House passes health care reform bill

[frigidmagi]

CNN

The House of Representatives on Saturday night passed a sweeping health care bill by a vote of 220-215.

With the passage of H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, proponents of health care reform took an important step forward, but turning the bill into law remains uncertain.

It's unclear when the Senate will vote on a version of the health care legislation debated in that chamber. If the Senate passes its bill, the House and Senate bills would have to be reconciled into one document and voted on again.

The House Democrats needed 218 votes to ensure passage of the bill. On Saturday, it appeared the vote would come down to the wire, as the intentions of some conservative Democrats remained unknown.

In the final tally, 219 Democrats voted for the legislation, and 39 voted against it.

Rep. Joe Cao (R-Louisiana) was the only Republican who voted in favor of the bill.

Read the House bill (PDF)

Democrats began counting down with eight seconds left in the voting period and erupted in a loud cheer when the hotly debated legislation was passed. Republicans in the chamber stood across the floor, some with their arms folded.

"Oh what a night," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a news conference after the House adjourned its session for the night. She thanked President Obama and her colleagues who fought to get the bill passed.

The Republican National Committee released a statement after the vote.

"Today with help from their liberal House allies, President Obama and Nancy Pelosi finally got what they have been creating behind closed doors these past months -- a government-run health careexperiment that will increase families' health care costs, increase the deficit, increase taxes on small businesses and the middle class, and cut Medicare," the statement said.

Earlier, the House passed an amendment to pending health care legislation that prohibits federal funds for abortion services in the public option and in the insurance "exchange" the bill would create.

The vote passed 240-194.

Share your thoughts on the health care debate

A second amendment considered by the House, introduced by Minority Leader John Boehner, which would have substituted several sections of the health care bill dealing with insurance, did not pass. Legislators voted against the amendment 258-176.

The first amendment, introduced by anti-abortion Democrats, bans federal funds for abortion services in the public option and in the insurance "exchange" the bill would create. Its consideration was considered a big win for them and for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which used its power -- especially with conservative Democrats in swing congressional districts -- to help force other Democratic leaders to permit a vote that most of them oppose.

The prohibition, introduced by Democratic members, including Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Indiana, and Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Michigan, would exclude cases of rape, incest or if the mother's life is in danger.

Republicans strongly supported the measure.

The GOP accounted for 174 of the votes in favor of the amendment, with 1 Republican voting "present." On the Democrats' side, 64 voted for the measure, and 194 voted against.

Earlier Saturday, President Obama said members of the House of Representatives face the chance of a lifetime as they consider the legislation.

After a meeting with the House Democratic leadership, the president said he told lawmakers that "opportunities like this come around maybe once in a generation."

"This is their moment, this is our moment, to live up to the trust that the American people have placed in us," Obama told reporters in the White House rose garden. "Even when it's hard, especially when it's hard, this is our moment to deliver."

Okay let's review the good and the bad.

Good: No more pre-existing condition bullshit. No more discrimination based on race, age or gender. Insurance companies are now like everyone else and not immune to anti-trust laws. This is frankly required, as for over 2 decades now insurance companies haven't been competing with each other for your business. They been competing against you for your Congresscritter's vote.

Bad: Public Option likely to cover somewhere like 10 to 12%. You must get insurance or be fined. This is frankly fucking bullshit on a stick. Anti-abortion amendment was included. Which means when it comes to abortion... Nothing changes (which doesn't really disturb me). I honestly prefer to fund sex-ed, condoms and birth control myself (look if it was fucking up to me, condoms would in a box at various points, like a bar, for fucking free, okay? As much as I'm not a great fan of stupid drunken casual sex... It isn't gonna be prevented and unsafe sex costs the country more).

[The Cleric]

What exactly has changed regarding pre-existing conditions and discrimination? Aren't there risk variables associated with race/age/gender that factor into estimated cost, just like things like smoking or family history of diabetes/heart condition?

[SirNitram]

Pre-Existing Conditions are hereby excluded except for provable cases of fraud.

Gender and race cannot be used to alter premiums.

Subsidies based on income run from 0% to 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. At 133%, they slowly descend from 100% of your premium down a sliding scale.

THe abortion amendmant is not, in fact, business as usual. This is what it's being called by it's supports, but it goes beyond Hyde by making it so not one dime of public option or subsidy money goes to it, regardless of possible threat to mother or child., a huge change. One of the strongest votes in the Dem Base, women, will likely defect if this remains through conference.

Medicaid eligibility expanded, most notably to 150% of Federal Poverty Level.

A bunch of other strong reforms simply to be eligible in the Insurance Exchange.

[General Havoc]

Does someone want to explain to me why this abortion change was added into a bill that the Republicans did not wind up voting for anyway?

[SirNitram]

Does someone want to explain to me why this abortion change was added into a bill that the Republicans did not wind up voting for anyway?

40 Democrats allowed to 'Vote their districts'...

So they can get re-elected...

So they can continue to 'Vote their districts'...

Downward spiral of Republican-lite.

[Comrade Tortoise]

What exactly has changed regarding pre-existing conditions and discrimination? Aren't there risk variables associated with race/age/gender that factor into estimated cost, just like things like smoking or family history of diabetes/heart condition?

They used to charge women more for health insurance (like... a lot more. More than the risk factor of having to deal with things like pregnancy and osteoporosis). Just to toss out an example.

They also used to strip coverage from people who had a "pre-existing condition" even if the condition was irrelevant, not diagnosed etc.

[The Minx]

Now the Senate version needs to get through the Senate, and Lieberman is threatening a filibuster to support the Republicans if there is a public option in there, despite his being an "independent" caucusing with the Democrats.

Then the two bills need to be cobbled together and pass both chambers again.

So it's a welcome milestone, but too early for the champagne.

[frigidmagi]

I would have thrown Lieberman out of the caucus a long time ago.

[The Minx]

I would have thrown Lieberman out of the caucus a long time ago.

Unfortunately, you are not Reid (or rather, in his shoes).

I wonder what it would take for him to grow a spine. :/

[SirNitram]

Obama, on the Stupak Amendment.

Link

President Obama said today that Congress needs to change abortion-related language in the health care bill passed by the House of Representatives this weekend.

"I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill," Obama said. "And we're not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions."

Saying the bill cannot change the status quo regarding the ban on federally funded abortions, the president said, "There are strong feelings on both sides" about an amendment passed Saturday and added to the legislation, "and what that tells me is that there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we're not changing the status quo."

After a contentious debate, the House passed a health care bill Saturday that includes a provision banning abortion from being covered in the public insurance option contained in the bill. The bill also prevents women receiving insurance subsidies from purchasing private plans that cover abortion. Liberals in the House Democratic caucus were opposed to these provisions but voted for the overall bill.

In an exclusive television interview in the Map Room of the White House, Obama told ABC News' Jake Tapper that he was confident that the final legislation will ensure that "neither side feels that it's being betrayed."

"I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test -- that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we're not restricting women's insurance choices," he said.

The president was also asked about concerns that the Medicare cuts he proposes to help pay for health care reform would be undone by Congress subsequently, as is often the case with deficit and cost cutting measures.

"Are you willing to pledge that whatever cuts in Medicare are being made to fund health insurance, one third of it, that you will veto anything that tries to undo that?" Tapper asked.

"Yes," the president said. "I actually have said that it is important for us to make sure this thing is deficit neutral, without tricks."

Obama told ABC News there is still more work to be done before a final health care bill reaches his desk for a signature.

"I think everybody understands that there's going to be work to be done on the Senate side," he said. "It's not going to match up perfectly with the House side."

On Tuesday, Obama will attend a memorial service at Fort Hood for the 13 killed in last week's shooting. Today he reiterated that the nation is "heartbroken" by what happened there Thursday, but said there are many questions to be answered.

The president was asked about an ABC News report that intelligence officials learned months ago that Maj. Malik Nidal Hasan had reached out via the Internet to al Qaeda affiliates, and had passed it into military intelligence, though no official actions seem to have been taken. But he wouldn't say directly whether he was concerned that the U.S. government failed to communicate with itself as was seen in the investigation into 9/11.

"We are going to complete this investigation and we're going to take whatever steps are necessary to make sure that something like this doesn't happen again," he said.

Obama said it was important to let the investigation play itself out so the details as to how and why the rampage happened are known before he comments further.

Asked what philosophically separates an act of violence from an act of terrorism, the president said, "I think the questions that we're asking now and we don't have yet complete answers to is, is this an individual who's acting in this way or is it some larger set of actors? You know, what are the motivations? Those are all questions that I think we have to ask ourselves. Until we have these answers buttoned down, I'd rather not comment on it.

Obama has yet to publicly announce his decision on a new way forward in Afghanistan and is deliberating whether to send more U.S. troops there, as the commander on the ground, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has requested. He will meet again Wednesday with his top national security advisors to discuss the Afghanistan strategy.

Asked what variables would play into his decision-making that would cause him to not just take McChystal's recommendation and implement it, Obama said today that he's talking to a wide variety of people, both commanders and civilians, to get the best possible picture of the situation.

"I've been asking not only Gen. McChrystal, but all of our commanders who are familiar with the situation, as well as our civilian folks on the ground, a lot of questions that, until they're answered, may -- may create a situation in which we resource something based on faulty premises," the president said.

Obama described his deliberative process as making "sure that we have tested all the assumptions that we're making before we send young men and women into harm's way, that if we are sending additional troops, that the prospects of a functioning Afghan government are enhanced, that the prospects of al Qaeda being able to attack the U.S. homeland are reduced."

The president in the last week has visited Dover Air Force Base to participate in the "dignified transfer" of troops killed in Afghansitan, and he has visited with wounded troops at Walter Reed Army Hospital. He said such visits "absolutely" have an impact on his decision-making process because it "reminds me that -- these aren't abstractions. The decisions that we make in this White House have consequences for our long-term security and they also have consequences for the individuals who are being deployed."

He added that "as commander in chief, my job is not to just think in terms of one individual or short-term costs, but also what's required to prevent another 9/11, what's required to make sure that we're not seeing another USS Cole. And, you know, ultimately, when I make a decision, it's going to be based on the over arching view of U.S. national security. But I think I would be making poorer decisions if I didn't have to look into the eyes of a family member who had lost a loved one and tell them how grateful we are as a nation that -- that -- that moment, I think, ensures that I'm making the best possible decisions going forward."

Obama said the main message he took from last week's election results – with Republicans winning gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia – was that Americans are "nervous, and they're worried and they're anxious."

"I don't think there's any denying the fact that people are worried out there," he said.

Obama said Democrat Bill Owens' victory in the special election in New York's 23rd congressional district, the one bright spot for the president's party last Tuesday, "sent an important signal."

"Bill Owens, the Democrat in a traditionally Republican district, a district that had been Republican for 100 years, did not shy away from saying he supported health insurance reform, that he supported the Recovery Act and the progress that we have made there, and ended up winning," Obama said.

White House Looks for Ways to Stimulate Job Growth

Obama is also under increasing pressure to do more for the economy. The nation's unemployment rate jumped to 10.2 percent in October, the highest rate since 1983. The Bureau of Labor Statistics jobs report, released last Friday, was worse than expected, showing employers shed 190,000 jobs last month.

Revive the goddamn CCC!

Anyway. Suck it. Stupak.

[B4UTRUST]

Question: Is the wording still in this bill that legally requires people to have insurance or face fines and/or jail?

[frigidmagi]

Revive the goddamn CCC!

CCC?

[SirNitram]

Question: Is the wording still in this bill that legally requires people to have insurance or face fines and/or jail?

Fines, unless under a certain income.


As for the CCC, the Citizen's Conservation Corps. FDR. Got people working with a guaranteed 10 bucks an hour. And did gobs of needed work.

Imagine similar to do roadwork.

[B4UTRUST]

Fines, unless under a certain income.

And didn't the Joint Committee note that a recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the lowest cost family non-group plan would end up costing somewhere in the neighborhood of $15,000 by 2016?

Link

I mean, I understand that these are estimates and in some cases merely guesstimates but $15K for insurance? I certainly don't have $15K a year to toss at health insurance.

[SirNitram]

Analyzed in a vacuum, that is true. Of course, this implies the subsidies are the end-all-be-all of the bill. I wish the CBO would stop analyzing tiny parts of bills just because someone wants a headline.

[Destructionator XV]

Now the Senate version needs to get through the Senate, and Lieberman is threatening a filibuster to support the Republicans if there is a public option in there, despite his being an "independent" caucusing with the Democrats.

And socialist senator Bernie Sanders is threatening to filibuster the bill if there isn't a strong public option:


The House bill most certainly doesn't have a strong public option. I call it the public "option", since it isn't even available to 90% of us at all!

Couple that with there being no cost controls in this bill, so of the people it is offered to, many won't take it. It will cost just as much, if not more, than buying from a death panel. It is designed to fail.

[SirNitram]

First off, the Stupak Amendment: I was incorrect. It is not based on whether the individual receives a cent of subsidies. It's if the company receives a single penny of the healthcare subsidies. Again, no exceptions.

As for price controls....

The Secretary will be setting a rate for minimum 'medical loss ratio', no less than 85%, which must be met. Any money kept in excess of 15% after actually treating people will be removed from the company and distributed to those holding premiums. In short, Administrative Costs and Profit cannot exceed 15%. This is subject to Immediate Implementation, being set down and made happening on January 1, 2010, 'Or as soon as practical after that date'.

Of course will complain about that, along with administrative simplification, reviews demanding reasons for premium increases, and removal of a huge chunk of the administration costs simply by banning large amounts of recission and pre-existing conditions.

[Destructionator XV]

First off, the Stupak Amendment: I was incorrect. It is not based on whether the individual receives a cent of subsidies. It's if the company receives a single penny of the healthcare subsidies. Again, no exceptions.

Yeah, that's a de-facto ban. With that, it means the only way to get an abortion is to pay for it completely out of pocket. This will limit the demand and may hence drive abortion providers out of business, limiting the supply. The vicious cycle leaves it as only an option to rich people.

But one thing....

The prohibition, introduced by Democratic members, including Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Indiana, and Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Michigan, would exclude cases of rape, incest or if the mother's life is in danger.

That pisses me off. If they were actually pro-life, why should rape make a difference? It isn't the baby's fault.

But of course, the pro-life position actually is anti-choice to a lot of these assholes.


Anyway, back to the bill.

The Secretary will be setting a rate for minimum 'medical loss ratio', no less than 85%, which must be met.

Up until the point where the Exchange goes online. But even so, 'medical loss ratio' is defined in a shitty way. Moreover, it individual plans.... but only when "the application of such section may destabilize the existing individual market.''. [page 28].

In other words, people with individual plans, bend over!

By the way, page 22 says if you are in the "high risk pool", which you're only eligible for if your death panelist dumps you, you'll be charged 125% more for premiums than someone not in it, right off the bat (it says "shall be set at a level that does not exceed 125%" but let's be realistic - the companies will instantly get as close to that limit as their accountants let them). And if you're old? Double it.

Awesome.


Let me quote the bill for the rest of the horseshit relating to the medical loss ratio.

``(b) IMPLEMENTATION.--The Secretary shall estab-
lish a uniform definition of medical loss ratio and method-
ology for determining how to calculate it based on the av-
erage medical loss ratio in a health insurance issuer's book
of business for the small and large group market. Such
methodology shall be designed to take into account the
special circumstances of smaller plans, different types of
plans, and newer plans. In determining the medical loss
ratio, the Secretary shall exclude State taxes and licensing
or regulatory fees. Such methodology shall be designed
and exceptions shall be established to ensure adequate
participation by health insurance issuers, competition in
the health insurance market, and value for consumers so
that their premiums are used for services.

First off, 'medical loss ratio' isn't defined here. It's defined later... with input from the death panelists:

"Such methodology shall be designed
and exceptions shall be established to ensure adequate
participation by health insurance issuers, "

Fucking great, we need to make sure they want to participate in the new regulation while defining it.


But, it doesn't even matter, since this "restriction" is only short term.

``(c) SUNSET.--Subsections (a) and (b) shall not
apply to health insurance coverage on and after the first
date that health insurance coverage is offered through the
Health Insurance Exchange.''.

Yup, even these puny cost controls just disappear once the exchange comes up. At which point, the companies are free to do whatever they want. By passing this bill, we're putting all our faith in the invisible hand.



Medical loss ratio is mentioned again in the section about Medicare Advantage.

``(C) the Secretary shall terminate the plan
contract if the plan fails to have such a medical
loss ratio for 5 consecutive contract years.''.

In other words, rape your customers for 4 years, go slightly under for the fifth, continue at will. Of course, Medicare Advantage's only advantage has ever been to the private death panelists anyway.

The next mention is on page 1122, saying Medicaid contracts must not have a ratio less than 85%. Medicaid already does a better job, at least where it is government run.


And that's it. The restriction is gone once the exchange goes online for private plans - the ones 90% of us are forced to buy.

Any money kept in excess of 15% after actually treating people will be removed from the company and distributed to those holding premiums. In short, Administrative Costs and Profit cannot exceed 15%.

That's not what the bill says. It says the secretary will make up the definition later, taking into account a bunch of other bullshit.

reviews demanding reasons for premium increases,

This sounds like it might have teeth, but I doubt it. It just says "submit a justification", under the price gouging header. It doesn't go into what is and is not a valid justification - given its position in the bill, it seems to me that as long as they aren't trying to force someone out by jacking up his rate excessively (that is, trying to still ban your pre-existing condition by charging you 10x more or something than someone else), the bill doesn't prevent it.

and removal of a huge chunk of the administration costs simply by banning large amounts of recission and pre-existing conditions.

You know what would remove almost all administration costs? Extending Medicare to everyone.

I'm just sayin'.

[SirNitram]

Why should I not use the existing definition, the one used by the congresscritters who wrote that, and so forth? Or is it getting in the way of your hate-on?

[Destructionator XV]

Why should I not use the existing definition, the one used by the congresscritters who wrote that, and so forth?

Because the bill explicitly says otherwise, and the bill is what might become law, not what the guy said, nor what Merriam-Webster or whoever says.

"The Secretary shall establish a uniform definition of medical loss ratio"

That's not even remotely ambiguous.

But even if not, it doesn't change the rest of the post. Importantly, that this restriction goes out of effect as soon as the insurance exchange goes online, so it doesn't do a god damn thing past the short term, however it is defined.


Do you have any other citation for cost controls, or do you concede that the bill puts its faith in the invisible hand?

[SirNitram]

For someone so obsessed with definitions being exactly as in the bill, perhaps you should know that The Secretary is not any form of insurance company, or part of the free market, or anything which could be inferred to that. So, stop pretending you've got some logical high-ground by inventing definitions wholesale. The Secretary, in this bill, is the head of DHHS.

What else we got... Oh yes. Transparency and no more monopolies. Those are quite effective. A study on how much people are having to spend. No premium raises without reporting to the Secretary and Comissioner. No more annual or lifetime limits on types of coverage. Specific upper limit on cost-sharing..

You know, tons of shit that do lower prices. As for Public Option? The Designated Socialist has gone on the record for filibustering unless there's a robust public option for all.

[frigidmagi]

I'm a big believer in competition and free markets and free trade. I think competition forces grow and change which is necessary.

That said I have to agree with the bloody fucking Socialist. We need a Public Option. Especially if we're forcing people to take insurance. Which frankly I do not care for at all and if I was in Congress I would fight to death against.

[Destructionator XV]

For someone so obsessed with definitions being exactly as in the bill, perhaps you should know that The Secretary is not any form of insurance company, or part of the free market, or anything which could be inferred to that.

Health insurance companies have NEVER influenced government officials before, *I'm a smarmy asshole*?

The text states that the secretary must cater to their interests, at least to some extent. "Such methodology shall be designed and exceptions shall be established to ensure adequate participation by health insurance issuers,"

This explicitly says the interests of the death panelists will be taken into account. Will you see a wholesale redefinition of the term? No, but I guarantee you that it will be stretched to the breaking point.

The MD's they hire for their death panels - you know, the guys who find ways to say "technically this procedure isn't required" so they can stamp DENIED on your claim - how much do you want to bet that they'll be considered part of that 85%? Or what about the phone monkeys who give you the runaround when you call with a question? They're providing "value for consumers" so surely that shouldn't count against it, right?

What else we got... Oh yes. Transparency and no more monopolies. Those are quite effective. A study on how much people are having to spend.

The tools of the invisible hand.

No premium raises without reporting to the Secretary and Comissioner.

Covered in my big post - this provision is in there to prevent price gouging, nothing more.

Yes, that's better than it is now, but it is still terribly weak. To borrow the words of Congressman Kucinich, is this the best we can do?

No more annual or lifetime limits on types of coverage.

That's good for folks, but counter to cost control. If they have to pay out more, they are going to want to - and argue that they need to - take in more. Thus, premiums go up.

Specific upper limit on cost-sharing..

$5000 for an individual, or $10,000 for a family per year, subject to increases with each passing year [page 107]. That's in addition to the premiums!

The country currently spends some $8k per capita on healthcare, including everything. This allows them to jack up prices right off the bat, and continue to raise them each year. Cost control my ass.

Besides, that's a lot of fucking money, especially to regular people. It might keep upper middle class folks out of health related bankruptcies, but the rest of us? We're still screwed.

As for Public Option? The Designated Socialist has gone on the record for filibustering unless there's a robust public option for all.

Indeed, but given Obama and Reid's record so far, do you think they are going to make it liberal enough to appease Sanders, or conservative enough to get Snowe and Lieberman to vote for cloture?

Bernie Sanders is our best hope left to salvage this situation in the short term - whether his threat succeeds, or his filibuster kills the bill - but he's fighting an uphill battle.

[Destructionator XV]

That said I have to agree with the bloody fucking Socialist. We need a Public Option.

Yup. Importantly, it must be an option to everyone. Obama keeps saying "if you like your current plan, you can keep it". The very important flip side to that, which he never fought for, is if you don't like your current plan, you have to be able to ditch it.

Otherwise, you don't have options, so you don't have competition.

I'd be willing to stop fighting this bill if it had a public option that was offered to everyone, especially if its rates were tied to Medicare, to keep its cost low.

I still wouldn't like it, but I'd stop fighting it. In addition to that, give us back the Kucinich amendment, protecting the state's rights to single payer, and I might even be willing to vote for it. Maybe. At least then there'd be a credible threat to the insurance companies, letting competition have a serious chance.

Especially if we're forcing people to take insurance. Which frankly I do not care for at all and if I was in Congress I would fight to death against.

Yeah. Remember when Obama said he was against the individual mandate?

[SirNitram]

For someone so obsessed with definitions being exactly as in the bill, perhaps you should know that The Secretary is not any form of insurance company, or part of the free market, or anything which could be inferred to that.

Health insurance companies have NEVER influenced government officials before, *I'm a smarmy asshole*?

The text states that the secretary must cater to their interests, at least to some extent. "Such methodology shall be designed and exceptions shall be established to ensure adequate participation by health insurance issuers,"

This explicitly says the interests of the death panelists will be taken into account. Will you see a wholesale redefinition of the term? No, but I guarantee you that it will be stretched to the breaking point.

The MD's they hire for their death panels - you know, the guys who find ways to say "technically this procedure isn't required" so they can stamp DENIED on your claim - how much do you want to bet that they'll be considered part of that 85%? Or what about the phone monkeys who give you the runaround when you call with a question? They're providing "value for consumers" so surely that shouldn't count against it, right?

Except it's never been used to calculate 'value to consumers', you pathetic nimrod. Now you're just blatantly making shit up. Of course, you have to, as otherwise, you'd have to admit that the Secretary for HHS isn't an elected politician, but someone picked by the President.

What else we got... Oh yes. Transparency and no more monopolies. Those are quite effective. A study on how much people are having to spend.

The tools of the invisible hand.

....Wow. You're amazingly stupid. Last I checked, Capitalism encourages obstufucation, monopolies, and only does studies on whether they get paid enough. But I suppose 'Government Regulation' is now 'Invisible Hand' to you because the Government is entirely ruled by the Death Panels. Hell, they can't even get the Chamber Of Commerce in line, yet you want me to believe they magically own the Secretary of HHS?

No premium raises without reporting to the Secretary and Comissioner.

Covered in my big post - this provision is in there to prevent price gouging, nothing more.

Yes, that's better than it is now, but it is still terribly weak. To borrow the words of Congressman Kucinich, is this the best we can do?

Yes. Check the House Votes. There's many, many better things that could exist, but they have to get through the Democratic party.

No more annual or lifetime limits on types of coverage.

That's good for folks, but counter to cost control. If they have to pay out more, they are going to want to - and argue that they need to - take in more. Thus, premiums go up.

'The express fact their premium increases will be heavily regulated MEANS NOTHING!'

Specific upper limit on cost-sharing..

$5000 for an individual, or $10,000 for a family per year, subject to increases with each passing year [page 107]. That's in addition to the premiums!

The country currently spends some $8k per capita on healthcare, including everything. This allows them to jack up prices right off the bat, and continue to raise them each year. Cost control my ass.

Besides, that's a lot of fucking money, especially to regular people. It might keep upper middle class folks out of health related bankruptcies, but the rest of us? We're still screwed.

Yea, except if you make 150% FPL, in which case you slide into Medicaid and you're done, or 133% and you get a free ride. And still this pretends that regulation does nothing good.

As for Public Option? The Designated Socialist has gone on the record for filibustering unless there's a robust public option for all.

Indeed, but given Obama and Reid's record so far, do you think they are going to make it liberal enough to appease Sanders, or conservative enough to get Snowe and Lieberman to vote for cloture?

Lieberman won't budge. It takes two. And it then has to get through the House one more time.. Where the most populace caucus demands the same.

But let's pretend Obama hates everything progress. I mean, it's not like he's put a date on repealing DADT, or signed the Matthew Sheppard Hate Crimes Bill into effect, created a Stimulus on Progressive/Keyesnian ideas of economics, is now promoting this bill which has big steps forward for GBLT's as well...

Let's pretend he's just like Bush.

Bernie Sanders is our best hope left to salvage this situation in the short term - whether his threat succeeds, or his filibuster kills the bill - but he's fighting an uphill battle.

Yea. Because losing in 1994 on healthcare meant it only took a few years to come back.

Oh wait. It took over a decade.