Ezra Klein:

This year, the Obama administration succeeded at neutralizing every single industry. Pharma supports the bill. Insurers are incoherent on it, but there's not a ferocious and united campaign to kill the proposal. The American Medical Association has endorsed the Senate bill. The hospitals have endorsed the bill. Labor has endorsed the bill. The business community is split, with larger employers holding their fire. You can take that as a critique of the bill's deals and concessions.

(Emphasis supplied.) Yes we can!

Speaking for me only

< WSJ Reports Bernie Madoff Was Beaten in Prison | Today is 7th Anniversary of War in Iraq >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    heh (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 01:37:04 PM EST

    Was this piece (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 01:41:45 PM EST
    In the comics?

    Really?  Obama neutralized every industry?  I guess that's the new talking point.  

    I believe the sentence should actually read:

    This year, the Obama administration succeeded at [kissing the a$$ of and protecting, to the detriment of actual people] every single industry

    Really (none / 0) (#11)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 01:57:51 PM EST
    The Insurance industry doesn't seem to view this as a big win- they're at best divided and seem to be spending millions to oppose its passage.

    PLEASE don't throw me in the briar patch! (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by lambert on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:03:42 PM EST
    Their present situation is excellent. Their situation after the bill will only be very, very good.

    Call me a cynic (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:05:34 PM EST
    But I think this is a concerted effort - the insurance companies put up a PR fight (not much of one - we know they can do waaayyyy more than they have been).  The bill passes and the Dems can say, "See!  We fought off the insurance companies - they hated it so it MUST be good!"  

    Then they all sit down together for cigars and brandy and laugh about how they pulled another fast one.


    Cynicism is the new realism (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by lambert on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:28:31 PM EST
    In a way, Kucinich caving and then whipping for the bill -- after Obama left a pony's head in his bed after the Air Force One ride -- comes as a welcome relief.

    The baseline just hit zero on the way down to a very negative number. Now I don't have to worry about the Dems any more.


    But But (2.12 / 8) (#27)
    by Politalkix on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:11:08 PM EST
    will it convince the true believers who cry themselves to sleep singing "Don't cry for me, America" and imagining what it would be like if only Evita (err HRC) had been president? :-) :-)

    Why are you bringing this crap to (5.00 / 9) (#42)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:34:55 PM EST
    yet another diary?

    No kidding, let it go man :) (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:36:04 PM EST
    Squesky and Capt. Howdy must be (4.50 / 6) (#49)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:43:40 PM EST
    taking a nap, or having lunch, so someone has to pick up the slack...jeez.

    It's getting very old, isn't it?  Be glad you are busy packing and watching baseball!


    I guess (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:52:43 PM EST
    you are covered.  dont worry.

    82 comments followed (none / 0) (#154)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 12:00:56 PM EST
    I said I wouldnt do this today (2.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 10:31:08 AM EST

    and I wont but I cant let that on pass.  there are only about 10,000 examples of her doing exactly that.
    google is your friend.

    this. And, this one was probably comment #20 after BTD asked CH to please back off.


    Cut the bullsh*t (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 05:42:34 PM EST
    no one else is doing any baiting around here?

    What are all those wild-swinging generalizations on the other thread in reference to "they" and "they're all"? Allowable discourse under the new (unwritten) site rules that give special venting privileges to some (and only some) here?

    Personally, I hope he keeps posting he has been.


    No idea what you're talking about (none / 0) (#159)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 11:48:15 PM EST
    Is there an inaccurate fact in what I said?

    You changed the subject.


    Awwww (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 08:50:10 PM EST
    It is heartwarming to have been missed....

    More importantly, ... (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:35:43 PM EST
    ... will it convince the true, true believers that The One has finally brought the "Change" he promised, allowing them to finally let go of their obsessive delusions about all things Clinton?  :-) :-)

    they certainly are (none / 0) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:04:01 PM EST
    but he seems to have at least avoided the Harry and Louise curse.
    what opposition there is is disorganized and directionless for the most part.
    different parts of the industry are running ads but it seems true that Obama out maneuvered them as far as a concerted organized push back.



    Yes, people are pushing back (none / 0) (#31)
    by coast on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:14:23 PM EST
    so O has done his job well.

    was that (none / 0) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:03:02 PM EST

    Close relative called (none / 0) (#74)
    by coast on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:53:25 PM EST

    I suspected something like that (3.50 / 2) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:02:16 PM EST
    but as long as the primary pushback is coming from a bunch of yahoos who ridicule seriously ill people I dont think they pose much of a threat.

    Considering (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:05:57 PM EST
    this bill does nothing for seriously ill people then how do you figure that? Yeah, they have to end recission but there's nothing to keep the insurance company from tripling or quadrupling your rates either.

    how (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:09:19 PM EST
    not exactly... (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by CST on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:11:07 PM EST
    they are not allowed to charge people with existing conditions differently.  And I know at least blue cross is required to spend at least 85% of all expenditures on actual health care.  Otherwise they have to give you a premium rebate.

    So that's not really true that they can just quadruple everyone's rates arbitrarily.  Not unless they quadruple the amount they spend on your healthcare too.


    Do (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:15:00 PM EST
    you really think that there's going to be any enforcement of this? They are allowed to charge people with preexisting conditions differently. They are allowed to medically rate them and accoreding to what I read they are all to be put in a "high risk" pool which means that their premiums will be more expensive and maybe even too expensive for most to afford.

    There are going to be no changes to the actuarial tables.

    Look, this legistlation was written by the health insurance lobbyists and who do you think they are looking out for? It's written for their benefit and to protect their profits while "allowing" people to have insurance. You have to realize that the insurance companies believe that they are doing you a favor by providing you with insurance.


    that's not true (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by CST on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:22:18 PM EST
    the high risk pool only goes until 2014.  After that, they are covered by regular insurance that is NOT allowed to charge a different rate.  They can only differ by age (up to 3:1), geography, and whether or not you smoke.

    You can like or dislike the bill to your heart's content, but I try to judge it based on what's actually in it, not on who wrote what part or what influence who had.  This is sausage making, there were fingers in the pot all around.


    gotta say (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:36:36 PM EST
    I so admire your ability to calmly and articulately continue to confront the disinformation with the truth.

    you are a treasure.
    I am a bomb thrower which can be helpful but you are the model for the way to deal with this . . .
    whatever you might call it.


    There (none / 0) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:39:34 PM EST
    are still no changes to the actuarial tables are there?

    thanks (none / 0) (#100)
    by CST on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:46:14 PM EST
    Sometimes I want to drop bombs.  Sometimes I do.  

    I just usually don't hit post on those comments.

    But I've been on the wrong side of things since I started posting here.  So I've gotten used to it.


    leave the bombs to me (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:02:40 PM EST
    we cant afford to have you get banned

    CST (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Politalkix on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:46:46 PM EST
    You really rock! :-)

    Okay (none / 0) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:38:39 PM EST
    you're saying that you can't charge more for preexisting in 2014 but you now start charging everyone for those conditions spreading the costs around and making it more unaffordable for all others.

    The insurance companies have this all figured out. They will just price the people that they don't want out of the market. Perhaps these people would like to have insurance but they will be forced to pay the fine instead because the price of insurance is too much.

    This bill is crap because it has no cost controls in it. We are wasting money propping up a failed business model whereas it would be better to simply not pass this bill and let the model fail by itself. ON top of all that, it strips women of rights and codifies Hyde in to law whereas before it had to be put in the budget.

    This is just lovely.


    85% (none / 0) (#102)
    by CST on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:47:17 PM EST
    has to be spent on health care.

    So? (none / 0) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:48:34 PM EST
    That doesn't mean that the insurned can't be priced out of the market.

    it doesn't mean (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by CST on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:54:50 PM EST
    they will either.  And it is SOME cost control.  Which is not NO cost control.

    As to it's effectiveness, we'll see now won't we.

    But they're gonna be covering a bunch of cheap young adults too so they will have to spend that money somewhere.

    Plus, there are subsidies for those who can't afford it.  And there is an exemption from the mandate for those who can't.


    No (none / 0) (#114)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:01:39 PM EST
    there is NO cost control. The 85% is a mandate on expenditures not costs.

    How many of the young people are actually going to buy insurance or just pay the fine? We don't know that and besides they are NOT going to lower costs because people are being pooled by age just like they are right now. It changes nothing on the actuarial tables.

    And frankly, they can probably call lots of stuff expenses and get away with it.


    Will it stop the insurance companies (none / 0) (#120)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:14:24 PM EST
    from "running amok"? as Obama claims today in his stump?

    An "actuarial table"... (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 06:34:22 PM EST
    ...is series of mathematical equations that model the probabilities of mortality (that's death), not morbidity (that's illness).  It is used in setting life insurance premiums.

    Health insurance rates are based on many factors--mortality is not one of them.


    Yes, (none / 0) (#137)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 06:55:20 PM EST
    they do them for life insurance but they are also done for health insurance:

    Actuaries analyze data to estimate the probability and likely cost to the company of an event such as death, sickness, injury, disability, or loss of property.

    So actuaries take your health information and determine a rate based on it or they can create table with your information.


    You can play semantics. (none / 0) (#138)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 07:09:36 PM EST
    ...all you want, but an actuarial table is a very specific term to people who actually use them.  

    Actuaries/Actuarial tables (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 10:55:02 PM EST
    Where Do Actuaries Work and What Do They Do?

    The insurance industry can't function without actuaries, and that's where most of them work. They calculate the costs to assume risk--how much to charge policyholders for life or health insurance premiums or how much an insurance company can expect to pay in claims when the next hurricane hits Florida.

    Actuaries provide a financial evaluation of risk for their companies to be used for strategic management decisions. Because their judgement is heavily relied upon, actuaries' career paths often lead to upper management and executive positions.

    When other businesses that do not have actuaries on staff need certain financial advice, they hire actuarial consultants. A consultant can be self-employed in a one-person practice or work for a nationwide consulting firm. Consultants help companies design pension and benefit plans and evaluate assets and liabilities. By delving into the financial complexities of corporations, they help companies calculate the cost of a variety of business risks. Consulting actuaries rub elbows with chief financial officers, operating and human resource executives, and often chief executive officers.

    Actuaries work for the government too, helping manage such programs as the Social Security system and Medicare. Since the government regulates the insurance industry and administers laws on pensions and financial liabilities, it also needs actuaries to determine whether companies are complying with the law.

    Who else asks an actuary to assess risks and solve thorny statistical and financial problem? You name it: Banks and Investment firms, large corporations, public accounting firms, insurance rating bureaus, labor unions, and fraternal organizations.

    To summarize, actuaries work for a variety of employers, including:

    *Insurance companies
    *Consulting firms
    *Government insurance departments
    *Colleges and universities
    *Banks and investment firms
    *Large corporations and public accounting firms
    The following is a list of typical actuarial projects:

    *Analyzing insurance rates, such as for cars, homes or life insurance.
    *Estimating the money to be set-aside for claims that have not yet been paid.
    *Participating in corporate planning, such as mergers and acquisitions.
    *Calculating a fair price for a new insurance product.
    *Forecasting the potential impact of catastrophes.
    *Analyzing investment programs

    My bold.



    Morbidity Tables

    Morbidity Tables- provide statistical information used by actuaries to determine the financial implications of a given medical problem.  This plays in a given carrier's underwriting policy and affects issues such as which medical conditions are either denied or excluded from coverage and how much a premium may be adjusted when a person has a certain medical problem.  The common example, is the adjustment made to a premium for those that are smokers versus non-smokers.  

    My bold.


    That's even funnier! (none / 0) (#148)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 09:29:13 AM EST
    I'm glad you are amused... (none / 0) (#150)
    by Anne on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 10:04:17 AM EST
    everyone should have some laughter in their day.

    Especially when... (none / 0) (#152)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 10:29:20 AM EST
    ...it starts off their morning!

    I wish you would (none / 0) (#153)
    by Spamlet on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 11:28:06 AM EST
    respond in a substantive way to the points that were raised, since in the past you have been quite strident here in stating your belief that the insurance companies are and will be sufficiently regulated. I understand that you work in this area, and I hope that your belief is well founded. But as an outsider to your professional world, I do not share your faith. It would be helpful to have you respond with more than snark.

    Yes (none / 0) (#139)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 07:13:33 PM EST
    they are created by actuaries. Who do you think determines the insurance rates?

    Too funny! (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 07:22:01 PM EST
    I am not sure what I missed (none / 0) (#156)
    by vml68 on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 02:26:35 PM EST
    Too funny!

    and why you would find this funny.
    I was under the assumption that given your condition that you probably have a lot of dealing with health insurance rates/companies. And you would want to be as factualy correct as possible.

    Here is a quote from wiki...
    In health insurance, including insurance provided directly by employers, and social insurance, actuarial science focuses on the analyses of rates of disability, morbidity, mortality, fertility and other contingencies. The effects of consumer choice and the geographical distribution of the utilization of medical services and procedures, and the utilization of drugs and therapies, is also of great importance.


    What is factual correct... (none / 0) (#160)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 04:05:42 PM EST
    ...is that the term "actuarial table", in the industry, means a mortality table.  For someone (especially those "with experience in the insurance industry") to use that term in relation to health rates is erroneous and doesn't lend itself well to any sense of creditability.

    Especially when you consider that the author was also implying the "actuarial table" could somehow be changed in a legislative/regulatory manner.  It is what it is--an observation of the instance of mortality and you can't legislate changes to that.  

    I'm glad that we're all up to speed on what an actuary does.  As your wiki quote indicates, the factors involved with setting health care rates is a complicated calculation comprised of many factors.  To assert they are based on mortality however, is factually incorrect.  If fact, to do so is over-simplistic and ignores the many rating factors that can be changed through legislation and regulation.

    I found it amusing that when this incorrect use of term was pointed out (in the spirit of being "factually correct", I might add), the focus immediately shifted to what actuaries do.  Actuaries work with numbers!?  What's next--attorneys working with the law?  



    Ah! I see what I missed..... (none / 0) (#162)
    by vml68 on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 09:12:45 PM EST
    I went back and read through the posts again.
    You are right ofcourse about the definiton of an actuarial table.
    I thought we were talking about the factors involved with setting health care rates. So that was what my post was about.

    You could not be more wrong.... (none / 0) (#155)
    by vml68 on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 02:13:24 PM EST
    Health insurance rates are based on many factors--mortality is not one of them.

    Morbidity and mortality are both considered in health insurance rates. I verified this with my bf who is an actuary.


    Well then, (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Spamlet on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 04:12:12 PM EST
    if that's true, and if Milehi declines to respond or speak for her- or himself, the rest of us can only conclude that s/he really doesn't know what s/he is talking about.

    And that is disappointing, since this could have been a good discussion, especially with input from someone who likes to make the case that we have little or no need to be concerned about regulatory capture under the coming system. I would like to believe that but do not believe it.


    You'll forgive me... (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 04:08:33 PM EST
    ...if I don't feel any compulsion to carry on a discussion with a sockpuppet.  

    I'll let you "conclude" the reasons for that.


    and related expenses (none / 0) (#101)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:46:23 PM EST
    The language is healthcare and  related expenses.  Which is rather broad.

    what exactly goes into effect (none / 0) (#107)
    by klassicheart on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:50:03 PM EST
    immediately...and what do we wait 4 years for?
    I notice few people are talking about that.

    just for you (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by CST on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:51:51 PM EST
    You realize, don't you, (none / 0) (#135)
    by dk on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 06:12:17 PM EST
    that the link shows talking points and assertions, but not citations to actual law, regulations, or studies supporting those talking points and assertions?

    It's odd to me when people confuse unsubstantiated opinions with facts.


    I realize this is super late (none / 0) (#163)
    by CST on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:31:37 AM EST
    but I just wanted to clarify - those aren't just "talking points" that link is to the senate website on the bill.  It is in layman's terms, but the site it comes from has the full text of the bill and the timeline they give is accurate.

    It's not just some article or opinion, it's the official version.


    I believe the pushback is coming from more (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by coast on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:18:21 PM EST
    than the wackos in the video you put up yesterday.  If your contention is that people like myself, Anne, jbindc, and others on this site who feel this bill is a loser, are standing around ridiculing seriously ill people simply because we don't choose to support something for the mere sake of making a President look good, well that is your prerogative.  You would be wrong, but why should that stand in your way.

    actually that, as usual, is not what I said (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:31:55 PM EST
    I said the primary pushback is coming from them.
    and it is.
    I honestly think you and your posse is pretty inconsequential

    Now that is IRONY. (none / 0) (#93)
    by coast on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:36:34 PM EST
    you looked it up! (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:39:58 PM EST
    good for you.
    but seriously, what percentage of people do you honestly think you are talking to.  bloggers tend to overrate their influence.  commenters are important to no one but themselves.
    that is why I have fun doing this.

    those people have the national stage.  and I am happy about that.  


    If you have an opinion, does it (none / 0) (#115)
    by coast on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:02:14 PM EST
    really matter how many people you are going to influence by stating it.  I don't think it does.  I see the medium as more of way of finding out the view points of other people outside of the sphere I live in.  The more information I can get from different sources the better informed I am to make a decision.  I don't really care if my opinion is accepted or rejected by anyone.

    smart people on this blog (none / 0) (#145)
    by klassicheart on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 01:23:17 AM EST
    ..that I do know...and it is interesting and informative reading commenters here

    Facts (none / 0) (#87)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:30:04 PM EST
    Never get in the way of a good story with some around here.

    You found me out - yes, I hate sick people.  They're so....sick.  I wish they would just go away and we could thing the herd. (That is snark for the obtuse who might think I'm serious)

    But what I really hate more is people using sick people to advance an agenda based on distortions and lies.


    you're right (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by CST on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:34:40 PM EST
    we shouldn't use sick people to advance the agenda of getting them access to health insurance.  

    Because, you know, this couldn't possibly affect them at all.


    I am right (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:47:33 PM EST
    Parading sick people around is exploiting them.  Then it leads to comments like ones here - "You don't support this plan so you hate sick people!"

    Same kind of garbage that comes from Michelle Bachmann and Glenn Beck (They want to kill grandma!)


    When I'm out there yelling at the old (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by coast on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:35:07 PM EST
    and sick I like to bring my kids along.  You know we try to teach them young down here in the south.

    I like (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:48:41 PM EST
    to trip people with canes -it's fun to watch them fall.

    Sometimes I mix up my mom's medication - just for the fun of it.


    you're right about one thing (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by CST on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:35:40 PM EST
    facts never do get in the way of a good story.  Like the one about how this bill will help "no one".

    You're (none / 0) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:42:34 PM EST
    missing the big picture when you say "no one". You are looking at the few it might help versus the majority that it will hurt and that's the reason why people don't approve of this bill. People don't mind helping others but this bill makes it worse for people who do have insurance.

    yea (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by CST on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:49:07 PM EST
    kind of like how the majority are "hurt" by medicaid and welfare since we have to pay for it in our taxes.

    Are (none / 0) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:52:42 PM EST
    people having to pay a Medicaid or welfare surtax that the IRS is going to come after them for specifically? No would be the answer for that.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#118)
    by klassicheart on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:11:00 PM EST
    And we can't see the contours of what this will really look like or how it will work in practice...but the mathematical models exist...we just don't get to see them...Why spoil the President's narrative.  But we do know that a buy in for medicare for those over 50  or 55  was understandable and very popular (and would have helped Democrats immensely in the midterms) and had over 50 votes in the Senate.  We still have no answer as to why this was jettisoned after being floated.  

    "Thin" the herd (none / 0) (#88)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:31:08 PM EST
    I suppose you were one of those (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by observed on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:48:13 PM EST
    heartless people who didn't want to save the poor suffering women and children in Iraq, by invading.
    Anyone whose first sales tactic is a sob story is selling a lemon, IMO.
    Numbers are what matter here, not stories.
    The way insurance rates are going up right this minute, I don't see how any relative cost controls are going to help people with expensive to treat pre-existing conditions.

    Competition w/pharma (none / 0) (#18)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:04:15 PM EST
    They have spent more money on lobbying than direct TV disagreement.  I think the unhappiness comes from not getting as good of a deal as pharma.  This is going to pass.  Can't wait for Sunday.

    You (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:19:11 PM EST
    apparently know nothing about the insurance industry. If it isn't 100% of what they want but 98% of what they want they are going to oppose it. what they want is mandates and no regulation not that Obama's really giving them any but the illusion of regulation is enough to make some buck the bill.

    Ha (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 01:49:07 PM EST
    I read that this morning.  Funny stuff.

    the rest of that quote (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 01:51:23 PM EST
    is also true.

    You can take that as a critique of the bill's deals and concessions. But it represents a remarkable level of industry consensus. And it's been almost meaningless when it's come to Republican support. For all that liberals think the GOP is owned by insurers and pharmaceutical companies, this battle has been proof positive that they are owned by their base and they represent industry only when convenient. Imagine the concessions Pharma or the hospitals could have gotten by bringing three Republican senators onto the bill. They could've written the thing. But no such luck. Partisan incentives proved far stronger than industry interests.

    Not sure how. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Radix on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:40:58 PM EST
    They could've written the thing. But no such luck. Partisan incentives proved far stronger than industry interests.

    Really, an Ex Vp from Well Point Actually did right the bill for Baucus.


    If only the Dems were owned by their base! (none / 0) (#19)
    by lambert on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:04:32 PM EST
    But then again, if their base is the banksters and the insurance companies, perhaps they are...

    becomming what we hate (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:11:58 PM EST
    is not a solution.  for anything.

    I'm becoming a bankster? (none / 0) (#66)
    by lambert on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:26:21 PM EST
    Do tell!

    worse (2.33 / 3) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:30:09 PM EST
    a republican

    Yeah, that be bad (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by lambert on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:54:24 PM EST
    I mean, Obama did that, and it's not working out real well for his ostensible constituents.

    Typo: "That would be bad." (none / 0) (#113)
    by lambert on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:55:00 PM EST

    You need some new material... (5.00 / 5) (#121)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:22:16 PM EST
    this "you're a republican" crap is getting old and tired.

    This reform bill was built the same way the war in Iraq was built - on a shoddy foundation, with misinformation and misdirection, by people with ties to the industry, and with help from the media.  Anyone who had a better idea was shut out of the process, mocked and arrested for trying to be heard.  Solid-gold GOP tactics, as near as I can tell, so your support for it gives you more of an affinity for that side of the aisle than it does any of us who oppose this clusterf**k.

    Over a year later, and they still can't rustle up enough votes without strong-arming the caucus with God-only-knows what threats; I find it hard to believe that would be necessary if this were, in fact, a good piece of legislation.  

    It'll pass or it won't; the difference between you and me is that if it passes, you will gloat and shove it in people's faces as often as you can, just like you slap people with Hillary every chance you get, but if it doesn't, I won't be doing that to you - I'll be relieved and hopeful that the Dems will commit to passing the parts of the bill that make sense, and set to work on doing something about jobs.


    Strong-arming happens all the time (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:59:58 PM EST
    The 1993 tax increase by Bill came down to the closest of all possible votes.  By one vote in the House and a tie--broken by Gore--in the Senate.

    The House vote was won by stampeding Marjorie Margolies....She was on Tweety just the other day....Dems pushed her hard to vote in favor of the bill....

    Being a "good" piece of legislation does not mean having a lot of votes over the required majority....


    you need (1.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:24:36 PM EST
    a sense of humor transplant.
    at least

    Yeah it's positively (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by cawaltz on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 08:15:21 PM EST
    hysterical that people are going to get shafted under this bill. Why I giggle every time I think of the fact that my husband's median wage job will no longer have a low cost deductible plan because his plan will be taxed at 40%. I can't wait until we have to come up with half a paycheck in addition to the 10% of our income we are paying in premiums the first time one of our kids get sick. It's a real knee slapper.

    Anne (2.66 / 3) (#124)
    by Politalkix on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:44:16 PM EST
    needs a funny bone graft. Insurance will cover that after HCR bill is passed. Insurance can't refuse by saying that not being born with a funny bone was a pre existing condition for her.
    Cheers and Peace

    Pot - kettle (none / 0) (#125)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:45:43 PM EST
    can (none / 0) (#128)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:48:17 PM EST
    I rate this a 10?

    the failure to make jobs...job number 1 (none / 0) (#146)
    by klassicheart on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 01:37:40 AM EST
    is what i don't understand....You're right...why couldn't they have passed smaller legislation that was popular in the short term...and then focused on jobs...which would have meant good news for the employment figures and therefore good news for the mid terms...and therefore more money into the economy that would directly help people (and with more money from an improving economy...more programs that the economy could withstand)...etc etc..
    I just don't understand why creating jobs did not come first....Which is why the weak foundation argument is so persuasive...This was not a logical way to proceed...let alone the 60 votes  in the Senate ruse...I get it that the Dems wanted money in the coffers from corporate donors...but a good or improving economy...would  have been its own best selling point...as to good management...and would have built confidence...

    Today's football, errr I mean carrot (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by BTAL on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:51:04 PM EST
    Reid promises public option vote 'in the coming months'

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) promised two Democratic senators this week a Senate vote on the public option "in the coming months."

    In a letter to Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the top Senate Democrat said he was committed to pursuing the controversial public insurance option later this year.

    "Like you, I remain committed to pursuing the public option," Reid wrote in a letter dated Thursday ...

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/87927-reid-promises-public-option-vote-in-the-comin g-months

    Oh, spare me Reid (none / 0) (#57)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:13:32 PM EST
    Why does he bother with the letters?

    Breaking: (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by Mike Pridmore on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:01:35 PM EST
    This is the accepted story on most lefty blogs:

    Beloved leader and his comrades in congress are beating down the enemies of the people to ensure that we have health care for all.  All patriots everywhere should be celebrating this impending glorious victory.

    INSURANCE, the true story is INSURANCE (none / 0) (#58)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:15:09 PM EST
    FOR ALL. Once this passes, the idea of congress passing something that provides CARE for ALL will be dead and gone. This bill doesn't address how people pay for the insurance before they start paying for the services.

    I did hear on the early morning news that congress found billions of more dollars for subsidies, though....those dollars, folks, were found in our pockets. Congress has no money of its own.


    maybe we should (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:23:54 PM EST
    start a pool for sunday

    I am thinkin 216

    So, there are four vacancies (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:21:11 PM EST
    in the House.  Total of 431 Reps.

    So, 216 for HCR would mean a 216-215 vote....

    I'll go with 218-213.


    Im thinkin (none / 0) (#98)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:41:37 PM EST
    its gonna be razor thin
    I have since Kucinich was neutered.

    FDL counts 212 no's now, 205 (none / 0) (#105)
    by observed on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:48:50 PM EST
    yes---I think that's with leaners.

    And, FDL is objective (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:50:36 PM EST
    on this?  No axe to grind.....

    Oh, Jane, what have you done?


    that was (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:58:49 PM EST
    is that very seat of authority or the only place that still agrees with them?

    The vote will take place on Sunday (none / 0) (#151)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 10:13:51 AM EST
    Only if they think they have the votes.  If they think they could lose it - watch the vote be delayed yet again.

    Why would business shoot the golden goose? (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by pluege on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:12:17 PM EST
    thanks ezra for helping out so much on that.

    Cigar for the media, too? (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by good grief on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:52:24 PM EST
    Then they all sit down together for cigars and brandy and laugh about how they pulled another fast one. (jbindc)

    Obama's deal with hospitals and Pharma to kill the public option softly also qualifies major media for a cigar and a few high fives. That PO deal (not the drug deal in exchange for no drug re-importation we all heard about and Obama even sort of bragged about getting pharma to eliminate the donut hole 50% and then 100% by 2020 when we were expecting this to happen years sooner, not that deal -- the public-option-be-gone deal) was isolated to one front page NY Times story Aug 13, 2009, 7 mos ago, disseminated further in media only (that we know) by a lone Huffpo author who tried in three posts (here, here and here) to call attention to it until finally Ed Schultz tried to get Adam Green ("Bold Progressives") outraged about the PO's sell-out by the WH on his show March 15, 2010 (now 8 mos later) but Green wouldn't bite, "Now's not the time for finger-pointing" (esp at our own generals), and Jane Hamsher columned it the next day.

    The submarined nature of truth about what happened to the public option helped the HCR (Baucus brand) bandwagon (mandate with no public option) stay on track without any disturbing scandal. Unlike the WH drug deal, this WH deal to kill the PO was a special class of deal handled almost like a marketing ploy because Obama then speechified endlessly about how PO would provide competition to keep insurers honest and played on the PO's popularity with the American public and sell HCR to that self-same American public and raise money on the basis of a PO, only to quietly lose the PO in an elaborate disappearing act, like a shell game -- PO, PO, where's the PO? It was never really there!

    I consider this a major media accomplishment of collusion, whether conscious or unconscious, for whatever motives, one possibly being corporate media's conflict of interest between its journalism commitments and its Wall Street stock portfolios invested in health insurance industry, drug companies and hospital corporation all likely to benefit by HCR engineered by Obama, Baucus and all their pals, combined with the group think media bandwagon going on right now similar to the runup to the Iraq war, with a sprinkle of "let's protect Barack's presidency" thrown in for good measure.

    Agree (none / 0) (#147)
    by klassicheart on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 02:39:46 AM EST
    If this happens color me DONE with the Dem block (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by cawaltz on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 10:16:47 PM EST
    Is that Better (none / 0) (#149)
    by jmacWA on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 09:44:49 AM EST
    or worse than being called a Republican?

    Speaking of concessions, what (none / 0) (#5)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 01:51:59 PM EST
    do you all make of this:

    Nothing looks confirmed at the moment. But the moment House leaders reach agreement with elements of the Stupak bloc is the moment I stop doing whip counts. Because then, health care passes without too much trouble.

    And what's the deal? A future, standalone vote on the Stupak amendment, in the House and the Senate.

    At least six anti-abortion-rights Democrats are open to supporting the healthcare bill if they can get a guarantee from the Senate that it will move separate legislation containing the House abortion language, one of those Democratic holdouts said Friday.

    Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), one of Rep. Bart Stupak's (D-Mich.) gang of staunch opponents of the Senate abortion language, said they are in discussions with senators and House leaders to secure such a commitment.

    "There could be some kind of commitment from the other body to act on this later ... to ensure that the Senate language does not remain law," he said.

    (Rahall reveals himself as a member of the Stupak bloc in this exchange.)

    So, this is more "vote for it now and we'll fix it later," now directed at the Suupak holdouts, except I have no reason to think they won't keep their word on this issue...

    What a freakin' train wreck.

    this doesn't make sense to me (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by CST on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 01:54:39 PM EST
    talk about "I voted against it before I voted for it".

    They already had a stand alone vote on a Stupak-like amendment in the senate.  It lost.


    Very odd (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:01:11 PM EST
    Unless you consider that at least some of these guys are more interested in being on record as pro-Stupak than in actually getting Stupak into the law.

    Stupak himself is motivated by principle, which is why he won't budge an inch.  I suspect at least some of the others are less interested in the principle than in seeming to their constituents to be for the principle.

    Hmmmm.  Reminiscent of a few of our very own "progressive" legislators, eh?


    I'm trying to think of (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by CST on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:04:03 PM EST
    who in the senate might possibly flip.  I'm not even sure they could get Brown.

    Maybe it's just a vote to have a vote and see where people stand... again...  Too bad they won't do that with the P.O.


    Not really about (none / 0) (#24)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:09:57 PM EST
    the Senate, it's about making the House Stupakers happy.

    Every conception is the next Tebow :) (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 01:55:40 PM EST
    lord help us (none / 0) (#13)
    by CST on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:02:07 PM EST
    there's a good reason to be celibate

    We should be so fortunate. Oh wait. He's (none / 0) (#117)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:10:18 PM EST
    too young.

    Senator Stupak hits the red carpet (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 01:53:36 PM EST
    and he forgot to remove the hanger from his TUX.

    Oops congressman Stupak (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:10:13 PM EST
    Senator sounded better though

    Just a way to let them back off now (none / 0) (#62)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:22:17 PM EST
    and save face - let them come away with a probably empty promise. Maybe Reid will schedule a vote on the Stupak amendment the same day he has the vote on the PO he is promising. But I'm not gonna hold my breath.

    I'm really glad the internet is new enough that I did not seen the wheeling and dealing that went on with every other major vote in my lifetime.


    Whew! (none / 0) (#65)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:25:19 PM EST
    I was just thinking that the other day.  Ain't it the truth.

    Maybe one of the outcomes (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:48:12 PM EST
    of the public disapproval of the whole ugly process mess is that they will realize everyone can see them now, in real time, and stop some of this nonsense posturing. It might take a generation of pols though.

    Regardless of how anyone feels about the bill, I think most agree that the view of the legislative process revealed by the 'sunshine' does no one any favors.

    I'm sure it is no worse than it has ever been, but hey, we can see you now. Stop acting like idiots.


    Ha! This is a day of PUSH (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 01:52:10 PM EST
    There is an avalanche of blogger news about who breakingly supports the legislation.  Let's see, we have the AMA, Labor with baseball bats aiming for kneecaps, and Paul Krugman.  Who else will show up for the party today?  What a turn out.  Who has the best dress on? Instead of "R" The Party we get "PUSH" The Party.

    $371BILLION dirty secret (none / 0) (#9)
    by BTAL on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 01:55:33 PM EST
    Ssshhh, keep that to yourself, we can't talk about something that is HCR related during the HCR discussions.

    From Politico

    Democrats plan doc fix after reform

    Democrats are planning to introduce legislation later this spring that would permanently repeal annual Medicare cuts to doctors, but are warning lawmakers not to talk about it for fear that it will complicate their push to pass comprehensive health reform. The plans undercut the party's message that reform lowers the deficit, according to a memo obtained by POLITICO.

    Democrats removed the so-called doc fix from the reform legislation last year because its $371-billion price tag would have made it impossible for Democrats to claim that their bill reduces the deficit. Republicans have argued for months that by stripping the doc fix from the bill, Democrats were playing a shell game.


    The fact that they can't vigorously (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:04:49 PM EST
    defend this against the utterly bogus charge that it ought to be part of the HC bill calculations because it's related to health care I think tells its own story.

    The "doc fix" has zippo, nada, nothing to do with the so-called "reform" plans.  It has to be done anyway, whether the bill or any other bill passes or not.  Might as well insist HHS's entire budget go under "health care reform."



    they have not shown (none / 0) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:10:38 PM EST
    much ability to defend against any bogus charge.
    but at some point the bogus charges are coming so fast . . .

    I can see why they did this.


    How is the doc-fix not part of HCR? (none / 0) (#32)
    by BTAL on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:15:20 PM EST
    Where's the cost curve bending?

    Where's the massive Medicare savings?

    If a significant part of HCR is tapping into "fixing" and "saving" Medicare then the doc-fix should be part of the bill.


    I'll try this again (none / 0) (#61)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:21:46 PM EST
    The doc fix is absolutely necessary whether or not there's any other bill or anything else done on health care or insurance.

    No doc fix, no more Medicare because there won't be any docs left who are willing/able to take it.  Simple as that.  Even with the "doc fix," fewer and fewer doctors are taking it.


    Everybody gets the issue (none / 0) (#70)
    by BTAL on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:36:16 PM EST
    but the dems choosing to defer this outside of HCR to protect their agenda is pure jackassery.

    HCR wades hip deep into Medicare promising all sorts of "improvements" but this 800lb gorilla in the corner is being conveniently ignored.


    Nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:59:36 PM EST
    Now I think you're deliberately misrepresenting this.

    No Englishman or woman... (none / 0) (#86)
    by Salo on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:27:39 PM EST
    ...that's right Stan...or woman would say "Jackassery".

    What's the chance that another native Anglo-Saxon type would turn up here bashing the NHS while i've been here since the primaries explaining it as a prime model?


    Salo, I'm not a Brit (none / 0) (#110)
    by BTAL on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:53:08 PM EST
    My wife is but I am not.

    Republicans are jackasses (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:03:56 PM EST
    Republicans faked this.  It came from Boehner's office.  Ryan is whining that it doesn't matter that the memo is fake.

    Believe it when I see it (none / 0) (#15)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:03:43 PM EST
    They aren't going to touch health care again once this thing passes.

    Oh, yes they are (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:11:47 PM EST
    The "doc fix" is essential to keep Medicare from completely collapsing.  Even the Republicans are for it.

    If everyone is for it (none / 0) (#37)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:24:11 PM EST
    Then it would be in the original bill.

    It's not in there because the GOP (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:38:33 PM EST
    shrieks about the deficit! and entitlements! when this comes up, and it would have been one more thing we would have had to give something else up for (not that we didn't start out giving away pretty much all of the good stuff).

    I laugh though at the "shhh...don't tell anyone" aspect even as someone leaks it to the nearest reporter.

    The only thing the Congress is missing is the clown car.


    You're just wrong (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:18:35 PM EST
    First off, it simply doesn't belong in the original bill.  And if it was in there, the cost would have to have been added onto the cost of the rest of the bill and made it seem much worse than it is.

    Whether they can pass a permanent "doc fix" this year after doing so many other incredibly expensive things isn't clear.  They've been doing it on a year-by-year basis for a while now, and they may end up doing that again. But they'll do at least that.


    Your logic escapes me (none / 0) (#63)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:22:38 PM EST
    Because it would have made the bill too expensive, it wasn't in there, even though both parties actually agree on it.  But if it magically gets put in another bill, the costs won't be the same and in the end make this "reform" more expensive?

    Come on (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:50:42 PM EST
    You're not that oblivious.

    I'll try this one last time.  The doc fix IS NOT -- get that? -- IS NOT part of this "reform."  It's an entirely separate issue.  It is not "reform," it's an annual "fix" they've been doing every year for some time.

    And you also know very well that GOP propaganda about things like this need not have any sort of perceptible logic to it whatsoever.

    The GOP wanted the doc fix pasted into the health care reform bill so they could then pretend the reform was going to cost even more.  I guarantee you, whether the HC reform bill passes or doesn't pass, the doc fix will get done, and with a great many GOP votes.


    But the then the new legislation (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:42:25 PM EST
    would cost too much.

    I think they have to on this (none / 0) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:15:20 PM EST
    It was over ten years ago when I worked in a hospital business office, and the Medicare schedule for repayment was bad then.  My Aunt currently works in an HMO insurance coding and billing office and has for years, and the Medicare repayment is so poor right now that doctors are beginning to have to drop treating any new Medicare patients.  They literally can't afford to treat them.  So they cut it to get it passed, but it can't stay that way in my opinion.

    Not a very inspiring argument (none / 0) (#34)
    by BTAL on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:17:44 PM EST
    for Medicare-For-All.

    No it isn't (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:24:47 PM EST
    Payment for services would have to be improved, but if we were buying in...there would be more money to do that with instead .0254 or whatever it is now.  I haven't had to do any payroll in quite some time.

    given that ... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Salo on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:29:11 PM EST
    ... because Medicare isn't universal--there's a huge amount of fraud involved in teh medical appliances market with oldsters. Some bloke down in Glendale sets up a front supplies company and has a Doc sign off on the fake patients.

    This couldn't happen with a universalized system.  It doesn't happen anywhere inside systems like France, Canada and the UK.


    Yes......the "appliance" portion (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:41:06 PM EST
    even when you have a real patient seems to have a lot of room for ripping off.  When my grandmother became home bound we rented some extra items, a walker, potty chair (god forbid just shoot me), and a showering chair.  All of these items had been used, and that is why God made bleach so I didn't really care....but what Medicare paid for those rentals was literally what purchasing new items outright would have seemed to have been to me.  I thought the rental idea was a good idea for cost savings, but it seems to have scam built into it too.

    Same experience with (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:57:39 PM EST
    my mother.  And then they have, in compensation, idiotic rules, like they will only pay for a wheelchair if the person needs it inside the home.  My mother didn't, she could get from her bed to the bathroom more easily with her walker, but she absolutely could not navigate getting out of the house for doctor/dentist visits without a chair, so we had to buy a cheap one ourselves.

    No biggie for my mother and we had few complaints with Medicare overall, but it's just a really stupid rule if you want people to get regular medical care, and a major hit for really low-income people.


    Pay go (none / 0) (#23)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:07:51 PM EST
    Good news.  Glad to know they are going to keep moving.  I will be glad to see improvements in Medicare.  The Democrats manage to pay for their legislation.  They did with HCR, they will with the Medicare fixes.

    Removed not verified (none / 0) (#40)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:29:07 PM EST
    That item has been pulled down until it is verified.  So not sure that is true at this point.

    Yep, Politico removed it (none / 0) (#55)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:05:47 PM EST
    and many Dems say it is a hoax...

    Hoax or even bad reporting (none / 0) (#56)
    by BTAL on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:11:58 PM EST
    doesn't make the doc-fix tomfoolery go away.

    He isn't even right (none / 0) (#22)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:06:51 PM EST
    FWIW, the Chamber of Commerce is doing saturation ads on my satellite service against the bill, complete with ominous music and that Lynn Cheney-like voice telling us the world will come an end if we don't "Tell Congress we can't afford this bill."

    Yeah (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:23:39 PM EST
    that's one that's running down here too.

    Maybe it is a part of the "industry (none / 0) (#30)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:12:31 PM EST
    neutralization" program. In any event and for whatever reason, the plan is encouraging since the "doc fix" is needed if health
    care, and not just insurance reform and cost savings, is a desired outcome.

    Here is the next talking point (none / 0) (#39)
    by Salo on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:26:02 PM EST
    The German business model as described in the Economist this month/week hmmm...well anyway the German business model--Management, unions, activists collaborating on all welfare/trade  policy  will be cited as Obama's guiding method. He won't really be following it...

    But he'll sell the Party  out as he goes along.


    The expected (none / 0) (#50)
    by masslib on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:46:22 PM EST
    revisionism is beginning a bit early.

    Updated votes (none / 0) (#60)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:20:37 PM EST
    Boccieri (D-Ohio) will vote yes (Blue dog)

    Altmire is a no.

    Interesting (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:32:30 PM EST
    I wonder what the count is now. I've read that they are 5 short of the votes.

    Boyd from FL just announced his (none / 0) (#71)
    by BTAL on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:37:56 PM EST
    switch to Yes.  As a Bluedog, Pelosi must have tossed major $s at him since he is facing a primary challenger.

    Updated Whip Count (none / 0) (#123)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:34:39 PM EST
    6:11 pm

    Dems leaning no, likely no, or voting no

    John Adler (N.J.) (N) Citing cost containment, Adler told the Courier-Post  that he will vote against Senate measure

    Jason Altmire (Pa.) * (N) Announced March 19 he is going to vote no, saying, "I strongly believe that a vote in opposition to the health care bill is consistent with the views of the district I represent." On March 16, Altmire told Fox Business Network that he has major problem with Democrats' "deem and pass" strategy, calling it "wrong." Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told McClatchy Newspapers earlier this month he was targeting Altmire

    Michael Arcuri (N.Y.) (Y) National Journal reports he is telling leadership he will vote against the bill

    John Barrow (Ga.) * (N) Voted no last year in committee and on floor. Likely no

    Marion Berry (Ark.) * (Y) Has been critical of the president since announcing his retirement. Strong backer of Stupak language. Voted yes in Budget Committee markup on March 15

    Dan Boren (Okla.) * (N) Won't be changing his mind -- firm no

    Rick Boucher (Va.) (N) GOP target who has told local press outlets in Virginia he has major problems with Medicare cuts and "unsavory dealmaking" that benefited Nebraska, Louisiana and Florida. Leaning no

    Bobby Bright (Ala.) * (N) Voted against House health bill, stimulus and climate change. Firm no

    Chris Carney (Pa.) * (Y) Carney told the Scranton Times-Shamrock, "As I said publicly, I can't vote for a bill that will publicly fund abortion."

    Ben Chandler (Ky.) * (N) His office told The Hill on March 15: "Congressman Chandler's position on the bill remains the same. He expects to vote against the legislation."

    Travis Childers (Miss.) * (N) Told the Daily Journal he will vote no, citing lack of strong language on abortion funding. From Childers's statement: "While I cannot vote for current House legislation, I remain committed to effective, fiscally responsible healthcare reform that makes sense for North Mississippi."

    Jerry Costello (Ill.) * (Y) One of his senior aides, David Gillies, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that Costelllo will vote no on the Senate bill. Most of the calls, e-mails and letters he has received have advised a no vote. His office did say he was "undecided" on the reconciliation legislation if it comes up for a vote.

    Artur Davis (Ala.) * (N) Running for governor, but will make sure to return to D.C. to vote no
    Joe Donnelly (Ind.) * (Y) Among the Stupak dozen -- will vote no unless abortion language in Senate bill is changed, according to The Rochester Sentinel

    Steve Driehaus (Ohio) * (Y) In toss-up race in November who is ardent backer of Stupak language. Now sounds like a very firm no. Told the Cincinnati Enquirer, "They are going to have to do it without me and without the other pro-life Democrats." His spokesman told the Cleveland Plain-Dealer: "Unless changes are made to the abortion language in the Senate version, Rep. Driehaus will be voting no."

    Chet Edwards (Texas) (N) Perennial GOP target. Edwards spokesman told CNN he will vote no. Votes no at March 15 Budget Committee markup
    Larry Kissell (N.C.) (N) GOP target, but reelection chances on the rise. Firm no

    Frank Kratovil (Md.) (N) Voted for climate change; says he will vote no

    Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.) (N) Congresswoman told the Rapid City Journal she's a no, noting she is not a fan of reconciliation. She also voted no on education reform bill expected to move in reconciliation with healthcare reform

    Tim Holden (Pa.) * (N) Voted against healthcare and climate change in 2009. Told The Republican Herald that he is a no, citing abortion and "significant" cuts to Medicare and Medicaid

    Daniel Lipinski (Ill.) * (Y) Will not vote for abortion language in Senate bill, but has other concerns as well. Democratic leaders cannot count on Lipinski

    Stephen Lynch (Mass.) * (Y) Says he will vote no. Proponent of Stupak language. Has major problems with "deem and pass" strategy. Told Politico, "I don't buy the argument that he's done if this doesn't pass. He's got three more years. He can recover."

    Jim Marshall (Ga.) * (N) Perennial GOP target, but favored to win reelection. Told The Hill he's a no

    Jim Matheson (Utah) * (N) President Obama this year tapped brother for post, but Matheson still a likely no

    Mike McIntyre (N.C.) * (N) Seven-term lawmaker rejected House health bill and climate change. Spokesman tells The Hill McIntyre is a no. Expected to win reelection easily even though Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) won district

    Mike McMahon (N.Y.) (N) Suggested last month he was a no to the Staten Island Advance. McMahon told The Hill on March 12 he is leaning no. Voted no on education reform bill that is expected to move with healthcare reform in reconciliation

    Charlie Melancon (La.) * (N) Senate hopeful voted no in November and no in committee. Likely no
    Walt Minnick (Idaho) (N) One of the House's most conservative members. Firm no

    Collin Peterson (Minn.) * (N) Ag chairman not shy in bucking leadership. Firm no

    Nick Rahall (W.Va.) * (Y) The Hill reported March 19 that Rahall is involved in discussions with Senate on abortion provisions. Told the Charleston Daily Mail that he will vote no unless abortion language is changed. Rahall is third committee chairmen on this Firm No, Leaning No, Likely No list

    Mike Ross (Ark.) * (N) Voted for bill in committee, but not since. Firm no

    Heath Shuler (N.C.) * (N) CNN reporting Shuler is a no. Doesn't hold his tongue when he opposes Democratic leaders. Critic of reconciliation. Gannett New Services reports Shuler is leaving himself wiggle room. Shuler said: "Until I know the details of the final bill and the process, I am reluctant to draw a line in the sand."

    Ike Skelton (Mo.) * (N) GOP targeting his seat. Armed Services Committee chairman is a firm no

    Bart Stupak (Mich.) * (Y) Told The Hill in March 17 interview his life has been "living hell" in recent weeks. Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) predicted Stupak will vote yes, but Stupak says he will absolutely vote no unless the bill language on abortion is changed.

    Gene Taylor (Miss.) * (N) Has been a firm no all Congress. Constituents last summer urged him to get others to vote no

    Harry Teague (N.M.) * (N) Told The Hill that he will review bill to see if final bill brings costs down. If "we are in the same place -- a no"

    Pelosi is still working the undecideds, which means she doesn't have the votes yet.


    Matheson will vote yes (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 06:08:50 PM EST
    He has been moved to undecided from No and voted No the first time around.  His vote is there if Obama absolutely has to have it.

    Cuellar is now a yes from undecided....