I love this. It's a good time to be a reasonably young person who is interested in this sort of thing right now. I really feel like history is happening.

31 million uninsured Americans can now get health care.  No more recission.  No more denial for pre-existing conditions.  No more discrimination based on gender.  Children may remain on their parents' insurance until age 26.  VERY good news for America.

there are certainly things I want changed, or made better, but it is an excellent start. Here is a basic run down of the benefits the bill provides (and what the Republicans are now running against)

    IF YOU ARE A SMALL BUSINESSES OWNER:

        SMALL BUSINESS TAX CREDITS—Offers tax credits to small businesses to make employee coverage more affordable.    Tax credits of up to 35 percent of premiums will be immediately available.  Effective beginning for calendar year 2010.   (Beginning in 2014, small business tax credits will cover 50 percent of premiums.)

    IF YOU ARE A SENIOR:

        BEGINS TO CLOSE THE MEDICARE PART D DONUT HOLE—Provides a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who hit the donut hole in 2010.  Effective for calendar year 2010.  (Beginning in 2011, institutes a 50% discount on brand-name drugs in the donut hole; also completely closes the donut hole by 2020.)  

        FREE PREVENTIVE CARE UNDER MEDICARE—Eliminates co-payments for preventive services and exempts preventive services from deductibles under the Medicare program.  Effective beginning January 1, 2011.  

        HELP FOR EARLY RETIREES—Creates a temporary re-insurance program (until the Exchanges are available) to help offset the costs of expensive health claims for employers that provide health benefits for retirees age 55-64.  Effective 90 days after enactment.

    IF YOU HAVE PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE:

        NO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CHILDREN WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS—Prohibits health plans from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.  Effective 6 months after enactment.  (Beginning in 2014, this prohibition would apply to adults as well.)

        NO RESCISSIONS—Bans health plans from dropping people from coverage when they get sick.  Effective 6 months after enactment.

        NO LIFETIME LIMITS ON COVERAGE—Prohibits health plans from placing lifetime caps on coverage.  Effective 6 months after enactment.  

        NO RESTRICTIVE ANNUAL LIMITS ON COVERAGE—Tightly restricts new plans' use of annual limits to ensure access to needed care.  These tight restrictions will be defined by HHS.  Effective 6 months after enactment.  (Beginning in 2014, the use of any annual limits would be prohibited for all plans.)

        FREE PREVENTIVE CARE UNDER NEW PLANS—Requires new private plans to cover preventive services with no co-payments and with preventive services being exempt from deductibles.  Effective 6 months after enactment.  

        NEW, INDEPENDENT APPEALS PROCESS FOR NEW PLANS—Ensures consumers in new plans have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to appeal decisions.  Effective 6 months after enactment.

        MORE FOR YOUR PREMIUM DOLLAR—Requires plans to put more of your premiums into your care, and less into profits, CEO pay, etc.  This medical loss ratio requires plans in the individual and small group market to spend 80 percent of premiums on medical services, and plans in the large group market to spend 85 percent.  Insurers that don't meet these thresholds must provide rebates to policyholders.  Effective on January 1, 2011.

        NO DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SALARY—Prohibits new group health plans from establishing any eligibility rules for health care coverage that have the effect of discriminating in favor of higher wage employees.  Effective 6 months after enactment.

    IF YOU DON'T HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE:

        IMMEDIATE HELP FOR THE UNINSURED WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS (INTERIM HIGH-RISK POOL)—Provides immediate access to insurance for Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition - through a temporary high-risk pool - until the Exchanges up and running in 2014.  Effective 90 days after enactment. (Beginning in 2014, health plans are banned from discriminating against all people with pre-existing conditions, so high-risk pools would phase out).

        EXTENDING COVERAGE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE UP TO 26TH BIRTHDAY THROUGH PARENTS' INSURANCE - Requires health plans to allow young people up to their 26th birthday to remain on their parents' insurance policy, at the parents' choice.  Effective 6 months after enactment.

    GENERAL REFORMS:

        COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS—Increases funding for Community Health Centers to allow for nearly doubling the number of patients served over the next 5 years.  Effective beginning in fiscal year 2010.        

        MORE PRIMARY CARE DOCTORS—Provides new investment in training programs to increase the number of primary care doctors, nurses, and public health professionals. Effective beginning in fiscal year 2010.

        HEALTH INSURANCE CONSUMER ASSISTANCE—Provides aid to states to establish offices of health insurance consumer assistance to help consumers file complaints and appeals.  Effective beginning in FY 2010.

        A NEW, VOLUNTARY, PUBLIC LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE PROGRAM—Creates a long-term care insurance program to be financed by voluntary payroll deductions to provide benefits to adults who become functionally disabled.  Effective on January 1, 2011.

Um, yeah.  I guess that would hurt if I wasn't an athiest...or something. Whatever.

You know, often after I post something on PDD I get this little feeling that I'm maybe a little too old to be doing so. I wonder if you ever get that feeling, C. Doubtful. I also wonder if you've ever noticed that PDD'ers usually ignore your comments? Also...doubtful. But I digress. Keep doing that thing you do on the local information superhighway, C. Please. While the girls over on DCB seem to dislike you for your politics, I think you're one damn entertaining local lady. Thanks. D.

"And that is my only comment on the subject."

Christ, get a room

I was thinking the same thing, Edgeways -- not about the room, but about Danny's first comment. I won't give his second comment the dignity of a response -- except to say, it's up there when it comes to moronic comments I've ever read.

Edgeways, thanks for the encapsulation of what HCR provides. I seriously do not understand the virulent opposition to it -- and wonder if the fact that President Obama made some high-flying promises during the campaign and is coming through with some of what he promised is driving the right-wing extremists? And, of course, he's African-American. This double-whammy seems to have pushed the Tea-Party types over the edge. The craziness of the opposition is unreal. What world do those people live in?

I'm just glad that Congressman Oberstar saw sweet reason and voted for HCR after all.

Wasn't my point sort of that you are the one talking to yourself when it comes to PDD comments?  As far as the moronic thing, you're right.  I will strive to come up with more intelligent comments like: "Hey Danny G, whoot, whoot, whoot! HCR PASSED! God bless America! Whoot whoot!"

Tony D: I think you are right in the majority of opposition to the HCR is the result of fear mongering.

The position rediguana makes is a valid one though and one of the weaknesses of the bill. I sincerely hope this is but the first step, the most  difficult part of getting a substantial framework in place that can be adjusted to be more inclusive and less private insurance orientated. There already is talk about PO and UHC votes down the road. 

The level of opposition is something to take into account when we consider what we did get. Violence, the threat of violence, racial and sexual slurs, obstructionism, outright lies... there was an incredible amount of intimidation brought to bear. Personally I am not about to start denigrating the progress we did made to bemoan the progress we haven't made yet.

Can someone show me an actual act of violence that the protesters to the bill performed. What I found in my search is 2 names being called(bad ones) and one brick. 

This sign is getting a lot of play also:

 "Warning: If Brown can't stop it, a Browning can,"

You would hold that against the whole movement of the 71% of Americans that were against the bill yet you won't hold President Obama accountable for his association with the people that he has kept company with. That is a double standard. 

And can you tell me where the obstructionism was. If it was the Republicans in the house that were obstructing, look at the numbers and tell me where the could have stopped the bill. The Democrats had a super majority for how long and you are going to blame the Republicans for making it take so long. They didn't have to show up to work and it would have passed. 

Is there good in this bill? Yes! Did we lose some Liberty and Freedom with the signing of this bill? Yes! And I believe our freedom is what makes this a great country.

Where is this 71% opposition figure coming from? I'm guessing it's Fox or some blowhard talk radio douche. The Repubs have proven themselves to be the party of NO. They hooked their wagon to the Glen Beck/Rush Limbaugh train. Now it's the rightwing media directing the party, not the other way around. When hate TV and radio started banging the anti-health reform can, they left no opportunity for there to be some kind of consensus between the parties. They WANT it that way. They don't really care about your freedom or common decency. The noise machine profits from perpetuating its own noise. It's far past time for this country to go single payer and the current bill is only a hesitant start. The deluded lunatic fringe has held the agenda captive. It's time to call them all out for the racist, ignorant morons that they are.

Wait a minute? 71% of Americans were against the bill? Shit, you'd better tell the USA Today/Gallup pollsters that their results from yesterday (49% happy with the legislation versus 40 not happy) are messed up!

I'm sick of cons saying "America" is against this, and that we've lost freedom. Freedom to what? Fret and stress over not being able to keep my coverage after I lose my job? Over my preexisting condition ruining my life completely?

And: duhhhhh -- "America" voted for the people who made this bill happen. The truth is that the right is angry because they are selfish, they have trust issues, and they don't want to help anyone or see anyone helped. They are 90% Christian (or they claim to be, at least), and the idea of charity or helping the least among us is "socialism" to them.

Silly, silly, silly.

Time will prove that the right has chosen the wrong side of the battle, just as they did with civil rights, with womens' rights, with Medicare, with everything. But that's what they do -- they conserve. They've turned "progress" into a dirty word. They're terrified of change (especially change that they know will make them look like ineffectual losers), and they want to call it the devil to try and stop it. Same old bullshit. Go put on your "Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine" album.

I'm with you on the tanning, though -- I should be able to brown myself and give myself cancer without paying three extra dollars. WHERE IS MY FREEEEEEEEDOMMMMMMMM?!?!?

Tony, 

I have not disrespected you or anyone else in the discussion, so if you could stop assuming where I or anyone else got information on the subject it would be much appreciated. Because we could all name web sites that you go to and base your arguments on.

TimK: My bad! I spewed off a number that I thought I remembered correctly and obviously I didn't. The highest against was 58% in Feb. 

"They are 90% Christian (or they claim to be, at least), and the idea of charity or helping the least among us is "socialism" to them."

No, I am against government charity I will give the money that I earn to who I want. I don't feel like giving it to the guy that sits on his couch smoking cigarettes, drinking beer and beats his wife. That choice is no longer their.

TonyD made the point that we are required to be Car Insurance by the government. Federal and state are two completely different topics when the topic of the Constitution come up. Massachusetts is trying it now:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97620520

But, let's assuming it is a federal mandate. If you compared apples to apples. It would require you to buy auto insurance whether you own a car or not when you turn 18. Would that be fair. 

There is no opt out.


Oh! I got to go Glenn Beck is on! I'll be back with more talking points. :P

yeah, we can opt out of car insurance by not having a car but it's sorta hard to not have a body  - and those damn bodies often get sick. For those without insurance (car, health or whatever), someone else has to pay if the uninsured get sick/crashes, etc.

' At least 5 Democratic offices where vandalized with bricks thrown trough windows and doors, at least one carried the Barry Goldwater quote "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!" '

Recently?  Last night?  Could you provide a little more info on these 5 Democratic offices being vandalized?  Danka.

edgeways,

I agree completely and these few(or many) people are giving the majority of people with my beliefs a bad name. I agree with non of what they are doing.

But in your comment please don't lump my disagreement with the bill with those actions. 

Everyone here knows how easy it would be to get links for liberal violence at rallies or against political figures or businesses. I will just end by this one last quote that I read the other day:

No American is against the 30M+ poorest Americans getting healthcare--we simply disagree about how to do it.

Everyone here knows how easy it would be to get links for liberal violence at rallies or against political figures or businesses.

Actually, go to it. If it is easy give me five examples in the last five years from sources other than FoxNews or overtly partisan sources, of American liberal acts of violence directed at harming political figures. You likely can, but I am interested and am not willing to just have that thrown out without substantiation. 

Then what is your argument against the bill? Is it 

"...I am against government charity I will give the money that I earn to who I want. I don't feel like giving it to the guy that sits on his couch smoking cigarettes, drinking beer and beats his wife. That choice is no longer their." 
because adding that with your 
"No American is against the 30M+ poorest Americans getting healthcare-we simply disagree about how to do it." (yeah see many of the public tea parties actions have pretty much dispelled that veracity of that quote http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_PX5L_v_7I)

just seems to indicate you want people to spontaneously voluntarily provide health care to their neighbors or ... what? Depend on the largess of foundations and corporations? 

If you are indeed against "government charity" then perhaps I may suggest your views run counter to the very Constitution which in practice has long adopted the Alexander Hamilton interpretation of providing for the general welfare. 

"government charity" comes in all stripes, this is where I bring up the oft used roads, schools, defense, product and food safety, infrastructure, food subsidies, libraries, election funding, police, fire services.. at a fundamental level all of these are charities, they are (OMFG) collective services and most of these represent services we cannot pick and choose from. If your home catches fire we expect the government funded monopoly fire department to assist us. Everyone is guaranteed a basic education and we pay to ensure that there is a government charity so that even the most poor amongst us can get that education. 

So, really, how do you propose we fund and implement getting healthcare to those 30+ million people? Because historically we have done fuck all in doing it. Do you go down to Damiano center and assist? CHUM? What the hell do you do to help? It's gotta be something right? Because you want to provide health care to the 30+ million.

Danny -do your own research. Don't be so lazy. It makes you look ignorant.

Let's compare Bush's Patriot Act to HCR: who is the fascist?

I'll try again:

Cincinatti: According to your link, no proof that this had anything to do with healthcare.

Wichita: Some douchebag Alabama militia guy taking credit for instigating this one.  Not exactly your average tea party attendee.  Side-note: I was actually most-interested in this one since I used to live in Wichita.

Tucson: Not really a lot of info on that one.  A brick broke a window.  If some punks broke the window of the hardware store in Lakeside right after the booze thing failed (by one vote) last year, everyone would probably be looking at me due to my "vocal outrage".

Rochester: This one would be the only one I would give you credit for.  However, I think it will be interesting to follow the story.  I'd be curious to see if someone on "the other side" did this one to help the cause...which has been known to happen (see: Denver DFL office last summer).  To be fair though, this happens with tool-bags on both sides.

Niagra Falls: Another really vague one.


Oh...and I sincerely am sorry to you edgeways, and ALL of you Perfectoids who aren't DDD fans for continuing to sporadically chime in on this thread after saying I was done.  That would annoy me too.

@Vicarious- The Patriot Act was just renewed by a democratic congress and signed into law by Obama. I think it's a bit dishonest at this point to call it 'Bush's Patriot Act'.  

I don't intend to mute criticism of G.W. Bush, but to point out that the democrats have done little to scale back erosion of constitutionally protected freedoms since they've taken control of congress and the white house.

Yes. It must stop... Now... Because... Just shut up and be happy with being the ignorant, sad idiot you are. Viscious idiots trafficking in violence and comfortable information. Disgusting.

(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0853096/)

So the argument is...thank you Mr President, for giving us something.

You know, if I had to guess the age, 48 would have been it exactly.  Funny, huh?

"So the argument is...thank you Mr President, for giving us something."

No, the argument is thank you Mr. President for tackling a huge national problem despite the fact that it's politically explosive.  Thank you, Mr. President for following through on your promise to attempt post-partisan governance. Thank you for abandoning this approach when it became painfully apparent that the opposition wanted you to fail at whatever cost.  (Even if it meant thousands of people die because of lack of a coherent health care system, or millions go bankrupt just because they got sick).  Thanks for standing up, eventually taking responsibility for this legislation, and facing the lies and instigating hate from the Republicans.  Thanks for not allowing the spineless Democrats to run and hide from this problem when it got to messy.  Thanks for passing this legislation, and thanks for your ongoing pursuit of justice.  

And Danny, I think the rest of us have heard enough already! about your pathetic love-affair.

"Thank you, Mr. President for following through on your promise to attempt post-partisan governance."


Forgive me if I'm wrong on this one, but the vote on Sunday was about as partisan as possible...for those who voted "yes", that is.  They all had big D's next to their name.  However, some of those that voted "no" also had D's, along with all of the R's.  Looks to me like the "post-partisans" were/are against this thing.


Another question for Claire (Age 48): Did it really suck when you found out the Beatles broke up?

This is my last post on this topic. If you would like to have more of a debate catch me on google wave at [email protected]. If you need an invite send me an e-mail at [email protected].

Danny, please check your facts. It was a bi-partisan bill for the nay.

@ Jeff, re your link to the harassment faced by Stupak 2 days before the vote -- this kind of harassment, and I don't care who's doing it, is *never* right. It's a sad commentary on our state of affairs when people can't engage in civil debate over such an important issue that affects all of us, but have to resort to such tactics.

I think I'm probably done on this topic (try to keep the applause to a minimum), but I do have one quickie question before I go.  Has anyone changed their mind in any way, shape, or form on this topic because of what has been read and written here on PDD?  The answer (as always) is a big, chunky NO.

@ TonyD: you forgot TimK (50), AnnK (older than that), Ironic1 (45), the list goes on and on. If I didn't know better, judging Danny by his juvenile comments on this thread, I'd peg him as a 13 or 14 year old boy.

If Danny is indeed 34, as he claims, then Carla, a valued member of the PDD community, is old enough to be his mother. Cool has no age.

My fear is that like this like every other program that the government runs that this one will fail.

I know what you mean--it's such a pain to have to  conduct this discussion in German.

This, as well, will be my last post here. 

This morning I read about two incidents involving vandalism to Republican offices and was quite prepared to denounce them and make a point about how unconstructive and idiotic it was. One of the incidents involved a broken window in Cantor's office, it was said someone fired a gun at the window, pretty horrible. 

Only... well now it seems that claim was a bit hyperbolic. Someone shot a gun into the air in the middle of the night near the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington DC (which houses quite a lot of different things) the bullet came down on Cantor's windowsill, bounced, and cracked the window pane. So... so much for that claim.

Meanwhile "white powder" is mailed to Rep. Weiner (D-NY), a photo of a noose is faxed to African-American Rep. Clyburn, a coffin was found on the lawn of Rep. Carnahan, an armed march on Washington is announced, 

I agree, the calls to Stupak prior to the vote when he was playing coy where overheated and out of line, none of them, as far as I can tell went quite as far as "You're dead; we know where you live; we'll get you." which he received afterward.

Frankly, and I don't say this lightly, I fail to see why *some* of these actions should not be considered domestic terrorism.

I think equating some idiots who are probably calling in threats from their parents' basement with a man who killed over 150 people is a bit of a stretch.  So is calling them terrorists.  They're just wingnuts egged on by their favorite entertainers who think that the right to free speech extends to threats.  

They'll be tracked and the most egregious ones probably prosecuted but they are not terrorists, nor is it appropriate to advocate shipping them to an extra-territorial location without trial forever.  It sounds to me like you're advocating for shipping your political opponents to concentration camps.  Is this really the sort of cultural revolution we need?

What's the weather like up there on your cross, C?

It is the dawning of the age of Aquarious(sp)