bajahyena: (Default)
[personal profile] bajahyena
I finally get it. "Centrist" means "Can still be bought by big business". Without a public option (and now dropping the Medicare buy-in) what we have is a healthcare plan that requires all Americans to buy expensive insurance from companies that add NO value to our healthcare system and ration healthcare as a daily practice.

So, I give a sincerest "FUCK YOU" to Senator Lieberman for being the poster boy of "Bought and Paid For" (your Centrists in action).

They might as well scrap it and continue to leave the 45.7 million Americans without healthcare fucked and all of us with existing conditions hosed. Insurance companies have armies of lawyers. They aren't afraid of the individual suing them and they will just price insurance for those of us with existing conditions out of reach. Again, people with existing conditions are reduced to "Hurry up and Die" status.

I now vote only one party. That is Democrat. You see, I expect there to be some people in any party that won't support a given bill. This is because people should be free thinkers and come at issues from different angles. However, there is something wrong with a party where nobody has an individual thought in their head. The Republicans marching in lock step to trash all legislation that they themselves did not propose is a sign that they don't care one bit about the American public and are more worried about gaining power back in the House and Senate no matter how it damages those of us under their protection. Don't make the mistake of thinking your representatives actually represent you. The stakes are much higher than you and me and the Republicans won't let the estimated 18 thousands people that die because they lack health insurance a year get in the way of regaining their power base. It disgusts me to see what a party I so heartily believed in based on their root ideals has become. It's still the Bush doctrine. Here is your marching orders...don't question. We will win even if our constituents loose.

Date: 2009-12-15 04:29 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
There's a bit of perspective from three different columnists aggregated here.

Date: 2009-12-15 09:43 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Thanks and I agree that there are very valid reasons that passing this legislation is a step forward. I need to remember sometimes that these fights can take generations and a significant move forward is...well, significant.

Date: 2009-12-15 05:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Yeah, it's been this way for a long time now. :( I don't think you'll see it change until republican stops being synonymous with conservative christian.

Date: 2009-12-15 05:22 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
[ profile] cargoweasel once (semi?) jokingly referred to Joe Lieberman as the Gaius Baltar of American politics.

Silly as that may sound, I find it's entirely too apt and fitting.

Date: 2009-12-15 06:03 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
It's a sad state of affairs, no doubt. I'm with you 100% on this.


Date: 2009-12-15 07:12 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I hate Lieberman; always have and always will. As a former resident of Connecticut I can attest that he has never given a shit about the residents of Connecticut. That man cares about one thing: power.

Date: 2009-12-15 08:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
If you think the government option is the answer to all your troubles, you should travel a bit more.

In addition, people on government healthcare (medicare) have to SUE the government all the time to get what they're entitled to. Why do you think there are more medicare and disability lawyers than almost any other specialty? Do you think that would get BETTER if they start covering everyone?

On the other hand, Obama himself is parroting what the insurance companies are saying: if everyone has to purchase insurance from them, then a) they can afford to admit people with pre-existing conditions (and they'll have to), and b) the cost will go DOWN.

We'll see if it actually happens. But government healthcare for the masses is not an entitlement, and it's not the solution.

Date: 2009-12-15 09:33 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I don't believe that I said that the government option was the answer to all of my or anyones troubles. (looks back over the entry) Nope, never said that. What I will say is that government managed Medicare overhead expenses are about 15% less than for private insurance companies. Do you know where that 15% goes too? (look at the big exec salaries and bonuses to board of directors).

The plan does say that insurance companies cannot deny coverage to those with preexisting conditions. However, please show me where it states how these premiums are capped or regulated? To say "Yes, we'll insure you for $3000/mo" is essentially the same thing as denying coverage.

Government healthcare is not an entitlement. On this we agree but we may not agree on what is the measure of responsibility for our society to make sure that people who are not within a working age or capable of working as they become disabled, sickly, or elderly to affordable healthcare? What about people who have lost their jobs (can't afford $900/mo without an income)?

To insure the one million people that have preexisting conditions it would cost between $7-10 billion. Do we write those people off as not worth keeping alive? I ask this honestly. I want to understand what side of the fence you stand on.

I deal with the healthcare system constantly. My doctor is harassed incessantly and I've had treatments stopped because the insurance company has to keep "reviewing" that the drug I take (Remicade) which has a long track record (7yrs) of greatly improving my condition is effective. They have denied my treatments on several occasions and I've had to go fight with them and put my corporate healthcare administrator on their assess to get it resolved. This is to deter doctors from prescribing expensive medications/treatments.

So, I'm going to trust them to keep my costs "affordable" for a preexisting condition?

Date: 2009-12-15 09:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Have you read the bills? I have, both versions, all 3,500+ pages (it's not that hard, they're triple spaced with 3" margins).

It's true that neither bill specifies rates but it does specify that people can't be charged more for pre-existing conditions. And there are a lot more than 1 million people that currently can't get private insurance due to a PEC (and I'm one of them, actually). It will essentially all become a group policy, people can choose their tiers of service but there will be no discrimination in cost due to a PEC. The companies have said they will be able to do this because of additional revenue generated by 100% enrollment. Whether that's true or not remains to be seen, but with as liberal as this government is, if there was any attempt to discriminate or bar people wit PEC's the legislation would be swift to correct it. There will also be no wiggle room with regards to what can be covered, it will be set by the Health Benefits Committee (chaired by the Surgeon General and staffed with doctors, not bean counters). I would expect your problems will dramatically decrease when these new enforcements come out.

Date: 2009-12-15 11:00 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Apologies if the 1 million was incorrect. I was quoting information from a healthcare reform specialist which may not be correct as I don't know where she got her information from. 1 million seemed low to me as well.

As you said, we will see what happens. I've never known an insurance company to say, "Yep, we're making plenty of money so we'll lower premiums" but who knows. I do agree that holes in the application of how populations are picked for rate brackets was to be shown to be biased that the government would likely move to plug those holes. This is where Toob's point is shown to be a good one about the existing legislation being a starting point.

Date: 2009-12-16 03:43 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Its a shame they can't make Medical insurance non-profit. Of course that has its own drawbacks. People in power with money, work damn hard to keep both.

Date: 2009-12-16 04:37 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
That would essentially be the idea behind a public option. Medicare overhead is ~3% which is very low operating costs relatively speaking. But, it could put a lot of people out of work. The Insurance industry is one of the biggest industries in the country so, I think there is some fear about really changing things dramatically. I prefer things be "fixed" properly even if it is temporarily painful. Limping along and hoping change will come later is not the best course of action IMHO.

Date: 2009-12-17 02:53 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
One of my ideas to push costs down is to majorly push prevention. You do that for 5-10 years and costs will slowly go down.

Fix the food industry, fix a lot of things that contribute to health issues in general, it slowly starts to come down.

Date: 2009-12-25 09:38 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I'm sorry, but I believe it is my right as an American to not give money to ANY of these companies because they are all pricks. These people cared more about their profits then their customer's well being, why the hell would I want to put my money toward people who do that to other human beings?

Imagine, if you would, Martin Luther King decides to start a boycott on the bus companies because they make blacks sit in the back of the bus. Imagine then the bus companies go to the government and say. "We won't be able to provide anyone with transportation because of this boycott, you have to do something so that we don't go under." And the government makes a law that all people have to buy a yearly pass or be fined.

You people are crazy if you think it won't take one day for that line to be called unconstitutional by the supreme court. Buckley v. Valeo already sets a precedent of similar circumstances. "How one spends their money constitutes as free speech."

Date: 2009-12-25 10:14 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Apples and oranges. People have a constitutional right to sit on buses without respect to race: "all men are created equal." People do not have a constitutional right to free health care.

The thing that is going to be overturned by the supreme court is the democrats' attempt to put legislation in the health care bill that states "it will be out of order for any future legislature to change this bill". It's in there...look it up. And that IS unconstitutional. Hopefully they'll smarten up and remove that section.

If you universally applied your criteria for giving money to corporations (that they care more about their fellow man than profits) then you'd better start growing your own food and fabricating your own hardware. Because a free market is driven by profits. Which is why the government shouldn't be tampering with healthcare at all.

Certainly you have a right not to give your money to these companies. And they have a right not to provide you with health care for free.

Date: 2009-12-25 09:28 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
If Lieberman is a Centralist, then Sauron really is the white.

Just because someone holds a title doesn't mean they really are one. Just because Lieberman has an 'I' next to his name doesn't mean he's independent. In fact, most people who go into third parties that are successfully voted in come from hotly contested primaries on one party or the other. He was a labeled Democrat before he changed to a 'centralist/Independant' standing. And the Democrats control the Senate, as others have noted Bush had ways to make sure he got what he wanted from legislation even when the democrats controlled the Senate. So the fact that Obama hasn't kept these people in line either means he's a worse leader then Bush, or the Democrats actually WANT this change to occur as well and aren't admitting it.

Democrats are not immune to being bought out, it's not a 'centralist' or 'Republican' thing. Or are you saying Blue Dogs don't exist?
Page generated Sep. 22nd, 2017 04:52 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios