TPMDC
Obama to Progressives: 31 Million People--And My Presidency--Are On The Line If Health Care Fails
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
Share
Send to a friend!
President Obama's message to progressives who are dissatisfied with the Senate health care bill is two fold: First: Don't forget about the uninsured. Second: Don't forget what failure to pass this bill would do to the party and my presidency.
In a meeting with House progressives today, Obama made the pitch.
Speaking to reporters in the Speaker's lobby off the House floor, Congressional Progressive Caucus Co-Chair Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) said the President reminded them that "If this opportunity passes, much of our agenda, on the progressive side...it would be difficult, if not impossible for a generation to get back to this issue."
I asked if the message was convincing to those in attendance.
"It's pretty compelling," Grijalva said.
That's a significant change from his tone earlier in the week, when Grijalva said he was inclined to vote against the bill from the left.
Obama reminded the assembled Democrats that doing nothing would be politically disastrous. "To maintain a strong presidency we need to pass this bill," the President said, according to Grijalva.
Progressives aren't without demands of their own. They are looking for all assurances that the Senate bill won't pass without a companion reconciliation bill amending it. Obama assured the members he sees the two bills as companions.
"We don't want to get trapped voting for the Senate bill as is without a full understanding that what he signs, and comes to his desk, are the two pieces of legislation, and the other part being the critical part being the reconciliation," Grijalva said.
Obama also apparently pledged to revisit the public option in the future.
Grijalva's account was echoed by Congressional Black Caucus chair Barbara Lee, who said the President reminded them: "31 million people will have health insurance as a result of this bill."
"Did the message resonate?" I asked.
"I think it resonates for a lot of people," Lee said.
Comments (258) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
chimpale
March 4, 2010 4:32 PM
Passing this would probably provide leverage in getting improvements passed after it. After all that the insurance companies and the Chamber of Commerce and right-wing groups across the country have spent trying to kill this, if it passes, are they going to keep pouring money into fighting every additional piece of health care legislation that comes along?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
March 4, 2010 4:39 PM in reply to chimpale
I agree - it has come down to pass it now and improve it later. If not the corporations win one more. I'm not worried about the right wing - their opposition is more political than substantive - once people see some improvements they will be forced to back off. But I don't think the insurance companies will cave so easily; they are riding the gravy train and will fight like hell to stay on board. That's why it has to pass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
March 4, 2010 4:43 PM in reply to Powkat
Yes, that's the whole point. This is just the beginning -- it's got to start somewhere.
Get. It. Done!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
March 4, 2010 7:25 PM in reply to geofu54
Amen. Get It Done. NOW!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
March 4, 2010 9:38 PM in reply to Powkat
You're, of course, referring to the improvements that will come in 2014? After the Dems and Obama are gone?
Then my insurance will get WORSE! YAY!
And count me and my wife out as ever voting Dem again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
March 5, 2010 2:13 AM in reply to DA in LA
Bye!
I am doubling down on Obama. He is a smart guy. He is pragmatic. His heart is in the right place.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SFCWallace
March 5, 2010 11:24 AM in reply to hollywood
"He is a smart guy. He is pragmatic. His heart is in the right place..."
LMAO! Just what you need running an ACORN office...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
March 5, 2010 9:03 AM in reply to Powkat
The insurance companies WIN either way, the question is why pin this on progressives, we didnt get a damn thing in the bill and the senate is full of scumbags who can't be trusted.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 5, 2010 12:16 PM in reply to madmatt
You got that right. These whining Dem apologists know their side is intellectually bankrupt. Classic move when you are cornered.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 4, 2010 4:42 PM in reply to chimpale
"Passing this would probably provide leverage in getting improvements passed after it."
Of course it will. Medicare was originally passed in a much weaker form than the program we see today. Ditto for SSI. That's the way big changes like this have to get done. It's too big a leap to get it all done at once.
The opposite is also most assuredly true. Failing to pass this would certainly kill any attempt at health care reform for a generation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tytester
March 4, 2010 5:40 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
The comparison to Medicare does not hold water. Neither in its conception nor afterward has ever Medicare mandated people to buy products and services from private companies. The only thing that can "improve" later is the mandate penalty - because the 2.5% penalty in the Senate bill is simply not enough to make people buy insurance. To put it differently, it will be a lot cheaper for a lot of people (i.e., the substantial portion of the 31 million uninsured) to pay 2.5% of their income to the IRS every year (instead of 8% of their income for health insurance) and to buy insurance only when they need it. Hence, the insurance companies will scream bloody murder, and continue to raise rates for this reason.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mateo123
March 4, 2010 8:37 PM in reply to tytester
Yes, I agree. The answer is a more robust penalty for people who refuse to buy insurance. The only way rates go down, as I see it under this bill, is when enough of us are in the pool. That only happens if healthy people pay for health insurance instead of paying the penalty.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
March 5, 2010 9:09 AM in reply to Mateo123
Did it ever occur to you that some people don't have 8% of their income to give to scumsucking Ins co's. Its the price and the bill does nothing about that! Pass this POS and it is a lifetime life support system for the Insurance companies...the bill fails and within a decade the insurance companies will of died from pricing themselves out of the market. Then they can be killed off like they do to us!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kgb999
March 4, 2010 5:14 PM in reply to chimpale
Dude, you are dreaming. The industry has been fighting tooth and nail to get this Senate POS through - ever since XMas. AHIP has been making pro-reform/pro-mandate ads for months. The only thing they are trying to kill is a public option. The rest of it achieves their "Holy Grail" (their term).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 4, 2010 5:19 PM in reply to kgb999
>>AHIP has been making pro-reform/pro-mandate ads for months.>>
Really? I've never seen one of those ads. Can you link to one, please? I'll wait .. ...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kgb999
March 4, 2010 5:30 PM in reply to FreeRider
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R36YJl8SagU
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 4, 2010 5:36 PM in reply to kgb999
THAT, my friend, was from early last summer--long, long before AHIP dropped out of the HCR negotiations and actively started trying to torpedo HCR.
Do try to keep up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kgb999
March 4, 2010 5:59 PM in reply to FreeRider
Actually, most of AHIP's ads appear to have been produced about that time period (including the ones attacking the public option). You do realize that you can still buy air time long after an ad has been produced, right?
The "Illness" one was up in January for certain and also used in several bulk email campaigns (where I encountered it).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dudeguy
March 4, 2010 5:38 PM in reply to kgb999
Dude. That's from last July. That can't be a reflection on the Senate bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 4, 2010 5:33 PM in reply to kgb999
Did you miss this?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/exclusive_consulting_firm_says.html
I can certainly see why the insurance companies would be fighting for this bill, seeing as how they hate making money.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
March 4, 2010 7:46 PM in reply to chimpale
I agree. This is the first step and it is the hardest. Once we have a mandate it will be a piece of cake to pass the public option in a seperate bill later on especially if insurance rates continue to increase.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
March 4, 2010 9:40 PM in reply to expat46
Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Jesus. The delusion around here is outstanding.
This will cement a permanent and screwed up private insurance system forever.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jason Miller
March 5, 2010 6:41 AM in reply to DA in LA
Not true. Even with these insurance reforms, mandates and no "public option" more than 100 million Americans will remain in Medicare, Medicaid or some other government-provided health care.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 4, 2010 8:25 PM in reply to chimpale
Leverage? That's what they said about the antitrust exemption passed in 1945.
Face it guys. Without a PO and a 2010 start date, Dems are finished in 2010. Its the Scott Brown effect.
If they go down, you think these provisions are going to be added by Republicans?
Look, 135,000 people will die by 2014 WITHOUT A PUBLIC OPTION in place this year!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tommy Douglas
March 4, 2010 9:21 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
ALSO, if we went along the lines of the House bill that INCLUDES A PUBLIC OPTION, we would cover about 5 million more people than the Senate's bill. That's a lot of people. About the COMBINED population of Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, Delaware, and South Dakota.
The differences in these bills effects too many people. I wish OBAMA talked about the stories of these 5 million people today. These people NEED HELP too.
But I guess Rahm would feel bad if Obama broke the deals he made with the Health Care Industry::
http://dumprahm.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/rahm-and-the-back-room-deal-to-kill-the-public-option/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
roadmouth
March 5, 2010 9:59 AM in reply to chimpale
Oh foolish boob. Your measures are doomed, not because of right wing groups but instead a most salient point that Americans have not been able to accept. You are broke - you salaries are built on the backs of billions of under paid 3rd and 2nd world laborers. Your days of falsely inflating your own wealth were ended with the collapse of a real estate market buffoonery. You can pass health care, but you can't pay for it or any of the other outrageously overpriced social programs you have.
Here in Thailand when I go visit a doctor, you know what her fee is? 350 baht, which is about 12 dollars. Do you really think the MTV and Idol, set are going to work for those wages? Actually work and get an education. Your society is f**ked, enjoy!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mike from Arlington
March 4, 2010 4:34 PM
Brian, your headlines makes it sound as though Obama was concerned about him being President was equal to 31 million Americans getting insurance when he was arguing about the political capital of his presidency and its effectiveness for helping progressive legislation pass could be diminished.
Not sure if that is your intention but it sure seems like it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dudeguy
March 4, 2010 5:40 PM in reply to mike from Arlington
Well, he ought to be concerned. If he's out, some right wing loony will be in. You betcha.
Elections have some serious consequences.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 4, 2010 8:40 PM in reply to dudeguy
He and THEY better get their heads screwed on pretty quick about the PO and a 2010 start date.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CranialRectalLoopback
March 4, 2010 8:53 PM in reply to dudeguy
Really? I haven't seen any consequences ... except for the disillusionment of so many newcomers to the political arena. I HOPED he would CHANGE, but I can't BELIEVE in him anymore.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 4, 2010 6:37 PM in reply to mike from Arlington
I agree the article does that and no where does he say that. Another way of getting people to read stories - misleading headlines!!!!~
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
March 4, 2010 9:40 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Did you read the article or just the commentary?
Seems pretty accurate to me. It's a bleak political reality that's all. Obama should certainly bring this up when talking to his fellow politicians.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
March 5, 2010 9:16 AM in reply to ohyeathatsright
this is a life support system for insurance companies, nothing more. The people who can't afford insurance now will still be unable to buy anything but lousy policies with deductibles too high to be useful.
But those executive jets will keep on flying.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
March 5, 2010 3:00 PM in reply to madmatt
I happen to agree. Too bad single payer doesn't get a shake.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
March 4, 2010 10:13 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Obamagirl adds another vapid comment ...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oskieoskie
March 4, 2010 9:43 PM in reply to mike from Arlington
TPM headlines consistently suck. Just get used to it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barbara63
March 4, 2010 11:54 PM in reply to mike from Arlington
I was thinking the exact same thing, Arlington. I don't get TPM anymore. I think in trying to prove that they are non-partisan, they deliberately disparage Democrats. They also repeat Republican talking points verbatim and without criticism and they sometimes go out of their way to try to clear Republicans of wrong doing (today's story about the CA state senator, for example).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
March 4, 2010 4:35 PM
It's going to get done. Unless they let the deadline slip. Then all bets are are off. Do. It. Now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tpmreader
March 4, 2010 4:49 PM
I do not concur that there are so-called progressives as this Party and seemingly both Parties and many Presidencies have clearly and unmistakeably not upheld there Campaign Promises and expectations.
Many have seemingly as seemingly alleged violated and allegedly seemingly committed many high crimes and misdeamoners that have not been allowed to see the 'Oversight and Accountability' of 'light of day' as required, expected, mandated and/or implied in our Democratic US Constitution.
My view is that you have and must look back and to apply the proper respect and regard towards our Democratic US Constitution, Civil Rights and Declaration of Independence and seemingly to be intitled to progressive endeavors.
These so-called statements appear disappointing, ridiculous, non-sensical at best and hopefully not continuing fraud, waste and abuse, et-cetra.
Does it seemingly he suggests he and his Party should quit or just ignore the next 3 years ?? !!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 4, 2010 4:53 PM in reply to tpmreader
Easy for you to say.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
March 4, 2010 4:58 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
LOLOLOLOL!
FTW.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 4, 2010 5:00 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
{giggle}
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 4, 2010 5:22 PM in reply to FreeRider
More giggles......
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
March 4, 2010 6:15 PM in reply to lousgirl84
You two are like a couple of high school girls. Get a room.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 4, 2010 8:43 PM in reply to wbgonne
They happen to be in middle school.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
midnight rambler
March 4, 2010 5:27 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
Hard for us to read though.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
March 4, 2010 5:31 PM in reply to midnight rambler
ALMOST makes you yearn for the succinctness and clarity of Sailormarlowe. Well almost.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dal20402
March 4, 2010 4:56 PM in reply to tpmreader
Time to lay off the "special" mushrooms with lunch.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
leoklein
March 4, 2010 4:50 PM
Pass. The. Damn. Bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
March 4, 2010 5:29 PM in reply to leoklein
Amen!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
March 4, 2010 8:43 PM in reply to CityGuy
Stop eating raw pineal gland!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
March 4, 2010 4:55 PM
If Grijalva correctly characterized Obama's remarks, Obama is right that this might be the last shot for a generation. The history of health care reform shows the efforts that make any progress are roughly 15 year apart. If this bill fails, the next chance likely won't be until the 2020's. And it will be as tough a fight then as now, with all the same arguments realistic and made up, and probably the same bill resulting.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dal20402
March 4, 2010 4:57 PM in reply to ericf
Actually, it's worse. Each bill is weaker than the last. So in 15 years we'd end up with a bill doing next to nothing, but with the same vociferous opposition.
Pass the bill NOW!! The damn House needs to get off its duff and VOTE.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kgb999
March 4, 2010 5:23 PM in reply to dal20402
WTF. Democrats are such total losers. America is clearly in a sad spot when we're looking to the lamest and biggest wusses among us to save the day. America needs to kick your pathetic asses the fuck back out of office is what needs to happen. You fuckers are worthless.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 4, 2010 8:58 PM in reply to kgb999
The Democrats are indeed wusses if they fall for Obama's argument. Most of the Democrats in Congress will be back next session and what they choose to consider will be entirely up to them.
Further, since our system puts the cost of health care directly into products such as cars, business will be on their knees seeking to get help. Reducing our level of health care is unacceptable to voters who will see the results directly. One can even imagine a march of the uninsured onto Washington.
As a result the same pressures that brought about this attempt at providing insurance for almost all will remain as will the pressures for means of reducing health care costs -- the public option is one such. The major advantage is that the voters can fine tune the outcome by looking at who voted for what! As Blanche Lincoln is finding out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tytester
March 4, 2010 5:53 PM in reply to ericf
It is not true that this is the last shot for HC bill for a generation. If left alone, the health care system will collapse on its own in 5 to 10 years. All the signs are there, you just have to open your eyes. The inflection point will come when the big business turns against the insurance companies - for now, the insurance companies are keeping the premium increases for group insurance of big businesses relatively low, but absent any changes this will change very soon as the insurance companies will not be able to suck a lot more profit from the individual and small business insurance market (see the 39% rate hike by Wellpoint in CA.) And what will come to pass when the big business turns against the insurance companies is a guess at this point, but a PO is a good bet and single-payer will have good chances.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 4, 2010 6:12 PM in reply to tytester
"If left alone, the health care system will collapse on its own in 5 to 10 years."
Oh, well. I was afraid something bad would happen if they don't pass this bill.
And if you're waiting for big businesses to turn against insurance companies you're misinformed. Most large corporations are self-insured. They contract with an insurance company to administer the plan, but that's all. They're plenty unhappy that costs are escalating rapidly (which more and more they're passing along to their employees), but it's not because of insurance company premiums.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tytester
March 4, 2010 6:16 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
"Most large corporations are self-insured."
Can you please explain this? Do you mean that "most large corporations contract for medical services directly with doctors and hospitals"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
March 4, 2010 10:19 PM in reply to tytester
They insurance company provides the network and administrative services - claims processing, etc. But the Business determines the benefits and pays the medical expenses. They pay the insurance company only for the administrative services.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
March 4, 2010 7:05 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
in other words , the cost of health care insurance--3rd party private, self, and public--are rising rapidly because the cost of health care (including the need for care) is rising rapidly.
someone buy this man a cookie.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
March 4, 2010 7:50 PM in reply to Economides
But the most effective way to control cost is with a central purchaser (like Medicare) that has the ability to negotiate with providers.
This is Obama, after he's bargained away the store, telling us this is the best deal we can get.
I personally think 'this is do or die' is a lot of drama. It isn't.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 4, 2010 8:53 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
Ever get the feeling you are arguing with some scripted insurance call center operator in Bangalore?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
March 4, 2010 9:57 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Or DNC trolls? Either way...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
March 4, 2010 11:02 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
You don't know enough to use absolute terms like "the best way". And you resort to insults because you don't have much substantive to say.
1. Health care costs are high in part because prices are high but also because the intensity of services is high. Controlling prices does not do anything to reduce intensity and may in fact increase it. How we pay for services (fee-for-service), and why we pay for services (to incentivize X) can be as important or more important than what we pay.
Some facts you can't seem to explain: (A) Health care costs are GROWING at roughly the same rate both in our public and private sectors even though the public sector pays lower prices; (B) some providers in the public sector who have the same price schedule nevertheless provide (better quality) care for considerably less.
2. Controlling cost levels may be most effective in purchasing goods like drugs or durable medical equipment, but it also may some undesirable side effects when it comes to doctor's services. Medicare pays lower rates but there is an issue of doctors who won't accept medicare patients. Also, it worth noting that putting our dysfunctional political system in charge of reimbursement policy may be a recipe for disaster. I mean we are where we are because congress refuses to act in a way that lowers reimbursements to doctors and hospitals. Do public option stalwarts favor an independent MEDPac?
3. It matters how you pay for services. Fee-for service is an incentive for doctors to provide more services, not better services. Various schemes of paying a set fee for an episode of care could provide stronger incentive for doctors to seek the most effective and efficient care.
4. It matters how you practice medicine. Do Mayo, Cleveland Clinic, Intermountain Healthcare, Scott & White in Texas, provide high quality care for significantly lower costs because they negotiate lower prices or because they apply empirical research to clinical practicve, because they coordinate care, because they put doctors on salary removing the incentive to do more to earn more.
btw, there's nothing wrong with living in Banagalore if you actually know what you are talking about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
March 4, 2010 11:19 PM in reply to Economides
Here's an article by someone who has thought this through:
http://www.pnhp.org/resources/physicians-proposal-intro
This is a sound plan, unlike the train wreck served up by corporate lobbyists to suit shareholders.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
March 5, 2010 12:18 AM in reply to Tanjaoui
There is no doubt physicians are the ones who ultimately have to lead this effort since it is they who hold the keys to the castle.
And yes this is a plan. One among many from thoughtfulpeople. Whether they can find political support for it is a burning question. Quentin Young, from my old neighborhood, has been at this for decades, and I would guess most of his more profit minded colleagues would not be receptive. Try telling your doctor you think he deserves a 10% or 20% pay cut at your next appointment and see how it goes over. Insurance companies may have a powerful lobby, but the doctors are the sleeping giants in this process.
Putting doctors on salary works well to reduce incentives to overuse of care at the various "clinics"( e.g. Cleveland, Marshfield, Geisinger, Scott & White, Billings, Mayo), but they do other important things as well. Then again, going on salary is a choice.
For sure many of the payment reforms can happen now through the government's already 50% share of medical spending. They are little talked about, but provisions of the bill in play gets the ball rolling on a lot of innovative so-called "delivery system reforms." Much more progress can be made with an super MEDpac and amply funded comparative effectiveness research.
It's also important to realize that the current reform based on highly regulated insurance exchanges with guaranteed issue, community rating and risk adjustment can go a long way toward changing the business model of insurers from trying to avoid sick patients to trying to build the biggest possible pools and perhaps even changing the incentives they give to providers. Unfortunately little attention has been paid to the optimal design of these exchanges as so much energy and attention gets focused on the public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 5, 2010 1:13 AM in reply to Economides
All, I know is that we spend 17% of our annual GDP on health care and live a shorter life, while citizens of the EU with SOCIALIZED MEDICINE spend 11% and live longer. AND, I might add, BETTER!
Yeah, 9 weeks of paid vacation a year would suck.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
March 5, 2010 3:22 AM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Q.E.D
Why do we even bother having a Congress, policy experts, big fancy projection models? You've got it all covered!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreemanW
March 5, 2010 4:32 AM in reply to Economides
Because everything needs to be said, and everyone needs to say it?
Besides, can you see those poor miserable morons trying to find legitimate work in this employment market?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 5, 2010 12:14 PM in reply to Economides
That's what I keep tellin' ya!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kindness
March 4, 2010 5:01 PM
How come they aren't going after the Blue Dog and Stupak morons? Why is it that progressives have to be the one to give every time? Name one area conservatives caved & progressives prevailed. There isn't one.
I don't trust the Senate. Till I see 51 signatures promising to pass reconciliation, I wouldn't pass the Senate bill in the House.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
March 4, 2010 5:17 PM in reply to kindness
Care for some cheese with that whine?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kgb999
March 4, 2010 5:25 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
No need. I've got a vote to go with mine. If passing republican bills is what the democrats want, fine, we'll elect them some republicans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 4, 2010 8:59 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Trust but verify is not a whine.
As to Obama there is the old saw that starts fool me once, & etc.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
March 4, 2010 9:45 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Our "whine" will come in the way of our vote, or lack there of.
Suck it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
March 4, 2010 5:25 PM in reply to kindness
The reason the progressives always are targeted to compromise is because they reason logically considering the overall goal for good. The conservatives operate on belief rather than reason, and are therefore incapable of compromise or logic. After all, isn't the conservatives that generally deny science, scorn education and are motivated more by fear than knowledge. Progressives use their brains, conservatives cling to dogma.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kgb999
March 4, 2010 5:29 PM in reply to xargaw
So what you are saying is that this bill was crafted by tossing the ideas of the smart and well reasoned out the window to accommodate the desires of the most uneducated, anti-science morons the political spectrum has to offer.
And you think that is an example of good leadership?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
March 4, 2010 5:59 PM in reply to kgb999
I wouldn't go that far, but that is partially true. Mostly, I think the "bought and paid for" wrote most of this bill. The progressives that actually gave some thought to what would benefit the people, provide broard access, lower costs, etc. (like the rest of the industrialized world) got their ideas tossed at the get go because insurers and Pharma wanted profits protected. If Obama really wanted to reform health care he would have allowed single payer, medicare buy-in or a strong public option to get a fair hearing, not to mention supporting drug re-importation which the WH killed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
March 4, 2010 7:53 PM in reply to xargaw
Precisely. And now he's asking for progressive support, at the 11th hour, after he has sold them - and the public interest - down the river.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lilrhody
March 4, 2010 6:03 PM in reply to kgb999
Agree totally. Obama's leadership on this issue -- if you can call it that -- basically consisted of pre-compromising on the things that would have truly reformed the for-profit health-insurance industry, improved delivery of healthcare, and contained costs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mimi katz
March 4, 2010 5:37 PM in reply to kindness
Stupak and his ilk only care about the pre-born. Once they are born they are on their own. Progressives do care about people's welfare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
March 4, 2010 5:17 PM
I think this bill completely sucks, but I admit that it is better than no bill at all. I hope it passes with an adjacent bill improving it. That said, the enthusiasm that once infused the progressives and the young voters in the country is gone. They feel betrayed by Obama and it is unlikely to return wiwth this President.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 4, 2010 5:24 PM in reply to xargaw
With all due respect xargaw, I don't buy that young folks feel betrayed by Obama. I know a lot of young people who voted for him and understand the difficulties he has faced even from his own party and are still very much in his corner. Perhaps you are listening to the republican talking points too much. They kids are much smarter than that. This bill could be better but I do believe with reconciliation they can make it a better bill and even hopefully continue to make it better.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kgb999
March 4, 2010 5:35 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Believe what you want. I think you are going to find a very different campaign come 2012. Obama has become Hillary.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
March 4, 2010 5:53 PM in reply to lousgirl84
I must commend you. Your postings have been much more pleasant to read lately.
I also do agree with you that progressives and young voters don't feel betrayed by Obama. They are just a little impatient, but supportive - at least the majority of them are.
Improving the bill through reconciliation and repealing DADT will solidify their support going into the fall campaign season. Especially if Democrats are able to capitalize on growing Republican embrace of the Ryan Budget.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 4, 2010 5:56 PM in reply to mophan
I was attacked yesterday for saying I love my President and yes, I responded in kind. However, I am glad you like the tenor today.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
March 4, 2010 10:25 PM in reply to lousgirl84
There is no problem with supporting the president as long as that support is based on performance. Your support gives every indication of being strictly personality-based. Whatever Obama does is great and anyone who criticizes his actions is bad. Try being just a little discriminating and maybe you won't be attacked for lovin you some Obama.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kgb999
March 4, 2010 6:17 PM in reply to mophan
IMO, you are discussing something very different than the original commenter. You are referring to "disapproval" while the comment is speaking to enthusiastic support. Young voters generally are known for not showing up at the polls. So, the real question is will they be energized and participate at nearly the same level as in 2008? I don't see it.
Another issue is true independents who sure don't seem to be impressed with team democrat. Which is probably a far bigger problem for democrats than the progressives or youth vote. But if (when) we independents abandon the democrats, a depressed turnout among progressives (and you are crazy if you don't think your grassroots feels betrayed) would ensure more significant losses.
I don't see a lot of intelligence in the Obama political strategy at the moment. Maybe he'll end it with a back-flip and a move of 34th dimensional political gamesmanship that leaves mere mortals slack-jawed in amazement. I'm not holding my breath.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
March 4, 2010 6:07 PM in reply to lousgirl84
No, not GOP talking points. I am listening to the people in my community, my county Democratic Party chapter, my progressive neighbors and progressive members of my church that feel they are victums of Obama bait and switch. They are disappointed that he turned his back on his campaign bullet points and won't fight for the polices he campained on. It is a fine thing if you loose a hard fought fight. It is a disgrace not to fight for something worth fighting for.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 4, 2010 9:02 PM in reply to lousgirl84
I gather two things -- that you don't live in Massachusetts and your circle of friends is more than a little limited to like thinkers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
March 4, 2010 9:47 PM in reply to lousgirl84
I don't know a person who is enthused about Obama. We're not young. We all supported him and now very few of us do. My friends are liberals and independents. Not a conservative that I can think of.
He's in serious trouble. I won't be voting for him again. If I want a Republican, I'd vote Republican.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 4, 2010 5:20 PM
"President Obama's message to progressives who are dissatisfied with the Senate health care bill is two fold: First: Don't forget about the uninsured. Second: Don't forget what failure to pass this bill would do to the party and my presidency."
Gee is that the writer's interpretation of what Obama said, because I don't really see that in the story?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Juble
March 4, 2010 5:25 PM
The Corporations win anyway.They would be given 31 millions customers for chrissakes!
How the heck is that not a win for Insurance Comps.The Govt demanding that You prurcahse something from me,well,it would make my day forever.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
March 4, 2010 5:38 PM in reply to Juble
Exactly, imagine if the president empowered the IRS to levy a fine with anyone who refuses to do business with me.
No matter how shitty my product is, you have to buy it otherwise you will be fined.
Sign me up for that one...
What a joke.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
par4
March 4, 2010 5:28 PM
Fuck Obama and his 'Presidency' and all the Dems if this is the best they can do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
March 4, 2010 7:15 PM in reply to par4
Sick people who suffer horribly and needlessly because they can't get insurance today say fuck You, you selfish, arrogant spoiled brat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
March 4, 2010 7:59 PM in reply to Economides
No, this isn't the last word. We'll come back to this sooner rather than later.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
March 5, 2010 12:19 AM in reply to Tanjaoui
In the meantime they can suffer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 5, 2010 12:42 PM in reply to Economides
You are the one advocating that OTHER people die so YOU can get more coverage for YOUR chronic disease. I would guess that many others on this forum don't have ANY insurance right now. AND no JOBS either.
Sounds like you are willing to give them the finger, so YOU can get yours.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
March 5, 2010 2:14 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
You must be insane.
What do you think the bill does other than make insurance accessible for virtually everyone.
My personal story merely illustrates the value of being able to access an exchange with guaranteed issue and community rating. That's the same access everyone should have at a minimum.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 5, 2010 2:26 PM in reply to Economides
Yeah, I'm the crazy one.
How do you propose, that we will ALL get covered under THIS bill? Even Obama admits it will fall 16 million short of covering everybody.
I have already blown way too much time responding to you. Like I said before, good luck with your condition. I hope you get the help you need from a government run plan.
I just wish it would cover ALL Americans, as so many other nations' plans cover their citizens.
Have a look at the French and German systems, both top notch and cost about 11% of their respective GDPs. And they live longer!
I am prepared to let the chips fall where they may next November. I have finally come to my peace on that. I suggest you call your Senators if you love this plan so much. I have already contacted mine.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
March 4, 2010 9:51 PM in reply to Economides
Too bad there are others who also needed help with costs and whatnot.
Fuck them, I guess, huh?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
March 5, 2010 12:20 AM in reply to DA in LA
What are you talking about?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
March 4, 2010 10:46 PM in reply to Economides
No, most people without insurance, myself being one, don't have it because we can't afford it (for many different reasons). And we're none too happy with being forced to buy overpriced shitty coverage we still can't afford in the marketplace, the same marketplace that made us become uninsured. In fact 'none too happy' is a gross understatement...f'ing fuming probably desacribes it better.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
March 5, 2010 12:32 AM in reply to Libertine
Unless you are going to detail your income and subject yourself to a review of how you would fare before and after reform, it's kind of pointless. I don't see how you can deny that there are very significant subsidies for lower income folks.
And how are we supposed to know what being insured is worth to you. For those who are already sick and know the physical, psychic and financial cost of living with an "uninsurable" chronic illness, the idea that being forced to buy health insurance for say $5000 (employer + employee sides added up) to get coverage for treatments worth several times that amount is a bad deal is beyond laughable
I also don't see how, especially if you are in the individual you can't see that the insurance product you are going to get in the exchanges isn't going to be vastly better than what you have now. Guaranteed issue and community rating is tremendously valuable. Minimum payout ratios, $0 deductible prevention coverage, no lifetime limits....
It's simply a lie to assert that the quality of coverage, especially for those in the small group and individual market is not going to be much much better.
So once afain it's selfish people who want to blow this thing up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 5, 2010 1:17 AM in reply to Economides
And you think this bill will help them how?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
March 5, 2010 3:35 AM in reply to JorgeOrwell
You are guaranteed you can get insurance (guaranteed issue). You will pay the same rate as everyone else in the pool (community rating). You can't be dropped, you can't have lifetime limits. You get a subsidy if your income is low enough, and coverage has to meet defined minimum standards.
Then again that is just policy. I really know because I WAS one of those people--suffering and uninsurable-- before I was lucky enough to get a job where I have access to the Federal Employees Health Benefit "exchange" a system on which this legislation is largely based.
My treatment, without which I would live a miserable, painful and unproductive life, costs roughly $20,000 a year forever. I was able to buy coverage from an HMO for a total of $5000 or so a year (split roughly 25%-75% between me and my employer) and I pay about $30 a visit out-of-pocket 5 or 6 times a year. My contribution to society in terms of productivity and taxes exceeds the cost of my insurance coverage by many times.
And I'll tell you what. I don't give one rat's ass if my insurer is public or private. I care that I get the treatment I need, and that I have near total security that nothing will happen to that coverage, and if at any time I decide that coverage does not suit me or my family, guess what? I can change to one of the other 26 or so insurers on the exchange.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreemanW
March 5, 2010 4:41 AM in reply to Economides
"You are guaranteed you can get insurance (guaranteed issue). You will pay the same rate as everyone else in the pool (community rating). You can't be dropped, you can't have lifetime limits. You get a subsidy if your income is low enough, and coverage has to meet defined minimum standards."
You just keep smearing lipstick on this pig. going by the verbosity of your posts, you certainly must have a shitload of it.
Please explain just how Government mandated purchasing of private, for profit, product is different from Fascism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 5, 2010 12:12 PM in reply to Economides
You and I have gone over this before. This bill will help about 2 million people ( a little) immediately. Another couple million will get SOME help in 2014. The rest of us (middle class) won't get jack squat.
Have you even read this thing? If you had you would know all of this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tytester
March 4, 2010 5:31 PM
The way the WH spins the "31 million uninsured" is simply reprehensible. 31 million uninsured will not get insured by the Senate bill; rather, 31 million uninsured will be given the opportunity to buy (subsidized for some) insurance from private insurance companies.
And two other things. One - no one cares about the Obama presidency. We survived 8 years of Shrub, so we'll survive 3 more years of Obama. Two - Obama should have raised the issue of the fate of his presidency with Joe Liberman before the latter killed the PO. Because in the end it is the removal of the PO that will cost Obama re-election.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 4, 2010 5:36 PM in reply to tytester
"...31 million uninsured will be given the opportunity to buy (subsidized for some) insurance from private insurance companies."
Which they couldn't do before, either because they were denied or because they couldn't afford it. But I guess it doesn't count as progress unless you get every single thing you want.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kgb999
March 4, 2010 5:51 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
No it doesn't count as progress because it's bullshit. Subsidies only go to a small fraction of those 31 million. Another small fraction are people who have been denied coverage for some reason. The majority of the "31 million people" get neither expanded opportunity nor reduced cost. Implying otherwise is pretty much a bald-face lie.
And another thing. A subsidized policy is not a less expensive policy. They are actually far more expensive when you add in the administrative overhead and logistics associated with the subsidies. Pretending like you are giving with one hand while really raising total cost of coverage behind the scenes is another perversely dishonest aspect of how this bill is being characterized by it's supporters.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tytester
March 4, 2010 6:05 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
There is a very important point about affordability that almost every one on this site misses. And it is this: if you have not lived on a very limited income (say, $15,000 a year or less), you have no idea whatsoever what counts as "affordable" and what does not. I can tell you from experience that food comes first, then rent, and there is very little left for anything else. So the meme that the Senate bill will make insurance "affordable" for 31 million people is a bunch of empty talk that simply does not correspond to the reality of how poor people spend their money. In other words, Senate bill or no Senate bill, most of the 31 million uninsured will still spend on food first, then rent, and would not even think to avail themselves of the "affordable" policies offered by the private insurance companies.
P.S. It is not your fault that you don't understand this rather simple point, you just have never lived under the poverty level in this country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 4, 2010 6:15 PM in reply to tytester
"I can tell you from experience that food comes first, then rent..."
Wow. Thanks for the insight. I never would have guessed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tytester
March 4, 2010 7:17 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
As I said, it is a very simple point. And if you guessed it, kudos to you! (I did not intend to sound condescending...)
But then again, if you thought of my point, how can you claim with a straight face that the Senate bill is a progress that will improve the situation of 31 million uninsured for most of which food comes first, then rent?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
March 4, 2010 6:17 PM in reply to tytester
If you live on $15,000 or less, you're going to be in a vastly better position under this bill than you are under existing law.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tytester
March 4, 2010 7:09 PM in reply to AnonymousCoward
You are correct - I'll be on Medicaid which is strengthened by the Senate bill. But note that under current law I will still be covered by Medicaid, so I don't count in the 31 million of uninsured that will be allegedly covered by the Senate bill.
I was giving the $15,000 threshold to exemplify my point to mans_best_friend. Substitute a single person on $15,000 with a family of four that has income of $44,000, and you still get the same result - food first, then rent, etc.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
March 4, 2010 7:47 PM in reply to tytester
And that family of four is still better off under this bill, because they will receive subsidies for health insurance that weren't available before, and the maximum amount of exposure to financial risk is capped, and at a far more reasonable level.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tytester
March 4, 2010 8:00 PM in reply to AnonymousCoward
The subsidies will be there, true. But would the family of four spend about $3600 a year for Wellpoint's premium? Or will the family still by food first, then pay rent, etc. , and then buy a health insurance policy only if someone gets sick?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
March 4, 2010 8:28 PM in reply to tytester
Well, our hypothetical family of four would pay an average of $2700 a year for insurance, after subsidies are applied. That same family of four would be required to pay $2250 a year in shared responsibility payments, which means that family of four can choose to pay $500 for insurance, or go without. I suspect many will pay the extra $40 a month for insurance, since children tend to get sick.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
March 4, 2010 6:21 PM in reply to tytester
Yes, and another thing the pampered folks around here don't get is that when you are truly living paycheck to paycheck ANY unexpected expenditure totally devours any discretionary income you may have. These folks rarely have a car new enough to have any kind of warranty. So do they repair the car so they can get to work or do they pay the insurance premium? And what happens to them when they scrape together enough to pay the premium and have nothing left over for the co-pay or the pharmacy?
But heck, why do we care? We're the party that "reformed" welfare so we could stop talking about poverty.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
March 4, 2010 7:12 PM in reply to tytester
15k=medicaid, which is basically free. the person making 25k isn't as lucky, now, but will under the bill be heavily subsidized
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tytester
March 4, 2010 7:27 PM in reply to Economides
That's correct - the person making 25k will be subsidized heavily. But will that person fork over $2,000 (8%) to pay for Wellpoint's premium, or will that person still buy food first, then pay rent, etc.?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
March 4, 2010 8:52 PM in reply to tytester
Your numbers are wrong, because you are assuming that the 8% cutoff for the mandate is the same as the expected contribution before subsidies apply. It is not. The expected contribution for the purchase of insurance is on a sliding scale from 2.8 to 9.8% of income, depending on income related to the FPL.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
March 4, 2010 8:09 PM in reply to Economides
High deductibles of bronze plans will lead to deferred care when people have to make choices between, say, having a blood test and fixing their car to get to work. Deferred care leads to lower overall outcomes...meaning lower life expectancy, a sicker workforce, and great personal suffering. Massachusetts has the most expensive health care in the world. It's underutilized and they're cutting back on safety net hospitals and clinics that serve poor communities. It's just beginning to fray. The system is not sustainable. This plan does no more than the MA plan to address the issue of cost. Why don't we try something that has some hope of working? HR676, enhanced Medicare for all or all-payer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
March 4, 2010 9:11 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
Bronze plans are not universally high-deductible health plans. Additionally, the subsidies are tied to the second lowest cost silver plan, not bronze plans. Bronze plans will likely be chosen by healthy people who want to pay the minimum in order to avoid paying the shared responsibility payments.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
March 4, 2010 10:07 PM in reply to AnonymousCoward
Bronze plans will probably be chosen by people who can't afford premiums on silver plans.
Silver, bronze...what is this? We're back to rationing health care by ability to pay. One person's health isn't as important as another person's health. If you're poor or working class, health care is marginally accessible. But health issues are often not marginal. You need a test or you don't; so we're saying, as a society, it's ok to let some people play Russian roulette by choosing lower premiums - the premiums they can afford - on the chance they won't get sick...What kind of society have we become, when we can so easily consign each other to such an uncertain fate? Ghetto plans for the poor, platinum for the rich. I don't like that and I don't think we have to put up with it. The whip counters are taking a fatalistic view of our political life.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
March 4, 2010 10:25 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
First, to repeat since you had trouble reading it the first time: the subsidies are keyed to the second lowest cost silver plan, which is comparable to the health plans available to federal employees under FEHB (and generally considered to be an exemplar of how health insurance should be).
Second, yes, there is going to be some relationship between premiums and benefits. Nonetheless, you are ignoring the fact that DoHHS will be establishing minimum essential coverage which all plans will have to provide. To characterize that insurance as a "ghetto plan" is to reveal how little you understand of how bad things are now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
March 4, 2010 11:13 PM in reply to AnonymousCoward
Who's going to write regulations that define minimum benefits and what's affordable? Lobbyists. Insiders. People hired by the insurance and pharmaceutical industry. Who will police them? Will the be enforced at all? The industry has a history of gaming this system. They're excellent at it. The notion that we can make this work to offer high quality health care to all Americans is fanciful.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/12/0082740
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
March 4, 2010 11:30 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
It would be nice if people who felt the need to opine about health care reform were minimally conversant in how our government works.
When an administrative agency such as the Department of Health and Human Services receives regulatory authority, it is the attorneys in the Department (government employees) who write the regulations. Those rule-makings will then be published in the Federal Register and Regulations.gov as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which will allow for public comment. After the comments are received, the agency then issues a final rule which need only provide reasonable explanations for why rule is justified.
In my professional experience, lobbyists have a lot less leverage over an administrative agency, since government attorneys don't have the same inherent conflicts of interest as members of Congress who have to raise funds for re-election.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
March 4, 2010 11:43 PM in reply to AnonymousCoward
They'll regulate, then...deregulate. That's how it works, doesn't it? See how well the finance industry was regulated. Or the Food and Drug industry. How can you think insurers and pharma aren't going to influence regulations? And game enforcement? It's what they do. They couldn't even overturn McCarran-Ferguson for goodness sake.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
March 5, 2010 12:09 AM in reply to Tanjaoui
You appear to be having difficulties with basic concepts of civics.
Congress and administrative agencies are different. Laws have to be passed by Congress, which involves getting members of Congress to do something. Regulations, on the other hand, are drafted by administrative agencies, which have a lot less inertia and do not have to worry about re-election.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
March 5, 2010 12:39 AM in reply to AnonymousCoward
I am sorry you have to waste your time and obvious expertise on someone who has no intention of listening or learning.
I guess some people are going to be surprised at how much better off they will be.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
March 5, 2010 6:47 AM in reply to Economides
Not everyone in the pool pays the same. A 3:1 adjusted community rating kicks in just as you start to need/use your insurance.
This system is not working in MA. It's not containing costs and they're scrambling to cut back. This system is better, but isn't sustainable. Why take that fork in the road when you see it's not going to work? I think it's to buy time for insurance companies - and, you're right - doctors.
Part of the expense problem for doctors and administrators is the vast amounts of paperwork a multitude of carriers necessitates.
As for regulation: what makes you think it will work for the insurance industry when it failed so miserably for banks? They'll continue to game the system.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
March 5, 2010 7:20 AM in reply to AnonymousCoward
The SEC is an administrative agency, right? Perfect example of regulatory capture. They fumbled financial regulation and it almost brought about a 2nd Great Depression. The same thing will happen with States regulating insurers. Insurers are experts at picking apart regulations.
No, there are proven ways to get this right. This bill is a sop to liberal sensibilities and underwrites providers (yes, doctors included), insurers and pharma. It won't work; it simply is not sustainable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
March 5, 2010 12:32 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
So, your response to completely different regulatory bodies having issues is to throw your hands up and declare that administrative agencies can do nothing? No wonder you're being so fatalist in this post: if you start with the assumption that everyone will do everything wrong, you're probably going to come to the conclusion that nothing will work.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 5, 2010 1:00 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
We still can't afford it under this silly FOR-PROFIT model.
Come on guys. I know you want to see something passed so Obama can say he got SOMETHING, but don't let the IMPERFECT be the death of the practical.
You have to look at the big picture. THIS bill being discussed with its mandate and lack of antitrust regulation will actually burden the middle class, not free it.
Call your senators and demand the Public Option as the line in the sand. It is the compromise from single payer after all.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 4, 2010 5:37 PM in reply to tytester
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kgb999
March 4, 2010 5:43 PM in reply to tytester
It's like claiming you put a chicken in every pot ... by fining everyone who can't afford a chicken.
One caveat. They aren't being "given the opportunity" they are being given a new tax which can be avoided by doing business with Obama's financial benefactors.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
March 4, 2010 6:12 PM in reply to kgb999
"It's like claiming you put a chicken in every pot ... by fining everyone who can't afford a chicken."
I'm going to remember that one!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bwakfat
March 4, 2010 10:56 PM in reply to bluebell
Ack!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
March 4, 2010 6:14 PM in reply to kgb999
You have to also consider that even with subsidies, this is likely to be junk insurance. If a person requires a subsidy to buy insurance, they likely will not be in a position to afford the deductable and co-pays necessary to utilize the insurance. This is the situation at many of these free health care clinics across the country. Even many with insurance don't have the out of pocket money required to use their benefits. The insurance company thus collect money from the citizen and subsidies from the government, but never has to pay any claims.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
March 4, 2010 6:32 PM in reply to xargaw
Preventative care is required to be covered *without deductibles and co-pays* under the Senate legislation (Section 2713). Additionally, should someone require emergency treatment (ie, they are taken to the hospital without going themselves), they would only be liable for the co-pay, and not the full amount, and the hospital may even waive that co-pay if financial hardship exists. Therefore, it is flat-out incorrect to say that insurers will not have to pay out claims for people unable to afford co-pays or deductibles.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tytester
March 4, 2010 7:50 PM in reply to AnonymousCoward
But when you get sick and NEED to go to the doctor/hospital, you do have to pay the co-pay and the deductible. So what's your point - you just picking on the use of words and the style of the commenter above you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
March 4, 2010 8:01 PM in reply to tytester
That if you get sick and NEED to go to the hospital, the hospital has to admit you regardless of your ability to pay. If you do not have insurance, you will owe the hospital much much more than if you have insurance. It is much better to owe the hospital $20 than to owe the hospital $20,000. Additionally, if hospitals aren't providing uncompensated care (because everyone has insurance), a little of the money that used to go to uncompensated care could instead go to the charitable funds that exist in limited forms today, so that the hospital would not see the need to go after an individual for that $20 co-pay.
Additionally, a person who is receiving preventative care at no additional cost is less likely to NEED to go to the hospital in the first place.
My point is that this bill dramatically increases access to healthcare while dramatically reducing the likelihood of financial ruin caused by illness.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tytester
March 4, 2010 8:11 PM in reply to AnonymousCoward
"My point is that this bill dramatically increases access to healthcare while dramatically reducing the likelihood of financial ruin caused by illness."
But your point happens only if the insured forks over 8% of their meager yearly income to pay for the insurance premium. And what xargaw and I are pointing out to you is that people that are currently uninsured are unlikely to pay so much money for premiums because they have to buy food first, then pay rent, etc...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
March 4, 2010 8:32 PM in reply to tytester
First, if they are making 44000 a year as a family of four, their premiums are capped at 6.3% of their income. Second, if they are making markedly less than that, their expected contribution will be drastically less, and they will have the choice of purchasing insurance, or having the same amount of money added to their tax bill without having the benefit of insurance coverage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
March 4, 2010 8:21 PM in reply to AnonymousCoward
You have a chronic disease. You need to be diagnosed on a regular basis. But the bloodwork is subject to a $4,000 deductible. You've started paying that deductible, time comes for your next lab visit, the rust-bucket you use to get to work breaks down or you get hit with a high utility bill in mid-Winter. Problemo. People will 'choose' to forgo critical health care, their health will suffer. This affects everybody. Their family, their employer, American society at large, humanity.
The Rube Goldberg design of this bill and its inadequacies are solely the result of this Administration's (and Congress') behind the scenes deal to keep a commoditized industry in business.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
March 4, 2010 8:47 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
Well, that person with a chronic illness wouldn't be able to get insurance right now, for one thing.
Additionally, since that person would have a choice of a number of different health plans, they wouldn't choose the plan with the high deductible (as a healthy person might). Instead, they would choose the plan with a labwork network, and co-pays rather than co-insurance.
This isn't a "Rube Goldberg" model. It's the FEHB model. FEHB, incidentally, *is the health insurance program Congress gets*. It's also widely regarded as excellent. How do I know that the model would work this way in this situation? Because I have a chronic disease, the treatment of which costs $60,000 a year, and through FEHB, I pay less than $250 out of pocket annually.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
March 4, 2010 10:12 PM in reply to AnonymousCoward
I live in MA. I have a friend who has a chronic condition. He can't afford the premiums on the silver plans. But the low-premium bronze plans all have high deductibles. He routinely forgoes diagnostic tests because he can't afford to pay the deductible. He's cutting it close. He knows it. There's not much he can do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
March 4, 2010 10:31 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
Well, since I don't know the details of your friend's financial situation, all I can say is that his situation is unfortunate. It doesn't change anything that I've said here, however.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
March 4, 2010 11:35 PM in reply to AnonymousCoward
The MA system is a relatively generous and progressive version of what is being proposed nationally. Risk adjuster mechanisms exist in MA, for example. I don't think they're even provided for in the bill before Congress. Income cutoff for subsidies is higher in MA. This is a terrible bill and we can do better. It's not 'this or nothing'. It almost never is in politics. Whenever someone tries to present you with the 'two sides to the issue', they're oversimplifying. Let's go back to the drawing board.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
March 5, 2010 12:03 AM in reply to Tanjaoui
The income cutoff for subsidies under the Senate end at 400% of FPL, as opposed to 300% FPL under the MA system. A quick look at the Commonwealth Care rates suggest that they are in line with the subsidization provided in the Senate bill. It's also my understanding that one of the things in the reconciliation sidecar may well be some improvements to the Senate subsidization rates.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
March 5, 2010 12:48 AM in reply to AnonymousCoward
Thanks. I am also a beneficiary of the kind of insurance the FEHB makes accessible to those with chronic illness. Frankly I think the people you are "debating" with don't really have a clue what that means.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
March 5, 2010 7:05 AM in reply to AnonymousCoward
A sidecar is promised. Do you really think they'll follow through? Unlikely.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
March 5, 2010 12:27 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
The Senate has as much interest in getting rid of things like Ben Nelson's deal as the House does.
However, even the Senate bill as written provides subsidies up to 400% of FPL, as opposed to 300% of FPL as in the MA plan. It also appears to have more controls over insurance for those about the income threshold, because it regulates all insurance, not just insurance for those with subsidies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dick c
March 4, 2010 6:37 PM in reply to kgb999
Put your chicken on your credit card! Obama's presidency is on the line!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 5, 2010 1:41 AM in reply to kgb999
Brilliant! Couldn't have said it better myself. I know you probably already have, but please call your Senators and encourage them to sign the Bennet letter.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 5, 2010 2:06 PM in reply to kgb999
Great analogy!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
numediaman
March 4, 2010 6:08 PM
If you want the bill to pass attach legislation that outlaws a woman's right to choose, declares war on Iran, gives telecoms the right to create a commercial wiretapping business, and allows Gitmo prisoners to be detained through the year 3000. Then you should be able to get the Democrats to vote "yes".
Then there are the Republicans . . .
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 5, 2010 2:36 PM in reply to numediaman
Nailed it! I might just add increasing the military budget tenfold. Talk about bi-partisanship!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bdtex
March 4, 2010 6:23 PM
If the Progressives,Moderates and Blue Dogs in both chambers don't resolve the impasse and get HCR done,the Dem party will lose a big chunk of the foot soldiers from the 2006 and 2008 elections and they can expect a very low turnout of the Dem base this November. Why bother? HCR is probably gonna be the only major piece of legislation that might get a vote this year.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Left-wing-libertarian
March 4, 2010 6:31 PM
"Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga., who is retiring to run for governor of his state, made the Democrats' task a bit harder. He said he will remain in Congress to vote against the health package rather than leaving this Monday, meaning it will need 217 House votes to pass." - From the AP. How unfortunate that he has half a brain.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
concerned parent
March 4, 2010 6:31 PM
HCR is a complete train wreck. I voted for Obama to help change America and instead get another crappy d.c. style reform bill. Without a public option this is another gift to the insurance industry who can put more people under its thumb. The politicians as always will pat themselves on the back for passing "reform" and then the rest of america with suffer for the mess. Poor and often absent leadership by both the white house and the senate is the reason Obama is do or die. And frankly regardless of what happens I do not see myself voting for him ever again. I will of course remain a progress and will continue to look to support those who want to do more than slap a band-aid on to fix a hemorrhaging system.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
concerned parent
March 4, 2010 6:33 PM in reply to concerned parent
Oh and it does seem to me that Jimmy Carter did get his second term.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
March 4, 2010 9:38 PM in reply to concerned parent
I think a lot of people look back and say 'you know Jimmy Carter was right'. If we had persisted on a course towards energy independence then we wouldn't be in such a deep hole now. Of course that was all interupted by 'morning in America'. Maybe in thirty years when another Dem president is trying to get health care reform passed we can make ourselves feel better by derisively comparing him to previous Dem presidents.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
March 5, 2010 3:44 AM in reply to concerned parent
It's sad that you don't understand how exchanges work with or without a public option. People who are suffering becuase of illness, and who can't get insurance now could care less who is paying the bills.
But ideological purity, childish petulance,and pure selfishness demands you get want you want no matter what or you take your ball and go home.
Let me ask you this question: if you dessert the Democratic coalition, what makes you think, Democrats will ever join you in a coalition again. Or are you under the impression that folks like you represents anymore than 10-15 percent of the population.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreemanW
March 5, 2010 4:53 AM in reply to Economides
This has jack shit fuckall to do with ideological purity.
A plurality of the population wants single-payer / universal health care.
You might have noticed if you weren't so preoccupied with defending the corporate position.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
March 4, 2010 6:35 PM
It would be a whole helluva lot easier for real Democrats/progressives not to forget Obama's two points had he not forgotten which party he belongs to and betrayed the nation on the public option which he could still restore. No public option: no healthcare bill. It's about time for Obama to quit standing up to Democrats and start standing up to the Republicans instead.
And ya know what? Who gives a fuck about his Presidency if he is going to spend it appeasing Republicans on everything? Kill it if it doesn't have the public option!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jthdane
March 4, 2010 6:55 PM in reply to oleeb
Great Idea. Then we will get a public option in about 40 years from now, if then. In the meantime, what do you propose doing about all the people who cannot afford insurance, cannot qualify due to pre-existing conditions or are paying exhorbitant premiums because they don't have employer coverage? And oh, by the way, how many emplores will drop coverage over the next several decades if not mandated?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
March 4, 2010 8:39 PM in reply to jthdane
You're being fatalistic. It's up to activists and voters to make sure health care reform doesn't get lost in the shuffle. And it won't because it can't be. There are many grass roots initiatives that will garner much more attention if this bill doesn't pass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 5, 2010 2:07 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
Like, what ever happened to "YES WE CAN"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
March 5, 2010 1:17 AM in reply to jthdane
Preserving the current system is just a bad idea and that is the primary goal of this legislation. Obama and the rest of the Republicans could eliminate pre-existing conditions and many other problems in the current system without shoving the mandate to buy shitty, over priced private insurance if they wanted to. But they don't want to because they are working for the insurance companies: not the people. You and others who have been sucked into the idiotic idea that this bill is a good thing act like somehow this addresses the real problems in our system and therefore anything they do is good. But you don't include the massive downside of how politically unpopular the mandate is and you don't take into account the profound, open, unabashed dishonesty of Obama and many other conservadems who claimed at one point or another to support "competition" and "choice" in the healthcare "marketplace" but have actually done all they could to make sure no such competition or choices exist for consumers. If you think this special interest corporate welfare legislation is good then you just don't know what good is. Unless there's a public option, a real one available to anyone who wants to choose it, then I say kill this piece of shit welfare bill for the health insurance companies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dudeguy
March 4, 2010 6:59 PM in reply to oleeb
"Who gives a fuck about his Presidency?"
Anyone who cares about the right to choose. Anyone who doesn't want a president likely to invade a third country for no reason. Anyone who is frightened of an even more conservative judiciary. Anyone who is tired of seeing the civil rights division of the DOJ focus on cases of supposed religious discrimination against Evangelicals. Anyone who wants to work for DOJ but didn't go to Liberty University. Anyone who doesn't want Gitmo "doubled," as Republican candidates have promised. Anyone who doesn't want what little environmental regulation we have tossed in the scrap heap. Anyone who doesn't want intelligent design being taught in public schools. Anyone who doesn't want it to be even more legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation. And on, and on, and on.
Yeah, we care. Clearly, you don't. But we do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
March 4, 2010 7:26 PM in reply to dudeguy
He's not exactly a profile in courage on choice, peace, civil rights, climate change, public education, or DADT not to mention financial regulation, labor, or taxing the wealthy. It's because we've lost faith on so many other issues that it's impossible to trust him on the health reform issue. If you can't trust him to regulate banks why would you trust him to regulate insurance companies? Obviously the problem goes way beyond him to all those Senators claiming they are for a public option but who will sell it out before Good Friday.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dudeguy
March 4, 2010 11:39 PM in reply to bluebell
I'd love a profile in courage. I'll settle for someone who's not a Republican.
There is a wide, wide middle ground between us getting what we want and us getting what we dread. Seems people here have trouble recognizing that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NuttyProf
March 4, 2010 6:35 PM
me, I wonder about all of the paid Republican trolls that are infesting left wing web sites everywhere!! Smells DESPERATE
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rick Jones
March 4, 2010 9:00 PM in reply to NuttyProf
Exactly. And hey trolls, did you see that internal DNC memo about fundraising and what your party really thinks of you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rick Jones
March 5, 2010 2:59 AM in reply to Rick Jones
My bad. That's RNC.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Bagman
March 4, 2010 6:52 PM
Why is it that Obama NEVER gives the "moderates" the hard sell like this? It's pretty tough to pass "much of our agenda, on the progressive side" if you don't even make the case for it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
March 4, 2010 7:20 PM
Looks like Kucinich is voting no.
Good for him
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tEjJxRR7xQ
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
March 4, 2010 7:27 PM in reply to rbeats
The Progressive Caucus is on board. The train is rolling.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 4, 2010 7:46 PM in reply to wbgonne
What did you say about Kucinich voting for the HCR bill this time around????????????
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
March 4, 2010 8:00 PM in reply to FreeRider
Kucinich will vote for HCR if his vote is needed. THe Progressive Caucus won't sink HCR. Go harass the Fetus-Fetishists and the Republicrats. Unless you really are a secret agent for the health insurance industry. Hello, Troll? Is that you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 4, 2010 8:05 PM in reply to wbgonne
TODAY, Kucinich stated he would not vote for this bill NO MATTER WHAT!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tEjJxRR7xQ
You calling him a liar?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tommyo
March 4, 2010 7:28 PM
The liberals will meekly cave, as they always do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
March 4, 2010 7:32 PM in reply to tommyo
They -- we -- aren't caving. We are recognizing the momentary state of reality. Pass the bill. And everything is different the day after. The public option, Medicare expansion they are right around the corner, inevitably. First, get the base established.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
March 4, 2010 9:57 PM in reply to wbgonne
Delusion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
March 4, 2010 10:38 PM in reply to wbgonne
Medicare expansion? That doesn't stand a chance if this bill passes. Who would have any interest in promoting it? If that had been in the cards, they would have started with it. This bill, if passed, further entrenches the current system. Medicare expansion is the first step to single payer. This bill takes the other fork in long and dismal to continued market driven health care stratification.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
March 5, 2010 9:30 AM in reply to wbgonne
where can I get what you are smoking! the senate can't be trusted to do anything, and the bill is just going to give insurance companies BILLIONS MORE $s to lobby against the public interest
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NR
March 4, 2010 8:07 PM
At this point, I don't give a shit whether Obama goes down or not. Real health care reform died way back when he sold out the public option. I have no sympathy for this milquetoast, Republican-lite president whining that his presidency will go down in flames if we don't back his corporate-friendly policies. He can go to hell.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
March 4, 2010 8:20 PM in reply to NR
Then I hope you enjoy the next thirty years of enlightened rulings from President DeMint's Supreme Court. Guess you'll enjoy your privatized de-socialized security and medican't, all that great oil we'll be getting out of ANWAR, the chewy air and fragrant water we'll see when they re-gut EPA, the lovely vistas afforded by our clear cut national forests, our safe, if militarized, cities, and the constant fear of being detained incommunicado his Congress will bring us.
But then, you people are so fucking in love with your own anger that you'll probably revel in living in Republican dystopia right up until the day they cart you off to the internment camp as an illegal combatant.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 4, 2010 8:28 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Without a public option and antitrust exemption in the health "care" bill, Dems go down in November anyway.
Weren't you paying attention when Scott Brown kicked much ass in Massachusetts?
Exit polls showed Dems stayed home. Now, I wonder why? Hmmmm.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mateo123
March 4, 2010 8:45 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
That is just absolute crap. Democrats didn't stay home in Massachusetts (and it begs the question of how "exit" polls could show this). They trusted Brown over Coakley -- for a lot of valid reasons. Coakley couldn't draw flies at a rally.
In 2000, about 2.1 million voted in the Massachusetts senate race (in a presidential year). About 2.1 million voted in the Massachusetts senate race in 2006, too. How many voted in the Massachusetts senate race in 2010? About 2.2 million people. Sounds like those democrats really stayed home. Please. People like you should be embarrassed to open your mouth -- or drop a line.
The uber-public option people are so ridiculous. You make it sound like if the bill has no public option, it's worthless. That is just not true. Is it perfect? of course not. It's good though. It's a good step.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 4, 2010 8:49 PM in reply to Mateo123
Yeah, Brown exudes competence! Bah,ha,ha,ha!
Must have been the nude photo shoots that inspired Dems to vote for him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 4, 2010 9:08 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
States don't come any Bluer than Mass.
My state(Washington)can't even hold a candle to those bleeding hearts!
You think they came out and voted for Scott Brown? Really?
Maybe they are more cutthroat than I gave them credit for?
Could be they voted for him as a protest and shot across the bow for Democratic ineptitude and inaction with regard to health care and jobs?
I mean Dems do hold one of the largest majorities enjoyed by any one party for decades.
You might be onto something.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NR
March 4, 2010 9:01 PM in reply to Mateo123
"Perfect" is single-payer. Progressives are long past wanting a perfect bill.
This is a bill that is full of Republican ideas that Republicans won't vote for because there's a Democrat in the White House. Progressives compromised over and over again, making sacrifice after sacrifice, and we got nothing in return.
And now, the bill that the public least supports is going to pass, and the bill that the public most supports was never even considered. Great work, Obama!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 4, 2010 9:10 PM in reply to NR
Work of political genius sir!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
March 4, 2010 9:46 PM in reply to NR
If there's one thing Republicans love, it's more federal regulations. They especially love a cap on profits, because it is so very consistent with their laissez-faire-fellatio.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
March 4, 2010 9:59 PM in reply to AnonymousCoward
I guess that's why this bill is almost identical to the Republican bill in "93, huh?
And real regulations would be handled by the feds, not the overburdoned states.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
March 4, 2010 10:13 PM in reply to DA in LA
I agree, real regulation would be handled by the feds. Which is why the Senate bill gives DoHHS the authority to mandate minimum essential coverage, regulate premiums, and other enforcement tasks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
March 5, 2010 1:20 AM in reply to AnonymousCoward
No, it give DoHHS partial control, the bulk of enforcement is left to the states.
Try to lie to make your case.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
March 5, 2010 12:21 PM in reply to DA in LA
I could lie.. or I could just point you to the Senate bill, which gives the DoHHS substantial new authority.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreemanW
March 5, 2010 5:04 AM in reply to AnonymousCoward
"If there's one thing Republicans love, it's more federal regulations. They especially love a cap on profits, because it is so very consistent with their laissez-faire-fellatio."
So you're a professional cherry picker when you aren't spinning yarns of tortured logic that would give John Yoo climax.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
March 5, 2010 12:22 PM in reply to FreemanW
This is a very substantive comment that deserves a serious response.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NR
March 4, 2010 8:29 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
I'm not going to be scared by that false dichotomy anymore. I'm done voting for politicians who will sell me out to corporations, no matter which party they belong to. I won't support anyone who doesn't support the people. It's that simple.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
admiralmpj
March 4, 2010 8:32 PM in reply to NR
And I'm done putting up with stick-up-the-ass Liberals who lose us more elections than they win. Cheers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 4, 2010 8:41 PM in reply to admiralmpj
Don't you mean "liberals"? ;)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NR
March 4, 2010 8:51 PM in reply to admiralmpj
Yeah, because triangulation worked so well in the 90s, and it's working so well today. It's not as if the things liberals want are supported by over 60% of the country or anything, oh no, we have to adopt a bunch of Republican ideas just after the voters handed the Republicans an historic election loss. That makes SO much more sense!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 4, 2010 8:54 PM in reply to NR
word!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
March 4, 2010 10:00 PM in reply to admiralmpj
Enjoy your loss.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
admiralmpj
March 4, 2010 8:30 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
I love that line: "So in love with your own anger". I'd like to license that sucker if you don't mind.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tpmreader
March 4, 2010 9:37 PM in reply to NR
I do not agree with the reply comment that your comment is in anger and the wild future with highly harsh predictions. My view would be more towards highly knowledgable exasperated frustrations....
Also, Globalresearch.ca has a featured Article entitled ' ...Obama Dystopia...
Again, a so-called health care bill that allows the Fidicuary towards Wall Street, Shareholders//Stockholders and Stakeholders over the Patient and Patient's Life appears impracticla and complely wrong and seeminlgy a clear violation of many properly and forthrighly Laws that would seemingly be upheld in a proper court of law.
There are many other reasons that have been mentioned that this so-called health care reform Bill Legislation will completly fail whether passed or not. A seemingly real and unnecessary travisty with seemingly no end in sight.
Obviously, I request to apply modifications and/or corrections as needed to this comment reply.
Thank you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 4, 2010 8:38 PM
"Pledged to revisit the public option"? When? You won't have a Congress who will pass it.
Sellout.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CranialRectalLoopback
March 4, 2010 8:47 PM
And who's fault is that? Blame the Progressives because you excreted a mountain of fecal matter?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 4, 2010 8:56 PM in reply to CranialRectalLoopback
2010 could have been the beginning of the next New Deal. Unfortunately, its shaping up to be the Fourth Reich.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Given Up
March 4, 2010 8:58 PM
I think that despite all the bills faults Obama has done a pretty good job with it, even given all his gifts to corporations.
This bill will get a base established, it sets a precedent for the regulation of and intervention in the health insurance market. And,if this bill is even slightly better than the current status quo (as seen from the perspective of the average voter), it will make it considerably easier to pass more liberal legislation down the road that will not need the support of the corporate establishment.
Granted this view requires some faith in the ability of future administrations to get stuff done but at least we can get something now and lay the groundwork for truly progressive legislation in the future.
Pass the f***ing bill!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 5, 2010 1:26 AM in reply to Given Up
You think it will save Obama's presidency or the congress of 2010?
Without a public option that begins at least by this summer, Dems are going down in defeat. You think the Republicans are going to keep the thing?
Why would they? No Americans will see its benefit anyway. Most of us will never know what we missed (and I can tell you, it ain't much).
You guys need to move beyond expediency and look a the bigger picture. Seriously.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
happycozy
March 4, 2010 9:22 PM
I don't think purists like Kucinich care about the uninsured, the party, or the President, so good luck getting those votes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 5, 2010 1:29 AM in reply to happycozy
And by purists, I'll assume you mean DEMOCRATS?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreemanW
March 5, 2010 5:08 AM in reply to happycozy
"I don't think purists like Kucinich care about the uninsured, the party, or the President, so good luck getting those votes."
Virtues like integrity and principle are lost on you aren't they.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
March 4, 2010 9:38 PM
What a mess. We're fighting over the crumbs. This legislation is a lot of things but it definitely is not HCR. The President gave away almost all his leverage the moment he sat down to BEGIN negotiations for HCF. Now he's fighting for the crumbs. And he looks soooo desperate. He acts like he has leverage but The Progressive Caucus really has it all. This is their chance to get what they have fought for. Get some respect. Hold out. You know you can't trust this Pres last minute BS. Get it now because he will not honor any "later agreements". He can parse words as well as Pres Clinton and cannot be trusted.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twanger
March 4, 2010 10:03 PM in reply to Cornelius
"We're fighting over the crumbs. This legislation is a lot of things but it definitely is not HCR."
Cant agree more. It may seem important to pass something, but the problem with that is that seems to be on the table will fix absolutely nothing at all. If the goal is to make health-care a non-issue, meaning we shouldnt have to worry about the cost to see a doctor, or go to the hospital....this aint it. There is nothing being discussed today that will change the predicament millions of people are in already, and millions more will find themselves soon enough.
The conservatives beat us with their single-minded mantras for decades. Many thought Obama was our turn to beat the drum, but it quickly turned silent. Here's an echo...We are all part of a system that no one can get out of...and the system should help us succeed and be productive, not trap us. For system itself to remain healthy, it needs to provide fertile ground and plant a lot of seeds, and it needs to create a level planting field. People shouldnt have to struggle for health care, retirement, eduction or child care. it should be a matter of being born rich enough to afford it. And it is a false economy not to build these things into the system.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twanger
March 4, 2010 10:06 PM in reply to twanger
Correction:
It should never be a matter of being born rich enough to afford it. And it is a false economy not to build these things into the system.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
March 4, 2010 10:48 PM in reply to twanger
Was trying to write earlier tonight what you just posted. But I gave up in frustration. You said most of it for me. We can go deep in the weeds and fight about the PO, pre-existing, FEHB, subsidies, single payer, etc or we can see HC for all as a moral imperative. HC is not a right but it needs to be. I welcome a tax increase that will let me live in peace regarding anxiety over getting sick, or my wife needing surgery, or my son needing life-long medication. It's all around me. And probably you also, a neighbor, a kid that you coach, a friend of your wife, or your parents. I don't want to hear about anymore avoidable suffering, or experience the thousands of sad stories that have no answers. All in the name of profits. This is the argument we must have. It's really not about reform. Its what the rest of the world has figured out, fundamental change in the way we view our lives, and the manner in which we want to live our lives.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
onceler
March 4, 2010 10:19 PM
totally and completely tone deaf on Obama's part here. what, is Bart Stupak a progressive now? Nelson? Lieberman? because those are the people standing in the way of decent reform. not any 'progressives'. get a clue, Mr. President. it looks like you're yelling at the clouds ala McCain right now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
March 4, 2010 10:36 PM
I wonder if Rahm was in that meeting?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Old Marsalla
March 4, 2010 10:49 PM
Wow. What a bunch of angry, spiteful comments. I for one appreciate Obama a helluva lot more than Bush, but it looks like many are willing to bring back a repub. Maybe it will take an even worse crisis of uber-Bushian proportions to accept that you can't always get what you want, but you'll never get what you need from a conservative majority of the current Rebublican brand.
The math is still maddeningly simple: more people covered = sharing of risk = an improvement over the status quo. HCR and pressure on insurers by informed and organized consumers do not have to be mutually exclusive. A pox on both houses (or maybe just the Dem house) seems like an irresponsible position. I like Nader too, but it hardly seems like jumping ship makes much sense. We're all mad as hell--do we really have to vent on each other? We seem about as ungovernable as some failed states.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dudeguy
March 4, 2010 11:34 PM in reply to Old Marsalla
Hear, hear.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
March 5, 2010 1:07 AM in reply to Old Marsalla
Covering people through subsides paid for by the middle class is a Republican program. Telling me it is better than anything some Conservative would do is not true. They would do the same thing.
The bill is an assault upon the middle class, and an assault upon the people who put Obama, Not Emanuel, in office.
Single payer, or nothing at all. The insurance cartel can raise the rates all they want. Just wait and see what happens.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
March 5, 2010 3:48 AM in reply to rbeats
You are a moron. The middle class is getting crushed today and this bill will be a dramatic improvement for many many people. For a lot of people it won;t make much difference.
But here is news for you, the cost of health care is going up in the public insurance programs just the same as the private ones.
Because you don't understand why, you retreat into anger, petulance and selfish nihilism. What a sad and cowardly sack you make.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreemanW
March 5, 2010 5:11 AM in reply to Economides
Your relentless defense of the corporate state is tiresome and boring.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Old Marsalla
March 5, 2010 8:36 AM in reply to rbeats
Okay, so insurance companies don't already raise rates whenever they want? A whole lot of people voted for Obama who never read TPM. I don't want all my friends to turn out to be insurance salesmen either, but I am not a polyanna when it comes to government-managed care. This will definitely be the end of the road for reform if it goes up in a shredder bin of smoke, but it just might be a small stepping stone to better options and a sane policy if it passes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 5, 2010 12:32 PM in reply to Old Marsalla
You can't be serious. Have you read this thing?
For one, it doesn't even BEGIN until 2014. People are out of work and have no health care RIGHT NOW. 135,000 of us will be dead without health coverage by then.
Two, it only covers those who are at the lowest rungs of the economic scale, supported by middle class tax dollars.
Third, it forces you to shell out your money to the FOR PROFIT PRIVATE CORPORATIONS to cover the indigent.
You must be independently wealthy to talk like that. The official unemployment rate is at 9.7% and holding. The unofficial is estimated at 17%!
People need help NOW! If Obama and HIS Congress keep tinkering around the edges like Hoover did, they are finished in November.
FDR created tens of thousands of jobs in his first 100 days! If the Dems don't make serious headway in the next couple of months, they are finished in November and that makes Obama a lame duck.
You guys need to wake up and get on the blower to your senators and quick, if you are to save your beloved party...
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Old Marsalla
March 5, 2010 1:13 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Yeah, I'm a regular Richie Rich. Give me a penthouse view. I would love to see your dreams come true yesterday, but this ain't 1933. This plan seeks to adjust decades of habits, laws, precedents, and mindsets. Henry Wallace--who did more than anyone to implement FDR's policies--once said it took seven years or so to change a farmer's mind. I just happen to think 2014 is better than never.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 5, 2010 1:28 PM in reply to Old Marsalla
And nearly 150,000 will die for lack of health care in the meantime? That's how many 911's?
You speak like someone who HAS health care. Are you on Medicare or something?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Old Marsalla
March 5, 2010 1:55 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
If I have health care I am rich and therefore can't offer an opinion? Right I don't see your option before me. It's pretty much up or down at this point, and I guess I am up and you are down. Maybe you should cut down on sodium in your diet or something.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 5, 2010 2:02 PM in reply to Old Marsalla
Whoa! That was weird. Did you just have a minor stroke? Luckily, you have insurance. Better get to the emergency room.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Old Marsalla
March 5, 2010 2:11 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Yep. It's the big one. I'm going to join Elizabeth, so check out what Theda Skocpol has to say and VENT ON HER for awhile to keep your ticker in high gear.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dunvegan
March 4, 2010 10:54 PM
Progressives: For the thousandth time, let me explain the repercussions of NOT passing this bill...even in a watered-down form, it will allow the US to unpeel the Banana Republic situation and begin to join the nations of the first world.
And like the earlier Social Security and Medicare early bills which were weak, we can build on the bill...IF we have a bill to build on.
Oh, and our health insurance situation will not only kill 44K people a year, but bankrupt the country in about a decade. So....
Crazy, Willfully Ignorant, Delusional, Tribal, Kool-Aid-Drinking "Compassionate Conservatives": Wharrgarbl...OUR America...wharrgarbl...NO welfare for THEMZ even if we have moar folk on teh welfare...wharrgarbl...I'll nevar loose mah job/insurance...I'd rather die myself than see one of THOSE PEOPLE get one whit of "free" care...NO gubbment in my Medicare!!!!!1111!!!eleventy
President Obama: (facepalm) You can't say I didn't try to show the haterz that I wasn't anti-Rightwing-loonie all out to take away their gunz and "their America."
You want to stick with that talking point of "Obama is shoving everything down our throats, despite the facts?" OK.
Time to go all LBJ/Civil Rights Act-like throat-shoving like you seem to crave on you pinheads.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 5, 2010 1:52 PM in reply to Dunvegan
This "we can build on it" nonsense is getting old. Show me how Medicare has become more generous and stable since it's inception. Show us how PRIVATE FOR-PROFIT insurance companies have been sidelined in that market.
Give us the numbers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOPinNYC
March 4, 2010 11:16 PM
It would be great if they would use the correct number. It isn't 31 million. Everyone should know this by now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tchanta
March 5, 2010 12:27 AM in reply to GOPinNYC
It isn't 31 million... How many million of people your Party of Hate wants to kill?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOPinNYC
March 5, 2010 2:32 AM in reply to tchanta
Can't you guys find a name and stick with it? I mean is it the Party of No or the Party of Hate? Pick on already.
Explain to me why the federal government, which does nothing adequately, need to be charged with executing this program? Why must the citizens of NY, or NYC, pay to cover the health care of some guy in Iowa?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expatjourno2
March 5, 2010 4:01 AM in reply to GOPinNYC
Why choose just one name for the Repukes? The Rethuglicans are both the party of no and the party of hate. They are obstructionist for purely partisan reasons AND they are a bunch of racist, sexist, homophobic bigots.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOPinNYC
March 5, 2010 1:53 PM in reply to expatjourno2
Oh I don't know because the hostility leads a rational person to believe you have the intellectual development of a five-year-old brat?
Are you incapable of having a civil discussion about policy?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
inokeah
March 4, 2010 11:57 PM
If the President would have asked just a couple of Republicans in on the writting of the HCB this would not be an issue.
I am sure that there are a few progressive Repub that would have been happy to have their son or daughter become a Judge on the Court of Appeals. A little late, but I guess this is how you learn when you are a beginner president?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tchanta
March 5, 2010 12:24 AM in reply to inokeah
Enough with blaming the President. Olympia Snowe is not a republican?
The Party of No wants him to fail. Some Southern Democrats also want to fail to please their constituents.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
March 5, 2010 1:23 AM in reply to inokeah
My God, you are an idiot. I mean, besides being a troll. Try reading and educating yourself before posting.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ft
March 5, 2010 12:31 AM
TPM is getting sadder by the day. The story makes Grijalva and the progressives out to be the ones in need of the stern lesson in political reality. Where's the headliner about Obama kicking the butt of Stupak and company?
I could be wrong but I don't think TPM gets its hit count from the five people who actually like the Blue Dogs. Furthermore, I'd like to see a story by TPM that reports on a simple roll call analysis of voting with the White House by the Progressive Caucus vs. every other metric for slicing the Democratic congressional membership. My hunch is that no other wing of the party is as strongly for Obama's measures. As always, and shown by Grijalva's comment, the progressives will line up behind the Dem leadership and vote for this one, too, and get yelled at for it by way of thanks.
Meanwhile, how progressive is Bill Halter? I mean really?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Old Marsalla
March 5, 2010 12:43 AM
I thought Jim Bunning was the bill halter. Seriously, I admire Grijalva, but he is a bit of a grandstander, Get this thing done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expatjourno2
March 5, 2010 12:55 AM
Obama deserves to lose his presidency over this. He started out by licking the asses of the conservative Democrats while sending his chief of staff out to tell progressives that they were "fucking morons."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
March 5, 2010 1:10 AM in reply to expatjourno2
The assault upon the middle class brought upon by Obama and Emanuel has to be stopped. I can't believe how much worse off those of us who make less than a quarter million a year but more than 400% above poverty level are. We are getting screwed in the ass by Oabama.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
happycozy
March 5, 2010 2:18 AM in reply to rbeats
Screwing us in the ass? Where did all the crazies come from tonight?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jaf
March 5, 2010 5:21 AM
Why would I give a tinker's damn about the presidency of this cynical POS? I am changing my voter affiliation to independent after 40 years as a registered Dem.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 5, 2010 1:35 PM in reply to jaf
Did the same thing from the other side. This is the trend that will cost the Dems and Reps next election. I'm actually encouraged. Maybe we will get a few more independents in there next time around. People I know in Vermont are very proud of Bernie Sanders. They like that he doesn't have to suck up to any party. This is what the framers had in mind in the first place.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Old Marsalla
March 5, 2010 10:37 AM
We can support Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry, but we draw the line at Obama? He is the guy that calls for all the large-intestine-based venom?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tosh
June 5, 2010 11:12 PM
Well, that person with a chronic illness wouldn't be able to get insurance right now, for one thing.
Additionally, since that person would have a choice of a number of different health plans, they wouldn't choose the plan with the high deductible (as a healthy person might). Instead, they would choose the plan with a labwork network, and co-pays rather than co-insurance.
This isn't a "Rube Goldberg" model. It's the FEHB model. FEHB, incidentally, *is the health insurance program Congress gets*. It's also widely regarded as excellent. How do I know that the model would work this way in this situation? Because I have a chronic disease, the treatment of which costs $60,000 a year, and through FEHB, I pay less than $250 out of pocket annually.
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?