Krugman: This is a reasonable, responsible plan. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

[impik]

"So what’s the reality of the proposed reform? Compared with the Platonic ideal of reform, Obamacare comes up short. If the votes were there, I would much prefer to see Medicare for all.
For a real piece of passable legislation, however, it looks very good. It wouldn’t transform our health care system; in fact, Americans whose jobs come with health coverage would see little effect. But it would make a huge difference to the less fortunate among us, even as it would do more to control costs than anything we’ve done before.

This is a reasonable, responsible plan. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise".



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/opinion/12krugman.html?th&emc=th

[babylonsister]

1. Rec'd. I hope those who are trying to tell me otherwise are reading this. nt

[impik]

3. They're reading, as you can see by the unreccing. Because Krugmans' opinion is valid

only when it's Anti-Obama.

[Mithreal]

64. We have 51 in the SENATE.

http://whipcongress.com/

Edit: 51 for public option, that is slightly different admittedly. Era of low expectations is over and all that.

Oh wait, forgot to unrec, doing so now. It's up to 79, so not like I am burying it. And that real rich comment about anti-Obama. Fuck that too. No offense.

[bertman]

71. What a crock, impik.

[ShortnFiery]

2. Krugman = P.T. Barnum

Don't buy this trash.

[dionysus]

10. ROFL... from hero to zero that quick eh?

:rofl:

[vaberella]

31. I love it.

:rofl:

[ShortnFiery]

47. I did not EVER idolize Krugman. Especially when he was trashing Obama in favor of HRC. eom

[dionysus]

58. CRUISE MISSLES!!11!!

:rofl:

[cliffordu]

25. B-B-B-B-But I thought you LOVED him!!!!!

:rofl:

[Ikonoklast]

29. Sadly predictable.

And your economic credentials are..?


I'll stick with P.T. Krugman.

[Cali_Democrat]

32. LOL

Your posts always crack me up.

[ShortnFiery]

48. Wait until you realize that this Senate HRC bill is nothing less than an economic ...

Trojan Horse that benefits nobody but the Insurance Cartel and Big Pharma?

It doesn't mean squat to be covered by Insurance when you have to DECLARE BANKRUPTCY in order to afford the premiums. :thumbsdown:

Let's see you LOL then? :eyes:

[vaberella]

78. But Krugman who is idolized by so many on DU for predicting our economic situation...

says your wrong. Not to mention he's an economist and you're...well...not. Economists like anyone else need to be taken with a grain of salt. However I don't see the people who used Krugman to lambast Obama and claiming policy---commenting on the thread here. This would mean, since they always believed Krugman----that Krugman supports this and they don't want too. All in all it changes their argument on policy to just being petty.

[dionysus]

90. his talents are clearly disposable if he's going to say something they don't agree with

[CTLawGuy]

4. (back) UNDER THE BUS (back) UNDER THE BUS!

:rofl:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. That fucker just refuses to stay there!

I think we need a bigger stick... :rofl:

(Note, I'm not a Krugman fan, ironically because I think he has no clue on how to navigate political waters. That KRUGMAN is the voice of reason and pragmatism on this issue tells you everything you need to know about where we are today.)

[Captain Hilts]

5. Some reform is better than none. But we still got played by the industries and Republicans. Pass it

[Clio the Leo]

6. "it would make a huge difference to the less fortunate ..."

And THAT should END the argument right there.

But we're a selfish lot and it won't.

[SoxFan]

61. But what about my ideological purity?

[Mithreal]

73. Pathetic weak spineless dems are all the rage. Principles so last season.

It is fun to mischaracterize those who disagree with, don't you think?

[mkultra]

94. i guess the less fortunate were never part of your principles

[HughMoran]

7. "it would make a huge difference to the less fortunate among us"

I know it, Krugman knows it, former opponents Dean, Ed Shultz & Markos know it, what is it going to take to convince those who trash it here daily?

MoveOn: 83% support the Senate Bill with Obama fixes

DU:GD: 45% support the Senate Bill with Obama fixes.

Either DU is so far left that even MoveOn looks right-wing, or we have some 'plants' here.

[babylonsister]

8. The latter, I'm sure. nt

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. Both.

But a lot of people here really are that far left, using the excuse that "they're actually right wing in other countries!" (always one of my faves.)

[Jennicut]

15. DU:GD is far left. Always has been. The more moderate Dems are over here.

Nothing wrong with that.
But I think Krugman makes a good argument.

[karynnj]

19. I've always wondered why that is

I have always used any excuse I could tell myself to post here rather than GD.

[Jennicut]

21. DU is welcome to ALL Dems. Naturally, we have separated ourselves a bit.

I do post in the other forum but prefer it over here. And there are plenty of people further left here then me. But for the most part, there are some differences. This is a more politically-oriented forum as well, focusing on more pure politics then just philosophical differences.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lovelyrita]

27. Move- on also supported the Afghanistan Surge.

They lost me with that one.

[HughMoran]

28. "MoveOn Moves Against Obama On Afghanistan"

First Posted: 12- 1-09 02:49 PM | Updated: 12- 1-09 03:08 PM

The progressive advocacy organization MoveOn.org formally opposed President Obama's troop surge strategy on Tuesday, calling it "wrong" and urging its five million members to call the White House to voice their displeasure.

The group's anti-escalation statement was long predicted. But the politics of it still seem noteworthy. MoveOn played an integral role in rallying grassroots support for Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign. And it remains one of largest organizing, if not ideological, forces within the progressive community today.

"After talking to MoveOn members about this possibility for months, it's become clear what most of us think: This is wrong. Everyone knows that George W. Bush left a mess in Afghanistan, but escalation only deepens our involvement in a quagmire," the email reads.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/01/moveon-moves-against-obam_n_375677.html

"MoveOn breaks ranks with Obama over Afghanistan"

December 3, 2009

One of Obama’s biggest networks of supporters have come out against his announcement to send 30,000 new troops to Afghanistan. MoveOn.org – the online advocacy organisation with a membership of 3.3 million – has sent an email to all members last night stating:

“While some support his decision to send more troops, a significant majority think escalating the war is wrong.”

http://www.leftfootforward.org/2009/12/moveon-break-rans-with-obama-over-afghanistan/


Mind telling me why you just posted the exact opposite?

[Cali_Democrat]

35. Ouch

That one will hurt.

[HughMoran]

68. Been waiting nearly 11 hours for a response

:shrug:

[Mithreal]

74. If you are looking for a response from someone who actually cares

what you have to say, might I jump in?

Never mind, I would anyway.

I am going on memory here which is fallible but smack it down if it is incorrect. MoveOn only changed its position under pressure from its members. I was one of the people who actually left them when it became clear they had been compromised. It's in reaction to the voices of the members that they changed their response to the occupations and escalations. While it is true that the President didn't announce his plans until something like Dec 2, 2009, was it; it was known the President was going to escalate since the campaign.

It's no surprise to me that someone wouldn't follow MoveOn's positioning after they left MoveOn behind, but I also believe that given context the DU'er you responded to was actually being honest to the best of his or her knowledge. So, you update them and get all challenging and don't receive a response? You don't say, I can't believe it. Well, I do actually. See, I doubt the correction did anything but update the person to MoveOn's response after bowing to member pressure.

10 hours, no response, damn, that person may have a life. And I really doubt you care if you received a challenging response, more of an acknowledgment that you are right. You're right, Hugh, but it's not the whole truth unless I misremember, but you know I could hardly care less about MoveOn though my position change at some point. They'll have to earn my trust back. Thanks for posting the correction, I just think there is a little more to the story unless I am misremembering and I really don't care to waste any effort on fact checking my own memory at the moment. Take it easy.

[saltpoint]

9. Well, you either respect Krugman's brains or you don't; I do.

Recommended.

[Mithreal]

76. That's Bush logic. May want to get some more exercise for your own.

Respecting another should not surrender one's ability to disagree with that someone unless stuck in an authoritarian mindset. The Authoritarians: http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

I respect him too. I question whether we should encourage appeals to authority or letting others do our thinking. I consider it a reasonable test when you have the capacity to substantively disagree with another whom you respect.

This isn't especially directed at your comments though they did spark mine. I see all too many comments that focus on ad hominem or appeals to authority. Hell, I even catch myself doing it sometimes.

I am sure I misunderstood your intent anyway. Have a good one.

[saltpoint]

83. Krugman uses too many 'g' endings on his verbs to provoke

Bush logic among TIMES readers.

I don't even own a brush-clearer.

[Mithreal]

84. Was referring to either-or thinking

brush clearer, I like that, but Karl didn't make you buy a "ranch."

[saltpoint]

88. But I do insist on points for ranch dressing, which still tastes good

to me on a salad, the salad served at grassroots luncheons.

Tasty and sensible.

[NJmaverick]

11. I admire that Krugman was able to change his positions and see

the benefits of pragmatism. He is right about this being a good bill. Shame that so many people that used to tout him, when he was writing articles critical of President Obama, now discard his opinions as meaningless.

[zulchzulu]

12. +1

It's been a wild ride with Krugman's opinions on this issue. Against it, for it, against it...

At least he sees the final picture that it's a good first step toward getting it better.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

17. Utterly dishonest

[HughMoran]

20. Truth hurts, bro

It may not apply directly to you - but I can easily find 10 examples of people who are so hypocritical, well, they are on ignore.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mithreal]

85. +1

[spoony]

33. = "Now that he agrees with me, he's pretty smart"

lol

I loved that someone threw all those quotes of yours about Krugman in your face the other day.

[Vattel]

16. I respect his opinions and I hope he's right on this one.

[uponit7771]

18. Krugman is teh Coporatist pony!!! /sarcasm

[hulka38]

55. Ah, you learned a new one today uponit771. Good man.

Keep it up.

[niceypoo]

22. "Americans whose jobs come with health coverage would see little effect"

My job comes with health care coverage. In 3 weeks the cost of my 'coverage' goes up by 40%, not to mention the new, shiny, gleaming $5k deductible I now have to pay every year.

This bill does nothing at all to protect me from predatory insurance companies.

[jenmito]

23. The "little effect" it will have will be to stop such big increases in cost.

Obama often says that the only thing that will change for those of us who have insurance is it will cost less.

[Cleobulus]

40. How? Who gets to negotiate for lower prices, where are the price controls...

What mechanism will be in place to reduce costs overall, mandates won't do it alone, hell, they won't do it at all.

[ProSense]

24. This needs to be highlighted:

<...>

The second myth is that the proposed reform does nothing to control costs. To support this claim, critics point to reports by the Medicare actuary, who predicts that total national health spending would be slightly higher in 2019 with reform than without it.

Even if this prediction were correct, it points to a pretty good bargain. The actuary’s assessment of the Senate bill, for example, finds that it would raise total health care spending by less than 1 percent, while extending coverage to 34 million Americans who would otherwise be uninsured. That’s a large expansion in coverage at an essentially trivial cost.

And it gets better as we go further into the future: the Congressional Budget Office has just concluded, in a new report, that the arithmetic of reform will look better in its second decade than it did in its first.

Furthermore, there’s good reason to believe that all such estimates are too pessimistic. There are many cost-saving efforts in the proposed reform, but nobody knows how well any one of these efforts will work. And as a result, official estimates don’t give the plan much credit for any of them. What the actuary and the budget office do is a bit like looking at an oil company’s prospecting efforts, concluding that any individual test hole it drills will probably come up dry, and predicting as a consequence that the company won’t find any oil at all — when the odds are, in fact, that some of the test holes will pan out, and produce big payoffs. Realistically, health reform is likely to do much better at controlling costs than any of the official projections suggest.

[yowzayowzayowza]

26. K&R

Thx for the snip.

[AllentownJake]

34. I disagreed with him in 2008 on this plan

I disagree with him now. Shame that winning that election meant jack shit.

[SkyDaddy7]

36. I guess Krugman will be labeled a "corporatist"

..."If the votes were there, I would much prefer to see Medicare for all."

OUCH! That quote has to really STING for all those who refuse to understand it takes "VOTES" to pass Single Payer or a Public Option.

Lets hope there are enough "VOTES" to pass HCR!!!!

[Mithreal]

81. You mean like Senate votes? Check the link, 51!

http://whipcongress.com/

Did you work to get the best bill and whip the votes, if not, why am I even listening to your madness?

HCR already passed once in the House and Senate.
House: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/07/health.care/index.html
Senate: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/24/health.care/index.html

But I get it that you intended to mean something else, like the final bill.

Stop compromising away what the rest of us want and need. Stop chanting, "Better Than Nothing," cuz that's essentially what you are doing parroting the nonsense. Yeah, I get it, I should be nicer, but if you want to poke me in the eye, expect that I might bite back.

For it to sting it would have to be closer to actually understanding those who disagree with you. Try again.

Now give Republicans your lunch money.

[SkyDaddy7]

89. I want what you want...However...

There were NEVER enough votes to pass "SINGLE PAYER" and when it comes to the Public option lets see what happens...There are a lot of what ifs.

The problem I have is the purely "emotional" and very irrational response of "KILL THE BILL" simply because it does not have a public option...THAT IS STUPID!

...Sorry, I know I should be nicer but if you want to poke 30 million Americans in the eye plus untold millions more who will be dropped and even untold millions more who will be denied health coverage expect me to BITE BACK! This is personal!

Now, I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to see Medicare for all but this is America and right now America does not want it...NEVER HAS! I suffered a spinal cord injury that stole my career and my life back in 2003...A year into my nightmare I was having a bunch of complications that involved more surgery and some very expensive procedures...Well, my insurance company (Principal Insurance) dropped me! I did not find out until I went to get my meds one month and I found out I no longer had insurance. I went through severe withdrawals of several meds! (I never knew you could withdraw from non narcotic medicine) I never knew such agony existed! I had to get a divorce from my wife of 13 years in order to qualify for Medicare as no other insurance company would have anything to with me! Not to mention the financial burden we were already going through and still are...I KNOW I AM NOT ALONE THIS IS AMERICA!

I want more than anything for insurance companies to be out of the loop. However, I also wish my country was not so religious & so damn ignorant that they can't understand simple basics when it comes to almost any issue...BUT THAT IS REALITY! So, instead of screaming "KILL THE BILL" like a bunch of spoiled children we need to be realist! If they can pass a TRUE WORTHWHILE Public Option via reconciliation then I will be happy...However, if not, then we still need to pass HCR, period.

If this makes you and I adversaries then I think it is a crying shame!

[GeorgeGist]

37. C

Very average.

[Cleobulus]

38. "Americans whose jobs come with health coverage would see little effect."

This is a HUGE fucking problem, a lot of people work jobs that offer insurance that is, at best, crap insurance, too expensive in premiums and/or when the premiums are reasonable the deducts and copays make the insurance worthless.

[Larkspur]

62. The health insurance offered via my contracting company is crap

I've kept my United Health care via COBRA for now. I was laid off in Nov. 2008. It's better than the Aetna-lite policy my contracting company offers. I still don't have a full employment. Wonder what happens when my COBRA runs out and my contract ends? If this HCR bill passes soon, I'll have to contact my US Rep to see what my options are.

[Cleobulus]

63. I do wonder what will happen to the unemployed, will the Government pay 100% of premiums and copays?

For some they will have to, unemployment payments are usually crap, and buying insurance through an exchange is useless if you can't afford it at all.

[grantcart]

41. Most important thread of the day

[Number23]

42. **DLCer!!!** **IT'S THE BOG'S FAULT!!!one!**

Sorry. I absolutely could NOT resist. :)

I find it interesting that Krugman didn't even acknowledge DU's most common complaint about this bill, that this is health INSURANCE reform and not health CARE reform. Perhaps he finds this argument as odd as the rest of us?

[depakid]

43. Easy for you to say- like me, you actually have responsible health care

Seems to me, like the rest of the über alles crowd, that you view this more in terms of "supporting what Obama proposes" rather than a reasoned debate on public policy.

As far as that's concerned, when I tell my friends and colleagues in Britain and Australia what's in this legislation (at the moment, anyway) -and what the current and future staus of health care will be like in the states the reaction is uniform and best expressed as:

:wtf:

[Number23]

44. As usual, your posts are nonsensical

What's "easy for me to say?" That I find the DU argument that "this is health insurance reform and not health care reform" an odd argument to make? Yes, I do find that easy to say because I do find the argument odd. What exactly is your point??

And depa, don't call me an Uber alles or any other name outside of Number23. You don't want me to start slinging names back at you 'cause several very apt ones come IMMEDIATELY to mind.

And everyone I've talked to about this in Australia and all over the world, including family back home (and that's a hell of alot of people) are looking at folks on both sides of this issue screaming their brains out as though they have no heads. You have been proven wrong on just about every single position you have taken on just about everything. Pardon me if I take anything you say (and the idiotic manner in which you say it) with a massive grain of salt. With your track record, I'm not the least bit surprised that anyone you talk to about this issue would be confused as all hell.

[depakid]

45. You seriously can't tell me that an Australian looks at this and responds to the actual policy

as opposed to the "debate" and "sausage making" with anything other than a what the fuck.

On the American front- the whole insurance reform vs. health care reform is simple and foolish word parse. The legislation as it stands doesn't address the root causes of the problems and in some ways makes matters that much worse.

Expensive, high deductible, high copay junk insurance that many people can't afford to use (and which according to researchers won't put a dent in the medical bankruptcy rate) isn't something that a sensible policy maker would ever want to subsidize of incentivize.

Yet that's what Americans look to be getting- and what some are cheering for. Sad, because it didn't have to be that way.

[Number23]

49. lol I am seriously (SERIOUSLY!!) telling you that

And considering I have lived and worked here longer than you, and with highly educated people of relative esteem and stature, you'll have to take my word for it.

With your use of phrases such as "junk insurance," I can only guess that the people you are talking to know NOTHING about what's going on here and are easily swayed by your unnecessary and idiotic editorializing.

It's so damn funny to me that you throw Australia around like it's some utopia. It's a fantastic place full of wonderful people. But it has its problems just like every other.

[depakid]

51. Then I'll suggest that you're being equivocal

And btw: I've studied and work with and for people with more than a little knowledge in the field on three continents- you know, the sorts with MD's, MN, JD's, MPH's and MPA's. Who knows, I may have a some of those sets of letters behind my name, too.

Of course, they're not the only folks I talk with- and it ain't editorializing to lay the facts out, or respond to questions about the substance and the process (which is is even more baffling to Brits and Aussies than the appalling state of health care and political corruption in the states).

And- you're absolutely right, Oz is no panacea and we have plenty of problems with our two tiered health care system- and in there's a lot to digest in Rudd's proposal, particularly with respect to centralized efficiencies and localized responsiveness.

America should have such problems...

<on edit> "junk insurance" is a term commonly used with respect to "catastrophic" policies- and was popularized during debate and the successful filibuster of the ENZI Bill (one of the pre 2007 few Dem victories).

[Number23]

54. I expect alot of things to be baffling to the Brits and Aussies.

Their system (of health care, of government) is different from ours. It's not hard to imagine that there would be things that would be difficult for them to understand at first, particularly when speaking to someone like you who has made no effort to hide his loathing for the current administration. But I take comfort in knowing that citizens of both countries overwhelmingly still have respect and hope for our current President, which I do as well.

I'm sure that if you were to show your "educated" Brit and Aussie "friends" half of your posts here on DU, they'd see through your agenda as easily as I do. And if they were to see how utterly wrong you've been on so many different topics, they'd probably lose all desire to speak with you about anything related to the U.S. just as I have. But who knows? Maybe they'd think it was fun to see if you could be half as wrong about other countries as you are about the country of your birth and try to engage you in conversation about the Aussie or Brit system as a way to pass the time. Either way, best of luck to you and I guess I'll (be forced to) see you around.

[depakid]

56. LOL- see there it is. I don't "loathe" the Obama administration. Nor do many others

who criticize specific policy decisions (and omissions). That false assumption and ascription is exactly what I'm talking about- "for 'em or agin 'em, irrespective of the policy and can been seen in all its glory down in the BOG.

You are correct about one thing, though- most people here don't know a lot about the administration's policies (either the "good" ones -or the "bad" ones). You don't exactly see much in the papers or on ABC.

Mostly, they're still relieved and rightly so that Bush (or Palin) is not in power... and see Obama as a reasonable guy, which in some ways he is.

[Cha]

46. Plus ONE.

[dionysus]

66. oh damn... pwnage!

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

[depakid]

82. Proof positive (yet again) of the point that's been raised

Krugman may have said it best himself back in February 2008:

I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.

Some people have- as evidenced daily in this forum- lost the ability to critically think about policies for themselves- but simply go along to get along with whatever they're told is "good."

[deacon]

50. k + r n/t

[flyarm]

52. really Krugman..no it is not..it is a sell out and here is why..

James Roosevelt, who was chair of the Rules and Bylaws Committee that decided to dock Michigan and Florida half of their delegates and award 4 of the delegates Clinton won in Michigan to Obama, as well as all of the uncommitted delegates, is the CEO of a health insurance company – Tufts Healthcare. Okay? Got that? The guy who made sure that Obama had the necessary to delegates to win the nomination – even to the point of assigning delegates another candidate won to him arbitrarily – is the CEO of a health insurance firm.
And what Roosevelt wants in a health insurance reform, is a reform that relies entirely upon private insurers. He does not want a public option. He wants a plan like Massachusetts has: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/04/09/healthcare_lets_build_on_what_we_know/

[dionysus]

67. i see you have a new tin foil conspiracy to tout.

:rofl:

[hulka38]

53. Self delete - my bad

Never finished the article until just now.:cry:

[hulka38]

57. For clarity, most Obamacare critics weren't proposing medicare for all.

Clearly a PO would go much further in transforming the system and could have passed if the health insurance lobby wasn't so strong and our leadership so weak.

[Wardoc]

59. Appeals to authority are logical fallacy. This bill is unreasonable and irresponsible (nt).

[Larkspur]

60. And there is no real reason why Medicare expansion can't be passed

via Reconciliation in the Senate.

It's our elected leaders and the lobbyists who bribe them that is the problem, not the American People who favor the public option or Medicare expansion.

So there's no real reason why our Senate can't pass a Medicare expansion via Reconciliation if the want the House to pass their crappy bill.

[glinda]

65. I am 55 and if they did Medicare buy in for me, it would save my life, my finances and a host of

other things.

[Mithreal]

80. +1

[eridani]

69. Thanks for consigning me to the pile of human garbage that is going to lose out n/t

[Shapton]

70. I trust Krugman

I don't really trust the lobbyists who are writing the health care bills, but if Krugman thinks it's good then I would tend to trust him. It's hard not to believe someone with a Nobel Prize.

[vaberella]

79. So then you trust Obama...who was pushing this long before Krugman?! n/t

[Wardoc]

87. "It's hard not to believe someone with a Nobel Prize." --- Wow.

[SlingBlade]

72. Shilling for Rahm ? WTF !

[ProSense]

75. Here's great

information

[Bolo Boffin]

77. Pass the damn bill.

At the very least, it gives us a fighting chance to hold onto Congress. If we do, we can work out improvements as we go.

After the exchanges are set up, there's no reason on earth that a public option bill couldn't be passed down the road to add to the exchanges.

[Vinca]

86. Except for those of us who will be socked with a premium

that is 3X the average because of pre-existing conditions and/or age. After checking the numbers, I actually think the amount we could buy insurance for might go up a couple of hundred dollars from our last, unaffordable quote. I'm seriously depressed about this entire matter. I remember telling my doctor more than a year ago that I was sure Obama would get a good health bill through so I might be able to do something about my severely deteriorated hip joint. Apparently, I will be paying a penalty instead.

[TomCADem]

91. Funny How No Mention Is Made Of The Subsidies For Health Care Coverage

Republicans always manage to leave out this fact, too. There is a reason why 30 more million people will be able to afford health care coverage. Because it will be subsidized, and state programs will be expanded as well.

[Vinca]

92. I realize some will be helped. My husband and I will be a couple

of thousand dollars over the amount you can make to get a subsidy and, even if we weren't, with the tripled premium I doubt we could afford it even with a subsidy. That's reality. Some will be helped, some will be left on the side of the road.

[SanchoPanza]

96. Compared to what you're socked with now?

Five states have made age rating illegal or have limited it to a ratio that is lower than that imposed by the Senate bill: Vermont, New York, Maine, Maryland, and Massachusetts. These states are exempt from the rating requirements. Four states have a specific age rating at or higher than the requirement imposed by the Senate language (New Jersey, Washington, New Hampshire, and Minnesota). Between 3:1 and 4:1.

The rest of the country has UNLIMITED AGE RATING.

UNLIMITED.

Insurance companies operating in 41 States and D.C. can charge older people however much they want. In some markets this price difference is 11:1. The Senate bill limits this to a maximum of 3:1 nationwide and exempts states with higher standards. And it makes using medical history as a rating criterion illegal.

[NJmaverick]

93. K & R

[mkultra]

95. Glad to see he finally woke up.