Not sure how this got missed here, and I apologize if someone has posted it.

Via Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/...

She doesn't like this because it's SEXIST?!? Oh, the irony.

(oh, and I'd call that pretty deep disrespect for Ol' Glory) That's not a laughing matter, especially for the pukes that cry over Obama's hand-over-heart and bows to foreign leaders.

I was an early Kucinich supporter and volunteered for his campaign. It was great. I was glad to see such a progressive in it. Then he lost and was weeded out early on. Maybe the media shut him down. Maybe it was statements like Ron Paul being his VP. Maybe it was that he changed his Pro-Life stance just prior to running. I don't know. But can you imagine if he had won and was President? It would have been, as his predecessor was fond of saying, awesome.

We'd have told Wall Street to go pound salt and it would have collapsed. That would have been a sight to see, especially now since the markets are now the highest they've been in several years. And poor old Gram and Gramps trying to salvage pennies from their destroyed 401Ks would be taken care of by the Kucinich Administration. Those millions of people trying to get by on nothing would certainly have had public housing to go to in the great Kucinich vision of America. I'm just wondering where these places would have gone? Maybe a repopulation of New Orleans? Those retired people would just be happy to have a place to live and levy breaks only happen with Cat 5 Hurricanes.

Then Kucinich would in no way have let the Corporate-owned members of Congress draft a Health Care Reform Bill. He would have written it for them. But before that, he would have signed a Presidential Order abolishing Insurance Companies from the land. Meanwhile Hospitals and Doctors would have to rack up massive amount of debt on the credit companies which no longer exist just in order to cover operating costs. Wait. Er. Oh yeah! This would have FORCED Congress to act quickly you see and pass Kucinich's Single Payer Health Care system. They could no longer delay and there would have been no insurance companies to lobby against the law because they had all been abolished. I'm sure Congress would have passed HR 676 in just a day, without reading it, like they did the Patriot Act. Little did Congress notice that in Kucinich's version he wrote as President, he slipped in the Stupak Amendment (he reverted on his pro-choice stance he held just for running for President).

And all this talk of impeaching Kucinich for destroying the economy and bypassing the Constitution to destroy an entire industry (which by the way forced tens of thousands more into unemployment), would quickly subside as soon as Congress took up the matter with a hearing (they don't like being forced to sign laws under duress you see). Because Health Care passed so quickly, Kucinich could refocus his efforts back to the elderly he shipped off to New Orleans and work on strengthening the levy. But if we're fixing global warming, why would we need a levy? Oh right, because Kucinich opposes global climate change legislature. But he's taking that stance because it's good for the economy that would have collapsed under him.

Damn, I knew I should have stayed beside Kucinich. It would have been a perfect world with him as President. The people here have truly opened my eyes to the great progressive he is. Thanks all.

I'm honestly shocked to see how little some people make claims about this bill who have not taken the time to read it. This bill was clearly designed to do one thing well: Bust the rate control owned by the Insurance Industry. The Insurance Industry has been screwing the people over and this bill will turn the tables on them quite clearly.

Here are some specific parts of the bill that will bust Premium Rates and make them more affordable:

Sec. 102. Medical loss ratio min. 85%, forced rebate of excess.
Sec. 104. Exposure of price gouging by insurers
Sec. 109. No lifetime limits
Sec. 213. Insurance Rating RULES.
Sec. 217. Advance notice of planned rate increases to allow for review/denial of increase
Sec. 343. Maximum premium of Public Insurance Plan (5k / individual / year ; 10k / family / year in highest income bracket) - private plans must compete with this in the Exchange

The bill also ends exemption from anti-trust for the Insurance Industry. They will no longer control the market, competition or premiums. They will be forced to compete with an affordable plan. Rates will be regulated.

Read the details of these Rate Busting Regulations here: http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahc...

I see people saying this all the time. Maybe it's because Dennis Kucinich says it is. But I'm not buying it. Yes, the Insurance companies will get to insure approximately 30 more million people (another 6 million will be enlisted in the Public Insurance Plan and about another 1-2 million will be added to Medicaid). But here's what those 30 million more customers come with:

1. Insurance can no longer deny pre-existing conditions. Insurance will have to pay for services for people who are actually sick.
2. Insurance can no longer put a limit to what they pay for, even for people like me, who need more than $500 / month in medicine.
3. Insurance can no longer set rates together or cooperate regarding markets in a way that violates anti-trust laws. Insurance Companies are now subject to the same anti-trust regulation every other industry is.
4. Each rate increase an insurer brings will be subject to review by Health and Human Services.
5. Each plan that covers one of the 30 million new customers has to provide a minimum of services as dictated by the Public Insurance Plan
6. Each plan that covers one of the 30 million new customers must compete with the Public Insurance Plan

So exactly how is this a "Giveaway" to the Insurance Industry? It seems like people like to say this without backing up their argument. Maybe that's because they have no argument.

This is probably my biggest pet peeve on the issue. What makes anyone here think that throwing away the bill and starting over from scratch is going to work? The Late Sen. Kennedy was the creator of the Medicare For All bill, many years ago. Why didn't he push this bill through the HELP Committee? Do you think we'll gain *more* votes if we do start over? I'd really seriously like to hear how that's going to happen. But it isn't.

If you seriously think that we are going to get more votes if we start over, prove it.

Otherwise, starting over is effectively killing all reform. Period.

You shut this process down now and not a single Democrat will pick it back up for decades. If you don't agree, explain how that won't happen please. Otherwise, what you really are saying is that you want no reform at all.

Can we please dispense of this nonsensical stance and work with what passed the House? Does the House Bill have issues? Yes, most notably the Stupak Amendment. This needs to be removed. What else can be done to make it better working with the Senate?

Provide a constructive argument instead of destructive one and you'll be taken much more seriously by your members of Congress.

Reid is going to compromise, this much is certain. Hey may have in his back-pocket the SHELP Committee bill that he must be prepared to go the route of Reconciliation, but given that this hasn't happened yet, I'd wager he's working on a compromise. What kind of compromise is left?

Snowe Trigger.

I don't think Sanders would Filibuster this, and it may be enough to get Lieberman not to Filibuster.

And it would make Snowe happy and likely get her vote.

I hate to say it, but I believe the Trigger is coming.

So how does that work with the House Bill? What happens then?

A strong public option means not having to worry about pre-existing conditions anymore
A strong public option means no more lifetime caps on what the Insurance company pays
A strong public option means subsidies to the poor who cannot afford health care
A strong public option means a cap on premiums, not care
A strong public option means a minimum standard of benefits and what they cover, not what they don't cover
A strong public option means putting controls on premium costs and increases and limits to cost sharing
A strong public option means my children won't have to worry about how to pay for their medicine if I lose my job
A strong public option means no longer living in fear if we miss a premium payment or have a lapse of coverage
A strong public option means my children can't be denied coverage when they leave home


A strong public option was indeed passed with HR 3692. I know many here don't think so, but for the millions of Americans like me and my family, it's a Godsend.

It was Pelosi leading the courageous, digging deep for the courage of the party to vote for the first time in History of America for Universal Healthcare. Many Democrats who voted in this come from red districts where they will take heat from their constituents for supporting it. Many Democrats come from extremely progressive districts who are taking heat because it's not Single Payer. And further courage was needed by the female members of the House to vote for this bill when it had one of the most egregious poison pills attached to it. But the courage was there to show that no matter what Republicans try to do to stop healthcare reform, the Democrats have the will and power to do what is so badly needed for the millions of Americans who have no health care. Some say it was courageous for the Dems who voted against this on principle. No, it was easy for them. They will be supported by their ultra-left purists or conservative leaning constituency. These people are playing it safe. These people don't want reform. These people supported the status quo. The truly brave members of Congress voted to take America one step forward into the future, where we belong, in a country that provides healthcare regardless of income or pre-existing condition.

Are the Kucinich defenders here going to support and defend Lieberman when he attempts to filibuster the HCR Bill in the Senate? Or will they at least say the bill should get a vote? Serious question. I'd like to hear what they have to say.

I personally think Kucinich was wrong to vote against the bill. Certainly, he has a right to. And I can appreciate a vote on principles. But with his vote against it, he was saying that millions of Americans who can't afford healthcare don't have a right to healthcare because it's not healthcare his way.

Given his vote, I wonder if he would have tried to filibuster it in the House if that was a valid procedure there. And I'm very curious as to what Kucinich's supporters say on this issue.

The Democratic Party Platform is Pro-Choice.

From the party platform document ( http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/8a... ):


Those Democrats who voted for such an amendment need to reevaluate their party status.

This amendment is clearly discriminatory, anti-choice, anti-woman and very anti-Democratic. We must pressure our Senators to have it stripped in conference. However, I fear that Reid will include such language in his merged bill. Remember, he has not yet merged or revealed anything about the merged SHELP/Finance bill. If we had as many Democrats in the Congress vote for this amendment, I believe there will be similar numbers in the Senate. If Ted Kennedy were still alive, I wonder if he would have supported such an amendment to get the bill passed. It will be interesting to see what Sen. Kerry does. Sen. Kennedy was and Sen. Kerry is Catholic. Kerry has always said personal beliefs do not need to be legislated. I hope he stands by that position.

As such, much pressure needs to be put on Reid and assuming it does not end up in the merged bill, we must pressure our Senators to not support such a bill and have it stripped in conference.

The French had a similar beginning to what we are seeing:



I find it funny that many of the attacks on the House bill could be applied to the French system:

- It has a mandate (how dare they)
- It doesn't cover 100% of the population (they only cover 95% while the House PO will cover 96%)
- The French still have for-profit insurance (those corporate whores)
- A forced premium is deducted from your pay
- People are allowed to keep their private insurance (yes, they do have private insurance, about 4% of the population chooses it for medical, and as high as 36% choose it for dental, vision and medical hardware).

Worse yet, the French system still applies cots sharing and they don't have preset rates for private providers.

And yet, they have the highest ranked system in the World. Could it be that the Public Option isn't going to be nearly as bad as some make it out to be?

For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_i...

The best health care systems in the world are not Single Payer. Only one of the top 30 are Single Payer. The French System uses a Public Health Insurance Option. As does the UK. In fact there are at least 29 countries above Canada. Canada is one of two countries with a Universal Single Payer system, the other being Taiwan, which ranks lower than the US in terms of health care. So I ask, is a Single Payer system really better than a Public Option?

Rankings from the WHO here: http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthrank...

I've debated telling this story for some time, but it is clear to me I need to do so now. The current HCR bill will make a huge positive difference to families like mine. But the reasons are personal.

For those who don't know, I have two sons with type-1 diabetes, a chronic disease that is life impacting and with no cure. Type-1 is not a 'lifestyle' disease. It's an autoimmune disorder. Their immune system destroyed their insulin producing cells in their pancreas and they will be forever dependent upon insulin injections, counting carbs and a shorter life-span with devastating consequences. You can watch the video in my sig line to get an idea of what their life is like.

We were fortunate enough to be insured by my employer when my oldest son was diagnosed. He nearly died because we did not know the symptoms and he was sick with the flu when his diagnosis became critical. He was in a coma for a week and we needed emergency transport from our local hospital to Boston Children's Hospital. There were two doctors on board that special ambulance ride and as we would soon find out, that ride cost more than 25 thousand dollars. My wife and I also spent that week in the hospital learning how our families life will change and what we need to do to provide the best chances for our son to live a healthy life. It was a week of learning, praying and crying, but we got through it and now we are on the other side acting as advocates for a cure for diabetes and for health care reform.

About 2 weeks after we got home, the bill came from the hospital for that ambulance ride saying the insurance didn't cover it. After I spent 40 hours on the phone between the hospital and the insurance company, both pointing fingers at the other, I learned that the ambulance ride was not an "emergency" and that our insurance did not cover rides in the ambulance that weren't emergencies. We had United Health at the time and after I hounded them as to why it was not an emergency and that we never asked for the ride, the hospital simply did it, they told us that the hospital did not file it that way. By this time I started logging every conversation with anyone at the hospital or the insurance company I talked to. 20 more hours on the phone and I learned from the Hospital's billing office that they did check the proper paper work to file it as an emergency. I took this information back to United and they again said they were looking at the form and it was not checked. Back to the Hospital, this time, I wised up. I asked the woman at the billing office if she could fax me the form and show me the codes that had to be specified for an emergency. She did and over the phone we reviewed it.

She said, "See check box 19 as emergent need?"

I said, "Yep."

She said. "It's checked, do you see that?"

I said, "Yes I do. Thank you very much."

I then called United and asked them to look up the filing for the ambulance ride. At first they hesitated but I said, "You've told me you are not allowed to contact the hospital on this issue, so if you show me what needs to be done, I will do it." They had mentioned earlier that they were not suppose to contact the hospital regarding how to file a claim. I didn't believe that then and after this phone call, I never believed a word any insurance person ever said again. So the woman at United brought up the form and I said, "Is there some code or check that needs to be made on the form for you to cover this."

She said, "Yes, there is an emergent need requirement."

I said, "What part of the form? Is there an item number?"

She said, "Yes, section 19".

I should mention at this point that this phone call was being recorded by them.

I said, "Well that's very interesting, because I have the form in front of me that the hospital sent you, and it clearly shows that the check box #19, emergent need, is clearly marked."

Several seconds of silence...

She said, "Ah, so you are correct. We'll see that the hospital gets paid. *click*"

And I never got another bill on this issue. But that took 80 hours of phone calls over a period of 2 months, meanwhile the bill was on the verge of being referred to a collection agency.

But from that point on we have lived with fear. Fear of the next bill that won't be covered. Fear that the insurance companies will wear us down on these types of billing issues. Fear now because both of my sons are now type-1. Fear that if there is ever a gap in our coverage, we will be uninsurable. I'm self employed now and I pay a very large price for our insurance, more than double what I'd pay if the House Bill was made into law. I could hire someone for what I pay the insurance company. What happens when my sons become adults and are no longer covered by my insurance but their employer doesn't offer coverage? They'll have pre-existing conditions that make them uninsurable. And let's not even mention the fact that because they have a chronic condition that requires a steady supply of drugs and equipment that would easily consume a young person's income, they would have to cut corners on their health in order to just survive. Nearly every time they get the flu, there's a good chance they may need to go to the hospital. How will they afford that without coverage?

I know the current HCR bill could be better. But for my family the bill means no longer living in fear of missing a payment, no longer living in fear of the next uncovered expense, no longer living in fear for the health of my children. If you see me get upset at posts that call the current HCR bill crap, this is why. It would radically improve our lives if it were to become law. More than 14,000 children a year are diagnosed with type-1. More than one in 500 children have it. I am fortunate enough to be able to afford a very expensive plan to minimize our costs and provide for my sons. There are many who can not. The need for reform is now. Please forgive me if I'm willing to settle for the House's Public Option. There are millions more like me who are anxious for it and willing to support it.

Everyone is going to take away what they want to believe about last night's election.

The Palin/Beck/Teabaggery are saying, "SEE! We need to go much farther to the right. If such a week conservative hadn't run from the start, we would have totally won. Did you see how we surged in NY-23 right up to the end"

And the far left is saying, "SEE! Because we didn't go strong on HCR, we lost VA and NJ Governors. We need to push the party farther to the left."

And the center is saying, "SEE! Both sides lost because people are tired of the extremes."

But here is what last night was really about: Local Issues. Deeds was a terrible Democratic candidate and ran a terrible campaign. He could not rally the base and no matter how much Obama would have campaigned for him, he was going to lose based on his policies not being what the people of Virginia wanted. Deeds couldn't have won even if we had passed a HCR bill in June and it was great. Corzine was in trouble for a very long time and despite that, it was still a close race. He went very negative in the campaign and lost a close race. NY-23 was totally about economics. The people have been hit hard and have been betrayed by GOP economics. It was time for change. A Republican tried to run on change and support the people. But apparently doing that is against the GOP. If anything that is the silver lining from last night: the GOP has been fully exposed as a party who is definitely not for the people. All the Big Names of the GOP couldn't do a damn thing about it because when they look in the mirror, there simply is no reflection to stare back and show them what they are.

That is the reality folks. Everyone's going to take away what they need to hear. The Pundits and the Media are going to make up whatever bullshit story they want. But last night was not about ideology. It's about the local issues important to the people.

This is why Dean's 50-state strategy made sense. It's why we need to represent the people, wherever they are, whoever they may be. That's what the Democratic party has been all about. If the party follows the mantra of being for the people, it will succeed.