I'm sorry, I just don't know how you can buy into that....

Both the blue dog democrats and the republicans were literally and figuratively LOCKED OUT of the discussion on what would be in this bill.  When you're locking people in your own party out of the room the problem isn't with their obstructionist approach, its with your elitist attitude to crafting the bill.

Don't take my word for it though, believe Obama:

"Not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are.  Part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process." 

- Obama (CNN Debate '08)

"I would put my plan forward and I would welcome input and say here are my goals...reduce cost, improve quality, ..uhh...coverage for everybody.  If you have better ideas please present them.  But these negotiations will be on C-SPAN, and so the public will be part of the conversation and will see the choices that are being made.  So if a memeber of Congress is carrying water for the Drug Companies and says "Well we can't negotiate for the cheapest availabel price on drugs because we need the money for R&D research", well we'll have a discussion right there in front of the American people about the fact that the drug companie's do need profits but their also spending a bunch of it on marketing television ads where nobody even knows what the drug is for.  Uhm....that builds in accountability into the system, because now that congressmen is put on the spot.  And I would not underestimate the degree to which shame is a healthy emotion and that you can shame congress into doing the right thing if people know what's going on."

- Obama (Healthcare Presser - San Fran Chronicle - '08)

When Obama argues that the process needs accountability, lays out a plan to bring accountability, later finds out he will have total control of the process, and then abandons accountability....how does that not raise a red flag?  How can anyone who claims to actually represent their district vote yes on a bill they had no input on and have not actually had time to fully read giving it specific attention to how the bill would effect the people they represent? 

I'm sorry but I think voting no on this bill, the way it was handled, the way its being forced, is the only reasonable and intellectually honest thing that an elected official can do.  If this exact same bill with the exact same language came up under circumstances where everyone had input, there had been ample time to revise it, and no bribes were required to secure votes then your argument would stand up a lot better, but that is simply not the case here.

Well if Obama keeps his word, he wont sign it. Now comes the point where you merge the two bills, and in doing so, it's going to cost a LOT more. The only way you can get both to sign it, is to keep all the pork in it.

Signing it is political suicide. The reasons why:

• It has to be budget neutral or he lied.
• He said no raise in taxes for anyone making less then 250K. This taxes people making 200K (and in a lot of ways, it taxes everyone).
• It taxes people with great insurance, and that's all the unions. They won't be happy.
• and most importantly, 75% of the people of the United States don't want this bill.
• If he signs this bill, he loses in 3 years. He knows this.

When the 1,500+ page bill hits his desk, it will be interesting to see what he does.

All you need to do is breakdown the number of the uninsured yourself.

The ones in the poorest demographics mostly qualify for mediaid, a large number of the demographics are in the Top and second quartiles.

I've already broken down the numbers on the board once before, and i'd rather not go through it again.

Needless to say, the number of people who really need help is less then 10 million.  Possibily less then 5... possibly even... less then 2 million.

Ah, found it. Merry Christmas... This is done with pretty much only information provided by the actual report except where needed otherwise.

Feel free to do the calculations yourself if you disagree.

"Really, this just does a good job of it.

Most advanced one we have i believe.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf


When you read the whole thing it paints a much different picture then just reading the number.

From the actual census... it states it under reports insurance for a variety of reasons.

17% of people with Medicaid for example report not having any health insurance.

Of the 43 Million... 17% of the people are on medicaid. So that's 7.31 Million people.

So 46 million uninsured drops to 38.70.

7% Of those surveyed that don't have insurance undocumented residents.(They don't qualify for medicare)   About 9.4.%

Drops us to 29.3 million

Now, 14.4% of people who make 50K or more don't get health insurance.

Along with 7.8% of people who make 75K or more.

This is about the 4th and 5th quartiles in america. (A little more but lets be conservative.)


14.4% of the 4th quartile is 8.75 + 7.8% of the 5th quartile 4.74. = 13.49 million

These people can afford health insurance.  They just don't purchase it.

So that leaves us with...

15.81 Million uninsured...


So we're down to 15.81 Million Americans without health care. Or 5 of the US population%? (Less actually since I was being conservative.)


Now then. Looking at said report. What are some other reporting flaws. One stated is that it only counts if you are uninsured at that time.

The research they link to is old... but shows that of that 47% reported as uninsured...

between 30%-48% of the people listed as uninsured aren't uninsured for the entire year. In other words... changing jobs, and stuff like that. Most of these people do get insurance again due to the lack of increase in proportion. As for how much this should knock off. Can't say since this likely settles more towards that high end.



Now the big one according to this... up to 14 million people who qualify for medicaid don't sign up.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/25/who-are-the-uninsured/

That would bring the number down to 1.81 million uninsured Americans who don't choose to be as such... though I'm not sure where he gets his number from... though I do know the number is pretty significant.

And this is still yet ignoring young people who just don't want insurance because they feel they don't need it.

What we really need is just a program to let people know they qualify for Medicaid."

I really can't wait for the company that hired me as a cheap intern to end my internship because they are going to have to provide medical for me. When I see this bill I think of how many companies will not be hiring and how we are taking another step closer to Europe's longer periods of unemployment. I think what they are passing for health care is far worse than the status quo. No matter who they raise taxes on to pay for it, we all end up feeling those higher taxes one way or the other. Either we are paying them or we won't find jobs because of them. With all that people accuse government of doing so poorly, it always amazes me how much more power that people want to give them.

I give this thread a 9.5.

Ah, I have already analyzed the uninsured data myself. Merry Christmas... The data I have analyzed was 2008 Census data which became available in September-not that using data from 2007 makes a significant difference. I have also have read reports on the uninsured data. If you want a comprehensive analysis of the uninsured, I recommend reading this. There are a few reasons I find your number of people who "really" need help to be unusually low. First, you include those who earn $50,000/$75,000 as those who do not "really" need help. Unfortunately, those people, which are mostly families, "really" need help. That is why the bill provides subsidies for those who earn up to 400% of the federal poverty level ($88,000 for a family of four) to purchase insurance in the exchange(s). Second, the highest number I have seen for those who are eligible for Medicaid but do not apply is 10 million. I suppose the differences result from a disagreement on whether middle-class families are honestly able to purchase affordable coverage or not.

That definitly is a point of contention.  People in that range should definitly be able to afford healthcare coverage... outside the very few cases of "Prexisting conditions" which should be adressed via law. 

$50,000 is a lot of money... if you can't afford heathcare at $50,000 a year you've got to be pretty poor with your money or once again "Prexisting conditions."

However even if that were the case that would still leave us with ~14 million people or so.

Still far less then is suggested.

I suppose it is a point of contention and one we may never agree on. Personally, I think a household in that range could only afford coverage by severely inhibiting itself in other areas of life. That is why it is illusory to state that households in that range "choose" not to purchase coverage. It is not unreasonable that a household earning $50,000 would be unable to afford coverage-that is, coverage worth purchasing. That is why the subsidies help cover the costs of purchasing insurance through the exchange(s) up to 400% of the poverty level.

Frankly, the lowest number that I have seen claimed was 15 million by Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and he reached his number because of a few errors.

It would be interesting to know of those 1.81 million people, how many will be covered under this bill?

I bet it's not all of them.

Based on the premise that only 1.81 million of the uninsured choose not to forgo coverage, all will be eligible to be covered. They will either be eligible to receive coverage from the expansion of Medicaid or subsidized health insurance purchased through the exchange(s).