Nate Silver Is Fired Up

We can prevent that divide from getting worse by being understanding of the position the kill-billers are taking. They have a very legitimate reason to be mad as hell. I’m mad as hell, and I support the passage of this bill. Jane Hamsher’s issue with drugs for fighting cancer is something worth being furious about. We can all agree on that, right. We can concede that their anger is appropriate.But I do think Bob is right to ask them to concede that the status quo is not a better or even equal alternative–it is worse. And we should stop trying to predict what will be improved and when because we don’t know the future. We can point to history to say it is likely killing the bill will kill health reform for decades. It is likely that over the years health reform will grow and improve, but it is true we can’t guarantee that. We can fight for it, though.Also, I think Hamsher is dead wrong to legitimize the teabaggers by associating herself and other liberals with the wingnut desire to kill the bill.

BREAKING NEWS! off-topicBen Nelson has withdrawn the Medicare concession that he originally requested! It’s on TPM!By the way, according to a comment on dailykos, Jane Hamsher appeard on Fox and Friends this morning? Come on Jane! Dare I say, she’s starting to embarrass the rest of us and could very well be hurting our cause!

Different reasons to want to kill the bill, both sides wrong in my opinion. This falls in line with the “worse than nothing” meme as well. This bill is not worse than nothing as Bob’s numbers illustrate.You have to separate the emotional from the practical. Yes, I’m pissed off that insurance companies stand to make a bundle off this. But I’m not going to let that ideological stance determine that I won’t support a bill that can potentially help millions without insurance. It would be easy for me to say, since I’m covered, but it would be wrong for me personally to deny someone else the opportunity because I didn’t think we bitchslapped the insurance companies enough if at all.

Broadway Carl just said it better than I ever could!

Rox – if this is what you’re talking about, it’s not Medicare, it’s Medicaid. That’s a huge difference from the Medicare Buy-In. My heart jumped for a second.

Fox News reports that Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) said he may ask for a Nebraska earmark in the health care bill to be removed.

The deal, granted Nebraska federal funding in perpetuity for a Medicaid expansion — something no other states got — and has become political ammo for Republicans, who’ve been calling it the “Cornhusker Kickback.” Nelson got the deal, reportedly, for accepting a compromise on abortion language.

Though he defended the exemption as a “fair deal,” he said he never asked for the full federal funding that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ended up granting his state. Nelson said he instead asked that states be allowed to refuse an expansion of Medicaid.

“This is the way Senate leadership chose to handle it. I never asked for 100 percent funding,” he said.

Nelson has maintained that the only reason he even brought up Medicaid was that Nebraska Republican Gov. Dave Heineman put him up to it.

All of this Cry baby, I’m taking my ball and going home shit has to stop. I like Jane Hamsher but, I think she’s doing more damage to herself than anyone else. The commenter on the dailykos also quoted Jane’s previous statement on fox and how they’re not a legimate news org and Democrats should not go on their shows and legitimize them. The commenter called her out for her own hypocrisy. Checkmate!

Yes, that’s it Broadway Carl! Nelson now looks like a damn fool and is now saying that the Republican govenor of Nebraska had asked him to do this but, the govenor denies this. Now, let’s see if the beltway media goes after him. While I won’t hold my breath, anything that makes Nelson look stupid is just fine by me. Good Times!

And it’s not just the insurance company windfall that has our progressive friends wanting to kill the bill. I think the majority of it is the fact that they feel like we could have done more. Disregarding the pie-in-sky optimism of single payer, it really seemed like we were going to have a public option, and that really became the rallying flag for reform. It seemed like it was going to happen. On top of that, people really did think the president would fight for it or fight for other parts of the bill, and he didn’t. He didn’t do anything. That accounts for a lot of the anger and disillusionment.It was wrong for anyone to ever think Obama wasn’t a politician or that maybe he would say he’s a different kind of politician just so he’d win. Scorpions and all that. But it is a valid fury coming from those who saw the support for a greater health care bill, and who worked hard to help the president get it when all the while the president didn’t want it. Frustrating.Still, Franken’s amendment would never have been signed by McCain. Add that to the growing list of smaller yet very effective pieces of progressive legislation happening now. Health reform is not happening in a vacuum.

It would appear that Reid played Nelson. Talk about be careful what you wish for. After getting deserved push back from other Senators about getting this deal for their states, he was essentially shamed into withdrawing it. Meanwhile Reid was able to get his vote in the process by giving him something he’d be forced to give back through this public shaming. I’m not sure if Reid is that devious but, it almost doesn’t matter because Reid also got what he wanted.

I agree with Nate Silver entirely, and I’ve been saying it for weeks now. The lunatic LEFT fringe does exist.The Kill Billers are self-righteous drama queens. The fact that its going to help a lot of people makes no difference to them, because its all about them and their agenda. They make it personal by accusing Obama of selling them out. Its irrational and silly.

I actually decided last night to pass the bill in Senate and work out the problems in conference. I am still dead set against the mandates. The big reason is the effect it will have on current charitable/corporate sponsored programs, such as the free drug programs offered by most of the big pharma companies.Under a majority of these programs the key qualifier is not having insurance. Once you do, you are kicked out.I went through a very rough patch 3 years ago. I got diagnosed a diabetic and lost some major business. I had to dump my insurance because of the price increase (which this will fix), but I ended up only making about 155% of the FPL. Luckily having a mother who has worked for nearly 30 years as a patient advocate, getting these free programs for people, turned into a life saver. With the high costs associated with diabetes, I ended up only spending about $500 out of pocket for the year compared to nearly $4000 I would have otherwise.Now if I plug those numbers into the CBO estimate, where I would be paying about 10% of my income for that year in health care ($15,200), means I would have to put out $1,5200, or more than 3x what I did.That extra $1,000 a year might not seem like alot, until you had to struggle with a very bad year. Trust me – I know first hand.This is a key component that has been missing from the debate when it comes to this debate. No one takes into consideration these programs that really do help people. There is a unanswered question of rather the providers of these programs might change their rules and drop the “no insurance” provision, but that is yet to be seen.Honestly this is why I look at calling people who oppose the bill as not being intellectually honest or really examining the facts as an insult – just the same as those who oppose the bill referring to its backers as “corporate shills” or “obamabots”.Sure there are some that fit both sides, but not everyone. To me personally I came to my decision after doing numerous calculations I laid out above.Adding….One of the biggest cost savers is the free drug programs offered by all but 1 big pharma co. They very well may relax some of the requirements as part of the deal Obama made with them. Until we hear for certain though we are left with a lot of uncertainty of this issue.

Damn typos!!! I mean to say $1,520 not 1,5200 LOL. Also that is on the low side. I don’t know how much it would actually cost under a plan that will cover diabetes. One of the biggest crimes in health care today is that numerous plans don’t cover diabetic testing supplies. Hopefully that changes as it amounts to an average of well over $100 per month. Test strips alone are over $1 a piece and diabetics test 3-4 times per day.

IntoxiNation, many of the providers of services like you’re talking about do help the under insured as well as the uninsured; not all but some. There are also qualifiers like the Medicaid spend-down which says you may be at 155% fpl but if you’re spending $1000 a year on meds, they’ll take that off of your total yearly income to help pull your % fpl lower so you can qualify. Some also take other assets into consideration to help massage people into qualifying.Your mention of your mother being experienced in this field is a great point. There is a lot of help out there–help that was jeopardized severely during the Bush years–but finding it and going through the eligibility screenings can be a huge pain. A worthwhile pain as you found.Pushing health care into IT, digitizing service and treatment info to make it easier to find, will be a huge help for matching need with service.

@camel – something I think would have been great in this bill is a government program to highlight all these services out there. I would say 95%+ of the population doesn’t even know they exist. I’ve helped a few friends out before get free meds just from my limited knowledge and they are absolutley shocked.That and if they could have included a tax incentive to change the non-insured programs to under-insured would have been a big win and one that would have most likely translated into a bigger savings for the bill overall.

To JM Ashby:Sure. This is all good. 800 billion to Joe Lieberman’s bosses.WIN!!

Why do I want to see the bill fail?1> Let’s start with the word “coverage” – forcing people to buy expensive health “insurance” that will do nothing to prevent medical bankruptcies, has no cost controls, stll allows for the dubious “fraud and abuse” recision, still includes deductibles that make the word “coverage” a cruel joke…that, my friends is not care and it’s not reform and until people in favor of passage address those points, I have trouble taking their arguments seriously.2> Taxing “cadillac” health insurance makes it sound like it will be only fat cats who are affected. But in reality, it will be union members, blue collar workers who have already sacrificed cost of living increases in order to maintain their cherished health coverage. These people will now be hit with confiscatory taxation.3> I’m utterly unpersuaded by the “if not now then never” arguments. Oh noes, we’ve got to pass this or the world ends. Boo. Please…health care is not going away as an issue. Things have gotten astronomically worse since 1994 and, in case no one noticed, the GOP controlled both houses from that year thru 06, and the WH thru 09. Do you really think health care won’t ever come up again in a campaign for another generation, for decades, or whatever time quantification you want to use, just because a horrible bill goes unpassed? When consistently 70 percent plus of the population wanted a public option. YOu think that’s all just going to fade away?I’d like to see some courageous house conferee insist that members of congress be forced to accept this “coverage” for themselves, instead of the truly “cadillac” coverage they get. My fear, however, is that Pelosi is completely in the tank for passing the senate bill as is.And BTW, will congress reps and senators face the confiscatory taxation? Will federal employees, including my daughter who will soon begin working for the national park service with a princely salary of $35,000?