Yes We Did! – A Celebration of the Obama Admin and Congress’ Achievements

[ProSense]

Yes We Did! – A Celebration of the Obama Admin and Congress’ Achievements

by askew

With the passage of financial reform today, I think it is time to step back and appreciate all this Congress and the Obama administration have accomplished in the last 19 months. While there is still a lot to do, it is important to remember why we worked so hard for the 2008 election and why we need to work just as hard for the 2010 election.

Below is a brief summary of the major accomplishments of the Obama Administration and this Congress.

Major Legislation:

Financial Reform Bill "represents the most profound restructuring of financial regulation since the Great Depression". Below is a brief outline of the bill:

<…>

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a sweeping piece of legislation that will allow 32 million Americans access to health care coverage. The key changes are outlined below (note these changes will take place between 2010 – 2014).

<…>

The American Recover and Reinvestment Act of 2009(commonly known as the Stimulus Bill) was the largest spending bill in U.S. History. Below is a breakdown of the progressive spending allocated in this bill:

Education - Total: $90.9 billion

* $15.6 billion to increase Pell Grants from $4,731 to $5,350
* $13 billion for low-income public schoolchildren
* $12.2 billion for IDEA special education
* $2.1 billion for Head Start
* $2 billion for childcare services
* $300 million for increased teacher salaries
* $70 million for the education of homeless children

Aid to low income workers, unemployed and retirees - Total: $82.5 billion

* $20.3 billion for food (Food Stamp Program, refill food banks, lunch programs for children and seniors)
* $14.2 billion to give one-time $250 payments to Social Security recipients, people on Supplemental Security Income, and veterans receiving disability and pensions.
* $3 billion in temporary welfare payments
* $500 million for vocational training for the disabled
* $120 million for subsidized community service jobs for older Americans

Infrastructure Investment - Total: $80.9 billion

* $17.8 billion for public transportation projects
* $6 billion for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure

Energy - Total: $61.3 billion

* $15.5 billion funding for an electric smart grid
* $10.8 billion investments in increasing energy efficiency
* $7.3 billion for environmental clean-up

Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act:

This bill was originally introduced into Congress in 2001. With its passage, the 1969 U.S. federal hate crime law is expanded to include crimes motivated by victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. This act is the first federal law to extend legal protections to transgender persons.

Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010:

This bill contains much needed funding for women veterans and provided funding to allow caregivers to stay home with veterans to help in their recovery.

Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (contains Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act)
Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009

Foreign Policy:

New START Treaty signed with Russia

U.N. Security Council Nuclear Arms Resolution

Trade Agreement with Russia that may result in 44,000 U.S. jobs.

Iraq withdrawal is ahead of schedule.

Regulatory Changes:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):

New rules raising fuel standard requirements.

New rules to regulate coal air pollution, which may result in utilities shutting down smaller, dirtier plants.

New sulfur dioxide emissions limits, which is the first change in 40 years.

New rules to limit water pollution from mining.

VA is making it easier for veterans to get help for PTSD.

HHS announces first national strategy for HIV/AIDS.

New FDA rule requiring egg producers to refrigerate eggs during storage and transportation to reduce salmonella illnesses.

Federal Medical Leave Act extended by Department of Labor to include same-sex relationships.

Goldman Sachs settled SEC civil fraud case and will pay a record $550mm.

Other Executive Branch Decisions:

The plan to bail out General Motors has been a success and they are already starting to pay the U.S. back. In May, General Motors reported 1st quarterly profits in 3 years.

Executive order reversing stem cell ban.
Memo directing HHS to draft rule to prevent hospitals from denying visitation privileges to same-sex partners.

Reversed the "Mexico City Policy" banning funding international family planning groups that provide abortions.

more

[Oregone]

1. How many of these a day does it take to convince you this admin is fantastic?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=375643&mesg_id=375643

Just curious? In times of doubt, is it beneficial to post more? Are these aimed at converting those who doubt, or reinforcing belief in the benevolence of the administration among fellow believers?

[ProSense]

2. Why do you have a problem with repeatedly highlighting the adminstration's achievenments?

What about repeatedly spotlighting so-called failures. There are some who consider these achievements failures and repeatedly point that out. Do you have a problem with that?

Oh, and do visit Daily Kos, many posters there are celebrating.

[Oregone]

8. Asking a question, which you didn't answer, does not indicate a "problem"

It would seem you some people have a compulsion to post these. Im merely looking for details about this tendency and its intended purpose.

[ProSense]

18. " It would seem you some people have a compulsion to post these. " Huh?

I detect compulsion, and it's not with "you some people."

[Oregone]

21. Typo

Its easier to point out typos than answer simple questions, I suppose

[krawhitham]

48. 53,736

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

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

[treestar]

3. How many negative posts do you need to convince yourself?

Are you actually complaining about positive posts about Democrats? Why can't they exist as well as negative ones?

[Oregone]

12. No complaining here

And its not necessarily negative. I see posts like this daily. Here is another:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=374741&mesg_id=374741

What is the purpose? Is it accomplishing this purpose? What is the desired quantity required to accomplish this purpose? Is this about reinforcement? Is this about converting non-believers?

I think these are interesting questions.

[CakeGrrl]

19. What's the purpose in snarking on the President's vacation plans?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=375678&mesg_id=375735

What is the purpose? Is it accomplishing this purpose? What is the desired quantity required to accomplish this purpose? Is this about reinforcement? Is this about converting non-believers?

[Oregone]

22. The eating of clean crustaceans at such a time made me chuckle

Seems a bit tone deaf. Kill me. Not a whole lot more to it than that.


You should thank me for honestly addressing the question, instead of avoiding it.

[Hekate]

28. "Honestly addressing the question"? I don't think so.

Your agenda -- or outlook on life, or whatever -- is to do nothing but tear down and denigrate every move this President and his allies take to address the steaming pile left behind by the Bush-Cheney cabal. Post after post after post. This is not constructive.

Based on the sheer consistency of your remarks, I'd say you have a real problem with someone who counters your enthusiasm for tearing down with enthusiasm for building up.

Hekate

[Oregone]

32. Thanks for cluing me in to my agenda

Maybe you can produce a draft report about it, including strategy, so I make sure I'm on the same page as...well, apparently, myself. You seem to be the expert


You know what is hilarious? A simple set of questions leads to a full ad hominem onslaught! Don't rock the boat around here

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[DevonRex]

9. I appreciate the link to KOS. I probably wouldn't have gone there

today without it. :shrug:

Edit to add that I pretty much stay on DU until I get links here to other sites. That's why I like DU so much. I get links here to all the important stories of the day.

[Oregone]

15. "That's why I like DU so much...."

Me too. Its a nice place to find links to news and policy sites. Though, I don't really follow through to blog type sites (like dailykos). To each their own.

[DevonRex]

40. I don't normally go to blogs either.

But I do like particular entries like this because it puts together some good information in one place. I bookmarked this thread so if anyone asks me in the future about accomplishments I can refer to it.

I have some ultra-RW relatives who believe Dems are kin to Satan (no, really) so it helps to have a bit of ammunition at hand. Not that they would be happy about any of it, but at least I can say that he did some of the things he said he would do.

BTW, I just had a vacation with these relatives and boy, was that an experience. I survived, and it was nice to see family, but I haven't exactly recovered yet.

[Oregone]

43. Congrats on survival!

:)

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[FrenchieCat]

11. Just one would be sufficient, if only it would be read instead of ignored, belittled or denied.

:shrug:

[Oregone]

13. "or denied"

So conversely, until they are universally accepted as true by everyone, no quantity is sufficient?

Would that then imply their purpose is to convince others of this opinion?

[hulka38]

87. The purpose is to bludgeon the point through repetition into another's head.

You know that.

[BklnDem75]

95. For as long as there's a counter message

Some feel it's their duty to demoralize others on a Democratic website. Funny how a thread boasting accomplishments are jumped on as inaccurate, yet blatantly false, demoralizing threads aren't met with the same zeal for accuracy. Consistency goes a long way.

[moodforaday]

30. I guess it depends on where you sit.

On the home front, maybe. I'm reading people who say that the FinReg act has been watered down too much and is too full of holes to prevent another shakedown by the Too Big to Fail. Plus it doesn't kick in until 2013 or so, is that right? But I reserve judgment, since I can't tell if it's hope or hype, it depends on who you trust.

But if you ask the people in Gitmo, in Bagram, in Afghanistan or Pakistan - and certainly in the occupied Palestine - they could hardly have noticed that there's a new president. Notice the pattern?

Oh, and what about the war on whistleblowers who expose government wrongdoing? That's a new one!

It really depends on what you care about most. If you care about preserving the (relative) well-being of people at home, at the cost of maintaining the empire and continuing the criminal wars abroad, then yes, Obama is doing a fair job. If you care more about not killing people, not torturing people and not subjugating whole countries for the benefit of the Pentagon, its contractors and transnational corporations, then maybe he isn't.

[Oregone]

37. Regarding the FinReg act, it doesn't really matter if its sufficient

In a capitalistic system, even the perfect bill will be shredded by a lobby as wealthy and powerful as the financial sector. Thats how capitalism meshes with government; the very elite that capitalism enables to rise up do not want to abide by the principles Adam Smith set forth, and therefore, will infiltrate government with their wealth. So really...its window dressing in any form (meaning that the Dems deserve somewhat of a pass here for at least getting some symbolism through). On top of that, it does contain beneficial consumer protections that will stand for some time. On the otherhand, people should be realistic about how 'historic' it really is and what it will really accomplish in terms of avoiding future crisis (very little). But as long as no one is willing to abandon capitalism, its the best that can be expected.

I agree with a lot of what you've said regarding other issues.

[spoony]

51. Lol. Too true. nt

[IndianaGreen]

92. 'Jesus Saves!'

It is the weekly cry from our pulpits to convince the doubting faithful that, despite all evidence to the contrary, there is a GAWD out there that not only cares but that can also make all the pain go away, if He so chooses.

Some among us know better! Like the old song by Blood, Sweat, and Tears:

Now troubles are many, they're as deep as a well.
I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell.
Swear there ain't no heaven and I pray there ain't no hell,
But I'll never know by living, only my dying will tell.
Yes only my dying will tell.
Yeah, only my dying will tell.

AND WHEN I DIE
Album : Greatest Hits
Blood, Sweat, & Tears

http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/a/andwhenidie.shtml

[opihimoimoi]

5. AWESOME KnR :o)

[jenmito]

6. A BIG K&R!

[DevonRex]

7. Thanks for bringing this to us from KOS! K&R nt

[JTFrog]

10. Excellent. K&R n/t

[blue neen]

14. I like seeing the good news posts.

Keep up the good work! :)

:toast:

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[mdmc]

17. Yet I cannot afford health care

I can afford health insurance, not health care..

[ProSense]

20. "I can afford health insurance, not health care."

I don't even understand that comment. What does it have to do with the OP?

[Oregone]

23. It contrasts exuberance over policy "milestones" to anecdotal reality

There is irony in the notion that in the Best of All Possible Worlds, there still exists those with situations that do not permit to enjoy such benefits.

Did you really need to ask?

[ProSense]

24. How about

contrasting "anecdotal reality" to actual reality: the health care law will not be fully implemented unti 2014.

[Oregone]

26. Yeah, you're right. Thats pitiful

But "pragmatism" won the day. People will have to wait and suffer for quite some time (operating on the premise that full implementation will stop some amount of suffering)

[ProSense]

27. "But "pragmatism" won the day"

Actually, reality won the day. It does that sometimes.

[Oregone]

29. Why do you link to irrelevent Red Herrings?

Aren't we talking in this sub-thread about the mandated insurance legislation and the suffering people must endure until 2014 due to the way this law was written?

[ProSense]

31. Red herring claim =

you lost the argument.

[Oregone]

34. Or it means you used a logical fallacy

Take your pick bub. Clearly our perception of reality will differ, but at least I can stick to the topic at hand (which was the suffering prolonged by the poorly drafted legislation).

[ProSense]

38. "Clearly our perception of reality will differ"

So in some people's perception of reality the full implementation date of the policy isn't 2014?

[Oregone]

39. Please don't feed or talk to the straw man

Im standing right here





Your debate tactics need some polishing.

[ProSense]

41. .

"Regarding the FinReg act, it doesn't really matter if its sufficient"

:rofl:

[Oregone]

42. You can reply directly to that sub-thread with why you think that is funny

I assert that as time becomes arbitrarily close to infinity, an entrenched financial industry will claw back on any such regulations that will impede on their abilities to make continuous, increased profits (and they will go the way of Glass–Steagall)

While its merely a premise I am putting forth, capitalism has a history of this type of action. Regulations and oversight seem as cyclic as the boom and bust cycles capitalism brings, and often coincide somewhat.

[ProSense]

44. "and they will go the way of Glass–Steagall"

So you're saying it will protect the economy for about five or six decades?

If not, what are you saying? LOL!

[Oregone]

45. Give or take (not that its equivalent)

But how long would it have taken for a disastrous, corrupt bubble to form anyway (you can't bleed an economy too much, too quickly, without killing it completely--the base must be built up over and over in order to extract more wealth)? Along the way, we will see some short booms and busts aided by lax regulation and rule bending, paired with scandals like the S&L crisis or Enron (probably during Republican administrations), but when they are ready again to make a major wealth grab this will probably be disappeared completely.

I think my main point is that in this system that no one will reject, it doesn't really matter what they put forth. Ultimately, the market will decide when they are ready for government to do away with it (or ignore it through negligent oversight). While you may consider it "protecting" the economy during this time, maybe its just existing and waiting for its demise. Until the forces it intends to protect against are really ready, it may not actually be staving off any real threats by itself.

I'm talking very generally here about the interactions between capitalism and government in a theoretical sense. You can either agree, or you may stand in the camp that capitalism really can be regulated. I don't give a damn either way what you think. Honestly, I doubt you'll read this reply. In the end, I ultimately don't think anyone that endorses the capitalistic system has any room to complain about any regulation the Democrats could of put forth (by tautology, it will be inadequate in the large scheme of things)

On edit: at least I take a stab at answering questions and stay somewhat on topic. Thats part of opening the door for constructive debate.

[mdmc]

33. My political party is celebrating while I live in pain and cannot

afford medical treatment.

I will always vote dem over gop, but that does not stop the horrible pain that I am in.

[ProSense]

35. There are people living on the streets

should we stop campaigning and highlighting the good things the administration is doing and let the media and Republicans take over the debate?

I empathize with your plight, but this discussion is not going to help you one way or another. It a discussion that is going to happen.


On edit: There are people who have been suffering for decades before this this administration. Millions of them have finally gotten relief. Instead of focusing on that, and to some degree it's understandable, why the focus always on the negative? The bill was designed to help. It is helping, and relief will likely come to you as well.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[sabrina 1]

47. And right there you explain your delight at the mere passage

of bills, regardless of their actual worth. Now I understand completely. You don't read anything that might cause you to even wonder if something really is as fantastic as you WANT it to be. How it might affect real people. Because if you did, you would have read the myriad of articles that answered the question you just asked.

Keep on posting those 'positive' links and remain blissfully ignorant. That's your right. But please, stop fiegning surprise when you see people who do not share your absolute joy over 'wins' as opposed to 'good policies'. Surely at least that much has penetrated the fog of party loyalty you appear to be operating in.

[ProSense]

50. What the hell are you talking about?

"Keep on posting those 'positive' links and remain blissfully ignorant. That's your right. But please, stop fiegning surprise when you see people who do not share your absolute joy over 'wins' as opposed to 'good policies'. Surely at least that much has penetrated the fog of party loyalty you appear to be operating in."

Do you actually believe that the negative bullshit criticisms that seek to declare every piece of legislation passed by this administration are signs of enlightenment?

You may not see providing coverage to more than 30 million currently unisured people as something of "actual worth," but please don't label others as " blissfully ignorant" because you refuse to acknowlegde facts and progress.

[sabrina 1]

55. Your last sentence simply proves what I said. Blind acceptance

of something that in reality was the wet dream of the Insurance Corps for decades. Money that could easily have been spent on every American had the middlemen been left out of the picture, will now be funneled through their hands and approx 20% or more will be diverted to their bank accounts.

Nor will the care provided to those 30 million, IF it is, even begin for four years.

Additionally, many will not be able to afford the co-pays even though they will be forced to donate to the Private Insurance Ind, money they cannot afford. Something Candidate Obama condemned when running for office and with which I agreed.

Not much will change for the poor especially those just above the imaginary poverty line other than many of them now will face bills they do not have at the moment, and if they get sick, they will be too poor to use that insurance, and too rich to get help.

So that seriously reduces your 30 million extra people covered. Not to mention the other 14 million or so who need care. Covered is the operative word, profits for the Ins. yes, but healthcare for those 30 million, probably not for a significant number of them.

It is also a discriminatory bill which will provide inadequate coverage, if at all, to large numbers of Americans. They will get what they can pay for which in many cases, under this bill, will be nothing at all, just as it is now.

It was a bill written by and for the failing, predatory, corrupt Private Insurance Corporations. So naturally they did what was best for their bottom lines. A few people will benefit, there had to be crumbs, there always are and I'm sure they will be highlighted on the few occasions when they occur.

How anyone can feel happy that these people, responsible for the deaths of nearly half a million Americans, have been rewarded for their crimes is beyond me. I was expecting real investigations into their corrupt activities, and into how they directly related to the deaths of many people. Instead they got rewarded ~

Like I said, keep cheering for the continuation of corporate control over the lives of Americans. And for the privatization of every public dollar that is available. It's worked so well so far :sarcasm:

It'll be interesting to see how you defend the gutting of Social Security. I see a few weak talking points out there in the blogosphere alreaady, but I guess everyone is waiting for the memos. This will be hard even for the most dedicated party loyalist but no one ever said they were not diligent.

[ProSense]

56. "Nor will the care provided to those 30 million, IF it is, even begin for four years."

The high risk pools being set up now will provide coverage for those who are now uninsured because of a pre-existing condition and at a cost in line with what others are paying.

A lot of text in that comment, but not much in terms of facts.

[sabrina 1]

57. 30 states already had high risk pools.

Some were so expensive that many people could not afford to buy into them. Others, limit the number of people who are eligible to a fixed number. Right now, starting on July 1st, people can start applying. However, how much cost control is there? What will be the criteria for accepting people, and why should there even be a quesion about 'accepting' sick people into a 'health care' program?

This issue alone, Ins. Corps refusing to treat the sick, or charging so much for premiums that people could not afford them, was a crime, and a failure of a system whose very existence is meant to be for the purpose of taking care of the sick.

This required a separate bill making it illegal to refuse to treat sick people. What other modern democracy, or even third world country for that matter, would tolerate such a system?

Americans are very tolerant, or is it weak, submissive, unwilling to fight as other countries do, for rights they are entitled to.

Sorry that you cannot deal with too much text. But your inability to refute anything I said, speaks volumes. Keep cheering for Corporate America and privatization, while refusing to address points brought up that you prefer to ignore. The rest of us will keep working towards getting a real Health Care Bill that covers all Americans.

Passing a bill is only impressive if it is a good bill.

[ProSense]

58. There are 50 states. n/t

[sabrina 1]

59. You really are afraid to address points made to you aren't you?

What is your position on Social Security and the attempt by Republicans to privatize it?

Oh, and thanks for the info on the states. I knew that though :eyes:

[ProSense]

61. Here

"However, how much cost control is there? What will be the criteria for accepting people, and why should there even be a quesion about 'accepting' sick people into a 'health care' program?"

You can find out all those things on your own. You're asking a series of questions that show that you either don't know the facts or don't understand them.

[sabrina 1]

68. I have already done that. You are the one claiming how

great this will be. My questions were rhetorical. I assumed you had researched this. This has been done already, we have evidence of how it has NOT worked, in several of those states. Why should a sick American citizen have to compete with other sick Americans just for the privilege of being able to buy a shoddy product from a corrupt institution?

In Florida eg, the program stopped accepting new applicants 20 years ago. It started out with 7,000 'clients', now it has 300. Why? Because it was underfunded for one thing, as many believe this latest version will be, and the premiums were so high it was unsustainable. So although it was an attempt to try to right a wrong, it didn't work.

Health Care is a RIGHT. You are supporting a for-profit, predatory, corrupt system where nothing has changed, the players are the same, except they have been rescued from failure and they received a windfall.

I did ask what you think of the next Republican idea on the agenda, the privatization of Social Security, but you did not respond. I take it you support yet another Republican dream of privatizing public programs? And you will support a Democratic president getting the job done, a job even a Republican president was unable to do?

[ProSense]

69. "My questions were rhetorical."

If your questions were rhetorical, why are you asking for them to be addressed?

[sabrina 1]

70. This one is not rhetorical. Do you support the privatization of

Social Security?

'why are you asking for them to be addressed'. I am asking how any progressive could support the continuation of Corporate Control of the Health Care system in this country, with no competition whatsoever. How they could support the fact that the Health Care industry fought hard to kill any competition and won. And how anyone could consider that a victory.

[ProSense]

71. No. Do you oppose the HCL providing coverage to those currently uninsured? n/t

[sabrina 1]

72. I don't oppose any person being covered, I am FOR every

American have access to good health care. I am opposed to a system that provides someone like billionaire Dick Cheney with far better care than the local plumber who would die under the current system if he had the same problems Cheney has.

Good that you oppose the privatization of Social Security. Do you believe what Republicans are claiming, that SS is the cause of the deficit? That it is 'running out of funds'? Are you in favor the Republican dream of mandating private savings accounts in place of the very successful program we have now and investing those accounts in the market? Do you believe them when they claim that it is necessary to raise the retirement age and cut benefits? Because this is what they want to do.

[ProSense]

73. Do you oppose the HCL providing coverage to those currently uninsured? Yes or no? n/t

[sabrina 1]

81. You have not answered my questions.

[ProSense]

83. Yes or no?

You asked a question, and I answered it straight: No.

You haven't answered the one question I asked.

And to answer your other questions: I really don't give a shit what Repubicans think, and why are you asking me about Republicans?

Are you in an interrogation mood?

[sabrina 1]

88. I'm asking because there are Republicans on the Commission

who are known enemies of Social Security. They have already indicated what their recommendations will be. This is a huge issue, which if Democrats cave on, as they did on Health Care reform, millions of Americans will be adversely affected and Republicans will have finally accomplished the total destruction of the social safety nets put in place by Democrats and considered to be one of their greatest accomplishments on behalf of the American people.

This will be a huge fight if the WH even considers supporting these proposals. And this time, no arguments, no excuses, will work to appease the anger it would generate. I'd like to think that a Democratic Administration would put a stop to this before it gets started. And that there is no one who calls themselves a Democrat who would support it, should it happen.

As for your question, I answered it, I support a National Health Care system which is cheaper, more efficient, and more equitable and which doesn't require 'registering to see if you qualify'. A chance in a lifetime to move towards that was blown.

[ProSense]

89. "As for your question, I answered it..."

I didn't ask what type of system you support, I asked:

Do you oppose the HCL providing coverage to those currently uninsured?

Yes or no?

You didn't answer it.

[sabrina 1]

91. You did not answer my questions. But in a way you did.

Your silence tells me that you are waiting for the WH to tell you what to do. If they go along with the Republican recommendations, then so will you. You will not take a stand against a Republican assault on SS unless the WH does so also.

[ProSense]

93. Wow, you refuse to answer the very first question with a direct yes or no

and you're trying to project that I'm avoiding your subsequent questions?

I will not approve of any cuts to Social Security regardless of who advances them.

Now: Do you oppose the HCL providing coverage to those currently uninsured? Yes or no?

Why are you refusing to answer that question?

[HughMoran]

98. Stop obfuscating and answer the question!

[unapatriciated]

63. "High Risk Pools" this name alone should clue you in on how it will fail.

For Insurance to work you need everybody in and nobody out. That is what you call spreading the risk and keeping a program solvent. If you have only those who are high risk, it will be a very expensive program that is doomed to fail. Their cost will not be in line with what younger or healthier insureds pay, that is just not true nor possiable.

[dflprincess]

84. I went out to "healthcare".gov

(which should be called "overpricedinsurance".gov") to see if I could find something cheaper for my brother who is currently dealing with lung cancer. I've been making the COBRA payments and it is getting to be a bit of a strain. His current policy has a $2,000 deductible and an 80/20 coinsurance up to an amount I haven't bothered to check yet. But when a person has cancer they can pretty much meet their out of pocket maximums in the first month or so. So, as one "this HCR is wonderful" idiot said to me, we're getting a good return on the money I'm paying each month.

I did find out that because of he has COBRA there is nothing else he is currenlty eligible for. But for the heck of it I went ahead and checked out the supercalifragilisticexpealidocous high risk pool that's being set up.

What I'm quoting here is what is available in Minnesota - hopefully some of you live in states with more rational attitudes towards what is affordable.

First, for the group my brother would fall into it is required that a person had COBRA for 18 months and did not lose the the coverage because of failure to pay a premium. Also, that the person has not gone more than 63 days without coverage.

The plans are as follows:

DEDUCTIBLE / PREMIUM PER MONTH
$500 Deductible / $1,161
$1,000 Deductible / $868
$2,000 Deductible / $699
$3,000 Deductible / $669*
$5,000 Deductible / $507
$10,000 Deductible / $365

*This one is also called a High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP) and is a Federally qualified plan for a health savings account (HSA). It has a $3,000 Individual annual deductible/out-of-pocket (covered expenses only, not including premiums).

In addition to the deductile the plans have an 80/20 "coinsurance" up to a max $3,000 out of pocket (if the deductible is less than $3000). Again, only covered expenses count toward the out of pocket and premiums do not.

The only plan cheaper than his COBRA is the one with a $10,000 deductible.

And, remember, not everyone with what the insurance companies consider a preexisting condition have a chronic, ongoing illness. Some are people who are healthy today but may be at some (even minimal) risk for relapse. Which is fortunate as I found this little caveat:

Important Information on Pre-existing Conditions:

For all MCHA policies, no benefits are payable during the first six months of coverage for expenses for any preexisting condition, injury, illness or other physical or mental condition that was diagnosed, treated or evaluated during the 90 days preceding the effective date of coverage. However, Minnesota State law does provide some exceptions to the preexisting condition limitation. In order to determine if you may be eligible for a waiver, you must requests a waiver of the preexisting condition limitation by completing the applicable section of the MCHA application.

But he is on disability (insurance, not Social Security) so maybe he'd get something back with a tax credit - the problem is coming up with the money up front.

[Vinca]

96. That's a bargain compared to my unaffordable NH quote.

[Moochy]

78. The Label is Very Accurate.

Blissfully ignorant.

Willfully Ignorant also works equally well.

[unapatriciated]

60. "I can afford health insurance, not health care."

Rent and watch Sicko, if you haven't already seen it. Michael Moore explains his statement in detail for you.
I think you know exactly what he is talking about.

[dflprincess]

86. And if this person has seen "Sicko"

she should watch it again - and this time pay attention.

[spoony]

52. You don't deserv him!!11!

:sarcasm:

[NJmaverick]

25. Thanks this is an outstanding factual resource to use to counter

false right wing talking points

[pnorman]

36. K & R!

In order to go through the entire thread later.

[Ian David]

46. Oh, yeah? Well, Bush gave us The Do-Not-Call Registry! SO THERE!

:sarcasm:

(Actually, the Do-Not-Call Registry probably formed the framework for the CIA wiretapping database).

[AngryAmish]

49. You forgot largest White House Seder ever

[stevenleser]

53. Big, mghty K&R!

[noamnety]

54. The goldman sachs one makes me laugh

Their fraud cost investors almost double what they settled for. So yes, they settled for a half billion dollars - and pocketed the other half billion that they earned from the fraud. What did they learn? Fraud is good business strategy, even when busted.

A third of the settlement is going straight to foreign banks.

The settlement is less than 5% of their net income - AFTER paying dividends to stockholders. How bad did this hurt them? Um ... not at all, after the settlement details were made public, their stock shot up.

(That's what I learned from reading the link right in the OP.)

[cliffordu]

62. KIcketty and recced for my loyal cousins.

scummy little shits that they are.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

64. BUT, BUT, BUT...he's a HOMOPHOBE!!!! AND A RACIST!!!

:sarcasm::sarcasm:

[Top Cat]

65. Yes We Did!!!!

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[Milo_Bloom]

97. And there in lies what is wrong.

People are so desperate for a "win" that they will take any garbage thrown our way and try to tout it as a victory.

What is sad is that the people know better, but don't care, they just want to convince the ignorant that there has been huge progress.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

80. .

:rofl:

[Moochy]

82. damn I want to roffle too

when you do the alert, rofl shuffle.. you are just hoarding the roffles. :(

[HughMoran]

85. jack

[Number23]

76. It feels GREAT to cheer for a person so worthy of being cheered for

So here's my "cheer" for all of the work for this country that President Obama has done so far.

Good work, sir!

[ProSense]

90. Yes, it is. n/t

[SidDithers]

94. K&R...

This list should stay at the top. Most excellent post :applause:

Sid

[ProgressOnTheMove]

99. Important reminders remember staying at home won't make their life hard just our own,advancement job

creation is only via the Democratic party. We can make their path of historic victory more easier with 60+ senate and held strong house. If people can see in the most important part his supreme court appointments that, that is the true Pres. Obama then it's logical to see with right amount of seats he will go the extra mile. Sure he negotiated with medical insurance to pass his bill it sank in the 90s without their participation he assured something got done the very important first step the rest is in our hands. It's a tough hardball process we can make it easier in 2010.