19. You will get net recs because most here will hold their nose and accept the bill
many here just don't get why half the party is quite upset. HCR was too important to fuck around playing politics with. And that is what happened. It is better than nothing but it shows a serious lack of fortitude and respect for what people really want to be fought for.
It could turn out to be worse than nothing. I need to read the thing, but I already know that so much had to be sacrificed to get any bill passed it might as well have failed and then they could have started all over again. I still am unable to understand how Democrats, who have claimed for decades that they were dying to completely overhaul the health care industry in this country, couldn't get it done exactly the way they wanted it when they finally got control. Say what you will about what heartless pricks Republicans are, but at least they get it done when they say they are going to. When they had everything under their control, they got everything they wanted. It was really destructive shit of course, but they got it done. Why can't Democrats do the same when they now control it all? I'm really not getting it. Am I missing something?
You say that health care reform is too important to play politics with. On hte face of it I agree.
But certainly you know any important piece of legislation is always going to have politics played over it, right? The bigger the bill, the more it's going to get mangled in congress. It's a fucking guarantee. Bills to commemorate the invention of Gouda don't get politics played on them because nobody gives a shit about gouda.
But health care? Everyone's tacking every little last fucking thing they can onto health care, they're doing their best to twist it into a form they can take home to their constituents and go "Look what I did!" and everyone involved is going to back up others in doing this because of the back-scratching potential.
Ergo, the bigger the sacred cow, the more profaned it will get. It's like a law of physics.
With that in mind, I realize that this bill was never, ever, EVER going to be "perfect". I also realize it could have been rendered into a vastly shittier form than it was. Yes, i'm a nose-holder, because unfortunately, a better bill would have gotten more fucked around with.
118. It revealed something almost more important than that.
It showed that the repugs will make demands, the dems will accommodate those demands, and the repugs will not support it anyway. It revealed that the dems have been too conciliatory, too willing to compromise for the sake of 'bipartisanship' that will not happen. The price has been a bill that no one is completely (or even moderately) happy with. The good things are 1) that the bill, as flawed as it is, passed despite the powerfully concerted effort of repugs and insurance companies. 2) It is a start and an historical accomplishment. 3)the experience (hopefully) has taught the dems not to give in to the schoolyard bullies, to fight back, because after you've given them your lunch money, they're going to want your jacket and shoes, too. And after all that's said, 4) if the bill had failed, it would have more empowered and energized the RW and we would get nothing else accomplished during Obama's term in office.
They've already poisened the bill to the max, with the fines, or taxes, or forcing people to buy insurance. By the way, that's just money taken from the regular economy, so people will be buying less food, less houses, less iPods, less of everything, as they will be required to buy insurance. But it doesn't matter, since the bill is already done.
After it comes out of the Senate, it is even going to be more lethal, more filled with venom, poisonous to Americans, good for insurance companies.
So, someone, like Moynahan did last time, probably one, or many democrats, will get all indignant, as they should, and see it as nothing but a big corporate giveaway, and of course republicans won't support it, as they've been implimenting a scorched Earth policy as far as Obama is concerned. Truth is, it's such a huge corporate bill, they're cutting their noses off to spite their faces, since normally republicans would end up supporting the bill, maybe even writing it. But, we get it, Obama-bad, does not matter what he does, it's bad, we don't support it, they say.
Finally, I say it should fail, and don't dismay. It'll mean ever more people who depend on the ER foir their medical care, an ever larger problem, and the eventual likelihood of single-payer, which would trash the old system, rather than try to patch it up. So it'll take a while longer, but if managed right, they should be able to get ever more progressives.
116. That's kind of the problem that we face though...
We just sit back and wait to see if they'll do what we want instead of keeping active and making them do it. We're "hoping" and having faith it's all going to be to our liking once it's out of Conference.
I wish my faith had not been so beaten and brutalized throughout this "debate". First, it was EFCA. Then, it was DADT. Then Iraq. Then the Big Banks giveaway bad deal. All on the faith and hope of "Healthcare Reform". I didn't mind so much that my smokes put me in the unique class of SCHIP funding, but it doesn't look like I'll be getting a discount on that anytime soon with this new fangled, back-slapping, "historic" *cough* reform.
134. Yeah, piss yellow. This bill is shit. Look back to 1965 when the..........
...........Dems (barely, and with great perseverance) actually passed a really "good" bill. Next to the original Medicare bill, this bill is fucking shit. The Dems bent the American people over and "we" took it in the ass. Sorry to put it quite so bluntly, but I is what I is.
71. If you expected so little why did you vote for them?
A few months ago, I still had some hope. Now I know there will be no health care improvement for me, fort 8 years when I'm eligible for Medicare. The difference is now I am concerned that any reasonable economic recovery will continue to be hampered by the incremental costs of adding an employee. I would say I am more fearful, and certainly disillusioned with the Change I foolishly believed in.
Another lesson confirmed: there is really nothing I personally can do to move Congress because the incumbents have been bought by the corporations, so the only reasonable thing is to fire them. I'm not in Dennis Kucinich's district so I will vote against my Rep in the primary, and if that doesn't work, I'll vote against him again in the general.
Aren't the rest of you tired of trying to move an unresponsive congress. If they got fired in 2 or 6 years if they didn't do the People's will, how long do you think it would be before they realized that selling out for campaign contributions was a bad strategy?
to think that some poll on a website means anything at all. Let's face it - the most prolific posters on ANY website are the most socially inept - without any outside distractions like jobs, friends and family that allows them to devote all their time to ....
Pretending that recs or unrecs mean any damn thing at all.
What matters are the facts about this bill and the facts are these:
This bill provides extreme economic sanction against a woman's right to choose.
This bill will cause force class and middle class people without coverage to pay anywhere from 1.5 to 15% of their incomes to private companies like Blue Cross. Force them .
This bill will force 40 million additional citizens to become private insurance consumers.
This is what matters - NOT whether some "Democratic Teabagger" worries over whether some thread is "rec'ed " enough.
Rec, Unrec, WHO cares??? I'd bet there ain't ONE Senator or Rep lookin' in here. If there's any web pages they look at, they're the ones of their constituents - the health insurance companies. Those firms are the ones that the folks in the house have to be in tune with.
It would be truly grand if ALL our reps were of the same calibre as Kucinich, Weiner and Grayson. The sad fact is, it isn't so. The party of NO is in control even when it's in the throes of metamorphisis.
With CLEAR majorities of voting US citizens wanting REAL HCR, squeaking by in Congress is the same as an abysmal failure. The time and effort could've been better spent addressing other issues. I like to dream as much as anyone, but my hopes for real HCR evaporated when it was clear that Baucus was/is owned by the Health Ins. industry.
Lately I've sent back the donation envelopes without any money - writing on the donation forms that unless the Dems at least ACTED like they were working for the people, we were sending them no more funds. We're going to get whatever corporate bucks buy anyway. Why fight it? :shrug:
34. Well, I don't believe in the unrec function here at DU. I will give my opinion and take
responsibility for it, rather than click and run.
I am sad right now over the Stupak amendment and trying to reach a buddy of mine who works for Planned Parenthood. I want to hear what can/will be done. I am in favor of health care reform with a strong public option. I have favored getting a "foot in the door." But it cannot stop there. We must build on it and move toward single payer. And we MUST get the Stupak amendment out of the bill and to keep it out!
The Stupak amendment is just one reason I oppose this bill. The taking out of the Kucinich Amendment is another. We leave in a Republican Amendment and take out a Progressive Amendment. And I am against Mandated Insurance.
I don't care one way or the other about the rec/unrec feature. But since this OP is asking for it to be used to show support, I am unrec'ing.
The bill is certainly not everything we hoped for, but it's a decent start.
The reTHUGs' worst nightmare is that once any form of public option and/or universal coverage is enacted, people will love it, will realize the potential, and will begin to clamor for more and better universal coverage, eventually leading to a single payer system. They've come right out and said as much.
41. I have health insurance, but I don't know if it will be there when I need it.
There are many others who don't have it because they can not afford it, and no matter how much the politicians try to insist otherwise they will still not be able to afford it after this legislation takes effect.
And let's not forget the insurance industry's track record of denying claims whenever they can get away with it. While this bill may address the pre-existing conditions issue, it still does not prevent the insurance industry from jacking up our rates and finding other ways to deny our claims. Our government should not be forcing people to buy into an industry that has destroyed countless lives, we needed to have a real public option and Congress failed to give the vast majority of people that option.
a Public Option where everyone can participate is Single payer is what you claim. But it is neither true or honest. And no amount of weasel-wording will make it so. In fact, to try to spin this by doing so would be a disservice to those at DU and make you seems like a "GOP TruthTeller".
We either get universal single payer coverage or, in my rarely humble opinion, one of these is true: A Congress has been bribed to vote against the Public interest B Congress is the devil C Congress is stupid D Congress knows there is no limit to the screwing Americans will take as long as we say "we're number 1" E Congress wants to retire in the next election F Congress, after hearing all the evidence, and weighing all the options, in their wisdom determined that this was the best alternative and therefore worthy of the American people.
The only one I'm sure is wrong is F, yet F is what we pay these weasels a salary to do. How long should we keep employees who manifestly work against our interests?
This is not an ambiguous issue like some, healthcare works better for the population of almost every other developed country. We could have thrown a dart at the map of Western Europe and picked a better plan than what we are offered. What could possibly have caused our leaders to have picked this approach?
It took a long time to get Social Security and Medicare to their present state. The nation without benefit of the MSM finally had their "no duh" awakening on Medicare for all. Staying behind another eight for long murderous decades is not exactly total victory nor is the best result eventually assured.
Beating up on Dems needed to keep this moving forward is dumber than the teabaggers.
But you can't conclude from how your post works out, where opinion regarding healthcare reform lies at DU. You posted this in GD-P, after all, and GD and GD-P are largely self-segregated--the same sort of poll in GD could well get a net negative response.
44. needs some tweaks, but it's got the fundamentals reforms that have broad consensus
Edited on Sun Nov-08-09 05:56 PM by BREMPRO
no more denials because pre-existing conditions no more rescissions covers 38 million uninsured who will get competitive choices including a public option and subsidies based on income allows majority who say they are happy with their insurance coverage to keep it. eliminates anti-trust exception for health insurance industry comparative effectiveness research to reduce health care costs more money to fight waste fraud and abuse in medicare budget savings over 10 years according to CBO
I predict the abortion restriction won't make the final bill
and I am very frustrated (make that ANGRY) that to get it where it is right now that women had to become pawns AGAIN. That, I am utterly sick over. And it annoys the hell out of me that the agenda of the blue dogs has the tail wagging the dog in regard to reproductive rights.
However, it is start, a stepping stone and a message. I cannot applaud the amendment, but I can applaud the forward step, so far, that this bill has taken. So yes. I am looking forward and above all, am proud of Obama's administration, and yes, Pelosi for getting it to this point.
I had no choice - either leave a site that's been a sanctuary for me for years of Bush's madness, or block the people who are so inflexible that they would just as soon destroy the Democratic party than learn to compromise. I added nearly 100 people to my ignore list since last night. Funny thing? I feel very good about it. Without an audience, they are nothing...
I can still read much of their garbage on the other sites many post at where they bash DU and Duers in their cowardly little sanctuaries. I know these people. I'm missing NOTHING significant in my life not listening to people who are incapable of compassion. If you don't have compassion, you're NOT a liberal or progressive or Democrat. These people are hardcore haters with no hearts. No, I'm not missing a one of them.
I don't mind a legitimate disagreement on this issue - in fact I welcome it. I could always be wrong - I need different point of view.
Unfortunately we have a multitude of what I am calling "Democratic Teabaggeers" who are yelling and screaming like children and have a childish Us vs Them mentality. The can't be reasoned with, talked to and you can;t have a legitimate debate about the issue. You try and you are demonized . It;s like talking to a six year old.
So I've put such people in my ignore list as well. I have no time for teabaggers.
74. Mandates to buy private insurance but no regulation of premiums they charge me
A bad bill is not a good start, it is a bad bill you are trying to put lipstick on.
Mandates to buy private insurance without any sort of regulation of premiums or caps on premiums will lead to many people who are currently without insurance, and even some with, ending up in the uninsured category and paying a fine instead.
If my family, buying insurance in the market as I am self employed, could afford to pay $17,800 a year for insurance coverage, don't you think I would have it?
How long do you think it will take (probably next election cycle or two) before Republicans gain control and take out most or all of the subsidies to help people buy that mandated private insurance?
Have you looked at the 1900+ pages at all or are you just spewing bullet points given out by Pelosi? Have you read at all about the mental health provisions that appear to have been written directly by big pharma? Have you?
The more time I spend trying to decode the legislation, the more I find to dislike.
This bill is more about giving handouts to the insurance industry than it is about getting health care/insurance costs under control for most Americans.
Considering the Senate bill will be substantially more pro-corporation due to the nature of the Senate, my concerns have grown large as my expectations have been crushed under the weight of the realization that, with few exceptions, most of Congress now sits in the pockets of big industry, big corporations and Wall Street and any legislation they pass is going to be more for them than it is for us.
I refuse to play Polly Anna for those on this thread and yes, I am a long time Democrat that feels my party has lost it's values to become the DLC (Dems Loving Corporations).
If they think the Senate is going to further reform this bill, I got a bridge to sell ya. Maybe further reform it for the health industry. We'll see. But they're giving the insurance cartel even more power, so how is that going to be a step towards a strong public option or even single payer?
Some keep arguing that more in the industry pool, will bring down premiums. Yeah, how's that working for auto insurance? They're going to be competitive, that's like a store owner in vegas who brought his gas prices way down from his competition and was told by the main corporation to bring them up--he refused-he lost his franchise. Because big corporations don't go into price fixing (uh-uh). They're all about the competition.
I am against this bill as written--we'll see the final draft after the senate gets a hold of it.
Oh, speaking about auto insurance--California did attempt to pass a law (knowing they were forcing people into buying from private corp) that a tax would be added to the pump, where every driver would by minimally covered-they did it for the working poor. The insurance industry spent millions to defeat it.
82. Unrec'd. It's a lousy bill with a snowball's chance.
Let's see... the abortion coverage problem, no single payor, LIEberman is planning a filibuster... It's a joke. I'm so tired of the damned rah-rah over the illusion of accomplishment. Thanks, I'll save my recs for an actual victory, not drinking the Gore/Kerry kool-aid.
Under the current system, my husband can't possibly retire before we're both eligible for Medicare. Since I'm a little younger than he is, that'd mean he'd have to work until he's 68, no matter what. Even if we won the lottery, even if I wrote a best seller or 6, even if we discovered a platinum mine on our property, he'd have to keep working, because we're both obese, arthritic, and at high risk of diabetes. No amount of money can buy us health care, under the current system, and no amount of money can protect against impoverishment by disease or injury, either.
With pre-existing condition exclusions outlawed, we have a chance of getting on with our lives, maybe moving to a small town and starting up a business. Until then, he's enslaved to the employer who supplies his group coverage. No, I can't cover-- I was out of work when I became totally disabled, and have fallen through the cracks.
99. IF YOU'RE HAPPY AND YOU KNOW IT CLAP YOUR HANDS !!
Edited on Mon Nov-09-09 02:39 AM by Techn0Girl
It was a great song .... when we were five.
Unfortunately some people - far too many people never evolve beyond that mentality. Yeah - we won! We rule! We're the best!
5 year olds think that way. And knowing that so many "adults" never progress much beyond such a mentality, the true movers and shakers of society use it to keep the masses clapping their hands while they get rich and profit off of our hard work.
It's that kind of manipulation that keeps poor Southern Republicans without insurance or unemployment out there waving their teabags protesting against the very things they need for a happier and healthier life. And it's the very same mentality that keeps Democrats clapping their hands over this disaster of a bill.
This bill is, in it's current form , a huge give-away to Big Pharma and the health care industry. It will take away from 2.5% to 15% of all middle class income and force it to be given to Insurance companies like Blue Cross. It will remove a poor woman's ability to choose what to do with her body through extreme financial penalty .
You can read the House Ways and Means summary of the bill right here:
Here's an example of what it does. A person making a bare subsistence wage of 24,000 a year will be forced to pay an additional 2000 dollars (that's WITH the "subsidy") to a private insurance company. He will be forced to pay that for a policy that won't pay out a dime until he pays an additional 2000 dollars in deductible. If he chooses not to pay for the crap policy than the Federal government will take away 2.5% of his income - and put it into the insurance pool anyway.
You can read about it tin the link - its all there on page two in the table.
Now clap your hands boys and girls with everyone - aren't you happy now - you won!
1. A bad start will eventually lead to a really bad bill, so status quo is temporarily better. Single-payer got compromised at the get-go so we got taken for a ride. Some say Kucinich ignored the needs of the 2-6 million or so who can be covered. He could also have fought for 40 million or so that were NOT covered. Start from scratch and include single-payer advocates. Leaving them out stands in the way of progress. We need more like Kucinich. 2. The bill in its current form can still be modified. Baby steps is how Washington works. Idealism stands in the way of progress. Kick out Kucinich.
But the bill has passed the house, so the question is: will this bill ever see the light of not-for-profit single-payer health care?
Just like politics, nothing is black or white, so to answer the OP, I am apprehensively happy. But Kucinich must stay; we just need a different front man.
I guess that makes Dennis Kucinich a "nattering nabob of negativism". I oppose this bill for the same reasons that DK voted against it.
Congressman Dennis Kucinich after voting against H.R. 3962 addresses why he voted NO, stating:
"We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system."
"Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick."
"But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies - a bailout under a blue cross."
"By incurring only a new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, a weakened public option, and a few other important but limited concessions, the health insurance companies are getting quite a deal. The Center for American Progress' blog, Think Progress, states, 'since the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option, health insurance stocks have been on the rise.' Similarly, healthcare stocks rallied when Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill without a public option. Bloomberg reports that Curtis Lane, a prominent health industry investor, predicted a few weeks ago that 'money will start flowing in again' to health insurance stocks after passage of the legislation. Investors.com last month reported that pharmacy benefit managers share prices are hitting all-time highs, with the only industry worry that the Administration would reverse its decision not to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices, leaving in place a Bush Administration policy."
"During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The 'robust public option' which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies."
"Recent rises in unemployment indicate a widening separation between the finance economy and the real economy. The finance economy considers the health of Wall Street, rising corporate profits, and banks' hoarding of cash, much of it from taxpayers, as sign of an economic recovery. However in the real economy - in which most Americans live - the recession is not over. Rising unemployment, business failures, bankruptcies and foreclosures are still hammering Main Street."
"This health care bill continues the redistribution of wealth to Wall Street at the expense of America's manufacturing and service economies which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear, especially the cost of health care. America continues to stand out among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care system. As a result, we are less competitive in steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports in these areas through socializing the cost of health care."
"Notwithstanding the fate of H.R. 3962, America will someday come to recognize the broad social and economic benefits of a not-for-profit, single-payer health care system, which is good for the American people and good for America's businesses, with of course the notable exceptions being insurance and pharmaceuticals."
140. happy. could be MUCH happier, but optimistic that time will work in my favor.
i think people miss the big picture. the mere fact that health insurance got a so-called "major overhaul", regardless of what's in it, means that it will be FAR easier to "tinker" with it a few years down the road.
that still won't mean we get everything, but just removing the taboo against change, the taboo against even bringing the topic up, that's been in place since hillary got slammed down, that's huge.
141. I'm happy "something " passd. It is a shit bill...
and I will continue to bitch about it in an effort to wake the people up to the fact that the only way to curb costs in any meaningful way is to ge t single payer. So, as usual, I hold my nose and support the lesser of two evils.
142. For those like me with a pre-existing condition
ANYTHING is better than the status quo (though fortunately since I still can work, I have halfway decent insurance but if I lose my job...) I'm tired of fighting with the insurance company...I want my doctor to be my doctor not have to spend his valuable time fighting with the insurance company penny pinchers (and I'm treated by Mayo clinic)
any bill that helps people avoid going bankrupt because they need health care. however, i do not support ANYONE calling this bill health CARE reform. it is a health INSURANCE bill. that's it. it does nothing to guarantee anyone will actually receive health care. the insurance companies practices of maximizing profit by DENYING care are very much intact...and in fact the mandate for coverage guarantees that they will have a bigger (now captive) market to screw over. and the ones they don't want they toss to the defunct 'public option' that is too weak to succeed (and will likely be managed by the insurance companies themselves...how convenient). so tell me again...do you support health CARE reform? or is this enough?
Just think were we would be today if we were able to get a weak watered down bill back in 94. So we get this weak watered down bill today, and then by 2024 we may be on the way to a single payer system rather than starting from fresh hoping to get at least a watered down bill wondering where we'd be if only we had gotten a weak watered down version of a bill way back in 09.
from the near-right wing of the big business corporate party...
The confused, scared, timid, facts challenged, corporate funded democrats with their utter lack of interest in anything but their re-election chances and how to pitch their "message" to the loudest of their corporate constituents...
Able to completely ignore the wishes of the large majority of USAmerican People...
To protect their rare corporate funded pResident...
Have scored a coup...
And destroyed any chance of meaningful HEALTH CARE reform for another generation...
While they cheerfully and with great show of "patriotism" and jingoist fervor pass another fucking military supplemental for Obama's wars...
166. Far from the ideal solution to the problem, at least it's a step in the right direction.
I love the ban on exclusion due to preexisting conditions, and the equality in pricing for women. I am of course not happy that ALL women's health care is not covered. Perhaps we need to push for exclusion of Viagra and ED from coverage.
This is another baillout for big pharma/med insurance and also an attempt by religious institutions to impose and control the population. We are suckers if we allow this. A better bill can be written so I don't see why people here obscess about passing any POS that the blue dogs are ok with.
184. Hell No! I am with Kucinich. Obama + Dems handed over
millions to the insurance corporation blood suckers! There is no real public option, pre-existing conditions does not kick in for four years (maybe too late for my son with a genetic disease)and does nothing to stop the raising cost of health insurance premiums. My employer-based plan just went up 30% starting Nov 1st, after it went up 30% last yr! What is to stop the insurance vultures of raising rates every year now that virtually everyone will be forced to go to them for insurance policies. Those predators will argue now since they have to cover pre-existing conditions they must raise rates pitting those who are not yet deemed to have a pre-existing condition against those through no fault of their own born with a genetic disease, or got pregnant or took AIDS prevention drugs, or had a body who was normally underwieght or overweight, etc. Now with the Taliban-like anti-choice (abortion) provision, under the advise of the Catholic bishop, we are reversing years of progress for reproductive rights.
I don't think I have been more disgusted with the democrats and now with Obama. This is not change that I can believe in!
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.