True, some of us still think that single payer is the most economical and the most effective way

[Atticus]

to bring health care to everyone. And, it is true that we were prepared to "settle", for now, for a "robust public option" and we don't think the House bill is anything close to robust. We were not just disappointed, we were offended, that a woman's right to choose, believed to be a settled issue, was so blithely cast onto the heap of concessions already on the bargaining table.

So, we're struggling with this. We are trying to find a way to believe that there is, indeed, a method to what seems to us to be craven madness. We are reading the posts of people we've laughed and cried with, commiserated and rejoiced with, who think the House bill is a wonderful and necessary---and historic---victory for Democrats. And, we're trying to find a way to agree; trying to find the "fire" again so that we can fight for what we all want: health care for everyone.

And, while all this is happening, we have to deal with accusations that we are, in so many words, "as bad as the Blue Dogs".

Are there really DUers out there who are so unabashedly simple-minded as to believe this? Do you REALLY equate the "NO" votes of Kucinich and Massa with the several Blue Dogs who have sat on the Big Insurance side of the table since Day One?

And, it has even been suggested that those of us who dare to have reservations about the integrity and effectiveness of this bill must want people to die! It will be our failure to "get in line" that will be to blame if Health Care Reform fails to pass.

Not the Republicans, political opportunists of the worst kind and whores to any big corporation with the price.

Not Big Insurance and their lobbyists, who shovelled out $1.4 million a day to "reason with" reluctant Democrats and wavering Republicans,

Not Fox News and Dick Armey and the other "facilitators" who made people afraid and then exploited the fear with ridiculous lies that would have embarrassed anyone with a conscience.

And, for sure, not the White House and its obsession with "bipartisanship" to the point of ignoring the liberal base.

None of these are culpable. But, that little liberal bastard from Ohio who just won't shut up, HE, and those of us who think he may have some valid points, WE are to blame?

I WANT to be mistaken and my greatest fear is that we liberals won't be able to "find the fire" any time soon. If we don't, Barack Obama could be a one term president and the butt of jokes wherever teabaggers gather for decades to come.

[sandnsea]

1. Define robust n/t

[Atticus]

15. Check this site:

http://blog.healthcareforamericanow.org/2009/06/12/a-co-op-for-the-public-option-lets-talk-principles/

These four "pillars" will do.

[sandnsea]

20. The House bill meets those criteria

HCAN supports the House bill too.

[Atticus]

38. I don't agree.

I don't think "available everywhere" was intended to include only about 2% of the people. I also don't think the House bill is expected to lower cost, as HCAN originally expected. If HCAN now approves this bill, they have apparently "reinterpreted" their own guidelines.

I know you mean well and I appreciate the tenor of your responses. Thank you.

[sandnsea]

45. It is available nationally

and it is available to everyone. Unless you're covered by your employer and who would choose to pay full price for a health plan when their employer is paying the bulk of a plan now.

And yes the House bill is expected to lower costs, there are many mechanisms that will help lower both premium cost and health care costs. The competition created from both the exchange and the public option rates, reduction of ER usage, preventive care measures, technology investment - lots of measures to control costs.

HCAN is being honest about what is in the bill and what it can do. They never demanded perfection.

[Egnever]

47. 2% is an estimate of how many will chose it

not a cap on who can chose it.

[quinnox]

2. "really DUers out there who are so unabashedly simple-minded... "

Yes. Its the same black and white thinking of Bush "if you are not for us you are against us."

As long as "our team" gets something passed, no matter how bad, "we win!"

[pnwmom]

4. I see plenty of black and white thinking on the other side.

As long as it's not single-payer, it's no good!

[quinnox]

7. I'm sure there is

[treestar]

8. It's better than them winning

some posters here act as if the freepers are entirely gone from the country. And the media is not fully on their side. And as if liberal Democrats are a majority.

Dennis would have won the Presidential election if that were so. What is so hard to get about that? We didn't gain a left wing dictator in the 2008 elections.

Some people's problem is that their expectations of what could be done are way off in dreamland.

[HughMoran]

13. not helpful

Name calling isn't helpful.

[pnwmom]

3. I fully understand why single-payer proponents feel the way they do;

in fact, that would be my first choice, in a more perfect America.

What bothers me here are the many DUers who seem to be spreading Republican talking points about the bill. Or lying about various points -- such as pretending that people will be required to buy private insurance (as opposed to the public option)

I'm also frustrated by the number of people who seem to think it is possible to have universal insurance and NOT require everyone to literally buy into it. The only way to have affordable coverage is to have the pool include all Americans, including the currently young and healthy.

[DJ13]

5. people who seem to think it is possible to have universal insurance and NOT require everyone

to literally buy into it.



Theres a difference between being forced to buy private insurance and being taxed to pay for health care.

Thats the crux of the opposition to this bill.

[pnwmom]

24. Then the crux of opposition is based on a lie:

that anyone is being forced to buy private insurance.

No one will be -- since there is the public option. Anyone who doesn't get private insurance through their employer, or who loses it due to being dumped by an insurer, will have the public option.

[bobbolink]

31. No, dearie... you are the one pushing "mistaken" information.

Only about 2% will even have that option. And they will be the poorest and the sickest.

The rest will have NO CHOICE but to buy from private insurance companies.

2%?????

You keep claiming that EVERYONE will have that choice?

2%?

[Egnever]

37. 2% is the estimate of how many will choose it

Why do you keep pushing nonsense?

[bobbolink]

43. Why are you responding for the person who is pushing the lies?

She is soooo certain, so let her respond herself.

[Egnever]

48. Because she is right

[bobbolink]

50. She is absolutely wrong, she has been told that repeatedly, and SHE needs to answer to it.

I won't reply to you anymore.

You are being patronizing to keep protecting her lies.

[Egnever]

55. Told by who you? I defy you to back up your misinformation with the relevant text.

[bobbolink]

65. Are her fingers broken?

[TransitJohn]

14. Personal mandate=forced subsidy of corporate profits.

I fully understand why single-payer proponents feel the way they do; in fact, that would be my first choice, in a more perfect America.

What bothers me here are the many DUers who seem to be spreading Republican talking points about the bill. Or lying about various points -- such as pretending that people will be required to buy private insurance (as opposed to the public option)

I'm also frustrated by the number of people who seem to think it is possible to have universal insurance and NOT require everyone to literally buy into it. The only way to have affordable coverage and to maintain corporate profiteering in the health insurance racket, is to have the pool include all Americans, including the currently young and healthy.

Fixed.

[pnwmom]

25. Nobody will be mandated to buy private insurance, since there is the public option. n/t

[bobbolink]

32. Stop repeating the wrong information. You have been told repeatedly that you are WRONG.

People who now don't buy insurance because they can't afford it from their employers will no longer have that choice to "opt out". They will be FORCED to buy insurance, no matter how crappy, from their employers private plan.

NOW, either prove that is wrong, or stop peddling erroneous information.

[Egnever]

40. people who cant afford it will have subsidies to make it affordable

up to 400% of the pverty level, baring that they can also apply for a hardship waiver. Again why do you continue to spread disinformation?

[bobbolink]

42. That is oranges.... I was talking about the apples.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING REQUIRED TO PURCHASE PRIVATE INSURANCE.

[Luminous Animal]

59. The subsidies will go to private insurers.

This is a scheme not unsimilar to the privatization of Social Security. Employers and individuals will be assessed a tax (that is, a mandate to buy insurance) that will go directly to a private corporation to manage. A public option will be established to "compete" with private insurers within the insurance exchange. But, as yet, and, according to HR 3962 the details don't have to be revealed until 2013. There is no evidence that a public option will be cheaper and some evidence that it will be more expensive as its risk pool will be smaller and its participants sicker.

[Egnever]

60. Whats your point exactly?

[Luminous Animal]

61. I meant to respond to pnwmom.

Who seems to think that the PO is some kind of universal insurance.

[enlightenment]

16. Please remember that there is no finished bill.

The House passed their version. The Senate version remains to be seen - and whatever the compromise is, the one thing that is certain is that it will not look like the House version.

So you don't KNOW what the bill will be, and it is extreme to accuse others of 'spreading Republican talking points . . . or lying".

Do you have some secret knowledge of what will - and will not - be in the version that lands on the President's desk? If not, your opinion of what will - or will not - be in it is just that. An OPINION.

We're all entitled to opinions and trying to shut down others by making the kind of accusations you have made is pretty damned low.

[pnwmom]

26. Of course. But people are lying about the House bill.

Anyone who says it includes a mandate to buy private insurance is spreading lies. It calls for a tax on anyone who doesn't buy insurance; but the public option can be chosen, so no one has to buy private insurance.

[bobbolink]

33. If you are going to call us liars, then we will call you a liar.

I have been polite to call it erroneous, what you are insisting on pushing.

BUT, you call us liars, and we will return the favor.

[bobbolink]

17. You're still pushing that? Will you PLEASE point to the language in the bill

that says that EVERYONE WHO WANTS IT will be able to get the "public option"?

This is why you are seeing so much anger... there is so much "fudging" about the reality.

So, please either show us where this is written, or please stop pushing what is UNTRUE.

[pnwmom]

27. You show me the language in the bill that says anyone will be required

to specifically purchase PRIVATE insurance, as opposed to the public option.

[bobbolink]

30. this is sooo tiresome. YOU SHOW US THE PUBLIC OPTION IS OPEN TO EVERYONE.

You have been told repeatedly that only about 2% of people will even be able to purchase the "public option".

EVERYONE WHOSE PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT OFFERS INSURANCE, NO MATTER HOW CRAPPY, WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PURCHASE THE "PUBLIC OPTION".

EVERYONE WILL BE REQUIRED TO PURCHASE INSURANCE. EVERYONE.

VERY FEW WILL HAVE THE "OPTION" OF PURCHASING A PUBLIC PLAN.

THEREFORE, MOST PEOPLE WILL BE FORCED TO PURCHASE A PRIVATE PLAN.

YOU PROVE OTHERWISE.

[rwheeler31]

6. This is a long hard fight, we have to get started.

We need everyone on board, or we will be back under GOP rule. I know we get tired but we must keep working.

[dflprincess]

23. If we wind up back under GOP rule the Democrats will have no one to blame but themselves

selling us out to the insurance companies won't impress a lot of the voters. I know it has turned off a lot of us hacks who have gone along with the party for decades always believing that things would get better.

This bill might have been palatable if they had left in the amendment allowing states to pursue their own solutions to the health insurance mess - then we might have had some hope that there would be some real reform somewhere. But that might have cut into insurance company profits and we can't have that.

I'd love to know how much extra the companies had to pay into campaign treasuries to get the amendment tanked.

[Egnever]

9. Not your fault

But you will have helped and if through your "principled" opposition you help to derail this from being passed then you will need to answer to the millions who will still be unable to purchase insurance of any kind because of pre existing conditions or because they don't work for a company large enough to make it affordable.

No one thinks this bill is perfect but its a huge leap forward from were we are despite its flaws. Holding out for something better when we can barely get this through despite concessions like the stupak amendment shows an utter lack of regard for all of the people this bill will help. Make no mistake this bill will help millions.

[Atticus]

22. Hello! Are you TRYING to piss people off?

"I"will need to answer to millions?

"I" am showing "an utter lack of regard for all the people this will help"?

Is it difficult being an insensitive ass or does it just come naturally?

[Egnever]

29. Are you?

Or do you think denying my child a shield from the insurance companies dropping him for his diabetes cause this bill just isnt good enough for you or Deniss was going to make me happy?

It doesnt matter how nice you think you made it sound, thats what you are trying to condone.

[Atticus]

35. I am "denying your child a shield" now, huh?

You know what? I'm actually trying to urge everyone to be more tolerant of conflicting but VALID and SINCERE viewpoints, so---"whatever".

I hope your child will be well and believe this country should be ashamed if your child or anyone's child doesn't get all the healthcare they need without bankrupting their parents.

[Egnever]

39. if you are providing cover for those that would prevent this bill from passing

then you sure are.

and if your wishes are sincere then you should be onboard with this bill.

[Atticus]

44. My God! Someone spike your Bosco, or what? nt

[Egnever]

46. yep all the people that think this bill is crap and shouldnt be passed

This bill is a huge step forward, millions of peoples lives will be improved by this bill, hell the ability to be able to move jobs without losing your health care alone will improve millions of peoples lives.

It aint perfect but we were never gonna get perfect. I understand wanting more but not at the expense of destroying what we could get.

[Generic Other]

67. Because I plan to take a mile, I needed to be given an inch first.

I have always been one of the most lefty out there LIBERALS on DU. I have never ever been accused of being a DLC paid operative until today! The accusation makes me laugh.

I only decided to back the bill because I can see that it impacts real lives who can't afford to wait for a better plan. That doesn't mean I won't fight for a stronger plan.

The poor, the unemployed, the sick, the uninsured. The bill impacts their lives. It is a vast improvement over what is available now. To deny this is to refuse to see reality. I don't give a damn who provides it as long as I get it when I need it and that it is affordable. That alone frees me from fear and provides a level of security. Most of us are one paycheck away from losing our healthcare in this country. This bill is our insurance. Like you said not perfect but a good start.

[HughMoran]

10. Well, it started out well...

I thought you were going to try to forge a "common ground" path forward that I would have been able to agree with, but then your post degenerated into the usual defensiveness and accusations that have divided us since the bill passed and a certain person took a giant dump on DU. Perhaps in a couple of days we'll find something we can agree on.

[Atticus]

28. Who, in your view, took a "giant dump on DU"? nt

[HughMoran]

36. Not you

I can't say otherwise without breaking the rules.

[ProSense]

11. Most economical in the long run

not the most pragmatic in the short term.

[Luminous Animal]

18. We've been dealing with short term pragmatism

since 1970.

http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/08/08/reply-to-critics-of-%E2%80%9Cbait-and-switch-how-the-%E2%80%98public-option%E2%80%99-was-sold%E2%80%9D/

[ProSense]

19. Doesn't matter.

Kucinich and Conyers pulled the Weiner amendment citing the high cost.

[Luminous Animal]

53. Here is their statement.

Nothing about their assessment of the high cost of the Weiner amendment from their point of view. Only criticism of a flawed CBO score.

"Dear Friends,

We thank you for your continued devotion to the cause of health care for All Americans. We have worked together for many years to write, promote and campaign for HR676, a single payer, not for profit health care system. Your work, in communities across America, has been instrumental in helping at least ten states create single payer movements, with many more states to come.

Tomorrow, the House of Representatives is scheduled to consider a single payer bill. As the two principal co-authors of the Conyers single payer bill, we want to offer a strong note of caution about tomorrow’s vote.

The bill presented tomorrow will not be HR676. While we are happy to relinquish authorship of a single payer bill to any member who can do better, we do not want a weak bill brought forward in a hostile climate to unwittingly accomplish what would be interpreted as a defeat for single payer.

Here are the facts: There has been no debate in Congress over HR676. There has not been a single mark-up of the bill. Single payer was “taken off the table” for the entire year by the White House and by congressional leaders. There has been no reasonable period of time to gather support in the Congress for single payer. Many members accepted a “robust public option” as the alternative to single payer and now that has disappeared. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has scored the bill scheduled for a vote tomorrow in a manner which is at odds with many credible assumptions, meaning that it will appear to cost way too much even though we know that true single payer saves money since one of every three dollars in the health care system goes to administrative costs caused by the insurance companies. Is this really the climate in which we want a test vote?

While state single payer movements are already strong, the national single payer movement is still growing. Many progressives in Congress, ourselves included, feel that calling for a vote tomorrow for single payer would be tantamount to driving the movement over a cliff. The thrill of the vote would disappear quickly when the result would be characterized not as a new beginning for single payer but as an end. Such a result would be seen as proof that Congress need not pay attention to efforts to restore in Conference Committee the right of states to pursue single payer without fear of legal attacks by insurance companies.

We are always grateful for your support. We are now asking you to join us in suggesting to congressional leaders that this is not the right time to call the roll on a stand-alone single payer bill. That time will come. And when it does there will not be any doubt of the outcome. This system of health care injustice will not be able to endure forever. We are pledged to make sure of that.

Sincerely,
Congressmen John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich"

[RBInMaine]

12. It is. Just not possible now. So we go with the best we can get. Some form of Public Option.

[robinlynne]

21. thank god for your post. These posts against kucinich are nauseating.

[TicketyBoo]

34. I absolutely support

Medicare For All, but if you can't have the whole cake, you have to settle for a slice…at a time.

It's my feeling that what passed in the House is better than nothing, but Lindsey Graham announced today that it will be DOA in the Senate, so really, us arguing about it, what it contains and what it doesn't, is moot.

It has to be enough that SOMETHING passed. SOME THING.

My fear is that if this is not enough for many of us here, then things are going to get much worse. The Senate ain't gonna make it all better, more than likely.

So if you're disappointed, now, prepare to be devastated when you see what the Senate does.

Cynical? You bet.

Until we get comprehensive campaign finance reform so all of Congress isn't beholden to the insurance companies, it's going to be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve more than what the House has passed. I'm afraid this bill will look like a Christmas present compared to what the final thing looks like.

[Atticus]

41. "It has to be enough that SOMETHING passed. SOME THING"

If this is what we've come to, will the last Democrat to leave please turn out the lights?

[bluetrain]

49. Right on

[TicketyBoo]

52. "If that is what we've come to…"

What? Realism instead of idealism?

Strive for one, but be cognizant of the other.

Keep in mind that a baby has to crawl before it can walk. After the past 8 years, we are just getting to the point of taking a few teeny tiny baby steps. And this is a marathon.

[Luminous Animal]

57. We have been schooled since 1970 that we have to settle for one slice at a time.

Trouble is, they give us one slice then take back three so we end up behind where we started. Except for the insurance companies. They continue to enjoy the entire pie and more with each attempt at reform.

[frazzled]

51. Let me ask a sincere question

If this very imperfect bill (in your description; I think it is something quite a bit more, even with its imperfections) could only pass the House of Representatives by the skin of its teeth, in what universe do you believe that, say, a single-payer bill would have a snowball's chance in hell? I'd like to know the name of that place. Can you get there by UFO?

And, as a follow-up question: would you be happier if nothing at all passed? No regulation on the industry? No prohibition of denial because of pre-existing conditions? No prohibition of recision of insurance for people who become ill? And, finally, no attempt at health care reform at all for another 15 years?

You think you would be punishing the insurance companies with that?

I think the real problem is that people are relying, by turns, on sloganeering, doomsday scenarios, and pie-in-the-sky alternatives. They're listening to Ed Schultz and Dennis Kucinich, who really don't know anything about health care policy, instead of doing the hard work of trying to follow all the policy wonks who have been working for the last 15 years to put a set of necessary measures into actual practice and who have crunched all the numbers and done all the long-term studies. It's the universe we live in. ET, call home.

[Atticus]

54. I can't say single-payer would have passed and you can't say it would not have.

We'll never know, since Democrats would not allow it to be DISCUSSED!

You also cannot say that if we had STARTED with single-payer, we wouldn't have a MUCH stronger public option now.

As to whether I would be happier if "nothing at all passed", why do you folks insist on circling back to that tired false choice? That style of argument was SOP in the last White House. I had hoped we were moving beyond that.

[frazzled]

56. If you choose to believe that ...

I clearly can't argue with you. I've learned to respect people of faith, even if I am not a believer. Religion is a personal choice, and if it gives your life meaning, I think it's a good thing.
I do have one conviction however: whatever your beliefs, it's wrong to proselytize to others, and it's certainly wrong to assume that your world view is somehow priveleged.

There is no false choice under discussion. There was a bill, a single bill, under consideration. It was going to pass or not pass. Nothing else was at stake. So it was that or nothing. That's the reality. Maybe in some other life there is another reality.

[Luminous Animal]

58. You are ascribing a motive to the OP...

that being "faith", that just isn't there. When, in fact, his belief is more akin to agnosticism; that is, "I don't know". You, on the other hand, pretend that their is no other option. And that, my friend, is blind faith.

[BzaDem]

62. Um, that's like saying "I don't know" if the sun will rise tomorrow.

There are a certain set of facts such that if you don't agree with them, you are wrong as an objective matter of fact. The inability for single payer to pass Congress is one of those facts. It is such an obvious fact that both Kucinich and Conyers had this to say:

"Many progressives in Congress, ourselves included, feel that calling for a vote tomorrow for single payer would be tantamount to driving the movement over a cliff. The thrill of the vote would disappear quickly when the result would be characterized not as a new beginning for single payer but as an end."

[Luminous Animal]

64. Um, no it isn't.

1) As Kucinich and Conyers have pointed out, single-payer never had the opportunity to be debated. They may know that single payer cannot be passed right now under these conditions but they are both committed to single payer and, presumably, believe that passage is a viable option... Thus, "I don't know," applies.

2) There is no reason why this health insurance bill needed to rushed through. We could have (in my opinion, should have) allowed debate to be carried on, with every option on the table AND transparently (as Obama promised) for at least another year. And thus, "I don't know," applies.

[cali]

63. oh the drama. poor, poor you.

poor, poor saintly you. And I'm someone who doesn't support this because I think it's too weak. Get over it. DU is a contentious place.

[Atticus]

66. I'm sorry.

Was there some special license or dispensation I should have acquired before posting something which doesn't please you?

"DU is a contentious place." It has become more so, lately. Unnecessarily and unproductively so, in my opinion.

But, I should just shut up and accept that, right?

[ecstatic]

68. Some of the loudest people against the bill

are against EVERYTHING this administration is doing. That's not the case for everyone, but there are some vocal members who are clearly anti-Obama.