Oh, the big hearted, duped Left

The left's ferocity to get a long awaited health care bill in place that would provide universal coverage was aimed at the right, though they saw themselves betrayed repeatedly by Obama and the Democrats. Single payer advocates couldn't even get into hearings and Obama abandoned his pledged support for the public option.

The left seemed driven on by corporate media that enflamed right and left divides, and played up racial issues, and appeared more focused on beating the right than in watching the moves of the corporations behind the bill or an administration lying to them. So, though the bill was empty of the fundamentals they cared about, still the left hated the right for fighting against it and was committed to triumphing over them.

Finally, they defined a victory for themselves in the bill passing, in defeating the right, in the bill at least covering everyone. In that last - the bill covering everyone - the left had been particularly deaf to the right's saying the bill would cost people a fortune but even if they couldn't afford it, they would have to buy the insurance or face penalties, and possibly jail. The left seemed not to realize the tea partiers were working class or middle class and saying the bill would hurt them. The left seemed only to see in black and white, poor blacks' needs over white fears. They said the bill was "imperfect" but, despite what the right said, everyone would save money, and finally the poor would be covered. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/06/22/mass_may_find_us_health_care_changes_costly/

The Boston Globe, on the insider cover of the paper, months after the bill passed, and under a picture of cute black kids at the beach, just ran a headline, "Mass. may find US health care changes costly: As rules stand now, poorer to pay more".

"Under the Massachusetts program, people who earn about $15,000 annually incur health care expenses that average $295 a year, the report said. Under the federal program, these same individuals would have to spend about $626 a year, more than double the cost."

The article did not mention that under the bill the liberals helped push through on behalf of the poor, poor people will not only not be able to afford insurance but will now face fines for not purchasing what they can't afford.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/06/22/mass_may_find_us_health_care_changes_costly/

It turns out the condescended-to-as-stupid, hated-as-racist, mocked-as-religious-fanatics tea partiers read the bill better than the left did.

And as stories now emerge, the reality of the bill only gets worse. And slicker.

In the following section below from the New York Times, there is an explanation of why children with pre-existing conditions will not be covered. Authors of the bill and insurance companies are referred but who is who? Aren't the authors of the bill the insurance companies themselves (and Big Pharma)? And if so, who exactly meant to put something in the bill which the companies now say isn't really in the bill?

www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/health/policy/29health.html

The authors of the law [isn't that the insurance companies and pharmaceutical industry or their lobbyists or the legislators they control?] say they meant [my emphasis] to ban all forms of discrimination against children with pre-existing conditions like asthma, diabetes, birth defects, orthopedic problems, leukemia, cystic fibrosis and sickle cell disease. The goal, they say, was to provide those youngsters with access to insurance and to a full range of benefits once they are in a health plan.

To insurance companies [again, aren't they the true authors of the bill?], the language of the law is not so clear

Insurers agree that if they provide insurance for a child, they must cover pre-existing conditions. But, they say, the law does not require them to write insurance for the child and it does not guarantee the "availability of coverage" for all until 2014.

William G. Schiffbauer, a lawyer whose clients include employers and insurance companies, said: "The fine print differs from the larger political message. [My emphasis.] If a company sells insurance, it will have to cover pre-existing conditions for children covered by the policy. But it does not have to sell to somebody with a pre-existing condition. And the insurer could increase premiums to cover the additional cost."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/health/policy/29health.html

The companies appear to have written the bill, then put it into the hands of those they influence to promote it as theirs, while opposing it themselves so that the left would push hard for it - against the false resistance of the very companies which set up this complex charade. And with the drama of corporate media setting up the tea party to look like ignorant racists and enemies of the poor.

Why weren't liberal lawyers or journalists at the New York Times able to analyze a bill beforehand and see that it included that central and immense loophole?

Why only now is the New York Times reporting on the cover denying fine print which had to be there, since the insurance companies, of course, have always been maestros of precisely that species of fine print.

But it's not only the insurance companies who have jumped in to trumpet the fine print. The corporations are doing so as well. Were they in on the writing of the bill, too?

Top US Corporations Considering Ending Health Care Benefits Thanks To Impending Cost Hikes

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/top-us-corporations-considering-ending-health-care-benefits-thanks-to-impending-cost-hikes/

"... a report issued today in Fortune Magazine and reported by CNN indicates that the dire warnings of ObamaCare critics concerning the consequences of approving the costly legislation are in fact well-founded.

The report points to internal documents from AT&T, Verizon, John Deere, and several other large corporations which show that executives are, in fact, looking at the option of droppinghealthcare coverage for employees due to what they are sure will be unsustainable increases in costs. These costs will be so prohibitive that it would benefit the corporations to pay the government fines instead. ...."

The healthcare bill is becoming just the nightmare the right warned against, but in feeling free to hate them without reservation and without knowing them personally (one might even say, being comfortable being prejudiced against them), that was a warning the left could not hear.

The left is left with having hated so much, it couldn't appreciate that the tea partiers were bringing important insight into the bill, while the pressing voices saying "it will cover the sick and poor, take it, take it," were coming from those who wrote the bill and ensured in the thousands of pages and fine print, that it would do no such thing.

It is not too late for the left to make allies with ordinary people on the right who are not racist idiots but a white lower middle class going off Obama's cliff, who were legitimately frightened of a giant bill giving immense power to the federal government (on behalf of the insurance companies and pharmaceutical corporations).

it is not too late for the left to wake up and make friends and join with all those rejecting Obama's deceit around the healthcare bill.

Here is but one.

ANH–USA Joins Healthcare Repeal Lawsuit
ANH–USA strongly opposed the recently enacted healthcare bill for a variety of reasons. We stand for the freedom of consumers to choose the type of healthcare they want, and the freedom of practitioners to practice without harassment. The healthcare reform act seriously impinges on both. So after a thorough review of our legal options, which took some time, we have decided to join a lawsuit that has been initiated by a distinguished group of physicians to have the act repealed.

Left and right want our country back. Perhaps, through the hindsight of the corrupt healthcare bill, people will hear each other better and can begin to work together on all the other issues Obama makes "sound" progressive but which end up frighteningly corporate. (Watch out for Immigration reform!)