Dean: Kill the Bill entirely

After posting, I do now see a thread (4.00 / 1)

on this a few posts back. Still, should be a front-page story.

---

by: Maine Owl @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 13:44:08 PM CST

We see Axelrod out there touting (4.00 / 1)

the great stuff in the bill. But not one word about how tilted the bill is to insurance company profits and control. He skewers Howard Dean, bringing back the old Kerry-surrogate charge that Dean & the left who follow him are "insane." HERE is a link to an article (from Business) that rebuts Axelrod's notion that the insurance company's are really against this. It's just the public option, now gone, that they truly were against.

---

by: Maine Owl @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 16:37:29 PM CST

Ugh. (4.00 / 1)

It's a Christmas miracle when I don't have an opinion about something, but I am utterly stumped. People I respect stand on either side.

I really wanted universal health care, would have given a kidney for the public option, and think our legislators are betraying us in favor of the insurance industry. When I try to take the broad view, I come away anxious about two years of Republican gloating, regardless of how this bill goes, and yet another bitter step away from any semblance of a Progressive agenda in 2012.

Must. Go. Watch. Franken.

---

by: leolabeth @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 17:30:51 PM CST

Who is working for whom? (0.00 / 0)

Just watch, especially to hear what Laura Flanders has to say at the end:

---

by: Gerald Weinand @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 19:54:16 PM CST

Actually who is paying who? (0.00 / 0)

Sorry to say, we are - by paying premiums to very companies that in turn use our own funds to lobby against improving health care reform for us so that their corporate stock will march on into the next bubble of financial ruin of our IRAs and 401Ks (We get to pay twice!).  And the uninsured are paying to with blood and tears.

The continual degrading of the eventual even more tepid bill that will pass has been paid for by us by the same corporate machinery that would scream bloody murder about union dues being political slush funds that do not represent (FAA: False Accusation Alert!) their members' interest.

Dr. Dean is doing an accurate diagnosis of the fatal flaw in the current reform patient.  I do agree we need to kill the bill but we need an exit strategy.  I belive it goes something like this: http://www.dailykos.com/storyo...

---

by: Bruce Bourgoine @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 21:55:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If there's anyone I don't trust, it's Lanny f*&$ing Davis. n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: jm @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 07:09:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

this is a pretty interesting discussion (0.00 / 0)

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsme...

This bill would be a good improvement on our current mess. (Although far from perfect.) It would represent a major legislative victory for the Administration and Democrats in Congress, which would strengthen their hand when they finally get to work on all the bills that are stuck in traffic behind HCR.

That doesn't mean it's wrong to lobby, cajole and threaten your legislators to try to get the best bill possible. But withdrawing or killing this bill would end any hope of any HCR happening in Obama's first term. (And it would certainly threaten his chances at reelection.)

And if you think it's hard to pass good reform now, try doing it with 4-6 more Republicans in the Senate or 15-20 fewer Dems in the House. That will NEVER happen.

---

by: jm @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 07:15:01 AM CST

Krugman agrees. (0.00 / 0)

Here.

---

by: jm @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 07:17:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Great things the reform bill will do (0.00 / 0)

Krugman: Americans could no longer be denied health insurance because of a pre-existing condition, or have their insurance canceled when they get sick.

The problem I see is that enough loopholes are being drilled to make these notions inoperative. The insurance companies CAN drop you if you don't/can't pay the age-rated premium (probably sky-high for someone as old as I am), which is bound to happen once you get sick. So this becomes a stand-in for their current practices. Here's a direct quote from the White House's own "8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage":

Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

Another way they want to get you with the Bill: The "annual" cap @ $100,000 actually is better to limit company payouts than a 20-yr cap of $2 million or a 30-yr cap of $3 million. The writer of the TPM piece referred to evidently does not understand this at all.

For these reasons and many others the whole approach here is ridiculous. My opinion is the country will be better off if the goddamn thing DOES NOT PASS, despite the political cost to the Democrats. (And I do respect the opinion of others who differ with me on that point.)

My solution is simple: Everyone should pay a fixed % on actual earnings and receive in return lifetime coverage. We already have the mechanism to do that with Medicare. I do not buy that this is politically unfeasible. Yes, it will take many years to achieve. But passing this bill will in fact make the desired outcome even more difficult!

Incidentally, the reason it was necessary to ditch the Medicare buy-in at 55 suspiciously was because the little math wizards in little Connecticut offices near Lieberman's whispered "psssst, Joe, taking those 3x ratepayers from 55 to 65 out of our actuarial computation costs us too much, that's gotta go."

If it would have taken that step towards Medicare for all, I was perhaps ready to tip on the side of feeling the vulgar costs of this bill were worth it. No more.

---

by: Maine Owl @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 10:56:45 AM CST

Also, older people can be charged (0.00 / 0)

three or five times more (I've seen both) than younger people simply on premiums because they're old. And it must be remembered why Medicare was created in the first place: seniors consume more health care than younger people and so cost insurers' bottom line more, and so the premiums they charged were simply unaffordable to most.

Why we are insisting on keeping a system that does not provide care or reduce the cost of that care, while skimming money off the top, is beyond me. It is time to eliminate the health insurers from the equation.

---

by: Gerald Weinand @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 11:21:39 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Fewer Dems in the House (0.00 / 0)

Not necessarily a bad thing. That would mean it would take fewer votes from the anti-war Kucinich-Woolsey-Pingree fold to derail awful White House ramrod tactics. There are sure to be more situations where Republicans and anti-war progressives find common cause.  

---

by: Maine Owl @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 11:33:19 AM CST