Democrats & Liberals Archives

Forty Nine Million, Nine Hundred And Ninety Nine Thousand, Nine Hundred And Ninety Nine.

Next week my health insurance runs out. I’ve been on COBRA since I became disabled eighteen months ago, and next week, it’s gone. So now you know: it’s just not 50 million people who have no health insurance; it’s 49 million, 999 thousand, 999… and Jon.

From now on my meds aren't covered, so I've been working with my doctor (who wasn't covered anyway, so at least that's a few hundred a month I still get to pay) to reduce the amounts and the meds themselves. I'm down to a couple of generics now. They don't work that well, but they're cheap.

From now on, I can't get injured. One injury will bankrupt me. Eighteen months on disability doesn't make you rich. One ambulance ride and I lose my car, my home and anything else the hospital thinks it can sell. So I can't get injured.

I can't get sick. I can't get cancer. I can't afford to.

On the plus side, hey, that's five hundred bucks I can definitely put to good use. Yeah, five hundred. That's what I was paying for COBRA. Half a mortgage, a very nice car payment... and as I say, my doctor wasn't covered anyway. (The $2,000 deductible made sure that almost nothing was.)

Am I scared? Yeah. One drunk driver hits the gas instead of the brake and my life is over, even if he doesn't kill me. I slip on the sidewalk and break an ankle and my life is over. I slip as I climb the bleachers at my kids' game, and my life is over.

But hey, that's America. That's what we're arguing about in government right now. Whether this is ok, or whether it's not. Like so many of the uninsured, I've paid my way until now. I don't want handouts, I just want a safety net.

But these so-called Blue Dog Democrats (who the hell do they think they are, rap stars?) and these weasly, small-minded, greedy bastard Republicans don't care about me, or the 50 million like me. They just care about their paychecks, and the fact that the healthcare industry has been bankrolling their re-election campaigns for years.

I don't feel sorry for myself. Some of the uninsured already have these problems; I'm just scared I might get them. It's far worse for those who are already suffering the indignity of bankruptcy and the shame of depending on their kids.

These detractors, these jealous guardians of their own wealth, look at the idea of healthcare for all and ask - what does it cost me? Why should I pay? Socialized anything is bad!

Yeah? Come spend a week in my shoes, or in the other 99,999,998 shoes of my fellow uninsured citizens, and we'll see how you feel then.

Posted by Jon Rice at July 26, 2009 9:25 PM
Comments
Comment #285071

I presume those who don’t even want to have the discussion about health care reform think it’s your fault for not being a stock broker and making millions of dollars so this wouldn’t be an issue. Anyone who’s ever been on COBRA (myself and my folks had to deal with that many times over the years) knows what it’s like to have our wonderful American health care system laugh at them in the face and turn the other cheek…

Posted by: Mike Falino at July 26, 2009 10:07 PM
Comment #285077

…and, all we can do is continue to send emails, letters and phone calls to the likes of Jim De Mint and Saxbee Chambliss…you might as well give your soul to the devil, because your arse belongs to insurance and pharmaceutical companies, and so do many of our political leaders.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 27, 2009 1:43 AM
Comment #285080

Welcome to the ranks of the uninsured - this is not a club of happy campers. This is a club whose members are one misstep on a sidewalk away from bankruptcy and ruin. One illness away from losing everything. One cancer diagnosis away from ruin. The “blue dogs” or “blue cross” Democrats have traded millions of dollars to stop a just health care system, I won’t even talk about the useless GOP. We have been subjected to a propaganda campaign that relies on spreading fear and lies about state run health care. Canadians don’t wait for a year for surgery. Brits don’t get their care rationed. The Swedish doctors don’t have trouble making ends meet. The things the right wing blatherers are spewing are lies. What is baffling is that most people spreading the fear of socialized medicine have no stake in the game they are not the are the CEO of an insurance company with a billion dollar compensation package. They aren’t stockholders in Cigna. They aren’t a congressman who has been bribed with millions of dollars from people’s insurance premiums.

Here’s something to mull - people who have health insurance are paying not only for the ludicrous salaries of these bastards who make money by denying your legitimate claims, they are also footing the bill to bribe our elected officials to make sure we have no other option but to hand over our money to them or risk going bankrupt (not that many who have insurance don’t loose everything when they get sick because of denials and outrageous co-pays).

Posted by: tcsned at July 27, 2009 7:15 AM
Comment #285081

I can remember some years back when we were complaining about the underpaid medical workers, especially nurses. I also recall that we were doing pretty well up until around the 80’s when greed became fashionable and anti-trust law was axed in favor of leveraging them out and merging them up. Ole Mitt made a good living by buying up weak companies and selling the profitable assets and plant equipment to China. A real innovative CEO, no doubt.
Ain’t no easy fix. The Corpocracy has a stanglehold on government, trade, production, ad infinitum. For a legislator to vote against the Corpocracy that person must be willing to risk losing the support of their party, losing the gobs of money thrown at them by lobbyists, risk moving into a more senior position, risk losing their next election and risk being under-employed upon returning to the private sector.
In brief, there ain’t no quick fix here. Gonna take major reform of government to get us bck on track. In my opinion there is only one nonviolent way of achieving reform. Like fighting fire with fire we have to support a new third party but with a different political attitude. A Party that can put accountability into the political equation, achieve reform and KEEP IT THAT WAY. Party members serve as a fourth brach of government, providing an oversight function for elected and appointed officials. If legislators fail to support the Party’s agenda they may be rejected, by vote, from the party.
That’s one solution fer shure. Are there others?

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve!

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 27, 2009 9:22 AM
Comment #285089

So what’s your plan?

Posted by: bbauer at July 27, 2009 12:42 PM
Comment #285090

bbauer: I have two plans, and they’re both so cunning you could brush your teeth with them. One: don’t get sick. Two: actually, no, that’s pretty much it. Keep working on my book, when and as the disability thing allows, and hopefully one day become rich and famous, mount a hostile takeover of Cigna, become Chairman of the Board, and turn it into a company that provides healthcare. Now there’s a thought.

Posted by: Jon Rice at July 27, 2009 1:04 PM
Comment #285113

jon

i’ve been using generics for quite some time and they seem to work well. i always ask my doctor, and have yet to have him tell me to stay away from the generic. i also went without health insurance for a good while. i was paying full price for generics, and the pharmacist at rite aid hooked us up with some program they had that dropped the price even further. i was paying @ $15 a month for 2 perscriptions. suprised the hell out of me when my wife told me. look around a little you might be suprised at whats out there.

Posted by: dbs at July 27, 2009 9:28 PM
Comment #285115

jon

the bill thats in the house right now is no option. it’s too expensive, and eliminates choice altogether. you can keep your current plan, but if you change jobs, or want to choose another private plan you’re out of luck. it does absolutely nothing but eventually force everyone into the gov’t plan, whether they want it or not. not much choice there. there’s also no tort reform in the bill which is another issue that needs to be adressed. we all would like to see cost come down, but that will take alot more than just forcing everyone into a singlepayer system. all that will do is give the gov’t complete control over your healthcare, and thats no fix.

Posted by: dbs at July 27, 2009 9:41 PM
Comment #285121

So, Jon, mind if I ask a few questions since you are making this public…

You are on disability, but don’t qualify for Social Security and/or Medicare/Medicaid? You can’t get private insurance? You are too disabled to get a job someplace, like Mcdonald’s, that does provide benefits to it’s employees?

I have a disability myself, but work to keep insurance, work very hard. I would love not to have to work and have nothing to worry about, but it just doesn’t sit right with me…

I certainly don’t want to be cruel, but I want to make sure I understand the full story before I ‘switch my views and embrace the healthcare plan’ because of your story.

Posted by: rhinehold at July 27, 2009 10:04 PM
Comment #285122
It’s far worse for those who are already suffering the indignity of bankruptcy and the shame of depending on their kids.

I’m sorry, but it’s more dignified to depend upon other, faceless, nameless people than your family, knowing that many of those people are just barely getting by themselves and will have it harder if this new safety net passes?

Wouldn’t it be better to reach out to a place like Red Cross or another charity where you know the people who are funding it are doing so because they want to help people just like yourself?

Posted by: rhinehold at July 27, 2009 10:06 PM
Comment #285123
Yeah? Come spend a week in my shoes, or in the other 99,999,998 shoes of my fellow uninsured citizens, and we’ll see how you feel then.

BTW, I am a disabled veteran who spent time years ago homeless. Do you think it’s wise to assume that people who are opposed to these plans have it easy?

Posted by: rhinehold at July 27, 2009 10:08 PM
Comment #285127
it’s too expensive, and eliminates choice altogether. you can keep your current plan, but if you change jobs, or want to choose another private plan you’re out of luck. it does absolutely nothing but eventually force everyone into the gov’t plan

Can you give a source for this, or is this spin?

Posted by: womanmarine at July 27, 2009 10:38 PM
Comment #285139

>Can you give a source for this, or is this spin?

Posted by: womanmarine at July 27, 2009 10:38 PM

wm,

Spin? Way past that stage, it is now in the same league with ‘birthers’. It’s been spun so long it’s turned into some Twilight Zone fabric.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 28, 2009 3:24 AM
Comment #285141

Just like energy, we can’t solve this problem until we do something about campaign finance reform. A third party would be nice, but without billions of dollars for advertising that’s just a dream. The bastards own our government.

Posted by: Mike the Cynic at July 28, 2009 7:14 AM
Comment #285149

Reform is needed but I don’t believe it is politically possible.

I also believe part of the problem is malpractice and Obama is not interested in limiting that. Although it may be directly only a small part of costs, it indirectly costs us a fortune in ordering expensive tests when there is only a small chance it would be of value. As a society, we will never be able to forgive those few oversights, so we pay for it all. And if it’s covered by insurance, nobody really cares about the extra tests.

Posted by: Schwamp at July 28, 2009 8:12 AM
Comment #285150

womanmarine
http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1687&catid=156&Itemid=55

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3200

“If you have an employer provided plan, the employer has 5 years to switch to a “qualified” plan (Se. 102(b)(1)(a)), which is one “that meets the requirements for such a plan under title I and includes the public”


“health insurance option.” (Se. 101(b)) There is a lot of detail to Title I but you can read it for yourself in the text. In short, it means your plan will have to conform to government established pricing and government established benefits.”

“Note that you can never again purchase a new policy written by an independent issuer. All policies written after “day one of Y1” will have to conform to government established standards.”


Posted by: dbs at July 28, 2009 8:45 AM
Comment #285151

Mike the Cynic, let’s consider the cost of establishing and operating a third party. I think the dems and reps vastly overspend for a number of reasons. Party image is one. And, throwing money at media is sort of like buying votes. I suggest this determines which newspapers and TV stations will come out in support of your party. And, I’m sure you will agree that much money is pissed away creating stupid adds that have no effect and often hurt more than helps a Party. Way overkill by the two major parties.
As for a third party (with a different political attitude)I don’t think it is necessary to throw big bucks around. The plan for Republic Sentry is to operate with mostly volunteers with few paid or full time positions. We are looking to the retiring boomers to carry the day. They will have more free time and are in a position to speak and act politically. Rather than run so many ads we will take advantage of op-ed opinion commentary pages in local newspapers. True, we have to fight fire with fire initially and it won’t be easy and will take several years. We are hoping that people will register up quickly when they learn that the Party is all about reform, putting accountability into politics and where the members serve an oversight function for members who become elected/appointed to office. The Party agenda calls for making election day a national holiday, shortening the election cycle to six months, same day primaries around the country, remove the money influence by abolishing Corporate Personhood and Money is Free Speech laws, mandating free air time for viable candidates, allowing felons who have served their time to vote, make voting mandatory, and directing all campaign donations from the individual to the IRS for legal/accounting and cutting the audit trail and then to the reorganized FEC for distribution to Parties based on their number of viable candidates.
We plan to run the Party on the cheap but, it’s true we first have to fight fire with fire to wrest control from the demreps. Still, I think we can hold the operating cost way down and be effective as a political party.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve!

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 28, 2009 8:56 AM
Comment #285154

DBS:

So the plan must conform to (or be better than) the government guidelines? How terrible for you.

Posted by: womanmarine at July 28, 2009 10:15 AM
Comment #285155

womanmarine

it has to conform. that to me would mean it has to be the same. that would mean a private carrier could not offer more or less coverage, and the price would be the same as the gov’t plan for that identical coverage. i don’t see much choice, or competition. if the gov’t mandates the coverage, and price where is the competition? it also states that once you give up your private insurance you cannot purchase another private policy. over time this will force all into the gov’t plan whether they want it or not basicly ending any private option altogether.

i would assume there will be a pay deduction to fund the program at some point. i don’t believe that you can charge a surtax on incomes over one million when they account for less that 1% of all wage earners and expect to pay for this thing.

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

Posted by: dbs at July 28, 2009 10:37 AM
Comment #285158

conform

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conform

Posted by: dbs at July 28, 2009 10:50 AM
Comment #285159

Roy, I’m all for third parties, I vote for them often (not often enough). Most of my friends vote based on what the MSM is telling them. The only way to get the MSM talking about you is to buy a lot of adds or do something stupid. If you get covered in a negative light, (like Sarah Palin) it detracts from making you look like a legitimate alternative. So you’re down to buying a lot of adds. It took Obama $750,000,000.00 to become president. And that was along with one of the best run campaigns I’ve ever seen.
Depending on op-ed opinion commentary pages in local newspapers might be a good way to run for city counsel or county commissioner, but would not help much in a national election. As far as your agenda goes I’d want to disagree with running all the primaries on the same day. It would seem to me that plays into the hands of the moneyed interests. If we had done it that way then Barack Obama and Bill Clinton would not have gotten their party’s nomination.
As for the rest of your agenda

“remove the money influence by abolishing Corporate Personhood and Money is Free Speech laws, mandating free air time for viable candidates, and directing all campaign donations from the individual to the IRS for legal/accounting and cutting the audit trail and then to the reorganized FEC for distribution to Parties based on their number of viable candidates.”

It sounds like what America needs to get back on track. But don’t you think the CEO’s that run this country would mount a billion dollar add campaign to make the party look silly if we ever got any traction? But then I’m a cynic


Posted by: Mike the Cynic at July 28, 2009 11:00 AM
Comment #285160

Womanmarine, this part of a comment I made in a previous comments section. The items listed is the twitter feed of an individual going through the 1100+ page bill line by line, so far up through the first 500 pages. I’m still verifying some of this, but he does provide the page number and section and it is proving to be accurate so far…

Take a good look at the healthcare plan as it is introduced. Read through the 1100+ pages with a critical eye and tell me if some of the things put in there are constitutional.

Like:

Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benes you get

Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!

Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC Benefits 4 you. You have no choice!

PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise

Pg 58HC Bill - Govt will have real-time access to individuals finances & a National ID Healthcard will be issued!

Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access to your banks accts for elect. funds transfer

PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs.

Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating an HC Exchange to bring private HC plans under Govt control.

PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill - Govt mandates ALL benefit packages 4 private HC plans in the Exchange

PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration your Healthcare!

PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill - Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services.

Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Govt will use groups (ACORN & Americorps?) to sign up indiv. for Govt HC plan

PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs of Ben Levels for Plans. #AARP members - U Health care WILL be rationed

PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill - Medicaid Eligible Individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice

pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No “judicial review” against Govt Monopoly

pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill - Doctors/ #AMA - The Govt will tell YOU what you can make.

Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into pub opt plan. NO CHOICE

Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay for HC for part time employees AND their families. (there goes many part time jobs)

Pg 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Employer with payroll 400k & above who does not provide public option pays 8% tax on all payroll So, if an employer decides to privide better healthcare for their employees, they have to pay an 8% tax! Example of why the joke of a ‘choice’ between the private and public option is just that…

pg 150 Lines 9-13 Biz with payroll btw 251k & 400k who doesnt provide public option pays 2-6% tax on all payroll

Pg 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesnt have acceptable HC accrdng 2 Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income So much for Obama’s assertion that there will be no mandated health insurance? Lock ‘em up if they don’t have healthcare, put ‘em in with the drug dealers…

Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay)

Pg 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access 2 ALL Americans finan/pers recs This bears repeating… THE GOVERNMENT WILL HAVE REAL TIME ACCESS TO YOUR FINANCIAL RECORDS.

PG 203 Line 14-15 HC - “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax” Yes, it says that Bring out the Ministry of Truth…

Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected

Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill - Doctors, doesnt matter what specialty you have, you’ll all be paid the same

PG 253 Line 10-18 Govt sets value of Dr’s time, prof judg, etc. Literally value of humans.

PG 265 Sec 1131Govt mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries

PG 268 Sec 1141 Fed Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs

PG 272 SEC. 1145. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!

Page 280 Sec 1151 The Govt will penalize hospitals for what Govt deems preventable readmissions. Heh, once you check in, you aren’t leaving…

Pg 298 Lines 9-11 Drs, treat a patient during initial admiss that results in a readmiss-Govt will penalize you.

Pg 317 L 13-20 OMG!! PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt tells Drs. what/how much they can own.

Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand

pg 321 2-13 Hospitals have oppt to apply for exception BUT community input required.

Pg335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339 - Govt mandates establishment of outcome based measures. HC the way they want. Rationing

Pg 341 Lines 3-9 Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Adv Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing people into Govt plan

Pg 354 Sec 1177 - Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs ppl! Err, I thought this was healthcare for all?

Pg 379 Sec 1191 Govt creates more bureaucracy - Telehealth Advisory Cmtte. Can you say HC by phone? This is already going on in England, people are being diagnosed with Swine Flu ‘over the phone’.

PG 425 Lines 4-12 Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life

Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of atty. Mandatory! Understand, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT will now have power of attorney over your living will!

PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Govt provides apprvd list of end of life resources, guiding you in death

PG 427 Lines 15-24 Govt mandates program for orders for end of life. The Govt has a say in how your life ends

Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An “adv. care planning consult” will be used frequently as patients health deteriorates

PG 429 Lines 10-12 “adv. care consultation” may incl an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOVERNMENT

Pg 429 Lines 13-25 - The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.

PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life

PG 489 Sec 1308 The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Govt into your marriage

Pg 494-498 Govt will cover Mental Health Svcs including defining, creating, rationing those svcs

This just a review of the first 500 pages so far, people are still diving into the thing… I am still checking them out myself but don’t tell me that this isn’t far reaching and not infringing at all on someone’s individual liberties…

Posted by: rhinehold at July 28, 2009 11:07 AM
Comment #285161

Oh, and this is what Democrats call leadership:

“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’ ” Mr. Conyers said during a Friday lunch address at the National Press Club in downtown Washington. “What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?” — John Conyers
“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.” — James Madison

Spot the leader!

Posted by: rhinehold at July 28, 2009 11:14 AM
Comment #285163

Okay Rhinehold, you’ve got me looking. I downloaded the pdf.

Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure

This is bad? To require that employers who self insure can actually cover costs?

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benes you get

The committee will make RECOMMENDATIONS. So far I see three levels of plans, with GUIDELINES and a MINIMUM of coverage for each level of plan. Again, this is bad?

I will keep looking.

Posted by: womanmarine at July 28, 2009 11:32 AM
Comment #285165
Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!

Actually, the limit is on your yearly out of pocket expenses, like co-pays.

I will keep reading.

Posted by: womanmarine at July 28, 2009 11:38 AM
Comment #285166
Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC Benefits 4 you. You have no choice!

The Health Choices Commissioner shall:

(1) QUALIFIED PLAN STANDARDS.—The estab 7 lishment of qualified health benefits plan standards 8 under this title, including the enforcement of such 9 standards in coordination with State insurance regu 10 lators and the Secretaries of Labor and the Treas 11 ury. 12 (2) HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE.—The es 13 tablishment and operation of a Health Insurance 14 Exchange under subtitle A of title II. 15 (3) INDIVIDUAL AFFORDABILITY CREDITS.— 16 The administration of individual affordability credits 17 under subtitle C of title II, including determination 18 of eligibility for such credits.

Nothing to do with the claim of the Commissioner choosing benefits.

Posted by: womanmarine at July 28, 2009 11:47 AM
Comment #285167
PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise
the requirements of this title do not supercede any requirements (including require ments relating to genetic information non discrimination and mental health) applicable under title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act or under State law, except insofar as such requirements prevent the application of a requirement of this division, as determined by the Commissioner; and (B) individual rights and remedies under State laws shall apply.

Apparently not different than current law?

Posted by: womanmarine at July 28, 2009 11:54 AM
Comment #285169
Pg 58HC Bill - Govt will have real-time access to individuals finances & a National ID Healthcard will be issued!
enable the real-time (or near real time) determination of an individual’s financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility, which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card;

Sounds to me like a card would identify those ELIGIBLE with an insurance identification card, similar to what most insurance companies provide now?

Posted by: womanmarine at July 28, 2009 12:02 PM
Comment #285171

Will check more of these later.

I have worked in doctor’s offices filing insurance claims and determining eligibility for services under almost all of the plans out there. For years. I suspect whoever is twittering this has red herrings to fry.

Posted by: womanmarine at July 28, 2009 12:04 PM
Comment #285173

Mike the Cynic, reasoning behind holding primaries on the same day is that many states are determined to be 1st or at least in the top ten to hold primaries. They do this in hopes of setting the trend or trying to influence other states to follow their lead. Holding primaries on the same day provides for a more democratic election process, IMO. How fair is it to say “well, some big states voted for so and so therfore my candidate is not likely to win therefore I’ll go along and vote for so and so”. Also, by holding primaries on the same day cuts a lot of cost out of the process. True, they will blow their wad before the primaries but there won’t be a 3 month follow of continuing to spend at the max. Interested in your thoughts.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 28, 2009 12:06 PM
Comment #285174

Just to clarify:

Financial responsibility at the point of service is your copay usually.

Posted by: womanmarine at July 28, 2009 12:06 PM
Comment #285175

Womanmarine,

Yes, the government will require people to have an ID card on their person to obtain healthcare, whic his a bit different than a non-governmental agency that does not have the power to arrest you and put you into jail requiring one for healthcare.

And you gloss over the ‘must have real time access to your financial information’ which I will never give to the government as they have no need of it and it is a huge invasion of privacy.

So I will be pretty much sitting in jail once this goes through. Of course, I suspect I will be after the census next year since I will only answer the first question of the census (as I have always done). I am pretty sure that this administration will not let that pass…

Posted by: rhinehold at July 28, 2009 12:07 PM
Comment #285176
Financial responsibility at the point of service is your copay usually.

As written that makes no sense. What is the ‘real time access to verify financial responsibility’ if that is a copay? It also includes the crediting and debiting of healthcare costs. They are talking about having the legal right to know and access your financial information, meaning your bank account.

Posted by: rhinehold at July 28, 2009 12:10 PM
Comment #285177
I suspect whoever is twittering this has red herrings to fry.

Possibly. That doesn’t make them automatically wrong either.

And yes, there is a difference in a private company that you choose to do business with asking for something and you giving it and the federal government putting something similar into law…

At least for many of us who are concerned about such things, like liberty and individual rights.

Posted by: rhinehold at July 28, 2009 12:12 PM
Comment #285178

Rhinehold:

The phrase is financial responsibility, not financial information, which means what the copay is. Many times the doctor’s offices don’t know what the copay will be until the insurance is filed and paid.

It also means the usual and customary insurance ID card which is usually presented to the doctor’s office as proof of insurance.

There seems to be a real effort to misunderstand and misinterpret and read into what is being said. I have done this for a living for years. These phrases are as familiar to me as my name.

Posted by: womanmarine at July 28, 2009 12:14 PM
Comment #285179
It also includes the crediting and debiting of healthcare costs. They are talking about having the legal right to know and access your financial information, meaning your bank account.

Rhinehold, I don’t know where you or anyone get this from that phrase.

I have worked in doctor’s offices. The patient’s financial responsibility is the amount the insurance doesn’t cover, and has always been.

Posted by: womanmarine at July 28, 2009 12:16 PM
Comment #285181


Rhinehold and dbs, If the healthcare plan is as dire as you say and if the American people are dissatisfied with the results, the plan will unravel and the Democrats will be swept from office. Then we will get the opportunity to see the Republican version of healthcare reform.

Posted by: jlw at July 28, 2009 12:20 PM
Comment #285182

Womanmarine,

You are arguing the wrong thing. The law clearly states that in order to determine ‘financial responsibility’, which may be a copay, or deductable, etc, the government will be allowed to have real time access to your financial information.

In another part of the bill it stipulates that this is necessary for the paying or refunding of funds as well.

Posted by: rhinehold at July 28, 2009 12:22 PM
Comment #285183

Rhinehold,

Show me.

All I have seen is the necessity of providing financial information in the case of applying for government subsidy of the cost of the insurance. This is also normally done to qualify for Medicaid. I don’t see any difference.

Posted by: womanmarine at July 28, 2009 12:25 PM
Comment #285190

PoorPoorYou:

Attacking the messenger is not allowed.

Posted by: womanmarine at July 28, 2009 1:48 PM
Comment #285195

To continue on:

Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access to your banks accts for elect. funds transfer

The transfers referred to are for paying the supplier, i.e. doctors and hospitals. Listed under ADMINISTRATIVE.

Posted by: womanmarine at July 28, 2009 2:13 PM
Comment #285196

Roy, my main worry about the timing of primaries is Iowa and New Hampshire. These are so small a candidate has to get out and mingle with the people. In New York and Texas it’s just matter of buying adds. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama all made a name for themselves in these early contests. Otherwise I’m all for the Republic Sentry Party

On the original post I’m sorry about your bad luck Jon. I’ve been without insurance since 2000 when our toaster factory closed. I’m lucky enough to be in good shape for someone who’s 54. But it still worries me. The idea of rationing is so out in left field it’s almost humorous. There has always been rationing and there always will be rationing. If some 22 year old in Southern California doesn’t like her face she’ll have 20 plastic surgeries until she likes it. Right now we have corporations using rationing to bolster the bottom line. I’d be much happier if the government did it.

Posted by: Mike the Cynic at July 28, 2009 2:14 PM
Comment #285197
PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs.

This is the part of the plan that covers those employees who have retired and are still covered under a version their employer’s plan provided as part of the retirement package, but not yet eligible for Medicare.

Posted by: womanmarine at July 28, 2009 2:18 PM
Comment #285198
Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating an HC Exchange to bring private HC plans under Govt control.


ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established within the Health Choices Administration and under the direction of the Commissioner a Health Insurance Exchange in order to facilitate access of individuals and employers, through a transparent process, to a variety of choices of affordable, quality health insurance coverage, including a public health insurance option.

Posted by: womanmarine at July 28, 2009 2:22 PM
Comment #285199
The transfers referred to are for paying the supplier, i.e. doctors and hospitals. Listed under ADMINISTRATIVE.

It is a change to the SS code, how do doctors and hospitals come into play in the social security code exactly?

I am not reading it as mandatory though, which is a good thing. I am still sifting through the language on this entire section but no it does not sound as ominous as it did.

To me as I read it now it refers to all funds transactions (not just between doctor and hospital as you suggest) but no where does it say it is a mandatory process as I can tell atm, just that anyone who does use the electronics transfer option must adhere to the standards they are setting forth.

Posted by: rhinehold at July 28, 2009 2:38 PM
Comment #285200

Also, you are skimming over the fact that the Health Secretary will have access to your W-2 returns for determination of eligibility. Another reason I would not want to choose the public option…

Posted by: rhinehold at July 28, 2009 2:41 PM
Comment #285201
Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into pub opt plan. NO CHOICE

Wrong and a gross misinterpretation.

AUTOENROLLMENT OF EMPLOYEES.—The employer provides for autoenrollment of the employee in accordance with subsection (c).

Subsection C:

IN GENERAL.—The requirement of this sub section with respect to an employer and an employee is that the employer automatically enroll such employee into the employment-based health benefits plan for individual coverage under the plan option with the lowest applicable employee premium.

In no case may an employer automatically enroll an employee in a plan under paragraph (1) if such employee makes an affirmative election to opt out of such plan or to elect coverage under an employment-based health benefits plan offered by such employer. An employer shall provide an employee with a 30-day period to make such an affirmative election before the employer may automatically enroll the employee in such a plan.

Posted by: womanmarine at July 28, 2009 2:45 PM
Comment #285202
Health Secretary will have access to your W-2 returns for determination of eligibility.

Rhinehold: Isn’t this the same access as for Medicaid? I suspect the determination of eligibility referred to is eligibility for whatever they are calling the governmental assistance to purchase healthcare insurance through this. Similar to Medicaid.

Anyhow, I’m done with your twitter post, obviously posted on twitter by a twit. Not you, as I respect your willingness to look beyond what was posted there.


Posted by: womanmarine at July 28, 2009 2:50 PM
Comment #285203

hehe, I also find it interesting finding typos. :) Such as:

Page 149 line 16

(a) IN GENERAK - A contribution is made in accord-

Who do we send the write-ups to? :)

Posted by: rhinehold at July 28, 2009 2:53 PM
Comment #285204
Isn’t this the same access as for Medicaid?

I am not aware, I am not nor will ever be on Medicaid so it is hard for me to say.

But do you not see an issue with providing this information, or better yet, how some people might have a problem giving up this information to the government? We had a 3rd party auditor-type company audit the enrollment of the healthcare plan here at work and part of their requirements to us was to fax them copies of our W-2s, many people complained a LOT about that. And we weren’t being forced to do so through a law.

If you are going to respect an individual’s right to privacy, you have to do it even if you don’t care about sharing the information yourself. Otherwise, it’s just a majority’s right to privacy, not an individual’s.

Posted by: rhinehold at July 28, 2009 2:57 PM
Comment #285205
Anyhow, I’m done with your twitter post

I will keep looking, it is important (and IMO a responsibiilty) for the citizens to view any new legislation critically and cynically, not giving any congress the ‘benefit of the doubt’ on this, especially something so intertwined into our lives and (IMO) not constitutional (I have yet to see anyone adequately explain where the congress has the constitutional right to enact such a law).

But no, I won’t be asserting anything as being factual until I have verified it for myself, though many times in long lists of hysteria there are some nuggets of truth.

For example, we haven’t talked about the HUGE tax on companies that do not choose the public option and instead offer insurance on their own. Why do you suppose that is? I am going to be verfying it is as suggested, though I suspect it is, because I can see the congress wanting to ‘punish’ companies for not using the public option, but I want to make sure before I assert it as factual. But do you find anything wrong or offensive about that or do you think it is acceptable if that is what they are doing?

Posted by: rhinehold at July 28, 2009 3:01 PM
Comment #285206

Rhinehold:

Not if they are claiming inability to pay and requesting government assistance. I think they should have to prove their eligibility. You have to give up something to get something.

Posted by: womanmarine at July 28, 2009 3:03 PM
Comment #285207

BTW, if everyone is eligible, why are they checking w-2s for eligibility? What can make you ‘not eligible’ and if you can be uneligible, won’t there then be people without health insurance because of this?

So we aren’t going to be insuring everyone, what is the point?

Posted by: rhinehold at July 28, 2009 3:03 PM
Comment #285209

Rhinehold:

I downloaded the bill and am reading it carefully, now that I have responded to some of the crap. And if there are nuggets of truth in there, we shouldn’t have to wade through that crap to find them. If they want to post the truth, all well and good, just make it all truth. Wading through all that makes me disregard anything they say, truth or not, when it is so obviously tilted.

The only tax I have seen mentioned so far is on those employers not offering health insurance? And I guess the definition of huge is subjective, no? And I’m not sure where you understand that it is on those companies not choosing the public option, as supposedly there will be offered many choices through the Health Insurance Commissioner’s agency as noted above, only one of which is the public option.

I will be happy to read what you find out.

Posted by: womanmarine at July 28, 2009 3:08 PM
Comment #285210

Who said every one is eligible? Perhaps we are talking past each other on this eligibility issue. I read it as being eligible for government credits for buying insurance for those unable to pay. Perhaps you are reading something different somehow?

Posted by: womanmarine at July 28, 2009 3:10 PM
Comment #285212

Perhaps, I think it’s probably best to read through this myself in its entirety before doing much discussion on it because I am seeing a lot of stuff on both sides of the issue that I am questioning.

I’m sure I will be writing up an article on it after I have done the homework I require of myself before posting any such article. So I am sure we will both be better equipped to talk about it then. :)

Posted by: rhinehold at July 28, 2009 3:14 PM
Comment #285214

Rhinhold:

I look forward to your interpretation and some productive discussion.

Posted by: womanmarine at July 28, 2009 3:24 PM
Comment #285218

I’m not sure that this bill is going to be the one we see anyway:

Already, the group of six has tossed aside the idea of a government-run insurance plan that would compete with private insurers, which the president supports but Republicans said was a deal-breaker. Instead, they are proposing a network of private, nonprofit cooperatives.

I am glad to hear this, I am one who has been calling for NGO for a couple of years now instead of having the government involved.

This senate bill is the only one that has any pretense of being bipartisan (though still left of center, the three republicans discussing are not the staunches of conservatives) and will probably be the one the president get behind.

Though that will be interesting to see how this all plays out, which one will the President sign onto? Will he alienate his party for the people, or will he heed the warnings of the special interests and party loyalists?

Just as I predicted after the election, we might see the answer to some of these questions by the end of the year.

Posted by: rhinehold at July 28, 2009 4:17 PM
Comment #285221

Rhinehold:

I’m wondering where these non-profit cooperatives would come from, who would they cover and where would they be? I would like to see more detail.

And this isn’t the only bill that was bipartisan, I understand that there were quite a few Republican additions to the house bill that were accepted.

And didn’t “the people” just elect all these Democrats? Why then wouldn’t he be able to sign on to what the Democrats propose and be representing the people who elected him? Just wondering.

Perhaps we should have the government option until prices come down and there is a system in place that everyone is covered fairly somehow?

I see a lot of promise in the house bill that I don’t want going away, although I haven’t read it all through yet. Need some quiet time to absorb it.

Posted by: womanmarine at July 28, 2009 4:36 PM
Comment #285230

The maddening part about this debate is that there are proven alternatives to our current system. Our neighbors to the north, who have a comparable culture and standard of living, have a universal high quality health care system at almost half the cost of ours.

To me, it is a no-brainer. Criticisms of the Canadian system point to waiting lists for certain procedures, etc. But would those problems exist if Canada increased its expenditures to the level of the US? I doubt it. We are already spending the money. Lets do it wisely.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2009 9:26 PM
Comment #285242

Informative post, thanks all.

Posted by: gergle at July 29, 2009 5:48 AM
Comment #285253

Rhinehold, the CBO just released a report stating that a public option would “NOT force out private insurers”.

That was a chief complaint of Republicans. Since, Republicans are so fond of the CBO’s statements of late on the public option, they are now boxed in by their own touting of CBO credibility.

OoopSee!

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 29, 2009 11:03 AM
Comment #285269

David,

1) I’m not a Republican and that is not my chief complaint, just one of many.

2) *A* public option wouldn’t. Depending upon the option. If it is the option that punishes businesses for using private insurance, then it would. We have to see what is presented, don’t we?

3) If the stated goal of many who are working on the ‘public option’ is to force out private insurers, what do you think is going to be presented as that public option?

As long as I have an option, I will not use the public one. I don’t want an entity that has the ability to use force on me to have anything to do with how I decide to handle my health. I just hope that I can keep that option…

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 29, 2009 5:55 PM
Comment #285272

Page 425 says MANDATORY and CHOOSE the way you want to end YOUR life

Posted by: Donald Rhodes at July 29, 2009 6:59 PM
Comment #285278

Rhinehold, is there a literacy problem here?

You replied to me: “1) I’m not a Republican and that is not my chief complaint, just one of many.”

I never said you were a Republican, nor that this was YOUR chief complaint. I clearly talked about Republicans, NOT YOU! Why are you trying to wear their shoes in your reply?

Rhinehold said: “3) If the stated goal of many who are working on the ‘public option’ is to force out private insurers, what do you think is going to be presented as that public option?”

And if private insurers refuse to cut their profit margins or contain their costs to compete with a non-profit system, that would NOT constitute forcing out private insurers, would it?

And if some private insurers are forced out by an inability to compete with each other or a non-profit public option, that would not be the fault of the public option. That would be the fault of the private insurer failing to successfully compete. In a free market economy, non-profits are not denied, and competition has a way of forcing out those ill-equipped to compete with rival entities in the same business.

And yes, of course the details of the final draft to be voted out of Conference Committee will be the draft to be scrutinized. But, let’s not pretend that if some private insurers are bought out by competitors or fail to due to an unwillingness to contain costs and even reduce profit margins to private industry standards, that this would somehow constitute the government forcing them out of business. It wouldn’t.

That however, is what some Republicans are trying to argue like John Boehner. Pure bull is what that is. Double standard and hypocrisy all around. One either believes in competition or one doesn’t. One can’t champion it and then blame competitors for driving competition out of the market. Boehner wants his cake and to eat it too!

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 29, 2009 7:55 PM
Comment #285279
And if private insurers refuse to cut their profit margins or contain their costs to compete with a non-profit system, that would NOT constitute forcing out private insurers, would it?

David,

If they can’t hang with a non-profit solution, they should wither up and die. However, it should be a free market non-profit, and the government CANNOT be part of a free market because by its very nature it is not equal competition. I can change all of the rules in any way to do what it wants. It can use force to get its way. All it has to do is, as is written in the bill, just go get any shortfalls from the children of the American people (deficit spending) at some time in the future to guarantee lower prices now.

There is no competition when the government is inovlved. That’s a fact you want to conveniently forget, David.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 29, 2009 8:23 PM
Comment #285288

Donald Rhodes:

Obviously you have not read the bill. The word mandatory is no where on that page. Neither is your phrase.

Reading Is Fundamental.

Posted by: womanmarine at July 30, 2009 12:24 AM
Comment #285289

I encourage you to read the bill yourself, especially those posting someone else’s spin.

Posted by: womanmarine at July 30, 2009 12:25 AM
Comment #285368

>There is no competition when the government is involved. That’s a fact you want to conveniently forget, David.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 29, 2009 08:23 PM

Rhinehold,

The system we have now, or the one we’ve ‘enjoyed’ since the insurance companies and Pharmaceuticals took over the health care system…you know the one…is it based on competition?

Posted by: Marysdude at July 31, 2009 7:35 AM
Comment #285370

It is convenient to forget that when corporations become too big to fail, as AIG, Goldman, Ely Lilly, etc. that there is NO competition, and thus NO personal choice. Left at its present care:cost ratio, how long before total collapse for all but the super wealthy? If you agree that collapse is heading our way, then what entity besides government can stop that collapse?

Posted by: Marysdude at July 31, 2009 7:44 AM
Comment #285377
It is convenient to forget that when corporations become too big to fail, as AIG, Goldman, Ely Lilly, etc. that there is NO competition, and thus NO personal choice.

I don’t forget it, I don’t see any reason to allow a company to become ‘too big to fail’ and I was calling for all of these companies to fail if they did. I am also a very big anti-trust supporter.

So I’m not sure what the beef is, I am the one being consistent here, everyone else are hypocrites if you look at it like you are suggesting.

As for ‘stopping the collapse’, you seem to think that a collapse is happening (I don’t) or that it is an entirely bad thing (again I don’t) because where one large company fails, many smaller better companies will be created out of necessity to take their place. And if not, they weren’t needed to begin with. Had we let Chrysler fail in the 70s, when they should have, another group of people would have raised the money, bought the assets (including the factories) and put out a better product that more people wanted. They would have hired back the workers and we would have had a stronger, better, automotive industry today. This will be the same thing in another 20 years time or so. Because we keep trying to protect failure in this country, we never can really succeed anymore.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 31, 2009 11:11 AM
Comment #285431

I’m talking about the health-care system as we now know it and experience it. The health care appreciated by the fewer and fewer, and the non-health-care appreciated by the rest of us…especially by those recently laid off or denied insurance for other reasons. I’m talking about the unconscionable profits being made by the so-called competitors in the market place as the numbers of those able to get decent health care dwindles. If the free market can only provide health care for the select few, it hardly can be competitive, good or ‘health’ care. The costs to patients for insurance and care have shot by inflationary norms so fast you’d think they’d brought back the SST for that purpose.

In a nut-shell, I’m saying the system is broke, and cannot fix itself. I’m saying that ‘competition’ is owned by a handful of corporations who depend on people like you to keep them rolling in everyone else’s misery. You sell their product for them as though you were on their payroll.

If you count the numbers of folks around you who can no longer afford insurance or decent care, you’d think you lived in Sudan or Somalia.

When health-care is owned by the few, and the citizenry has to do without proper care, the only entity, on that level, that can put it on the line is the government.

womanmarine has put the hex on virtually every whine and whimper you, KAP and the others could come up with, and David has explained how it won’t affect your precious market place ‘competition’, yet you still flounder around like a fish out of water trying to make out like health care reform is going to end America as we know it…well, America as we know it isn’t as we know it anyway.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 31, 2009 11:26 PM
Comment #285448

Marysdude,

First, everyone I know has medical care AND medical insurance because the people I spend time with are responsible. They take care of themselves because they find it abhorrant to expect someone else to take care of their needs.

Second, ‘put a hex on every whine and whimper’? Hardly.

Third, there currently is no competition and there will be less competition once this plan goes through. There is no way around that fact, no matter what fairy tale you believe. There is only one way to put competition into the system and no one wants to talk about it.

Make no mistake, I was calling for reform of healthcare in the 80s. I disagree with doing more of what got us here in the first place, ie government intervention into the system. But more on that later…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 1, 2009 11:34 AM
Comment #285492

Rhinehold,

Your calls for health-care reform in the 80’s fell on deaf ears, and not only that, but the corpeaucracy circled the wagons. They are now so entrenched and powerful that reform is a long-shot, even with government involvement.

Are you saying that all who do not have proper health insurance are irresponsible, slovenly, trailer park trash or something?

First, everyone I know has medical care AND medical insurance because the people I spend time with are responsible.

What a wonderful statement…it certainly puts those who are less fortunate than your acquaintances in THEIR place, doesn’t it?

Posted by: Marysdude at August 2, 2009 3:38 AM
Post a comment