Well, I didn't intend to get into a Facebook feud with my cousin, but in my defense, SHE STARTED IT. Seriously, I was feeling very emotional about the death of Senator Kennedy, & read something about how some opposing health insurance reform would now use his death to excuse killing it.
Background on the principals is that I regularly post links & videos about health insurance reform on Facebook, much to the dismay of the friends and family, who likely tire of it, but I continue mostly because I'm very passionate about good reform but find it easier to have civil discourse with people who know me, know my kids, and who might be more inclined to at least listen to someone they can put a face to. As much as I love reading liberal blogs, I'm a prolific lurker. I usually don't find much daylight between the way I feel and those who post on the sites I read & respect. But I really don't have the stomach for right-wing sites, or the amazingly vitriolic comments sections of newspapers. So it's Facebook.
My cousin Susan comes from the better-off side of the family. Her dad owned his own small insurance business, and all of the rest of my dad's brothers were relatively wealthy, (one owned a high-end body shop, another made a fortune in the stock market, etc, etc). My dad taught biology, physiology & anatomy at a public high school in Canton, Ohio. I always considered my cousins to be a bit snobby, and they've done nothing as we've gotten older to change that perception.
Anyway, here is something I posted last night, and the ensuing conversation (With last names deleted):
Tim : Anyone looking to kill health insurance reform & use the death of Senator Kennedy as an excuse will face the wrath of all of us who loved & respected him, and need only look to the bill that came out of the Senator's HELP committee. It's a good bill, with a public option & a fairly robust exchange, & largely written by Senator Kennedy, himself. You want to honor his memory? Support his health insurance reform bill.
Innocuous enough, right? Just a statement made in anger at those who would try to blame their actions in trying to defeat reform on Senator Kennedy, right?
The hilarity ensued:
Susan : He also wrote the bill that said all Senators and federal employees would be exempt from governmental health care!
Yesterday at 5:19pm ·
Okay, I didn't think that deserved that, but whatever, I'll bite.
Tim : 1st, there's no such thing as "governmental health care" in this country, outside of the VA. We have government insurance programs, like Medicare, and the public insurance option would be similiar, except that people that choose to buy into that will have to pay premiums, just like they would for any other insurance plan. Initially ONLY individuals & those small businesses receiving federal subsidies for health insurance will be eligible to participate in the exchange that the public option will be but one part of. That big pool of customers will have bargaining power, & drive down prices. For large businesses, like the one I work for (&, yes, the federal government) not much will change at first, besides the new regulations that will eliminate practices like rescission & denying coverage for so-called pre-existing conditions. In fact, because of the changes proposed, my premiums will likely start to go down, which is the whole point. It's just not as insidious as you seem to believe.
Yesterday at 11:57pm ·
Susan : I was talking about the "wonderful" health care plan you are so in favor of! Why isn't it good enough for members of Congress or the President to be on? I think you're wrong about not much changing with your current insurance. It has to be 'qualified' or you will have to pay fines. I'm not sure if you've read the bill you so strongly support or if you've only read what the left media is saying about it. I've read many different views about it (including the ones you have posted) and there are many items in the bill that will change EVERYONES health care. You probably won't read this, but I found this website quite interesting:
www.jewishblogging.com/blog.php?bid=197825
12 hours ago ·
Susan : AND, if very little will change for our insurance plan, why did Rep. John Fleming R-La introduce H Res 615 which states: "Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, federal government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option."? Fleming said that under both the House and Senate proposals, members of Congress won’t have to participate in the government plan for at least five years – and even after five years, enrollment will still be considered optional. Meanwhile, every other American will be forced to comply with government rules by obtaining “qualifying” plans. He continued, “We’ve reached out to every Democrat in the House, and we have yet to have a taker. They want it for every American – except for members of Congress.”
11 hours ago ·
Oh, God....
Tim : I'll post the link to the Kennedy bill above. Nobody is making every American participate in the public plan. It's disingenuous, at best,but really a lie to make people afraid they're losing choice. The vast majority of people who will CHOOSE to go to a public option are those that are uninsured NOW, but they could CHOOSE to go to one of the qualified plans offered by other companies. Read what entails a "qualified" plan & understand that that is something EVERYONE wants, including Republicans. You're getting a lot of bad information out there from people who are ideologically, politically, or financially motivated to oppose ANY kind of reform, who would prefer the status quo, when we know that what we have now is not only immoral, but completely unsustainable.This is a reasonable bill, with lots of giveaways to an insurance industry that deserves only our scorn & rebuke, but I get that no moneyed interest group that powerful is going to get what's coming to them in DC.
10 hours ago ·
Susan : But, if it's not going to be for everyone, why did Congress (democrats) feel the need to exempt themselves from it? It doesn't make any sense to add that to the bill unless they felt at some point everyone could end up on the public option. Anyway, it's not the insurance industry that has caused the huge hike in health care costs, it's the lawyers that are so sue happy. Our costs have skyrocketed in order to cover the bogus lawsuits against doctors and hospitals. However, there isn't anything in the Reform Bill about putting caps on lawsuits. Why is the information I'm reading bad and wrong, but your left-wing media information is 100% correct? Did you read the website I mentioned above? Did you read all 600 pages of the bill? If so, did you really understand everything you read? Even the Senators voting for/against it have not read the ENTIRE bill.
10 hours ago ·
How did I know she was going to go into tort reform?
Tim : Tort reform is important, but just a fraction of what's wrong with health insurance. Most experts estimate a savings of $100 Billion AT MOST, compared to the over $2 TRILLION healthcare industry. Ask states like Texas or Florida that have enacted significant tort reform how much its done to drive down costs. You just can't blame the skyrocketing costs on trial lawyers, as much as I'm sure you'd like to. Its an urban legend, much like the "welfare queens" in the eighties, a straw-man made up to gin up anger, but the evidence just doesn't support it.
8 hours ago ·
Tim : Show me the section, by the way, where Congress "exempts themselves" from it, 'cause I can't find it. And the reason you include a public option is to compete with insurance companies to help control costs. You need a player without the administrative costs, and profit motive, in order to keep the private industry in check. Otherwise they'll collude to keep prices (& profits) high like they've been doing all along, & any mandates will just be a giveaway to the same players who raped the system in the first place. Insurance companies want reform with mandates, but no competing public option because that means 47 million new customers for them only who have no choice but to buy their crappy product, & that's not reform, at all.
8 hours ago ·
My bad, there. I had skimmed that part before, and just plain forgot the language it had used, and certainly didn't draw the same conclusions she has from it.
Susan : You still didn't answer my question on whether you've read the ENTIRE bill you posted on here. I've been trying to read the bill, but it has a lot of double talk and references things that have not been determined yet (will be determined by the Secretary that's appointed). Yes, we need to work on health insurance covering pre-existing conditions and other things, but you cannot say that having this "reform" will save over $2 trillion. It is absolutely impossible!!!! Where will they get the money to fund this program? Our country is already trillion of dollars in debt. Don't think it's not going to come from you and me - the taxpayers.
8 hours ago ·
Tim : We already spare the insurance industry the cost of covering our most expensive healthcare consumers. Yet, you don't want them to have to compete for the rest? What kind of innovation & savings has our private, "free-market" insurance companies brought to our American healthcare system that are worthy of awarding them all 47 million new customers? Why, if they've been so efficient, can't they compete with a public option that receives no advantage other than not having to make a profit? Why is this a bad thing?
7 hours ago ·
Tim : Pay me now, or pay me later, skyrocketing healthcare costs are already being paid for by us in higher & higher premiums, lower wages, & the skyrocketing costs to hospitals in unpaid emergency room visits that are passed on to everyone. Not to mention the billions that could be saved if everyone had regular access to preventive care, & by revamping our records system, & lots of other cost saving measures that are addressed in the bill. This $2 trillion a year industry can't be reformed by one thing, but all of these add up to BIG savings, maybe more than we can accurately project. What we can predict with 100% certainty is if we do nothing the rising costs of our healthcare industry will eat every resource this country has within a few years, & we're poised to at least finally address it, if not completely fix it, while conservative legislaters have completely ignored the problem for decades. We can't wait any longer.
7 hours ago ·
Jami (different cousin chiming in) : I would like to read the bill, where can I find it !
6 hours ago ·
Susan : Tim has it up above (voices.washingtonpost.com) but it is EXTREMELY difficult to read and understand. I found one that's easier to read at:
http://thomas.loc.gov/...:
See if you can make heads or tails of what they are proposing!
6 hours ago ·
Tim : Those are two different bills. HR 3200 is one of the House bills, while the one I posted in from Senator Kennedy's Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions Committee. While very similar, the terminology is different (Kennedy uses the term "Gateways" to describe the proposed health insurance exchanges) there are differences, some major, some minor.
5 hours ago ·
Susan : BTW, good old Teddy put the exemption of Federal Employees under section 3116 (page 114). Those under Medicaid, TRICARE, and Federal employees health benefits program are EXEMPT (or as they put it, not a 'Qualified Individual'). Again I ask, if there was NO possibility for EVERYONE to be under this government program, why would they put it in the bill?????
5 hours ago ·
I hate my family.
Tim : I'm glad you found that part, which I vaguely remembered seeing TRICARE but didn't have time to go back over it. Those are good programs, & I'm glad they're not going away (I just wish we ALL could get that kind of access) But to answer your question...because of the insurance lobby. If they put everyone on a public plan, insurance companies would be relegated to supplemental care & paying for boob jobs. Because politicians are cowards & will never stand up to an industry so well funded. Because there are some who genuinely believe Americans like the insurance they have & would resist being forced to switch without being convinced the public option was viable. And they're right to do that, because most Americans who have insurance are satisfied with what they have. So long as they remain healthy, because its when you do get sick that you start to realize our health insurance system is designed to benefit SHAREHOLDERS & NOT the consumers.
4 hours ago ·
Tim : Is this some kind of insidious liberal plot to install evil government-run Medicare for all? I believe that some on both sides of the issue believe that to be the intent, but I somehow doubt it. That just isn't the kinds of politicians President Obama or Ted Kennedy have ever proven themselves to be. Throughout their careers, they've shown themselves to be consensus builders, & negotiators, people who work along the lines of practicality, of what they CAN get done, not necessarily on what they WANT to. I personally believe that single payer would & could be the most efficient & fair way to provide health insurance in this country, but I respect those like President Obama who believe Americans aren't ready for it. So this is what we have, not perfection, but an enormously important step in the right direction.
4 hours ago ·
Susan : Again, if this health care bill is so wonderful, why won't the members of Congress drop their taxpayer provided coverage and use the public option?
4 hours ago ·
Tim : But to be fair to ME, I already answered your question. Competition & cost is THE reason to include a public option, regardless of whatever ulterior motive you wish to assign to its inclusion.
4 hours ago ·
Susan : Well, I personally believe the single payer would and could be the worst way to provide health insurance in this country! Look at the other government run programs and agencies. How well is the USPS doing? How about Social Security? I don't want to leave my and my family's health care in the hands of Washington Bureaucrats to decide what procedures we may or may not need.
4 hours ago ·
Susan : Competition and cost MAY be the reason to have a public option, but it still doesn't answer why Teddy made Federal Employees exempt from it if it's only an "option". If people will still have a choice in the matter, then Congress wouldn't have to exempt themselves from it - they just wouldn't choose it as their option!
4 hours ago ·
At this point, I'm really getting irritated and a crick in my neck from using my PDA at work to engage in this brouhaha....
Tim : Ok, how many different ways would you like me to answer your question? The shape & scope of the public option will be limited at first to not only placate the nervous insurance industry, but also to secure passage from so-called moderate Democrats. A robust public option open to everyone will never pass in this current Congress, just as a bill without one altogether wouldn't. The point is to get reform done, not kill it. Believe me! I WISH I was going to have a chance at participating in a non-profit, government funded insurance plan instead of paying premiums to the bastards at UHC, and there are a LOT of Americans like me who would love to have that choice. But it would never make it out of the Senate, & health insurance reform would be dead, and every American would suffer because of it.
4 hours ago ·
Susan : But you still haven't answered my question of why Congress is exempt. You said above: "Nobody is making every American participate in the public plan." If this is true, then again, why is Congress and other federal employees exempt? Although, now it sounds like you are saying that it'll just be an "option" for now - meaning that someday we will all end up on the government run health care.
And fyi, UHC is going to be doing the administration for this government run "option".
3 hours ago ·
Grrrrrrr...didn't I answer that already?
Tim : It won't pass the Congress if they do. Period. Republicans will vote en masse against ANY reform proposal, regardless of what's in it. And insurance companies want the public option gone altogether, or at least marginalized as much as possible. So that makes appeasing those conserva-dems that hold our private health insurance companies & their campaign contributions in such high regard ever so important. But we also need the Progressive block, which is much larger than the Blue Dogs, & they will vote down reform without a public option. Remember, the public option IS our compromise position. But NOWHERE in this bill does it suggest mandatory participation in a public plan. Your lending conspiracy theories to the motives of the bill are paranoid fantasy, & are a big reason why the debate has taken the ugly turn it has. Debate the merits of what's there, not what you THINK are there.
3 hours ago ·
Susan : My question is NOT "paranoid fantasy" - it's a valid and legit question. One of which you still can't answer. I am debating the merits of what's there. I backed up what I was saying with proof from the bill. If the reform bill is just for an "option", then there would be no need for Congress to be exempt! How can you say you are debating the merits of the bill - have you read the ENTIRE document? Are you able to back up what you are saying with proof from the bill? Does it say anywhere that it won't be mandatory? Most of your information has come from the media and websites you like to read. Do you really believe the congressmen and women who are so desperately trying to get this bill past, would divulge EVERYTHING that's in it? And just like your democratic counterparts, when I keep asking questions you can't answer, then everything I'm saying is fantasy. So before you start calling me names (aka Nazi - as Pelosi did), I will end this debate now.
2 hours ago ·
Ok, I REALLY hate my family...
Tim : Seriously? This is your argument? That they're hiding things from us, despite the fact the bills are available online for anyone to read. That's NOT paranoid? And the Speaker didn't call anyone a Nazi. That's a bald-faced lie & any political observer with a modicum of intellectual honesty would know that. Your argument assumes that the government secretly wants to trick everyone into buying a secretly shitty government healthcare plan, kill your grandmother to save money, & then what? What does this devious plot gain those who support it? What's the endgame? What are the motives of these villains? Because most evil can be traced to directly how much money & power one can collect from committing it, & I don't see how giving voters the finger furthers those ends.
about an hour ago ·
Tim : You assume the worst of our intentions, a goal of some kind of government takeover of hospitals & doctors offices like the NHS in the UK. But that's just not supported by what's been presented. I'm more liberal than the maligned Speaker Pelosi, & even I don't want that, because I, like most Democrats believe free market innovation is good for hospitals, doctors, & pharmaceutical companies. But I don't believe that primary health insurance should be a for-profit business. I don't believe there should be a ceiling of care for those with the means to pay more, but there SHOULD be a floor of care that every person is entitled to regardless of their ability to pay. That there shouldn't be an INSURANCE bureaucrat deciding who lives & who dies. I'm willing to compromise by allowing what I consider to be a useless private insurance industry compete if we can get universal access & a public option. That's what these bills are about, & I'm sorry you're so cynical that you can't see that.
about an hour ago ·
Have I mentioned that I hate my family...?
*UPDATE*Taking the suggestions from some in the comments, I posted another comment in that thread.
Tim : I apologize if that seemed personal, because its not, and I never intended to be that harsh. I'm sorry but I do feel passionate about this, as I truly believe it is the most pressing domestic issue we face, & directly affecting the economic, budget, civil rights, & immigration policies. Your question was implying we were forcing people into a public plan, by it's very nature as a government plan be terrible, & so bad that Congress wouldn't even participate in it. It's a popular talking point among reform opponents, but simplistic, emotional, & based on a lot of false assumptions. A simple, non-political answer echoes what the President has been saying all along. "If you like the insurance you have now, you can keep it." Federal employees have a good deal, and I'm sure most would like to keep it. But it's more complex than that. HCR doesn't pass without the exemptions, but that has NOTHING to do with the efficacy, good or bad, of the public option, & everything to do with politics.
2 seconds ago ·
If I get an answer at all, it'll be tomorrow. Thanks to all who made suggestions!