Just saw this:
Dems hedge on Healthcare

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems -hedge-on-healthcare-2008-04-23.html

That is in Washington, inside the Beltway. They think that Washington is the real world but it isn't. Its as fake a world as can be. And at the core of that extreme fakeness is greed, lies and broken promises. These politicians need a reality check.

Regardless of whether you support Hillary or Obama the NEGATIVITY and DENIAL of the people's WILL in the article above should give you pause.

Politicians with NO grasp of people's lives are PRETENDING that
we can go another four years with things getting worse and worse. They are going to steal our vote and give us an IOU, or a bad check i.e. "insufficient funds" - in return.

They are the ones who need the reality check.

The situation in the REAL world is not going to wait 'four more years'. We need to start working now to REPLACE Senators and Congressmen who are not willing to pledge NOW that they will work to change the situation - to back empty promises - back them up with actions that they are 100% behind universal healthcare for all LIKE OTHER DEVELOPED NATIONS HAVE.

Look at this example of why the current system has to go. NOW.

What does a young person do, who might have insurance, but who might not, if they have something - say, vertigo, or numbness or some other neuro issue that implies a serious condition. Say its a troubling transient condition that could indicate
a brain tumor or something. They need some expensive test to know whats wrong. Say a 15 minute MRI scan to diagnose it costs $9000. If they have insurance, it may pay some or (unlikely) all of that. (although it may take a few months of arguing and they might get denied the first time)

If they don't have insurance, and go for the test, (do they pay out of pocket, or charge it?) and it turns out they have something serious, they may never be able to get insurance again, and they would not also be able to afford treatment..but if they don't get the test, they could end up far sicker..

for example, with cancer.

Suppose that person is insured, say, as a barista at Starbucks, for $7.50 an hr.

Then, assuming they are sick, but it is successfully treated, do they remain a low-paid Starbucks employee for the rest of their life, or do they take their chances on getting another job, knowing well that they might get sick again, without insurance, or -perhaps, even be prevented from getting another good job by being in the MIB database? (common in other countries that one might work in, becoming more common here, although some states prohibit it, theoretically)

Also, many people these days, choose not to spend the $9000 to get important, needed tests, in this cse, the scan, thinking
that at some point they might not have a job in the future and want to get individual or family insurance, which would be impossible. Maybe they want to get married and lets face it,
this individual uninsurability for your family is a hell of a thing to lay on a spouse.. Experts say that the 21st century will be a century of the disappearance of the 'job' and that we will all be independent contractors. That means individual insurance. But, what if you have a condition that makes you uninsurable?

Okay, suppose the senators and congressmen confront a huge public outcry when they try to torpedo the affordable options because they will cut too deeply into Pentagon spending or treasured pork.

Maybe something will pass.. Basically, I think Hillary's plan CAN AND WILL WORk.. because of the mandate. (Similar plans work in other nations)

In my opinion, under Obama's plan, because of the risk pricing, there is not any good path through this dilemma.. Under Hillary's plan, there is.. (there would also be better access to preventative care, without the higher copays and deductibles of Obama's 'choices' - the cheaper plans)

Here is an interesting article that shows one aspect of the dilemma for states that might choose to try to address the issues..

This shows how dammning one bad test result might end up being to one's future life, especially if you dont have a corporate job with a generous employer.

Tennessee Talks of Paring Plan for 'Uninsurables'
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht ml?res=9A01E2DC1F3DF932A35756C0A96F95826 0&sec=&spon=

Here is what happens if you accidentally forget to include that in an application for health insurance.. (since it is priced by risk, hey can later, invalidate the whole contract retroactively)

(Of course, your probable future will be one without insurance.)

More insurance rescission coverage
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/l a-fi-healthinsure-sg,1,3627886.storygall ery

There's more...

Of course, there was the initial flurry of floor action on the 100 Hours bills.

In the middle of which Bush made his Iraq surge announcement, which naturally drew attention away from other matters.

Now, it's certainly true that most of the work of the House does not take place in the chamber. And that committees have been holding hearings and marking up bills like nobody's business.

However - I was curious just to see how active the House floor was these days in the production of legislation of substance.

So what I did (no pretensions to statistical relevance, this!) was to scan the Daily Digests for March 1 through March 15 (yesterday) to see what the funk had been going on.

There's more...

I'd missed the Postpiece yesterday which details the Dem leadership's revised plan for dealing in the House with the ethics bill which figured as item #1 in her program for the first 100 hours:

Instead of forwarding one big bill, Democrats will put together an ethics package on the House floor piece by piece, allowing incoming freshmen to take charge of high-profile issues and lengthening the time spent on the debate. The approach will ensure that each proposal -- including banning gifts, meals and travel from lobbyists as well as imposing new controls on the budget deficit -- is debated on its own and receives its own vote. That should garner far more media attention for the bill's components before a final vote on the entire package.

This is refreshingly bold thinking from the Dem House leadership, and certainly deserves (and will be getting) a good deal more consideration.

There's more...