Kill Bill or vote it through

[NJmaverick]

Poll question: Kill Bill or vote it through

now after there has been a few days of discussion, what say you DU?

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. There is a lot in this bill I don't like, butI hate to see this

opportunity squandered. So I say fix the bill in conference and then pass it.

[NJmaverick]

2. That is the most likely scenerio

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. Well, I am afraid to hold my breath over the PO or strict oversight of Ins Cos and

their rate hikes getting added, though. Those were two things I was really looking forward to being used to really keep costs down.

[ClarkUSA]

8. Regarding oversight of the insurance companies, have you seen this?

I said that in many states, insurance commissioners were pretty much owned by the local insurance companies, and I was skeptical as to whether making them the enforcers would actually work.

DeParle said HHS Sec. Kathleen Sebelius, a former state insurance commissioner, was not one of "those" commissioners, and she would be overseeing state departments. Sebelius already met with state insurance commissioners, she said, and having found a wide discrepancy in authority from state to state, got language inserted in the bill that would give them additional powers. (DeParle noted that the West Virginia commissioner didn't even have the authority to see if insurance companies were solvent.)

DeParle said this was the widest expansion of insurance regulation in 20 years.

David Axelrod also chimed in, noting these changes were part of the reason why the insurance industry has opposed the bills so stringently. If this was a giveaway, he said, they wouldn’t be lobbying so hard to defeat the bill.

I have to give it to Axelrod on this: Without even a little exaggeration, I'd say that standardizing state oversight is probably the insurance industry's worst nightmare. They've always taken advantage of a hodgepodge of weak state regulations, sprinkling generous political contributions along the way to buy off state legislators. So this bill is really what you want from federal regulation: Overriding weak state laws that trample consumers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=71246&mesg_id=71246

BTW, thanks for always being one of the rare mature voices around here. I respect your honest perspective.

[GreenPartyVoter]

No, I managed to miss that thread somehow. So many up lately it's hard to get to them all. I did

see one recently that is one of the reasons why I am worried about cost controls: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=81847#82114

(As to being a rare mature voice around here, lately I have been feeling pretty fractious actually and been a lot snippier than usual. I am sure many people would agree. :()

[ClarkUSA]

11. Listen to the audio of the conference call.

The WH is already planning down the line to pass legislation. As for cost controls, Senator Sherrod Brown said on MSNBC today
that this bill would cut $150 billion off the deficit in the first ten years and in the next decade, would slice of trillions off the
deficit. And the CBO scored it well. Not sure if I'd go with an anonymous blogger's reply without checking the numbers to see
if they line up with what the final bill says and what other sources say.

<<(As to being a rare mature voice around here, lately I have been feeling pretty fractious actually and been a lot snippier
than usual. I am sure many people would agree. :()

Well, I don't agree. :)

[GreenPartyVoter]

14. Yes, I plan to wait for the final bill. Well, I'll be calling my Sens and Reps with my opinion but

I can't judge the finished product before it even exists.

[kenfrequed]

13. Ehh...

That depends entirely on what those standards are. If the insurance companies exercise as much authority in dictating the standards as they have in quashing reform than there is every reason to believe that this oversight could be weakened in states where legislated oversight is stronger.

Sorry this is not a panacea. If one wants to ensure that the insurance companies are held to stiff standards than federal legislation should merely reinforce or exceed state legislation.

Additionally merely stating that a state can use oversight authority does not mean that a state will do so and state politics are oftimes even more mystified before the general public than is national.

In short this is an artful dodge but not a solution.

[ClarkUSA]

16. I disagree for the reasons stated at my link.

It's easy to be dismissive, isn't it? Your doomsday rhetoric is not convincing.

[kenfrequed]

17. So.. you don't really want to discuss anything.

Hardly doomsday rhetoric.

More like a realistic expectation of policy.

I suppose you imagine that the insurance companies having butchered single payer, public option, and medicare for all, are suddenly going to transform into harmless kittens incapable of writing legislation or influencing (through their various Baccuus and blue dog puppets)?


Honestly, tell me how I was wrong in my post. I do not believe I was being purely dismissive at all.

But no, an accusation of dismissiveness and a refusal to actually treat with what I have said is so much more compelling, clearly with you "just refer to that same thing I said earlier please" you must have won many rounds of debate.

But hey, ad hominem seems to be the standard for the DLC crowd when they come here to push their viewpoints.

[jillan]

5. +1

[Eric J in MN]

3. I'd prefer reconciliation used for "Medicare Buy-In For Everyone"

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/12/17/815922/-Radical-New-Idea:-Medicare-Buy-In-For-Everyone-

Radical New Idea: Medicare Buy-In For Everyone

by Cenk Uygur

You only need 51 senators to pass a bill through reconciliation. But theoretically the main problem with reconciliation is that it can only be used for legislation that affects the budget. So, a public option or Medicare buy-in would definitely affect the budget, but getting rid of insurance practices like barring people for pre-existing conditions or denying them care through rescission could not be handled through reconciliation.


So, if you just want one bill you can't go through reconciliation because you can't keep many of the important elements of health care reform. That's conventional wisdom. But here is a radical new idea - how about we just do Medicare buy-in for anyone who wants it and not bother to pass any regulations about pre-existing conditions or rescission or anything else.


But what about all of the people on private health insurance who are getting screwed by those companies? Well, I guess they'd have to buy in to Medicare, wouldn't they? And if the private insurance companies lost enough customers, my guess is they would all of a sudden see the wisdom in actually providing better insurance. I believe they call that competition.

[HughMoran]

6. Where's Uma Thurman when you need her?

(no, I'm not for "Kill Bill" - I just thought it was funny.)

[NewLIfeArea]

7. interesting

19 vote who want to kill bills WHY?

:shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug:

[kenfrequed]

10. If you have to ask...

Then you probably haven't been paying attention.

No public option, not even a watered down weakened one. No Medicare for all. Very little to no price controls. Mandated insurance or you are fined.

What kind of progressive could support this.


Moreover why are we trying to run such a POS bill in the name of bipartisanship when there is no bipartisanship to be had. This bill is lame but I suppose it will keep Baucuus getting his campaign contributions.

[CreekDog]

15. The problem with progressives is that helping people clouds their judgement

i mean, people like Harkin and Sanders look at this bill and say, well i want to be cold hearted but then i find out scores of people are going to be added to Medicaid and get free health insurance and i just lose all ability to come up with something that is worth giving that up for.

:shrug:

[Tippy]

9. Thank God sanity is returning...

Ever since the Senate began it's debate I've been on this roller coaster...up...down...happy...sad. Today I really :-)

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Pass it. Defeat would be a huge political disaster.

I don't like this bill but I honestly think handing the republicans a victory at this point would be far worse than allowing this flawed bill to pass.

They have done their job quite well to divide us against each other and to poison this bill as much as possible. Their goal is to defeat health care reform and defeat our party, such as it is. We should not hand them that victory.

[vaberella]

18. There's more in this bill that I like than dislike. n/t