I want to post some things that some might find a little upsetting...
For the record, these should not be upsetting, because they are reality, something that seems to have taken flight here recently considering some of the threads I have seen of late.
First thing is Health Care Reform. The Senate voted for cloture, which means that the bill will now come before the Senate for a vote. This is an up/down vote, needing only 51 votes to pass. Once this passes, the bill goes to a house/Senate Conference where it is gone over and problems between the two bills are hashed out and compromises are made...for those who do not know this, it is the most important part of the process. The final version of the bill will emerge, and both Houses will once again have a vote on the matter; this is also a simple up/down vote. If either House votes nay on the bill that emerged from Conference, well, that's it.
My point is, all of the hyperbole over this makes me have to wonder if some actually understand the process. Just because Lieberman and Nelson squealed like monkeys with their scrotums caught in a tackle box of rusty fishhooks, doesn't mean much in the scheme of things...unless they are in the conference. (Both of them have become pariahs by the way, they expended a lot of political capital, and they won't be getting any of it back).
Secondly...we are not witnessing the end of the Democratic Party, nor is the country threatened with impending doom over this. We are not about to go belly up over HCR...the same can't be said for the wars we are engaged in of the debt those wars have driven to incredibly weight upon the populace, but HCR is not the engine of destruction so many seem to think it is.
Third, I can't read the president's mind, but I can see some of the political reality that he sees. There have been calls for his taking to the "Bully Pulpit" over all of this, fine, such calls are part of way of life in this country. I am old enough to remember Eisenhower though, and his way was to work things from behind the scenes, and he got a lot done that way. The Korean War wound down because he delegated authority to people who could negotiate a compromise. The wisdom of the result might be discussed, but lives were saved, and the area is relatively stable to this day. Not all that bad, considering the alternative that was brought up, nuclear war with China. Eisenhower also stayed out of the limelight as far as desegregation progressed as well. Rather than take an open stand, he took action from behind the curtains. When the AL National Guard was called up to block black students from entering all white schools, Eisenhower sent in the 101st to deal with the problem, this was a stroke of genius, and desegregation took a giant leap forward. The other aspect Ike used in dealing with the problem was sending US Marshals to escort the kids into the school...point is, both of these things, although dramatic, were not because Ike made a public issue personal. He used power inherent to the president in a positive way without fanfare. I think PO is doing the same thing, and is working behind the scenes to get things done.
President Obama is not a stupid man. If I were in his shoes, I would be putting my energy into ensuring the conference went in a direction that would benefit as many as it can. After all, what we have seen in the House and the Senate was essentially grandstanding and while issues were placed in and taken out of the versions of the bills, neither of them mean much until we see what comes out of conference...that is where we will see where things truly stand.
So what comes of all of this? Probably the most important thing all of us could be doing is getting in touch with our congresscritters and letting them know how we feel instead of posting incessantly on DU about how we are all going to die in one fell swoop. That's not going to happen, and 99% of us know that. If you are in a stare/district where congresscritters are going to conference, it is not just advisable, but actually a duty to to get in touch with those who will hash this out. They are the power in all of this, not Nelson, Lieberman, Boehner, Grassley...they have been sidelined at this point, (unless they wind up on conference committees).
Take it easy DU'ers...don't fall prey to the hyperbole. No matter what comes out of Conference, it is better than what we have now. Maybe not by a whole lot, or maybe it will be by a lot, we'll see. But while this is in conference...make sure you contact your congresscritters, don't wait for the last minute...even if they are R's, make sure they know how you feel. Lay the foundation today for what will come down the road shortly. In the end, they will have to vote on what comes out of conference. Don't let the RW dictate what the vote will be, for they are calling writing as I write this; we need to counter them, and quickly.
Progress is progress, whether by a step or leaps and bounds. No matter what comes out, it will not be "perfect", but if passed, at least we'll have something to work with via amendments and enhancements. If we allow this to "die" completely...there is nothing to work with. And it may well be a generation before another chance arises to make change.
BTW...Nelson is one of my Senators, and I fought like hell for his re-election. I can feel shame for that one; (but the alternative was truly horrid!)...
A couple of years ago, I came across an actual recording of him giving a speech. For years, I had heard he was a great orator, and then, on some site I was researching, (might have been Smithsonian), there was a quick link to listen to the speech. It was made on one of those Edison "toilet paper rolls" type machine...but, as I listened to a voice form the past I thought I'd never be able to hear...I heard the scratchy recording of a truly great orator, and a true grass roots man of the people.
I wish I could send you the original link, but it is on a machine that blew out... try this...apparently it has the Cross of Gold speech recorded in 1921. Sorry I didn't listen to it yet, I just did a quick search to find something by him... http://www.historicalvoices.org/earliest_voices/bryan.h...
The speech I heard was one where he spoke of the "Common Man", the man who built the ships, tilled the land and made this country what it is...
Kind of a dated pic, but one can see the passion of the man...
2. I predict that future amendments will be to benfit the ins. companies, not citizens.
If this thing is going to be that good, why are people going to be taxed only to wait 4 years. Depending on politics, the whole thing could easily be thrown out within 4 years depending on who is in power in DC.
And I still don't see any cost cutting re: Health care systems or ins. companies.
6. None of us have seen anything from the conference...
it hasn't taken place yet. Predictions are fine...but don't make them self fulfilling prophecies! Get on the phone, e-mail your congresscritters, then come back and take a swipe after you've taken action on your side...
and talked to countless folks in Congresscritters offices, but I have, of late, grown weary of it. This is a timely reminder for me. I need to put aside the apparent uselessness of my previous efforts and get to it again. I had actually forgotten, in my frustration, that it isn't the outcome of the process that is my reason for doing the work. The work is the right action no matter the outcome.
So basically, I'm saying that this was timely and necessary advice for me and probably for many others here.
22. Most here ARE INVOLVED. I too still have a little hope, but...................
............the "process" has been going on since last spring. EVERY time this has been in a committee or come up for a vote it has gotten PROGRESSIVELY WORSE. That is the rub with putting ALL HOPE on the Senate/House conference. Anything is possible, I could win the fucking lottery tomorrow too, but If the bill ends up in the form it is in now or possibly even worse, I don't want ANY part of it. Come back after the recess and pass strong regulations would be my preference, but for that you would need a "strong" White House which after this last year we have found we don't have. So, until we can get enough "liberals" elected, we are fucked. Sad, but true.
Really. I'm tired of hearing this. I am not filled with such negativity that I believe every single person in Congress is "bought off." Repeat this over and over and over if it makes you feel better, but it's just time to me.
Yeah, everybody hates insurance companies, but they do provide a service.
129. I don't believe that adding a for-profit intermediary that
contributes nothing to health care provides a service.
The company I work for self-insures for employee medical. They pay an administrative company a fixed fee to manage the coverage. Administrative companies compete for this contract, and that keeps prices lower for us. I get a cadillac plan for the price of a regular plan because insurance companies with their high salaries and bonuses are kept out of the picture.
And here is the big thing: Our administrative management company never substitutes it's own judgment for that of my doctor--if my doctor orders it, I get it.
130. "everybody hates insurance companies, but they do provide a service." In the case
of health insurance companies that service could be provided far less expensively and more efficiently for ALL Americans if our Congress were to mandate that a government bureaucracy take over what a private bureaucracy is now doing at exorbitant cost to the people of this nation.
Doctors do not need insurance companies to tell them whom to treat and how to treat them.
Health insurance is an obscenely lucrative middle-man scam that is reaping BILLIONS OF DOLLARS for those individuals who are greedy enough and ruthless enough to keep the scam rolling. Thanks to their ability to buy off or intimidate any and everyone who opposes them.
241. There's certainly a possibility that there might be some of that. On the other hand, it is now
epidemic and based on PROFITABILITY considerations. That would be taken out of the equation. Even if there were the same number of dollars spent on healthcare under a government-run plan, the total dollars available for medical care would be BILLIONS higher since the overhead costs (those that are due to administrative salaries--think CEO's, claims deniers,etc.) would be able to be used for actual medical care.
would be more money available to treat without the insurance middleman. But with the track record of the Fed govt, I have very little faith in their abilities, and little faith in the politicians who would lord over it.
I would like to see "true" non-profit health care insurance cooperatives that are controlled by the membership(patients), much like credit unions. Would have to be a cap on the percent of money spent on administration, the rest must pay for care or be held in reserve for care. Chartered and subsidized by the Feds. No pre-existing conditon limitations, let the membership via elected board decide what to cover, rates, etc...
Let the patients have the power to decide what they want covered, not the politicians, not the insurance companies...
162. "The insurance companies do provide a service."
They provide that service at an estimated 85% greater cost than government could provide it for -- as it presently does with Medicare.
Re: your position:
The United States population is presently divided into two distinctly disparate social categories, one of which consists of those who have been victimized by the kind of legalized theft and exploitation enabled by the disassembly of the middle class initiated by Reagan and continued by Bush, Clinton and Bush. Many of these unfortunates are unemployed and on the verge of joining the rest of their social class which is impoverished and totally disenfranchised.
The other segment consists of the rich and the relatively comfortable who are secure in their homes and are sufficiently solvent as to afford all the necessities of life as well as some level of luxury.
Which of those two citizen categories of do you think is most inclined to believe that private medical insurance companies should continue to exploit their subscribers for 85% more than government would provide the same service for?
166. They provide a service we do not need. Worse, they use up
Edited on Mon Dec-21-09 03:10 PM by sabrina 1
approx. one third of the all the money available for healthcare for their own personal enrichment. We are the only developed country who apparently sees nothing wrong with injecting a for-profit, private industry into the business of taking care of the health of its citizens. The only country that views its citizens as a commodity. The only country that has blithely accepted the crime of refusing to treat sick people (ironically done by the 'healthcare industry) as if it were tolerable.
In most countries such an idea is considered to be immoral, and far too risky to trust the lives of citizens with. Considering the completely unacceptable death rate of US citizens under this system, it is putting it mildly to say they are right.
America has been desensitized to the issues of life and death. Many feel detached from those who on a daily basis, watch loved ones die because they cannot afford to live so they push it away, or make a 'larger issue'. Never personalize it, because that makes it a responsiblilty.
This bill, while it may increase the numbers of people who will be covered, as is always the case when a society accepts the evil of putting profits and profiteers above all else, will continue to discriminate against the less fortunate who will receive, as is happening in Mass., substandard care. It will discriminate against the elderly and those with pre-conditions by charging them more.
Not much will probably change, true the country as a whole won't collapse. If only we had tried harder, we might have gotten a step closer to believing that all Americans have a right to the same level of healthcare. When you aim for the sky, you might hit a tree. But when you aim only for the tree, the chances are you will fall short.
Our representatives never even tried aiming at the sky and before this is over, because the Private Ins. Industry will be the big winners in this no matter what we do, those who tried to stand up for a system that treats all Americans equally, especially when it comes to their right to live, will be marginalized and called the usual names 'whiners' etc. I can live with that. Because nothing yet has persuaded me that it is wrong to try to get equal treatment for all Americans.
Until this country evolves enough to catch up with the rest of the civilized world, once again Americans will accept the bad over the worst (and no, it's not the good over the perfect, we passed that threshold a long time ago) and the winners will celebrate, never thinking about anything but what they perceive to be a victory.
For profit healthcare is immoral. It always was and it always will be, no matter how the 'winners' try to paint it otherwise. One day hopefully, we as a nation will finally just refuse to accept it. But this opportunity to so has been squandered.
Meantime the OP's advice is good advice. I will call my Rep who is a Repuke so it's unlikely I could have an intelligent conversation with him, or his staff. But it's the least I can do.
228. What service does Health Insurance provide? Really.
Edited on Mon Dec-21-09 07:14 PM by martymar64
What value does health insurance provide to the health care system? They don't actually provide any health care. In fact they often hinder the provision of health care. To me they are just self-imposed middlemen, skimming profits off the top while contributing nothing. Kind of like a mob-run casino.
So, please tell us what positive value health insurance companies provide. I and others around here would really like to know.
in Congress has been bought off, but many of them have. Some are held back by inertia and the inability or lack of will that it would take to buck their political system. A lot of them are tying to insure their futures within the parameters of the political system they know at the expense of a better political system for the future. Either way, they are not looking after their constituents, only themselves.
I have made many calls to my congresscritters (good word) on a regular basis, emailed the White House because I cannot phone at a time when their in boxes are not "full." I have written the DNC and basically been ignored. For me health care is only one of many issues that I think this administration has fallen down on. One of the worst things they did was to go to court to make torture an allowable practice. Further, if a person is declared an "enemy combatant" by the president or his duly appointed representatives he can be held indefinitely without due process granted to everyone else by the constitution. He ceases to exist as a human being. The court ruled with them and that is now the "law" of the land.
It is things like that which will hurt us the most in the end. Other countries already hate us because of Bush, and they won't like us any better now. Not for Afghanistan, not for allowing torture or crimes against humanity. Apparently Congress has nothing to say about the court ruling if they even know about it. It was done quietly and in secret and leaked out under cover of the noise about health care. So I am going to keep looking for likely hopefuls in the Democratic primaries to replace some congresscritters with. While the post which starts this thread makes a very lucid and reassuring case there are too many other things this administration is supporting to make me want to support it any further.
Also if we are using Eisenhower as a role model, I prefer JFK and his response to the Cuban missile crisis. He did not falter, he kept a cool head, but he stood up and pushed back. After all was said and done there were no Russian missiles in Cuba and he had earned the US a lot of respect throughout the world. He was also great behind the scenes. Then there is Lyndon Johnson who got landmark civil rights legislation passed that none of the others wanted to come out in the open to support, despite waging a disastrous war. Again he stepped out and stood. I'm sure that Obama is capable of stronger actions and stances if he wished to take them. If not now, when?
230. True. The bill may well get worse, not better, in conference.
Edited on Mon Dec-21-09 07:28 PM by Honeycombe8
It went as far left as it could. Now it can only go to the right. Or what may happen is other Senators will insist on their states getting the deal that Nelson got. That will really do us all in, as we work even harder to pay those states' bills.
234. Depends on your income level. Rich won't pay and poor won't pay.
So we'll officially have the "two America's" that Edwards spoke of. The middle will crack supporting both...and then, combined with an aging middle class, climate changes, limited and weak initiatives to get and stay green...
Insurance is a product. Its being sold as a benefit. In the old days it was cheap by design to enable business to delay raises in pay. Now there are no raises in pay and the insurance is out of sight for all but the wealthy. Insurance has only itself to please.
266. Yes, it's upsetting. In the old days, health care was cheap enuf that you didn't NEED insurance,
except for catastrophic illness. The avg person could afford to go to the dr., have a baby, etc., and write a check for the service. It was that cheap. It cost a flat dollar amount to have a baby, and you knew the amount up front. It costs $1,200 to have a baby, or whatever. Really. That was the doctor's fee for the entire 9 months of pregnancy. Didn't include the vitamins, I think, though. The hospital (which included an overnight stay) also had a low flat fee.
Enter insurance, and costs skyrocketed.
Now with subsidies for insurance and no reform or cost containment, costs will skyrocket even more. The outlook isn't good.
267. Perzactly. And women used to stay in hospital more than the requisite 24 hours-if that nowadays.
Its such a farce...you get to pay through the nose for a "birthing" this or that, in a room that looks like a hotel room with a crew who only will call the Dr. in the event of catastrophe. What a joke. Who asked for all this? We didn't that's for sure.
Public health is a joke also and mental health and its depleted services have become an insidious version of the Monty Python movies.
But we do get to watch the murder of women on TV almost every night so guess we should quite complaining eh? Who needs more "drama" than that?
10. Actually, I think Lieberman and Nelson still have the power.
Even if they aren't actually sitting in the room negotiating the conference report, they will likely weigh heavily on the minds of everyone who is actually in the room. It is my understanding that Conference Reports can be filibustered in the Senate, so 60 votes are needed to pass it.
Of course, the conference committee can try to "call their bluff," put a number of provisions back in, and see if Lieberman or Nelson or anyone else is willing to sink the entire bill. But it would be a huge risk, and I would be surprised if they tried it with any of the key provisions (especially the public option).
12. I concede that a filibuster is a possibility...
but the actual vote on the bill is up/down. The only thing a filibuster will do is delay the inevitable vote, and most likely at an extremely high political price.
16. I'm pretty sure the filibuster can be used to force a 60-vote supermajority on the Conference report
Here's what Senator Nelson has to say on the issue:
“This cloture vote is based on a full understanding that there will be a limited conference between the Senate and House," Nelson said. “If there are material changes in that conference report different from this bill that adversely affect the agreement, I reserve the right to vote against the next cloture vote.”
Nelson is a real fly in the ointment on this, (and other things), sad to say he's one of my Senators, and I am thoroughly embarrassed by his actions of late.
What I can say, is that I have been in near constant contact w/his office, and on two occasions I have been contacted by him personally over this. I have not been all that civil when I contact him either, (which might explain the phone call I got).
You can be assured that I will continue to contact his office and make my vies known. His ties to the insurance markets are his driving force. They literally dictate to him where he should stand. Nelson is not one who is motivated by ideology, to him, it is all about cash and how much he can get.
He'll play this out as best he can, but I believe his colleagues in the Senate will force his hand. It all depends on what comes out of conference. He's smarting from the drubbing he's getting in the press, and he may well feel that he has moved beyond where he can benefit his benefactors. One other thing, he came out with a LOT for NE, he's not about to squander that, at least not for any ideological reason.
119. But something happened with Nelson because the marker he laid down last week was not met
yet he came on board anyway.
so something was up with that, which is fine with me, but something definitely intervened. when the book is written, maybe we will find out what was actually said behind closed doors.
190. Apparently, Nebraska gets Medicare paid for by the rest of us...
From now until eternity...or something close to that. OP has a good point, how quickly will he take that from his constituents now that he has achieved that, in order to not insure a woman's choice?
Nelson has announced that it would be a 'limited' conference and he would not vote for cloture of the final if their were any substantial changes. This is about it for the the bill.
Just like this morning, you need cloture on the debate and that takes 60 votes, followed by the vote itself which takes only 50.
There are 6 potential votes in this process. The reason they voted at 1 am is that they need 30 hours before they can vote. That is just on the manager's amendment. Then they need to vote on the bill itself. They then have a cloture vote, followed by a vote which (hopefully) passes it out of the Senate. (That is 4 votes)
The remaining two are needed only if the Conference does not accept the Senate bill as written.
210. In other words, the other 2 votes needed if Conference bill doesn't match Senate bill
in it's current form. So, if the public option from the House bill, or anything else from the House bill, which isn't in the Senate bill, is put into the Conference Report... then Nelson has reserved the right to filibuster... which will leave the conference bill in limbo until one side or the other gives in, or the conference bill is shelved.
Which means that the conference bill will most likely be a 95-99% match with the Senate bill... because of the intransigence of the likes of Nelson and Lieberman.
What you see now is pretty much what you are going to get. Enjoy...
218. That's my take, but I have not read anything to definitively say that
I know the Democrats filibustered a defense appropriations (2863) conference report because Stevens stuck in drilling in ANWR in 2005. That was easier dealt with - the offending provision was removed via amendment, cloture waived and the bill then passed. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/v...
Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the answer to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.
28. The "joys" of discontent?? That is a foolish and insensitive statement.
Edited on Mon Dec-21-09 08:20 AM by Armstead
Do you actually believe those of us who have cared about this issue for years actually "enjoy" feeling like this?
Does it remotely cross your "pragmatic" mind that many, many people who really wanted andf worked hard for meaningful reform HATE being put in the position of being totally bummed out by what the Democrats came up with when they finally got a chance to sink a basket?
If you believe that this is a "joy" then you have a hell of a lot to learn about people.
34. From what I have read on DU lately concerning this situation...
Edited on Mon Dec-21-09 08:45 AM by rasputin1952
I might say "joy" is an understatement.
Have you actually read what has been said about this issue? Some people have posted here simply to maintain their level of hate. Some have gone to great lengths to attempt to bring down the president and the government, based on a "principle" essentially only they see. I am a "principled" man, I believe that we can move forward and not leave anyone behind in the long run; I am not about to scrap progress, because I don't agree with every thought proffered in a bill. I know it is flawed, I also know that one cannot "fix" something when said "thing" is non-existent...which is what many would be satisfied, or perhaps overjoyed with.
Some people do indeed find "joy" in complete failure, just read some of what has been posted. Some would find great "ecstasy" in remaining stagnant on any HCR. Even while people died and remained ill from treatable diseases. What a sad commentary on humanity.
41. I repeat -- With the exc eption of perhaps a few trolls, this is not an enjoyable experience
Edited on Mon Dec-21-09 08:54 AM by Armstead
People's emotions, myself included, have been in overdrive because we cared about this passionately and we feel betrayed and undone by a combination of corruption and ineptitude.
And before you mention the "perfect and the good" let me state this as dispassionately as I can.
This started out with a huge concession from the "perfect" when solutions like expansion of Medicare and a single payer alternative system were taken off the table immediately. proponents were not even allowed to make their case in the early hearings.
So we agreed to a tame "public option" as a major compromise from the very start.
But then, as that and other things we cared about got whittled away -- and the bill became the Privatization Support Act through things like misplaced mandates for private insuperable -- we did get very disappointed and angry and felt betrayed. Especially as truly anti-reform forces like Ben Nelson were given EVERYTHING THEY WANTED.
The result was a bill that includes some positive things,but in its very philosophy and strategy FURTTHER EMBEDS the very forces that created this problem in the first place. And it rejects actual straightforward regulation. This is based on the same premise that drove the Reagan revolution. "Allow insurers to be more competitive, and they will do well for everyone."
And then, as we tried to at least get the bad things taken out so that the hard parts would not be rushed through haphazardly, we were labeled as "kill the bill teabaggers" or "naive ideologues" by the very people who ought to be allies in the fight for a better healthcare system.
You think that feels good? You think there is any pleasure and comfort in that? Don't you think we would much prefer to be able be celebrating a shared victory -- even a small starter victory -- together?
52. Yes I do think we would all be happier if this bill were better...
and I sincerely empathize w/what you stated as where the bill stands.
The one large reality that stares at us, right in the eyes, and many refuse to see...is that a "zero" cannot be amended in the future, there is nothing there to amend. At least with something it can be amended to be far more equitable. The honest reality is that we can only work for more, if we have something...
I am just asking that people refrain from thinking that being unhappy about what should be a cause for celebration is not in any way enjoyable (except for a few masochists or trolls).
88. dont assume you can ask us to refrain from thinking
we will think what we will and i happen to agree that much joy is taken in the wailing and moaning. I suggest instead that you refrain from thinking about what others might being to think.
67. We have had several decades to amend Medicare...
Under this bill, my insurance premium is going up next year. In theory, I'm happy for the thirty million theoretical people who will get coverage, but this bill won't lower my payment any. So if the answer is for me to wait around another 40 years, and maybe Congress will decide we need to Amend the healthcare reform act, it just doesn't provide any comfort right now.
the latest being the drug "enhancement", which, like everything else bush touched...turned out to be a disaster.
I don't know if you are on Medicare or have private insurance, but if you are on private insurance, your rates are going up anyway, and if you have a pre-existing condition, you are about as good as dead. Insurance is all about profit, Medicare is not.
"Reporting from Washington -- Under pressure to pay for his ambitious reshaping of the nation's healthcare system, President Obama today will outline $313 billion in Medicare and Medicaid spending cuts over the next decade to help cover the cost of expanding coverage to tens of millions of America's uninsured.
Among the proposed policy changes outlined by the president are:
* Reductions in payments to providers to reflect increased efficiencies in the system, which the White House estimates could save $110 billion over the next decade.
* Cuts in federal subsidies to hospitals that treat large populations of uninsured patients, estimated to save $106 billion over the next decade.
* Cuts in how much the federal government pays pharmaceutical companies to provide prescription drugs to seniors and others, estimated to save $75 billion over the next decade."
and you can't be bothered to even state what you find naive about it. It seems to me that the OP demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of how the Senate works.
Joe Lieberman was defeated by Ned Lamont in the Democratic Primary for his seat. What happened? He quit the party and ran against the Democratic nominee in the General election, openly backed by many prominent Democratic Senators, officials and leaders. He was courted to remain in the Democratic caucus, and kept some very important committee chairmanships.
In the 2008 elections, he made a very public display of his support for Republican candidate John McCain. He appeared at McCain's side frequently during campaign events. The publicly questioned Barack Obama's patriotism. Yet he still has very important chairmanships in Senate Committees. Harry "Nobody-is-angrier-than-me" Reid shrugged it off. Would rather look forward than look back.(What DO you have to do to get punished around there?)
So, forgive me if I'm a little skeptical when you say that Lieberman is a Pariah. He's been allowed to shape the Senate Bill. He's been wined and dined by the Whitehouse will the progressives have been insulted and ignored. Sorry. I'm not buying it.
42. If you're saying we've heard the last of Lieberman
I would sure like to believe you. But every time I think he's gone, he causes another catastrophe.
And if you're saying that the House/Senate Conference is going to put the Public Option back into the bill, and then it's going to be enacted by both houses of Congress, I would really like to believe you. Maybe I still have time to put in my order for a pony. Given the tortured history of this bill, however, I don't think it's going to happen.
40. The "best" that could be would be a stalling tactic...
Amendments are not permitted, it is an up/down vote...and would come at remarkable political cost.
It could happen, but inevitably, the vote would come around and probably pass. The public uproar over a filibuster would be enormous, and extremely perilous, depending on what comes out of conference.
Nelson won't have anything to do w/it though...he's got a LOT of concessions for NE. Unless they are stripped out of the end bill, he'll sit pretty quietly.
104. I'm not arguing it, but it seems it would not be suicide for R's to filibuster, but
maybe for the Democrats it would be except that people like Landreiu, Bayh, and Nelson could get away with it because of their state's conservative leaning. For Lieberman it is harder to do now because he is angering the Democrats that voted for him.
That's just the kind of peckerhead he is. I am convinced that he is a pathological attention whore. Even public excoriation is OK by him. Any publicity is good publicity is his mind.
I'll be shocked if he doesn't pull some kind of shit.
That is the reality of the situation. The best they can do is stall. The longer they stall, the more outraged the public becomes, pretty hefty price to pay.
43. How are the senators chosen that will make up the conference committee ???
I'm sure the makeup of that commitee will have a huge impact on what comes out. It has to be better than the current senate bill, I just hope that Reid has the intestinal fortitude to walk a decent bill through the final vote. If Lieberman or Nelson threaten to fillibuster I would hope that Reid would finally call their bluff.
I've been trying to ignore some of the debate around here, but, it gets rough. And ass wipes like Lieberman, Nelson, and Snowe can be absolutely infuriating at times. And I know that the only bill that matters is what emerges from the Conference Committee. And I have this fantasy that H.R. 676 will come out. But, I didn't claim to be sane, either.
But, based on past experiences, I have a feeling that I'm going to be sorely disappointed when it does emerge. I hope that I'm proven wrong, but I ain't holding my breath.
I certainly don't expect, nor would I want, people to walk lock-step w/me. About the only thing I want is for those that have something to offer, regardless of which side, is that offer it honestly and openly...then be prepared to defend what they they post.
If I am to be taken to task, and answer to the best of my ability; others should be holding to the same standard. I've always been open when I've posted on the Boards. All I've ever asked is that others do the same...
53. K&R... and now let's aim the arrows at the GOP as the Party Of Quit!
People seem to think that 2010 is going to be a bloodbath for Democrats... just like they thought Reverend Wright was going to be the Head of the CIA...
Hyperbole and kneejerking bloviation might be entertaining on cable news shows, but the reality is that in the end, those people are fools... on both sides of the political aisle.
Thing is, people of different states and districts despise congress, but not their own critters. That may well change when people realize they have nothing left except to be prey for the insurance companies. There is a groundswell against corporate America...people are getting highly irate over how the GOP led Corporations Forever movement stripped people of their hard earned cash and paid CEO's for essentially doing nothing except increasing profits on Wall Street.
After a bill becomes law, it is open to change...but with nothing to change, we're stuck, for at least another generation, with what we have now.
Yeah, I got pissed off when they cowered to Lieberman, but I think Lieberman was the fall guy for Lincoln, Bayh, Conrad, and a few others because none of them could support anything resembling a public option, either, so Lieberman who is universally despised by the left became the fall guy for this being dropped.
And the reason these Senators couldn't vote for anything like this wasn't so much that they are bought and paid for by the insurance lobby but more because the insurance lobby would move heaven and earth to destroy them if they did vote for it.
58. True...insurance companies are not friendly to people, that's for sure...
be a few days late on your car insurance, you get dumped...try to collect after an accident, be prepared to go through all kinds of conniptions.
It's all about profit, nothing else. Guess it should be, they are businesses, but when they are propped up by unfair laws, then the crap should hit the fan. I wonder often, how many people could have been treated for the $5000 desks, $1000 chairs, and worst of all the millions poured onto the top guys for doing essentially nothing?
How many children w health problems could have had their diseases cured, or at the least, their suffering alleviated...while some CEO fawned over hi/her new Teakwood desk?
61. Your situation as Mod & Poster has become untenable
I am reluctant to even reply to your threads because you are the first seemingly-vindictive, seemingly-agenda-advancing Mod I have ever seen here... and I have extensive DU experience.
I realize that it is said that all Mod decisions are collaborative but, for whatever reason, when mod actions are taken in this forum that are arbitrary and partisan you are usually the named party.
I had never previously seen threads locked for simple mod disagreement with the OP until you started that trend in this forum.
You post in disagreement with lines of argument and then target the arguments you don't like in your capacity as a Mod.
And since you are often flat wrong that makes the situation even more offensive.
For instance, this sentence of yours demonstrates a complete lack of comprehension of process while you smugly mock others who DO understand it:
"My point is, all of the hyperbole over this makes me have to wonder if some actually understand the process. Just because Lieberman and Nelson squealed like monkeys with their scrotums caught in a tackle box of rusty fishhooks, doesn't mean much in the scheme of things...unless they are in the conference. (Both of them have become pariahs by the way, they expended a lot of political capital, and they won't be getting any of it back)."
Clueless... just wrong.
But since you have nannied and coddled threads making the same indefensible argument with selective deletions and such...
Well, it's abuse of the DU system to promulgate nonsense, so that's probably not a good thing.
I know mods work for free and work hard. It's a thankless job.
But since you are doing DU a serious disservice in this forum it would be better if you merely posted and were not doing that hard and thankless work.
73. I cannot. I feel I have said too much already.
I am sane and sober and I believe that it is not safe to talk to you because you present yourself as an activist in support of some notions that happen to be false and have also given "the appearance of" being vindictive.
That combination makes open discussion impossible.
I have never, in a long and contentious DU career, even noted who a mod was, let alone felt obliged to tread carefully in (or more commonly, avoid altogether) any post where a particular mod comments.
You say I should address your OP but in the context of your past actions it feels like a cultural-revolution invitation to self-incrimination... I'm sure it isn't literally that way, but that's the vibe you have created.
And that is what is referred to as "the chilling effect." A subtle deformation of debate that arises whenever force is introduced to discourse. (Mod force is not exactly billy-clubs and dogs, but saying some shit on DU isn't exactly revolution.)
76. "I believe that it is not safe to talk to you"; meanwhile, four paragraphs later...
You're still one of my favorite posters, even if you put me on ignore during the Hillary Warz, but if there's a chilling effect you wouldn't notice it from this subthread.
123. "one of DU's most reactive and hateful posters"? Look in the mirror.
Edited on Mon Dec-21-09 12:53 PM by ClarkUSA
You're just pissed rasputin 1952 has the same perspective of many like me who support the HCR process instead of trashing it as many "of DU's most reactive and hateful posters" do 24/7 these days.
91. you are as counter to sane and sober as this board allows
Edited on Mon Dec-21-09 10:58 AM by mkultra
so perhaps your choices are wise in this matter. Let me remind you that in the end, this board is for supporting democrats, not for supporting your agenda. no one is trying to silence your hatred and contempt for democrats. You can still say what you want. But if you take it to far, they will ask you to say it elsewhere.
and why do you feel so wary of him? Mod or not, he's a member of DU. He holds no special powers over us. If he abuses his role as a mod, he gets thrown out by the list-owners, who, from my observations, are fair people.
122. Oh please. There's another mod who disparaged Pres. Obama but you're okay with that, right?
rasputin1952 has never shown "vindictiveness" or disparaged anyone directly that I know of. And I say that as someone whose most recent OP was locked by him.
71. I agree that a semi-official opinion is suspect
on a public message board, or even the Op-Ed page of the NYT when it endorses candidates, as though a newspaper could be of one mind on anything. But placing the problem at the feet of a single mod while ignoring "root causes" seems like a hopeless way of going about it, like railing against a single Lieberman instead of the corrupt institution which brung 'im.
I have a soft spot for martyrs, even though the affinity isn't mutual, but his argument seemed as effective as having a legal debate with a cop. My advice was "take it to the judge", if the point is universal and not a political tactic, but I could have phrased it more sycophantically. Since you essentially restated what I wrote (re: the policy vs. the particular), I'm guessing your question is more relevant to the person I replied to, although it's a little unreasonable to interpret silence as complicity in terms of topics whizzing by on DU (I don't recall seeing the thread you describe, but I'd like to think my response would be somewhat consistent)
but I, too, had never seen a thread locked simply because the mod disagreed with its premise. It clearly overstepped the boundaries. The OP was not flamebait and it violated no DU rules. And although I disagree with how HCR has been handled, I am neutral on whether it signals the "end of the Democratic party." I have strong feelings, however, on whether mods should lock threads using their disagreement with the OP as the reason for locking. I have almost always admired the work of the moderators on DU, especially when they were handling provocative issues, but I have been disappointed recently.
I would have said something on the original thread if it hadn't been locked.
269. I agreed with the OP, and thought it was fine.
Edited on Tue Dec-22-09 12:36 PM by chrisa
I've seen much worse places than this, where everybody kisses the Mods' asses and fawns over them. This place isn't one of them. However, being a Mod doesn't disallow one from posting. Sorry if this sounds overly harsh - but I see nothing wrong with this thread (and I would say otherwise if there was something wrong with it).
Did he say, "Everybody must agree with me?" Nope. I just don't see what's wrong with it.
64. many thanks for a clear post with good explanations
I wasn't a civics major--- I appreciate the help!
This is all feeling like a giant rollercoaster, even though I know change happens in increments, and the perfect picture won't likely come out on the first step.
65. I have to go to work, I just don't want people to think I ...
I abandoned this thread.
I think discussion is good for the soul and the mind...and I'm open to all points of view. The only thing I ask is that people discuss and not "attack" each other.
I will be back later, if anyone wants to take me to task on this...
I have read column after column about Obama's failures. This is a positive post in a sea of negativity.
Regarding HCR, Paul Krugman had an excellent Op Ed in the NYT on Saturday. He stated, "Sign the bill." He also stated that Democrats have tried and failed for decades to get any type of health care bill signed. We can improve it in the future.
70. Why are you talking about the conference report? We might get a little more
subsidies but this bill is pretty much set, there will be a show conference where the additional 50 billion or so of subsidies will be trumpeted as a victory for affordability, and the House will be told to get in line.
The House will have no latitude on structure or how the funding will work.
I can't see the House members on the joint committee bowing down to the Senate as you suggest. But I think that's what the OP was about, get on the phone, email, and snai-mail our congress critters to let them know how we feel about this. All the defeatism in the world won't change a thing, but raising hell with our representatives just might.
83. Observation of reality and watching the pattern
As you have seen no matter how much this plan temporarily changes that it always default reboots right back to the Baucus travesty. We have also seen that the Senate has been given the driver's seat the whole way, these are the people Obama has met with. Finally, common sense will tell you that it is the Senators who must be placated. There is a coalition working in the background of Conrad, Baucus, Bayh, Lieberman, Nelson, and some of the other conservatives that have all the hand here.
Believe what you want but I know that I should have listened to the wisdom that was being laid out here that the Finance bill would pretty much be it but I was optimistic and wanted to see the process work out but I was willfully denying what was the clear truth just as you comfort yourself now. The House has already been lined up, they will roll over on abortion and everything. They'll get a few more bucks and a number fudge's worth of some other concession but the structure is LOCKED as is the Max tax, the President's thumb is on the scale for it.
74. No, SPEAK UP!! Call your Congresspeople to improve this bill in conference!
This is our last chance to improve this bill! A lot of the problems with this bill aren't an issue for the idiots who've blocked the bill up to now, and they are not going to be at conference so they get no say.
I'm in agreement with most of what you state with one exception you might want to clarify. When the bill goes to conference and is agreed upon in conference it goes back to the house which then votes on the conference report, a simple majority passes it. In the senate any senator on the floor can object to the report where it goes to debate. No amendments can be made to the report but the debate then is subject to a cloture vote which requires 60 votes. Your post seems to say once it comes out of conference it goes up for a vote and a simple majority prevails in both houses. It's there that if a public option or Medicare buyin is added, Lieberman, and Nelson have both stated they would not vote to end the debate, which in effect would kill the bill. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this but I believe this is the way it works. Now if they should not vote on this conference report until the next session, the Senate can vote to change the rules and lower the thresh hold for filibuster to say 55, or they could eliminate it completely. They could then pass the bill by a simple majority in both houses. Which at this time of crisis facing our country, I'm in agreement with Paul Krugman's article in the New York Times, that we have a dysfunctional Senate that threatens gridlock on a host of issues critical to our country. We need to take out the power of one or two rogue Senators who buck their own caucuses for their own political and sometimes personal gain. Make them irrelevant.
I cannot predict how all of this will turn out, but Nelson has a huge stake for NE on how this turns out. Lieberman is an idiot.
I am willing to take a gamble, and say that some of the more reasonable R's will vote to close if a filibuster goes into effect. There will be severe backlash if the government grinds to a halt because some people want to grandstand.
I stand by my earlier statement that Lieberman is a pariah. McCain likes him, but who cares about McCain anyway...I have friends in AZ saying he is getting the crap kicked out of him locally in AZ. Even some R's are ticked at him...McCain is playing with fire at this point...and I have no problem if he gets burned to a crisp.
now is the time for outrageous childishness, gnashing of teeth, wailing, moaning, and general malaise. <whiny voice> our voices must be heard</whiny voice>
90. thank you, there is a lot about politics i don't understand
and your perspective is very valuable.
However, there are a few things i want to point out.
1) the actions of many members of Congress have been quite disturbing.. They need to know that we're upset. Writing or calling is not enough. They need to hear the angry 'chatter'.
2) sites like DU are monitored by political pulse-takers. We may be pretty small in the scheme of things, but we're also activist, people who are more likely than others to volunteer and promote candidates we like. They need us, at least when it's campaign season.
3) if the reactions at DU demonstrate how little we understand the process, clearly, there's a problem with how the process is being communicated to us by the media and our members of Congress. And if those of us at DU, generally a pretty well-informed group, understand it so poorly, imagine the confusion of people who are not as engaged in the political process. Confusion makes us -- the masses -- easier to manipulate by special interests
While all the hyperbole, as you call it, may be misplaced, it says a lot about who we are and how much we understand. Clearly, we have a lot to learn about politics. I can only hope there are good teachers amongst us who have to patience to help us understand and the honesty to tell us truth about this otherwise vile process.
That said, thank you for your comments. They were very helpful.
96. Unfortunately, the bill, unless changed materially, does more harm than good.
At the end of the day, it vests all power within the insurance companies with no real check or balance.
The "checks and balances" built into this bill are based mostly on "reasonableness". In short, if these companies act in concert, everything becomes reasonable.
For example, when the oil companies were raising prices to ridiculous levels, despite no need to do so.. they did it concert. Gas reached $5.00 per gallon, not because the resource became slim or b/c the price of oil FUTURES shot up. Gas reached $5.00 per gallon b/c the oil companies decided our expectations for gas needed to be reset. They wanted to get the price to $2.50->$3.00 and the best way to do that is to raise it to 5 and then drop it down to 3, so 3 doesn't feel that expensive anymore. They all acted together and that gives them cover.
Taking out the ability of companies to deny insurance for pre-existing conditions doesn't mean that insurance companies can't deny coverage or deny claims.
Requiring them to spend 90% on care, just requires them to change job titles of some people.
Here's the reality. IT WILL NOT WORK. Health care costs will continue to skyrocket. People will continue to be uninsured and unhappy. Is everyone gonna die immediately? No. But the democrats will pay for this legislation at the ballot box, as it is one miserable failure.
The reality is that red-meat Failer rhetoric is no substitute for the facts on HCR as stated publicly by trusted public servants like Sens. Brown, Sanders, Rockefeller and Rep. Weiner.
100. Ben Nelson's reserving the right to vote against cloture for the conference report
Like Conrad, Nelson said in his statement Saturday that any substantial changes to the final healthcare reform bill from the Senate compromise legislation could end up costing the Democrats his vote.
“This cloture vote is based on a full understanding that there will be a limited conference between the Senate and House," Nelson said. “If there are material changes in that conference report different from this bill that adversely affect the agreement, I reserve the right to vote against the next cloture vote.”
with where reform is now, I agree that people need to call, write, fax their reps. I do understand the process and hope that it can be improved in conference. You are correct it is important to let your reps know what we need and expect.
Know that faxes and letters sent through the mail will get the most attention.
Calling is good, but as so many are calling now it may be very difficult to get through. Do not get discouraged. Keep calling until you get through.
Email is okay, but again servers are overwhelmed and it is the easiest thing to discount.
Whatever one chooses to do: please do something.
Happy New Year! Let's hope next year is a vast improvement over the last one.
107. Forcing folks to buy a usurious product without an alternative
Edited on Mon Dec-21-09 11:51 AM by ooglymoogly
will seriously harm the dems come next election. Most would call that predatory government. We have to face the fact that every compromise has been from our side with our congress folks running for the swooning couch at the first sign of a rumble; Grandstanding at every opportunity, only to jump off the cliff when ordered by the pugs. Who knows, as the Pollyannas keep telling us, maybe pigs really can fly.
120. Very nice analysis but unfortunately it doesn't take away from the fact that this isn't Eisenhower's
Washington, and this is still a bad bill.There , based on previous behavior, is no reason to assume that the conference will not capitulate.This is a very sad state of affairs, and pres. Obama has ,so far, not shown himself to be a leader. he has been appearing everywhere, even late night shows and saying nothing. He is no Eisehower and he certainly is no FDR.If he is working behind the scenes we have seen no evidence that it is to benefit anyone except Big Pharma who he did have a "back door" meeting with.
155. I merely used Eisenhower as a vehicle to show how some things
work.
I could not use LBJ...even though he got a lot done, it was a completely different style. LBJ was right up in the faces of those who went against him, that is not PO's style. I equate it more to Ike's.
257. Have no idea if the President profits by anything but he did have a back door deal with Big pharma
Sen. Dorgen and Harkin publicly admit that was so.Feingold has also referenced this. The president did not support the POaccording to several Senators and worked to surpress drug reimportation as part of his deal.
125. One only need to panic if they are currently un insurable.
If through illness or lack of money an American can not obtain health insurance then I would beg to differ with you. Now is the time to kiss your home and future goodbye. I would not be so rude as to ask where your insurance comes from. Mine has a huge sticker price, small group and one illness away from being canceled.
when I had a great job, in a hospital, I had great insurance.
I, like many others have been caught up in the nightmare bush made of the economy. I am but an illness away from being dead.
I am fighting for the future. I may not be much longer, but my son and daughters will be...just as the kids of others will be here far longer than I. As for me, I am neither selfish nor so foolish as to not realize that I want to leave the youth of this planet something to look forward too, something they van thank my generation for as they rear their own children. The generation before me stopped Germany and Japan, in the hope this would be a better world...what will we leave those that come after us?
I've spent a lifetime giving, so have many others. Maybe I'm just kind of "weird" but I still hold that all human beings should be treated with dignity and respect...unless they have done something specific that would circumvent that. I could never respect Hitler, Tojo, Stalin or a host of others..even if they were human. But for the vast majority of human beings, i see nothing wrong if we feed the hungry, clothe the naked, warm the cold, care for the ill and dying...where is the "harm" in any of those things?
None of us can change the world...but we can make our little corner a more livable place...
141. It may not cost less, but more people willbe covered, and those with
pre-existing conditions will not be turned away to die in the cold.
If we save one life, we have done well...if many are saved, we leave a legacy.
Time after time, I have posted that an existing law can be amended...if there is nothing there...well, you can't amend a zero, it's always going to be a zero.
People with pre-existing conditions will still be turned away to die in the cold.
They just won't be told they are being refused for pre-existing conditions. There will be new and different reasons for rejecting people.
Those who manage to get past step one will have claims denied and they will still go bankrupt.
It is unlikely any lives will actually be saved, since the problem has never really been lack of INSURANCE, but lack of CARE and nothing in this bill has done anything to improve CARE.
Unfortunately, bad law is bad law and the only law this bill really creates is a government mandate to buy a defetive product from a company that has no real checks and balances on it.
Social Security was history because it established the idea of all society working to help other members of society... it created an obligation and an entitlement.
This legislation is dangerous not only because it lacks any check and balance... it establishes the right of the government to DEMAND that you buy a product from a private company, no matter how defective that product may be.
Even in auto-insurance mandatory states, you have the right to self-insure. Not so with this.
156. The vast majority of people despise the one thaing that is a constant...
change.
No one truly knows what changes will come, it is impossible to cover every scenario. But the elimination of pre-exisitng conditions for coverage makes this close to being a leap forward. Think of the breast cancer survivor who would be able to get cancer coverage, of the child that had leukemia and survived, only to be turned down...then remission ceases, and they are going to die, because they can't get available treatment. We can ensure that these people are covered...and once the bill is law, it can be amended and far more equitable. No law, n o change, at all, for at least a generation. Too much at stake to not get something passed.
198. And you know this will be in the final version of the bill?
You are sure, beyond all doubt?
Do you have employer paid insurance, of are you buying your own now?
Do you have any insurance?
I don't know what your income level is, none of my business, but say you kept $10,000 to cover your car instead of buying insurance. So you keep $10,000 for your medical insurance...that's about a day and a half after stroke, then you become a burden on the taxpayer. Apparently, you have no problem with a taxpayer taking care of your medical expenses, if, and I hope it never does, you have a stroke.
Insurance spreads risk over a group. No matter how one looks at it, unless you pay, directly out of your pocket for all of your medical and incidental care...others are paying for your care, whether they be part of an insurance pool, or a taxpayer.
Since it isn't in EITHER version of the bill and they don't make up new stuff in conference.
as for my insurance situation... I own my own company (3 of them as a matter of fact) and get insurance as a paid employee of one of them. This bill would actually save me money personally, as I can get small business "assistance" and then write off the premium on top of that.
It's funny, you cited one of the biggest problems. There is nothing in this bill to insure that the insurance companies will pay claims any more diligently than they currently do. You do realize that most of the people who end up going bankrupt from medical bills start with private insurance. There is no real protection for the consumers.
Much like auto-insurance, once you hit your cap... it's done and you owe the money. There is no safety net here, which is why this protection is an illusion. a day an half after the stroke, or 3 weeks after the stroke, you are broke and on taxpayer dollars, unless you are lucky enough to be old enough to be on medicare and already on taxpayer dollars, then you aren't broke.
The requirement in california for auto insurance is (I believe) for 10,000/30,000 coverage. So, you can put 30,000 in the bank and "self insure" or you can spend $100 per month and get cheap 10,000/30,000 coverage.
Let's say you have an accident and injure someone. That insurance only covers the first 10,000 worth of liability damage.. after that, it is all on you.
It is the exact same way with health insurance.
Now, in the case of health insurance, there is a severely broken product. Health costs easily exceed the caps set in policies if something serious happens and plans out of pocket costs are too high for most people, so even when they have "insurance' they don't use it, because they can't afford to.
This bill does nothing to fix that problem. (or these bills I should say, unless they decide to change it drastically in conference, which they won't.).
So long as these companies act in concert (as they have done in the past) there is nothing to actually control costs.
Simple job title changes get around the 90% care rule.
Taking away the ability of the company to deny you for a pre-existing condition doesn't guarantee coverage or care.
At the end of the day, there is NOTHING at stake here, except for an empty political victory.
153. But in the end it will cost me more, make it harder for me to get treatment
The thing is - I have health insurance right now - but it is too expensive to use. I think it is great to insure the uninsured. But if they can't pay for medical treatment, what good is the insurance?
172. It might...but doing nothbing will ensure you will be paying more...
a LOT more.
And if you have/get a condition, you may well be knocked off insurance anyway. Once you have something, it becomes "pre-existing"...down the Rabbit Hole you go.
Regardless of this HCR bill my health cost would have continued to rise. Even with this bill passing I will most likely be paying more for the same treatment at this time next year.
In the end the main stream media will label this "Sweeping health care reform". And it will be a 'victory' for Obama and the dems. But I bet in 2010 and 2012 the GOP will be able to scrape up enough people like me, that are insured and unable to receive medical treatment, like me, to convince the sheeple that this bill is worse than socialized medicine.
Obama will be re-elected in 2012 - All is good in the world and it is as good as it gets.
235. Actually...you have an excellent chance of getting medical care
under what will come out of conference. There will be coverage, depending on your financial status.
The real part of this situation though, is that 25 minutes after this becomes law, if it becomes law, it can be amended. That is not going to happen, but at some point in probably in the first quarter of next year, there will be work on upgrading the law. I believe there will be a Public Option, and things will change to rein in abuse from insurance companies. I also believe that within 10 years of passing this law, there will be universal health care.
The key to everything is getting the law enacted...only then can it be amended to be a much better law. If there is nothing to amend, all we get is spiraling costs and no help from insurance or government. Without something there, we are really in for some nasty times.
What i think of often, is that we are the most powerful nation on the earth has ever seen. We have made phenomenal changes all over the world, most of them for the good of mankind. We actually subsidize universal health care for Iraqi's...and yet when it comes to protecting our own citizens from disease and untimely death. To me, that is one of the glaring horrors of the "complete capitalist" scenario. How can one child die of a preventable disease in this nation? How can a child possibly go to sleep hungry? How can we, as a nation, be so completely devoid of scruples to allow this to happen?
We should all feel a deep sense of shame at how we consistently treat those who never "made" it. I i see a person shivering in the cold, I give them my jacket, not a lecture on how they "should be". When i see someone hungry, I feed them, not berate them because of some reason that brought them to the situation they are in. I am a poor man, I had a lot at one time, but I shared, and because of that, i am a better person...not financially rich, but certainly rich in spirit...simply because I did the right thing.
Why Lieberman, Nelson and the GOP can't figure that out, is beyond my comprehension.
if you are low income you will recieve a subsidy from the Federal government to purchase insurance on the new exchange. Where there will be real competition including a not for profit option.
1. there are 4 votes to pass it out of the Senate. Today they voted cloture to on voting for the manager's amendment. Next they vote on the that needing 50. Then they need cloture on the whole bill -60 - then thta vote -50. That passes it out of the Senate.
Then it goes to conference - if they opt not to change anything - ie, not one comma - the House votes on it and it goes to the President. If they change anything, the Senate will AGAIN have a cloture vote (60) and a vote (50). (Note all cloture bill can and used to normally be waived).
That is why some people, including Kerry congratulated Reid on the first of the 6 votes needed to pass this.
So, we need Nelson and Lieberman again on Wednesday - then possibly after the New Year if the House changes anything. That fact means that the idea that there will be massive changes in the bill out of conference is very very unlikely. They will clearly not be agreed to unless the Senators know that their "problem children" will be ok. So, their power remains as they can block anything.
160. MUST READ! So we need 60 votes again out of committee. If the Prog Caucus can get a PO or Medicar
Edited on Mon Dec-21-09 02:51 PM by grahamhgreen
attached in the bill that leaves committee, perhaps the 'chess playing' president can then do some serious arm twisting and get the 60 votes needed for cloture again out of the senate.
Of course we have no indication whatever that he actually wants either of these options.
But my congressperson - John Lewis - is a member of the progressive caucus and is already angry over the presidents decision to expand the war in AfPakIraqiatan.
Hopefully, we can get the progressive caucus to make sure a public option remains in the final bill.
Then we can let Nelson or Lieberman stand try to stand up to the crush of support for the bill.
167. Lieberman and Nelson have made it pretty clear that they will
fight either of those things. I suspect that there may be some nickle and dime changes - but nothing big. There is no margin for error on the Senate side.
265. The progressive causcus is unlikely to hold - look at the fact that Sanders voted for it
I would guess that Seanders may be a key emissary to the progressive caucus to explain the realities of the Senate. I would imagine that the majority of people in the progressive caucus want HCR enough that they will ultimately vote for it even if they think it is inadequate.
If you think of it, it is always the people who care the least about maintaining the status quo who have the most leverage because they really are borderline in wanting this bill to pass. The progressive caucus would prefer a bill that does more, but if they see that this bill does help - and their choice is really this or nothing - many will choose this.
There is another cloture vote, unless it is waived and the Republicans will not waive it - we used it on a defense appropriations conference report in 2005 to kick out Stevens' provision to drill in ANWR.
when it comes back from conference, there is an up/down vote. The only time there is a cloture vote is if there are amendments, none are allowed after it comes from committee. There can be a filibuster, but that would be suicidal, (might happen anyway). The vote is up/down to pass or reject the bill from committee.
There were no amendments for 2863. There is first a motion to proceed (a 50 vote I forgot). then on December 21, there was a cloture vote that failed. The reason it failed was the Republicans put in drilling in ANWR. Then there is an amendment that took the drilling out that passed the same day. (One of the few bright days in 2005 - with Stevens threatening to quit the Senate.) Then cloture was waived and the bill was voted.
This was a conference report and there were no amendments and there was a cloture vote.
221. I think the amendment was dropped because Senate rules were
brought up. Stevens has his butt handed to him later, IIRC.
There is one situation that comes up, even thought he rules are what they are, odd things can happen like this, they are essentially stalling tactics or errors on the par to of the Senator.
223. There was no amendment to insert it - it was in the appropriations bill
Stevens was the chair of Appropriations - the better to get goodies. The Democrats argued that it was not pertinent, but that did not cause it to be removed. The Democrats won the cloture vote - the Republicans only had 55 votes and they needed 60. Here is the link on the cloture vote - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...
(My last post had all the votes and it is easy to follow. The three events I spoke of - the filibuster, the removal of the offending provision and the later successful vote are all on Dec 21 - click them if you think I mischaracterized them.
"So what comes of all of this? Probably the most important thing all of us could be doing is getting in touch with our congresscritters and letting them know how we feel instead of posting incessantly on DU about how we are all going to die in one fell swoop. That's not going to happen, and 99% of us know that. If you are in a stare/district where congresscritters are going to conference, it is not just advisable, but actually a duty to to get in touch with those who will hash this out. They are the power in all of this, not Nelson, Lieberman, Boehner, Grassley...they have been sidelined at this point, (unless they wind up on conference committees)."
I write to LIEberman (politely) on a regular basis and all I get is form responses. But I will write to him again and to Rosa.
164. I take issue with the mocking of our hyperbole
"Secondly...we are not witnessing the end of the Democratic Party, nor is the country threatened with impending doom over this. We are not about to go belly up over HCR...the same can't be said for the wars we are engaged in of the debt those wars have driven to incredibly weight upon the populace, but HCR is not the engine of destruction so many seem to think it is."
The end of the Democratic party is when there is no left to support it-and it no longer has any ideals. Which is what Obama's sell out and disillusionment of the base mean. SURE, the Democratic party platform is pro-gay rights, pro-women's rights and pro-universal health care.
But we seem to have very few reps advocating for these things anymore and certainly not the number one man in charge. We certainly have no one that ever draws a line in the sand. SO, abortion rights get taken away, there is still no movement on gay rights and universal health care-a foolish dream. We have a president that only last year-seems like a lifetime-no? advocated for those things-certainly at the very least a public option. But I watched him very carefully as did Russ Feingold. The president is a sell out to the Republicans and the Democrats that act like Republicans.
And how ironic that you point out we aren't going to go belly up over HCR-apparently the president disagrees with you. He just threatened us all with fear mongering and bankruptcy last week. Ironically not a peep about the cost of the war from his lips. Health care MUST be deficit neutral but the money for the military is endless.
And finally the reason that many think it's the engine of destruction is because it's PERSONAL. Yes, sad to say but human nature-this matters more to us than the wars. Because it is intimately affecting EVERY DU member's life unless they are wealthy. My husband makes $100k a year. A lot more than many Du'ers. We have insurance-but it's expensive and have the time I'm scared to use it. If he loses his job, well I will have pre-existing conditions. No, by 2014 they can't deny me but hey they can charge me 2 times as much. I feel despair about it. I pray I don't get sick.
This is personal. And while many of us really- let's tell the truth-KNOW the military rules this country, the one damn thing left we hoped and prayed and believed in was some health care. And this isn't it. It's another giveaway to the corporate overlords. I wonder why we get hyperbolic. Good lord, it's so insulting to us that we actually believed this president-WHAT UTTER FOOLS we are to take him at his word.
192. You state you have insurance and are afraid to use it...
(pre-existing conditions and all), that is one thing this bill addresses...I'm actually surprised you don't see that.
I have to ask, what will get you to see a doctor and use your insurance...catastrophe? Because if you don't get a heads up on what may be wrong, catastrophe is where the end game goes.
171. THIS SHOULD BE THE MAIN TOPIC ON THE HOMEPAGE
Instead of the fiengold story. People are forgetting their 8th grade social studies here. This means so very little compared to what happens in the upcoming weeks. The bill that goes before Obama to be signed may and , most likely, will be completely different.
What happened here is they kept the momentum and it got passed. We, the Dems, stuck our toes in the water to see what Republicans if any would join our side.
Everyone who's throwing a hissy fit right now is playing into Faux News and the Repugs hands. They are trying to derail the momentum by getting you people to throw your hands up in disgust and walk away. Don't play the fool.
179. I was around for Eisenhower's election and Ike promised to end the Korean
Edited on Mon Dec-21-09 03:33 PM by Cleita
War, which is why he won. Although I was a kid then, I was aware of politics and remember all the kids coming to school with their "I like Ike" and "Vote Adlai" buttons. Eisenhower kept his promise, sort of, by ending combat, which satisfied everyone and got him a second term. The majority of the country wanted this so he had no problem getting it done. So it's not really a good comparison because is this case the majority of the public want a public option. President Obama made campaign promises for it and it won't happen because of a couple of obstructionist who have been bribed by the industry who wrote this bill in their favor.
Bernie Sanders did trade his vote for 30,000 more community health centers that will include a larger number of poor people but it still does nothing about the high deductibles, co-pays and caps on treatment for those being forced to use private insurance. It's really disgusting.
189. Yes, we can all wish, really really hard, that the bill will be improved in committee...
and we can pretend that letters, emails and phones calls will somehow sway our representatives to pursue the interests of the people at the expense of the companies that pay them off. (It's been so effective so far? Hasn't it?) These skills of self-deception will serve us well. Particularly after the midterms, when the Republicans regain more than enough power to hold Congress in complete gridlock. (Not that I think this will effect Obama's addenda any) Yeah, let's dream a little dream.
194. So...your answer is to jsut be subservient w/o a fight?
I don't quite understand your post. Are you saying that nothing can stop this, not even the power of people joining together to get something out of this that can be changed later?
If so, I cannot share that defeatist attitude. It goes against the very grain of my being, I cannot fall into the notion that all I have done over an entire lifetime comes to naught. I've spent a lifetime fighting for people, I've seen great changes, and bitter defeats, but I fight on, if for no other reasons than someone ahs to fight for equality, justice, fairness...it is simply, the right thing to do.
202. Had the "leadership" shown the political fortitude to use reconciliation-
we wouldn't be having this conversation- nor would we have had to waste so much time with the likes of Lieberman and Nelson, looking weak and ineffectual in the process.
Had the shoe been on the other foot- that's what Republican would have done- and we'd all be home for the holidays discussing the positive change we believed in, still optimistic about the reform battles ahead.
We are witnessing a barely contained 'shivering' of the world's beleaguered economy as a growing number of economists warn that the entire house of cards may come crumbling down! Of course, the world's wealthiest 375 corporatists may unanimously decide to print more currencies to keep the Big Lie (aka Capitalism) going longer, but since our species has never faced this problem on a global level (with the biggest 'Super Power' consumer nation on the skids), we have no way of knowing if ANY of their efforts to stabilize the global economy will work.
We are witnessing an almost fruitless global effort to address climate change--an effort that yields increasingly voracious bipartisan bickering here in the United States, as countless undereducated idealogues seek to redefine the threat in religious terms.
We are witnessing an overwhelming number of 'bloggers'--especially in the US--vomiting resentful, hate-filled, fearful, barely literate opinions into the blogosphere, smugly congratulating themselves on their political 'activism' when they have done NOTHING that remotely qualifies as legitimate activism!
In fact, the surge of criticism about Obama's performance in his first year in office may be in large part attributable to the slacktivists who troll the blogosphere. However, Obama IS reneging on some important campaign promises, and he may irretrievably damage his chances for a second term if something doesn't change soon--exponentially soon.
We don't have the luxury of 'another generation' to effect change. Perhaps if all the DUers who've spent countless hours racking up a thousand plus posts would write an equivalent number of letters, or devote an equivalent number of hours to actively protesting--especially by marching on Washington--we might see some real change. Maybe... If it's not too late...
for the rational and constructive observations and ideas. The power of the internet, and this forum can be used in a far better way than loudly arguing with each other.
I'm not saying we should be holding hands and singing love songs, but I'm sure most DUers agree much more than disagree. It's always been difficult for Democrats to find common ground to build coalitions within our party. It's the old cat herding problem. But the tension that comes from being a VERY diverse group has always been a source of creativity. For decades we HAVE been the party of political progress, and social justice. While we frequently fall short, we remain light years ahead of the Repugs.
233. There is a very good reason to be in a fury over the Senate Bill
There is very good reason to scream and rant over the Senate Bill and the actions of "our" Senators. They were elected - so we say - to represent us. They are not. And whatever gets "worked out" in the process will be the weaker for it. It's not as if their actions do not have consequences - they do. Serious ones.
This "it might be a generation" is getting old. There is no reason at all for it to be a generation for the process to begin again, should this Bill fail, or four years, or six years; a good swath of the public has been informed, energized, and made ready for reform. Why do we think they'll all fall back asleep on this issue?
The screeds about "political reality" are real old too. While not quite old enough to remember Eisenhower (I was alive - I'm old - but not paying attention before I was ten, not being a progidy. Not paying attention for a good while after I was ten, either). But as I say, I'm old, have seen a lot come and go, and I understand the Senate/House process quite well, thank you. And I tell you one thing that has remained constant - while I see lots of exhortations to remember incremental progress, there is precious little of it to be found when you actually examine the last forty years or so. We are always told there will be, but look around. I will give you just one example - workers wages adjusted for real $. There's plenty others.
But yes, it is a good idea to keep badgering our electeds, however futile it is proving to be. At least they have to put up with our squawking before they ignore us.
240. However there are some very foul odors emanating from these bills...
Edited on Mon Dec-21-09 09:30 PM by Garam_Masala
No Single Payer. This system is true HCR. Everything else is hodge podge. With SP, every living person is in the same pool, and paying on their ability to pay based on income.
P.O missing. Not as good as SP, but the ONLY way to make sure there is competition to the for profit private health insurance industry.
No re-import of Drugs. This is missing from both bills as far as I know. Are you aware Big Pharma passed on to us 11% increase this year? If this bill is not a bonanza for Big Pharma with mandates and subsidized additional customers then I have a bridge in Minnesota I can sell you.
No limits on insurance premiums. Sure they can't drop you or refuse you. But they can jack up premiums for all their customers until there is enough profit to pay big bonuses. Why no limits on CEO pay when the TARP recipients and Bailout recipients are subjected to restrictions?
To sum up, I don't see much cost reduction to health care in these bills. Big Pharma and Big Insurance are the Big winners. If you don't believe me, please check their stock performance on Wall Street.
272. The voices of the reasoned and the informed, are often drowned
Edited on Tue Dec-22-09 01:30 PM by rasputin1952
out by the shrill cries of those who would prefer to see any type of progress come to a screeching halt.
In the end, the bill will move forward to Conference, that is inevitable. Something will come from that conference, and will be voted on, and then become law if PO signs it.
Then, we begin the process of amending it to something better. I'm not sure how long that will take, but there will be something to work with...which most assuredly beats nothing at all.
I'm watching the Senate on C-SPAN...The R's are claiming some idiotic "Constitutional" argument...it's bogus, they know it, all they can do is cry, and that's fine by me.
I'm actually glad the R's are doing this...with each of them speaking...their credibility goes further into the toilet...and they will lose even more R's over this...
There are a lot of things that I would put in the bill if I was king. But I am not, and it probably is a good thing. I think President Obama is trying to get the best bill that he can under the circumstances, and the fact that health care reform has not been adopted earlier is a testament to just how difficult this endeavor is.
252. I'm grateful for all who have shared. The lessons learned have strengthened my standing as a citizen
Not to make this personal, or anything. Just that we've gone from outrage at a criminal administration, to outrage during a productive one. Members have flown over it. And I am now realizing what I thought all along. That being the process of which you write. The delicate and intricate means by which all parties might improve this country. The procedure and the nuances.
I'm more resolved to be a part of the process than ever. I almost feel proud. I will when dignity is something every citizen can enjoy.
"Probably the most important thing all of us could be doing is getting in touch with our congresscritters and letting them know how we feel instead of posting incessantly on DU about how we are all going to die in one fell swoop."
What on earth would make you think that we *haven't* been contacting Congress? I write so often that I'm sure Senator Rockefeller practically knows my home address by heart at this point, and Representative Mollohan probably groans whenever the fax machine in his office goes off at this point.
You seem to be suggesting that IF we contact Congress, THEN we would do less griping here. I see no reason why intelligent, involved, passionate people cannot do both.
258. Not accurate. The bill is eligible for filibuster following conference, not 51 votes. Thus,
Lieberman and Nelson do not need to be on the conference committee in order to control the fate of the bill. Which means it is not better than nothing by a little bit. It is worse than nothing by a lot. I understand the desire to quell fissures, but there comes a time when dissent is a necessity and we can't simply pass this on because our team happened to concoct this monster with some really inept leadership.
And while we are not claiming that this is the "end of the world", this is a massive bill that has a substantial impact on our lives. You compared it to the wars. The wars are huge, and they would still be small taters compared to the scope and weight of this bill. While undue panic is useless, so is passive apathy in the face of a tsunami.
The worst part is, once you pass this bill and entrench it, you will not only forever own it but it will function like a sword. It doesn't care who crafted it or wields it, it will kill the same. And when Rs control the government, they will be able to use it too. Imagine that the progress you imagine doesn't happen, and instead they strip parts you don't like and keep the parts that "we" put in place like mandatory insurance. And since "we" put it in, "we" will have no ground to fight against such a provision.
Let's not sugar coat it, this is a bad bill that should be scrapped. It is dangerous and reckless, and is a setback for real reform.
You are not going to get a perfect bill/law, that has never happened, anywhere at any time during human history. Once again, the point is, amendments can be made to existing laws; if there is nothing there, there can be no progress. One cannot build w/o a foundation of some sort. I'd much rather fight for amendments, than start this garbage all over again...and give the R's a "win" to boot.
You are willing to junk a flawed bill that has potential to be rectified, so you get absolutely nothing. Sorry, I cannot see any rational reason why I can accept that.
275. We are not talking about perfect. I don't expect perfect. But let us look at the legislation...
for what it does. It is predicated upon the argument that a product is flawed, and then requires us to all buy said product or be punished by the government. We would laugh if this were applied to Chinese toys, but we accept it now? It is ludicrous.
We can not be so desperate for a "win", or to prevent the Rs from getting a "win" that we forfeit the ethics and philosophy that make getting in power worth anything to begin with. Even if you want to pass anything just to get a foundation, we could pass legislation that was kept simple and clean that didn't violate our basic principles.
294. Andf it applies to those who don't have insurance in specific
circumstances.
Oddly, some who have posted in this thread state they have insurance, yet feel that they would somehow be "forced" to change or buy into another plan...that is not what is in the bill.
I don't tghink mandating purchasing anything is a good idea...and the bill is a work in progress until it emerges from conference...anything can happen in conference...and it is imperative that your congresscritters know how you feel...far more important than arguing this on DU. After all...none of us, as far as I know, is on the committee that will hash this out.
The Senate bill is not great. Neither is the House one. Dieties know what the reconciled one will look like. But just the passing of anything at this point sends a message to the far right that the Democrats are going to do something for a change, and not continue to cave the way they did under Bush. There's a lot of inertia in the Senate, and getting them to move in any direction is a start. Making them stay until the job is finished was a good move as well: the message was that they can't just continue to bloviate, they have to come down on a side. Plus, it got the opponents national exposure so next year the people running against those incumbents up for re-election can remind voters that the Republicans were in lock-step against any reform.
277. If I were running...I'd be already slamming home the fact that
{b}they, (the R's), are the real "death panels". They would allow some 45,000 American citizens per year to die before their time; 40 R Senators = Death Panel.
For added measure, every one who voted against Franken's "Rape Amendment" would be seen as defenders of rape...I'd neve let it go...I'd ram it down their throats at every opportunity...crush them into power and feed the flames of hell with them.
292. We won't know until it comes out of conference...
to be honest...it can actually come out worse...that is why people should contact their congresscritters.
Trust me on this one point...I guarantee the RWNnuts are phoning and e-mailing every chance they get...if not countered, and by an upswell from the people, all the critters will see is what the RW has sent them.
289. For those that have insurance, as has been stated several times in
this thread...they are not "forced" to do anything...there are no changes, except that w/o any reform, if they get ill, they will have a pre-existing condition and will be barred from receiving further coverage for that illness.
Once again...no one knows if this ewill survive conference. Why is all of the rage facing a bill that has not been finalized yet?
A moderator on a democratic messageboard is almost embarassed to partially endorce historic Healthcare Legislation that will cut costs, lower the debt (not that that really matters), and insure 25 MILLION AMERICANS. Yes the mandates sound crappy, but a NOT FOR PROFIT option will be available in the new marketplace and the insurance companies will be required to spend 85%+ of your primaries on healthcare.
Yes i am for single payer but this is a generational Bill on par with Medicare and Social Security.
301. I am not embarassed in the least to endorse HCR...
I admit this bill is less that I want...but the essence of the OP is to get people to contact their congresscritters to express their views to them
After all, they will be the one's hashing out the details and presenting the finished bill.
As for passing what comes out from conference, I believe even a flawed bill is better than nothing. As I've stated throughout this thread, amendments can be made to an existing law...one cannot amend what does not exist. It is, in my view, extremely important to have a law in place...if not, it will be at least a generation before HCR can be realistic again.
I have taken great pains to express this throughout this thread, and in others as well.
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.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
Replies to this thread
time to me. 
& REC'D
Rasputin.
-
-