Skip to main content

View Diary: If this bill is so good for insurers and so bad for Dems ... (204 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But it would be much much worse. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chumley, FarWestGirl

    And I don't think they are getting death threats from armed people just yet.

    As to support, what about this. Say the newly mandated insurance premiums cost $100 a month per person. 43 million new customers means $4.3 Billion a month, $50 billion a year. (Now, I don't know anyone playing less than $300/mo, so it's really about a sixth of a trillion a year straight into their hands, straight out of ours.)

    And as the working poor and former middle class get mined for a greater portion of their scant resources, and subsidies kick in--well, who will be paying those subsidies but these same people?

    And as premiums increase, and subsidies increase (though maybe lagging behind a bit) at what point--given that we are pretty broke as the $12Trillion debt ceiling shows--do the subsidies get decreased, AND Social Security and Medicare, the whole safety network, gets cut? That point is coming, and already "reforming" Social Security has been mooted.

    You know they ain't gonna take anything from any of these wars that are damaging our national security.

    Later, when the broken-backed public begs for relief, how much more bought will Congress be when it comes time to, ahem, reform, the bill?

    Nah. This is mass theft and eventual destruction of the social safety net masking as reform.

    Scrap the crap, come back with Medicare For All, or Medicare for All Buy-In, bring it through reconciliation and you instantly a) get everyone covered, b) create competition the Insurance Industry must deal with or die, c) not only restrain the rate of cost increase, but lower it.

    Look long term, both to the benefit of the nation and the benefit to the Democratic Party and I think you'd have to pick MFA, with or without buy-in.

    Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

    by Jim P on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 11:25:08 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  As I note in my recipe (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I'm willing to try it your way, even though I don't think it will work.

      My main concern is what to do after it doesn't work.  In that case, I think we're better off having the bill parked in the conference committee.

      •  but on what basis would we better off? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Seneca Doane

        You know insurance has high deductibles, that people can't pay as it is. In other words, the bankruptcies will continue only slightly if at all mitigated.

        You know the legislation leaves them with all their rescission tricks.

        I assume you know that the Insurance Companies were high-fiving each other even before the further winnowing of the past week...

        I believe if you address the downside (setting up the eventual disabling of SocSec & MedCr) as detailed above you'd count it pretty likely...

        Is it just a sense of loyalty to the party? A "the perfect being the enemy of the good" notion of pragmatism? (To which: The Inadequate is the enemy of the Necessary.)

        I really want to know because though this isn't the first time I've disagreed with you, it is the first time I've ever heard something from you that I find incomprehensible.

        (I must crash soon, but I will read what you say in the morn. Thanks.)

        Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

        by Jim P on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 11:43:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, actually, I *don't* know that the bill (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jim P

          is actually as bad as suggested.  Again, if it is that bad, I'd expect the Republicans to want it to pass so as to hang it around our necks.

          But even if it is that bad, the question remains: are we more likely to be able to build our way to a better system with, or without, the ability to stand on this platform.

          I think that, if reconciliation fails, we pass the bill and follow the recipe I present above.  I expect that the Republicans will accept reform rather than accept ownership of the most rightfully unpopular parts of the bill.  I think we'll change them.

          That's as comprehensible as I'm likely to get!

          •  Thanks. Okay, last thing. Re your argument why (0+ / 0-)

            no support from Snowe/Collins...

            here's the other side of the "who's this good for" notion:

            If you need a guide to the health reform debate in Washington, take a look at health insurance company stocks. When the debate is going the right way – towards quality, affordable health care for everyone, towards getting people out from under the insurance industry’s crushing monopoly – insurance company stocks take a dive. When the debate is moving against what America wants – towards more private industry, less insurance regulations, and the like – health care stocks soar.

            Right now, they’re soaring.

            Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

            by Jim P on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 11:38:07 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site