TRUTH: Access to the "high risk pool" is limited and the pool is underfunded. It will cover few people, and will run out of money in 2011 or 2012.
Only those who have been uninsured for more than six months will qualify for the high risk pool. Only 0.7% of those without insurance now will get coverage, and the CMS report estimates it will run out of funding by 2011 or 2012.
Fact: Along with the high risk pool, children would immediately be exempt from being rejected (and families who could no longer be rejected because of their children). Along with that, people up to 26 can stay on their parents plan and the expansion of Medicaide all kick in.
So the 0.7%, well, not so much.
There, that's two. Want to address her lies?
My website: History By Day Follow my on twitter @historyday.
That's expanding on her point to show that kids and generally healthy people (26 and under) get help as well.
That's good on paper, but her main point still stands.
That is factually false.
Here's another one, the first one she has listed. Besides using the CBO score from November instead of the bill that's actually being passed (which insures more), the number includes those not here legally. And while you can make an argument that they should be covered, not noting it (unlike the CBO report that does note it) is intentionally misrepresenting the information, aka lying.
If her argument could stand on it's own merit, she wouldn't have to lie, ehh?
Some are 100% correct and some are incomplete or a little off and could (and should) be expanded upon and clarified, with hyperlinks at least. Obviously she chose facts and stats that support her general position (just like you do and just like I do), but (overall) they do seem to be correct and damning facts and stats.
Like I said to the climate deterioration denier yesterday, even if you can dismiss 1 or 2 or 3 of these points, there are so many others left standing that in the end, it's irrelevant.
And I don't think it's just debunking '1 or 2 things' that she got wrong. The heart of the article is a lie.
Btw, OT, but here's a good substance video from today w/ Ezra v. Ratigan (the end on costs is p'bly the best part of it).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id /21134540/vp/35953913#35953 913
if the heart is that this is a corporate gift that masks rising costs with bloated subsidies.
I agree about Single Payer, but as I've said, the fact that the Dems didn't start with that as the opening offer was a political failure of epic proportions. At any rate, a Medicare-Buy-In was entirely possible (and still could be in the future if the current effort fails, but it won't).
Obama disastrously pressured Kucinich, not the Ben Nelsons and Joe Liebermans. If he'd pressured right people, right now I'd be supporting this bill, a bill with an actual chance to provide real competition and a bill that could actually lay a solid foundation to improve upon.
I disagree on the overall tune on subsidies. The subsidies are essentially one big progressive tax. I mean, lets just be blunt about this. It's taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor - for the most part. Half the spending goes to Medicaid/Chip, the other half to the exchange. Most of the money raised to pay for that comes from taxing the wealthy and eliminating Medicare Adavantage.
supports passing this bill.
But just now I heard him say that Hamsher's points are overall correct.
