight is the last and final test; whether or not our leaders are so corrupt as to be irredeemable should be easily gleanable by whether or not they are able to bring themselves to even try on this, the one fight that every last one of them has supposedly been saving their strength for. It is this or nothing, and I will be damn proud, at the end of it, to abandon those who have so completely abandoned us.

[pattmarty]

100. I'll second the "sucks" part. Only, I'll call the final bill (yes even before any .........

.........of us know what the "final" bill will be) a big piece of shit. It will be a bill ANY Republican would be proud to call their own. Except that NO Republican will "sign on" to it AND the Dems will get the blame (rightly so) for a complete steenkin turd. Progressive/Liberal, my fucking ass.

[shraby]

7. You've read it already???

[ChiciB1]

181. You Know... Reading IT ALL Might Be Something We Should Do... BUT

even then, I have a sneaky feeling it's only going to GET WORSE!

To say it's watered down isn't enough, but it may just get MORE WATERED DOWN before it's all over!

For months now people have been saying Obama is playing some sort of chess game, but I think the game wasn't chess... it was GAMBLING! And on people's lives who never got close to the SLOT MACHINES!!

NOW IT'S ON TO MORE WAR... OR NOT!! Place your bets now, I just wish I could get a pay out on what I WOULD BET!!

[kpete]

9. Full text:

http://health.burgess.house.gov/UploadedFiles/House_HCR...

[Ms. Toad]

121. Darn. More homework. n/t

[BREMPRO]

17. The bill contains significant improvements to our health care system, including:

a public option,
competitive health insurance exchange,
subsidies for low income,
repeal of anti-trust exemption,
guaranteed access to affordable coverage and essential benefits,
consumer protections, including no denials of insurance for pre-existing conditions, or cancelling policies because of illness.
comparative effectiveness research,
credit for small businesses health care expenses,
medicare reforms, including reduction of waste, fraud and abuse
improvements to medicare part D,
nursing home transparency.

among other provisions. It also appears to be still budget neutra