Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

My 59th pipe dream of this year... Obama is still gonna drop his Clark Kent glasses and shame me...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
mirrera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 06:15 PM
Original message
My 59th pipe dream of this year... Obama is still gonna drop his Clark Kent glasses and shame me...
Shame me for my cynicism and reality-based fury.

OK, here is the setup... shhh in case it is true...

The insurance companies have been lured in with the promise of mandates. Yes, they will be regulated a LITTLE bit, but no public option, no real cost control, just lots of customers. OK, some of them will be real sick... but all the healthy ones are MANDATED! They are promised NO PUBLIC OPTION! They know something has to happen and this is a win. They know they will make their plans so unattractive and so difficult for the truly sick that in the long run, and to satisfy the bottom line, they will have more healthy customers buying minimal plans for higher prices.
The Insurance companies speak to their whores in congress (forget the red ones, we are purely blue at this point). They say "Go for it".

Boom.

The Democrats pass health care reform WITHOUT the public option because they know their version sucked. But it was useful. It worked to define the fight: Left wing for, Centrist and Right against.

Boom.

59th pipe dream:
The dream is that we end up with a new health care law and then the Democrats pass a separate bill a'la Grayson's Medicare buy in (http://www.youtube.com/user/RepAlanGrayson).

HA HA HA HA!

Boom!

The insurance companies are regulated a little bit...
We would be required to buy... but not from them!
Oh snap! It smells like free market competition instead of Corporate Socialism!

Solution? You bet! That's real competition.

I probably can't even afford a medicare buy in, but there are plenty who can and will choose it —after a 39% rate hike by Anthem.

Oh the dreams that Barack Obama has inspired! Once again I am turning myself inside out to give him the benefit of my doubt. I feel like I am in high school...
Must be the pipe dream.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. This bill is a beginning,
not the whole enchilada.....
But it isn't nearly as bad as advertised!

There are a couple of provisions in this bill,
that could certainly lead to single payer......

The Single Payer per state provision,
inserted in the bill by Sen. Sanders,
might be just the thing to do some experimentation
(you know how afraid Americans are actually afraid of big change,
this might be more palatable on how single payer could actually work
nationally, prior to turning health care on its head.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/the_state-based_single_payer_s.html


California seems poised as the experimental state
(and that's a big one),
just as long as Jerry Brown wins the Governorship.
(I'm in California, and I will be working to that end)
http://www.truthout.org/california-senate-approves-single-payer-health-care-bill56521


As well, the “medical loss ratio” aka Sec. 2718 of the Senate Bill
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=221735&mesg_id=221735

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirrera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Didn't they take out that state provision?
I thought it was gone. I would be thrilled to know it is still there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. the article I linked on this is dated March 10, 2010......
so no, they didn't take it out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirrera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. According to David Swanson the "Kucinich Ammendment" was removed
Edited on Sun Mar-14-10 07:32 PM by mirrera
"http://www.mediaforfreedom.com/readarticle.php?AID=16664"

LOVE to be shown that that is wrong...


Edited for speling...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 11:16 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC