Correct me if I'm wrong, but Howard Dean appears to be on board too.

GIVE! GIVE! GIVE!

It's good to see groups on the left rallying around reform.

But unity isn't enough. Our groups need lots and lots of money if we're to even begin to match the gazillions insurance companies and their buddies will spend trying to kill the bill.

Don't wait! Give now! Give till it hurts! The future of our country literally depends on us doing everything we can.

Give to whom? I'm ready to pull out my credit card and make it sizzle for the cause.

I don't expect a site like this one to be able to tell me that. But I don't see any good advice at places like DKos, either.

Playdoh for Praedor

As Greg noted, it seems pretty clear that "the kill-the-bill camp overwhelmingly lost the argument"

Does that mean they will chill the shrill?
Or up the volume and run Denis the Menace as a third party chump?

I think the biggest cause of the turn-around on HCR is that we finally know what bill we're supporting. While I was on-board with pretty much anything Obama could get us, as I see him as a pragmatic guy who will push for the best policy he can get (a claim he's made of himself many times), I understand why others were more reluctant to trust him. And worst of all, even if you trusted him, it was hard to sell a bill that didn't really exist and could change at any moment.

But now we know pretty much what we're getting and that it has decent reforms that will make an immediate impact, so it's just a matter of selling what we've got to whoever will listen. At this point, we're well upon the light at the end of the tunnel and it looks pretty good.

Does that mean they will chill the shrill?
Or up the volume and run Denis the Menace as a third party chump?

If history is any indiction, defeat only empowers these people, just as it does with diehard wingnuts. They're looking for a cause, not a victory. That's why they hate positive news stories and relish in negative ones, because defeat only confirms their beliefs.

What we'll see is that a sizeable minority of them will go quiet, as they realize that their position wasn't as popular as they thought it was and it makes them rethink their opposition; while the remaining ones will only get louder, as they attempt to use volume to compensate for their lack of numbers.

Tea Partiers are the exact same way. That's why openly attacking Republicans is so counter-productive, because they want to be attacked. And what they hate most of all is compromise and politeness, which is why they reject it so much. They'll spit in your face just so you'll spit in theirs, and nothing will make them happier.

What I read here is that it is all about how much money can be raised to tilt the conversation. Tens of millions from opponents of "Healthcare Reform" (not really...health insurance reform & privatization) speaks louder than the concerns of people who desire and need access to authentic & affordable Health Care. So, if MoveOn, et al, cannot raise the money and pay for telling their side of the story, then it will not be told. As we saw with the Super Bowl ads that were rejected, it is still up to the "media" to direct the narrative. If they don't like MoveOn's ad, they can reject it or ask for a softer version. And, we already know that Daily Kos will not run it if it is too principled. We are all about "pragmatism."

MORE on the Chamber...those nasty SOBs are already putting their ads OUT and they are BIG FAT LIES...give give give to any organization with a track record to get out the GREAT ads...

"But now we know pretty much what we're getting and that it has decent reforms that will make an immediate impact"

That statement contradicts itself. Either you know the bill in which case you knoe its reforms are illusory, or you believe the reforms and thus don't know the bill. One or the other.

By the way I did what you asked and posted a long post explaining exactly why I don;t believe any the statements of the bills supporters about what the bill does quoting directly from the bill itself.

No surprise the PTDB crowd seems to have completely ignored it. Inconvenient truths and all that. You can't say I didn't give you guys a chance.

"Does that mean they will chill the shrill?
Or up the volume and run Denis the Menace as a third party chump?"

Personally I'll try to keep getting people to actually look at what the bill does rather than the claims of what it does. I'll also pray that the house doesn't find the votes and or that the senate actually does pass meaningful changes through reconcilliation (fat chance).

And then I'll get ready to do a whole lot of I told you so's. That'll make me feel a little better after you guys completely fuck up my chances of getting health care in the future.

By the way I did what you asked and posted a long post explaining exactly why I don;t believe any the statements of the bills supporters about what the bill does quoting directly from the bill itself.

Well, that's fine, but I'm sorry to say that I never saw it. That's why I thought it'd be better if you had a link that you could post every time, rather than wasting everyone's time by repeating the same assertions without explaining any of it.

Honestly, I'd have no problems agreeing with you, if I had any reason to do so. But the fact that you apparently posted one good post and then went back to insulting anyone who doesn't agree with you seems somewhat odd.

And hey, if you want, post something here and if it's not something that can be easily linked to, I'll post it verbatim on my blog, explaining that it's from you. That way, you can just link to it whenever you want. I promise I'll rebut anything I don't agree with in a separate post, but I'll definitely post your statement in its entirety.

That'll make me feel a little better after you guys completely fuck up my chances of getting health care in the future.

Fffffft. Like you'd be insurable with MS and several diagnosable mental illnesses if the bill fails.

I think we're screwed. The Senate Bill is terrible, the White House proposals make it no better (in some cases worse), and everyone's so afraid of losing an election that they're... well, going to pass a bill that really will lose the election, while simultaneously destroying the chances of workable health care reform for generations.

This is utterly depressing.

"Well, that's fine, but I'm sorry to say that I never saw it. That's why I thought it'd be better if you had a link that you could post every time, rather than wasting everyone's time by repeating the same assertions without explaining any of it."

The PTDB crowd make the same claims every time without ever backing them up, why shouldn't I get the same prerogative? Anyway here's a link:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_03/022802.php#1736145

Looking at the regulation issue alone you ahve to ask these questions-
1) is this real reform?
2) do they intend to enforce it?
3) can they enforce it?

SO take the issue of rescission. It fails all three questions. In the first place the rescission language in the bill allows for rescission in case of fraud, but if you know anything about the practice you know that fraud is exactly the excuse that is almost always used (and will always be used henceforth). So no the bill does not actually regulate rescission at all. On top of that the bill specifies no enforcement mechanism, dictates no penalty for breaking this "ban", sets aside no funds for enforcing this ban. That pretty much answers the question of if they actually intend to enforce it. Finally looking at the LA times article about rescission they found that just 3 insurance companies had canceled the support of 20,000 people in 5 years and in the process saved themselves 300 MILLION dollars. That's 4000 people every year, more when you take into account that there are other insurance companies and they'll be practicing rescission a lot more frequently on the high risk people they take on after this bill. Do you really imagine the DoJ (assuming that's who would handle the case, as before there's not a single word about enforcement in the bill) can take on 5-10,000 more cases a year? Can they take them on and win and win the appeals in short enough time to get the person medical care? Or will the insurance companies play the game of waiting out the sick person (who is after all likely to be older and quite possibly terminal)?

As it stands this bill does not ban rescission, has not intention of banning rescission, and cannot ban rescission. Claims by the PTDBers that it does are wrong. They are lies in fact because this info has been easily available for some time now and it take willful ignorance of it to claim that rescission will do anything but skyrocket after the senate bill passes.

But what do you want to bet we have a bunch more people (including benen) baldly claim rescission will end?

That's why I say the PTDBers are arguing in bad faith and feel very justified in calling them douchebags.

Tlaloc - I clicked on your link and see that you're wrong about rescission. As the bill says, recission can only be done if someone "makes an intentional misrepresentation of material fact." And that's a HUGE difference from now, where insurers rescind policies based upon unintentional omissions that were immaterial to the policy, like the nurse with breast cancer who had her policy rescinded due to acne treatment. That would now be illegal.

And honestly, the alternative is absurd. Do you really think insurers should be forced to pay when someone intentionally lies in a significant way? I mean, if someone had breast cancer and lied about it, and then immediately demanded cancer treatment, should an insurer be forced to pay? I don't think so.

And please read that LA Times link you gave. In it, insurance execs "would not commit to limiting rescissions to only policyholders who intentionally lie or commit fraud to obtain coverage." So we'll be holding them to a standard that they weren't willing to do before. This is a shift in policy, not more of the same.

I'm planning to go through the rest of your points and post a rebuttal as a blog post (though that's not a promise, as I'm fairly lazy about this sort of thing.)

"Tlaloc - I clicked on your link and see that you're wrong about rescission. As the bill says, recission can only be done if someone "makes an intentional misrepresentation of material fact." And that's a HUGE difference from now, where insurers rescind policies based upon unintentional omissions that were immaterial to the policy, like the nurse with breast cancer who had her policy rescinded due to acne treatment. That would now be illegal."

You aren't paying attention- right now the insurance companies claim accidental ommissions are intentional fraud. they'll continue to do that going forward. No difference.

"And honestly, the alternative is absurd. Do you really think insurers should be forced to pay when someone intentionally lies in a significant way? I mean, if someone had breast cancer and lied about it, and then immediately demanded cancer treatment, should an insurer be forced to pay? I don't think so."

Of course not which is why "banning" rescission is not the answer. The only answer is giving people an option besides the god damn blood sucking insurance companies. That's the only way to deal with the issue that works.

"And please read that LA Times link you gave. In it, insurance execs "would not commit to limiting rescissions to only policyholders who intentionally lie or commit fraud to obtain coverage." So we'll be holding them to a standard that they weren't willing to do before. This is a shift in policy, not more of the same."

Yes, they wouldn't say before congress that they'd only limit it to that. So what? Tobacco companies also swore before congress that cigarettes were not addicting. Corporations lie before congress all the time and are generally never called on it.

You aren't paying attention- right now the insurance companies claim accidental ommissions are intentional fraud. they'll continue to do that going forward. No difference.

Yes, except they won't be able to do that, as accidental ommissions aren't allowable, and it doesn't matter what they claim.

As for your tobacco company analogy, that's backwards. You'd have a point if the insurance execs claimed they'd only limit it to intentional fraud, but didn't. But they said they WOULDN'T limit it to intentional fraud, because they knew that would hurt their profits. That means they were telling the truth, and would be the equivalent of tobacco execs admitting that tobacco kills. And now, we're limiting them to intentional fraud, which is a much higher standard than before.

BTW, I would certainly hope a public option would rescind policies for intentional fraud too, don't you? Intentional fraud is paid for by the rest of us.

Overall, I really think you're failing to grasp what a major shift in insurance this will be, and are still stuck in the old mode of business. Have you read about how these insurance exchanges will work? If not, I recommend doing so.

Oh, and Tlaloc, just to be helpful, I read all your points and they can all be summed up as: Yes, the reform bill does many good things, but there are no enforcement mechanisms and without a public option to serve as an alternative, insurance companies will ignore these regulations and continue to do what they already do.

Not that I agree with that, but if you said some variation of that instead of insulting people, you'd get much better results. Because the bill DOES says what Benen, Klein, and the rest of us says it does. And your point is that the government can't enforce it, which negates all the good things it does. And that's a far different point than you calling us all liars for saying what the bill does. Instead of the bill being a disaster, it's merely something that requires teeth. Again, that's not something I agree with, but that's basically your point.

"Yes, except they won't be able to do that, as accidental ommissions aren't allowable, and it doesn't matter what they claim."

*pulls hair out*

Okay let me try this again slowly-
you get sick
you try to get care
the insurance company denies payment
you ask why
they say "we found you committed fraud"
you say "no I didn't that was an accidental ommission."
They say "we think it was fraud."

That's what will happen at which point you are exactly where I said you'd be- trying to get a government lawyer to take up the case and prove to a judge that you didn't commit fraud so they'll order the insurance company to pay for your care. You and about 5-10,000 other people a year.

You're telling me something that happens thousands of time a year right now can't happen. It can happen. It DOES happen. All the insurance company has to say is "fraud" and then you have no option but to either walk away, to try and get the DoJ to take the matter on, or to pursue them in a civil lawsuit. There's nobody standing over their should making them prove fraud. They just have to say it. This is getting back to that enforcement thing.

I can't believe this is that hard to get across.

"BTW, I would certainly hope a public option would rescind policies for intentional fraud too, don't you? Intentional fraud is paid for by the rest of us."

Yes but a public option doesn't have the profit motive to rescind by calling anything and everything fraud. See how that makes all the difference in the universe?

"Overall, I really think you're failing to grasp what a major shift in insurance this will be, and are still stuck in the old mode of business."

I think that you're pretending that saying something makes it so. Saying they can't rescind for omissions means nothing unless you can prove they rescinded for omission. Otherwise it's meaningless and the process of proving it is painful and long.

" Oh, and Tlaloc, just to be helpful, I read all your points and they can all be summed up as: Yes, the reform bill does many good things, but there are no enforcement mechanisms and without a public option to serve as an alternative, insurance companies will ignore these regulations and continue to do what they already do."

More accurate would be the bill talks about doing a few good things but never makes much of an attempt to actually do much of any of it.

"Not that I agree with that, but if you said some variation of that instead of insulting people, you'd get much better results."

I've said it. People continued top blandly say the bill banned rescission when I could prove it didn't. I just proved it to you and you;re still talking about it as if it did. So yeah after realizing the supporters were completely closed to reality I started getting snippy. So far I wouldn't say you are giving me much hope for "better results" from reason. It's right there in black and white and you still are refusing to see it.

"Because the bill DOES says what Benen, Klein, and the rest of us says it does"

Case in point. No the bill doesn't. Not unless you take a child like view of the matter where anything said is automatically true. Guess what when the republican budget says it balances the budget it actually doesn't. Now you can say "but it says so!" all you like it's still bullshit.

Saying this bill bans rescission is bullshit. It's a question. it's not an opinion. It's a fact. Claiming otherwise is in fact lying, because the truth is widely available and completely unambiguous.

Tlaloc - The point of the exchanges are that they're regulated markets for people like us to buy insurance from. If insurers violate the regulations, they're banned from the exchange. That means they can't sell insurance to us anymore.

That means if they rescind based upon accidental or insignificant omissions, they'll be barred from the exchange. Same with the rest of this. Your only point is that these regulations have no teeth, but the "teeth" are that they can't sell insurance to us anymore. That's also how premiums are regulated, as the exchange sets the rates and tells them what they need to cover.

Does that help anything? I'm telling you, learn about the exchanges. If reform passes, insurance as we know it will be significantly different.

"That means if they rescind based upon accidental or insignificant omissions, they'll be barred from the exchange."

You have to prove it first. Or do you think you can just call up the exchange and get an insurer barred based on your say so? Now while you;re trying to prove it you still get to pay for insurance but don't get any benefit. This means the insurance company is making a mint.

And speaking of the exchanges, what happens when every insurance company is kicked off of them?

Tell you what why don't you give me a link to what you consider a good reference on the exchanges. I'll read it.

Here's a little primer on the exchanges, though it was written in January and I'm not sure how much of this is being incorporated into the final bill. But it's the Senate version, so this is probably the worse-case scenario, as they give the House version, which was better:
http://www.healthreformwatch.com/2010/01/18/an-overview-of-exchanges-under-the-house-and-senate-bill/

For the individual and the small group markets, the Senate bill would require each state to create a American Health Benefit Exchange for individual purchasers of insurance, and a Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) for small businesses purchasers. HHS would regulate these exchanges (See section 1321(a)(1)). These exchanges would be governed by regulations promulgated by HHS, unless the states adopt alternative standards that the HHS finds acceptable.
[...]
Regardless of how any states’ exchange(s) plays out, many of the important provisions of the Senate’s bill such as certain minimum benefits, the ban on lifetime or annual dollar limits, the ban on rescission, and medical loss ratio requirements would apply across the landscape of exchanges.

Now while you;re trying to prove it you still get to pay for insurance but don't get any benefit. This means the insurance company is making a mint.

Tlaloc - I'm guessing that you're beginning to get a better idea of why we weren't lying when we said these things, but just to address this point: If an insurer rescinds your policy, you don't keep paying them because you'd no longer have a policy with them. Instead, you'd get a new insurer and your pre-existing conditions won't prevent you from doing so. After all, pre-existing conditions was the trap they used to keep people in crappy insurance and crappy jobs, and it'll be gone once we get reform.

And while I'm sure some insurers will violate the rules and get barred, I suspect that most of them will play ball. I mean, violating the rules puts them out of business; at least as far as selling to individuals, small businesses, and other groups. They're not going to risk losing a big piece of the market just to deny a few people coverage.

from your source:
"Another area of divergence is that existing individual and group plans may continue alongside newly created exchanges, in addition to any grandfathered plans."

This means the exchanges are meant to be ancillary to the insurance markets, not surplant them. See also this quote:

"Unlike the House bill which eliminates the state-based individual market, the Senate bill envisions exchanges that would co-exist with both the individual and small-group markets, and operate under the same rules."

In other words the exchange is not the be all and end all of insurance. It's not like getting thrown out of the exchange means they stop selling insurance, they just don't sell on that one market.

"Tlaloc - I'm guessing that you're beginning to get a better idea of why we weren't lying when we said these things, but just to address this point: If an insurer rescinds your policy, you don't keep paying them because you'd no longer have a policy with them."

Rescission doesn't always mean your policy is canceled. the insurance companies plenty of time will simply refuse to pay a given bill. Beyond that, sure you can jump from one company that has no interest in actually helping you to another, but what good does that do you?

"After all, pre-existing conditions was the trap they used to keep people in crappy insurance and crappy jobs, and it'll be gone once we get reform."

They won't want to prevent people with pre-existing condition from joining. It's free money to them. They get all the premiums and can choose to not pay for medical bills whenever they want. Best of all worlds. For them.

"And while I'm sure some insurers will violate the rules and get barred, I suspect that most of them will play ball."

Three insurers rescinded 20,000 people in 5 years. This isn't a rare paractice. It's the industry standard. And thanks to capitalism any insurance company that didn't do this will get bought out by those that do. Capitalism rewards cheating and that's precisely what this is.

"I mean, violating the rules puts them out of business; at least as far as selling to individuals, small businesses, and other groups. They're not going to risk losing a big piece of the market just to deny a few people coverage."

I think you're vastly overestimating the size of the market the exchange will cover. Remember according to the senate bill all individual plans, employee plans and previously existing plans remain in place. Pretty much that only leaves the high risk pool as a market.

First off, I should stress that I'm not a policy guy. I'm a political guy who dabbles in policy when necessary. But policy is fairly boring to me. And so the most I've ever read on insurance exchanges is what I read tonight, researching it for you. Frankly, I only skimmed that page, looking for something that might explain it better than I would, so I was glad you caught that stuff.

But look, even if you COULD purchase insurance outside of an exchange, why would you? You wouldn't. Don't you see that you'll now have an option to have decent insurance, where 80-85% of your premiums go towards medical costs, premium hikes need to be approved, they can't rescind your coverage without a really good reason, and can't deny you for pre-existing conditions in case you don't like your insurer? That's a HUGE breakthrough and nobody would WANT to buy insurance that wasn't part of this.

And yes, I did notice that you excluded the second part of the paragraph, where it mentioned that only plans sold through the exchange would be subsidized by the government.

And as a reminder, we're probably not getting the Senate bill. They're planning to fix it, to make it closer to the House bill. So I recommend finding something on the new plan and researching that. I really think that now that you're understanding how the regulations will be enforced that you'll get a better feeling about this thing. Or at a minimum, you can stop calling us all liars for not agreeing with you. I had no idea what your problem was until you finally explained yourself. I don't have insurance myself, so I'm looking for something good too.

Ok, well I learned what I was wanting to learn from this discussion and turned it into a blogpost. So anyone wanting to continue this further should go here:
Why Progressives Should Embrace Reform