Be still my beating heart, a chance to create in reality the old saying "The only 'good Republicans' are dead." To be able to drive a cedar stake through the GOP heart would feel soooooo good. A lifetime's goal achieved.

WH is playing this well.

Consumers would have all kinds of new protections, including a ban on discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, the elimination rescissions, and a ban on annual or lifetime caps.

I wonder if we are reading the tea leaves correctly. Most people don't have pre-existing conditions and never come close to the lifetime cap.

Since it will cost the insurance companies more money to take people with pre-existing conditions and it will cost more to cover people after they reach the old lifetime cap then insurance companies are going to have to raise rates.

Insurance companies are going to raise rates in 2010

I would guess that the right wing spin machine will be able to show all the bad sides of reform and ignore the benefits. It wouldn't suprise me if the Republicans achieve their goals.

Of course, having lived in England, Canada and Japan, I want a single payer system but ....

Most folks don't have cancer , diabetes , or leukemia , but I imagine everyone knows someone who has . Asthma sufferers are growing as a segment of the population , how do you accept any explanation that asthma precludes receiving the same care as a member of the house or senate .

"Most people don't have pre-existing conditions and never come close to the lifetime cap."

If you've ever filled a prescription then I have news for you: you have a pre-existing condition.

Every year we have to re-register for our healthcare even if you decide to keep the same PPO or HMO plan. this year there was a fun, healthy lifestyle questionaire at the beginning. It was designed in a very lighthearted way and it's stated purpose was to pass along tailored information that each person could use or be interested in. Hmmm...funny thing about that questionaire. You couldn't begin the registration process until it was completed. The questions were most definitely fishing for personal information.

Don't ever take "pre-existing" so lightly.

Most people don't have pre-existing conditions [...] -- Neil Wilson, @13:03

That depends on how the insurance companies choose to define "pre-existing conditions". Just recently, the husband of a friend, a cardiologist, retired (early, at 50+) and, with retirement, lost his insurance. So he went shopping for private insurance... Man's healthy, takes god care of himself, etc, etc, etc. But he's also a runner (for the good of his heart) and, from pounding the streets, developed those ugly blotches on the soles of his feet (planters farscitis? don't know the spelling). Boom. Pre-existing condition, not insurable, not for any amount of money. I've never seen anyone change his tune faster on the issue of the national health insurance.

And as for the companies raising the rates in 2010... What do you think they've been doing all these years? Even without the onus of having to stop rescissions, and being able to refuse insurance at whim, the rates have pretty much doubled since 2001. So, the rates were going up in 2010 no matter what.

The real question is *how much* they're gonna go up. And how strongly enforced that requirement that 80-85% be spent on actual *care* will be.

"Since it will cost the insurance companies more money to take people with pre-existing conditions and it will cost more to cover people after they reach the old lifetime cap then insurance companies are going to have to raise rates."

The countervailing element being that universally mandated coverage increases the pool to include more healthy people and therefore reduces rates. Also, it should deflate the massive cost of untreated conditions that eventually get dumped directly onto the taxpayer via Medicaid and Medicare.

The goal is a net gain in system-wide efficiency, not protecting the profits of private insurers.

The rage driven, fact-free tea-bagger base that lives in a parallel universe may be caught in a trap, but it doesn't matter since their vote will only go to the worst-of-the-worst that emerges from their purification process. To the other 75% their votes will be based on a perception of what they're getting or not getting from healthcare reform, and their decision may also be largely emotional and fact-free.

If ordinary people think they're getting less than they deserve, or think they are losing something they have now, they may well vote for a repeal candidate. It will all depend on how aggressive an education campaign the Dems mount, and how convincing they are that they haven't given away the store to the insurance companies. I, for one, still need to be convinced.

Single payer, public option, medicare expansion, stringent regulation, all never made it into the the 'reform' bill. And so much that the insurance companies wanted did. I predict it will be a good year, although undeserved, for the Rethugs.

Most people don't have pre-existing conditions [...] -- Neil Wilson, @13:03

Actually, most people do have pre-existing conditions. My son, age 35, applied for a health insurance policy and was denied because his cholesterol was "elevated."

We all know about the family who was denied health insurance because their baby was "underweight" and that was defined as a pre-existing condition, or the family who was denied insurance because their baby was "overweight."

Between the pre-existing conditions clause and the retroactive recissions, these are just excuses for the Insurance companies to avoid any possibility of payment to their policyholders.

Health Insurance -- what a racket!

I think we are missing a major point here. Suppose insurance companies jack up rates next year and indicate they will do the same in 2011. Suppose they blame the increase on the reform bill. What do you suppose will be the public's reaction?

"Suppose insurance companies jack up rates next year and indicate they will do the same in 2011"

This would be a change from at present how?

"Suppose they blame the increase on the reform bill."

And we trust the excuses of insurance companies why?

"What do you suppose will be the public's reaction?"

Well, the segment of the public that takes its cues from Fox will be, like now, enraged at Democrats. The rest will probably be enraged at the company that is jacking up their rates. And if insurance company stock prices and profits are simultaneously rising, it is going to be difficult for any sane person to pity them.

"The real question is *how much* they're gonna go up. And how strongly enforced that requirement that 80-85% be spent on actual *care* will be."

The people doing the enforcing are the same ones that gave us telecom immunity for spying on ameican citizens, that gave wallstreet a huge handout and refused to do any real regulation of it in return, and who just gave the insurance companies a huge handout and refused to support the one measure that might actually do a little to keep them honest.

There's absolutely no question how hard the obama administration will enforce those regs. None at all.

"This would be a change from at present how? "

Gee, a slight difference might be that you have to buy it. Also another difference is that it'll make great campaign commercials for the right.

"And we trust the excuses of insurance companies why?"

Well because the president just told us what great responsible guys the insurance companies are. Surely he wouldn't have forced us under their tender mercies if they were unscrupulous, right?

"The rest will probably be enraged at the company that is jacking up their rates."

Yeah I'm sure the public will have no animosity at all towards the party that just forced them to give money to insurance companies regardless of how much they choose to charge us...

You're naivete is astounding.

Most people don't have pre-existing conditions and never come close to the lifetime cap.

Just to add to the pile-on, I have three pre-existing conditions: rosacea (aka acne rosacea), asthma so mild it doesn't need daily treatment, and occasional depression that responds well to medication. Fortunately I work for a company that offers insurance, because I would otherwise be uninsurable for having three non-life-threatening and not very expensive pre-existing conditions.

"You're naivete is astounding."

But no match for your cynicism.

My deepest sympathies that the Obama liberal fairy magic did not perfect the world to your satisfaction in 90 days. But veering from unreasonable idealism to unreasonable cynicism is hardly an effective approach to managing an imperfect world.

"...and then you'll have to appear in front of (insert Republican candidate's name here) Death Panel, to prevent (him/her) from pulling the plug on Grandma".

"leading Democrats seem quite sincere in their hopes that Gingrich is right and that every GOP candidate really will run on a repeal pledge."

Dem leaders are trying to reassure wobbly red state Dem senators that voting for HCR won't hurt their reelection chances, which is absurd. Voting for HCR will obviously help Dem senators in the Northeast and will obviously hurt red state senators like Dorgan and Lincoln. I still expect one of them to flip, probably Lincoln, because Dorgan will be defeated no matter what he does.

"At a time when insurance companies are finally about to be reined in..."

In what fantasy ?

No competition, no cost-controls, no premium restrictions.

Boy we really showed THEM.

"and when American families are finally about to be given control over their own health care"

By forcing them, by financial penalty, to purchase over-priced healthcare coverage from the for-profit private-sector health insurance corporations with runaway premium increases ?

Some control.

"While several provisions of the health care reform initiative wouldn't kick in until 2014, the really popular measures would kick in almost immediately in 2010. Consumers would have all kinds of new protections, including a ban on discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, the elimination of rescissions, and a ban on annual or lifetime caps."

The "ban on discrimination based on pre-existing conditions" in 2010 is only for children. Adults have to wait FOUR MORE YEARS until 2014.

"My deepest sympathies that the Obama liberal fairy magic did not perfect the world to your satisfaction in 90 days."

You'd think after 11 months the left might have something, anything, to show for 60% majorities in both houses and the presidency. Instead we've gotten kicked time and again by Obama and the left leadership.

So remind me why we're supposed to be good foot soldiers for these douchebags come november?

including a ban on discrimination based on pre-existing conditions

Is this accurate? My understanding was that at least under the Senate legislation the pre-existing conditions rules go into effect for children immediately, but do not go into effect for adults until the exchanges start.

Tlaloc, if you think there are 60 good votes in the Senate, as you imply, you're nuts. Your expectations were stupid.

The point should be made that this argument needs to be pushed before the primaries, when the TBs will witch-hunt any impure GOPers; we need to have time for them to come up with the maximum of inane pledges to sign, et cetera.