A reminder of why we need health care insurance reform

Trillions for killing (4.00 / 1)

in unnecessary wars of choice yet we don't have the money to take care of our own citizens? Does that make sense to any sane person?

When a man embarks upon a crime, he is morally guilty of any other crime which may spring from it. Sherlock Holmes.

---

by: Carnacki @ Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 16:12:03 PM CDT

Clem, I agree with you that there is dire need for reform. (0.00 / 0)

But if you held your nose long enough to read that stinking piece of crap that the Senate passed (as I have) you'd see that it won't help your family member one bit.

First of all, it contains inadequate penalties for insurance providers that choose to reject those with pre-existing conditions. On the other hand if someone with a pre-existing condition (or anyone else for that matter) does manage to somehow get covered and subsequently needs to begin long term high end medical treatment, when the insurance provider drops the coverage, the unfortunate patient is guaranteed that he'll be refunded the money paid to that company as premiums. And that's it.

In other words, the Senate finance committee decided that legislating even something as helpful as a double-your-money-back guarantee would be too tough on the insurance industry.

So the best thing to do is simply take the money normally spent on premiums and play the stock market instead. Before you simply dismiss that idea as crazy, you should hear me out.  

Just petition Senator Rockefeller to get his broker to place the money saved by not buying premiums wherever he's invested the Senator's dough. But before you start bugging him for stock tips, though, you might consider asking Rockefeller why he decided not to push to re-import drugs to stimulate competition and lower prices, as he had promised back in 2002.

After all, the West Virgina legislature passed the Pharmaceutical Availability and Affordability Act of 2004 with every intention of doing just that. Instead, the Senate finance committee chose to plug the Medicare Part D giant doughnut hole with huge amounts of cash after Rockefeller presented his too-lame lip service to leftys for the public option.

The following information may help you wrap your head around why investing where Rocky does will be far more effective than waiting for him pass real health care reform.

History of pharmaceutical interests

In the early half of the 20th century, petrochemical giants organized a coup on the medical research facilities, hospitals and universities. The Rockefeller family sponsored research and donated sums to universities and medical schools which had drug based research. They further extended this policy to foreign universities and medical schools where research was drug based through their "International Education Board". Establishments and research which were were not drug based were refused funding and soon dissolved in favor of the lucrative pharmaceutical industry. In 1939 a "Drug Trust" alliance was formed by the Rockefeller empire and the German chemical company I.G. Farben (Bayer). After World War II, I.G. Farben was dismantled but later emerged as separate corporations within the alliance. Well known companies included General Mills, Kellogg, Nestle, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Procter and Gamble and Roche. The Rockefeller empire, in tandem with Chase Manhattan Bank (now JP Morgan Chase), owns over half of the pharmaceutical interests in the United States. It is the largest drug manufacturing combine in the world. Since WWII, the pharmaceutical industry has steadily netted increasing profits to become the world's second largest manufacturing industry after the arms industry. source
(bold italics added for emphasis)

---

by: One Citizen @ Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 16:47:33 PM CDT

I see a glass half full (0.00 / 0)

I'm not all that fond of the current bill, but it is much, much better than doing nothing.

From a real-politic standpoint, too, it's really hard to see how the Obama administration passes banking regulation reform, passes climate change legislation, repeals DADT, enacts immigration reform, or passes most any other left-of-center legislation unless they get this health care insurance reform bill passed ASAP.

I also believe it is a strong step towards putting even better reforms in place in the next 2-10 years.

Carrots and sticks both have their place. Each in their own style, and all, but I personally find there's a place for providing positive encouragement and expressing thanks for steps in the right direction.

---

by: Clem Guttata @ Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 19:02:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Clem, the "real politic" situation is that no one really knows what the current bill even looks like. (0.00 / 0)

So isn't it a bit premature to break into a chorus of Kum ba yah?

CA Berkely or Wabi Sabi can weigh in here if I'm wrong, but here's my own take on what's yet to go down.

1. The House passes the Senate bill. It becomes law.

2. House then initiates reconciliation fix, including public option (if I push hard enough).

3. Senate leadership (Dick Durbin) whips to pass reconciliation fix in Senate. Reconciliation fix, including the public option, would then become law.

So right now it's too damn early to get all half-full happy horseshit hopeful. You and I both know that what with the Supreme Court opening the gates for unlimited corporate money reform will only get harder to come by. After all, just look at how they chose to plug the Medicare "doughnut hole" prescription even before Bush's Supremes screwed our democratic process!

Rockefeller's agenda is to obviously stay as bipartisan as possible. After the last eight years of doing EXACTLY the same under the Bush administration, patting him on the back and going easy on him is the most ultra-conservative half-empty glass of poison anyone could possibly prescribe.

If you think I'm wrong, then perhaps you should spend less time over at the fabulous BIPARTISAN CENTER, sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation.

I only suggest it because I'm concerned that your sudden loss of a gag reflex might end up being a dangerous pre-condition to losing health care reform all together.

---

by: One Citizen @ Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 20:26:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by your own logic, one might argue (4.00 / 1)

By your own logic, one might argue that's it's also a bit premature to break into a chorus of doom and gloom, too.

I confess I find it difficult to debate the fine points of this bill with you when you quote very specific details in one comment and then in the next you say that details don't matter.

Also, similar to what I said in another comment, this is totally uncalled for:

If you think I'm wrong, then perhaps you should spend less time over at the fabulous BIPARTISAN CENTER, sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation.

I only suggest it because I'm concerned that your sudden loss of a gag reflex might end up being a dangerous pre-condition to losing health care reform all together.

First off, you are wrong factually. Try and find anything anywhere that I've said anything at all good about bipartisanship.

More importantly, you're doing Don Blankenship's work. If you want to drive me and as many other people as possible away from here, keep up the personal attacks. That's a sure fire way to destroy a web site and demotivate people from political activism.

We ain't got that much here, but it's one of the few progressive outposts in the state. If we devolve into petty personal bickering about exactly how to criticize the imperfect Democrats who represent us... then what?

---

by: Clem Guttata @ Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 06:44:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's too early to pat 'em on the back. That's all I'm saying here. (0.00 / 0)

What they do during reconciliation is critical. So you can take what I post out of context all you want to make your point, but the fact remains that the Senate Finance committee did everything it could possibly do to screw the chance for real reform.

If you don't think that's true, then perhaps you'd like to explain why Max Baucus decided to take three Republicans and three Democrats and wring the reform out of the bill for what seemed like an excruciatingly long time while astroturf groups fired up a counter reaction to something we all agree is needed. Instead of staffing his "Gang of Six" to accurately reflect the fact that Dems had an overwhelming majority in the Senate, he all but proved the rightwing's point that Dems simply don't know how to lead.

Meanwhile Harry Read has let the non-filibuster "gentleman's agreement" filibuster jam the Senate up with over 290 pieces of legislation passed by the House since the Dems took over.

I might be wrong but I thought this site was to promote progressive political action. So pardon me for being upset about Democratic leaders acting like victims of Stockholme syndrome.

---

by: One Citizen @ Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 18:30:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What I recently learned about Senate floor debate rules (4.00 / 1)

Motion to proceed in morning hour is not debatable. This eliminates one of the two possible choke points that a filibuster can have on a bill. Former Parliamentarian Robert Dove says that no one since Majority Leader Byrd has used this.

Which means that Mitchell D-ME, Dole R-KS, Lott R-MS, Daschle D-SD, Frist R-TN, and Reid D-NC, SIX Leaders have abandoned it, that test vote. Maybe the obstructionists revolted against being put on the spot, or maybe weak leaders were losing too many votes. I just heard the process described but not the why.

NFTT: Support My Team or I Will Dance

---

by: CA Berkeley WV @ Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 18:52:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Watching Budget Committee now (4.00 / 1)

in ten minutes the simple reconcilation bill was pase, as submitted in October. Now are recommendations for changes to be adopted in the Rules Committee. Budget cannot amend anything under the Budget Act.

Rep. Paul Ryan R-WI-01, suddenly an expert on Senate Byrd Rule, citing Speaker Pelosi D-CA-08 and Sen. Rockefeller D-WV rhetoric at HCR summit, sees them as pushing towards a public option and single payer.

Well, he is convinced.

NFTT: Support My Team or I Will Dance

---

by: CA Berkeley WV @ Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 17:24:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

she has (0.00 / 0)

no inalienable right to health insurance...and if she goes six months apparently a government program will cover her....six months...six months...

---

by: stevewvu @ Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 15:24:48 PM CDT