MSNBC reporting legislators looking to avoid conference committee on HCR bill

[bigtree]

Their take is that the move will stymie republicans looking to derail the bill, but I think it will also stymie those who expect any compromise to be debated openly . . .


*** Bill pong: All the attention on failed terrorist attack, as well as the likely attention on the economy this Friday, has placed the health-care debate on the backburner. And that might be the best thing to happen for the Dems and the Obama administration, because they can wrap it up away from the political spotlight. Per The New Republic’s Jon Cohn (http://bit.ly/5Ph9GB), “House and Senate Democrats are ‘almost certain’ to negotiate informally rather than convene a formal conference committee. Doing so would allow Democrats to avoid a series of procedural steps--not least among them, a series of special motions in the Senate, each requiring a vote with full debate--that Republicans could use to stall deliberations, just as they did in November and December. Cohn adds that the reconciliation will come via a game of legislative ping-pong. “With ping-ponging, the chambers send legislation back and forth to one another until they finally have an agreed-upon version of the bill. But even ping-ponging can take different forms and some people use the term generically to refer to any informal negotiations.”


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/01/04/2164858.aspx

[MNDemNY]

1. Great, more of that promised "Open Government" .

But it's ok, because "we" are doing it. One more reason to kill this shit-pile of a bill.

[pnwmom]

4. If we kill this bill there won't be a better one coming along.

It's easy for people who are young and healthy or already insured to not care.

But I have a child who is uninsurable and a relative who is young and has cancer and no insurance -- because he was denied due to a trivial and unrelated preexisting condition.

This bill will help millions who aren't as fortunate as you must be.

[MNDemNY]

7. This bill does more harm than good.

It serves only to entrench this nation in the failed employment based health care for profit. Nope this thing must die. The greater good will be served by NOT passing this give-away to the industry.

[mzmolly]

44. People who need health insurance

NEED health insurance. Killing the bill, ultimately kills people.

[MNDemNY]

76. Not as many as keeping the employerbased for profit system will..

in the long run.

[mzmolly]

104. Oh c'mon.

Our employer based insurance is not perfect, but it's certainly better than not having insurance.

[MNDemNY]

114. Yes, but unless we take steps away from such a system, more will die.

Or are you of the mind that the industry will "play fair".?

[mzmolly]

116. I'm of the mind that tax payers will demand more from these

companies when they're footing the bill. I believe that we need to increase regulations in the industry as well.

Peace

[MNDemNY]

119. And this is done how, with corporatists running both houses and the White House?

fat chance!

[mzmolly]

125. LOL

Who needs logic when we can trot out the defeatist "corporatist" talking point eh?

[MNDemNY]

137. if only it were just a "talking point".

[TorchTheWitch]

83. the bill doesn't give people health insurance

Why the hell is it that people keep claiming that it does? All it does is mandate that people have to buy health insurance at the same or higher amounts we've had to for years and was the reason we wanted and needed relief.

I haven't had health insurance for nearly ten fucking years constantly in fear that I'd get sick or injured, and this piece of shit bill DOES NOT give me health insurance. It requires that I buy health insurance I can't afford and which was the entire reason I haven't had any all these years.

[mzmolly]

103. You must have forgotten the medicaid expansion and subsidized

payment portions of the bill?

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

[TorchTheWitch]

123. doesn't do shit for me

Even if I qualified for any subsidy, which I don't, I'd have to come up with the money FIRST and wait to get it back from the IRS. Medicaid? pfffftttt... Medicaid is a JOKE, and no, I don't qualify for that either. If I'm too "wealthy" to qualify for a subsidy I certainly wouldn't qualify for Medicaid!

This bill is SHIT for the working poor like myself and the millions like me who don't get insurance through their job. And if you actually think we haven't looked into what this bill does to us and what it doesn't do for us you're a lunatic.

[mzmolly]

124. I think the refundable credit may be paid in advance

vs the other way around? We'll have to wait and see. Also, if you're actually the "working poor" the bill will do plenty. Unless you consider making 88K poor?

[Raineyb]

92. People need health CARE. Insurance does not equal care.

Mandating that people buy insurance doesn't guarantee that they will be able to get the care they need. And they will STILL die.

[timeforpeace]

96. Well, people here always say they want a one party system. Viola.

[mzmolly]

102. Oh.

:eyes:

[Raineyb]

135. Make all the eyes you want

But when the majority of bankruptcies are because of medical expenses and the majority of those people had insurance it becomes obvious that merely having insurance is not the end all to be all of getting health care.

I have no idea why this concept is so difficult to understand.

[mzmolly]

140. This is part of what's being addressed

in the new bill.

[Raineyb]

143. No it's not.

Ordering someone to buy health insurance where they have co-pays and deductibles up to 5000 dollars that they can't afford only guarantees that the insurance company makes its profits. It does not guarantee that the person will actually get any health care.

[mzmolly]

144. There will be choices

in plans. In addition, you can no longer be dropped once you're ill.

[Raineyb]

145. You still have to PAY for them. If a plan is unaffordable it's not a choice.

If your only choices are plans with high deductibles no matter what you CHOOSE if you can't afford the deductibles you won't be able to visit a doctor. All the spin in the world doesn't change that.

[mzmolly]

147. I have to PAY for health care now.

And, I have deductibles. However, the new exchanges are not running so one can't say what a given deductible will be. Not to mention the fact that medicaid has been greatly expanded and will cover people making three times the current limits.

[Raineyb]

148. The exchanges are not going to be nationwide there will be NO bargaining power.

Relegating exchanges to states is going to doom it to failure which means the insurance companies will still call all the shots, they'll charge whatever the hell they want with the added bonus that you'll be FORCED by law to buy the damn thing. People don't have insurance now because they can't afford it not because they don't give a damn about being able to see a doctor.

[mzmolly]

149. That's not been determined

yet Rainey.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

111. Can they make it 4 years?

[mzmolly]

126. Why assume I'm in favor of a wait?

Jonathan Alter suggested on Ed Schultz tonight that the wait time may be reduced in the final product, however. I hope he's right. That said, killing the bill would result in more than a four year wait for adults. It would result in waiting decades IMHO. Regardless the bill covers children automatically, which is a good thing.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

127. I didn't assume, I asked if they could wait.

[mzmolly]

128. I don't think so. But it will take time to have a system up and running.

eom

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

129. It shouldn't take 4 years considering they are using the system that's already in place.

[mzmolly]

139. There is still an infrastructure

to build regarding subsidies, laws etc. Also children ARE covered immediately.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

141. Not 4 years worth.

[mzmolly]

142. I have no way of analyzing

that personally. To my understanding, again, we may be able to act sooner. I sure hope so.

[karynnj]

53. Did you notice that everyone from Dean to Kerry to Obama to Hillary all

made the point that if you like your insurance you could keep it. Most people in this country have employer paid insurance. Now, why did these Democrats say that - because FAR more than a majority of people wanted that reassurance. Now, you want the insuarnce industry to disappear - that is not a majority opinion.

[MNDemNY]

74. tooo fuckin' bad.

for profit health care does not/can not work.

[shraby]

81. You're right..it doesn't work. That's way we need this bill

to go through. Without it we have the status quo..and that isn't working for only the very lucky few.

[MNDemNY]

84. This bill only serves to further entrench us in a failed system.

No, this bill must die.

[karynnj]

94. As you are not king, it does matter what the majority thinks.

[MNDemNY]

99. obviously you are wrong, as the majority do not want this bill passed.

But you mean the majority in your head, right?:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[karynnj]

101. Nor do the majority want to get rid of employee based plans - which was what you were speaking about

I never claimed a majority for the plan.


Nice Republican play though - your comment makes you sound like you are in high school.

[MNDemNY]

110. I've not seen your hypothesis polled? have you?

Of course not, because it has not been. You are wrong, you are ill-informed, your comment makes you sound as if you have been a corporatist all your short life.:+ A dead clown for you.

[karynnj]

138. It was polled in past years - and the very fact that every politician

made it a major talking point shows that politicians agreed that it was a concept important to many. That includes at least Dean, Kerry, Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Why was there no groundswell for Wyden's plan which did that and went NOWHERE in the Senate?

I likely watched far more of the Senate and House hearings and read a wider view of the literature than you did. As to short life, I turn 60 this year. The "corporatist" nonsense you spew is idiotic as was your so mature "dead clown" move - maybe you are in middle school, not high school.

[MNDemNY]

146. No, that question has not been polled. Post up or back off your statement.

[laughingliberal]

87. They did say if you like what you have you can keep it. They failed to say you'll now be taxed on it

but you can keep it. They also failed to say if you don't like it, you're probably going to have to keep it, anyway.

[karynnj]

93. You are missing my point

What you are proposing would take away what most Americans want. Not to mention, only 3% will be taxed on it now - and it is not likely that the threshold will not be changed if the projection of 20% being taxed on it four years in the future came to pass.

Yes, there are some unhappy, but the polls consistently show percents consistently above 50% of people satisfied with what they have. What that means is that there is no groundswell to eliminate employer paid insurance. If there were, there would have been far more grassroots support for Wydan's proposal.

[laughingliberal]

98. I don't care if people keep what they have or not

Fine with me. Just that taxing the benefits, however few that may involve, was not part of anyone's plan except McCain's. I also suspect those who are happy with what they have now will find that less true in the future as premiums continue to rise and they are either paying a lot more for it or their employers move to plans that cover much less to keep up with costs, just like it is now. I have long thought a lot of the 50% allegedly "satisfied with what they have," were really saying they were just damned glad they still had it.

The unions do seem to be of the opinion that the tax on benefits will fall heavily on their members. But, what the hey, another Democratic constituency under the bus to enrich the insurance companies.

[pnwmom]

68. Easy for the comfortably insured to say. n/t

[MNDemNY]

75. whaaaaaa.

your selfish motives should doom use to a proven failed system??

[pnwmom]

107. My selfish motives? You're the one with the insurance that's

temporarily insulating you from what others are having to go through.

[MNDemNY]

117. You are the one making assumptions.

Don't you know that is not a good idea??

[laughingliberal]

90. Yeah, see. I'm not among the comfortably insured. In fact, I'm among those the bill might, possibly,

help. But it does too much harm, overall, for me to look just at what benefits me. I would become eligible for Medicaid under this bill. Until the Senate bill actually passed I was saying there were only 2 groups of people who would be helped by this bill:

1) Those who currently fall just outside the guidelines to qualify for Medicaid will be helped
2) Those who can now afford the outrageous premiums but are denied policies due to preexisting conditions

I have since changed my mind after seeing the loophole which still allow rescissions. Those who can now afford the outrageous premiums but are denied due to preexisting conditions will now be allowed to purchase a policy which can be canceled as soon as the insurance company finds out about that broken arm or what not they had in the 2nd grade and forgot to mention. This does benefit the insurance companies, though. They get to collect those premiums til the day they lower the boom on these customers.

[pnwmom]

108. Why don't you wait until you see what the actual final bill has to say

about rescissions before you criticize it based on your suspicions?

[MNDemNY]

118. We can not even see the bill as passed by the senate.

Do you really think "we" will get a chance to read this before it is acted upon?

[pnwmom]

122. If you can't see it, how are you so sure it should be killed? n/t

[laughingliberal]

130. It is not a suspicion. I have had the ability to read for some 50 years now and it is in the bill

for all to see who wish to wade through the monster which I have. And we have been hearing the damned wait and see crap from the start of the debate. At every step this bill got worse. After the final bill is passed it's too late. Now would be a good time to let some House reps know we don't want them to cave on it. Won't do much good but instead of wait and see why not write and let them know?

[Better Believe It]

70. If this bill is not killed it will be "reformed" by the Republicans when they regain control in 2012

Think the bill is bad now?

Just see what happens when they "fine tune" and make further "reforms" in this bill after they retake control of Congress and the White House in 2012.

[pnwmom]

109. How will they do that without 60 Senate votes? n/t

[boston bean]

115. you have to ask that question???? nt

[laughingliberal]

131. I dunno. How did the right pass all their egregious crap the first 6 years of Bush without 60 votes

in the Senate? Is your memory that short? Our elected Democrats always cave to the right. And they have again with this bill.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[karynnj]

51. Did the Congress promise that? Obama has no control over this

The problem you have is that the method selected makes it harder to kill - something people wanting this passed are happy with.

The fact is that House/Senate conferences are always closed door. The difference is this avoids procedural votes that the Republicans are playing with.

[MNDemNY]

72. phiiiit,yak.

[FBaggins]

73. No "control" perhaps... but plenty of influence

You don't think it would rattle some cages if the President of the United States told his own party that he expected negotiations to be conducted in an open fashion?

And no... conferences are not always closed-door. In fact, House rules require at least one session to be open (with some exceptions).

[laughingliberal]

2. I have to ask. Does this come as a suprise to anyone? nt

[bigtree]

3. I had held out some hope that Pelosi would stand firm

. . . for whatever she had managed in the House bill. But, this is just sad. So many stated and pledged principles being thrown aside to advance this legislation.

[laughingliberal]

9. Yep. I hoped but did not believe there was much chance.

So much for those who berated us here to support getting that piece of corporate fellating passed out of the Senate so it could go to conference and get 'fixed.' I seem to recall trying to sound the alarm about this ping pong tactic. Oh, well. As I keen saying, no one will be able to say, in the future, there were no warnings.

The progressive caucus in the House has been successfully cowed by Rahm's team.

[MNDemNY]

15. Hail corporatism. Bow to the industries.

This IS our future. Brought to you by big Corporations everywhere!!Fuck it, why bother with even trying? See you at the barricades.

[pnwmom]

36. Why don't you read the actual article? The only thing this process will do is prevent

the Rethugs from filibustering at every step of the way. It won't prevent negotiations between the Democrats in the House and the Senate.

[bigtree]

46. backroom negotiations

It's not only republicans with objections. At least Democrats have substantive complaints which deserve public negotiation and debate.

[karynnj]

56. The regular conferences are not open door events either

They do not have public negotiations or debate - until they are returned to the House and Senate, where people can comment, but not change them before voting.

[bigtree]

60. point is

the expedited process doesn't just hinder republican goals (which are ridiculous and obstructive for obstruction sake), it threatens to hinder House Democrats' efforts to improve the rightist Senate version. If it wasn't a means to bypass open debate on changes they wouldn't be considering it. Claiming that such a move to bypass the committee process is just to keep republicans at bay isn't a credible argument. You know there are several legitimate criticisms of the Senate bill held by stalwart Democrats looking to influence the final legislation through participation in the committee process.

[karynnj]

91. How does it change the dynamics of that process?

The fact is that the two bills are always cobbled together by the people selected to be the conferees. Those peopel are not randomly chosen. The Senate will not send Sanders, Franken and Brown - they will send people like Reid, Baucus and Harken (or Dodd).

The House members selected will be more liberal, but the more rigid constraint will be the Senate's. The goal of ALL Democrats in teh conference is something that can pass both Houses - which means gaining cloture in the Senate. (Seriously, on passing the Senate, you need to listen to what Senators are saying here, not to people who have never been in the Senate. That includes what Sanders says - and he is far to the left of Gov Dean.)

[Zhade]

134. Not anymore.

NT!

[pnwmom]

5. Good for them. Whatever they have to do to overcome the inevitable

last throes of the Republican attack is fine with me. From the link:

"Doing so would allow Democrats to avoid a series of procedural steps--not least among them, a series of special motions in the Senate, each requiring a vote with full debate--that Republicans could use to stall deliberations, just as they did in November and December. Cohn adds that the reconciliation will come via a game of legislative ping-pong. “With ping-ponging, the chambers send legislation back and forth to one another until they finally have an agreed-upon version of the bill. But even ping-ponging can take different forms and some people use the term generically to refer to any informal negotiations.”

[FrenchieCat]

6. At this point, I see that as a good thing.

I think we should just go ahead already, cause for those who don't want it, won't want it, didn't want it, and aren't looking forward to it, nothing will change their view on that except for if the impossible were to happen in a formal conference, which it won't. It would just give them more opportunity to trash the legislation some more, as well as this Administration.

So since I think that those who didn't like the legislation when it passed the Senate,
will not start liking it, no matter what is changed,
and since they have already trashed this legislation as much as could be possible,
why provide them with new fodder....? :shrug:

Of course, these vocal folks have already voiced their disappointment in Pres. Obama
over and over and over again, are already planning to primary him in 2012 (not quite into his first year into office), and some are even willing to double down with Teabaggers to make their point. So its not like Pres. Obama has anything to lose doing it this way; he doesn't.

[MNDemNY]

8. Right, just cram it through. gobama!!

LONG LIVE THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY !!!

[laughingliberal]

11. Yeah, so much for those who said if we passed the POS in the Senate it would get 'fixed' in

conference. Even giving up the fight for the PO would not be so bad but the House won't even get the chance to get rid of that damned middle class tax in the Senate bill or ratchet down the community ratings model our dedicated Senators are foisting on us.

[pnwmom]

16. Did you read the article at the link? Nothing in the "ping-ponging" that will

happen precludes real negotiations between the House and the Senate.

[bigtree]

24. it precludes the process of deliberate and open debate

. . . which these bills desperately need if they're to be reconciled to our benefit.

[pnwmom]

It prevents the possibility of a series of filibusters. We've had plenty of debate

already.

[bigtree]

42. not on the final version which will emerge from behind the scenes under this scenario

. . . we wouldn't know what the bill looked like until the leaders produced their backroom 'compromise' for a vote in their respective houses.

[laughingliberal]

50. Yes, it seems you support the Senate bill as is

Many of us do not and would have liked to see it changed a little in conference with the House. Even accepting there is no room to get the PO back in there were some things the House could have pushed for that would have made this less of a hit on the working and middle classes.

[pnwmom]

66. Of course I would welcome changes from the House side.

And I don't have as little faith as you do in the ping-ponging process.

On the other hand, if we do end up with the Senate bill, I'd still rather have that than nothing.

[laughingliberal]

86. Well, I'm sure the Senate bill with no changes is what you're going to get

Enjoy! I have tired of trying to convince people to get out of the way of this steam engine coming straight at them. If you are working or middle class and you've enjoyed these last 3 decades of working harder every year just to find yourself a little further behind as time passes, you're gonna love the results of this bill.

[karynnj]

57. What process allowed that - not the standard conferences

[bigtree]

65. who is going to be doing the negotiating?

We need to appoint conferees so that we can ensure fair play in negotiations. Otherwise, we'll never hear a word about what they're considering until some leadership cobbled compromise emerges for a vote.

[karynnj]

89. I would assume that the same people who we would appoint would be doing it

On the Senate side it is obvious that it would be Reid, Harkin, Dodd and Baucus. On the House side it would be Pelosi and the chairs of the relevant committees.

Who do you mean by "we" have to appoint? The Senate and the House appoint them - just as they will appoint the negotiators.

[bigtree]

105. the House and Senate will reportedly 'negotiate informally'

That doesn't sound like appointing negotiators like they would conferees. It sounds like leadership wheeling and dealing apart from the membership. We'll see.

[karynnj]

106. leadership is who would be appointed

Junior Senators do not get assigned.

[bigtree]

113. this doesn't sound at all like they will be negotiating in the public interest

They haven't so far, I believe. I'm thinking the 'negotiations' won't go far past Reid and Pelosi, but we'll see what they construct as a front. The full conference isn't just something which enables republicans. The conference committee process has a purpose beyond just making certain the bill passes. The 'negotiations' reported sound more like railroading.

[karynnj]

120. Who would you imagine would be included in the conference

if there was one?

For the Senate bill the ones in the negotiations were Reid, Dodd (Harkin appointed him from HELP, but I think Harkin had some involvement) and Baucus. This does not mean that no one else had imput - I know that that is where Kerry persuaded them to add the MA type features that allow the exchange to negotiate with the plans.

[laughingliberal]

Considering the original reports I read on this possibility had a big emphasis on the Senate asking

the House to pass their bill as is, I am skeptical much negotiating will be going on. I had people here a few weeks ago when I kept saying they were going to ping pong this bill screeching at me that it would NOT get ping ponged, that the House would not roll over for that. So, now it will be ping ponged but the new meme is that still allows for 'negatiation.' Forgive me if I retain some skepticism here. Not one step in this whole debate brought us one step to the left on this bill. Every step in the negotiation has resulted in the bill moving further right. I see no reason to believe we'll see any reversal of that trend.

[bigtree]

49. right, without amendment

. . . which would allow them to just proceed to vote.

[SpartanDem]

26. What the hell are you talking about?

this just sidesteps the GOP not giving unanimous consent for a formal conference the House will take up amendments to the Senate passed bill.

[laughingliberal]

34. Well, I guess we'll just have to see how that shakes down

People were screeching at me for a couple of weeks that the bill would NOT be ping ponged as I tried to alert them to this inevitability. Now we hear how there will still be negotiations withing the ping pong. I'm sure we will all get the chance to look back on this day and determine what the reality turned out to be.

[pnwmom]

41. I never "screeched" that the bill would get ping-ponged. I welcome it.

Leave the Rethugs out of this as much as possible.

[laughingliberal]

58. I don't think I mentioned you. I did say there were those screeching at me that this bill would not

get ping ponged and many of them will now show up to say ping ponging won't preclude negotiation with the House. Well, technically, that's true. In practice, the Senate bill will be shoved down the House' throat. Leaving the Rethugs out is all well and good til you realize this procedure also leaves out progressive Democrats.

[pnwmom]

64. How would you solve the problem that the Senate is more conservative

than the House due to its 2 Senator per state representation and the existence of the filibuster?

The way our government is set up prevents dramatic, major changes. Incremental progress is usually the best we can hope for. Do we have to put off any improvement in health care until we have a whole new system of government?

[laughingliberal]

69. Well, we haven't tested whether the House provision on revenue sources or

community ratings would survive if the House was allowed to change something in the Senate bill. And the House bill does not allow rescission to continue. I firmly believe the Blue Cross Dogs in the Senate would accept some compromises if the White House asked them to. I believe Harry Reid put the PO with the state opt out provision in the blended bill and believed he had the votes for it at that point. I believe that was killed at the White House request as was the Medicare expansion at the very end. I believe Russ Feingold who said the Senate bill in its current form is the bill the White House wanted all along. I believe the White House cut a deal with AHIP at the very beginning and nothing was more important to them than honoring that deal. I know if the White House wanted to allow changes to the taxes in the Senate bill the Senate could pass that. I also believe the Senate would be open to changing the community ratings moded if they got the go ahead for it from the White House. I believe the White House was behind this push to the right all along and Rahm's Blue Dog buddies accommodated them by taking the heat for it.

[karynnj]

59. Me too - I actually thoiught that there was a possiblity of accepting the Senate bill outright

The fact is the Senate which needs 60% has a tougher job than the House which needs 50%. The constrainst has to be that it will pass both Houses. That likely means that they can't move far from the existing Seante bill.

[MNDemNY]

30. STFU, Obama Knows best, do not question him!!!

Hater!!!!11!!

[pnwmom]

13. So what's your solution for people with preexisting conditions or who get dropped

by their insurers when they get sick?

But it has to be a solution that could pass the House and the Senate, so don't bother pushing single-payer. That's not an option at this point in time.

[bigtree]

18. It's obvious that the pre-existing provision has enough support to pass on its own

. . . or as a rider to some omnibus bill.

[pnwmom]

22. No, that's not obvious at all. The only thing that made it possible

was when they agreed to put the universal mandate in the bill. The two are linked together. In order to make it financially feasible to cover all people, no matter how sick, they also have to have lots of healthy people in the pool.

[MNDemNY]

23. This bill will not help near as many as you think.

Nope this is a shit-pile that only firms up our failed system. If we can not pass "real" reform, then we are better off doing nothing, then the system will collapse with in a decade forcing us to act responsibly. Or we could just demand that our elected officials do the publics bidding. But that would be really radical, wouldn't it?

[pnwmom]

31. Each of the millions it will help are just as important as you are.

All the millions more people who will get help through Medicaid, through children's programs, and through a ban on preexisting conditions don't have a decade to wait. Every year, 45,000 people -- who are just as valuable as you -- are dying because of lack of access to health care.

[TheKentuckian]

55. So, how many of that 45,000 will continue to die?

The stat is a meaningless talking point until it can be said and this legislation saves _____ of them. Many still won't have coverage so we can just write them off from the tip so the point then becomes how many of the newly covered will be able to afford access and then we'll know what has been accomplshed and at what cost.

The preexistings stuff is a joke. Most people will struggle to just keep up with normal premiums, at 3X there will be a lot of these folks looking in and doing without but then the whole point of this reform seems to be to protect profits and insulate the rich from too much risk so I guess making sure only they can benefit from new regulations is fitting.

[laughingliberal]

62. All true

How many of the 45,000 are part of the 20 million who will still be without coverage? And how many of those with preexisting conditions who buy a policy will still not have the out of pocket costs to use it? And how many of those with preexisting conditions who get a policy and can afford to use it will then be rescinded due to 'fraud?' The defenders of this bill have no idea how many poison pills are contained, therein.

[pnwmom]

67. Nobody knows how many people will be without coverage because that depends

on how many healthy people decide they'd rather pay a small penalty than buy the insurance. Every citizen would be eligible for insurance, which is a huge improvement over the status quo.

[laughingliberal]

71. They already estimate there will be 20 million left uncovered by the bill

That's not in dispute and it's not about how many choose to pay the fine. That figure does not include those who go without a policy by choice. Every citizen will be eligible to purchase a policy. Many will be policies they can't afford to use. I don't expect you to take my word for it. This POS is, obviously, going to pass and, around 2015 or 2016 the mandate will have been in effect long enough for everyone to see the truth in what I am saying, now.

edited error. changed 20,000 to 20 million

[MNDemNY]

78. 20,000??? more like 30,000,000.

[laughingliberal]

80. Oops! Corrected on edit. Meant 20 million

Probable 30 million is accurate but, at this point, even the defenders of the bill admit to 20,000,000 remaining uncovered.

[MNDemNY]

82. I thought you knew better!

:D

[pnwmom]

112. It absolutely DOES include those who will go without insurance by choice.

So it is just an estimate, because no one knows how many people will fit in that category.

[laughingliberal]

133. I don't think most of those 20 million are the people they expect to choose to go without

I suspect a lot of them are the ones who don't qualify for a subsidy but whose premiums would exceed 17% of their income and, therefore, they will get a hardship waiver if they can't afford the premium. They won't pay a fine but they won't have any coverage, either. That would have included my husband and myself when we were working. Our income would have been too high for a subsidy but our premium costs were 25% of our income. I scraped up the COBRA after I lost my job until his treatment for prostate cancer was complete. Then we had to drop it so we could continue to sleep indoors and eat daily.

I also think this whole meme of hordes of well off, young, healthy people who can afford health insurance but prefer not to get it is akin to Reagan's welfare queens. Not a really significant number. Most people who are without coverage are without because they can't afford it.

edited punctuation

[laughingliberal]

77. Here's the deal with that. It's not all about me

I actually would get covered under Medicaid and am without coverage now. But it's never been all about me. It is about the lack of real coverage people will be forced to pay for. It is about the Senate bill leaning heavily on working and middle class Americans for the revenue sources. It is about the loopholes the Senate left in the bill for the insurance companies to continue their criminal activities. It is about the higher community ratings model in the Senate bill making policies more expensive that they will be under the House bill. And, as I discussed in other post in this thread, there is no way of knowing how many of those 45, 000 will still be left without. How many of them are in the 20 million we already know won't be covered? How many will have a subsidized policy but will be too poor to pay the deductibles in order to use the policy? How many will be rescinded by the insurance corporation fellating loophole the Senate bill contains? And how many years before we're right back here cause premium costs kept rising just as they are now and the insurance companies are continuing to lose customers as the boomers keep escaping their clutches. This bill is also the first shot in the battle to privatize Medicare.

[karynnj]

61. Really radical - and the weakest least financially secure pay the price -

The fact is that there are not 60 Senators, who represent people who want what you do.

[backscatter712]

32. That's the key.

I'd rather have an imperfect bill than no bill. Mark my words, this legislation WILL save lives.

[pnwmom]

43. I agree with you, too, backscatter. And so do other informed people without a political axe

to grind, like Paul Krugman.

[zipplewrath]

38. Implicit assumption

Your implicit assumption is that this current bill is particularly useful for folks with pre-existing conditions. People don't have insurance for a wide variety of reasons and most of them fall under the category of "can't afford it". All that's required in this bill is that people are offered an insurance plan that costs no more than 300% of the base plan. There is going to be great difficulty for alot of people in actually affording this insurance, much less actually accessing it. I know all manner of relatively healthy people who can't afford to use their insurance. Their personal costs are too high.

The solution that can pass both houses is one that the White House actually chooses to put their weight behind. Lieberman acknowledges that they never talked to him at all.

[karynnj]

63. You missed the fact that people up to 3 or 4 times the poverty level

get tapered subsidies - covering nearly all at slightly above poverty level to very little at the maximum.

[zipplewrath]

85. subsidies for a plan they can't afford to use

You're missing the fact that people who currently have health insurance can't afford to use it. There is little to no guarantee that the subsidies will be sufficient enough to allow the people to actually use their health insurance. There aren't any cost controls in this legislation. It's why big pharma and really the insurance companies are going along with this. They'll get 30 million new customers for whom they can charge premiums on plans that the people won't be able to afford to use.

[karynnj]

88. There are cost controls in this measure

The main one is that the exchange has the power to insure that the plans are what they claim and are legal - and they can negotiate with the plans to get them to fix things - this caused a 6 % decrease in costs in MA, where the "connector" has that power.

The insurance companies do not get 30 million new customers, 15 million are added to Medicaid.

In case you didn't notice AHIP is NOT "going along with it", but has had ads up against it.

[zipplewrath]

121. No "power"

They have no "power". They have no negotiation position. They can ask, that's about all. There is precious little competition and the government is prevented from creating any. You're overselling what Mass accomplished. Even they admit that their plan has done little to lower costs. The plans will be "legal". The plans that exist now are "what they claim they are" and they are "legal" and the people in them can't afford to use them.

[laughingliberal]

136. There was a recent article quoting an industry spokesman as saying he got 95% of what he wanted in

this bill.

In July AHIP did a 7 figure ad buy supporting 'bipartisan health care reform,' which was a euphemism for a bill with no public option which is what they got. The only ads they have run are the ones complaining about the cuts to Medicare Advantage. They are not trying to defeat the bill.

[laughingliberal]

40. So, what's your solution for the loophole in the Senate bill that still allows rescission?

Which is even better for the insurance companies cause they can collect premiums from those with preexisting conditions until they need some care and then drop them for "fraud." They can say all day long that the insurance companies can't refuse to sell people with preexisting conditions a policy. But they can't force that insurance company to cover any care for them once they sell the policy to them.

[pnwmom]

47. IF there is such a loophole (and I haven't seen evidence that there still is,

or even that there ever was), then that is exactly the kind of thing that should be eliminated in the ping-ponging process.

[laughingliberal]

52. Yep. It states it does not allow for rescission except in cases of 'fraud.'

Now, we all know that 'fraud' is the justification they have always used to rescind policies. Don't forget to let them know about that sore throat you had in the 3rd grade. The blended bill out or Reid's office had that in there and there is nothing in the Manager's Amendment that removed it.

[bigtree]

12. I disagree

I think that it's just callous and anti-democratic to suggest that this massive new program should just be rammed through because there might be objections raised and folks may want changes. The process of reconciliation is there to protect the interests of those in the respective bodies who have advocated different remedies and solutions in their competing bills. We should be interested in good legislation, not just whatever Congress can manage to wheel and deal in the backroom. The process of reconciling the two bills should be allowed to unfold as it was intended.

[MNDemNY]

17. Too bad, the administration wants it this way.

[pnwmom]

20. If you read the article YOU posted, you'd see there's nothing in the

process of "ping-ponging" that will preclude negotiations between the House and the Senate. What it will do is eliminate the possibility of more Republican filibusters.

[bigtree]

25. what it does is limit debate

I think this legislation needs slowing.

[MNDemNY]

28. needs killing.

[laughingliberal]

45. Sure. Nothing to say it couldnt stil include 'negotiations,' but it won't.

Sorry, many of the people now pushing that talking point were here 2 weeks ago telling me it wouldn't get ping ponged. I knew it would. They probably knew it, too. The job is to keep us shut up long enough to get this piece of corporate fellating crap passed.

[annabanana]

14. I think I do too FC . .

I'm hoping that the House may be able to slip some good stuff in there..

[DBoon]

37. reluctantly, me too

Given the intransigence of the Republicans, I believe delay would only result in no bill at all.

[lamp_shade]

10. I heard weeks ago they might do this and I've been hoping they would. Good.

[pnwmom]

21. I agree. There goes the chance of more Republican filibusters. n/t

[DefenseLawyer]

19. But much to my surprise, when I opened my eyes

I was a victim of the Great Compromise.

[MNDemNY]

27. This bill should be...

buried down in the cold ,cold, ground.

[DefenseLawyer]

29. There's a hole in Big Insurance's arm

where all the money goes.

[MNDemNY]

33. And now we've went and.....

lain, the saddle in the rain.

[laughingliberal]

48. +1

[Nikki Stone1]

35. No conference, no improvements for people. Mandates stand, and

the Senate bill will be the template.

[laughingliberal]

54. Yep. With all those nice middle and working class taxes

that they can claim aren't a tax increase on working and middle class Americans.

[Nikki Stone1]

97. Exactly. It's just giving to the haves from the have-not-so-much.

:(

[laughingliberal]

132. Aren't you glad we got all this change? nt

[OHdem10]

39. This way they just cram that "loser" Senate Bill through..

[MNDemNY]

79. Yup!!

gobama!!!

[Faryn Balyncd]

100. Another day, another broken promise.

"Open government"


"Americans will have a choice of a public plan."