Pingree: a robust public option is "a must-have for me"

I'm happy to call Mike too (0.00 / 0)

But, it's been absolutely the worst weekend for health insurance reform I could have imagined. I've posted HERE, will try to cross-post. I'm no longer a Democrat. "I haven't left The Party, The Party has left me."

---

by: Maine Owl @ Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 13:11:36 PM CDT

free health care for illegal aliens (0.00 / 0)

Does Rep. Pingree still want us to provide the illegal aliens with free health care?

---

by: antiEFCA @ Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 15:31:53 PM CDT

Define "free," because if you actually (0.00 / 0)

understand what H.R. 3200 does, you'll know that it doesn't provide health care to anyone.

H.R. 3200 is health insurance reform.

But be that as it may, I suggest you read through Title II, Subtitle C, Individual Affordability Credits. There you will find this:

SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

---

by: Gerald Weinand @ Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 16:51:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So are you telling me (0.00 / 0)

that 10 million of the 47 million would still be uninsured?

However, the Census Bureau report "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005," (Source:http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf)
puts the initial number of uninsured people living in the country at 46.577 million.

    A closer look at that report reveals the Census data include 9.487 million people who are "not a citizen." Subtracting the 10 million non-Americans, the number of uninsured Americans falls to roughly 37 million.

On top of that, you have those who can afford it but don't want to and then you have those who could afford it but think they are indestructible:

But according to the same Census report, there are 8.3 million uninsured people who make between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and 8.74 million who make more than $75,000 a year. That's roughly 17 million people who ought to be able to "afford" health insurance because they make substantially more than the median household income of $46,326.  

So when you subtract off the 27 million from the original 47 million, you get 20 million or around 7% of the American population.  Mind you, one uninsured American is too much, but even Obama has admitted that his universal health plan would not cover everyone including some preexisting conditions and as you stated above, undocumented aliens.  So if Obamacare won't cover everyone, but negatively effect (perhaps) the 85% of the voting population who are happy with their coverage, why go there?

I would embed website sources as hotlinks but I am not that blog-savy.  

---

by: thejuri1 @ Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 19:16:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Regarding the very high income earners (0.00 / 0)

it's actually less expensive for them to self insure. H.R. 3200 does place a tax on people that choose to not carry insurance - see Title IV, Sec. 401.

Keep in mind that I am a supporter of H.R. 676, and view H.R. 3200 as a sorry substitute. When I provide information, it is simply that - I'm not necessarily advocating for the bill.

IMHO, Medicare for all (H.R. 676) is the only solution. It is essentially the same model used in France.

---

by: Gerald Weinand @ Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 19:42:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The code to create a hypelink (0.00 / 0)

is:

'left carrot'a href="the URL of the site">the word(s) you want to appear'left carrot'/a'right carrot'

Substitute < for 'left carrot'

and > for 'right carrot'

---

by: Gerald Weinand @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 07:40:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

My pledge stands (0.00 / 0)

I always appreciate hearing from my constituents, especially about such an important issue, but I also wanted to  assure the Dirigo Blue community that my pledge still stands: I'm not going to vote for any House bill that doesn't include a robust public option. Thanks to everyone who's called or written my office to weigh in.

---

by: chelliepingree @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 11:08:06 AM CDT

Great to read these words! Thank (0.00 / 0)

you Rep. Pingree.

I'll have everyone know that Down with Tyranny has set up an ActBlue page for you to pledge your support to the members of the Progressive Caucus that have taken a stand: no public option means that no bill will pass the House.

---

by: Gerald Weinand @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 11:45:33 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Town Hall Meeting (0.00 / 0)

Rep. Pingree, if you "always appreciate hearing from my constituents," why have you refused to have any Town Hall Meetings for us?

---

by: antiEFCA @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 12:13:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So that you could shout out things (0.00 / 0)

like the claim that H.R. 3200 provides illegal aliens with "free health care," a claim that you likely knew was not true when you made it, but that I debunked for you anyway?

Or would you rather make the claim that H.R. 3200 establishes "death panels," which I'm going to guess you also know is untrue?

Tell you what: if you really want constructive dialog, why don't you write a diary detailing exactly what it is that you don't like about H.R. 3200, as well as the parts you do like about the bill? Maybe Rep. Pingree will answer your concerns.  

---

by: Gerald Weinand @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 13:00:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What is the truth? (0.00 / 0)

Since there is a variety of versions out floating around, all of which seem to be changing from day to day, how does anyone know what's really true?  Since our state leaders haven't even read all of the information, how do they even know what's really included?  IMO, our government has gone to the Extreme Far Left and is dragging us toward Socialism...and they are afraid to hear this truth from We The People.

---

by: antiEFCA @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 17:38:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wha? (0.00 / 0)

If you don't know what's in the bill, what makes you think we're being "dragged toward socialism?"

And more importantly, if you really wanted to speak to Rep. Pingree in person, why haven't you made any attempt to go to the myriad public events in the district over the last several months?

Do you only attend meetings in the month of August?  Only when instructed by your radio?

---

by: jm @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 20:45:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Our downward spiral toward socialism (0.00 / 0)

jm, I find the following definition of socialism to be quite accurate.  Do you agree?

Socialism:  An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.
Source:  www.Dictionary.com

---

by: antiEFCA @ Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 06:24:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You didn't answer my question (0.00 / 0)

If you don't know what's in the bill, how can you say it would constitute socialism?

---

by: jm @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 06:41:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

true (0.00 / 0)

You're right, I'm not sure exactly what details are in which version but I'm attempting to try and get that sorted out.  However, in the meantime, do you accept that definition of socialism?  If not, how do you define it?

---

by: antiEFCA @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 17:23:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dude -it's not complicated (0.00 / 0)

Answer the question: why are you accusing anyone of "dragging [the country] toward socialism" if you don't know what's in the bill?

I answered your question below: your question is a straw man, a rhetorical tactic used to change the subject to a more favorable topic.

The definition of socialism will be relevant only when someone actually proposes socialism or socialist policies in this country. Has that happened?  If so, where?  When? Tell me now or stop trolling.

[ps. Thanks for playing.]

---

by: jm @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 20:29:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A varitey of what flaoting around? (0.00 / 0)

Are there more than one version of H.R. 3200? If so, how could you possibly claim that it provide "free health care to illegal aliens?"

Have you read ANY of the bill? Or are you simply regurgitating the talking points you've read at other sites.

Discussion of topics is encouraged here at Dirigo Blue, but so far from you all I've read is unfounded bullshit, and when you've been challenged on that, you don't even bother to defend that bullshit.

Which is fine.

But you'll soon find yourself ignored - the worst thing - unless you actually bring some meat to the table.

So bring it. Bring your ideas, supported by facts, and then let's discuss them.

---

by: Gerald Weinand @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 20:56:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

various editions (0.00 / 0)

Quite honestly, since I've read parts of various editions (from both Rs and Ds), I'll need to go back and read them again to know which elements are from which versions...hence my confusion around what's factual.  I'll get back to you with more specific examples.

---

by: antiEFCA @ Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 06:27:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

First things first (0.00 / 0)

Since jm hasn't responded, I will ask you Gerald.Do you accept this definition?

Socialism:  An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.
Source:  www.Dictionary.com

---

by: antiEFCA @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 05:38:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No - it's too broad. I would say that (0.00 / 0)

socialism "substantially" controls goods and operations deemed essential for the public good. Things like mass transit, health insurance/care, education, pubic safety, highways, etc.

This is not to be confused with regulations ensuring public safety of products and services, many of which come about because of lack of self discipline of manufacturers.

Do I think the government should dictate what sort of vehicles, if any, a person owns? No. Do I think the government should influence that decision by placing taxes on some vehicles to promote the public interest? Yes. Placing a tax on vehicles that have low mpg ratings would be an example (or increasing the fuel tax further).

I acknowledge that "free" markets play an important role in how things work (I put the quotes there because such markets do not exist). It is when society determines that every member has equal access to a product or service that the free market fails - it's geared to provide to those that can afford to pay, automatically leaving out those that cannot. This works fine for cell phones, cars, fashion, etc. It doesn't work for fire protection, basic education, health care.

---

by: Gerald Weinand @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 06:20:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I would add.... (0.00 / 0)

capitalism and a strong federal government are not mutually exclusive. Supercapitalism, by Robert Reich, is a pretty convincing book on the subject.

Markets are actually MORE efficient and fair when they are properly regulated. That's because even a small player has a chance to succeed if the playing field is level.

---

by: jm @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 06:45:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

BTW - don't forget to post (0.00 / 0)

that diary with the items in H.R. 3200 that you don't like, and why you don't. Am interested in reading it. There are parts of the bill that I don't like.

---

by: Gerald Weinand @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 06:22:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is a classic straw man argument. (0.00 / 0)

No one in this debate has proposed that the production and distribution of goods be substantially controlled by the government.

The public option is just that: an option. A government-run health insurance plan.  Any American who chooses not to use it is free to do so.

Most importantly, your definition says that in socialism "cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity".  That is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what has been proposed. The public option is a new competitor that the private health insurance companies must compete with. That IS capitalism.

---

by: jm @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 06:51:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]