Democrats Agree To Tentatively Trade Opt-Out For Trigger, Medicare Buy In, And More

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 10:36 PM

LET'S HEAR IT FOR THE LOBBYISTS, AND THEIR POODLES: OUR SENATE!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Why oh why

December 8, 2009 11:08 PM in reply to CVille Dem

O! BA! MA!
And for the Wall Street boys!
O! BA! MA!
And for McChrystal, our guy in Kabul!
O! BA! MA!

(Lieberman kisses Nelson under a shower of dollar bills, everybody dances)

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 12:05 AM in reply to Why oh why

LET'S HEAR IT FOR THE PROGRESSIVES AND LIbS IN CONGRESS WHO CAVED RIGHT ALONG WITH THEM ..............YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

oh wait, sorry, you guys are always the victim. They were forced to cave.....wink, wink.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

gharlane

December 9, 2009 1:22 AM in reply to Viva!America!

Viva, you are such a transparent tool.

1) Referring to "libs".... been visiting your homies over at redstate.com and FreeRepublic lately? Your true colors are beginning to show.

2) If the "libs" and progressives are "caving right along with" the lobbyists' Senate poodles, you konw damn well why: your beloved Saint Barack of Obama and his pet put bull Rahm have been getting on the phone and twisting some arms. It's perhaps comforting to realize that Saint Barack does indeed know how to do a "Johnson Treatment" on legislators.... but it's now obvious that he only uses it on the progressive ones.

3) If the "libs" and progressives HADN'T "caved right along with" the rest of the lobbyists' Senate poodles, you'd be here frothing and gnashing and railing against them for torpedoing this Wonderful Health Care Compromise that embodies all that is Bipartisan and wonderful in Washington DC.

Tool.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mass_murdock

December 9, 2009 1:37 AM in reply to gharlane

Gharlane of Eddore? Is that u? lulz

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

gharlane

December 15, 2009 2:33 AM in reply to mass_murdock

Silence, worm. Did you but know, I could wipe out your entire species with a flick of my ... uh... pseudopod... anyway, insect, nobody expects the -- oh, sorry, wrong sketch ....

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 6:10 PM in reply to gharlane

Bipartisan? How so?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

racetoinfinity

December 10, 2009 10:10 PM in reply to Why oh why

LOL - under showers of 100 dollar bills.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

racetoinfinity

December 10, 2009 10:13 PM in reply to racetoinfinity

I meant this as a reply to "Cville Dem" 11:08 P.M.

December 8, 2009 10:38 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

TaosJohn

Bah.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

ARG in Chicago

December 8, 2009 11:53 PM in reply to TaosJohn

Humbug!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

benjoya

December 9, 2009 11:38 AM in reply to ARG in Chicago

boiled in plum pudding!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 10:38 PM

Is it still in the bill where children can stay on their parents' insurance policies until they are 27? That was a big one especially in this economy.

If not, I'm sure the insurance lobbyists killed it.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

holyhandgrenaid

December 8, 2009 11:05 PM in reply to CVille Dem

Some states already have that- New Hampshire has it until 26, but the problem is that children's health coverage stops being untaxed at 25 when they are no longer able to be dependents. As a result, my folks have to drop me from their insurance in 2 weeks when i hit 25, even though I'm in grad school and can't afford my own, and am legally entitled to stay on their coverage for another year- their rates don't change with dropping my coverage, but they save a $200/month tax hit if I stayed on. Dependency and coverage need to be adjusted to match.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:15 PM in reply to holyhandgrenaid

I think $200 a month might be a bargain if you could afford it. Also, most colleges have student health insurance that includes grad students. I hope you figure out a way to get covered. This is ridiculous!

Everyone should just be covered!!!!

December 8, 2009 10:43 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

ericf

I can live with this quite happily. Please don't tell any conservadems I said so or they'll turn against it. Let them think liberals are bawlingly unhappy. Among us though, the extension of Medicare to age 55 is an incremental approach I've heard some single-payer advocates advocate. That covers the age group most vulnerable to being without insurance. Maybe it's good they didn't come up with the idea until this week, or it would have been shot down as too liberal.

The trigger won't happen I'm sure, but once it works to extend Medicare, there will be no coherent argument against extending it to 50, or 45... Maybe it won't even be controversial...let's hope.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Jyrinx

December 8, 2009 10:48 PM in reply to ericf

It's not a real Medicare expansion. The idea is to allow a few people over 55 to buy into Medicare.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

elle a

December 9, 2009 12:10 AM in reply to Jyrinx

it has to be funded somehow.

at this stage i would be thrilled with a buy in option to medicare.

and if that can pass this year, it would be so easy to just keep reducing the age at which people can buy in.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

EH

December 9, 2009 1:55 AM in reply to elle a

at this stage i would be thrilled with a buy in option to medicare.

Your standards are too low. With this plan the US will continue to have the worst health care system of any industrialized country.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

December 9, 2009 2:49 AM in reply to EH

We already have the worst. This might be the first step toward making it better.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Eric Jaffa

December 9, 2009 11:08 AM in reply to elle a

You won't be able to buy-into Medicare if you have insurance through your employer.

They're only letting the "uninsured" buy-in.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

racetoinfinity

December 10, 2009 10:17 PM in reply to elle a

....except the post says that it will be very expensive to buy in, though I don't know how it could beat the $4-600 the Insurance Vampires want for a single person in this age range now (if you don't want a 10,000 deductible.)

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

ronbyers

December 8, 2009 11:02 PM in reply to ericf

The problem with the whole thing is that it takes too darn long to phase in. People need help now. The medicare buy in is useless if it is too expensive for uninsured folks over 55 to purchase. Since that most uninsured people over 55 can't afford to pay for their own insurance as it is, I am afraid this is could be one of those very common provisions we see today that sound good on paper but don't really amount to much.

Details, we need details.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

December 9, 2009 2:48 AM in reply to ericf

Yeah; the devil is in the details, of course, but this sounds like something I could live with. It's far from what I had hoped for going into this, but this at least would give us a base to build on to reach universal affordable coverage, and I don't think the severely watered-down public option that was remaining would have done that.

I would prefer that the Medicare buy-in also qualify for subsidies right off the bat, but at least it's a start.

I will be anxious to see what Bernie Sanders thinks of the compromise.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 6:40 AM in reply to slb

he didn't know much about the details -- the news had just broken -- but he didn't seem too upset or disappointed last night on rachel maddow.

December 8, 2009 10:45 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

kash79

"Majority Leader" "Harry Reid"

Oxymoron.

December 8, 2009 10:45 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Davis_X_Machina

Honestly, I'd much rather have a triggered strong public option than some shit-ass public option that would be doomed from the start.

There are a lot of people in the blogosphere who are willing to die in the last ditch for that shit-ass public option, and I'll be damned if I know why.

So far as I can see, the public option turned into an empty shibboleth four months ago and anyone who’s still treating it as a make-or-break is every bit as guilty of empty, gestural politics as Rep. Stupak.

The announcement of its death, even if incorrect, has had the salutary effect of revealing who’s just in it for the theater.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Stroszek

December 8, 2009 11:04 PM in reply to Davis_X_Machina

This package of programs is a hell of a lot better than what I was expecting at the end of last week, and I would not be surprised if this turns in a stronger CBO analysis than Reid's public option.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Davis_X_Machina

December 8, 2009 11:16 PM in reply to Stroszek

You have to say the magic words, or it doesn't count.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

JNagarya

December 8, 2009 11:18 PM in reply to Stroszek

If the thing about expanding the coverage the Congress gets to include private individuals is the reality, then it would be an excellent basis for universal: how many have been sayin':

"Yo, Congress: how about giving those who pay your salaries, and for your health care insurance, the same deal you have?"

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Stroszek

December 8, 2009 11:31 PM in reply to JNagarya

It won't be the exact plan Congress gets. The benefits will probably conform to the various benefit tiers of the exchange, so there will be less coverage to keep premiums lower. The key to the sub-exchange is that it involves premium negotiations and allows the government to play hardball like a large employer.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

JNagarya

December 8, 2009 11:56 PM in reply to Stroszek

As long as it gets the gov'ts regulatory foot in the door, some progress has been made.

It's obviously going to take a few days for all the rumors and conflicting information to shake out. And I'm as anxious and impatient as everyone else to find out what gives.

December 8, 2009 10:46 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Alex39

Scooooooooooooooooooop.

Way to go TPM.

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 8:00 AM in reply to Alex39

Word.

December 8, 2009 10:48 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Maine Independent

Not time to end the fight--time to INTENSIFY the fight for fair health care insurance for ALL.

Once again, the Dems have proven how spineless they are. Progressives will have to recharge, withhold donations, withhold votes. Not back down. Ever.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

jdb316

December 8, 2009 11:12 PM in reply to Maine Independent

The problem is that there are only two viable political parties in this country. So if you withold money and votes from Democratic candidates, you help Republicans win, which would make things worse.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

dtOZONE

December 8, 2009 11:34 PM in reply to Maine Independent

Seems to me witholding donations and votes is the very definition of backing down.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

masanf

December 8, 2009 11:58 PM in reply to dtOZONE

So in other words, if you support the people who opposed what you wanted, you are backing down and if you don't support the people who didn't vote the way you wanted, you are backing down.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 7:35 AM in reply to masanf

First, I want to offer personal info: I am a liberal. Not even afraid of saying so. Heck, I even recognize that socialism is nothing more than saying, "hey neighbor, your house is on fire! Here, I'm going to help you put it out and help your family get out alive. Don't offend me by offering to pay me something. I'm being your neighbor."

There's my socio-political philosophy in verbose corrupt haiku fashion.

So, okee dokee: You write, "Once again, the Dems have proven how spineless they are. Progressives will have to recharge, withhold donations, withhold votes. Not back down. Ever."

First reaction: Gun, meet bullet. Bullet, meet foot.

Second reaction: Did you happen to see the vote count from when DINO Ben N's anti-abortion bill was set on the table of no return? 54 for tabling, 45 against.

Know what that represents? I mean I hope this isn't challenging like the calculus of tensor geometry here.

That is about the count difference of folks who probably would happily vote for a complete single payer system. That's what was accomplished with the past two election cycles. We now have a clear majority in the senate that would very likely support a fairly-to-really strong HCR to take effect maybe next Tuesday.

Third reaction: There are 6 people who claim positions with the majority caucus who are pooch screwers. How and why? Because the filibuster rule that needs to be eliminated. Sure: Getting rid of it means that, when you punish the other 54 senators by damning them along with the bad six, and the Ref*cklicans take control of the senate again, then the Dem minority will have zero options for opposing legislation like lifting all taxes for people making more than a $million, etc.

But I think it's a smaller price to pay than leaving it in place and allowing one or two or a small handful of senators from standing in the way of a clear majority's will.

Are the Dems "spineless"? Really? Go ahead, punish the 54 senators that want change and bring the Ref*cklicans back in control.

That's the way to do it.

Or else you could do the simple, simple math and realize that until the filibuster rule is done away with that maybe those 54 senators need about another 6-8 compadres next year, so they can kick Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln and Liberf*ck to the curb and let them chair the committee of cricket oversight in their basement bathroom offices.

Get over the "spineless Dems" meme, do the simple math, take a senate reality check, and realize that punishing the willing majority in the senate only spins us back to the bad old days of Ref*ck control.

Obviously WE have not our job well enough even yet, what with the absolute nightmare of rules in the senate. WE need to double-down and maybe see if we can put a 70 seat majority into the senate. Because of those rules, simple majority does not rule and we have the obligation to pump even more seats into the senate if we want to see this neo obstructionism put to an end.

Doing anything else is the spineless move that bows in submission to the neos and lets them make the final few changes necessary to complete their destruction of our democracy.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

masanf

December 9, 2009 10:16 AM in reply to TheRealFish

You replied to me but I didn't write any of the stuff you quoted.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

msbadger

December 10, 2009 11:41 PM in reply to TheRealFish

Can I borrow your definition of socialism? I think it's really great, and easy for the faint of brain to understand! I await your permission, sir.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 7:39 AM in reply to masanf

Don't know why that happened. I was responding to MaineIndependent, not masanf.

Hm.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

masanf

December 9, 2009 10:18 AM in reply to TheRealFish

Oops. You mention that already. Sorry.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

dtOZONE

December 9, 2009 7:46 AM in reply to masanf

No one said support the people who opposed what you want, there's a process called primaries.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 7:50 AM in reply to dtOZONE

Of course. Ask Ted Lamont. Sadly, electability is maybe even more important than purity or litmus tests, and a hard fact to deal with.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:54 PM in reply to Maine Independent

Like the Progressives in Congress?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

December 9, 2009 2:54 AM in reply to Maine Independent

What's wrong with taking this as a first approximation and building on it?

December 8, 2009 10:50 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

fbacon2

Win for TPM.

December 8, 2009 10:53 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

surflaw

and we sit here with this piece of crap while the rest of the world laughs. This is no reform Mr. Obama...

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 6:46 AM in reply to surflaw

holy shit. you were in the negotiations with the "gang of 10"? 'cause as far as i know, no one other than them, their staffs, and the CBO know what's in there.

dish the details!

December 8, 2009 10:55 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Jake

So... no one who works minimum wage is eligible for "expanded" Medicaid. I see.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 7:46 AM in reply to Jake

Maybe. Maybe not. Details. Oh, and it also relies on whether there is a reconciliation committe in our future or whether the house chooses to just sign whatever comes out here and push it to the POTUS desk. No way to say until the actual, you know, details come out.

December 8, 2009 10:56 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

chimpale

My first reaction was that this was capitulation. On second glance, it's not that bad. I don't like that the Medicare buy-in only starts at 55, but then again, that's a huge expansion. And, if you want to think about it demographically, not a bad idea, *especially* since this can start next year as opposed to the public option which wouldn't go into effect for years.

December 8, 2009 10:57 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

omefrans

"Insurance companies will have the option of creating nationally-based non-profit insurance plans that would offered on the exchanges in every state. However if insurance companies don't step up to the plate to offer such plans, that will trigger a national public option."

Ooooh, insurance companies can create non-profit plans with huge overhead so it is even more expensive than normal insurance plans? And this way they make sure there will be no public option? This is a great idea! NOT.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

December 9, 2009 2:57 AM in reply to omefrans

Yeah, it's easy to see that trigger is not ever likely to get pulled. But once Medicare is an option on the exchanges, it could be a game changer.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

masanf

December 9, 2009 10:21 AM in reply to slb

How would it be a game-changer when a huge majority of the American public would have to access to Medicare at all? There may be a lot of "older" people in this country, but the last time I checked, most of us weren't over 55.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 6:57 AM in reply to omefrans

please tell me you aren't being serious. because if you are, your post is ridiculous on about 372,922 different levels.

December 8, 2009 10:57 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

cube3u

Congrats, TPM.

December 8, 2009 10:59 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

gizmo

As soon as this piece of shit becomes law, I hope Bernie Sanders starts offering amendments to improve it....

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:57 PM in reply to gizmo

'cause he's been so effective so far.

Don't put this on one man's shoulders. And don't expect much either. Amendments still have to be voted on.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Big River Bandido

December 9, 2009 12:40 AM in reply to gizmo

A Senate deal that removes the public option will never become law. Such a provision won't get by the House conferees.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 6:50 AM in reply to gizmo

oh, look. another one who was in with the gang of 10 in the negotiations. everybody in that room apparently ran out of negotiations and immediately started posting in this thread.

December 8, 2009 10:59 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Alex39

Okay, now that I've gotten over my initial pride in TPM, I've read through the details more carefully.

My take: this is a win. I know I'm not going to persuade the gloom brigade, because nothing ever does. But if you're not a card-carrying gloomster: between the expansion of Medicare and the expansion of the federal employees' plan, there's plenty of beef here whether or not that "trigger" ever gets pulled.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Alex39

December 8, 2009 11:03 PM in reply to Alex39

Also, the nationally-based nonprofit plans ought to have a decent chance of increasing competition and bringing costs down. This is sort of the Swiss model ...

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Stroszek

December 8, 2009 11:05 PM in reply to Alex39

It sets on track for a Swiss/Dutch-style system while offering another route as a contingent. As with the public option route, this is only a baby step, but it's a step in the right direction.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

robertecrump

December 8, 2009 11:15 PM in reply to Stroszek

Why is it we take baby-steps when it comes such matters but we jump in the deep end of the pool without so much as a blink anytime some jackass gets a hard on for a war?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

dtOZONE

December 8, 2009 11:38 PM in reply to robertecrump

because we're a war-happy society

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

December 9, 2009 3:00 AM in reply to robertecrump

War is an easier sell than social justice.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

hollywood

December 9, 2009 7:32 AM in reply to slb

War is easier. That is actually factually true. In this land of massive overbearing ignorance we can almost take a baby step. Compromise compromise. The sadness of this overwhelms me.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

masanf

December 9, 2009 10:24 AM in reply to hollywood

War is easier, because a whole hell of a lot of people like the thought of the country in which they live gloriously kicking the crap out of someone. It is popular for politicians because, if it is managed properly, it is a huge distraction from other problems and they can be one of the few to state they were successful in winning a war. That boosts anyone's political career, if (and that is a huge IF) they don't royally screw up for six years on the way to that belated victory.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

travy

December 9, 2009 12:35 AM in reply to Alex39

yes a win indeed for all but the millions who will still be without health insurance.

December 8, 2009 11:01 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

masanf

I am curious, if an insurance company feels it is being forced, via the threat of a public option, to participate in a non-profit exchange, how will they not respond by raising premiums in their for-profit plans?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

dtOZONE

December 8, 2009 11:36 PM in reply to masanf

um because then everyone flocks to the non profit plans.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Signalman

December 9, 2009 6:48 AM in reply to dtOZONE

Precisely. In case masanf has forgotten, this was exactly the complaint conservatrolls like him had about the public option in the first place (last summer). How soon they forget.

Clearly, conservatrolls' memory is quite volatile. It's a wonder most of them can remember to wipe their butts.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

masanf

December 9, 2009 10:28 AM in reply to Signalman

I never even once asked that question or anything like it, so you clearly have me mixed up with someone else. Amazing how asking a simple question can get one labelled a troll here.

As for non-profits, they are already the mechanism that covers a large portions of Americans (Blue Cross anyone), and I seem to recall premiums increasing still, don't you. Non-profits will do absolutely nothing, at all, to lower premiums and that has been proven now for decades. But hey, go on and insulut me for something that others "like me" have written.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Signalman

December 10, 2009 10:28 AM in reply to masanf

For some reason, my extensive fisking of your response didn't next properly, and posted way, way down the page.

Please see my top-level comment (including your comments, to which I reply) below at December 10, 2009 10:21 AM.

I look forward to your reply, masanf.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Signalman

December 10, 2009 10:29 AM in reply to Signalman

Next = nest. Geez.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

masanf

December 9, 2009 10:37 AM in reply to Signalman

So, under your formulation, anyone who disagrees with anything being put forth by the Democratic Party is a troll?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Signalman

December 10, 2009 10:25 AM in reply to masanf

"So, under your formulation, anyone who disagrees with anything being put forth by the Democratic Party is a troll?"

Is that what I said? No.

Is that what I think? No.

But I do notice *yet another* leading question from you, which further cements the notion in my mind of you as a dishonest and misrepresentative conservatroll.

If you want to know what I think, then act like a man and ask me to clarify myself. Don't come off the hip with a dishonest leading question like that.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

masanf

December 9, 2009 10:36 AM in reply to dtOZONE

You mean the non-profits consisting of plans being run by the same people? As I wrote in a post below this one, non-profits have been the domniant players in many states for years, and it has done absolutely nothing, at all, to lower costs. Non-profit is not synonymous with low cost, and that has been proven repeatedly in this country.

December 8, 2009 11:03 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AdAbsurdum

Insurance companies will have the option of creating nationally-based non-profit insurance plans that would [be] offered on the exchanges in every state.

This gets us closer to the regulated, non-profit private coverage available in Germany and Switzerland.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

pseudonymous in nc

December 9, 2009 12:17 AM in reply to AdAbsurdum

Technically, yes, but the private insurers in Germany and Switzerland (or Israel, for that matter) have basically been trained to accept a tight regulatory framework, whereas the private insurers in the US are basically attuned to bleeding every cent out of their "customers".

Do you trust the state-by-state insurance hegemonies to play nice? Sorry, I don't.

(The Swiss, being late reformers, pay through the ass for healthcare too.)

December 8, 2009 11:03 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

masanf

"For the period between 2011 and 2014, when the exchanges do open, the Medicare option will not be subsidized--people will have to pay in without federal premium assistance--and so will likely be quite expensive..."

And uninsured individuals will be able to afford this in what way now?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

ronbyers

December 8, 2009 11:14 PM in reply to masanf

"For the period between 2011 and 2014, when the exchanges do open, the Medicare option will not be subsidized--people will have to pay in without federal premium assistance--and so will likely be quite expensive..."

This means the medicare buy in will be meaningless for most people who need it and need it now. Thanks Senators.

December 8, 2009 11:19 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

David Dunham

We should get the bill passed and then pressure Congress to implement the Medicare buy-in with the subsidy in 2010.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:19 PM

How many uninsured people are going to die between now and 2011? How many more are going to die before the trigger's pulled? The Dems will lose the House and Senate if this passes. Voters counted on help with medical bills now, not 2 years from now.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:20 PM in reply to debbiedoesnothing

Hello, President Palin. The only people who'll have any reason to vote in 2012 are the fanatics who worship her.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:21 PM in reply to debbiedoesnothing

Can you tell I'm pissed? I think I've voted in my last election. It doesn't matter who wins anymore - we're all screwed.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

December 9, 2009 12:19 AM in reply to debbiedoesnothing

The correct moral from this evening's lesson is that we haven't been nearly careful enough about who we elect.

Vetting candidates in the primaries and encouraging good candidates to run by providing support is vital. In most states if you wait for what the state party provides it is way too late.

Ned Lamont, although he did not pull it off, is a good example of what should be done.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

RKD2

December 9, 2009 1:14 AM in reply to debbiedoesnothing

This does not make any sense. What if Abolitionist had refused to vote when Slavery was not banned before the Civil war. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. Even if they pass the Bill that was written only by you, there is no guarantee that the next congress or President will not kill it. It is important to keep up the good fight to make sure that progress will be made. Nothing was ever achieved by saying,
If at first I don't succeed, Cry Cry again.......

Cheers

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 11:03 AM in reply to RKD2

There was a difference between the parties before the Civil War. Now, both parties are nothing but patsies for corporate weasels. And it's hardly a case of "if at first you don't succeed." This isn't my first electoral disappointment. It's not the first time I've voted for someone and campaigned for them only to have them fail to keep promises. I've been fighting for health care reform for 30 years.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Dorn76

December 9, 2009 1:13 PM in reply to debbiedoesnothing

The GOP knows one word "NO". How's that the same as the Democratic Party, or even close?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

matyra

December 9, 2009 7:27 PM in reply to Dorn76

that, and 'green balloon'.

December 8, 2009 11:21 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

kash79

The media, lawmakers and us "the public." Its like the blind person lipreading the dumb person for the benefit of the deaf person.

All three however can smell failure.

December 8, 2009 11:33 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

TopJack

Clink your champagne glasses Blue Cross and Cigna. The public option - no matter how awful - would force cost containment, potentially getting stronger as costs inevitably skyrocket, which they will. This is a gift to the companies that let 45,000 people a year die.

Socialism for the rich, this garbage for the rest of us.

It never changes. It never will. This is an embarrassment. We are nothing but servants to corporate America.

Has anyone removed an Obama sticker from their rear windshield? If so, what solvent works best?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 12:02 AM in reply to TopJack

No matter how awful, you want the public option?

so basically you don't care for meaningful health care reform.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

December 9, 2009 12:21 AM in reply to Viva!America!

What is currently up for debate is whether or not the current bill is meaningful reform or not. If it is not, those in favor of actual reform should probably vote it down.

December 8, 2009 11:33 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Weeferdog

Debbie, how many have died in the 60-plus years since national health care was first proposed? If there is any decent progress in this bill it has to pass. We never had the votes for anything stronger ... that's now obvious as it always was. All Republicans Senators are slime, and four or five of the Democrats are. Simple, depressing arithmetic. Vote this thing down, and NOTHING gets done for several more decades. Social Security was a terrible bill in 1936. But it endured and improved and is indispensible.

December 8, 2009 11:37 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

rbeats

B U L L S H I T

December 8, 2009 11:39 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Derek Stodghill

What about Wyden's "take your employer based health care subsidy with you" proposal? Did it make it in? If it did and employers are required to offer a voucher, will the voucher cover most if not all of the buy in to Medicare?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AdAbsurdum

December 9, 2009 12:02 AM in reply to Derek Stodghill

Odds for the adoption of the Wyden ammendment are slim, but I would be quite happy to be wrong about this.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mcc

December 9, 2009 12:04 AM in reply to Derek Stodghill

That's an amendment and it hasn't been voted on yet.

December 8, 2009 11:42 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

JimmyBobby

Waiting until 2014 is like, the house is on fire but we're not going to pour water on it until day after tomorrow. What is UP with that shit?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

rbeats

December 8, 2009 11:48 PM in reply to JimmyBobby

What is up with that shit is Americans, as a whole, are really lazy and will not riot in the streets. Hey It's Christmas, and the greatest golfer in the history of mankind is just as fallible as your drunken father.

Congress has learned Americans like taking it up the ass, no matter what gender you are, or what race you are.

This country is B U L L S H I T

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:53 PM in reply to JimmyBobby

Waiting until 2014 is like, the house is on fire but we're not going to pour water on it until day after tomorrow. What is UP with that shit?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

December 8, 2009 11:45 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Joe

Well, the lobbyist who sent that "WE WIN" e-mail was right. The insurance racketeers won, everyone else lost!

December 8, 2009 11:45 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

NuttyProf

Groan. Mandates?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:51 PM

Senator DeMented predicted health care reform would be Obama's Waterloo, but it's starting to look more like his Verdun -- an immensely bloody and expensive battle just to gain a few yards of ground.

December 8, 2009 11:51 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

morriganinoregon

I work for a not for profit health insurance company that administers MedAdvantage (Medicare replacement policies.) These policies were subsidized since 2005 with really low premiums and in 2010 the subsidies are being cut back. Elderly people are reeling from the shock of how much they actually have to pay now and for the next few years for premiums to get the utterly excellent insurance they have come to expect - and only 14% of the original subsidy has been cut so far. I can't imagine having no subsidy at all for 55 - 64 year old folks.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 12:15 AM in reply to morriganinoregon

I work for a not for profit health insurance company that administers MedAdvantage (Medicare replacement policies.

Some background on that one:

Under the Medicare Advantage program, created by a Republican-led Congress in 2003, the government buys private insurance coverage for Medicare patients in lieu of paying for health services directly. Supporters say MA plans have the advantage of delivering additional care to Medicare patients, including dental and eye services not covered under the traditional program.
Those additional benefits, combined with a heavy dose of marketing, have made the program enormously popular. This year, a record-high 10.5 million seniors — or 23 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries — are enrolled in MA plans, according to a June report from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, or MedPAC, an independent panel that recommends Medicare reforms to Washington policymakers.

But the extra care doesn’t come cheap. Despite promises that private plans operating under MA could eventually save money, the cost to treat the average patient in the MA program is 14 percent higher than the cost to treat the average senior under traditional Medicare.

A part of that additional cost, MedPAC noted, “consists of funds used for plan administration and profits and not direct health care services for beneficiaries.”

The argument that private plans are necessary to keep Medicare sustainable, Berenson said, “is belied by the fact that private plans always seem to require more money.”

So Medicare ends up paying an additional 14% to subsidize insurance company profits and bloated administrative expenses, when it could have provided the additional coverage (i.e. dental and eye) that makes "Medadvantage" attractive for less money itself.

Now that's what I call Republican health care reform.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

pirate jenny

December 9, 2009 10:28 AM in reply to morriganinoregon

yeah, you're part of the waste that needs to be done away with-- rethug privatized medicare.

December 8, 2009 11:51 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

666dorado

wasn't the whole point of Reid pushing to include a public option in the first place was to have a higher starting point for negotiations? remember this past summer that a public option (much less a robust one) was considered impossible/impassable and the idea declared dead, so yes, what we have here is a compromise, but might it not be better than anything they would have gotten had they STARTED with a trigger or NO public option?

December 9, 2009 12:02 AM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

tommyo

What a needlessly convoluted, complicated, fucked-up mess.

Way to go Senate. Once again you've handed the lobbyists what they demanded. Once again you've shit on the people.

I won't be able to stomach them parading around about this piece of shit and claiming it's a great achievement.

December 9, 2009 12:05 AM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

jo3wang

Good luck trying to get any of this crap through the house. Calling Nancy Pelosi!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

masanf

December 9, 2009 10:46 AM in reply to jo3wang

This thing will sail right through the House, because as the bill in the Senate proves, they don't care about reform anymore, they care about the political victory they think will come from passing a bill that is called reform.

December 9, 2009 12:09 AM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Ethan

Keep in mind, everyone, that this is a tentative agreement. There's still plenty of time to call, fax, write, petition, etc. your Senators and congressperson!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 12:18 AM in reply to Ethan

There's still plenty of time to call, fax, write, petition, etc. your Senators and congressperson!

Sure. And if you've got a couple of million to throw around in campaign contributions, you might even be able to buy one or two that the insurance lobby hasn't fully nailed down yet.

But better hurry: It's a seller's market, and supplies are limited.

December 9, 2009 12:10 AM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

dijamo

Good God, I hope the progressives in the House have the sense to kill this if this shit is the final bill. We're not just talking about potentially losing seats in 2010 anymore. This is about the viability of the Democratic party long term.

December 9, 2009 12:19 AM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Grackle

We been screwed.

December 9, 2009 12:19 AM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

synchronicity

Trigger that Mandate TOO or just take it out completely!!!

Then whatever reforms you can get to improve things, is what we get.

No true public option = NO MANDATE!!

Use the bailout money if you want to load up the health insurance companies with cash as you have Wall Street, after all you already took that money from US!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

SkippyFlipjack

December 9, 2009 12:31 AM in reply to synchronicity

That seems so obvious and yet must be said. The deal was that the government would force people to buy insurance if it could provide them reasonable insurance to buy. If mandates are in this bill, it will be criminally negligent of our elected representatives, and cause for a massive party among anyone working for an insurance company.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

December 9, 2009 3:13 AM in reply to SkippyFlipjack

Agreed. Mandates with little in the way of affordable options is a non-starter.

December 9, 2009 12:57 AM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Edna Gardener

Yes, the Democratic senators are underestimating how badly people will react to mandated payments to the insurance companies with no public alternative. People will freak out in the streets, it is a terrible thing and perhaps unconstitutional. They are foolish to unlink it from the public option.

On the Medicare advantage, it has been a good program for me. However, anyone who signs up for an advantage program misses the 6 month window of opportunity to enroll in a medicare supplemental insurance plan based on age, with no consideration of prior medical condition. Most seniors are ineligible for any supplemental insurance once that 6 month window has passed.

A remedy would be to immediately open that window again for people leaving the advantage plans, so they can get supplemental insurance with the no-prior conditions clause.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

kingsty

December 9, 2009 1:03 AM

This compromise shows how hard this thing is to do, Bill Clinton has been telling Dems get this thing passed warts and all. You can't change healthcare, 1/7th of the economy overnight. Congress will come back to this in the months and years to come. Incremental change is the only way the in built conservative nature of the US political system can work. You may hate it but that is the way it is, if the Bush Administration had attempted such a radical legislative agenda the same checks would have come into play. Lose the battle win the war?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Big River Bandido

December 9, 2009 1:08 AM

People: Get a goddamn grip on yourselves. This is not the final product, it's only the Senate's version — and we don't even know most of the details since Senators aren't telling us until it's scored.

The strategy has always been to get the best public option we could out of the House and use the strength of the progressive caucus as leverage in the conference committee negotiations. We've had months — years — to observe the dysfunction that is the United States Senate. Do you all not see how important it is to pass almost any healthcare bill at all out of the Senate? If we can do that, at least the process will move forward and we can work on fixing the flaws in conference. The chances of that happening are actually quite good.

The above comments sound like hysterical children, treating this leak as the last word when it's barely the first, and again sounding the alarm that liberalism is dead, dead, dead and healthcare reform will never, ever happen. In reality, all you Chicken Littles are just making things worse. Most of the comments here are an embarrassment to the netroots.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 1:23 AM in reply to Big River Bandido

Flagged!! You are way too level headed for this thread. Hysterics only!!!!!!!!!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mass_murdock

December 9, 2009 1:36 AM in reply to Big River Bandido

Jeez, they've got the world by the balls, you think you're going to undo it with a single bill? Did you expect them to just roll over? Stop hyperventilating like a bunch of goddamn republicans and get a grip. Learn from it.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

kingsty

December 9, 2009 1:11 AM

BIg River...Still Waters Run Deep...I hate that politics is now treated like the NFL playoffs. There is so much more at stake.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Big River Bandido

December 9, 2009 1:25 AM in reply to kingsty

Politics is "now" treated like the NFL playoffs? When hasn't it been a game?

I don't think the NFL had playoffs in Lyndon Johnson's day, certainly not in Franklin Roosevelt's day, but both those men were consummate strategists who played politics as though it were football, or poker. Ultimately, one needs to have a strategy in crafting progressive legislation that can get through the Congress.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Antineocon

December 9, 2009 1:25 AM

The gang of whimps has cowardly ran with their tails between their legs and the Repugnicants reel with laughter.

The Insurance bought U.S. Senate is worthless and this latest news only makes that more true.

As the Repugnicants need to form a Whig Party for their somewhat less than unreasonable ilk, the Democrats who are progressive should form a real Party of, by, and for the people.

The Revolution will be televised and talking heads will blather on and on.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

chigger

December 9, 2009 1:29 AM

If this turns out to be the plan, I'm done with being Dem.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

DA in LA

December 9, 2009 2:18 AM in reply to chigger

Agreed. Last election will be my last time voting Dem.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Jarl van Hoother

December 9, 2009 4:44 AM in reply to DA in LA

For crying out loud--because you prefer all the efforts the Republicans have made on Health Reform since 1946? If you and your disenchanted brethren do not go out and vote for Dems, the Republicans will be back in power and if you think things are messed up now, give those guys another 8 and you'll see the demolition of this country. It isn't all the Democrats--it's 5 or 6 Democrats in the Senate that have thoroughly undermined this bill...Be mad at them.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 7:08 AM in reply to DA in LA

responsible republican :: teabagger

reasonable democrat :: you

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 11:14 AM in reply to chigger

I hope you are BS-ing. The GOP healthcare reform bills were just fantastic, weren't they? Go take a nap, troll.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Libertine

December 9, 2009 1:42 AM

The D's were given a task, and a mandate by being given the executive branch and large majorities in both bodies of congress, courtesy of the American people to fix what is wrong with this country...and they're f'ing it up royally. Way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I hope they enjoy the time in power because it'll be short.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Angry Mad Black Man

December 9, 2009 1:47 AM

I HATE SENATORS LIBERMAN, LANDREAU, & NELSON! THEY ARE UNDERCOVER SEMI-RACIST REPUBLICANS! WIN OR LOSE ON HEALTH CARE REFORM, THEY MUST GO! I TRULY WISH THAT THEIR HEALTH TAKE A TURN FOR THE WORSE!!

BY: Andre aka Dreyton Jordan

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

masanf

December 9, 2009 10:14 AM in reply to Angry Mad Black Man

Semi-racist? In what way?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

masanf

December 9, 2009 10:43 AM in reply to Angry Mad Black Man

Wow, glad to see you are civil. Wishingn someone's health gets worse because you disagree with their politics? I am glad to see you tolerate dissent. What a true patriot.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

CWPP

December 9, 2009 1:49 AM

I have given about $30,000 since 2004. The next sound the Democratic Party is going to hear out of me is the sound of my checkbook snapping shut. This is disgraceful, cowardly, and corrupt, and I will have nothing to do with a political party that engages in it. If we're going to have Republicans in power, then let's put the Republicans in power.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

sexysadie

December 9, 2009 3:46 AM in reply to CWPP

um... we just DID you moron! See U.S. Federal Government, 2000-2008

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

kingsty

December 9, 2009 1:51 AM

Big River I agree entirely, Politics has/is always been a game of strategy. LBJ and FDR, as you say knew that, but under today's totally partisan 24/7 Cyber cycle every set back is mourned as a defeat, every minor gain trumpeted as a major victory. When this bill passes any progress made will be diluted by the partisan bickering of the 24 hour news cycle. The real point here is that a major healthcare bill will be enacted probably within a year of Obama being elected. Imperfect yes, Impossible to implement perhaps, but it will be on the books, a building block towards a better system for all. Progressive legislation will have passed through Congress. The lobbyists wanted nothing to happen and may have inserted enough language to assuage their bosses but it will remain a fact that healthcare reform passed and the country, teabaggers notwithstanding, had a proper debate about a system that is failing most and needs to cover many.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Jarl van Hoother

December 9, 2009 4:47 AM in reply to kingsty

Yes. Thank you for the sanity--I was parched.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

DB55

December 9, 2009 2:08 AM

We'll need to see the details, but it looks like we get:
- No discrimination against pre-existing conditions;
- No dropping of insurance for health reasons;
- Coverage for 95 percent of the population;
- Medicare buy-in for people aged 55-65;
- Unspecified "new, and strengthened, insurance regulations."

Wow, what a catastrophe! Let's never give a dime to Democrats again!

(Come on, people. It's easy to lose sight of the forest for the trees. This is far from perfect, and as I said we need to see the details, but it would still be a HUGE step forward).

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Libertine

December 9, 2009 2:19 AM in reply to DB55

Not to the millions of people under the age of 55 without health care because they can't afford it but will be made to purchase it. No in fact a step back...and if the apologists can't see this fact they live in Wonderland. Sure they can't drop you but they will make you pay and pay and PAY...right through the nose!!!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 7:24 AM in reply to Libertine

for god's sake. have you even bothered to read what's out there about what came out of the "gang of 10" negotiations? the part about an FEHB-like operation for the "rest of us"?

i am an FEHB participant and, after agency subsidies (and i believe subsidies will also be available people in the general population who can't afford to pay 100% of the premiums in the exchange), i pay about $90-$100 month in premiums for my entire family to get great coverage through blue cross blue shield. that's about $1 per person per day in my family. oh, and by the way, the plans in my FEHB menu (or "exchange") are NOT nonprofit. now imagine extending that, but taking away the margin between profit and nonprofit, through the exchange, to all the under- and uninsured in this country.

sorry, but from where i sit, that's a pretty good damned deal for the country. is it the BEST thing possible? i have no idea, but the odds are that it probably isn't. so what? it's still Good.

this thread is really disheartening to me. many of you really sound as shrill and dogmatically hateful/alarmist as the loonies on the right with their teabags, anti-american investigations, and their front porches that face russia.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Mtnrad

December 9, 2009 12:03 PM in reply to nova voter

My family is in FEHB also. On average, the agency employer pays roughly 2/3 of the total premium. My question: how much of the cost of the premium in the new FEHB-like exchange will be subsidized. It's unclear to me at this point whether it will be as affordable as the same coverage is to an employee under the actual FEHB.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

warbaby

December 9, 2009 2:14 AM

The part that concerns me is there is only one bite at this apple. Once any bill this fundamental passes, it will only get minor tinkering. There's no going back and fixing, only twiddling the knobs a little.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

December 9, 2009 3:26 AM in reply to warbaby

I wouldn't be so sure of that. What we have heard so far of the structure of this strikes me as quite open to major expansions. This could possibly be a very solid first step. Granted, this particular bill doesn't actually take us far down the road, but it strikes me as possibly a very good starting point.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/08/senate-sinks-abortion-ame_n_384846.html

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Mikael99

December 9, 2009 4:24 AM

What happened to the state program based on Wash State that would be reimbursed by the federal government and cost 60$ per person monthly.

And people within 300 percent of poverty would be eligible for a program pushed by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) modeled on her state's Basic Health. Cantwell is not one of the ten in the meetings but has stopped by to brief negotiators.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Mikael99

December 9, 2009 4:26 AM

http://www.basichealth.hca.wa.gov/ did they axe it already

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Angellight

December 9, 2009 5:40 AM

It is very disappointing to see the Power the Insurance Companies have on many senators in the Senate. There is not much we can do at this time but cut our losses and remember Who those Senators are who care more for the Insurance Cos., than the people they represent, and Vote them out come their turn to run again. There must be retrubition for their failure to do what is right for the people. However, I do believe Sen Reid had the power to do a Reconciliation and I am disappointed that he did not have the Courage to take that road!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

December 9, 2009 6:56 AM

This sounds like an utter capitulation to the insurance companies and the Conservadems The anti-government ideologues have prevented direct government involvement in American health care. That was always what the battle was all about. Progressives got a couple of shiny toys that will likely break down in a couple of years and insurance companies get millions more guaranteed customers. No Health Insurance Company Left Behind. Congratulations to Obama and the Democrats. I'm sure you have the energy industry quaking in its boots.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Kris1956

December 9, 2009 7:22 AM

This is not finished, not even spoken openly about yet, all of we do is a speculation.
Yes, Obama is the puddle of big PHARMA so, is Summers and others. And yes, even seemingly strong Reid is just another poodle on the leash. We DO NOT have representation as we thought we will by voting for those greedy gems of society. Yes, LET'S RETRIBUTE IN UPCOMING ELECTIONS. DO NOT VOTE FOR A SINGLE ONE OF THEM, PLEASE. I WILL NOT VOTE FOR THAT PRICK NELSON, EVEN IF I THE ADMINISTRATION takes me to STILL OPEN GUANTAMO!!!!.
So, what that I will be 55 next year. Should that comfort me? NO, there will be millions of working and more working moms and dads with two or three jobs and they still will NOT have insurance for themselves nor their kids.
Where the f*****ck is the America of mom in the kitchen and the house with two cars from 50's?
In White House, in lobby (yes the one where you wait before you will get your room) so, hey, let's party. Assholes won.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Kris1956

December 9, 2009 7:26 AM

This is not finished, not even spoken openly about yet, all of we do is a speculation.
Yes, Obama is the puddle of big PHARMA so, is Summers and others. And yes, even seemingly strong Reid is just another poodle on the leash. We DO NOT have representation as we thought we will by voting for those greedy gems of society. Yes, LET'S RETRIBUTE IN UPCOMING ELECTIONS. DO NOT VOTE FOR A SINGLE ONE OF THEM, PLEASE. I WILL NOT VOTE FOR THAT PRICK NELSON, EVEN IF I THE ADMINISTRATION takes me to STILL OPEN GUANTAMO!!!!.
So, what that I will be 55 next year. Should that comfort me? NO, there will be millions of working and more working moms and dads with two or three jobs and they still will NOT have insurance for themselves nor their kids.
Where the f*****ck is the America of mom in the kitchen and the house with two cars from 50's?
In White House, in lobby (yes the one where you wait before you will get your room) so, hey, let's party. Assholes won.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

rscarcpac

December 9, 2009 9:10 AM in reply to Kris1956

I agree that voting for nelson or letting a republican win won't change many things. But in the primaries is there nothing you can do ? And Obama is not responsible for the senators and representatives nor for the constitution nor for the filibuster rule.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

david1225

December 9, 2009 10:22 AM in reply to Kris1956

Time for your meds.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

BigDaddyRich

December 9, 2009 7:41 AM

For all the naysayers and gloom purveyors who are declaring the compromise to be the end of HCR, read Ezra Klein's take on it: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/the_team_of_10_reaches_a_deal.html?hpid=topnews

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Alex39

December 9, 2009 8:44 AM in reply to BigDaddyRich

I agree that Klein's take is persuasive.

But you've got to remember that the FDL crew decided several months ago that Klein was a sell-out. He's not going to convince people who are really wedded to an apocalyptic view of this issue.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AdAbsurdum

December 9, 2009 9:50 AM in reply to Alex39

Krugman will also be conveniently disregarded by many. Linking to this post, his reaction is:

No public option, but a trigger which is unlikely to be pulled. But some good stuff in exchange: nonprofit plans available through the exchanges, plus Medicare buy-ins for the 55-65 set (me! me! me!).
If this is the final plan, it’s better than most of us were expecting — and definitely good enough to go with.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

masanf

December 9, 2009 10:40 AM in reply to AdAbsurdum

Krugman will be conveniently disregarded? Since when did Paul Krugman become THE indispensible last-word on everything? The guy would do anything to paint any bill as a victory if he thought it helped Obama and the Democratic Party. He is a not a disinterested analyzer of fact, he is a hyperpartisan.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Signalman

December 10, 2009 10:34 AM in reply to masanf

Well, it takes a hyperpartisan to know a hyperpartisan.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Heretic

December 9, 2009 7:49 AM

A mandate without subsidies or negotiated rates puts an unbearable burden on the poor and unemployed and lines the pockets of insurance and pharm companies. Anyone who thinks otherwise has their head up Obama's ass. If medicare was further expanded or a non-profit option was triggered, things would change. Sadly, the dems will be out of power before the trigger takes effect (and moderates would block it when the time comes anyway). Just another futile waste of time, like cap and trade, the bogus stimulus package, the bailouts, etc. All of these half-assed measures reinforce corporate power and do little or nothing for the people or the environment. I voted for Obama, but if this is change, I would rather see him fail. If government is going to do the wrong thing, I am with the repugs. I would rather it do nothing at all.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

December 9, 2009 8:00 AM in reply to Heretic

I agree. Kill the Bill.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

hollywood

December 9, 2009 7:53 AM

The assholes always win in America. The banks are bailed out and profitable. The rest of us suffer and pay for it. As a people we are stupid and agree to complete bullshit. We could dump the slave states and progress but fat chance of that. America is so fucked over. Corporations rule forever.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Lucieann

December 9, 2009 8:09 AM

I am so very disappointed by this caving-in once again by the wimpy-assed Democrats! When Harry Reid got on the floor of the Senate and condemned the Republicans and obstructionists within the Democratic Party as well by comparing this legislation to slavery and womens rights I thought Reid acted courageously, and thought we had a chance to get what most of us want...a strong public option....but, given that none of us really know what this so-called "deal" entails, what is known is that Harry Reid and the Democrats capitulated yet again. I don't buy this "has to go to the CBO" stuff either. If this public-private partnership and "trigger" needs to be scored, it should have been done long ago because all this stuff is not new....this is nothing but a cop-out, as well as a "bail-out" for the insurance companies, to go along with the pharmaceutical bailout known as Medicare Part D. So much for having this dine by Christmas!!!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Kris1956

December 9, 2009 8:14 AM

Just a side note to remind myself. I WON'T VOTE for best PR stunt like Obama's on Twitter etc....
What happened to gov like the one back in the day when governing on Hill people had their own business and after the work for the nation that they performed as a SERVICE they went home and run their plumbing, electrical etc.. companies.
Today's Congressman/Senator has fat paycheck from taxpayer's money health insurance, wealth, kids following their steps, almost inheritance jobs on the Hill. They have lifetime job on the Hill. Every educated democratic country has term or two for this job. WE allow those pricks to sit there for lifetime so, they get caught like the Senate Majority in NY at 80 after he fattened up his family's coffer and even won't pay for it as he has to many friends in high places.
Who authorized Obama to put Summers at the steering wheel. To put one of the biggest schemers who run hedge fund for 170 thousands plus a day??? in economy that was folding like house from cards?
Who the hell are WE today? Bunch of marionettes that are led by nose?
Men, that sucks?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

theone718

December 9, 2009 8:23 AM

The regulations state Insurance companies must spend 90%% of ALL premium money on actual health care. That's a number even higher than the House. This is..........interesting...

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

make

December 9, 2009 8:40 AM

There are some interesting things here. This maybe a better bill than what was left of the public option before

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

December 9, 2009 8:44 AM in reply to make

Oh, please. This is a piece of crap. No Health Insurance Company Left Behind. An utter failure to reform the nation's health care system at a time of maximum power for the Democratic Party and urgent need for the country. That is called FAILURE! What a pathetic, disgraceful, spineless capitulation by Obama and the Democrats. The Democratic Party is hopeless. I'm investigating the Green Party. Maybe it's time to try to make a Progressive Party work. I am convinced that it CAN be done. In any event, I'm not wasting my time or money on Democrats any further. Kill the Bill.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

rscarcpac

December 9, 2009 9:04 AM in reply to wbgonne

I agree with you on the piece of crap.
But, is there no way to make the democratic party a progressive party by means of using your time and money in the primaries? There are already real progressives in the party, isn't it ?
Also maybe it's a capitulation before making the public option in a separate law with the budget reconciliation process. (I must be too optimistic here)

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

December 9, 2009 9:12 AM in reply to rscarcpac

I don't think so. I was disillusioned with the two-party system before Obama entered the scene but, against my better judgment, I allowed myself to believe -- yet again -- that the two-party system might actually work. But it didn't. And it doesn't. And it won't. I truly think part of the problem is the number two: It makes our political system into a sporting match with people just picking sides and fighting each other mindlessly. Meanwhile, the Oligarchs who really run the country just get richer. They have bought the Republican Party outright and they own enough Democrats in the Senate to render that party impotent. This must change. Why can't a third party work?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

rscarcpac

December 9, 2009 9:27 AM in reply to wbgonne

You can't have a third party because you have a one turn uninominal election.

There's only one way to change the way things are, given your constitution. It's to change people's minds. People should realize that right now, government is a good thing for them because it's the only thing that can protect them from big corporations.

This will never happen so just do what you can (in the ideological battle) and wait for the next revolution.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

December 9, 2009 9:31 AM in reply to rscarcpac

"one turn uninominal election"

Huh? There is nothing about political parties -- two, three or twenty -- in the Constitution.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

rscarcpac

December 9, 2009 9:48 AM in reply to wbgonne

I mean that with your system it's too risky to be divided.
With runoff elections, for example, things could be different. They are in France where we have many different viable parties.

But that doesn't solve all the problems. You just have to look at our president. The people is too confused by the media and by its own stupidity. These are the limits of democracy.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

December 9, 2009 9:53 AM in reply to rscarcpac

Ture enough. But what we need is a viable political party PUSHING the conversation in the right direction. THe current Democratic Party HATES its own progressive base.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

rscarcpac

December 9, 2009 10:08 AM in reply to wbgonne

Yes, they are torn apart between their base and the need for money from big corporations. This will be the same problem with any progressive party, given the money you have to spend to have an efficient campaign. The republican party on the contrary has none of these problems it's base is all for the big corporations (even if they don't think they are).

The problem is that if the new viable party results in the division of the left you'll lose elections. For me the best way to push the discussion in the right direction is to chose the most progressive candidate in all the primaries and that those candidates actually speak their minds and try to convince people instead of trying to agree with everyone.

Another point is that the filibuster rule is really something totally silly. I'm sure you'd be happy with a bill that would be voted by only fifty senators and Joe Biden. And because of this filibuster rule, noone in the senate can afford to be too vehement against the likes of Ben Nelson. It's possible that the budget reconciliation procedure could not lead to a satisfying bill either because the law would have to be phrased in a certain way but I really don't know enough about it.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

December 9, 2009 9:33 AM in reply to rscarcpac

"one turn uninominal election"

Huh? There is nothing about political parties -- two, three or twenty -- in the Constitution. Most of the Founders, Madison for one, were vehemently opposed to political parties altogether.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

geezerpk

December 9, 2009 9:09 AM in reply to make

I agree. At this point, it's probably the best outcome that could reasonably be expected. It's probably not a slam dunk for passage, but it has the earmarks of something that could get enough traction to make it through. It really falls short of a complete solution, but it opens some very real cracks in the insurance/pharma/providers barricade. I was an advocate of the Medicare for All solution from the get go. The opening of Medicare for an expanded age group to buy-in is a somewhat small, but important, step. Its success could lead to further expansion in following years. It's also something that can be implemented relatively quickly and have early results to trumpet. (Caveat: I must admit a bias here, as my wife is in the 55-65 age group who's been shut out of major medical coverage.)

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

December 9, 2009 9:17 AM in reply to geezerpk

"the best outcome that could reasonably be expected"

Just why is that? The American public overwhelmingly wanted a public option. The Democratic Party platform is practically based upon universal health care. The Democrats control the House, the Senate and the White House. If this is the best they can do, then they are utterly dysfunctional and not deserving of support. This bill is garbage and a waste of time. All it will do is retard real reform while millions of Americans are ordered to buy health insurance from the very health insurance companies that are sucking the system dry.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

geezerpk

December 9, 2009 11:07 AM in reply to geezerpk

"All it will do is retard real reform"

I don't think so, and am willing to take the chance. If the whole baby is thrown out at this point, it may be another 15 years before the subject gets any proper treatment again. Are you willing to take that chance? I say have a little faith in incrementalism. Social Security, or Medicare itself wasn't a fully developed chick when it was hatched was it?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

the_rob_bot

December 9, 2009 9:01 AM

There is zero chance of for-profit health insurance companies running non-profit insurance plans that would be competitive with their other products. They are getting a gift here, not getting fucked.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

EvanR

December 9, 2009 9:05 AM

I'm not going to go off the deep end and talk angry self-defeating nonsense about voting for third parties or being done with Democrats or Obama. I reject all of that. But one aspect of this compromise that really upsets me is the pathetically low income limit under which Americans can buy into Medicaid. The poverty line in this country is shamefully low -- not at all reflective of how much it costs to scrape by -- to subsist. I realize there will eventually be subsidies tied to income that will supposedly help the miserably struggling lower middle class and the slightly more stable people in brackets above -- so many of whom are now out of work, being evicted, losing the home they tried hard to afford, exhausting the minimal assistance of family, etc. There are a lot of good things in these bills. Getting even this to a final vote in each chamber would still be a major historical breakthrough. But how typical is it that, when push comes to shove, the better off and middle-age will get their early medicare buy-in and the poor and near-poor will get virtually nothing. I am all for the expanded access to medicare for somewhat younger, uninsured Americans -- even though that won't even be subsidized for a few years. But the near-impoverished and working poor have been cut out of any access for affordable health care all along. Getting them preventative care and a routine, affordable trip to the doctor -- not a near-death, frightened and, for the rest of us, insanely expensive, rush to emergency room -- is, to me, a large part of why health care reform was such a compelling need in the first place. And of course it was thrown away in the compromise.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

December 9, 2009 9:07 AM

"I'm not going to go off the deep end and talk angry self-defeating nonsense about voting for third parties or being done with Democrats or Obama."

And THAT is precisely why the Democrats do what they just did.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Indie Pro

December 9, 2009 9:18 AM in reply to wbgonne

yep.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Indie Pro

December 9, 2009 9:21 AM

American People lose

Industry wins

and the democrats win that sweet sweet money from the industry

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

December 9, 2009 9:24 AM in reply to Indie Pro

What do you think of the Green Party? I know it's far from competitive right now but it's time to start moving in a different direction.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Indie Pro

December 9, 2009 9:38 AM in reply to wbgonne

I'm a candidate person, not a party person. I've worked for many greens.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

December 9, 2009 9:42 AM in reply to Indie Pro

So am I. But the problem is that right now the only viable national candidates are within the two-party system that no longer works. In fact, I think the two-party system PREVENTS good candidates from doing good things. Obama was a good candidate, the best I've seen in years, and look what is happening now. So how, then, do we get good candidates elected OUTSIDE of the two-party system.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Indie Pro

December 9, 2009 9:56 AM in reply to wbgonne

it's a tough job, no doubt. As the democratic and the republican parties race to the right, I think a natural progression is another party coming up.

I definitely don't return to candidates that betray my basic values.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 11:19 AM in reply to Indie Pro

PLEASE! Healthcare reform, climate change bill, end of drug war, trying terrorists in civilian court. Obama is the most liberal president since FDR and thank God for it. That's why Republicans are so furious.

But I guess anyone right of Stalin is "too conservative" for some of you bleeding hearts.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Indie Pro

December 9, 2009 11:26 AM in reply to ilovebacon

I wish you apologists would make up your minds whether Obama is a pragmatic centrist or a liberal. I guess he's what ever makes you feel warm and fuzzy at the time.

He's a DLC US Centrist, which puts him right of center.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

rscarcpac

December 9, 2009 9:30 AM in reply to Indie Pro

But the lose the election. So if they're happy with money to finance their campaign but lose the election, it means that the money goes more in their pockets than in the campaign.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Indie Pro

December 9, 2009 9:40 AM in reply to rscarcpac

All I know is the words of the democratic party, and its leadership areseem hollow and empty. They are the problem now.

The words of progressives in the House andn Senate seem hollow and empty.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Steve LaBonne

December 9, 2009 9:25 AM

I'm a certified DFH who loves to bash blindly loyal Dems, but I'll take this IF (and only if) the Medicare buyin survives. Expansion of Medicare has always been my preferred approach. It's as least as great a longterm threat to the stranglehold of the insurance companies as the kinds of public options that have been realistically under discussion, and it will immediately help a lot of people who are getting screwed on the individual-policy market.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

December 9, 2009 9:29 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne

Here's the thing: Anything that REALLY WORKS will be stripped from the bill. That is exactly what has been happening since the beginning of this hideous process. So now we have No Health Insurance Company Left Behind, just like the health industry wanted all along.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Steve LaBonne

December 9, 2009 9:33 AM in reply to wbgonne

Well, I'll reserve my ire until that actually happens. And if the Medicare buyin does somehow manage to survive I will consider that to be really significant progress.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

December 9, 2009 9:38 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne

Fair enough. If Medicare is expanded (or even opened) to all Americans 55+ that will indeed be good. But that is NOT going to happen. Not without exceptions, provisos, time-limits and other poison pills that will render the effort meaningless. That is my point. The Dems have caved and will do whatever the Conservadems want. Period. If it turns out I am wrong I'll say so.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Steve LaBonne

December 9, 2009 9:43 AM in reply to wbgonne

Trust me, I'm the last one to ever say that's an unlikely possibility. But the whole idea of Medicare expansion did after all somehow resurface out of nowhere, so you never know. I won't give up hope until I have to.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

December 9, 2009 9:45 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne

Yes, we must carry on one way or the other.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

T Groan

December 9, 2009 9:57 AM in reply to wbgonne

You're right on the money. Nothing will be done that negatively impacts corporate profits. Obama and the democrat party are as owned as any republican.

'Change you can believe in', what a joke!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

DownriverDem

December 9, 2009 9:32 AM

I do not want to hear any whining in 2010 when the Dems lose seats. Those who worked their buns off to get the Dems and Obama elected will just sit on their hands in 2010.

Why? They feel betrayed.

Thanks a lot, Dem Senators!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Skybolt

December 9, 2009 9:32 AM

You don't evaluate these things based on what you imagine could have been done under the circumstances. A bill that passes is by definition the bill that could have been passed given the law and the elected officials involved. According to this approach, nothing Obama signs could possibly be a failure.

You evaluate these things based on what should have been done. The House and Senate have it within their power to create a single-payer or socialized medicine system and begin a rapid phase-in immediately. Anything short of that causes unnecessary, completely preventable suffering and death. There is no reason to celebrate the potential passage of a bill that literally kills people.

Could it have been worse? Yes -- in that the U.S. government could have failed even more thoroughly than it appears it is going to fail. But it is still a failure, and people will still die as a result, and it is strange and unfortunate that some people want to celebrate on the basis that some other bill might have caused even more deaths.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

CranialRectalLoopback

December 9, 2009 9:40 AM

PO is out as triggers never fire unless it's Cheney pulling the trigger on his lawyer friend.

December 9, 2009 10:15 AM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

david1225

The only thing I can think of that has less of a chance of solving our health care problems than the "public option" is the expansion of Medicare. This is a system that cannot even pay the cost of medical care for existing participants, and is on a trajectory towards bankruptcy. Are they nuts?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

masanf

December 9, 2009 10:40 AM in reply to david1225

Shhhh, keep it down, lest you get labelled a troll.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Dorn76

December 9, 2009 1:07 PM in reply to masanf

Might steal your thunder.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Signalman

December 10, 2009 10:33 AM in reply to masanf

Is it *possible* for you to be honest? The word is "conservatroll." Please try harder.

December 9, 2009 10:41 AM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

susanthe

That thudding sound you hear is the Senate Dems, dropping to their knees to fellate Big Insurance and BIg Pharma.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 10:50 AM in reply to susanthe

C'mon. We are actually on the verge of a historic healthcare reform. Though not perfect, it's a huge achievement. Think back to when Clinton tried it. And it really is the GOP that is "fellating" Big Insurance and Pharma, along with 4 or 5 Dems. So why not blame the GOP for obstruction since they are 95% of the opposition?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

December 9, 2009 10:57 AM in reply to ilovebacon

Sorry. The Democrats can make me eat a shit sandwich but they can't make me enjoy it.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 11:04 AM in reply to wbgonne

What about the Republicans?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

December 9, 2009 11:31 AM in reply to ilovebacon

I didn't vote for the Republicans so I have no expectations for them.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

T Groan

December 9, 2009 10:57 AM in reply to susanthe

You're absolutely right. Watch out for the kool aid drinkers here though. Their devotion to obama and the democrat party is only matched by their complete delusion.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Indie Pro

December 9, 2009 11:09 AM in reply to T Groan

yep!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Dorn76

December 9, 2009 1:19 PM in reply to T Groan

Ideology seems to make others equally delusional.

December 9, 2009 10:47 AM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

masanf

Interesting to see how people who are making a huge fuss about how terrible this bill is will react if Joe Lieberman filibusters it because of the public option, like he promised he would many, many times. It seems the trigger was included because they knew they would never be able to completely get rid of the public option and still win enough liberal votes and thus are gambling they can get the vote of Snowe, given the filibuster promise by Lieberman.

December 9, 2009 10:58 AM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Eric Jaffa

The insurance company has wanted to sell nationally without state regulations for decades.

It's ridiculous to say, unless they offer national plans, we'll punish them with a public option.

The insurance company is GETTING A GIFT be being allowed to offer plans immune to state regulation.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Indie Pro

December 9, 2009 11:10 AM in reply to Eric Jaffa

it'll be interesting to see what "regulations" will be in place for this. My guess, very little, of little teeth or bite.

December 9, 2009 11:11 AM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

DKDC

I hope there is enough Kleenex in the world to dry the spittle from all of your frenzied lips...

December 9, 2009 11:15 AM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

cranky

What IS "Medical Insurance?" Remind me again, WHY do I need it?
These "Medical Insurance Providers" must survive and thrive at any cost to Americans? Will life as we know it cease to exist if this "industry" ceases to exist? Isn't "industry" the practice of making something? What do these people "make?" Would anyone else like to see representative government, Constitutional Republic, Liberal Democracy, or any reasonable facsimile, happen in America?

I say we storm the dang Bastille.

December 9, 2009 11:31 AM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

matt in so dak

My disappointment is overwhelming.

My father is 63, retired due to health issues and uninsured. He had to take early retirement through Social Security at 62 and so he receives only about $1100 per month. At that level of income he qualified in our stupid red state for no housing assistance, no medicaid and a whopping $16 dollars a month in food stamps. So he had attempt to reenter the job market and get a part time job just to keep the heat turned on (he didn't qualify for reduced rates). 133% percent of the poverty line does not help him - not in this state. And an unsubsidized buy-in into medicare is unaffordable for someone like him. I urged him to vote for HRC, but he had to go vote Obama.

My wife and I would help out, but we are both recently unemployed. I am doing day labor to pay the bills since my company successfully fought unemployment insurance - I love living in a red state. Some crap about I could have taken a 50% cut in hours and a 75% cut in pay, so I wasn't REALLY laid off. Luckily my wife can get medicaid and maybe some food stamps. Of course if I make too much at day labor she'll lose that. We lost our health care because COBRA is unaffordable. I urged her to vote for HRC, but she had to go vote Obama.

I wonder if I'll still be fined if I don't buy health care. F that and f the sob's that vote for it.

Thank you President Obama for using the wave of support for you from your election to really work hard to get real health care reform. Instead you let a few conservadems run the show in the Senate while you have remained silent. I didn't expect you to do different - you didn't close Gitmo, you extended FISA, you blocked the release of abuse photos, you haven't gotten us out of Iraq, you're sending more young men and women to die in Afghanistan, etc. etc. - come to think of it though, you did win the Nobel Peace Prize. Guess that'll have to do for now.

Filibuster rules can be rewritten with only 51 votes. Look it up. 50 liberals plus Biden could have changed the country. Instead we get this steaming pile of crap. I hope the bill out of conference doesn't reek this bad....

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Dorn76

December 9, 2009 1:06 PM in reply to matt in so dak

So it's the President's fault that the rules in the Senate are from the 19th century? You've heard of Separation of Powers, yes?

I'm sorry your pony wasn't in the bill.

And nice Obama = Bush list. Cherry picked and myopic, but nice.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 11:38 AM

This bill looks surprisingly good (from what I can see).

December 9, 2009 12:40 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Juble

If the bill is so good why are they keeping it a secret ?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

hollywood

December 9, 2009 1:11 PM

When the Supreme Court appointed Bush over Gore even though Gore had half a million more votes nationally, and would have won Florida in a recount ...... I truly realized that America is not a democracy at all. For the first time in my adult life it sunk in what a completely rigged game we all were playing.

Now with the "compromise" on healthcare, literally the life and death of millions of Americans, I again have that same feeling of how utterly and completely this America I was born in is just a big fucking lie. The country is owned and run by rich conservative motherfuckers who absolutely do not give a shit what a democracy should be. Most people want a public option but the insurance corporations say "fuck what you want" and we get what they give us.

I hate this pretend democracy. I hate it.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Dorn76

December 9, 2009 1:14 PM

Riddle me this, if this bill is such a horrific handout to the Insurers and the Democrats have sold their own mothers to enact it, why is every Republican in the Senate terrified that it might pass?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

December 9, 2009 1:44 PM in reply to Dorn76

Um, because they might be playing politics. Just a guess.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Eric Jaffa

December 9, 2009 1:22 PM

Brian Beutler -

Will any uninsured person 55-64 be allowed to buy-into Medicare after 2011?

December 10, 2009 10:21 AM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Signalman

"I never even once asked that question or anything like it,"

Irrelevant, since I made no claim that *you* had. Go back and re-read my comment. Oh, wait, you *admit* at the end of your post that you knew I wasn't talking about *you.* Clearly I am expecting too great a level of honesty from you.

"so you clearly have me mixed up with someone else."

Not in the least. Take off your faux poutrage, go back and reread the comment, and then come back here and ask me to clarify if you still don't understand. I'll be glad to break it down for you and lead you through it in terms that you're more likely to be able to understand.

"Amazing how asking a simple question can get one labelled a troll here."

Please work on your reading comprehension. I did not label you a "troll." I labeled you a "conservatroll." And I stand by that claim, which is supported by your extensive and conservatrollish posting history here. In other words, if the shoe fits, wear it.

Furthermore, from what I can tell, you only ask *leading* questions, which doesn't just make you a troll -- it also makes you willfully misrepresentative and quite possibly dishonest. If you're really here for polite discourse and for adult discussion, then act like it and drop the 'gotcha' attitude.

"As for non-profits, they are already the mechanism that covers a large portions of Americans (Blue Cross anyone), and I seem to recall premiums increasing still, don't you."

That can be addressed quite easily. I have long been a proponent of (and I agree with recent Congressional discussions in this area) to apply a public-utility corporate model to *all* private health insurers. Allow them to do all the business that they want, but place them under a public utility commission that can set their rates *and* their profit schedule. If the commission says they can only make an 8% profit, then I'd say the insurer has to make some hard decisions about how much they're going to pay their investors and how much they're going to pay their executives.

"Non-profits will do absolutely nothing, at all, to lower premiums and that has been proven now for decades."

I think you're confusing *raw premium cost* (in constantly inflating dollars) and *absolute premium cost* (in dollars adjusted over time for inflation). If you have any actual numbers in this area upon which you're basing your claims, then I'd like to see them. *All* costs inflate over time; that's the nature of our monetary policy. Perhaps you could show us the rate of increase of nonprofit health care insurers' premiums *when adjusted for inflation* over the last 30 years or so? Hmm? You up for that?

"But hey, go on and insulut me for something that others "like me" have written."

And here's where you make it obvious that you *knew* that I was writing about people *like you,* but not *actually you," contrary to your kabuki hissy-fit earlier. Not only are you a troll, but you're dishonest as well. C'est la vie.

December 10, 2009 10:43 AM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

jwoolman

We need real numbers, since Congress seems to have delusions about how much money the rest of us actually have... Any plan that is not firmly linked to our actual income will be rather useless to us, which is why it makes so much sense to have it tax-based with clear percentages of real income rather than the intolerable mess we have now.

I'm self-employed and am paying more than $7300 per year for insurance with a $5000 deductible (which I will have to borrow at high interest if anything happens, no cushion left after a medical misadventure two years ago). The economy has put my real income in the toilet, so that represents 22% of my GROSS income (before any business or the standard deduction) and 36% of my real personal income after business deductions (which are bare-bones, no car or entertainment expenses etc.). If I were Australian, I would be paying 2% of my income for health care and wouldn't have to go into debt for $5000 before the national insurance kicks in.

When we are sick and unable to work or unemployed for any other reason - our income disappears but our insurance premiums march on just at the time we need access to health care. Plus once you have made any claims, the insurance premiums rapidly rise. The premiums also skyrocket as we get older - just the opposite of what normal countries do. None of this makes any sense for a real insurance pool, but only for a profit-making business with a captive collection of customers.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Tosh

June 6, 2010 5:49 AM

Big River I agree entirely, Politics has/is always been a game of strategy. LBJ and FDR, as you say knew that, but under today's totally partisan 24/7 Cyber cycle every set back is mourned as a defeat, every minor gain trumpeted as a major victory. When this bill passes any progress made will be diluted by the partisan bickering of the 24 hour news cycle. The real point here is that a major healthcare bill will be enacted probably within a year of Obama being elected. Imperfect yes, Impossible to implement perhaps, but it will be on the books, a building block towards a better system for all. Progressive legislation will have passed through Congress. The lobbyists wanted nothing to happen and may have inserted enough language to assuage their bosses but it will remain a fact that healthcare reform passed and the country, teabaggers notwithstanding, had a proper debate about a system that is failing most and needs to cover many.

m65 kamagra