Without the Public Option the Democratic Party will be walking into a trap of its own making

[grantcart]

Imagine yourself as a part of a hard working family that is making $ 60,000.

In a couple of years from now you get a notice.

Even though you don't have enough money to make it through the end of the month the government is sending you a notice that next month you must sign up for health care. Because you are not technically "poor", you receive no or a small subsidy.

So somehow you scrap together the $ 800 a month that and you buy the cheapest option from the health exchange.

In a few months you use your ACME insurance. You have questions but they keep you on the line for hours. They are not going to pay half of your bills and you have no recourse. You read in the newspaper that the CEO of ACME is paid a $50,000,000 bonus. The doctors office tells you that they still haven't been reimbursed by ACME and that from now on you will have to pay by cash and file for reimbursement from the insurance company.



People who are saying that we should just take what we can get and accept the health care package without the public option fail to see the huge problem that will happen in a few years.

Some people will find improvement in the plan but the mandate will be a blow to tens of millions of people who are not poor enough to get a subsidy.

And, and this point is what people are not seeing, is that we will have married ourselves to these corrupt private companies. Every fuck up they make will be projected back to the Democratic Party and this administration. Every huge profit announcement will be met with increasing cynicism. Every single bonus for a health care executive will be linked to the President.

The Public Option is the only repeat only hope for making this plan work. When people complain about the service they are getting from their private company we can say "Well we wanted to expand the Public Option. People who have the Public Option don't have this problem, work with us to expand the public option."

Without the public option we are walking into a trap.

That is why the insurance companies are running ads for the plan but to drop the public option.

Pass the bill with the public option or defeat it. No trigger, no excuses, no compromise."

[MNDemNY]

1. Yup.

[Divine Discontent]

55. Agreed!

[villager]

2. well said, grantcart!

:thumbsup:

[JaneFordA]

31. GREAT post!

I'm with ya! :-)

[SandWalker1984]

101. A public option without government funding is a car without gas...

....it will go nowhere.

Our government finds money for wars, for AIG, for Goldman Sachs, for GM & Chrysler (and they were a private company) but
they can't give a dime for a public option for we the people of America.

Obama's version of a public option is a sham.

It's obvious in who's pocket he's residing.

[Enrique]

3. like the bank bailout

and in general, the dems' ties with Wall Street.

It makes it real tough to believe their "fighting for you" rhetoric when you see them golfing with the UBS guy.

[polichick]

9. This is indeed an ugly sight. nt

[Old Time Pagan]

33. Much as I hate to voice it

after looking at this grotesque picture, to paraphrase, "President Obama it's beginning to look like you are no Franklin Delano Roosevelt."

Damn shame cause we sure could use someone like him just about now.

[grantcart]

61. Actually FDR was no FDR

We remember an idealized FDR but the reality was different, and FDR is my favorite President.


To begin with the Stock Market collapse became much worse between November and March (when the innaugural was done in those days) and FDR refused to meet with Hoover.

Hoover was willing to start whatever measures that FDR wanted or atleast make some joint announcements but FDR was worried about being tagged with any association with Hoover and refused any meetings. The result was that their was much greater fear and the psychological reaction caused the markets to plummet further.

That was his begining. Also FDR ran as a strict budget balancer and only went to deficit spending when the whole system had basically collapsed. When things got better some years later he tried again to balance the budget and these moves were seen to bring in an unnecessary but short recession.


FDR also is the President who had American citizens and legal residents rounded up and put into concentration camps because they were Japanese.


I love the man but we only remember his greatness and forget his mistakes, and sometimes they were big ones.


President Obama hasn't made any major misstep yet, and I am hoping that by retaining the Public Option we can have a good bill.

[Old Time Pagan]

92. I enjoy listening to FDR's speeches

and as great an orator as Obama is when it comes to sticking it to the wealthcare profiteers and the greedy military industrial fucks, well as I said in my post Obama just hasn't shown he's got the steel yet. We shall see what we shall see in teh next few months.

As to the idealized FDR, nah there ain't no saints in politics. Everybody that gets that high has to have gotten in the mud and rolled with the pigson the way up. Only question is what they do with the power after they get it. If they do more good than harm then I respect them.

If most of what they do harms most of us then chances are good they're republicans

[dotymed]

90. Amen. FDR saved America

Universal Single Payer is the only real answer. It will be
cost effective (save us money if done right) and save the
Democratic party from minimizing itself, like the republicans
have done. Single Payer is may be a good start but it will not
generate the cost reductions that we need.

[QC]

4. Thank you! n/t

[joshcryer]

5. Pretty much. Hard to debate that logic.

Will be interesting to see what compromisers say.

[Cant trust em]

6. No public option = No Mandate.

That's my bottom line for legislation.

[quakerboy]

118. +1

No public option no mandate. My money, my time, and my votes will follow this very simple principle.

[The Magistrate]

7. Well Said, Sir!

[grantcart]

64. Always a pleasure, Sir.

[myrna minx]

8. Exactly. K&R n/t

[Vincardog]

10. Pass the public option and add an amendment removing the insurance companies exemption from the anti

trust laws. Make the monopolies break up. Give competition a chance.
If the parasitic Insurance companies can ADD VALUE, they can compete with a Government run plan like Medicare.

[nightrain]

11. Even WITH this watered down "public option" there's a trap--see

http://pnhp.org/news/quote_of_the_day.php

for a more complete analysis of the shortcomings of the "public option" based on new census numbers of uninsured and underinsured. Read Dr McCanne's comments dated 9/10/09.

[grantcart]

16. I am not sure which of the articles you are referring to

But assuming that he is critical that the public option is limited in scope, I would still argue that just having it in the health exchange network will be victory enough:


1) It will allow a point of comparison between public and private


2) Strategically and tactically it will be much easier to improve and expand a public option than getting one passed. Once in it can be expanded and improved upon, but if we wait until we have a better public option it could be another 20 years.


This is where "don't let the perfect (or much better) be the enemy of the good" actually works.

[nightrain]

18. It's titled--

"Census Bureau report on health insurance coverage" - September 10, 2009

Dr McCanne's comments are after the report synopsis.

[grantcart]

20. I agree with his logic

But the US is never going to flip a switch and go to single payer over night. I also would like most of the guns in the US picked up and thrown in the Atlantic - not going to happen.


Dr. McCanne makes my point when he says that


•Initially only uninsured individuals and small businesses will have access to the insurance exchange. Thus most Americans will not be able to select from an FEHBP-like menu of plans similar to the program that members of Congress now have.


The key word is "initially" not in the end.


We start with a public option. People will see that it works, People will want it expanded.


Eventually a small state like Vermont will want to opt for single payer. We pass the Kucinich Ammendment and let the states go to single payer. Like Canada who went to single payer province by province, we will have to do it state by state.


The idea of the public option was not invented by people who are against single payer but who are for it. It establishes a credible political path on starting down the road to single payer. That is why the public option is acceptable and cooperatives are not even if the cooperatives functioned exactly like the public option. Cooperatives will never get us to single payer.

[nightrain]

44. I read that differently. I think the point Dr McCanne is making is that

at the outset only uninsured individuals and small businesses (as opposed to what we commonly refer to as "public", like "all") will have access to the insurance exchange, so "most Americans will not be able to select ...." .

I believe he is commenting on the selectivity and very limited access initially, thus not making it "public", and therefore having a limited effect.

[grantcart]

59. Yes I agree But

once on the books its efficacy will be in public view

and then we can start agitating for it to be expanded.

[nightrain]

62. I am not that optimistic.

[bvar22]

97. It would be much easier to simply....

...expand Medicare incrementally.

[slipslidingaway]

17. Exactly, direct link for future and a few snips...

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/september/census_bureau_report.php

"...

•Middle-income individuals will be mandated to purchase private health plans. Affordability of these plans for individuals and families will be determined by income levels, by the amount of the government subsidies used to purchase the plans, by adequacy of plan benefits, and by the amount of cost sharing required of those accessing care. Based on the preliminary numbers provided, serious affordability issues will be faced by a far greater number of middle-income individuals than are being projected by the architects of the proposal.

•Because of affordability issues, consideration is being given to allowing the purchase of underinsurance plans like those designed for the young invincibles. Because of the adverse health and financial impacts of relying on these deficient plans, these individuals should be counted amongst the uninsured from a policy design perspective.

•It has been agreed that the inadequacy of the government subsidies will require the issuance of hardship waivers for those who cannot afford their portion of the insurance premium, based on their incomes. Hardship waivers will become commonplace for those caught between low-income, where government support is generous, and high-income, where affordability is not a consideration. Those in the middle are the majority of Americans. Hardship waivers which relieve individuals of paying fines for the crime of being uninsured could become the standard for middle-income Americans.


So you disagree? You think that this will serve middle-income Americans well? Prove it! Demand a full study that calculates premiums for private plans with adequate benefits and adequate financial protection in the face of medical need and includes all risks in the pools, that determines the premiums as a percent of income at various income levels, that determines the size of the subsidy that would be required to make the balance of the premiums affordable at each income level, that determines the level of cost sharing that would be required of those with needs, that determines the true amount of public funding that would be necessary to support those premiums and cost sharing, and then describes precisely the sources of that public funding.

Those crafting reform can’t make the numbers work..."

[DevonRex]

12. Agreed. nt

[HamdenRice]

13. EXACTLY !!! NT

[OHdem10]

14. The Unintended Consequences will throw them all out of office,

Mark my word. If people from every group or walk in life
wake up and suddenly find they must pay more and probably
get less, there will be a revolt in America the likes of
which you cannot imagine.

This is exactly what will happen if there is no Public Option.

Right now there Americans who can only afford Medicare. Let
us be honest here. Over the years Congress has gutted Medicare
to the point it is hardly recognizable. People cannot afford
the supplements now. This group cannot afford more when HCR
goes into effect. The people who are on Medicare Advantage
are going to be forced to either change Providers and pay more
or stay with same and pay more for the same services. You can
go down the groups and find like situations.

Setting one's own trap does not appear to be very smart.

There is a reality. Insurance Companies participate in Stock
Exchange. There is a business process that has not changed
and will not change.

Insurance Companies have a responsibility ONLY to their investors.
That responsibility is to make money for the INVESTORS. They
can realize earnings and profits by either raising fees or
cutting services.(Denying RX, or Dropping costly insured members.)

Every quarter, the Insurance Company is expected to bring in
higher profits. If they do not, the ratings companies punish
them.(Real Horror for any business) Ratings Companies can do
real damage to a brand.

There is no way Insurance Companies can be depended on to do the
right thing for their clients. Public Option providing lower
priced plans is the only way to force the Insurance Companies
to bring down costs.

Setting one's own trap is not good.

[bvar22]

99. That is precisely WHY they have delayed implementation....

...until AFTER the 2012 elections.

Who in their right mind believes that it will take 4 YEARS to get this thing up and running.

[Uzybone]

15. K&R

[ProSense]

19. And Americans want a public option

Obama: It’s worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I’ve proposed tonight.

[area51]

21. +1 (n/t)

[Oregone]

22. I guess Im in the minority that the Public Option actually has to also mean something

Ya know, universal access to it, affordable premiums for those above subsidization cut-offs (and large employer subsidizations for those who opt out of employer plans), Medicare-rate bargaining power, etc.

Otherwise, if its just a firewalled repository for poor, unprofitable people, its not going to impact the overall system. It will help those people, but the system and prices will be the same as if no PO existed.

[abq e streeter]

23. "No excuses, no compromise" from the Democrats in Washington?...I don't know whether to

:rofl: or :cry:

[sinkingfeeling]

24. So who's paying for all those medical expenses your hard working family is racking up today?

[dotymed]

94. Unfortunately

bankruptcies caused by medical costs (the majority of them)
are filed more by people who have medical insurance, than
those that don't. I do not have the source data readily
available, but you can google bankruptcies (I imagine) and
find the stats.

[JDPriestly]

25. We need progressives to run in primaries against the Blue Dogs.

The progressives may lose, but it will give Blue Dogs a message. Progressives can organize. My congressman is a strong progressive. If you live in a district with a Blue Dog and could possibly run (and are willing to lose if necessary to take a stand), let DU know.

[nxylas]

27. List of Blue Dogs from Wikipedia for reference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition#Members

Sadly, there isn't a similar list of Senate ConservaDems - it would probably be quicker to list the Senate Dems who weren't corporate shills.

[JDPriestly]

32. Thanks for the list. Let's encourage DUers to run.

[kath]

53. Yeah, that Senate list (of non-corporate shills) would be real frickin' short.

I'm so sick of OnePartyCorporateRule.

[DaLittle Kitty]

57. AGREED Then THESE FRAUDULENT FAScISTS WILL BE Exposed For WHAT They ARE!

Step up and Step OUT People!

[dionysus]

87. i love the sentiment, but the problem is, the reason those asshats ARE blue dogs is that they live

in republicanville. well, holy joe can't use that excuse i suppose...

[Bluenorthwest]

26. But it must actually BE an option, not a plan that few can select

or we have to call it something other than an option. An option by very definition is a thing chosen from a variety of other choices. If it is public, yet one can not select it, it is not an option. If it is public, but only a 'last resort' plan, it is not an option. It is a public plan for those who can not otherwise get insurance. But that is simply not an option, it is a safety net,at best.
To be what we need, and inded to be fairly called an option, it must actually be an option. And that means it can be opted for, or opted against, by choice. Anything less is not an option, and to call it such is simply inaccurate and deceptive. Words have meanings, and option has a meaning. A thing chosen from a list of possible alternatives. Not a thing you have to have because that is all there is, or a thing you can only get if you can't get anything else.
When we have been asking for a Public Option, we meant just that. Words have meanings. To spin those meanings is an act of grisley cynicism that could poison our nation overnight. Option MEANS option. Nothing more, nothing less.

[JTFrog]

28. Of course it should have a public option.

However, I still strongly disagree with all or nothing crowd. We've already played that game and lost.

[rhett o rick]

29. I totally agree. nt rec

[puebloknot]

30. You've nailed it. And they will need another government bureaucracy ...

... to police and jail all those people who have stubbornly refused to pay high prices for "health insurance" because they refuse to give up eating and paying the rent!

There is a mandate that people have car insurance, too, but many people drive for short or long periods without insurance because they just flat can't afford it. The new Insurance Police should be mandated to go after those low-class citizens, as well.

This whole thing is such a crock that I'm just shaking my head. And speaking of heads, Obama's got a good one, but he's leaving it at home when he ventures out of the house and into the public square these days. WTF comes into my own head several times a day -- every time I think of this sham of an excuse for health care in the richest (for now, anyway) nation in the world. Oh, yeah - FUBAR is another one!

Scrap it and start over. It's a minefield that will add one more nail into our national fiscal coffin, not to mention our individual ones.

And you are right about the trap: The Great Uninformed will start pointing the finger at that "Socialist" program that they *knew* wouldn't work, as soon as the first claim is denied or the first letter arrives, as you say, instructing someone in the Land of the Free to do what they can't afford and what they don't wish to do. And they will remember that the Republicans refused to vote for it! What does that leave?

[EndElectoral]

34. Without a strong public option there is no cost control..Premiums will rise substantially

Adding those with pre-existing conditions, and those thrown off the roles via rescission or denials will make insurance companies riase premiums to cover these people. I am in agreement we need those reforms, BUT the public option is the essential ingredient to balance the insruance compnaies attmepting to do that, and FINES for the uninsured are going to hurt badly. It'll be a nightmare.

We've got to at least get an elective for all public option, although Single Payer without question is still a better choice.

[SWr]

39. your right

Unfortunately a lot of people are ignoring the fact that MOST WONT have access to the 'exchange' and the public option (in the exchange).

Those of us w/o access to the exchange already have insurance and we wont have anywhere to fine relieve when the bloodbath of
premium increases occurs because of the reduced premium losses from the exchange.

Those of us who are blocked from accessing the exchange are going to take a beating financially. Im expecting HUGE increases in
premiums without price controls.

And before some knucklehead posts something about competition ... the only real competition that will exist is WITHIN the exchange NOT out in the general public.

[TheKentuckian]

35. I agree with the OP, mostly because regulation can only have limited effect

while they have an anti-trust exemption.

In a rational legal framework we could just tell big insurance whats what and rock on but there is so much crap to unwind that the public option is crucial. Its not the whole vehicle but I wouldn't want to drive a car with no brakes.

[berni_mccoy]

36. The Public Option is currently the only idea under consideration that achieves Obama's Goals.

[democracy1st]

37. K & R

[Laelth]

38. I agree, with a caveat.

We're walking into a really big trap with the individual mandate, all by itself. I can live with that, though, if we get a robust public option and a chance to move, via the public option, toward a single-payer system.

But an individual mandate without a public option? Or with a trigger that will never get pulled (and they never do get pulled)?

No way. That's a disaster waiting to happen.

:dem:

-Laelth

[tosh]

48. +1.

[grantcart]

60. agreed

[jesus_of_suburbia]

40. "Pass the bill with the public option or defeat it. No trigger, no excuses, no compromise."

This.


We must have a public option available to ANYONE who wants it.

[centristgrandpa]

41. For the poor, public option is their only choice...if

it is included at all.

The Medical establishment is presently spending over 1.8 million a day to kill any hopes of HC reform.

On the same side; repub nation and it's clones are continuing to mount misinformation and fear.

It's obvious that the GOP will not help Mr. Obama. As I stated on another post; "There is an underlying enduring posture of racism that seemingly follows every word or policy that this administration must deal with, compliments of the relics who call themselves GOP-ers."

I totally stand by my statement, evidence; Look how them repubs have responded to the despicable act of that idiot, joke wilson.

[flyarm]

42. Joe Wilson and AHIP Team Up to Write Max Baucus’s Health Care Bill By: Jane Hamsher

Joe Wilson and AHIP Team Up to Write Max Baucus’s Health Care Bill
By: Jane Hamsher

http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/09/11/joe-wilson-and-ahip-team-up-to-write-max-baucuss-health-care-bill/

Friday September 11, 2009 7:06 am


There really doesn't seem to be any limit to what the administration will do to pass Rahm Emanuel's neoliberal giveaway to the insurance industry. The "author" of the plan released by Baucus (and apparently by Mike Ross) is a former VP of Wellpoint. Now AHIP is boasting about their role in crafting it:

Many of the changes to the insurance system now under discussion are the ones that have been advocated this year by the insurance companies themselves, said Karen M. Ignagni, the chief executive of America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade group. "The industry has been the leader in creating the proposals everyone is about to endorse," she said.

No wonder insurance company stocks shot up after the President's speech.

But now we find, per John Aravosis, that Kent Conrad and Max Baucus are changing their bill to appease Joe Wilson:

"We really thought we'd resolved this question of people who are here illegally, but as we reflected on the President's speech last night we wanted to go back and drill down again," said Senator Kent Conrad, one of the Democrats in the talks after a meeting Thursday morning. Baucus later that afternoon said the group would put in a proof of citizenship requirement to participate in the new health exchange — a move likely to inflame the left.

As John says, if Wilson's outburst turns out to be successful, it'll keep happening over and over again. And it will work every time.

If you want to stop this travesty from going forward -- and it's turning into a complete travesty -- ask these members of Congress from strong Democratic districts, all of whom have cosponsored Single Payer in the past and know better, why they aren't pledging to vote against any bill if it turns out to be nothing more than an insurance industry bailout:

read the rest at the link..........

.....................................................................

Reid Endorses Wellpoint’s Co-op Plan
By: Jane Hamsher Friday September 11, 2009 9:46 am

http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/09/11/reid-end...

The Senate Majority Leader endorses the Mike Ross/Kent Conrad/Wellpoint authored co-op plan:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) endorsed the concept of health insurance cooperatives Thursday, siding with centrists in the House and Senate who want healthcare reform but oppose a public option.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) also hinted she could accept that approach a day after President Barack Obama delivered an address to a joint session of Congress that offered encouraging words for both centrists and liberal Democrats who have demanded a public insurance option.

I think I may have to adjust my prediction for the co-op "squeeze play" on July 20:

The easiest political path to passing health care is still running the "co-op" crunch. Regardless of what the House does, the Senate can pass Conrad's shitty fake co-op. The Blue Dogs band together and refuse to vote for anything else, and that's what comes out of conference. There's a PR blitz to sell it as a "public plan" (which is why we've worked so assiduously to define it as NOT a public plan), and in a rush to get something passed, Rahm starts twisting progressive arms -- which have been historically very easily twisted.

Blue Dog Mike Ross presciently submitted virtually the same co-op plan in a July 31 amendment that finally emerged this week in Max Baucus's Senate plan. But since it now looks like Pelosi is on board with co-ops, that means the Blue Dogs aren't going to have to take the hit.


HOW MANY WAYS CAN YOU SAY..SELL OUT??????????

[lib_wit_it]

43. We need to demand single payer, but if we have to settle for less, then a public option that is open

to all, and is available ASAP the least we should settle for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjgjE1a32rE&NR=1

[Wednesdays]

45. K&R, although I had to laugh when I read "ACME Insurance"

Thinking of this:

[TBF]

46. Agreed. No public option, no deal. n/t

[MasonJar]

47. No robust public option, no bill. Start over next year.

.

[Laelth]

54. Hear, hear!

(or in 2011, after the election).

:dem:

-Laelth

[flyarm]

49. EXCLUSIVE: UnitedHealth Lobbyist Announces Pelosi Fundraiser As She Begins Backing Off Public Option

thanks to kpete for posting this..this is a lovely piece of info as well..now isn't it op??????

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4055649
EXCLUSIVE: UnitedHealth Lobbyist Announces Pelosi Fundraiser As She Begins Backing Off Public Option
Fri Sep-11-09 07:07 PM by kpete
Source: Open Left


EXCLUSIVE: UnitedHealth Lobbyist Announces Pelosi Fundraiser As She Begins Backing Off Pub Option
by: David Sirota
Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 17:47

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for the first time yesterday suggested she may be backing off her support of the public option. According to CNN, Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "said they would support any provision that increases competition and accessibility for health insurance - whether or not it is the public option favored by most Democrats." When "asked if inclusion of a public option was a non-negotiable demand - as her previous statements had indicated Pelosi ruled out any non-negotiable positions," according to CNN. This was also corroborated by the Associated Press, and by Pelosi's own words, as quoted in those stories.

This announcement came just hours before Steve Elmendorf, a registered UnitedHealth lobbyist and the head of UnitedHealth's lobbying firm Elmendorf Strategies, blasted this email invitation throughout Washington, D.C. I just happened to get my hands on a copy of the invitation from a source - check out this OpenLeft exclusive:



From: Steve Elmendorf (mailto:[email protected] )
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 8:31 AM
Subject: event with Speaker Pelosi at my home

You are cordially invited to a reception with

Speaker of the House
Nancy Pelosi

Thursday, September 24, 2009
6:30pm ~ 8:00pm

At the home of
Steve Elmendorf
2301 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apt. 7B
Washington, D.C.

$5,000 PAC
$2,400 Individual

To RSVP or for additional information please contact
Carmela Clendening at [phone] or [email protected]

Steve Elmendorf
ELMENDORF STRATEGIES
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS SOLUTIONS
900 7th Street NW Suite 750 Washington DC 20001
[phone]



Read more: http://www.openleft.com/diary/15066/unitedhealth-lobbyi...



thank you David Sirota..but i am sure the op will throw you under the bus as he has so many others who tell the truth!

[flyarm]

50. MaxTax Is a Plan to Use Our Taxes to Reward Wal-Mart for Keeping Its Workers in Poverty

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/09/11/maxtax-is-a-plan-to-use-our-taxes-to-reward-wal-mart-for-keeping-its-workers-in-poverty/

MaxTax Is a Plan to Use Our Taxes to Reward Wal-Mart for Keeping Its Workers in Poverty
By: emptywheel Friday September 11, 2009 3:41 pm

I made this point in this post, but I'm going to repeat it over and over and over until it sinks MaxTax, the Baucus health care plan.

MaxTax is a plan that will use your and my tax dollars to reward companies like Wal-Mart for keeping its workers in poverty. Here's why.

In most cases, the MaxTax fines employers up to $400 per employee if it doesn't provide its employees with health care. The fine is absurdly small (less than half of what individuals, themselves, would be fined if they didn't get insurance), but it could mean a company like Wal-Mart would have to pay up to $560 million if it refused to provide insurance to any of its employees.

The other option is to provide crap insurance for your employees. MaxTax gives very few requirements for this insurance (and it allows you to charge employees up to 13% of their income in premiums). But assume Wal-Mart decided to provide incredibly crappy insurance at a cost of $2,500 an employee. It would then pay $3.5 billion a year to meet its obligations under MaxTax.

So Wal-Mart chooses between paying $560 million or $3.5 billion right?

There is another option.

The MaxTax offers this one, giant, out for corporations.

snip: and do read the rest at the linkkkkkkkkkkk!



A $1.25 billion reward to Wal-Mart--a competitive advantage it would have--for paying shit wages.And who will be paying that reward to encourage Wal-Mart to continue to pay shit wages? Why, that'd be our taxes, yours and mine.

[Cha]

51. And, these guys don't give a shit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8636511#8637564

[flyarm]

52. Joe Wilson and AHIP Team Up to Write Max Baucus’s Health Care BillBy: Jane Hamsher

Joe Wilson and AHIP Team Up to Write Max Baucus’s Health Care Bill
By: Jane Hamsher

http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/09/11/joe-wilson-and-ahip-team-up-to-write-max-baucuss-health-care-bill/

Friday September 11, 2009 7:06 am


There really doesn't seem to be any limit to what the administration will do to pass Rahm Emanuel's neoliberal giveaway to the insurance industry. The "author" of the plan released by Baucus (and apparently by Mike Ross) is a former VP of Wellpoint. Now AHIP is boasting about their role in crafting it:

Many of the changes to the insurance system now under discussion are the ones that have been advocated this year by the insurance companies themselves, said Karen M. Ignagni, the chief executive of America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade group. "The industry has been the leader in creating the proposals everyone is about to endorse," she said.

No wonder insurance company stocks shot up after the President's speech.

But now we find, per John Aravosis, that Kent Conrad and Max Baucus are changing their bill to appease Joe Wilson:

"We really thought we'd resolved this question of people who are here illegally, but as we reflected on the President's speech last night we wanted to go back and drill down again," said Senator Kent Conrad, one of the Democrats in the talks after a meeting Thursday morning. Baucus later that afternoon said the group would put in a proof of citizenship requirement to participate in the new health exchange — a move likely to inflame the left.

As John says, if Wilson's outburst turns out to be successful, it'll keep happening over and over again. And it will work every time.

If you want to stop this travesty from going forward -- and it's turning into a complete travesty -- ask these members of Congress from strong Democratic districts, all of whom have cosponsored Single Payer in the past and know better, why they aren't pledging to vote against any bill if it turns out to be nothing more than an insurance industry bailout:

read the rest at the link..........

.....................................................................

Reid Endorses Wellpoint’s Co-op Plan
By: Jane Hamsher Friday September 11, 2009 9:46 am

http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/09/11/reid-end...

The Senate Majority Leader endorses the Mike Ross/Kent Conrad/Wellpoint authored co-op plan:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) endorsed the concept of health insurance cooperatives Thursday, siding with centrists in the House and Senate who want healthcare reform but oppose a public option.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) also hinted she could accept that approach a day after President Barack Obama delivered an address to a joint session of Congress that offered encouraging words for both centrists and liberal Democrats who have demanded a public insurance option.

I think I may have to adjust my prediction for the co-op "squeeze play" on July 20:

The easiest political path to passing health care is still running the "co-op" crunch. Regardless of what the House does, the Senate can pass Conrad's shitty fake co-op. The Blue Dogs band together and refuse to vote for anything else, and that's what comes out of conference. There's a PR blitz to sell it as a "public plan" (which is why we've worked so assiduously to define it as NOT a public plan), and in a rush to get something passed, Rahm starts twisting progressive arms -- which have been historically very easily twisted.

Blue Dog Mike Ross presciently submitted virtually the same co-op plan in a July 31 amendment that finally emerged this week in Max Baucus's Senate plan. But since it now looks like Pelosi is on board with co-ops, that means the Blue Dogs aren't going to have to take the hit.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/09/11/maxtax-is-a-plan-to-use-our-taxes-to-reward-wal-mart-for-keeping-its-workers-in-poverty/

MaxTax Is a Plan to Use Our Taxes to Reward Wal-Mart for Keeping Its Workers in Poverty
By: emptywheel Friday September 11, 2009 3:41 pm

I made this point in this post, but I'm going to repeat it over and over and over until it sinks MaxTax, the Baucus health care plan.

MaxTax is a plan that will use your and my tax dollars to reward companies like Wal-Mart for keeping its workers in poverty. Here's why.

In most cases, the MaxTax fines employers up to $400 per employee if it doesn't provide its employees with health care. The fine is absurdly small (less than half of what individuals, themselves, would be fined if they didn't get insurance), but it could mean a company like Wal-Mart would have to pay up to $560 million if it refused to provide insurance to any of its employees.

The other option is to provide crap insurance for your employees. MaxTax gives very few requirements for this insurance (and it allows you to charge employees up to 13% of their income in premiums). But assume Wal-Mart decided to provide incredibly crappy insurance at a cost of $2,500 an employee. It would then pay $3.5 billion a year to meet its obligations under MaxTax.

So Wal-Mart chooses between paying $560 million or $3.5 billion right?

There is another option.

The MaxTax offers this one, giant, out for corporations.

snip: and do read the rest at the linkkkkkkkkkkk!



A $1.25 billion reward to Wal-Mart--a competitive advantage it would have--for paying shit wages.And who will be paying that reward to encourage Wal-Mart to continue to pay shit wages? Why, that'd be our taxes, yours and mine.

[joeycola]

63. you are on a roll. great.

[David Zephyr]

56. K&R.

Are we walking into a trap or were we part of that trap?

I wrote months ago that I thought the public option was only a negotiating tactic. Nothing has convinced me I was wrong.

[glitch]

58. No PO no GO.

I really wish Obama had better health care advisors.

[autorank]

65. k*r Excellent

Check this out. It's from a HHS/Bureau of the Census study based on the 2005 general survey.

The Distribution of the Uninsured and Total U.S. Population by Income
(As measured by the Federal Poverty Level) in 2004



Link

The study found that a plain vanilla employer plan would be affordable to only those
at 300% of the federal poverty level, listed in the graph - $27,000 for an individual,
$56,000 for a family of four. That works with your numbers.

The affordability cutoff point is based on 2004-2005 numbers but it's not that far off.

You can't have a 'sort of' public option. We need unversal coverage for all citizens.

It's called Medicare.

[zeos3]

66. K&R

[daleanime]

67. Hell yea!

:bounce:

[Jakes Progress]

68. Yes. We've already given two huge concessions

to the greedy asses who run the republican party (and some of the Democratic).

First was the big wet kiss to Pharma that subsidizes their greed.

Second was we said we would settle for a decent public option.

For these huge concessions we got town hall astroturf, palin crap, jack ass joe from SC, more lies and disrespect. We got noting but grief for every step we made toward bipartisanship. They say we are weak-willed softies who can be rolled over. Without a public option (which should be better than the one from the speech) we will prove that they are right about us.

If we don't get a decent public option, we have no chance in 2012.

[closeupready]

103. And the first one was one too many. No more compromises. PERIOD.

n/t

[ArcticFox]

69. Four year wait is worse than a trigger

Public option in four years simply means Obama wants four years to figure out how to tell us we're not going to get it. It's a reverse trigger. I'm sure the insurance companies will play nice for a few years and politicians will say: "I guess we don't need a public option." Then, when we've all forgotten how close we came, four years will pass with nothing and nobody will say a word.

IF the democrats are ACTUALLY serious, then does anyone REALLY THINK that the insurance companies won't just throw billions of dollars to the republicans in order to change the law before those four years are up?

The alternatives are therefore:

EITHER Obama and Pelosi, et al. sold out

OR Obama and Pelosa, et al. have ensured a republican rout in 2012.

This could have been used to energize the democratic base. Instead, the dems have lost all the momentum they had after the election. I do believe it will end in utter failure. For the democratic party and, even worse, for the country.

[TheKentuckian]

70. The wait is for budget reasons. Don't like it come up with 300-500 billion (nt)

[Mithreal]

72. Bring the troops home. Do I win?

How about end Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest class. Allow Medicare to negotiate drug costs. Or, close loopholes that allow 2/3rds of corporations to pay zero taxes.

Like those?

There are so many ways to do it. Why should I have to come up with more than one? But I can come up with many more.

[closeupready]

104. Eliminate the mortgage interest deduction - $100 billion right there.

Bring the troops home, you have the rest.

[bleever]

71. Mr. Obama knows that this is his legacy, for all intents and purposes.

I am confident that he wants one with a lasting foundation, not easily co-opted by any other parties.

'S gonna happen.

[Mithreal]

73. That legacy talk is not very satisfying to my brother and sister.

Some day America will be a place where sick people get the help they need.

We will win eventually. And it will be our legacy, not just President Obama's.

[jannyk]

74. Brilliant Grantie - well done!

[LooseWilly]

75. Cheers sir... at least now we who can't find a reasonable plan can save our money...

by not buying shitty insurance, or paying tax penalties... to use to cover all those $2k deductibles that we would otherwise... have to pay anyway.

When the big shit comes.... the courts are gonna come for our shit anyway... shitty insurance ain't gonna help.

Why bother with shitty private insurance plans... fuck it... I'll take no plan over a shitty one I have to pay for each month.

[readmoreoften]

76. Excellent point. And then imagine when the Republicans become the "heroes" of the little guy for

dismantling the "insurance monster" and putting things back to the "good old days" of 40 million Americans without access to medical care and another 60 million about to be dumped by their insurers.

Spines. I hear they're growing them these days, albeit in back alleys.

[grantcart]

77. and then they get to run against us because we are socialists

[1Hippiechick]

78. My liege!

(fist over chest, head bowed in humble admiration and allegiance.) Great post. K&R.

[Dr.Phool]

79. The mandate also removes a lot of disposable income from the economy.

You think retail sales figures are bad now? This years non-existent back to school season should be a warning.

It's funneling all of our "extra" cash into the pockets of insurance executives.

Pass H.R. 676 now. It's the only viable option!

[ProSense]

80. And kept intact, the public option will establish national universal health care

Sec. 202. Exchange-eligible individuals and employers. Defines who is eligible for participation in the Health Insurance Exchange including employers and individuals. In year one, individuals not enrolled in other acceptable coverage are allowed into the Exchange as well as small employers with 10 or fewer employees. In year two, employers with 20 and fewer employees are allowed into the Exchange. In subsequent years, the Health Choices Commissioner is granted authority to expand employer participation as appropriate, with the goal of allowing all employers access to the Exchange.

<...>

Sec. 313. Employer contributions in lieu of coverage. Requires an offering employer to contribute to the Exchange for each employee who declines the employer’s coverage offer and enters the Exchange via the affordability test outlined in the act. The contribution is generally 8% of the average salary for the employer.

<...>

Sec. 412. Responsibilities of nonelecting employers. Establishes a payroll tax of 8% of the wages that an employer pays to its employees for employers who choose not to offer coverage. Certain small employers are exempt from this or are subject to a graduated tax rate. An exempt small business is an employer with an annual payroll that does not exceed $250,000. The 8% payroll tax phases in for employers with annual payroll from $250,000 through $400,000.

link (PDF)

[grahamhgreen]

81. And even then, the 'public Option' will need to be vetted to the tiniest detail.

[PVnRT]

82. Some people are more concerned with their side getting a "win"

than in doing something substantive. Sadly, there are many like that here, who just want some kind of "win" for the Democrats, and to hell with anyone who has silly things like "ideals."

[bvar22]

114. Centrism....

...a Political Dogma unhindered by a foundation on Ideals.

"Whatever is In the Middle is good enough for me !"
:party:

[natrat]

83. this board is so strange

on one thread, like this one , there are normal honest human beings. The responses tend to be in well thought out paragraphs rather than one or two word responses. The other kind of thread seems purely propaganda. The thread with pictures of rahm comes to mind. Clearly he is an example of what is wrong with our government. Yet the thread was a pile on of praise for him with no dissent.Strange.

[dionysus]

88. try making sense of DU and you'll be at it a long time. my guess would be that

it all depends who posts it.

eveyone knows grant is a big obama supporter, so in no way can one consider it a bash.
other threads get shouted down, for better or worse, because everyone knows the OP has been against obama since the primaries. and often the people supporting those threads were also against obama since the primaries. i kind of knew that would happen, but i thought it would have been hillary supporters. mostly i think it is the leftist of the left here.

as for the rahm thread, i'm with you. rahm is a fucking asshole, i'm sad he's in the administration. i suppose he's good for knocking heads together, if he were to do it for the right purpose. instead of republicans, he should pull that tough guy act with the blue dogs. get up in their face and say vote for this public option or i will fucking end you.

[flyarm]

93. I believe those posts serve a purpose of showing us all who the paid propagandists are

they don't even get the fact that they are exposing themselves ..as a paid cheer leading squad!

There is no conversation, no debate, no discourse except for patting each other on the back ..and using their pomp poms!

Not hard to figure them out.

and for many of us who have been working on getting truth out since 2001..or before..they remind us of the Bushbots..same M.O....same type of posting..they have kicked it up a bit..and learned a little from past mistakes in this type of propaganda..but it is still recognizable.

[bvar22]

98. I could name them.

Sad Sacks of Shit.

[dionysus]

107. if the democratic party paid people to post on message boards, why do you

suppose they would have them post on *pro* democratic boards? wouldn't you think they would post on non democratic or non political boards to get people to switch over to the democratic party?

i think it's paranoid to think the administration would spend cash to pay people to post on a democratic board this size. it would be pointless. i suppose it makes one feel better about themselves to think the people they disagree with are some kind of evil paid agent or propagandist...

:shrug:

[flyarm]

108. who said dem party? how about Big Pharma and AHIP?

lots of unemployed and under employed you know!!

Heck the repigs did it big time in 2000, 2001 2003 2004..and don't think their corporate buddy's didn't chip in! big time!

[dionysus]

109. i could see repukes or people like big pharma doing this, but, what would they be posting?

they certainly wouldn't be on here supporting obama! they would either be totally obvious, and get tombstoned, or pretend to be some kind chariciture, "loony" type liberal to discredit dems. if there are paid agents here, what do you suppose they would be posting in favor of? when freepers come over here pretending to be liberals, it is laughably obvious.

[bvar22]

113. HR 3200 (the Plan Obama referenced)

...will channel $Billions (one estimate 1 Trillion Dollars over 10 years) into the pockets of the Health Insurance Industry.
The Public Option in HR 3200 is a pathetic joke (less than 10 million by 2019).


The Health Insurance Industry is getting everything they want:

*MANDATED purchase of their product by every American.

*A weak "Public Option" in name only that offers NO competition, and can be controlled by "The Exchange".

*"Regulation" written by the Health Insurance Industry lobbyists that has no enforcement mechanism.
They will be easily circumvented by The Industry.



"They" will be here working to squash opposition by those of us who have read the fine print.

[bvar22]

110. If they are not being paid....

...then they are pretty stupid.
I wouldn't work that hard for FREE.

Do you know what "astroturfing" is?

Remember, in the early straw polls, Kucinich WON by huge margins.
DU is (or was) an issues oriented LIBERAL discussion board.
Rahm (DLC) sees The Left as a bigger enemy than The Republicans.

It would be naive to assume that "they" aren't here working damned hard to produce the illusion that The Left supports channeling $BILLIONS to the For Profit Health Insurance Industry.

In an attempt to control "The Message", the White House has already called in most of the Liberal boards and blogs to corral them into disseminating the White House spin.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-scahill/rahm-emanuels-think-tanke_b_185203.html

[dionysus]

111. i think kucinich is more popular here than other places, because posters here are political junkies

and far more liberal then the democratic party at large. that's just my opinion on it. people like my parents are life long dems, but hardly even know who dennis is.

in my circle of friends i'm a bleeding heart liberal, but would look like a centrist compared to the leftest of the left here on DU. yet the small number of openly DLC posters here are like republicans to me. i think there's a *very* broad spectrum of dems here.

i think obama was naive about the scope of change he could bring. i think maybe we all were. with the majorities we have, look at the trouble he's having trying to get even some kind of a public option included within the democratic party. i certainly thought with the amount of votes we have, getting a strong public option would have been a piece of cake.

[flyarm]

112. absolutely! Rahm is the worst form of snake! eom

[grantcart]

105. The more that we concentrate on issues and the less that we concentrate

on personalities the higher the quality of discussion here IMHO

[90-percent]

84. Third Party

A third party is looking pretty damn good to me right now.

Like Bill Moyers has said, the Republicans and Democrats answer to the same master - corporations. Our Representatives work for corporations, not we the people.

-90% jimmy

[dionysus]

89. without instant run-off voting or a european style system it would be a waste though. might as well

mow your lawn or read a good book instead.

[dotymed]

95. I shudder to think

what the political landscape will become if the SCOTUS
reverses the current restrictions on corporate political
contributions. We need a Publicly Financed Electoral Process,
instead they come out with the exact opposite...

[WillyT]

85. Exactly !!! - K & R !!!

:kick:

[grantcart]

115. good to see you WillyT haven't seen you for a while

[dionysus]

86. nice post cart. i had to resist the temptation to add a gratuitous admiral akbar pic

[liberalhistorian]

91. Lack of public option will also make those over

45-50 virtually unemployable, even if they're in good health. That's because companies don't want their group health costs going up with the addition of older workers, regardless of their health status.

[dotymed]

96. That is the current state of affairs

especially if have a disability. I spent years trying to get a
government job because of the "hiring preferences for the
disabled." What a joke....

[rateyes]

100. You say it, and get 158 recs.

I say it, and it gets a big fat <0.

Keep saying it, grantcart. I'm with you.

[closeupready]

102. Kicked and freaking recommended!

A-freaking-men!

[grantcart]

106. thks

[WinkyDink]

116. Do you think $60,000 is low-income? Do you not know any teachers?!

[dsc]

117. for a family of four, in a larger city, 60k is by no means a high income

and relevant to this point, it is the cutoff of subsidies for Baucus' plan. The cutoff is higher in the other plans.