I was expecting a little more meat about what's in the bill. OK article. Bad headline.

Right, right, Eli - but what about the DEATH PANELS and concentration camps where Republicans are forced to smoke pot and have gay sex?

I *know* you're hiding something...

this new law—which extends coverage to millions of uninsured Americans, reduces the deficit, and reins in insurance companies

Actually, the only part of that phrase that's in any way correct is "this new law." It doesn't extend coverage - it forces millions of uninsured Americans to buy insurance from the same criminal industry that got us into this mess to begin with. There's nothing in it about guaranteeing "coverage." Whether it reduces the deficit remains to be seen. And there's no enforcement to "reign in insurance companies" (whatever that means), so it's a safe bet that it'll be business as usual for them.

You should be ashamed of yourself for propagating this misinformation.

@5 - wrong.

As of this year, they can't deny you coverage for pre-existing conditions - which extends coverage to millions.

As of this year, kids can be on their parents' plan until they're 26 - which extends coverage to millions.

As of this year, Republicants will be rounded up and put in secret Death Camps ... oh, wait, you're not supposed to know about that part yet ...

There are a lot of articles out there that claim to explain the bill to me, but not one of them has explained exactly when I'll be able to buy the subsidized health insurance that I want.

"Divide et impera" Divide and conquer
It was stated by Julius Caesar and it still applies today. What many of you do not realize is that the Republican and Democratic leadership at the higher level are the same. Just two heads on the same vulture.
Example: Bush, the neo-conservative ultra right wing war monger did not end abortion.
Example: Obama, the super liberal socially minded change bringer did not end the war.
Lesson: The Republican leadership want to tell you what to think. The Democratic leadership want to take your money.
Question: Should Bush be brought up on war crimes?
Question: Should Obama be brought up on war crimes for protecting Bush and continuing the war?
I think we as an undivided people more than likely do not want to be gagged or robbed. I believe that most people in this country want what is good and decent, I have spoken to many different people of many races, religions and political views, most if not all can agree that the government has no business in our wallets or in our heads (figurative). The health care bill was co-written by the largest insurance companies, in an effort to FORCE an additional 34 million Americans who obviously couldn't afford it, to buy health care. So in effect this goes against what all of us stand for. Is it totally criminal for people to be denied coverage and be overcharged? Of course it is! Is it totally criminal for the government to force us to do anything that goes against the constitution? No, it's treason!
This Hall states -Quote "Federal law is supreme" "There's really no room for doubt that federal law controls."
The constitution was written and ratified by the independant states as an agreement between the states to form the federal government. The very nature of it suggests that the federal government is granted privelage by the states and that all powers not given to the Fed are reserved by the states individualy.
Lesson: Rights cannot be given to you, you are born with them. This assumes that there is no higher authority than the individual.. Doesn't that sound great!
A privelage is granted to the individual by a higher authority, which means it can be taken away. What!?
The idea that the federal government has the final/unltimate say is directly in contradiction to the very document that gives the PRIVELAGE of certain powers to that government.
We have to pull ourselves together, I think all of us can agree that both parties have done nothing but destroy lives, grab power, and tax us into oblivion.
On Democracy vs. a Republic:
Democracy is by virtue mob-rule, if 51% of us vote to take the property of the other 49%, even though the minority has a say, we can do so.
A Republic protects the rights of the individual to not have thier RIGHTS infringed upon.
So you see, the parties have nothing to do with the meaning of the words, it all comes down to semantics. Join together and take our rights and states back! Put the bankers, corporations and thier criminal governments in prison!

@8 The Washington Post, not known as a bastion of liberalism, has a nifty little calculator here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/spe… that will tell you what you'll get, when you'll get it, and what you'll pay.

—"We require all Americans to pay for Social Security and to pay for Medicare," retorted Democratic state party chair Dwight Pelz.

EXACTLY!!! And while I think all Republicans should be put to death, Pelz (I don't care for him and never liked his daddy) idiotically fingers the problem:

those are TAXES --- I repeat...TAXES...ergo, it could then be argued that this is structured as a health tax.

In other words, we are witnessing the PRIVATIZATION of taxation.

We are also witnessing the extension of the privatization of health insurance, as we are legally mandated to purchase private insurance -- and be fined by the IRS (in case you haven't heard, they're involved with taxes and tax collection!!!!) if such a purchase isn't made.

This entire health insurance legislation is structured as a public-private partnership (just like those toll road public-private partnerships, and all the rest of those financial scams).

Nothing will add to any furthering of a competitive enviroment, it will only further consolidate the subsidization of the health insurance (and pharmaceutical insurance) industry.

The best links to explain this:

http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.…

http://www.salon.com/news/healthcare_ref…

And Kaiser Health News certainly likes it:

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/…

Doom out..

Shout out to #13 comment (Libertarian) -- great comments!

@10: Your facts are simply wrong, sorry. That is, if you believe the CBO. If you don't believe the CBO, then fine. But according to their numbers, it will reduce the deficit.

According to the CBO's numbers on the Bush Tax Cuts, they were projected to increase the deficit at the time they were passed. The Republicans - being all so-called "fiscally conservative" and shit - passed them anyway, knowing full well it'd help create the some $10 trillion dollar debt they left behind when they handed over the White House.

You can argue the bill is expensive - that's true. But it's obvious that when Democrats legislate on long-term issues, they keep them deficit-neutral, as they did in their budgets during the 1990s. We're not trying to be fiscally conservative on principle. We're trying to be smart on principle.

@11: You may not realize this, being an unregistered commenter and all, but you already pay for pre-existing conditions. Sorry. The people who have them cannot get insurance, but often DO get treatment. This is because Ronald Reagan - the socialist he was - made it so they could go to any emergency room in the United States regardless of their ability to pay and get treatment for their conditions.

If these hospitals cannot get reimbursement from Medicare, Medicaid, or a private insurance company, they pass on these costs to their other paying consumers - namely, you.

Those costs are then likely paid for by you and your insurance company, who then raises its premiums. If you like this arrangement, continue to support the status quo (I mean, changing the current status quo back to the status quo prior to Health Care Reform).

If you don't, allow patients to buy into high-risk pools that will be able to insure them for their preexisting condition. The principle at work here is that they should pay for their own treatment instead of allowing the rest of us to pay for it through higher costs. This principle, healthcare self-reliance, is being called "Obamacare." If you agree with that people should pay for themselves and not rely on others, then you agree with this particular element of Health Care Reform.

@13: You're totally right. That's why I support legislation to create a public option or an expansion of state health care plans, which increases the competitiveness of the industry and prevents the "privatization of taxation."

If we have the option of purchasing care through the government without penalty, we'll have the power of governing our public option through democracy as well as the marketplace.

Teabaggers need manditory first aid training in the heimlich manuver. Just in case one of them gags on the other.

@22: Do we really need to get into how that works?

Health care economics are kind of complicated, and it's totally within reason that you could reduce the debt (to the tune of $1.2 trillion) while expanding coverage.

Further, Democrats just aren't the Democrats of the New Deal/Great Society much anymore; Republicans have done a very bad job of persuading Millenial Democrats because they fail to realize this on a near-constant basis. This ideological shift accompanied by communicative failure has created a tremendous number of political problems for the Republicans that they arrogantly refuse to acknowledge almost every single day.

Now, rank-and-file Democrats, often much more seriously than rank-and-file Republicans, want a balanced Federal budget. This has been the case since the budget got out of balance after the Bush tax cuts, and their concern has increased even further today. Republicans started to worry about the deficit only after Barack Obama was elected. There's data on this. A lot of this shifting is because more liberal Independents (often fiscal conservatives) are now often Democrats.

All that being said, this plan does have new investments, and I'm not denying that at all. Most don't go into effect for a while - presumably, not until after the recession is over - and government spending cuts are the chief source of deficit reduction over time.

Now you can believe none of the projections will pan out - and that's actually a perfectly reasonable thing to do. But if you do believe this, it's best to explain the belief to us from an informed and educational perspective, and help identify specific policies that the CBO believes to be deficit-reducing that just don't seem like they'd work. We'd really like to examine it better. But almost no teabaggers have ever done this. Like, ever.

(Hint: Maybe the CBO hasn't accounted for as many seniors consuming more prescription drugs - or more expensive ones - as a result of the donut hole closing. Maybe you have reason to believe it'd be more than they project due to moral hazard. But let's talk about that.)

Does anyone know what happens with people who refuse to buy insurance, get penalized up to 2.5% of their income, and then go to the ER when they're sick or hurt? Will they still get care like they do now? Who pays?

Which insurance companies helped write this bill?

@26: " Despite the sort of "intuitive" Republican idea that it's cheaper for you to let poor and sick people die than treat them, ... These people wouldn't just accept their fate when they got sick and patriotically die, refusing treatment, ... like I'm sure all those tea baggers certainly would..."

Exactly. Hospitals would also charge Medicare more, as they just were increasing their rates generally, so the taxpayer is footing the bill anyway.

By covering these people, we can actually reduce the cost of Medicare because we lower the amount of uncollectable debts hospitals are shoving off onto their other patients. Plus there's the added bonus that people won't be going bankrupt and terrified they might get sick and won't be able to pay for it. But that's less important to conservatives for some reason.

So basically, why this debate gets so nutty is because the Democratic answer is not just more humane like everyone assumes. It's also cheaper and encourages fewer people to freeload off the rest of us. This reality, which seems intuitively like a contradiction - but counterintuitively is obvious - is causing a lot of people's heads to explode.

I get it too. It seems too good to be true. Like normally we have to choose between doing something nice and generous and doing something that's cheap for us and discourages people from relying on our charity. Makes sense. In this debate, the nice and generous thing also happens to be cheaper and more self-reliant. It's bizarre. So basically you have one option where you can be more nice, more generous, more frugal, and more disciplined all at the same time. Then you have another option where you can be none of those things.

It's obvious that first option will be what we do in the future, if not by our niceness and generosity, then by our growing need to reduce costs. At that point, it's not up to us whether we want to cover people or let them die; economic necessity is forcing us to cover them. This ridiculous nature of the debate is driving everyone totally insane.

The last couple of comments about the indifference of the teabaggers/republicans to poor and sick/uninsured people dying due to it being cheaper than treating them were good because it shows what is the basis of their thinking - namely that somebody should always suffer for being different and thinking differently than they do. It is usually framed as "God willed it" or "That's what you get for (fill in the blank)".

On hopes that this country would get beyond that medieval playground mentality - but it is always there and always a struggle. But as civil and women's rights have become accepted in society, it will be accepted that having a doctor take care of your health and that it shouldn't bankrupt you is not purely the happenstance of being employed or independently wealthy.

The last couple of comments about the indifference of the teabaggers/republicans to poor and sick/uninsured people dying due to it being cheaper than treating them were good because it shows what is the basis of their thinking - namely that somebody should always suffer for being different and thinking differently than they do. It is usually framed as "God willed it" or "That's what you get for (fill in the blank)".

On hopes that this country would get beyond that medieval playground mentality - but it is always there and always a struggle. But as civil and women's rights have become accepted in society, it will be accepted that having a doctor take care of your health and that it shouldn't bankrupt you is not purely the happenstance of being employed or independently wealthy.

Interesting how everyone is quoting the 10th Amendment but I am having a hard time finding the verbiage where it says I have the right to Life, Liberty, Welfare, Medicare/Medicaid, unemployment, to force people to wear seat belts, carry car insurance or be jailed, Social Security, and the pursuit of Happiness.

If someone could kindly point it out I would appreciate it.

McKenna can chase this windmill if he wants, however he can't do it with my tax dollars. He feels so strongly that he has a good case let him pay for it. Or all you lovely supporters that are blasting the bill, how about you put your money where your big mouths are? I didn't think so. All talk and whine, but no money to back him.

Bottom line unless you have read all 2300 plus pages of the bill including pending "fixes", shut the flock up.

Have a nice day :o)

Lol oneliner, if that is all you have to say on the topic then maybe you should take my advice :o)

Period Hive Drones @9-12, Citations please. And maybe some sympathy for tens of millions of human beings living in your country before the bottom line. Do you really want to take coverage away from tens of millions of people, many with pre-existing conditions, who are now going to get it?

Remember, your Defender of the Sanctity of Life Card will be revoked depending on how you answer.

Thank you, GOP, for pointing out how reducing the amount of uncompensated care in this country will reduce the deficit, increase consumer spending and drive down health care costs.

It really makes this argument about the true cost of health care reform hilarious.

@36: Yes, and really, the summaries provided by the likes of the Kaiser Family Foundation of the two bills and subsequent reconciliation are pretty spot-on.

Unless you like reading things like "In Section 2013 of the Social Security Code, subsection (gg), strike "subsequent fiscal years" and add "for the duration of the implementation period"", in which case, go for it.

@36-37: I suggest, if you find yourself doing Republican political messaging for 2012 (and God, how I hope that you do!), you should continue to use the exact same style and substance of the persuasion you're employing on this board, complete with screaming caps lock, misplaced punctuation, profound depth of reasoning, and "outside-the-reality" sense of electoral overconfidence.

I think it could be a solid winning message that speaks directly to the interests of the much-coveted 61-85 year-old "Tea Party" demographic. HELL NO WE CAN'T!! PALIN/BECK 2012!

doesyourmindglow, Why is this place filled with people like you? People who for some reason have a mindset that they are so much better then everyone else, people who have some sense of entitlement that just seem to bring out the worst in people. Give , give , give. Why not earn what you get. What was you great contribution?

@25.. EMTALA baby, nothing changes.
EMTALA law states NO PERSON CAN BE REFUSED CARE for ANY REASON, whether it's an emergency or not, whether they are ILLEGAL or not, whether they are a Drug addict/drunk or not....
I've worked in the ER 14 years. The one thing they need to do is REWRITE MEDICAID to say, if it's not an emergency, you come to the ER, pay $500 CASH, or GET THE F*** OUT.
Illegals bring their f***ing brats into the ER with a fever, instead of paying $6 for Tylenol, cuz GOD FORBID they pay for anything that they can make YOU pay for.
ALL ILLEGALS NEED TO BE KILLED ON SIGHT, and LEAVE THEIR F***ING BODIES WHERE THEY GO SPLAT.
I'm loading my gun.

I'm rather amused by the characterization of Washington as a "blue" state. Obama may have won here, But Gregoire in 2004 only won by 13 votes (OK, OK, 113 or 0.0056% in a very suspicious recount.) I believe that the Dems have only a 1-vote majority in the lgislature. We are actually a closely divided state. McKenna is undoubtedly looking to make political hay here, courting the "other" half. Gregoire is helping him.

It's about damn time that our elected officials finally did something about a problem that it is their responsibility to fix. But before we leftists get all warm and fuzzy over this piece of watered-down legislation, we must require the Dems not to rest on their laurels and bask in the afterglow. There are two big problems with this law. (1) There must be a Public Option (2) The four-year waiting period until its complete implementation must be reduced. I further suggest that the Dems proceed with these changes quickly, as the mid-term elections draw near, and with it comes (historically) losses of a few seats in Congress. Dems, please abandon any pretense of bipartisanship. The party of Hell No is not going to cooperate – they have stated this. Back up your tough talk of “bring it on” by enacting meaningful change.

i'm torn here. i like the idea of health-care for all. look north to canada, etc. but this can typically mean long waits for crucial operations, and an overall decline of quality of care. outrageous prices can be controlled as well, etc. but does it have to be big brother (gov) to control this? that is where i have the problem. the idea is good, but at the same time, there will be hidden taxes slipped deep into the bill that ultimately pump more money from this country into the hands of the already uber-rich. and to do this while unemployment continues to rise, and the banksters make obscene amounts of money with impunity. ironically most of the provisions won't kick-in till 2014, so enough time can blow over and the general public can forget until they get hit. this country is hard-up for $ and we have to suck-it-up and take it in the ass. not to mention how many illegal immigrants will somehow rape the system from this on your dime. i think it will soon be time to flee to southeast asia and live cheap and off the radar. peace be to all freedom lovers. and p.s. don't demonize the "tea partiers" by calling them "tea baggers"... phuckin cheap attempts at stopping any real momentum towards change

@48

actually the Tea Party people called themselves "teabaggers" first, without irony. if they walk into a wide-open door, it's not our job to ignore their entry.

@26 "Unless I missed something, the ER still works the same as it always has. Uninsured still get ER treatment and the hospital bills them. If they refuse to pay, it goes to a medical collections agency, where it can remain indefinitely. If the person then goes bankrupt before they finish paying the hospital, the hospital absorbs the cost as bad debt."

You are assuming that the hospital has the correct information to bill to and that people will attempt to pay the bill for the visit. You do not need to be bankrupt for the hospital to absorb the cost of your visit.

Also...

I have seen with my own eyes the amount in which people give aliases, steal other peoples SSN and give incorrect billing and contact information.

People who are not experiencing a true emergency show up to the ER as opposed to a primary MD or Quick care Clinic because they can be seen without having to pay upfront and too many Emergency Departments will not take the Liability of relying on Medical Screening Exams to help off set the cost to the Hospital.

Also with Medicare the hospital absorbs the cost medicare won't cover. By the way Medicare does not cover readmission to an Emergency department within 28 days of hospital discharge if for the same medical problem. This means that all people with chronic medical issues that cause readmission within the 28 time frame the hospital absorbs the cost.

I am all for creating a system to allow people to get the medical coverage everyone deserves as a human being but we need to crack down on the abuses and failures in the system.

There are too many abuses to the current system and they aren't just from insurance companies.

I would like to thank you for the efforts you have put in writing such a wonderful article. In fact your creative writing ability has inspired me. Really the article is spreading its wings rapidly.Thanks for sharing!

job

description for custodian

I would like to thank you for the efforts you have put in writing such a wonderful article. In fact your creative writing ability has inspired me. Really the article is spreading its wings rapidly.Thanks for sharing!

job

description for custodian

So, one year later, are you still hopeing for change?