NEWS & POLITICS  
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 98

Why Congress' Health Care Bills Are Better Than You Think

The health care bills wending through Congress are getting a bad rap. And the major culprit is the Congressional Budget Office, and its chief, Doug Elmendorf.
November 6, 2009  |  
 
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest News & Politics headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 

Many progressives are expressing deep disappointment with the health reform legislation now moving through Congress.

Some suggest that some legislators made deals with lobbyists and let them write the bills. Others complain that both the subsidies and the penalties are too low. Still others don't like the fact that states can "opt out" of the public insurance option and decide not to offer "Medicare E" -- Medicare for everybody.

Finally, many ask: "Why can't everyone sign on for the public plan in 2013? Why do we have to wait until 2013? Why can't they roll out universal coverage next year?"

Normally, I would be among the first to critique the bills. By temperament and training, I'm both a skeptic and a critic.

But in this case, I think it is important to recognize that we cannot expect this first piece of health reform legislation to be anything but wildly imperfect. In fact, I'm impressed by the progress Washington has made in just 10 months.

I've been watching the struggle for health care reform since the early 1970s, and compared to what has happened over the past 39 years, this is mind-boggling.

I also believe that those who favor overhauling our health care system should send a strong signal to legislators: We support you for having come this far. We realize that you have three years to strengthen, change and refine the plan before rolling it out in 2013.

What Has Been Accomplished So Far: Affordability

What is astounding is that this Congress has made as much progress as it has. We may have a new administration in the White House, but we do not have a brand-new group on the Hill.

The majority of our legislators are moderates; many are conservatives. Nevertheless, a sufficient number have found the will to stand up and back changes that would make health care affordable for millions of poor, working-class and middle-class Americans.

For example, under the House bill, a family of three making $32,000 a year would pay $1,360 in annual premiums for good, comprehensive coverage; under the Senate Finance Committee bill, that family would be asked to lay out $2,013. Today, without reform, if that family tried to buy insurance, it would find that the average plan costs $13,500. For this household, the current legislation makes all the difference.

Too often, the press suggests that such a family would be expected to pay $10,000 out of pocket to cover co-pays and deductibles. That just isn't true.

Even if the entire family were in an auto accident and racked up $200,000 in medical bills, at their income level, the House bill caps out-of-pocket expenses at $2,000 a year. Under the Senate Finance bill, the family would have to pay $4,000.

Moreover, under both bills, there are no co-pays for primary care. Even private insurers cannot put a $25 barrier between a family and preventive care.

Moving up the income ladder, a median-income household earning roughly $55,000 would pay premiums of $4,300 to $6,500 -- depending on whether the Senate Finance bill or the more generous House bill sets the terms.

Without legislation, they too would face a $13,500 price tag -- and that is if they could get a group rate. If they are buying insurance on their own, coverage could easily cost $16,000.

For self-employed workers, early retirees and those who work for (or own) a small business, the legislation offers major savings.They will be able to buy coverage on the Insurance Exchange, where they would suddenly become part of a group -- which makes their premiums much lower.

Whether rich or poor, this is great news for anyone who works for himself, retired early (voluntarily or involuntarily) or is part of a small firm.

Granted, the legislation now on the table still doesn't make insurance affordable for many Americans at the upper edges of the middle class -- or the upper class. They don't qualify for subsidies. But, as I discuss below, the legislation does point the way to lowering their premiums.

Before reform becomes a reality in 2013, I am convinced that this will happen, in part because it must. We can no longer ignore the waste, inefficiency and pure fraud in our health care system. There is absolutely no reason why we should pay so much more for health care than any other nation in the developed world.

And at least the current legislation protects these more affluent households from medical bankruptcy. No matter how much a family earns, they cannot be asked to pay more than $10,000, out of pocket, in a given year. For households that have savings and property to protect, this means that they don't have to worry about being wiped out by a medical disaster.

Even if you and your family are in that car accident that leads to $200,000 in doctors' and hospitals bills, you will owe only $10,000. In that situation, doctors and hospitals will let you pay off your bills over time, because they know you can. You won't be forced into bankruptcy court. This represents an enormous step forward.

In addition, under reform, private insurers will not be able to put a cap on how much they will pay out to you and your family, over the course of a year or over a lifetime. If tragedy strikes and a child needs six or seven years of cancer treatments, your insurance will not "run out."


Maggie Mahar is a fellow at the Century Foundation and the author of Money-Driven Medicine: The Real Reason Health Care Costs So Much (Harper/Collins 2006).
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest News & Politics headlines via email


Comments are closed-

A govenrment thoroughly screwed up by the Right
Posted by: Perry Logan on Nov 6, 2009 2:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I greatly appreciate hearing the upside of the health-care story. The idiocy of the debate alone was enough to make you renounce your citizenship.

I'm convinced that, if we can get something passed which faintly resembles single-payer, people will love it and it will be easier to get the real deal passed further down the road. The Right instinctively know this, which may help explain their hysteria.

The worst disappointment was learning that the Obama administration essentially betrayed us by cutting a secret deal with the insurance companies. Progressives should start demanding Obama's resignation immediately.

It's also useful to recall that the Repubs have had the better part of 30 years to screw up the federal government. It's as if the Democrats were trying to drive a car that has just been totalled. All things considered, it's a miracle they can get anything done at all.

This just in: Degenerates hate ACORN

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The family of three...
Posted by: bonapartist on Nov 6, 2009 2:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...making $31,000 a year cannot afford either $1,300 or $2,000 and most certainly not $4,000.

That is providing that family of three actually makes $31,000 with current unemployment rate close to 10% and falling wages.

Yeah, yeah, it is a step in the right direction that will yield a universal health coverage sometimes in 26th century. Oh, and be sure to vote Obama for the second term or this "better than you think" deals might come to pass.

Have I missed anything?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Taxable not gross income. Posted by: reelectnoone
» Can you provide a link please? Posted by: bonapartist
» RE: The family of three... Posted by: maggiemahar
» Yes, it might or it might not Posted by: bonapartist
» RE: Yes, it might or it might not Posted by: maggiemahar

Comments are closed-

Bad legislation is worse than no legislation.
Posted by: weightman on Nov 6, 2009 4:06 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Pelosi could have come forward with the strongest bill possible, knowing the Senate would water it down. She didn’t need to pre-dilute it."

The negatives far outweigh the positives

Pelosi expanding the Medicaid program further locks in a tiered health care system, effectively providing less for the least amongst us. In health care, that’s simply not Progressive.

It screws women. Again. Is that Progressive?

It screws the middle class. Is that Progressive?

"Speaker Pelosi must offer the leadership necessary to truly reform our system and to address one of our greatest moral failures of the last fifty years." Progressives need to stop playing politics with people's lives.

Bad legislation is legislation which fails to adequately redress whatever grievance or controversy which lead to the call for reform. Bad legislation entrenches into the system processes and mechanisms and attitudes designed to sustain its failures. When the grievances or controversies left to fester eventually resurface, not only must those issues be addressed, but all the processes and mechanisms entrenching bad legislation within the system must also be confronted. This usually results in more bad legislation concentrating on the processes and mechanisms while failing, again, to adequately address the need for reform.

What has been proposed by Obama, Reid, and now Pelosi, is not healthcare reform, it's health insurance reform. It's legislation written by the health insurance industry to sustain industry rationing of healthcare based on economic class, race, gender and age. That's not Progressive. That's bad legislation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I stand by my assesment Posted by: weightman

Comments are closed-

This sounds all well and good, but what's the fine print say?
Posted by: Farasien on Nov 6, 2009 4:50 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was listening to the radio yesterday, and a strong point was brought up I think worthy of repeating... To get this thing passed, what did the corporately-owned congress have to negotiate away with the health care mob? It was suggested that most of the bill would be giveaways to the crooks who puppetteer the congress, and while there would be a few crumbs that would make things better, what are the hidden stipulations attached to these? I can't imagine that ANY of these would be in the bill unless some crook lobby blessed them off first (or found a loophole that lets them out of it). My guess is, upon closer examination of all the 'good' things in the bill, there will be significant leeway, given through the language they use in the bill to allow either the companies that would be subject to the law to squirm out and/or get a TON more money from the government- over and above that which would be actually required for whatever the bill promises.

You lawys have to remember the first rule- those with power will NEVER EVER relinquish it. They might change its form, but it will never go away through anything but brute and brutal force, and even then is usually only temporary.

Two things never change in DC- the crooks never get caught and the politicians never change their real employer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Maggie Maher you refuse to understand one (or 2) thing(s)
Posted by: bthespoon on Nov 6, 2009 4:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First: private health unsurance is a defective product that will NEVER offer real protection for anyone who is not famous or affiliated with the right kind of group. Divided we are conquered, and the name of their game is to game any system for their benefit at our expense. It is the "Beast That IS the Problem" and feeding it even more of our tax dollars in corporate welfare will not make the problem better but rather wealthier, stronger and worse.

We all need to be in the same not-for-profit public protection plan: if we get sick, we are covered. This is the only way to make and keep health coverage affordable and moral (answerable to people first, not profits).

Making as much money as possible by denying as much care as possible is the name of the health insurers' game, and that is a fact that will never change. If we are left to its mercy, I guarantee you that it has NO mercy.

Second: we're fighting for EQUAL health care protecion for ALL. If you get sick, you get access to the best medcial care available, period. Inequality in health coverage means continued injustice in health care, and "injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane" (according to Martin Luther King, who understood a thing or two about injustice).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Calling it "insurance" is a misnomer; and is fraud!
Posted by: sasquuatch55 on Nov 6, 2009 5:11 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
nt

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Not affordable
Posted by: AudaxViatrix on Nov 6, 2009 5:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Have you ever supported three people on $32,000? $1,300/year doesn't pass the affordability test.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not affordable Posted by: reelectnoone
» RE: Not affordable Posted by: MKAE4lbs
» RE: Not affordable Posted by: maggiemahar
» RE: Not affordable Posted by: DaBear

Comments are closed-

The right is so upset that the Dems must be doing SOMETHING right...
Posted by: lulu on Nov 6, 2009 5:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Single payer would be best. But...look at the right kicking and screaming. They're doing that because limitations ARE being imposed on their ability to suck America dry. It's not going to be perfect, but it's going to be better than nothing. Not allowing denial to anyone and imposing limits on out of pocket costs is huge.
Most people who aren't covered by generous employer-based plans will still have trouble. For example, somebody making 60K per year and already budgeted to the hilt covering acceptable housing, bills, schooling, student loans, transportation and all can't afford $500/mo. premiums and then certainly can't afford $500/mo. premiums PLUS out of pocket costs if they ever actually have to go to the doctor for anything. We need a larger conversation in this country about the cost of living and average incomes not keeping up.
But if we can get pre-existing conditions eliminated and out of pocket costs capped...this is progress.
If we look at what some other countries that don't have single-payer in the strict sense but do have strongly regulated health insurance - The Netherlands requires health insurers to charge standard rates to all- all companies charge all people approximately $160/mo. premiums, and the insurers can ONLY compete on quality. Coverage is mandatory for people. No doubt the govt. subsidizes the insurance industry heavily to afford it, and no doubt the Dutch are healthier in general (they ride bikes everywhere). But the point is there ARE other ways that sit in the middle between the free-for-all we currently have and single payer. In Australia, coverage is mandatory, and people choose an private insurer on their 18th birthday and basically stay with that insurer forever because they keep the SAME rate they pay at age 18 throughout life - insurers are not allowed to raise rates due to age or health status. AND insurers then have incentive to focus on a person's long-term health, as opposed to the American way of short-term cost-cutting and profit-scrounging on everything. There are other ways, and we can get there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Keeping Criticism in Perspective
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Nov 6, 2009 5:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for a great article that is expressing what apparently is a very unpopular perspective. Thank you especially for the critique on CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf. I suspect that most progressives just take the CBO reports at face value is simply the lack of any reports to the contrary and this article might help with raising the level of skepticism about these reports.

Having lived through many failed attempts to reform our disastrous private health insurance system I am inclined to agree that, with all its failings, the bill now winding its way through congress is much, much better than the status quo.

That doesn't mean that progressives should abandon all criticism since there is still a possibility for improvement in the bill; however we all need to watch out that we don't get fooled by our own rhetoric. If we can get significant improvement, let's not hold out for something we will never get, like perfection.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

a question (or two)
Posted by: bthespoon on Nov 6, 2009 7:04 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maggie said "No matter how much a family earns, they cannot be asked to pay more than $10,000, out of pocket, in a given year. For households that have savings and property to protect, this means that they don't have to worry about being wiped out by a medical disaster."

What if they only have $10,000? What if the $10,000 costs go on year after year?

Isn't $10,000 more than 20% of the gross (not net) median household income in this country?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: a question (or two) Posted by: mtatasmith
» Only $10,000 Posted by: reelectnoone
» RE: Only $10,000 Posted by: MKAE4lbs
» Only $10,000 Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» Answers to Questions Posted by: maggiemahar
» Same numbers in answer and in post Posted by: maggiemahar

Comments are closed-

I'm taxed/mandated to the MAX already
Posted by: lclark on Nov 6, 2009 7:45 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article sounds reasonable. A family with an income of 40-50k will only pay about 10% of their income for health insurance coverage.
However, that family already tithes to the various governmental structures via:

- Federal income tax

- State income tax

- Property tax

- Social security tax

- Medicare tax

- Sales tax

- Various hidden and special taxes

That 40-50k is already reduced significantly.

And the government says inflation is under control. But they label as “volatiles” items such as groceries and heating fuel and don’t include them in the calculations. Average people know a few years back $100 bought a shopping cart full of groceries to feed the kids and now just a few plastic bags of groceries can be $100. People with children are in a bad situation.
And forget about pleasure driving. 1,000 gallons of heating oil was about $1,400 a few years back. The next year it was $2,800 and happened suddenly at the start of heating season. In the following years it went as high as $4,500. This year it’s about $2,900.

I’m not opposed to a national healthcare system in principle. I’m opposed to mandates and fines. It’s one thing to take tax money and fashion a system of healthcare. It’s another thing to pass laws that dictate how people MUST spend money that is not labeled as TAXES.
I think most people are aware of the various deceits and manipulations of government. Most people agree the government gets us into expensive wars and bills us to insure the interests of multinational corporations. Afganistan is about getting a pipeline cheap for the multinationals.

If there were an honesty in the system and we were governed in the common interests of citizens we would not be members of the WTO, not have NAFTA, would already have invested in energy infrastructure and alternative technologies that would make us independent of foreign imported oil and cost less than the wars we’ve participated in. We would also not have created enemies.
And we likely have a decent universal healthcare system without additional MANDATES/TAXES that focused on what doctors view as optimal rather than how much private business interests profit from the configuration.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Just an aside regarding groceries. Posted by: franklyspanking
» The meat I already had. Posted by: franklyspanking

Comments are closed-

RRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRR !!!
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 6, 2009 7:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
GOD DAMN IT ! THIS AUTHOR IS CUCKOO TO SUGGEST THAT HR3200 IS A GREAT THING. I DON'T WANT HILLARYCARE OR OBAMABARE ! I WANT HR3200 TO FAIL SO THAT HR676 CAN BE GIVEN A CHANCE !! TRYING TO PAINT A BAD BILL AS "GOOD" IS EXACTLY WHY WE VOTERS IN VA AND NJ SHOT THIS PARTY DOWN LIKE A SHOTGUN BLASTING A TURKEY IN THE SKY !!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Thanks for this more positive perspective
Posted by: SufiLizard on Nov 6, 2009 8:05 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a harsh critic of the current bills, so it was good for me to read your perspective, and it has softened my stance a bit.

I do have to echo some other comments here though that I don't think insurance is affordable based on the numbers you cited.

A $1,300 premium would still come out to over $100/month and I'm not sure a family living on a small income would really find that affordable.

And I also don't understand how it would affect the unemployed. COBRA is ridiculously expensive and even the discounted plans are going to be impossible for someone who has no income.

I am encouraged by the adjustments to Medicare reimbursement, that's crucial. All-in-all I can't figure out how these Conservadems can be so stupid. The vast majority of the public support a Public Option, and I think even more would support it after they got a taste of it. But the dems in swing districts are going to be the first to be punished by voters for crafting crappy legislation, yet it is these same legislators who are making the legislation crappier.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Obama is wrong to cut Medicare
Posted by: kettleblack on Nov 6, 2009 8:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"As President Barack Obama has promised, Medicare cuts can make health care safer and more affordable for everyone ..."

They need to give Medicare the power to negotiate lower costs with providers and pharmaceuticals, not take money away from the entity that treats people.

They are not changing anything, only hoping that they will influence corporate behavior. And, we have seen corporations that continue bad practices even after failure.

Medicare does work. Just ask the millions of people on it.
Government is proposing is to eliminate Medicare, Social Security, and any other working program, so that they can continue the myth of
"Nothing Government does, ever works."
A self-fulfilling prophesy, by those in control.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Obama is wrong to cut Medicare Posted by: maggiemahar
» RE: Why not expand Medicare? Posted by: kettleblack

Comments are closed-

Maybe in the future the Congress will make it better? Do we look like suckers?
Posted by: thicky on Nov 6, 2009 8:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The perfect would be a single-payer health system, a strong public option is the compromise, a weak public option is a fraud.

The bill before the congress might only provide insurance for at most 6 million citizens by 2019, with a public option that will likely cost MORE than private insurance(the senate bill is worse). How is that a good thing? And what about the other 40 million citizens without health care?

Now we are supposed to trust Obama who went back on his promise of affordable health care for all. We are supposed to trust the senators and congressmen who can't, no, they won't even try to get a decent health insurance reform bill passed(reconciliation anyone). Only a fool would "trust" the congress to pass a crappy health reform bill because at some future date they might make it a little better.

Ms. Mahar and the Democratic party operatives at the think tank she works for--The Century Foundation whose president is Richard C. Leone(managing director of a leading investment bank, Dillon Read, and a member of The Council on Foreign Relations), John Podesta(former Clinton chief of staff), Joe Califano, and other Democratic Party hacks--they are trying to fool us into buying into a sham health care reform bill just so the Democrats can say they "passed health care reform" when this bill throws crumbs at the less fortunate and billions of dollars in subsidies for the profits of health care companies.

Say no to fake health care reform and the Democratic Party shills who are trying to sell it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Above article: a profound step forward for obfuscation.
Posted by: franklyspanking on Nov 6, 2009 8:16 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Today, without reform, if that family tried to buy insurance, it would find that the average plan costs $13,500.

I wish I knew where the author was getting these numbers. My guess is that she's combining the employer contribution, which is, for example, above 90% for me, personally, with what the individual/family pays to arrive at this inflated amount. I'm well aware that these "masked costs" have costs of their own, but to begin your thesis telling us what I can only surmise is an outright distortion of reality lends little credence to rest of the noises the author makes farther on in her rant.

I get that some folks hate 'the maths', and would rather retreat into fear and creationism when they see "free" stuff in their neighbors yard, or wallet. People are greedy when they think they can get away with it; one only need to look at Wall Street and their best buddies in the Oval office and halls of Congress if you doubt that.

We are also given no information as to why the author is so angry at the CBO director, other than he's saying things that the author doesn't like to hear. To wit, the CBO director is Satan, standing in the way of the author's vision of spreading FEMA delivered/IRS administered healthcare.

My opinion is that this article would have worked much better had it begun with the phrase, "Once upon a time..." Or perhaps, "A story ripped from todays headlines...", or at the very least "A dramatized reenactment". The author's audience, after all, are already believers, so the little fibs and distortions wouldn't really alter the (mixed) message (TM?).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» While I appreciate your reply... Posted by: franklyspanking

Comments are closed-

It's all a cynical deceit
Posted by: chlamor on Nov 6, 2009 10:00 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I came across this comment maybe here maybe somewhere else and I think it bears repeating:

"
"Public option" is NOT single payer; it is a cynical deceit

The "public option" parrots never address the arguments made by, e.g., Physicians for a National Health Program (pnhp.org). Why do you think that is?

Public Plan Option in a Market of Private Plans
By David Himmelstein, M.D. and Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H.:

The "public plan option" won't work to fix the health care system for two reasons.

1. It forgoes at least 84 percent of the administrative savings available through single payer. The public plan option would do nothing to streamline the administrative tasks (and costs) of hospitals, physicians offices, and nursing homes, which would still contend with multiple payers, and hence still need the complex cost tracking and billing apparatus that drives administrative costs. These unnecessary provider administrative costs account for the vast majority of bureaucratic waste. Hence, even if 95 percent of Americans who are currently privately insured were to join the public plan (and it had overhead costs at current Medicare levels), the savings on insurance overhead would amount to only 16 percent of the roughly $400 billion annually achievable through single payer -- not enough to make reform affordable.

2. A quarter century of experience with public/private competition in the Medicare program demonstrates that the private plans will not allow a level playing field. Despite strict regulation, private insurers have successfully cherry picked healthier seniors, and have exploited regional health spending differences to their advantage. They have progressively undermined the public plan -- which started as the single payer for seniors and has now become a funding mechanism for HMOs -- and a place to dump the unprofitably ill. A public plan option does not lead toward single payer, but toward the segregation of patients, with profitable ones in private plans and unprofitable ones in the public plan.

www.pnhp.org

-----------------------------------------------

Everyone knows that successful negotiations begin from a position greater than what one actually wants. Therefore, starting negotiations with "public option" instead of single payer means that the ultimate outcome will be less than even "public option."

A public plan option does not lead toward single payer, but toward the segregation of patients, with profitable ones in private plans and unprofitable ones in the public plan.

PLUS this segregation will set up the "public option" to appear much less efficient than the private option...not only is this cynical deceit, but its a planned sinister defeat of any public health care set up by those who prefer a for profit health care plan.

Health care for people, not for profit!!!

THE ENTIRETY OF THE US CONGRESS NEEDS TO BE LANCED AS THEY ARE A CANCER!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's all a cynical deceit Posted by: maggiemahar

Comments are closed-

Applauding half measures ...
Posted by: wjfaust on Nov 6, 2009 10:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... is a bad strategy. In fact, there is no need for a strategy. Simple truth will do. The bill that finally arrives will be too little too late.

We sometimes think "the system" operates on our behalf. That's an illusion. There are just four parts: the wealthy, a government, a production system and the rest of us. The rules are simple. The wealthy are engaged in a simple game of "who can accumulate the greatest wealth in terms of dollars or trinkets." Every year, the winners are announced in Forbes magazine. The government operates on behalf of the the wealthy to keep the production system running smoothly so that wealth becomes evermore concentrated in the hands of the wealthy. The production system is the machinery that transforms natural resources into goods and services for the rest of us to consume. The rest of us consume the crap it disgorges and ritually vote -- choose from among nearly indistinguishable candidates who are beholden to, possibly different, members of the wealthy class.

Since we live in a "democracy", it is no longer fashionable to to regard us as slaves, serfs or peasants. Consequently, we need a more elaborate production system. First, it must pay us for our efforts to turn all those cranks. Second, it must convince us we need to give most of that money right back by endlessly consuming all the production system offers. Since giving it right back isn't an obvious benefit to us, the production system also includes an information sector to convince us never-ending consumtion will make us happy and our country strong. That information sector also works hard to maintain the illusion we are in charge because we vote.

The system is inherently flawed for two reasons. The first is our finite planet can only sustain growth until physical limits are reached. Not much to do about that besides degrading the planet and committing future generations to misery. That's what we are doing now. The second flaw is the unlimited growth in the appetites of the wealthy. Modest accumulation just doesn't cut it anymore. We address that problem by adding two new pieces to the production system: a casino for the wealthy and an endless supply of public debt. The casino for the wealthy is a place where they make outrageous bets with other people's money -- yours and mine. If they win, they keep the gains; if they lose, they are declared TBTF and we step in to rescue them with public debt. This debt is ultimately handed to future generations to worry about. If this sounds like a Ponzi scheme, that is because it is a Ponzi scheme. Makes Madoff look like a piker.

So, in this context, the government is behaving quite rationally. There is little if any possibility that a health care bill will emerge that acutally benefits "the rest of us".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Applauding half measures ... Posted by: maggiemahar

Comments are closed-

Article Should have been Titled: Getting Slapped Down and Loving It
Posted by: ralphzilla on Nov 6, 2009 10:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's wrong with you liberals? Do you really expect fairness and justice for all?

With record numbers of people losing their good jobs and having to take Sh*t jobs with places that provide no healthcare, the health insurance racket was getting pretty nervous.

Well, surprise, surprise. Here comes the government to the rescue.

Now we the people will be FORCED to buy an outrageously expensive plan (and still have to pay out of pocket expenses) from our huge salary from our little sh*t job.

That is America at her best.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

NO on mandatory insurance that doesn't cover family planning
Posted by: plantland on Nov 6, 2009 11:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women will be worse off if they have even less money left over to cover necessities like family planning after having been forced to buy "insurance" without protection!

Likewise, abortion should be covered instead of compromised away, since the young person will have to pay.
I don't agree with the penalities for not joining, either.

People have different philosophies about health, and differnt ways at attaining it.
Most of these paths cost something, which the person forced to pay will no longer be able to afford.

Not being able to afford birth control because you have been forced into a plan to pay for someone else's Viagra- let's stop and say no.

In the Democratic primary, Clinton said she wanted 100 % coverage, but Obama at that time seemed less emphatic about bragging rights on universal coverage, less inclined to copy Massachusett's penalties.

We all like wins, but gee, fellas.

Help more people with real health problems and dependent on medication get on MEDICAID, even if they are getting by enough own cars and houses. That is what is really keeping many Americans from recieiving care. We do want people to get by, right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Support the best health care reform there is
Posted by: greenferret on Nov 6, 2009 12:05 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Medicare for all, also known as single payer healthcare, is favored by a majority of Americans.

How can we convince Congress to actually do what the people want?

Tell your members of Congress that unless they support Medicare for all, you won't support them.

Take the Medicare For All Pledge now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Health Care for Illegal Aliens
Posted by: WeimMom on Nov 6, 2009 1:54 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CBO Says New Health Care Bill Would Cover 2.5 Million More Illegal Aliens

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/
november-5-2009/cbo-says-new-health-
care-bill-would-cover-25-million-more-illegal-aliens.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Reply to bthespoon--
Posted by: maggiemahar on Nov 6, 2009 6:49 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The $10,000 out of pocket is the max that a relatively affluent family would have to pay in a very bad year --when what they owed, in co-pays and deductible, after their
insurance company paid, exceeded $10,000.

By relatively affluent I mean a couple earning more than, say, $70,000, a family of four earning more than $88,800) The cap on out-of-pocket costs for a family earning less is lower.

In many plans, if you go the doctors in your network (which I normally do) you don't pay a deductible. You may have co-pays of $10- $25
for doctors' visits and co-pays for $15-$25 for most drugs. If you have to take prescription drugs (i.e. there are no generics) your co-pays might be as high as $75.

Under the reform plans there will be no co-pays for preventive care --even if you have private insurance.

It's very unlikely that the amount a family owes over what their insurance covers would get to $10,000 (or anywhere close) unless someone lands in the hospital as an inpatient (outpatient procedures usually have low co-pays) OR if someone in your family is really sick and you feel a need to go out of network to try to find the best specialist in the area.

So in a terrible year, you might owe $10,000.

We've raised children, and my husband and I are both over 50--and we've never gotten anywhere close to $10,000 in out-of-pocket expenses.

We've been lucky-- no serious accidents, no really serious illnesses in the family. Just some out-patient operations (sports injuries, etc.)

At some point, we won't be so lucky. But I'm relieved to know that $10,000 would be our maximum liability. One
way or another, we could handle that . . .

Even if a family earning $90,000 (or a couple earning $70,000) don't have $10,000 in savings, doctors and hospital would let them pay it off over time--because they know that, over time, they could pay it.

The family might have to foregoe a family vacation, put off buying a new car or living room furniture, take a home equity loan . . . but they wouldnt' be financially ruined.

That's an enormous difference. Today, in this country, that family could lose virtually everything.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eply to bthespoon-- Posted by: DaBear

Comments are closed-

Reply to Lulu
Posted by: maggiemahar on Nov 6, 2009 7:17 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks--You are absolutely right.

And, as you suggest, there is much that we can learn from other countries.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Reply to Suzilizard
Posted by: maggiemahar on Nov 6, 2009 7:27 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for your comment.

An unemployed family with no income (or very little income) would either qualify for Medicaid, or would recive a government subsidy to cover all of their premium.

And the amount that they would be expected to pay out of pocket would be minimal.

Government subsidies would cover premiums on a sliding scale. Most likely, a family of four earning up to $88,800 would receive a subsidy --the less they earn, the larger the subsidy.

Very likely a family earning $33,000 now pay an average of $100 a month for health care, even if they are not insured. They spend that much, over the course of one or two years, when they absolutely have to go to the doctor--or take kids to the doctor or ER -- even if they don't have insurance.

Also, under reform detal and vision care will be covered for kids.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Anybody who's been paying attention
Posted by: willymack on Nov 6, 2009 10:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To what's going on regarding health care in this country knows it SUCKS, plain and simple.
We simply can't continue beating our chests and proclaiming "We're number one" when we compare so poorly to other nations which resolved their health care situations decades ago.
The fact of the matter is that we DON'T have the best health care in the world, except for the obscenely wealthy. We're way down on that list, and if we don't want to continue to see some 40,000 people a year die, tens of thousands of families going bankrupt, and the number of uninsured soar to 50 million or more, we'll have to pull the rug out from underneath some very evil criminals who don't want any changes to take place no matter how bad it gets for us.
It's got to be done, and soon. The time for lies, denials, crooked politics, and the dominance of corporate crooks has to END.
We have more important things to do in life than getting screwed over at every turn.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

For some weird reason
Posted by: willymack on Nov 6, 2009 11:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Two thirds of my post was cut off when I clicked on post.
What I was trying to say was that the pharma and drug racketeers deserve NO consideration or a place at the table when decisions for health care reform are being made. In fact, quite a few of them should be in JAIL, along with ass lickers like Lieberman, Baucus, and other crooks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Just an observation
Posted by: bonapartist on Nov 7, 2009 9:13 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On Alternet sometimes the author of an article goes through considerable effort to argue with the posters.

That usually happens when moves made by Obama's administration are unpopular and drawing fire.

I believe that Mr. Holland still holds a record in that department but he is hardly the only one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Just an observation Posted by: maggiemahar

Comments are closed-

2013? "How conveeeeen-ient!" as Church Lady would say...
Posted by: Prinzowhales on Nov 8, 2009 9:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just after the 2012 election comes the fulfillment of a promise of the 2008 election.
"Home by Christmas!"...Yes, indeed...these are the "Rusty's" of the dog track, promises to keep the dogs chasing after the Rusty the Rabbit...voters yelping and straining at the traces to bring the Democratic dog cart into victory lane in 2012. "For a hamburger today, I will gladly pay you Tuesday..." The Goldman Sachs' Regime has already broken promise after promise from the 2008 races made by its creature...now they want to sell you the same promises twice.

How well did the Goldman Sachs' Party fare in the 2009 elections? The Republicans opted for suicide in the 23rd New York while beating one of Goldman's finest in New Jersey. Not very encouraging prospects when one looks at Obama's ratings, a deepening depression, unpopular wars and a dollar that is in free fall. By 2013, they may well not be in any position to fullfill their promise.

Funny...it only took a short time to turn trillions over to the financial intermediaries...while it will take years to 'reform' healthcare. It took only a few weeks to capture Baghdad, but it will take years to 'fix' healthcare. "Home by Christmas!" they were saying years ago...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Did C-14 Pass?
Posted by: weightman on Nov 8, 2009 9:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did the Kerry/Hatch Amendment (C-14) pass with the House Bill?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The current bills are the product of corruption
Posted by: tomkara on Nov 11, 2009 12:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maggie seems to think that the health insurance industry has clout simply because it has money - but that clout only exists because of corrupt Democrats who do their bidding. The Democrats are not representing their constituents, they're simply corrupt officials who can be bought. They will never allow "further reform" to happen because they aren't suddenly going to become honest. Other countries have health care because the population elects people who represent their interests. It's time for progressives to infiltrate local Democratic parties and take it over just as the wing nuts took over the Republican party. When somebody like Ben Nelson or Max Baucus is allowed to remain in the Democratic Party, the situation is hopeless. Force them out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Activist
Posted by: jacmac on Nov 18, 2009 12:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Regarding Why Congress' Health Care Bills Are Better Than You Think
By Maggie Mahar, Health Beat. Posted November 6, 2009.

This is a great story, one that makes clear--for the first time, to the best of my knowledge--what the health care reform proposals in Congress would actually do and cost. It shows how incredibly inept or corrupt the media are, including progressive outlets like KPFA (inept) and NPR (corrupt, along with all the corporate media) in failing to provide listeners, viewers and readers with accurate information. I suspected there was a story behind all the alarmist reporting about the disastrous pending health care reform legislation, but I never dreamed the reporting could be this bad (although it is consistent with virtually everything else in the media). The article also shows that good reporting is on the Internet--if you can find it.

In my mind, the article represents in a broader sense the inaccurate reporting in the media--corporate and progressive--about the Obama administration in general because those media tend to focus their reporting on what critics--again conservative and progressive alike--are saying without investigating and reporting the facts. And also not digging out what is going on behind the scenes in a range of issues that doesn't get reported because the incompetent media, with very few exceptions, only report what the government says and what the critics say. Sometimes this government doesn't say much in order to work behind the scenes in low-profile or even in secretive ways (negotiating Congressional support for health care reform, for example) and to avoid being a target of the right wing and its media while work is in progress. In that void steps the critics--conservatives who claim that Obama is doing too much and progressive who claim he is not doing enough or fast enough--and that is the "news" Americans see, hear and read. And a big reason why the public is so un- and misinformed, as this article shows.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

thanks for your info
Posted by: nature on Nov 23, 2009 3:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We're way down on that list, and if we don't want to continue to see some 40,000 people a year die, tens of thousands of families going bankrupt, and the number of uninsured soar to 50 million or more, we'll have to pull the rug out from underneath some very evil criminals who don't want any changes to take place no matter how bad it gets for us.True Religion | True Religion Jeans Evening Dresses | Cocktail Dresses

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

ugg boots sale
Posted by: evalin on Nov 27, 2009 5:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with you, your saying is so good and usful for me. Thanks. Are you also like
ugg boots sale
Straighteners
NFL jerseys
ugg australia
NFL jersey
uggs
ghd Hair Straighteners
Photoshop CS4
ghd
It’s a meaningful and interesting topic. Thanks. Want to know more about
UGG Bailey Button boots
UGG Classic Cardy
UGG Classic Short
UGG Classic Tall
UGG Nightfall

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

A govenrment thoroughly screwed up by the Right
Posted by: Perry Logan on Nov 6, 2009 2:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I greatly appreciate hearing the upside of the health-care story. The idiocy of the debate alone was enough to make you renounce your citizenship.

I'm convinced that, if we can get something passed which faintly resembles single-payer, people will love it and it will be easier to get the real deal passed further down the road. The Right instinctively know this, which may help explain their hysteria.

The worst disappointment was learning that the Obama administration essentially betrayed us by cutting a secret deal with the insurance companies. Progressives should start demanding Obama's resignation immediately.

It's also useful to recall that the Repubs have had the better part of 30 years to screw up the federal government. It's as if the Democrats were trying to drive a car that has just been totalled. All things considered, it's a miracle they can get anything done at all.

This just in: Degenerates hate ACORN

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The family of three...
Posted by: bonapartist on Nov 6, 2009 2:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...making $31,000 a year cannot afford either $1,300 or $2,000 and most certainly not $4,000.

That is providing that family of three actually makes $31,000 with current unemployment rate close to 10% and falling wages.

Yeah, yeah, it is a step in the right direction that will yield a universal health coverage sometimes in 26th century. Oh, and be sure to vote Obama for the second term or this "better than you think" deals might come to pass.

Have I missed anything?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Taxable not gross income. Posted by: reelectnoone
» Can you provide a link please? Posted by: bonapartist
» RE: The family of three... Posted by: maggiemahar
» Yes, it might or it might not Posted by: bonapartist
» RE: Yes, it might or it might not Posted by: maggiemahar

Comments are closed-

Bad legislation is worse than no legislation.
Posted by: weightman on Nov 6, 2009 4:06 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Pelosi could have come forward with the strongest bill possible, knowing the Senate would water it down. She didn’t need to pre-dilute it."

The negatives far outweigh the positives

Pelosi expanding the Medicaid program further locks in a tiered health care system, effectively providing less for the least amongst us. In health care, that’s simply not Progressive.

It screws women. Again. Is that Progressive?

It screws the middle class. Is that Progressive?

"Speaker Pelosi must offer the leadership necessary to truly reform our system and to address one of our greatest moral failures of the last fifty years." Progressives need to stop playing politics with people's lives.

Bad legislation is legislation which fails to adequately redress whatever grievance or controversy which lead to the call for reform. Bad legislation entrenches into the system processes and mechanisms and attitudes designed to sustain its failures. When the grievances or controversies left to fester eventually resurface, not only must those issues be addressed, but all the processes and mechanisms entrenching bad legislation within the system must also be confronted. This usually results in more bad legislation concentrating on the processes and mechanisms while failing, again, to adequately address the need for reform.

What has been proposed by Obama, Reid, and now Pelosi, is not healthcare reform, it's health insurance reform. It's legislation written by the health insurance industry to sustain industry rationing of healthcare based on economic class, race, gender and age. That's not Progressive. That's bad legislation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I stand by my assesment Posted by: weightman

Comments are closed-

This sounds all well and good, but what's the fine print say?
Posted by: Farasien on Nov 6, 2009 4:50 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was listening to the radio yesterday, and a strong point was brought up I think worthy of repeating... To get this thing passed, what did the corporately-owned congress have to negotiate away with the health care mob? It was suggested that most of the bill would be giveaways to the crooks who puppetteer the congress, and while there would be a few crumbs that would make things better, what are the hidden stipulations attached to these? I can't imagine that ANY of these would be in the bill unless some crook lobby blessed them off first (or found a loophole that lets them out of it). My guess is, upon closer examination of all the 'good' things in the bill, there will be significant leeway, given through the language they use in the bill to allow either the companies that would be subject to the law to squirm out and/or get a TON more money from the government- over and above that which would be actually required for whatever the bill promises.

You lawys have to remember the first rule- those with power will NEVER EVER relinquish it. They might change its form, but it will never go away through anything but brute and brutal force, and even then is usually only temporary.

Two things never change in DC- the crooks never get caught and the politicians never change their real employer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Maggie Maher you refuse to understand one (or 2) thing(s)
Posted by: bthespoon on Nov 6, 2009 4:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First: private health unsurance is a defective product that will NEVER offer real protection for anyone who is not famous or affiliated with the right kind of group. Divided we are conquered, and the name of their game is to game any system for their benefit at our expense. It is the "Beast That IS the Problem" and feeding it even more of our tax dollars in corporate welfare will not make the problem better but rather wealthier, stronger and worse.

We all need to be in the same not-for-profit public protection plan: if we get sick, we are covered. This is the only way to make and keep health coverage affordable and moral (answerable to people first, not profits).

Making as much money as possible by denying as much care as possible is the name of the health insurers' game, and that is a fact that will never change. If we are left to its mercy, I guarantee you that it has NO mercy.

Second: we're fighting for EQUAL health care protecion for ALL. If you get sick, you get access to the best medcial care available, period. Inequality in health coverage means continued injustice in health care, and "injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane" (according to Martin Luther King, who understood a thing or two about injustice).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Calling it "insurance" is a misnomer; and is fraud!
Posted by: sasquuatch55 on Nov 6, 2009 5:11 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
nt

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Not affordable
Posted by: AudaxViatrix on Nov 6, 2009 5:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Have you ever supported three people on $32,000? $1,300/year doesn't pass the affordability test.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not affordable Posted by: reelectnoone
» RE: Not affordable Posted by: MKAE4lbs
» RE: Not affordable Posted by: maggiemahar
» RE: Not affordable Posted by: DaBear

Comments are closed-

The right is so upset that the Dems must be doing SOMETHING right...
Posted by: lulu on Nov 6, 2009 5:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Single payer would be best. But...look at the right kicking and screaming. They're doing that because limitations ARE being imposed on their ability to suck America dry. It's not going to be perfect, but it's going to be better than nothing. Not allowing denial to anyone and imposing limits on out of pocket costs is huge.
Most people who aren't covered by generous employer-based plans will still have trouble. For example, somebody making 60K per year and already budgeted to the hilt covering acceptable housing, bills, schooling, student loans, transportation and all can't afford $500/mo. premiums and then certainly can't afford $500/mo. premiums PLUS out of pocket costs if they ever actually have to go to the doctor for anything. We need a larger conversation in this country about the cost of living and average incomes not keeping up.
But if we can get pre-existing conditions eliminated and out of pocket costs capped...this is progress.
If we look at what some other countries that don't have single-payer in the strict sense but do have strongly regulated health insurance - The Netherlands requires health insurers to charge standard rates to all- all companies charge all people approximately $160/mo. premiums, and the insurers can ONLY compete on quality. Coverage is mandatory for people. No doubt the govt. subsidizes the insurance industry heavily to afford it, and no doubt the Dutch are healthier in general (they ride bikes everywhere). But the point is there ARE other ways that sit in the middle between the free-for-all we currently have and single payer. In Australia, coverage is mandatory, and people choose an private insurer on their 18th birthday and basically stay with that insurer forever because they keep the SAME rate they pay at age 18 throughout life - insurers are not allowed to raise rates due to age or health status. AND insurers then have incentive to focus on a person's long-term health, as opposed to the American way of short-term cost-cutting and profit-scrounging on everything. There are other ways, and we can get there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Keeping Criticism in Perspective
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Nov 6, 2009 5:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for a great article that is expressing what apparently is a very unpopular perspective. Thank you especially for the critique on CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf. I suspect that most progressives just take the CBO reports at face value is simply the lack of any reports to the contrary and this article might help with raising the level of skepticism about these reports.

Having lived through many failed attempts to reform our disastrous private health insurance system I am inclined to agree that, with all its failings, the bill now winding its way through congress is much, much better than the status quo.

That doesn't mean that progressives should abandon all criticism since there is still a possibility for improvement in the bill; however we all need to watch out that we don't get fooled by our own rhetoric. If we can get significant improvement, let's not hold out for something we will never get, like perfection.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

a question (or two)
Posted by: bthespoon on Nov 6, 2009 7:04 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maggie said "No matter how much a family earns, they cannot be asked to pay more than $10,000, out of pocket, in a given year. For households that have savings and property to protect, this means that they don't have to worry about being wiped out by a medical disaster."

What if they only have $10,000? What if the $10,000 costs go on year after year?

Isn't $10,000 more than 20% of the gross (not net) median household income in this country?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: a question (or two) Posted by: mtatasmith
» Only $10,000 Posted by: reelectnoone
» RE: Only $10,000 Posted by: MKAE4lbs
» Only $10,000 Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» Answers to Questions Posted by: maggiemahar
» Same numbers in answer and in post Posted by: maggiemahar

Comments are closed-

I'm taxed/mandated to the MAX already
Posted by: lclark on Nov 6, 2009 7:45 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article sounds reasonable. A family with an income of 40-50k will only pay about 10% of their income for health insurance coverage.
However, that family already tithes to the various governmental structures via:

- Federal income tax

- State income tax

- Property tax

- Social security tax

- Medicare tax

- Sales tax

- Various hidden and special taxes

That 40-50k is already reduced significantly.

And the government says inflation is under control. But they label as “volatiles” items such as groceries and heating fuel and don’t include them in the calculations. Average people know a few years back $100 bought a shopping cart full of groceries to feed the kids and now just a few plastic bags of groceries can be $100. People with children are in a bad situation.
And forget about pleasure driving. 1,000 gallons of heating oil was about $1,400 a few years back. The next year it was $2,800 and happened suddenly at the start of heating season. In the following years it went as high as $4,500. This year it’s about $2,900.

I’m not opposed to a national healthcare system in principle. I’m opposed to mandates and fines. It’s one thing to take tax money and fashion a system of healthcare. It’s another thing to pass laws that dictate how people MUST spend money that is not labeled as TAXES.
I think most people are aware of the various deceits and manipulations of government. Most people agree the government gets us into expensive wars and bills us to insure the interests of multinational corporations. Afganistan is about getting a pipeline cheap for the multinationals.

If there were an honesty in the system and we were governed in the common interests of citizens we would not be members of the WTO, not have NAFTA, would already have invested in energy infrastructure and alternative technologies that would make us independent of foreign imported oil and cost less than the wars we’ve participated in. We would also not have created enemies.
And we likely have a decent universal healthcare system without additional MANDATES/TAXES that focused on what doctors view as optimal rather than how much private business interests profit from the configuration.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Just an aside regarding groceries. Posted by: franklyspanking
» The meat I already had. Posted by: franklyspanking

Comments are closed-

RRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRR !!!
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 6, 2009 7:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
GOD DAMN IT ! THIS AUTHOR IS CUCKOO TO SUGGEST THAT HR3200 IS A GREAT THING. I DON'T WANT HILLARYCARE OR OBAMABARE ! I WANT HR3200 TO FAIL SO THAT HR676 CAN BE GIVEN A CHANCE !! TRYING TO PAINT A BAD BILL AS "GOOD" IS EXACTLY WHY WE VOTERS IN VA AND NJ SHOT THIS PARTY DOWN LIKE A SHOTGUN BLASTING A TURKEY IN THE SKY !!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Thanks for this more positive perspective
Posted by: SufiLizard on Nov 6, 2009 8:05 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a harsh critic of the current bills, so it was good for me to read your perspective, and it has softened my stance a bit.

I do have to echo some other comments here though that I don't think insurance is affordable based on the numbers you cited.

A $1,300 premium would still come out to over $100/month and I'm not sure a family living on a small income would really find that affordable.

And I also don't understand how it would affect the unemployed. COBRA is ridiculously expensive and even the discounted plans are going to be impossible for someone who has no income.

I am encouraged by the adjustments to Medicare reimbursement, that's crucial. All-in-all I can't figure out how these Conservadems can be so stupid. The vast majority of the public support a Public Option, and I think even more would support it after they got a taste of it. But the dems in swing districts are going to be the first to be punished by voters for crafting crappy legislation, yet it is these same legislators who are making the legislation crappier.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Obama is wrong to cut Medicare
Posted by: kettleblack on Nov 6, 2009 8:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"As President Barack Obama has promised, Medicare cuts can make health care safer and more affordable for everyone ..."

They need to give Medicare the power to negotiate lower costs with providers and pharmaceuticals, not take money away from the entity that treats people.

They are not changing anything, only hoping that they will influence corporate behavior. And, we have seen corporations that continue bad practices even after failure.

Medicare does work. Just ask the millions of people on it.
Government is proposing is to eliminate Medicare, Social Security, and any other working program, so that they can continue the myth of
"Nothing Government does, ever works."
A self-fulfilling prophesy, by those in control.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Obama is wrong to cut Medicare Posted by: maggiemahar
» RE: Why not expand Medicare? Posted by: kettleblack

Comments are closed-

Maybe in the future the Congress will make it better? Do we look like suckers?
Posted by: thicky on Nov 6, 2009 8:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The perfect would be a single-payer health system, a strong public option is the compromise, a weak public option is a fraud.

The bill before the congress might only provide insurance for at most 6 million citizens by 2019, with a public option that will likely cost MORE than private insurance(the senate bill is worse). How is that a good thing? And what about the other 40 million citizens without health care?

Now we are supposed to trust Obama who went back on his promise of affordable health care for all. We are supposed to trust the senators and congressmen who can't, no, they won't even try to get a decent health insurance reform bill passed(reconciliation anyone). Only a fool would "trust" the congress to pass a crappy health reform bill because at some future date they might make it a little better.

Ms. Mahar and the Democratic party operatives at the think tank she works for--The Century Foundation whose president is Richard C. Leone(managing director of a leading investment bank, Dillon Read, and a member of The Council on Foreign Relations), John Podesta(former Clinton chief of staff), Joe Califano, and other Democratic Party hacks--they are trying to fool us into buying into a sham health care reform bill just so the Democrats can say they "passed health care reform" when this bill throws crumbs at the less fortunate and billions of dollars in subsidies for the profits of health care companies.

Say no to fake health care reform and the Democratic Party shills who are trying to sell it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Above article: a profound step forward for obfuscation.
Posted by: franklyspanking on Nov 6, 2009 8:16 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Today, without reform, if that family tried to buy insurance, it would find that the average plan costs $13,500.

I wish I knew where the author was getting these numbers. My guess is that she's combining the employer contribution, which is, for example, above 90% for me, personally, with what the individual/family pays to arrive at this inflated amount. I'm well aware that these "masked costs" have costs of their own, but to begin your thesis telling us what I can only surmise is an outright distortion of reality lends little credence to rest of the noises the author makes farther on in her rant.

I get that some folks hate 'the maths', and would rather retreat into fear and creationism when they see "free" stuff in their neighbors yard, or wallet. People are greedy when they think they can get away with it; one only need to look at Wall Street and their best buddies in the Oval office and halls of Congress if you doubt that.

We are also given no information as to why the author is so angry at the CBO director, other than he's saying things that the author doesn't like to hear. To wit, the CBO director is Satan, standing in the way of the author's vision of spreading FEMA delivered/IRS administered healthcare.

My opinion is that this article would have worked much better had it begun with the phrase, "Once upon a time..." Or perhaps, "A story ripped from todays headlines...", or at the very least "A dramatized reenactment". The author's audience, after all, are already believers, so the little fibs and distortions wouldn't really alter the (mixed) message (TM?).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» While I appreciate your reply... Posted by: franklyspanking

Comments are closed-

It's all a cynical deceit
Posted by: chlamor on Nov 6, 2009 10:00 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I came across this comment maybe here maybe somewhere else and I think it bears repeating:

"
"Public option" is NOT single payer; it is a cynical deceit

The "public option" parrots never address the arguments made by, e.g., Physicians for a National Health Program (pnhp.org). Why do you think that is?

Public Plan Option in a Market of Private Plans
By David Himmelstein, M.D. and Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H.:

The "public plan option" won't work to fix the health care system for two reasons.

1. It forgoes at least 84 percent of the administrative savings available through single payer. The public plan option would do nothing to streamline the administrative tasks (and costs) of hospitals, physicians offices, and nursing homes, which would still contend with multiple payers, and hence still need the complex cost tracking and billing apparatus that drives administrative costs. These unnecessary provider administrative costs account for the vast majority of bureaucratic waste. Hence, even if 95 percent of Americans who are currently privately insured were to join the public plan (and it had overhead costs at current Medicare levels), the savings on insurance overhead would amount to only 16 percent of the roughly $400 billion annually achievable through single payer -- not enough to make reform affordable.

2. A quarter century of experience with public/private competition in the Medicare program demonstrates that the private plans will not allow a level playing field. Despite strict regulation, private insurers have successfully cherry picked healthier seniors, and have exploited regional health spending differences to their advantage. They have progressively undermined the public plan -- which started as the single payer for seniors and has now become a funding mechanism for HMOs -- and a place to dump the unprofitably ill. A public plan option does not lead toward single payer, but toward the segregation of patients, with profitable ones in private plans and unprofitable ones in the public plan.

www.pnhp.org

-----------------------------------------------

Everyone knows that successful negotiations begin from a position greater than what one actually wants. Therefore, starting negotiations with "public option" instead of single payer means that the ultimate outcome will be less than even "public option."

A public plan option does not lead toward single payer, but toward the segregation of patients, with profitable ones in private plans and unprofitable ones in the public plan.

PLUS this segregation will set up the "public option" to appear much less efficient than the private option...not only is this cynical deceit, but its a planned sinister defeat of any public health care set up by those who prefer a for profit health care plan.

Health care for people, not for profit!!!

THE ENTIRETY OF THE US CONGRESS NEEDS TO BE LANCED AS THEY ARE A CANCER!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's all a cynical deceit Posted by: maggiemahar

Comments are closed-

Applauding half measures ...
Posted by: wjfaust on Nov 6, 2009 10:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... is a bad strategy. In fact, there is no need for a strategy. Simple truth will do. The bill that finally arrives will be too little too late.

We sometimes think "the system" operates on our behalf. That's an illusion. There are just four parts: the wealthy, a government, a production system and the rest of us. The rules are simple. The wealthy are engaged in a simple game of "who can accumulate the greatest wealth in terms of dollars or trinkets." Every year, the winners are announced in Forbes magazine. The government operates on behalf of the the wealthy to keep the production system running smoothly so that wealth becomes evermore concentrated in the hands of the wealthy. The production system is the machinery that transforms natural resources into goods and services for the rest of us to consume. The rest of us consume the crap it disgorges and ritually vote -- choose from among nearly indistinguishable candidates who are beholden to, possibly different, members of the wealthy class.

Since we live in a "democracy", it is no longer fashionable to to regard us as slaves, serfs or peasants. Consequently, we need a more elaborate production system. First, it must pay us for our efforts to turn all those cranks. Second, it must convince us we need to give most of that money right back by endlessly consuming all the production system offers. Since giving it right back isn't an obvious benefit to us, the production system also includes an information sector to convince us never-ending consumtion will make us happy and our country strong. That information sector also works hard to maintain the illusion we are in charge because we vote.

The system is inherently flawed for two reasons. The first is our finite planet can only sustain growth until physical limits are reached. Not much to do about that besides degrading the planet and committing future generations to misery. That's what we are doing now. The second flaw is the unlimited growth in the appetites of the wealthy. Modest accumulation just doesn't cut it anymore. We address that problem by adding two new pieces to the production system: a casino for the wealthy and an endless supply of public debt. The casino for the wealthy is a place where they make outrageous bets with other people's money -- yours and mine. If they win, they keep the gains; if they lose, they are declared TBTF and we step in to rescue them with public debt. This debt is ultimately handed to future generations to worry about. If this sounds like a Ponzi scheme, that is because it is a Ponzi scheme. Makes Madoff look like a piker.

So, in this context, the government is behaving quite rationally. There is little if any possibility that a health care bill will emerge that acutally benefits "the rest of us".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Applauding half measures ... Posted by: maggiemahar

Comments are closed-

Article Should have been Titled: Getting Slapped Down and Loving It
Posted by: ralphzilla on Nov 6, 2009 10:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's wrong with you liberals? Do you really expect fairness and justice for all?

With record numbers of people losing their good jobs and having to take Sh*t jobs with places that provide no healthcare, the health insurance racket was getting pretty nervous.

Well, surprise, surprise. Here comes the government to the rescue.

Now we the people will be FORCED to buy an outrageously expensive plan (and still have to pay out of pocket expenses) from our huge salary from our little sh*t job.

That is America at her best.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

NO on mandatory insurance that doesn't cover family planning
Posted by: plantland on Nov 6, 2009 11:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women will be worse off if they have even less money left over to cover necessities like family planning after having been forced to buy "insurance" without protection!

Likewise, abortion should be covered instead of compromised away, since the young person will have to pay.
I don't agree with the penalities for not joining, either.

People have different philosophies about health, and differnt ways at attaining it.
Most of these paths cost something, which the person forced to pay will no longer be able to afford.

Not being able to afford birth control because you have been forced into a plan to pay for someone else's Viagra- let's stop and say no.

In the Democratic primary, Clinton said she wanted 100 % coverage, but Obama at that time seemed less emphatic about bragging rights on universal coverage, less inclined to copy Massachusett's penalties.

We all like wins, but gee, fellas.

Help more people with real health problems and dependent on medication get on MEDICAID, even if they are getting by enough own cars and houses. That is what is really keeping many Americans from recieiving care. We do want people to get by, right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Support the best health care reform there is
Posted by: greenferret on Nov 6, 2009 12:05 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Medicare for all, also known as single payer healthcare, is favored by a majority of Americans.

How can we convince Congress to actually do what the people want?

Tell your members of Congress that unless they support Medicare for all, you won't support them.

Take the Medicare For All Pledge now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Health Care for Illegal Aliens
Posted by: WeimMom on Nov 6, 2009 1:54 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CBO Says New Health Care Bill Would Cover 2.5 Million More Illegal Aliens

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/
november-5-2009/cbo-says-new-health-
care-bill-would-cover-25-million-more-illegal-aliens.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Reply to bthespoon--
Posted by: maggiemahar on Nov 6, 2009 6:49 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The $10,000 out of pocket is the max that a relatively affluent family would have to pay in a very bad year --when what they owed, in co-pays and deductible, after their
insurance company paid, exceeded $10,000.

By relatively affluent I mean a couple earning more than, say, $70,000, a family of four earning more than $88,800) The cap on out-of-pocket costs for a family earning less is lower.

In many plans, if you go the doctors in your network (which I normally do) you don't pay a deductible. You may have co-pays of $10- $25
for doctors' visits and co-pays for $15-$25 for most drugs. If you have to take prescription drugs (i.e. there are no generics) your co-pays might be as high as $75.

Under the reform plans there will be no co-pays for preventive care --even if you have private insurance.

It's very unlikely that the amount a family owes over what their insurance covers would get to $10,000 (or anywhere close) unless someone lands in the hospital as an inpatient (outpatient procedures usually have low co-pays) OR if someone in your family is really sick and you feel a need to go out of network to try to find the best specialist in the area.

So in a terrible year, you might owe $10,000.

We've raised children, and my husband and I are both over 50--and we've never gotten anywhere close to $10,000 in out-of-pocket expenses.

We've been lucky-- no serious accidents, no really serious illnesses in the family. Just some out-patient operations (sports injuries, etc.)

At some point, we won't be so lucky. But I'm relieved to know that $10,000 would be our maximum liability. One
way or another, we could handle that . . .

Even if a family earning $90,000 (or a couple earning $70,000) don't have $10,000 in savings, doctors and hospital would let them pay it off over time--because they know that, over time, they could pay it.

The family might have to foregoe a family vacation, put off buying a new car or living room furniture, take a home equity loan . . . but they wouldnt' be financially ruined.

That's an enormous difference. Today, in this country, that family could lose virtually everything.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eply to bthespoon-- Posted by: DaBear

Comments are closed-

Reply to Lulu
Posted by: maggiemahar on Nov 6, 2009 7:17 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks--You are absolutely right.

And, as you suggest, there is much that we can learn from other countries.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Reply to Suzilizard
Posted by: maggiemahar on Nov 6, 2009 7:27 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for your comment.

An unemployed family with no income (or very little income) would either qualify for Medicaid, or would recive a government subsidy to cover all of their premium.

And the amount that they would be expected to pay out of pocket would be minimal.

Government subsidies would cover premiums on a sliding scale. Most likely, a family of four earning up to $88,800 would receive a subsidy --the less they earn, the larger the subsidy.

Very likely a family earning $33,000 now pay an average of $100 a month for health care, even if they are not insured. They spend that much, over the course of one or two years, when they absolutely have to go to the doctor--or take kids to the doctor or ER -- even if they don't have insurance.

Also, under reform detal and vision care will be covered for kids.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Anybody who's been paying attention
Posted by: willymack on Nov 6, 2009 10:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To what's going on regarding health care in this country knows it SUCKS, plain and simple.
We simply can't continue beating our chests and proclaiming "We're number one" when we compare so poorly to other nations which resolved their health care situations decades ago.
The fact of the matter is that we DON'T have the best health care in the world, except for the obscenely wealthy. We're way down on that list, and if we don't want to continue to see some 40,000 people a year die, tens of thousands of families going bankrupt, and the number of uninsured soar to 50 million or more, we'll have to pull the rug out from underneath some very evil criminals who don't want any changes to take place no matter how bad it gets for us.
It's got to be done, and soon. The time for lies, denials, crooked politics, and the dominance of corporate crooks has to END.
We have more important things to do in life than getting screwed over at every turn.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

For some weird reason
Posted by: willymack on Nov 6, 2009 11:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Two thirds of my post was cut off when I clicked on post.
What I was trying to say was that the pharma and drug racketeers deserve NO consideration or a place at the table when decisions for health care reform are being made. In fact, quite a few of them should be in JAIL, along with ass lickers like Lieberman, Baucus, and other crooks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Just an observation
Posted by: bonapartist on Nov 7, 2009 9:13 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On Alternet sometimes the author of an article goes through considerable effort to argue with the posters.

That usually happens when moves made by Obama's administration are unpopular and drawing fire.

I believe that Mr. Holland still holds a record in that department but he is hardly the only one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Just an observation Posted by: maggiemahar

Comments are closed-

2013? "How conveeeeen-ient!" as Church Lady would say...
Posted by: Prinzowhales on Nov 8, 2009 9:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just after the 2012 election comes the fulfillment of a promise of the 2008 election.
"Home by Christmas!"...Yes, indeed...these are the "Rusty's" of the dog track, promises to keep the dogs chasing after the Rusty the Rabbit...voters yelping and straining at the traces to bring the Democratic dog cart into victory lane in 2012. "For a hamburger today, I will gladly pay you Tuesday..." The Goldman Sachs' Regime has already broken promise after promise from the 2008 races made by its creature...now they want to sell you the same promises twice.

How well did the Goldman Sachs' Party fare in the 2009 elections? The Republicans opted for suicide in the 23rd New York while beating one of Goldman's finest in New Jersey. Not very encouraging prospects when one looks at Obama's ratings, a deepening depression, unpopular wars and a dollar that is in free fall. By 2013, they may well not be in any position to fullfill their promise.

Funny...it only took a short time to turn trillions over to the financial intermediaries...while it will take years to 'reform' healthcare. It took only a few weeks to capture Baghdad, but it will take years to 'fix' healthcare. "Home by Christmas!" they were saying years ago...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Did C-14 Pass?
Posted by: weightman on Nov 8, 2009 9:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did the Kerry/Hatch Amendment (C-14) pass with the House Bill?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The current bills are the product of corruption
Posted by: tomkara on Nov 11, 2009 12:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maggie seems to think that the health insurance industry has clout simply because it has money - but that clout only exists because of corrupt Democrats who do their bidding. The Democrats are not representing their constituents, they're simply corrupt officials who can be bought. They will never allow "further reform" to happen because they aren't suddenly going to become honest. Other countries have health care because the population elects people who represent their interests. It's time for progressives to infiltrate local Democratic parties and take it over just as the wing nuts took over the Republican party. When somebody like Ben Nelson or Max Baucus is allowed to remain in the Democratic Party, the situation is hopeless. Force them out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Activist
Posted by: jacmac on Nov 18, 2009 12:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Regarding Why Congress' Health Care Bills Are Better Than You Think
By Maggie Mahar, Health Beat. Posted November 6, 2009.

This is a great story, one that makes clear--for the first time, to the best of my knowledge--what the health care reform proposals in Congress would actually do and cost. It shows how incredibly inept or corrupt the media are, including progressive outlets like KPFA (inept) and NPR (corrupt, along with all the corporate media) in failing to provide listeners, viewers and readers with accurate information. I suspected there was a story behind all the alarmist reporting about the disastrous pending health care reform legislation, but I never dreamed the reporting could be this bad (although it is consistent with virtually everything else in the media). The article also shows that good reporting is on the Internet--if you can find it.

In my mind, the article represents in a broader sense the inaccurate reporting in the media--corporate and progressive--about the Obama administration in general because those media tend to focus their reporting on what critics--again conservative and progressive alike--are saying without investigating and reporting the facts. And also not digging out what is going on behind the scenes in a range of issues that doesn't get reported because the incompetent media, with very few exceptions, only report what the government says and what the critics say. Sometimes this government doesn't say much in order to work behind the scenes in low-profile or even in secretive ways (negotiating Congressional support for health care reform, for example) and to avoid being a target of the right wing and its media while work is in progress. In that void steps the critics--conservatives who claim that Obama is doing too much and progressive who claim he is not doing enough or fast enough--and that is the "news" Americans see, hear and read. And a big reason why the public is so un- and misinformed, as this article shows.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

thanks for your info
Posted by: nature on Nov 23, 2009 3:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We're way down on that list, and if we don't want to continue to see some 40,000 people a year die, tens of thousands of families going bankrupt, and the number of uninsured soar to 50 million or more, we'll have to pull the rug out from underneath some very evil criminals who don't want any changes to take place no matter how bad it gets for us.True Religion | True Religion Jeans Evening Dresses | Cocktail Dresses

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

ugg boots sale
Posted by: evalin on Nov 27, 2009 5:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with you, your saying is so good and usful for me. Thanks. Are you also like
ugg boots sale
Straighteners
NFL jerseys
ugg australia
NFL jersey
uggs
ghd Hair Straighteners
Photoshop CS4
ghd
It’s a meaningful and interesting topic. Thanks. Want to know more about
UGG Bailey Button boots
UGG Classic Cardy
UGG Classic Short
UGG Classic Tall
UGG Nightfall

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS