Really - the Health Reform Bill Is Good

Have any of you read the Senate bill?  I have.

It is clearly a trojan horse.  It establishes the foundation that will allow states, private organizations - both for profit and nonprofit, and the federal government to operate on exchanges through which people can use any subsidies they might be eligible for (from 1.3 to 4 times poverty level) to shop around for plans that must conform to sensible standards set by the HHS secretary with the advice of special panels of health care experts.

On top of that, it expands medicaid and CHIP - the programs that give medicare to people below 1.3 times poverty level and children.  Medicaid has been funded via matched federal funding - $1 for every state dollar spent.  Now it's 90-10, so the fed spends $9 and the states spend $1.  This makes things MUCH easier on states, and goes a long way to redistribute wealth according to federal taxes rather than state taxes.

Check out this NYT article about how under current 50-50 matching states are running out of medicaid funds and doctors can't afford to treat medicaid patients.

There may not be a public option, but that doesn't really matter.  Anyone can start a private nonprofit insurance company and run it exactly like a public option on the exchange.  Seriously.  It's in there.

AND once you're on the exchange, you're there for life.  The plan seems to be to slowly migrate different groups of employers over to the exchanges where all insurance providers compete while abiding by federal standards.  There even looks to be choice of law rules that DON'T result in a race to the bottom, which is what would happen under current law if people could purchase across state lines.

The point is - don't just read blogs to find out about the bill.  I HATE the way the Dems shit on progressives to give cover to traitor corporatists in their midst.  But this bill, however watered-down, however flawed, actually does PLENTY of wonderful things.  And when those wonderful things start to make people's lives better, the Democrats will finally get some appreciation, even though it's the people behind the scenes that deserve it far more then the politicians.

< $138 Billion in Savings Over 10 Years is Worthless | HCR Vote Went as Predicted >
 Display:
It's a piece of shit. You can convince yourself, Obama can convince Kucinich, someone can convince Kos - it doesn't change the fact that this is a bad, bloated bill which doesn't address the #1 solution: Medicare for all.

Now the other side is presented.

by MedfordTim on 03/17/2010 02:52:58 PM EST

Where do you get your insurance?


by Chinese Democracy on 03/17/2010 10:40:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The VA and as of two months ago, Medicare. My premium is $110 per month, approximately 9-10% of my income.

Why do you ask?

by MedfordTim on 03/17/2010 11:06:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm guessing you haven't read the bill.  You're not reading what I'm saying.  This plan is the beginning of medicare for all.  It's a trojan horse.

by dotkommissar on 03/17/2010 02:58:03 PM EST

It's not the beginning of anything.  There is nothing in this bill that facilitates the introduction of Medicare for all into our health care finance system.  The exchanges will be controlled by insurance companies that will offer their best -- and healthiest -- customers their best and lowest-cost plans outside of the exchanges.  Meanwhile, they'll continue to jack up the rates for the policies that they sell in the exchanges, knowing that since people are required to buy health insurance even if they're already choosing between paying the rent or buying groceries, that they'll get new customers.  And the taxpayers will be on the hook, too, even though the subsidies provided in the bill are not nearly large enough to cover the need.

This bill makes things tremendously worse, and will assure that our national and individual health care costs will continue to spiral up even faster than before.

Personally, I'm just going to pay the fine every year.  I will not give one dime to a company that profits from denying me health care services.

by EveningStarNM on 03/18/2010 01:25:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]
"plans that must conform to sensible standards set by the HHS secretary with the advice of special panels of health care experts." LMAO and you forgot lobbies.

1. This bill has NO cost containment, and the best review it got was from Krugman and he was only able to give vague statements which at time countered his own argument.

2. This thing won't start for 4 years, giving Reps plenty of time to charge into this thing and water it down even further (including subsidies), therefore slaughtering the Dems once this thing comes into effect. You should know by now that for 1 good idea they put in they accept 5 ticking bombs from reps, so I don’t know when you think they are going to grow a pair.
 
3. They can still deny you coverage, they will just be fined for it and if it costs more to take you in then they won out. Not to mention they can jack up your costs till you fall out of the plan which the subsidies won't cover after a few years.

Unless Grayson’s plan gets support then it’s seriously stupid and just pushing people to buy insurance. This whole thing about coming back to the bill relies so much on Dems growing balls and them still being in power over the years.

This shit is 10 year old Trojan condom.

by Alloy on 03/17/2010 04:37:13 PM EST

What you're saying is just plainly factually untrue.  There is cost containment.  The bill puts limits on the rate at which medicare and exchange plan rates can grow.  Those limits are tied to a few consumer price indexes.  If they approach the limits, HHS is required to make cuts that bring costs back down.  

This is where the death panel meme comes from - claiming that HHS will be forced to cut needed medicare benefits to keep the rate of growth from exceeding the bill's limitations.  

Cost is contained simply through competition on the exchange.  If  a private nonprofit offers care for less than a private for-profit insurer, people will take their subsidies to the nonprofit.  

That's the point of the exchange.  It's like school vouchers, plus rules that make comparing schools to each other and switching to a better one easy.  The subsidies are health insurance vouchers, and the exchanges are regulated marketplaces where you can compare all the plans easily and choose the best one.

While many of the benefits don't start for 4 years, a lot of them do, including the medicaid/CHIP changes.  THOSE ARE ABSOLUTELY VITAL.  And one they go into effect they will never be repealed.  The states would go nuts if the republicans tried to make them to back to 50-50 matching.

If an insurance company or your employer denies you coverage, you become eligible to shop for coverage on the exchange.  ON THE EXCHANGE THEY CANNOT DENY COVERAGE.  A plan that denies anyone coverage on the exchange gets kicked out of the exchange - losing all those wonderful government subsidized beneficiaries.

The amount of misinformation on both sides of this bill is staggering.  I know it sounds crazy, but try to read the sections of the bill that are relevant here.  Or at least read the CBO report about the projected costs.  It's like 20 pages, and gives a great overview of the substance.

by dotkommissar on 03/17/2010 05:03:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What you're saying is, everyone move to the exchange or else it doesn't apply to you? As for regulations in this day and age in any government system, I want to see it in action first to see if it has any teeth or leverage. And I would really like to see them enforce those rules which I doubt. CBO reports have been known to miss their projections greatly of various projects so again let’s see them land it.

I have said it before, I know it's going to pass however if you think Reps don't have the balls to strip or water it down even more then you're thinking of the Dems. However this thing won’t be affecting me at all, I’m just honestly curious about how you guys are going to jump to the next ledge in terms of healthcare.

by Alloy on 03/17/2010 06:44:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Claiming that this bill doesn't affect you is like claiming you are satisfied with your current insurance when you've never been seriously ill and had to put it to the test.

You might get laid off.  You might get sick and get kicked off your plan.  You might start a small business and be unable to provide insurance for your employees.  In any number of situations you might find yourself depending on the safety net this bill bolsters.

But even if that never happens, claiming that the bill doesn't affect you is the same individualistic fallacy that leads conservatives to ask "why should i pay for those people?"

Human beings are social creatures.  We all rely on a society so complex that it's impossible for anyone to actually accomplish anything entirely on their own.  You rely on a bunch of people you've never met to continue doing what they're doing so you can continue doing what you're doing.  

If this bill succeeds at covering those who can't afford it at lower cost than under the current "emergency room care for all" system, and it most likely will, we all benefit - economically and socially.

Alloy, you're right to be skeptical.  I'm with you on that.  The bill is an enormous concession to private insurance.  The is no guarantee that HHS will regulate adequately.  

But we have to try this bill because there isn't any other bill.  If we pass the bill and it's terrible, let's elect enough progressives to fix it.  If we fail, and the Democrats remain corporatist, then good - let them eat it.  If the Republicans take over, they aren't going to come up with anything better, so they'll eat it too.

But if the bill doesn't pass, the life-or-death consequences of the status quo will be profoundly tragic.  And who will share in the blame?  Progressives, and rightly so.

It affects you if

by dotkommissar on 03/17/2010 07:41:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Moving to Canada.

by Alloy on 03/17/2010 07:51:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
They are a happy little country.. they dont need the bull shit


by Chinese Democracy on 03/17/2010 10:41:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Dominicans (they need more of us)? What BS are you talking about? All I see is people dreaming up shit like Obama and the dems playing 3d chess with this health care thing (LMAO Trojan Horse is a bad thing in this century) because they would rather believe that then the ass pounding this is going to cause. Honestly I'm done with America’s future; I just like poking fun at this place. Now is that so wrong?

Next in financial reform there will be people coming out saying “its ok guys it will be improved over the years”.

by Alloy on 03/17/2010 10:53:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
form of apathy on  a happy little country like Canada?

Go to someplace a little more hopeless I think it will be more satisfying for you.. try Darfur


by Chinese Democracy on 03/18/2010 04:55:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Sure they wouldn't mind attitude towards the US. You should try North Korea however, where blind commitment is key.

by Alloy on 03/18/2010 02:17:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"The bill puts limits on the rate at which medicare and exchange plan rates can grow."

That's only meaningful if you are forced to buy a substandard policy -- one weakened in its requirements by countless lobbyists.  But the insurance companies will make sure that their best customers -- the healthy ones -- don't have to buy those policies on the exchanges, since they don't have to sell insurance on the exchanges if they don't want to.

You supporters of this crappy legislation must be doing some kind of happy drug or something.  You're very naive to think that the insurance companies haven't already figured out myriad paths around the weak requirements of this legislation.  For instance, if they fail to meet the needs of an insured person, their fine in many cases will be $100 a day.  If they're facing costs of $1000 a day, they're better off paying the fine.

Do you think that they won't?

by EveningStarNM on 03/18/2010 01:31:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
have figured out how to make people on the left try to stop this bill at any cost

I mean whats good for the insurance companies is good for us  right?


by Chinese Democracy on 03/18/2010 03:47:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
They get millions of new customers, mandated by law, and billions in taxpayer dollars.  The insurance companies will pour champagne the day this bill is signed.

by EveningStarNM on 03/18/2010 07:25:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
the best idea right?

OR  we could just start over

If you had a pre existing condition  you might re think it

I dont know any bill that is perfect   and know of many that have been improved upon


by Chinese Democracy on 03/18/2010 03:45:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]

he might rethink it?

I do, but I haven't.

 

by Tom Hanc on 03/18/2010 02:04:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]

This bill is the bill that economists and progressives have been cheering for since 2007.  So we didn't get the public option.  So fucking what?  Did you know about the public option in 2008 during the primaries?  I know for a fact that Cenk didn't.  One year ago Cenk was asking people in interviews "Have you heard about this public option thing?  Was this in the plan during the election?" 

Now somehow if it isn't included the whole thing will be a disaster.

Don't get me wrong.  I think Cenk is generally right about Obama and the Democrats.  Especially when it comes to politics.  

by publius on 03/17/2010 06:05:25 PM EST

I have to admit, dotkommissar is making some good points about the bill.

David

by yturks on 03/17/2010 06:07:05 PM EST

He's making Democratic Talking Points about this friggin' thing, not good points. These "reforms" that are so ballyhooed ARE going to come back and bite everyone in the ass who's in favor of "pass ANYTHING" now. It is the Trojan Horse, all right, but for Privatization and increased insurance company influence, not the foot in the door for REAL reform.

He's shouting "Huzah!" for increased Medicaid when that program should be scrapped completely and it's customers folded into Medicare. It's like being happy that your flat tire is being "fixed" with another flat tire.

This bill is so "progressive" and "liberal" it could have been written by Archie Bunker...

by MedfordTim on 03/17/2010 09:32:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
This is so difficult.

MedfordTim, I agree with what you are saying and envisioning.  But that doesn't mean that dotkommissar's talking points are invalid.  Now help me through this mess.  If the consequences of this bill end up being negative, won't the public pressure to do health care reform rapidly grow again to the point we reached in late 2008 and 2009?   And if public pressure returns to that high level, won't the politicians have to come back to reform the reform?  In that case, the good things from this bill will have been enacted, and the reform to the reform can enact further good things.  

David

by yturks on 03/17/2010 10:25:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thank you, Dave. For the last couple of weeks (offline, too) I have been over-reacting to the smallest of things (yes, even more so than usual), and I have done the same here with dotcommisar. I was a bit...what's the word I'm looking for...Harsh? no...Brutal? possibly....ah, no - assholish! That's the ticket! An utter asshole! Sorry, d.c. - wish I could promise it won't happen again...

Now, more to the point (and I promise to proofread this 4 times before posting!). The points he's listing may be valid - I'll go a step further and say they ARE valid - but they are the same things which have been pointed out for the last 9 months and, frankly, I am underwhelmed.

The "exchanges" are simply a way for insurance companies to pick up the people who can't get coverage on their job or other reason - and the government is helping by mandating coverage. Why would any progressive or liberally minded person think that setting up a guaranteed revenue line for corporations is a better thing than using that revenue stream to fund the people's alternative? If this is put in place as the precedent, will it be 40 to 60 years before it can be changed "politically?"

It's very high stakes Three Card Monte - after the first few sucker wins, the insurance companies will always show us an Ace.

This analogy may be a bit strained, but please bear with me...Before I left on my first cruise, "revolution" filled the air through talk, music, writing - all because of the draft, Vietnam, and the profiteering from arms by American corporations. Not a violent revolution, but the kind which is done through the ballot box because we believed change must come from within.

When I returned, the atmosphere had changed. You could feel it. The draft had ended, the Paris Peace Talks were being heralded as being productive, Watergate was breaking, The music had changed from What About Me? to Daddy Don't You Walk So Fast. WTF?

People thought the battle was over. Enough of the "revolution" had been accomplished. They'd clean up the other things as they came up; better to get something than nothing, right?

We have no draft, but there is a mandatory system for 18 year olds if they ever want any kind of Federal assistance. The police mentality has grown into a para-military against the populace mentality. Many of the hard fought for civil rights have been stripped away and we have seen sections of the Constitution ignored by administration after administration. The poorest have not found relief, the middle class has been outsourced and mortgaged to the point of extinction, and CEO's complain if their bonuses are lowered from $25 to $20 million.

Because, people thought the battle was over. Enough of the "revolution" had been accomplished...

Now, we are being asked to accept a "foot in the door" (ever had a door slammed on your foot? Hurts...) and that they'll clean up the other things as they come up; better to get something than nothing, right? Just like they tweaked the PATRIOT ACT. Or aggressively gone after known crimes committed during the last administration - remember after the '06 election when we were counseled to "wait until the time is right" by these very same people? Aren't you tired of waiting?

It took from 1973 to 2005 to get anything Liberal or Progressive (other than Gay Rights - their community was extremely active and effective - a lot could be learned from people who won't take "no" for an answer) to even be considered in a positive light. What was Clinton's big "Liberal" achievement - welfare reform??

What has Obama's been? Equal pay? Good, but good enough?

Wait for Guantanamo to close. Wait for DADT to be repealed. Wait for REAL health insurance.care reform. Wait for regulations on banks. Forget about war crimes. Forget about prosecutions. Forget about correcting the abuses to the Constitution.

What leads anyone to believe that any of these people who aren't fighting now are going to fight at some vague point in the future?

Bottom line is: Ignore me. Let me tilt at my windmills while I rock on my front porch and tell those damn kids to stay off my lawn. Why the hell would anyone pay attention to the ramblings of an anxiety prone depressed cynic whose main defense is sarcasm?

What're you? Crazy?

Sorry, dotcommisar.

by MedfordTim on 03/18/2010 12:49:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]

If this bill turns out to have huge negative consequences (and I think it will, but that is for a different discussion), the public pressure will be squarely on repealing it, not strengthening it.

We have seen this movie a thousand times.  Republicans will claim "too much government is the problem", Democrats will offer up some pathetic succotash of a few graphs and dry analyses of market trends and "Don't blame us" weaselry, etc., and the public will (as always) be distracted and brainwashed into shouting for Conservative bumper sticker "fixes."

You are still relying on the Democrats in the future to listen to public pressure to make this bill better?

1.  They are unlikely to have the Congressional votes in the foreseeable future that they have now

2.  Most of them aren't listening to their constituents, who currently support a public option that isn't being fought for

3.  They will be saddled with ownership of this bill, which will reduce their credibility to be trusted on crafting the next one

4.  They are terrible politicians, terrible salesmen and terrible negotiators, especially on a major issue like this

and 5.  The problem will be more entrenched and more expensive the next time they work up the guts to try to tackle it (if ever again in our lifetimes)

Never underestimate the growing ignorance of our citizenry.

by Milltycoon on 03/18/2010 01:18:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I am a law student writing a paper on the health bill.  That's why I've read it.  I'm just writing about what I read.  I have no connection to the Democratic establishment.  I'm a progressive, I have fought for the public option and/or medicare for all, and I continue to do so.  I think this bill is a massive disappointment, and the events leading up to its presumptive passage have disillusioned me greatly.

But progressives can't accuse the right and center of playing fast and loose with facts and then do the same thing themselves while hoping to claim any legitimacy.  

Read the bill.  It does undeniably smart things, and it will help a lot of people.  Yes, it does favor private insurers, when it ought to put them out of business for breaching contracts and causing the deaths of countless Americans.  But I have yet to hear a convincing argument for why it is better to kill this bill instead of passing it.  If this bill is a net loss, doing nothing is a greater net loss.  

by dotkommissar on 03/17/2010 11:01:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
even means   but I agree with you   we should all be offered insurance through the VA


by Chinese Democracy on 03/18/2010 03:48:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]

My problem with the bill is it doesn't solve pre-existing illness issues.  If you leave your employer you will be screwed.  Also, it doesn't have a way to fund the subsidies.

Obama has formed a committee to recommend cuts in spending, that means entitlements.  This thing is going to get cut before it gets started.  It's easier to cut a new program than social security or medicare.

Obama should of got the funding mechanism in place then went for the benefit.  Medicare for all is the cheapest and easiest system to implement.  Everyone that is working is already paying the tax, raise the tax.  If I am getting a benefit then I don't mind paying the fee.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 03/17/2010 10:21:34 PM EST

The bill does solve the pre-existing condition problem.  Any plan that operates on the exchange CANNOT do rescissions.  If you want to participate in the exchange, you have to follow the rules, and that is a mandatory requirement.  

But what about insurance outside the exchange - the plans employers buy for their full time employees?

First, one benefit of the bill that I haven't mentioned is that it requires employers to cover ALL employees - EVEN PART-TIMERS.  Right now, companies are scrambling to convert full timers to part time, so they don't have to pay for their health benefits.  This bill changes that - ALL employees must be covered or the employer pays a fine for each one.

But let's say the employer decides to pay the fine - it's cheaper than paying for coverage.  If your employer fails to offer coverage, you are now eligible to get insurance on the exchange.  NO DENIALS ARE ALLOWED.  You're covered.

What about paying for it?  CBO estimates that in 10 years, the bill will not only pay for itself, but will generate a $100 billion surplus.  And this is the case even if none of the future improvements to the current bill ever take place.

For people who don't get subsidies on the exchange, the government doesn't pay anything - it's still funded by premiums.

As for the increase in medicaid and CHIP beneficiaries, and the subsidies on the exchange, they're funded by cuts to medicare part D - the privatized supplemental program enacted by the Republicans during Bush.  This program has proven to be extremely wasteful, since it gives the money to private insurers who then run the program for-profit.

Huge savings also come from cutting administrative costs.  Private plans have 15%-18% administrative costs, while medicare boasts 3%.  

Finally, the surplus is money saved by giving people better preventative care throughout their life BEFORE they become eligible for medicare.  Right now, many people wait it out until they hit 65, and then dump the cost of cleaning up all their untreated illnesses onto medicare.  By insuring the uninsured or underinsured throughout their lives, medicare is no longer burdened with the cost of making up for illnesses that have gone untreated and the absence of preventative care.

by dotkommissar on 03/17/2010 10:46:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]

If the exchange gets all the rejects, then the average bill will be higher for participants.  First problem, most employers will dump people.  the fine is cheaper.  Second problem, those exchanges do not exist today.  Third problem, being in a good pool lowers the average cost, being in a bad pool raises the average cost.

CBO has only estimated. they have no idea what the response will be from employers in a dwindling economy.  Option 1, cover all your employees and lose money.  Option 2, cover none of your employees and make money.  timing is everything and this is not the time to dump an unfunded entitlement on America.

Instead, change the tax code, fund the program, implement the program.

 

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 03/17/2010 11:33:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Obama has backed up 40 meters from the starting line of the 100 meter sprint, but it is a start none the less. It is now up to all of us sorry assed progressives to move this MF to where it should be. Agitate and blog it out. It's time to kick some coporatist ass. Make those MoFo blue dogs pay.

by mmosespt on 03/18/2010 12:27:00 AM EST

according to firedog lake  if  the bill isnt perfect the first time around we are to commit seppuku.


by Chinese Democracy on 03/18/2010 05:00:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm not a political genius. I'm 20 years old trying to get a job, a place, get to college, and I simply can't afford to pay for any type of health insurance. So what do I do? since you obviously think its a good thing. I mean I possibly have a broken rib and every time I go to do a test they charge me 25 dollars EVERY TIME for a inconclusive test. So I can just come back for more tests. So my plan is to avoid health care all together I may die a few years ahead of schedule and may have to live with sharp chest pains for the rest of my life, but its better then paying for something that a don't have the money for. If any one has advise, please enlighten me.

by PoliticalBS89 on 03/18/2010 02:08:33 PM EST

the bill changes the rules so that you can stay on your parents' health insurance until you turn 26.

if your parents don't have health insurance, the bill gives subsidies to anyone making less than 4 times poverty level.  So if you make less than $48,000 in a year, you will get subsidies to use on the exchange.  THIS IS ACTUALLY A GREAT THING - once you're on the exchange, you stay on the exchange for life, even if you get a job where the employer pays for insurance, or go to a college that offers student insurance.

If you make less than $16,000 in a year, you qualify for medicaid.  So you're covered.

This bill is the worst for people who make $50,000 and are self-employed - they don't get subsidies but are required by the mandate to pay for insurance.  This sucks, and a lot of my friends a few years out of college are stuck in this no man's land.  

But this flaw isn't enough to justify killing the bill.

by dotkommissar on 03/18/2010 06:54:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Is exactly what this bill is trying to address, from my POV.  Self-employed people will have the opportunity to join exchanges.  The Senate bill puts caps on the delta between the cheapest plans and the most expensive, so even people with pre-existing conditions will be able to buy insurance even if they are self-employed.  This is going to end up being the best thing to help the future of our economy and improve people's lives as more and more people find themselves out of the corporate cocoon.

 

The bill has so many good things going for it, I really don't understand the Liberal opposition to it at this point.  Of course there is very little of that now it seems.  I found out at my caucus the other night that most Democrats are 100% behind passing the bill.  Are you right to want more? Yes.  But it's not in the cards right now. 

by qsoundrich on 03/19/2010 04:03:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
what i mean by the no-man's-land are people who make slightly more than 4x poverty level, so they don't qualify for any subsidies.  They still have to abide by the mandate, and they have a choice between cheap catastrophic coverage or a plan on the exchange with premiums that run between 10%-12% of their income.  

It's kind of rough to tell people fresh out of undergrad who manage to snag $50,000 a year freelancing that on top of student loans and federal/state taxes, they are required to write a $6,000 check for health insurance so that the national risk pool can be balanced.

Don't want to get stuck in there.  Better to intentionally make $3000 less, qualify for subsidies, and only pay 8% of your income in premiums.

by dotkommissar on 03/19/2010 06:05:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
nix that last bit about taking less income - i just realized the math probably makes it a wash in the end.

by dotkommissar on 03/19/2010 06:08:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I have a better idea. We should force single payer down the throats of every
American, then they will see how effective of a system it is. The health care companies will still exist and give extra bonus coverage if someone so pleases, but we can't worry about them losing a slice of the pie, those leaches are sucking away all they can. I am using single payer right this instant in South Korea. My premium is roughly 40 dollars a month. When I go to the doctor, the insurance covers about 70-80 percent of the cost, and the rest is out of pocket. Another reason why that works is hospitals and clinics don't OVERCHARGE for services like in the U.S. which is partially a product of the current broken health care system. You may argue that such a system is not possible in the U.S., that's only because we have a sellout congress, and a sellout media that is owned by corporate America, watching this process unfold makes me want to keep living abroad.

by UncleBadTouch on 03/18/2010 08:04:41 PM EST

I think the majority of Americans agree with you - certainly the majority of people on this forum.  I certainly agree with you.  I believe in the complete de-commofication of labor.  

How can anyone believe in a "free" market where some people are coerced to sell their labor for their very survival?

Unfortunately, the majority of Americans don't believe that.  If you figure out how to get Swedish citizenship, please let me know.  Until then, we'll have to continue trying to drag this country kicking and screamin4 toward a more humanitarian future.

This bill is like step 4 of 7452.  

by dotkommissar on 03/18/2010 08:27:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
that's de-commodification.  Didn't mean to butcher such an important idea.

by dotkommissar on 03/18/2010 08:28:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
watch this vid guys it shows how horriable our health bill is atm =3
http://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=xe3yV2rgrus

by Joeycochran on 03/19/2010 01:57:24 PM EST

 Display: