Senate HCR Bill: Anti-Women, -Immigrants, -Unions, -Working/Middle Classes, -Patients, oh, and ... Anti-Anti Trust!
Primary tabs
So let's examine the Senate bill, that Obama heavily PREFERS, that faux-progressives are touting as worthy of progressive support and worthy of loyal cronyism against the hypocritical corporatist Republicans and irrationally anti-government instead of anti-corporate teabaggers. (That is a massive amount of BLIND cronyism they are calling on.):
The Senate bill depends on healthcare funding from middle class with excise taxes on comprehensive plans, sabotaging their sustainability.
The Senate bill offers no public option, not even a toehold.
The Senate bill mandates that people without insurance purchase it or be penalized. This assures dramatic escalation of profits for the companies, and recruits the IRS to monitor the citizenry. Instead of ensuring monitoring of corporate abuses, time, energy, taxpayer money is to be directed to monitoring and penalizing a struggling citizenry.
The Senate bill pretends to enforce pre-existing condition protections but does not rein in exorbitant pricing which will prevent patients from purchasing care when they technically are eligible but not economically capable of care.
The Senate bill subsidizes fewer of the poor than the House plan.
The Senate plan dooms citizens to state control of exchanges. Cheapskate states can prevent the poor from subsidies.
The Senate bill allows cross-state purchasing. This will encourage proliferation of cut-throat, low quality health care plans.
The Senate bill allows states to prohibit abortion coverage in ALL plans offered in exchanges. It undercuts union negotiation for reproductive rights.
The Senate bill forbids undocumented immigrants for ALL coverage in exchanges and subsidies. Demands citizenship verification. This will encourage untreated contagious illnesses among immigrants, and more expensive emergency room visits. Also, it prevents younger immigrants from purchasing insurance thus lessening the amount from healthy clients in the general insurance pool of risk income. These are the pragmatic arguments. Dare we include the issue of compassion for the welfare and survival of fellow human beings?
The Senate bill doesn’t start until 2014. There will continue to be 45,000 American citizens prematurely dying each year until then. By then a minimum of 24 million will still remain uninsured.
The Senate bill sustains the Anti-trust Exemption for insurance companies.
The Senate bill supports a toothless version of a Medicare Commission.
In the Senate bill the pharmaceutical industry won 12 years of patent protection for certain classes of drugs, many of which were developed using public funding. The Senate rejected a proposal to allow the re-importation of prescription drugs from Canada.
The Senate bill expands eligibility for Medicaid and ends the disparity between states which is good, but this will drain money from the Medicare program.
There are few provisions to keep health care affordable.
There are few provisions to prevent waste and fraud.
Insurance companies can charge more based on age.
Insurance companies can continue to rescind policies after they have been written (often using fraud or intentional misrepresentation as pretext).
Insurance companies can cherry-pick new customers and limit payments for catastrophic illnesses.
Insurance companies can refuse to allow policyholders from choosing their own doctors and hospitals.
Insurers can charge up to four times more for policies based on age plus certain conditions, double charge for people failing “wellness” programs because of diabetes, blood pressure, cholesterol, etc.
The Senate and House bill exempt state protections passed by allowing insurers now to set up in less regulated states. (ahem, remember when credit cards set up in Delaware?)
Consider Extorted Pork and Sabotage by Senators at Eleventh Hour with Senate Bill:
Senator Landrieu got $100 million in extra Medicaid funding.
Senator Ben Nelson was granted a complete exemption from Nebraska payments into enhanced Medicaid benefits.
Senator Baucus won automatic Medicare eligibility for asbestos-exposed citizens of Libby, MT (after blocking expansion of Medicare everywhere else in America).
Senator Ben Nelson added anti-abortion language into the final draft that will allow individual states to prohibit abortion coverage in all plans offered through the exchanges.
Senators Baucus and Lieberman prevented a Medicare buy-in for those 55+, eliminating any trace of a cost-curbing Expanded Medicare or even public option sensibility in the Senate bill.
[Again, please help “kill the bill”. Toll-free switchboard numbers for the Senate and House: 1-800-828-0498, 1-866-338-1015, 1-866-220-0044.
Contact info for Senators or Representatives here:
To send letters:
Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
or
House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Please join this vital fight now. As the adage goes, if we are not part of the solution, we are part of the problem. And consider Edmund Burke’s powerful message, also, about how evil prevails when good people do nothing.]
Informational websites:
http://www.prosperityagenda.us/node/3097
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2010/january/an-inglorious-end-to-the-promise-of-reform
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2010/january/health-care-overhaul-the-devils-in-the-details
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=averting_a_health_care_backlash
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=deal_or_die_on_health_care
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=ten_things_to_watch_in_the_health_care_reform_conference
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2010/january/the-health-bills-in-congress-are-not-real-reform

- libbyliberal's blog


- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
Please don't cry for "P.O."!
Re:
and
I beg you, please do not suggest that "public option" is a lost opportunity.
vast, my mention of po in this case is appropriate
Since Single Payer Medicare for All was NEVER on the table for either House or Senate bill, my doing an explanation of what was in and taken out of the Senate bill has nothing to do with single payer and it is not relevant to my analysis. The Senate bill does have to do with the public option, no matter what you or I think about it. And since it was used as a "bait and switch" political football my referring to it in this case is certainly appropriate and in NO WAY proselytizing for it.
I have been true to the single payer stance, but I hope the single payer people and public option or ex-public option people can come together and work for universal coverage.
"Public option" needs to stop being a hot button for anger and bitterness for this to happen, as does "single payer" with them.
I, of course, know that you're not proselytizing for "PO"
But I strongly object to this:
This "look forward not backwards" post-partisanship is literally killing us, as is terming well-earned criticism "anger and bitterness."
Prog bigshots like MoveOn and Digby and Dean are still flogging "public option," so going Lucy-and-the-football about what a roach motel for progressive energies it is is incredibly short-sighted. It's like the horror-film protagonist who throws down the knife next to the presumed-dead slasher and turns the other way.
"PO" is a clear and present danger in. It's a zombie that we must help keep dead. As Kip Sullivan said:
All I'm asking you to do is to be vigilant about not giving the impression that "public option" is a meaningful policy. There are enough disinformation merchants out there doing that, some well-paid for their efforts.
I sincerely appreciate what you're doing here and elsewhere, but I think you ought to rethink playing nice with the "public option" concept.
Don't even use the abbreviation!!!
That implies there's something real there!
Short version: so-called "public option"
Long version: [a|the] [strong|robust|triggered]? public [health insurance]? [option |plan]
Plus, I don't give two shits whether the access bloggers are angry or bitter or not, an y more than I care whether the Dem factions they're laundering memes for are angry or bitter.
Of course, anger and bitterness is only really detected...
when it comes from those under the bus.
Were Obama-ites or pro-war "patriots" or our religious betters or anyone else in charge of the STFU spigot ever criticized for being angry and bitter?
yes, yes, vast and lamb, public option was a quicksand....but..
Okay, vast and lambert ... I get what you are saying and why the ps-es to my analysis re public option mentions.
Back at the FDL ranch, though, I got burned because Jane and public option people were so "talk to the hand" about those of us in minority trying to talk single payer to them. I felt dismayed as to the why they were so defiant and seemingly threatened by hearing out our ideas, like Obama was so threatened to let those with such rational ideas as Medicare for All, get close enough to actually speak up. Like Nader is not let near where the "players" are or access to a corporate-media citizen audience because his wisdom will illuminate their dysfunction. Why the proverbial messenger "gets killed".
There was a wall of irrational emotionalism, a denial-protection emotionalism, at FDL. "Single payer" was their hot button. It was painful since it was ostensibly a "forum" and though single payer folks were relating to each other there, there was that powerful "cronyism" that edged us out of the community to a great extent and, ultimately Jane's exhibition of intolerance and pointed, dismaying disrespect -- especially since the public option had already circled and traveled down the bowl -- edged me out completely ... and I think we can safely say re Jane and others even among the well-meaning got it wrong ones, political egos don't make hair-pin turns even after their possessors have been proven wrong-sighted.
Anyway, I guess I am talking "tone" in our own camp, that I don't want single payer people to be as "hot buttony". "Public option ??? "... "Slowly I turned ...step by step ..." (3 Stooges Niagara Falls bit if anyone remembers...???) Yes to be righteous and confident but still empathetic in conversations with non-choir people or choir people. Sorry for the goofy reference if you recognize it, but I am trying to explain my seeming pollyanna-ishness.
I was surprised and wondered why my non-flattering analysis of the Senate bill brought such a strong reaction about the public option mention. I appreciate and do get your explanations. "It's a zombie we must keep dead" made me laugh and also made me get your point, vast. I guess I think of the public option as having been a Trojan Horse and naively assume that it proved to be so and people who endorsed it got that ultimately and may still be sore on the subject but got it. Maybe not?
You both have raised my consciousness, but I hope what I am saying, even if it may not apply to us right now in this case, explains my "peace in the progressive valley" message, about partnership and cooperation. I want to convert the non-choir by inviting them to our higher ground, not find a mutual crony quicksand for us all.
You can certainly charm me with "3 Stooges" references
Among other things, that's where I learned the term "hoi polloi."
Anyway, "Trojan horse" is an excellent way to remember never to cite "public option" as if it's a meaningful policy choice. Beware access bloggers bearing big wooden ponies.
If they see the error of their ways and stop pushing the wooden equine up to our gate, I'm all for making peace with them. There's this mythology, and it is mythology, that the boldly shrill are gratuitously mean to converts. Let's see some converts and then you can judge accordingly.
Jane's "conversion" wasn't exactly a shining example of what to expect from the Greek (anti-Trojan) camp, I think you'll agree. I'd be charmed to see someone do much better. Haven't seen it yet, though.
My litmus test is simple: acknowledge that "public option" was a bait-and-switch, even if you (they) bought into it with good intentions. If they can't pass that test, why should I trust them on HCR policy?
"Trojan pony"?
Seems implicit:
"... the public option is a Trojan Pony..."
thx, v&l, "Trojan-pony-public-option" I will use heretofore
Thanks, vast and lambert.
Vast, Stooges schtick appreciation. Very cool and resilient of you. :)
And media continues to black out terminology or visualization or acknowledgment of even "universal healthcare" or "single payer Medicare for All" or "HR676" that is ready for launching. How they (media -- especially faux-progressive media -- and the "pragmatic progressives") made the Trojan pony "public option" a buzzword! If only its promoters would use their power for good. Why not now that it proved a colossal failure you would think they'd rejoin the ongoing Medicare for All march? Is it simple, willful, my way or the highway ego? I don't think I will ever get it. Supposedly the goal was universal health care. So why demonize those fighting to get there sooner rather than later. Keep eye on the prize. Especially after their shenanigans slowed the march of progress down, hurt rather than helped.
Good going with the T-shirt.
2L4PP (pragmatic progressives)?
Boldly shrill truth to power ... I'm on board. Your litmus test doesn't seem that hard vast, imho.
Thanks, LL!
Yet another way to think of "public option" is "sabotoogie." -- "Busy Buddies," (1944).
vast, must cast asparagus on bad political cooking ...:)
Sabotoogie-oogie-oogie ... sounds a tad disco.
Thanks for Stooges link. You know, when I was little my brother was more into the stooges than I. Fascinating but shocking. I remember being horrified at what a silly woman Lucy Ricardo was. I thought Scarlet was so bratty in GWTW. What a prissy little authoritarian follower I was, very in harness socially. Older and older I get the bigger kick I get out of Stooges and Lucy and Marx bros, etc. Relate to Scarlet taking care of self needs.
Did you go through the Firesign theater period? Python? My brother would embrace and I would get caught up soonafter.
Firesign: "What is all this brouhaha?" "Brouhaha?" "Ha, ha, ha!" (taught me the word brouhaha)
No and yes
I missed the Firesign wave, just picking up a few of their tropes second-hand.
Python, on the other hand ("this phenomenon the other hand"), oh, yes!
http://vastleft.blogspot.com/2009/11/sin...
http://vastleft.blogspot.com/2006/11/and...
And sequeing back to the Stooges:
http://vastleft.blogspot.com/2007/03/if-...
The first of these three links is one of my personal favorites among my posts. Maybe I should retroactively cross-post it here.
well done, vast! perfect use of the really surreally!
looking forward to exploring more of your blogspot. nicely done. "WE DO EXIST!!!" ty!
here are a couple Python chestnuts (silly job interview and argument clinic):
silly job interview
argument clinic
transcription of argument clinic
I may just go home and try to do an adaptation! TY!!!!
LOVE THIS STUFF!
Well laid out
in easy to repeat form. The link below is well worth a read.
http://rawstory.com/2010/01/whisteblower...
ty lex, & thanks for link.. wendell potter is a champion!
lex, thanks for your validation and link. Potter is such an ally since he knows how the insurance companies are "gaming"" the system in DETAIL. The devil certainly does live in the details. Political talking points of "compromise" are so disgustingly worked around by loopholed bills.
ty lex, & thanks for link.. wendell potter is a champion!
lex, thanks for your validation and link. Potter is such an ally since he knows how the insurance companies are "gaming"" the system in DETAIL. The devil certainly does live in the details. Political talking points of "compromise" are so disgustingly worked around by loopholed bills.
Medicare buy-in is a crock. Lowering the age of eligibility...
... is what we want.
So it's got to be paid for with, say, a transactions tax like HR676. And?
I agree, lambert...HR676 is the way!!
I am not promoting the Med buy-in, I am reporting in this blog what was taken out of the Senate bill. And the fact that this was dumped by Senate, un-ideal as it was, was still a sign of the total pro-corporatism, and lack of willingness to explore cost-cutting for citizens. It shows just how bad and unyielding the Senate bill is.
The House bill is better than the Senate bill but deeply flawed by loopholes itself. I agree, HR676 is the answer.
Good Round up, libby
Hi libby, Thanks for the good roundup. I have a couple of comments. First, I the MA election killed the Senate Bill. The House members now believe that a bill with mandates that doesn't take effect until 2014 is a poison pill for them in 2010. It doesn't have a chance in hell of passing.
Second, FDL is now pushing so-called "sidecar reconciliation" which would pass the Senate Bill simultaneously with a reconciliation bill "fixing" some of its problems. We need to kill this. The "fix" would still leave the mandates, the 2014 effective date, the lack of enforcement for insurance company regulations, coupled with IRS enforcement of the mandates and lack of price controls for insurance companies all in place. It would still be a terrible bill and a poison pill for those incredibly stupid Democrats.
Third, we should support efforts to go back to the beginning in the House with bills under reconciliation to close the Medicare donut hole, expand eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid. We should support funding these by progressive taxation, and not through any excise tax. We should ask Congress to support full expansion of Medicare and Medicaid to everyone with a possible bottom line compromise position of: everyone within 200% of the Poverty level eligible for Medicaid and everyone under 18 and 45 and over covered by Medicare. We should also holdout for immediate implementation of these measures . by August 2010, so that they are in place by election time.
Finally, I don't agree that 24 million will be left uninsured by 2014 under the Senate bill. I think that number was for 2019. In 2014, 15 million additional people will be covered by Medicaid, but with an increase in uninsured between now and then, we are still looking at 37 million left to be insured. How many people will get coverage in response to the Mandate and subsidies isn't clear, but 13 million would have to do so to reach the 24 million figure, and I don't see that happening considering the likely rise in premiums between now and then. In fact, I'd be surprised if they were able to reduce the uninsured to 24 million by 2019.
lets, oy vey, incredibly stupid Dems is right...(insanity def)
Thanks, lets.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a diff result.
FDL ... so ferociously willful it can't support single payer medicare for all but must re-invent its own wheel?... was just commenting on FDL above... oy vey.. sidecar reconciliation?
I really like your ideas. Let me know more. Will do more research myself. I am recovering from hand problem and getting some close up time with American health care personally. A couple of alphabet letters on my card determine what vital tests I do or do not get. PPO or what is the other configuration? It is heart-gripping wondering one's fate suddenly standing very vulnerable in the middle of a doctor's office.
Why can't we just push HR676?????? Short and sweet and sane???
Supreme Court, sucker punch to the solar plexus, huh?
ps. Well, re statistics, I think we can safely say that the vast, vast majority of us will be either uninsured or underinsured VERY SOON thanks to corporate and Congressional and presidential corruption.
I was talking to some co-workers
about the Health Whatever bill yesterday.
One guy said, "Why are people whining about health care? At least they have JOBS, unlike the tens of millions who have lost theirs."
The other one said, "We should be concentrating on jobs instead of health care."
I said, "The real problem is that health care is tied to jobs at ALL. In other, civilized countries, health care is a right and is guaranteed to everyone. What we need to do is expand Medicare to cover us all. It would mean a little more in taxes, but imagine - no premiums, no co-payments, and no insurance companies."
You could actually see their eyes widen as the frame was broken.
My one co-worker then started talking about how insurance companies were evil and how he had wasted an hour yesterday trying to straighten out his bill, and how the doctors and hospitals overcharged by 500% just to get the insurance companies to pay 100% of what the procedures actually cost. My other co-worker started talking about how the doctors and hospitals didn't benefit at all under the current system.
Going forward, I think using this type of argument - "Insurance companies are EVIL, let's take them out of the picture" - is a good way to advocate for Medicare for All. I think DCBlogger said something like this a couple of days ago - now I've seen it in action. It WORKS.
What's a good rebuttal to
but Medicare doesn't work / is broken / etc?
I don't have any personal experience with Medicare and I've heard that argument from a lot of real life righties.
That's tough,
Because it's usually a faith-based argument from someone who doesn't believe in government, for the most part. Your arguments won't sway them.
What I would say is, "If you really want to know how well it works, I challenge you to ask five people over 65 what they think of Medicare. Then get back to me."
Also, no one is saying Medicare is perfect - there are loopholes (like Part D) that need to be closed. But from what I've been reading, the storied "fraud and waste" of Medicare is usually the result of the private insurance additions to it - companies like Medicare Advantage.
So once again, we can blame its flaws, such as they are, on private insurance.
Thanks!
The medicare advantage problems is a good one to keep in mind.
madam! thanks for that real life commentary....
I am having similar conversations.
And to suggest to people that obsolescent, evilly profiteering insurance companies can and should be taken OUT OF THE SCENARIO is so over the top to most people, but I am willing to work on explaining why it is a change I can believe in!!!
This is why I'm a LL fan...
You rock, girl! Keep on keeping on - the more conversations we all have like this, the more people will get it on health care.
Actually, it would seem a lot more over the top to suggest the insurance companies could be gotten rid of, if we didn't have an existing program that could be leveraged to make it happen. Thank you, LBJ!
madam, you get it-what a steep, sheer grassroots climb this is!
You are, as usual, way too kind.
HR676 is so simple and workable. All the brouhaha to keep the population from the sane and simple. Truly evil, this obstructionism, disinformation, fear tactic campaign.
You get what degree our goal is dependent on word of mouth, one on one, communication since we have the formidable corporate media seducing and shilling for the corporations and there is the tea party "anti-populism" populists misdirecting their legitimate outrage and getting all the media and Congressional and presidential deference they can get. I watch the multitude of insurance-company exploitive but charmingly advertised obsolescent eldercare plans, and I saw that commercial about the woman with the paper cut trying to get disability. Paint the victim as the persecutor. The insurance advertising actors ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS vast should put on another T-shirt! And Congress and Prez, lost to amorality. We have to pray one honest representative at a time we can get our country back.
The United States of Amnesia and Corporate Hypnosis! I heard someone say on the radio today that "free market" should always be called heretofore "concentrated market". Free market is another example of Orwellian speak.