Reply #54: So why are you using a DLC talking point?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

Far from

1) Helping Obama

2) Helping the Democratic Party

or

3) Ensuring universal coverage

this bill will

1) Lay a huge financial burden on people on the "borderline" between subsidized and non-subsidized coverage

2) Necessitate a huge bureaucracy to administer the subsidies for lower-income people

3) Force people to buy insurance that does not necessarily provide real coverage

4) Still allow the insurance companies to get away with price gouging and provide loopholes for denial of coverage

5) Tax policies that provide the kind of coverage that people in other countries take for granted (or even the kinds of policies that were easy to get in the early 1990s in this country)

6) Explicitly allow companies to charge older customers more, regardless of income (and you can be sure that they will do so to the limit)

7) Leave millions uninsured

And this is the bill we must pass because...?

We could pass the GOOD parts of the bill, such as the expansion of public health clinics, the ban on denials for pre-existing conditions (AND charging more for pre-existing conditions), the ban on rescisssions, and the end of anti-trust immunity separately and have them go into effect immediately.

Sure, the insurance companies would hate that.

So what?

I hate it that I have to sign when I buy Tylenol Sinus with Pseudoephedrin, but do I get to veto the law because of it?

Of course not.

Why should the insurance companies or any company get veto power over the laws that might affect them?

The defenders of this bill have such low expectations.

They are giving in to the endemic corruption in this system.