All you get here are links. Some of my favorites from the HCR debate, in random order. Click on some. They generally are related to the title of their link. So trust me: you won't be redirected to any porn sites, offshore casinos, or mature swingin' adult dating services. (All together now: "Not That There's Anything Wrong With That.")
You might land in a place that makes you better informed, or just makes you cringe.
Table of Contents
There Will Be Blood
State is broke; so's the system
Shout! Shout! Let it all out!
Attention: Deficit Disorder
Ick
Play-by-Play, Sunday night
Kids don't need insurance! They have Medicaid!
Who you callin' unconstitutitutitutional?
Polling Place
Man Date
Recap
Monday, March 22, 2010
Feeeelings / 3-22-10
No facts here. Go to the other post for actual content. This is just a list of emotions I've gone through in the past 36 hours.
Relief: Upon figuring out Sunday afternoon that Pelosi had the votes to pass the bill, I let out a deep sigh and waited for the moment.
Excitement: Knowing that history was in the making, I got a little tingly following the news, checking my phone every 15 minutes to see if the vote had been tallied yet.
Energy: As befits the moment after a political victory. Hasn't been a stellar winter for my side of the aisle.
Dread: What if the bill has some really really sucky yucky stuff inside of it? What if this great legislative victory is bad for the country? Bad for me? Bad for my kids?
Impatience: With those who interjected abortion into the debate. (Newsflash: Ending a pregnancy is a medical procedure. A legal one. Its elective nature may vary. It may be highly objectionable in certain cases. Call it what you want, it still falls under the umbrella of health care.)
Shame: For letting myself be duped into believing the bill was virulently anti-business. It's not. Go to the other post for details. For letting myself believe the individual mandate would be an unfair hardship. It's not set up that way. For listening to people tell me this bill wasn't liberal enough. Hey. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Somebody said that once.
Impatience Renewed: With how easily people accept the lies of the right-wing propaganda machine. At least when we Dems are lied to by our politicians, we know it and roll with it, or we rebel and turn on them mercilessly.
Shame, Part Deux: For not having blogged in two months. (There are extenuating circumstances, but to all my countless fans - 11 - all over the world, I'm truly sorry. And not Tiger Woods sorry. Sorry sorry.)
Relief, Part Deux: That my kids, both of whom have a better than even chance of inheriting my very serious heart condition, will be able to obtain coverage if they need it, and can stay on the family plan until age 26.
Relief, Part C: That should my wife, for some glopfaloobaloogurglespurk reason, lose her job or her coverage, then my family will still be able to get us some 'surance.
Pride: In my country, which could now start to pull itself, one piece of legislation at a time, from the clutches of crippling health care costs. Much work remains to be done, but the end result, whatever it is, would have been impossible without this step.
Thankfulness: Without a D President and a D Congress, this doesn't happen. Thanks voters.
Sheepishness: That I don't know everything that's in the bill, that I can only recite about half of it off the top of my head, and that I'm pretending to be some sort of expert on it.
Hope: Self-explanatory.
Relief: Upon figuring out Sunday afternoon that Pelosi had the votes to pass the bill, I let out a deep sigh and waited for the moment.
Excitement: Knowing that history was in the making, I got a little tingly following the news, checking my phone every 15 minutes to see if the vote had been tallied yet.
Energy: As befits the moment after a political victory. Hasn't been a stellar winter for my side of the aisle.
Dread: What if the bill has some really really sucky yucky stuff inside of it? What if this great legislative victory is bad for the country? Bad for me? Bad for my kids?
Impatience: With those who interjected abortion into the debate. (Newsflash: Ending a pregnancy is a medical procedure. A legal one. Its elective nature may vary. It may be highly objectionable in certain cases. Call it what you want, it still falls under the umbrella of health care.)
Shame: For letting myself be duped into believing the bill was virulently anti-business. It's not. Go to the other post for details. For letting myself believe the individual mandate would be an unfair hardship. It's not set up that way. For listening to people tell me this bill wasn't liberal enough. Hey. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Somebody said that once.
Impatience Renewed: With how easily people accept the lies of the right-wing propaganda machine. At least when we Dems are lied to by our politicians, we know it and roll with it, or we rebel and turn on them mercilessly.
Shame, Part Deux: For not having blogged in two months. (There are extenuating circumstances, but to all my countless fans - 11 - all over the world, I'm truly sorry. And not Tiger Woods sorry. Sorry sorry.)
Relief, Part Deux: That my kids, both of whom have a better than even chance of inheriting my very serious heart condition, will be able to obtain coverage if they need it, and can stay on the family plan until age 26.
Relief, Part C: That should my wife, for some glopfaloobaloogurglespurk reason, lose her job or her coverage, then my family will still be able to get us some 'surance.
Pride: In my country, which could now start to pull itself, one piece of legislation at a time, from the clutches of crippling health care costs. Much work remains to be done, but the end result, whatever it is, would have been impossible without this step.
Thankfulness: Without a D President and a D Congress, this doesn't happen. Thanks voters.
Sheepishness: That I don't know everything that's in the bill, that I can only recite about half of it off the top of my head, and that I'm pretending to be some sort of expert on it.
Hope: Self-explanatory.
To Our Health / 3-22-10
We have a health care reform bill. After 14 months of partisan yelling, obfuscation, delay, dishonesty, and malodorous behavior all around.
And that was just from the "journalists."
Seriously, has there ever been a topic as misreported as this one? Willfully or not, the debate raging since Obama's inauguration has seemingly consisted of "I don't want no Urpeein' socialized med'cine, you stupid America-hating Marxist idjits!" vs. "Why do you ignorant loud-mouthed racists despise our children?"
I may not be as old as the Republic, or even as the Watergate scandal, but I know a piss-poor job of collective journalism when I see one.
If I want panicked shrieking about how a mandate to buy insurance will void the Constitution and bankrupt our children, I can get that at any number of panicked shrieking-filled websites. or "news" programs. (Shrieking at phood4thot is subject to federal guidelines of no more than 10 percent panic, 80 percent outrage and 10 percent just-for-the-hell-of-it.)
If I want to hear two spinmeisters distort the intent and wording of a bill, as if it didn't really matter who was right, there are innumerable forums for that. If I want to read a poll about how Americans feel about an issue, pollster.com, gallup.com and fivethirtyeight.com are great destinations.
But now, as I said, we have an actual bill. And there are provisions inside of it. Where has that been, and maybe can we talk about that, no?
(Spoiler alert: the HCR bill contains no death panels, forced assisted-suicide, mandatory abortions, expansion of medical marijuana limits, or random mass sterilizations. As of yet.)
Snarky section complete. Informative section begins. The stuff that sits below, I compiled it from a few sources across the web, from newspapers scattered across the country, from editors who bothered to print a synopsis of the actual contents of the actual bill. There is no commentary attached for the following 13 paragraphs. (Pontification and soapboxery ensue shortly thereafter.)
The Mandate: Kicks in in 2014, when all citizens will be required to have health insurance, or pay additional tax of $95 at first, rising to $695 or 2.5 percent of income, by 2016. Some poor persons exempt.
The Subsidies: Starting in 2014 as well, for individual buyers. Households earning up to $88,200 for a family of four can qualify; the lower the income, the higher the subsidy.
The Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurers are immediately barred from declining coverage to minors based on pre-existing illnesses. The same provision applies to adults beginning in 2014.
The Taxes: Beginning in 2012, households earning more than $250,000 a year (the cutoff is $200,000 for single taxpayers) will pay 0.9 percent higher Medicare payroll tax and a 3.8 percent tax on investment income (dividends plus interest). Then in 2018, the fanciest insurance policies get hit with a 40 percent tax. Indoor tanning salons face a 10 percent tax. The insurance companies pay a joint $8 billion annual fee, starting in 2014.
The Small Business Owner: Receives tax breaks starting this year for offering health insurance. Again in 2014, employers with more than 50 workers may be, in certain cirumstances, penalized up to $2,000 per full-time worker if they fail to offer affordable health insurance and the worker receives government subsidies. No employer mandate. There are more details here, but very small businesses will not be penalized in any way, they only gain incentives and subsisdies should they choose to offer health insurance.
Medicare cuts: Some providers' payments will be cut; Medicare Advantage will receive less funding. (Obama is not fond of that Bush-era program, which he says is too advantageous to the pharmaceutical corporations.) On the other hand, prescription drug coverage will be expanded by closing the "doughnut hole," a gap in benefits that prevents discounts on certain drugs.
More Medicaid: As of 2014, Medicaid will be open to everyone earning up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, or $29,300 for a family of four. Primary-care physicians treating Medicaid patients will see higher reimbursement rates, starting in 2013.
The exchange: People without employer coverage will be allowed to shop for insurance from a wider selection. Begins in 2014.
High-risk pool: Gets going in 2010. The government will set up a high-risk insurance pool for those who have a pre-existing health condition and have been uninsured for at least six months. The buy-in cost would be limited to $5,950 per individual.
Older kids: As soon as this year, but possibly next, dependent children up to age 26 must be allowed to continue coverage on Mom and/or Dad's policy.
Lifetime limits: Kicks off later this year. Insurers will no longer be permitted to limit the amount of coverage granted you in your lifetime.
Revenue: Also this year, insurance plans must pay at least 80 percent of their revenue in benefits or choose to give rebates to customers starting next year.
Other: Boosts experimental medical programs, require standardization of insurance forms, calls for higher payments for preventive care. A brand-new commission is created to review the administration of Medicare. Long-term care savings program is established. Some medical devices begin to be taxed in 2013.
There's work involved in understanding this bill. Nancy Pelosi got herself into some hot water earlier this month when she was quoted as saying "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." No, she really said that. But how about some context. Here is what she had just finished stating:
"You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."
How dare she! To imply that opponents have drowned the issue in half-truths! To imply it's hard to get people to understand the bill because the coverage of it has been, to quote myself, piss-poor... the gall, I mean THE GALL of that uppity broad! (Yes, yes, the sarcasm's out of control again, I don't apologize.)
To sharpen my point: Of course people are opposed in principle to more government messing with their health care. We're Americans, after all. Of course the mandate is controversial. Nobody likes being forced to buy something. Of course the taxes will infuriate some rich people with connections and megaphones. We don't deal well with the idea of more taxes and more bureaucracy. Of course there's a risk of running up the deficit, despite the CBO's claims that the legislation is deficit neutral.
But ALL that good stuff in the bill. The subsidies for desperate families. The deliverance from insurance companies' repeated denials of coverage. The protections for kids and mom-and-pop businesses. Once all that info gets out there, conservatives had better hope independents forget how vehemently the right wing fought this incremental victory for common sense.
And that was just from the "journalists."
Seriously, has there ever been a topic as misreported as this one? Willfully or not, the debate raging since Obama's inauguration has seemingly consisted of "I don't want no Urpeein' socialized med'cine, you stupid America-hating Marxist idjits!" vs. "Why do you ignorant loud-mouthed racists despise our children?"
I may not be as old as the Republic, or even as the Watergate scandal, but I know a piss-poor job of collective journalism when I see one.
If I want panicked shrieking about how a mandate to buy insurance will void the Constitution and bankrupt our children, I can get that at any number of panicked shrieking-filled websites. or "news" programs. (Shrieking at phood4thot is subject to federal guidelines of no more than 10 percent panic, 80 percent outrage and 10 percent just-for-the-hell-of-it.)
If I want to hear two spinmeisters distort the intent and wording of a bill, as if it didn't really matter who was right, there are innumerable forums for that. If I want to read a poll about how Americans feel about an issue, pollster.com, gallup.com and fivethirtyeight.com are great destinations.
But now, as I said, we have an actual bill. And there are provisions inside of it. Where has that been, and maybe can we talk about that, no?
(Spoiler alert: the HCR bill contains no death panels, forced assisted-suicide, mandatory abortions, expansion of medical marijuana limits, or random mass sterilizations. As of yet.)
Snarky section complete. Informative section begins. The stuff that sits below, I compiled it from a few sources across the web, from newspapers scattered across the country, from editors who bothered to print a synopsis of the actual contents of the actual bill. There is no commentary attached for the following 13 paragraphs. (Pontification and soapboxery ensue shortly thereafter.)
The Mandate: Kicks in in 2014, when all citizens will be required to have health insurance, or pay additional tax of $95 at first, rising to $695 or 2.5 percent of income, by 2016. Some poor persons exempt.
The Subsidies: Starting in 2014 as well, for individual buyers. Households earning up to $88,200 for a family of four can qualify; the lower the income, the higher the subsidy.
The Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurers are immediately barred from declining coverage to minors based on pre-existing illnesses. The same provision applies to adults beginning in 2014.
The Taxes: Beginning in 2012, households earning more than $250,000 a year (the cutoff is $200,000 for single taxpayers) will pay 0.9 percent higher Medicare payroll tax and a 3.8 percent tax on investment income (dividends plus interest). Then in 2018, the fanciest insurance policies get hit with a 40 percent tax. Indoor tanning salons face a 10 percent tax. The insurance companies pay a joint $8 billion annual fee, starting in 2014.
The Small Business Owner: Receives tax breaks starting this year for offering health insurance. Again in 2014, employers with more than 50 workers may be, in certain cirumstances, penalized up to $2,000 per full-time worker if they fail to offer affordable health insurance and the worker receives government subsidies. No employer mandate. There are more details here, but very small businesses will not be penalized in any way, they only gain incentives and subsisdies should they choose to offer health insurance.
Medicare cuts: Some providers' payments will be cut; Medicare Advantage will receive less funding. (Obama is not fond of that Bush-era program, which he says is too advantageous to the pharmaceutical corporations.) On the other hand, prescription drug coverage will be expanded by closing the "doughnut hole," a gap in benefits that prevents discounts on certain drugs.
More Medicaid: As of 2014, Medicaid will be open to everyone earning up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, or $29,300 for a family of four. Primary-care physicians treating Medicaid patients will see higher reimbursement rates, starting in 2013.
The exchange: People without employer coverage will be allowed to shop for insurance from a wider selection. Begins in 2014.
High-risk pool: Gets going in 2010. The government will set up a high-risk insurance pool for those who have a pre-existing health condition and have been uninsured for at least six months. The buy-in cost would be limited to $5,950 per individual.
Older kids: As soon as this year, but possibly next, dependent children up to age 26 must be allowed to continue coverage on Mom and/or Dad's policy.
Lifetime limits: Kicks off later this year. Insurers will no longer be permitted to limit the amount of coverage granted you in your lifetime.
Revenue: Also this year, insurance plans must pay at least 80 percent of their revenue in benefits or choose to give rebates to customers starting next year.
Other: Boosts experimental medical programs, require standardization of insurance forms, calls for higher payments for preventive care. A brand-new commission is created to review the administration of Medicare. Long-term care savings program is established. Some medical devices begin to be taxed in 2013.
(Soapbox in 3, 2, 1...)
I did not remove any significant items from that list. I didn't add anything. What you see is what you get.
No wonder the opposition won the messaging battle on this one. "No Gov't Takeover!" or "NObamacare" is catchy and easily reported, espeically when contrasted with "2.5 of taxable income, but technically, not until 2016" or "Only a $695 fine!" or even "Medicaid to 133 percent of poverty level just in four years!"There's work involved in understanding this bill. Nancy Pelosi got herself into some hot water earlier this month when she was quoted as saying "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." No, she really said that. But how about some context. Here is what she had just finished stating:
"You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."
How dare she! To imply that opponents have drowned the issue in half-truths! To imply it's hard to get people to understand the bill because the coverage of it has been, to quote myself, piss-poor... the gall, I mean THE GALL of that uppity broad! (Yes, yes, the sarcasm's out of control again, I don't apologize.)
To sharpen my point: Of course people are opposed in principle to more government messing with their health care. We're Americans, after all. Of course the mandate is controversial. Nobody likes being forced to buy something. Of course the taxes will infuriate some rich people with connections and megaphones. We don't deal well with the idea of more taxes and more bureaucracy. Of course there's a risk of running up the deficit, despite the CBO's claims that the legislation is deficit neutral.
But ALL that good stuff in the bill. The subsidies for desperate families. The deliverance from insurance companies' repeated denials of coverage. The protections for kids and mom-and-pop businesses. Once all that info gets out there, conservatives had better hope independents forget how vehemently the right wing fought this incremental victory for common sense.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)