Call me naïve. Here I was, all along, thinking that even if a "robust public option" is passed and won’t take effect until 2013 that (1) there would be something in the interim for the uninsured and (2) there would be something to deal with the retroactive yanking of coverage, denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions or something that would control the spiraling out of control costs that was already giving Big Healthcare a huge windfall at the expense of, you know, actually covering people in any meaningful way.
Well, I found out not all that long ago that I was very wrong on point #1, as triggers (not that it is a good thing, but it at least opened my eyes), or some of the plans that would, if coupled with a "robust public option", to allow states to do SOMETHING in the interim for the tens of millions – something that would or could be a prelude to how the public option is, something IN ADDITION to the public option – have run the gamut as either been exposed as a fraud or dismissed as something that will secretly and sinisterly really replace the magical public option that still won’t do anything for anyone until 2013.
But now, I find out – and have asked a few people in this thread to confirm - (and while I may be "late to the party" on this for folks here, I can guarantee you that tens of millions of people have no clue about this) that there is nothing at all in relief for the underinsured, those with junk insurance, those who have been denied for preexisting conditions or having their coverage yanked retroactively or whatever else I missed until that same 2013.
After the next Presidential election.
Let me say this one thing – because even if the two points above have been discussed, I can bet that the following one hasn’t been discussed in nearly enough detail:
Progressives, Democrats and anyone who has been talking up these forms of health care "reform" to defend this likely bill of crap to tens of millions of angry Americans – including many who have been (possibly unwittingly) fighting for something that won’t do jack shit for 3-4 more years
Otherwise, get ready to kiss the House majority good bye in 2010 and quite possibly the Senate and White House good bye in 2012.
Here are some numbers for you: Even conservative estimates peg medical bankruptcies at around 500,000 per year. The recent study of 45,000 deaths per year from lack of insurance has been covered a lot lately – but did you also know that this number is up from 18,000 in 2002? The cost of health insurance premiums have doubled over the past decade, and for a family, it is not much less than the minimum wage, annualized. Insurance companies are currently suing states so they can raise premiums by close to 20%.
And here is one more for those who have to rely on their current employer-provided health care (you know, for that whole "pre-existing condition" thing) - 3.6 million job losses over the 13 months ending January 2009, and a total job loss of over 7 million as of last month. Even if things stabilize and turn within a year, that is .
So while everyone thinks about high-fiving and applauding whatever success comes out of a bill (assuming that it is even worth progressives applauding over), think of how to explain why this bill is so good when the following could very well occur before any relief whatsoever kicks in:
- 150,000 – 200,000 more people dead from lack of insurance;
- 1,000,000 - 1,500,000 (at least) more medical related bankruptcies;
- Potentially 2,000,000 more people that have to worry about "pre existing conditions" because of a new employer/insurance;
- Premiums for a family exceeding $15,000 for crappy coverage.
This is a disaster waiting to happen. If anyone thinks that the shenanigans of this past summer by the teabaggers was crazy – wait until the above numbers – and ones more egregious and outlandish are thrown into the mix.
A narrative better be set now on this – before the left and Congressional Democrats are "blindsided" by a new narrative that should have been anticipated months ago.
Because "who would’ve known that" the right would jump at the chance to set a destructive narrative – even if there apparently is some validity to the underlying theme?