Whenever I think of this HCR bill, I think of the lead-up to the Iraq War.

[coti]

I feel that same mixture of foreboding, extreme frustration and hopelessness with this bill as we all had when Bush was saber-rattling.

This HCR bill will commit us for decades to a healthcare system centered around for-profit, unreliable, inefficient and extremely expensive private health insurance. Most people seem to understand perfectly well that it's a bad idea, but many are nevertheless getting on board with the Obama Administration's plan out of loyalty, despite the economic and social damage that will be caused to our country and the political damage that will be done to our party.

It's the same political dynamic being played out all over again, and it's sad. I truly believed that Obama was going to be one of the greatest Presidents our country had ever seen. He had such potential and opportunity. But this HCR debacle is going to be his legacy, our party's legacy. If this passes, as Democrats and as Americans we're going to be paying for this for a very, very long time. Just like Iraq.

[midnight]

1. Me too. Not so much understanding how the poor will pay. Why the IRS has

to audit those not paying enough for insurance. How come the insurance co. get to set the price, and not competition?

[tridim]

2. The bill regulates for-profit insurance making it reliable, efficient and affordable.

That's the whole freaking point. Pay attention.

[coti]

7. You can say that, but you know it's not true.

Particularly with regard to its efficiency and affordability. There's simply nothing substantial in the bill that addresses the fundamental issue with our healthcare system, which is cost.

Essentially, we're digging ourselves into a deeper hole instead of changing the "paradigum" by which our healthcare system runs. Not surpisingly, that's not going to work.

[leftstreet]

9. You make an excellent case for privatizing police and fire services

Make it all for-profit, then regulate it into reliability, efficiency, and affordability

:eyes:

[Individualist]

3. Good analogy

:thumbsup:

[corpseratemedia]

4. I'm getting the same stomach-churning feeling also

isn't this just about stopping states from offering single-payer? Then maybe our real dems do have to vote against it. I'm tired of being sold lemons.

[leftstreet]

5. K&R

[laughingliberal]

6. Keep banging on the progressives in the Senate

Not a lot of hope but there is some momentum for improving the bill and, perhaps, even getting a PO back in. I don't think that will make this a good bill but it will give us a sliver of an opportunity for improvement, later.

My fear is the House will pass the Senate bill as is with some half assed promise they will fix it in a sidecar bill. The Senate has given me no reason to trust them on this. They have become known as the place bills go to die. Keep hammering. They need to feel a little heat in order to follow through with their 'fixes.'

[coti]

10. Yeah, the "we'll fix it later" line. It's funny in that sad kind of way, you know?

Like "let's just be friends." It's one of those social plays that have to be acted out as a matter of courtesy, I guess.

[laughingliberal]

11. I'm right there with you. It is the saddest I've felt in a long time that we can't get a good bill

with the majorities we put in office. And it may be a waste of time but I've been a fighter since the 60's and it just seems we need to keep banging them. Plenty of time to mourn when it's over but we could get a little improvement (not a lot of hope but some). This bill is so bad if we can just change a few things for the better it would be encouraging. The days do seem to be over when a groundswell of public support would persuade our leaders but you never know.

[HughMoran]

8. 1) What we have now is (obviously) worse 2) what plan are you proposing that will pass Congress?

Simple questions you have to answer before I can take your post seriously.

[coti]

12. 1) No, we're better off while we haven't commited ourselves

to building our healthcare system around private insurance and allowed them to entrench themselves- with our tax dollars, no less.

and 2) If the Obama Administration hadn't made that deal with the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries that they are now protecting, and actually wanted to push for a public option, they could do so and it would be successful. They could get 50+ votes in the Senate for the reconciliation process, at the very least. Look at what they're doing- instead of pushing the public option, with the bully pulpit or person-to-person, the Administration is making excuses for why they can't do it. They're doing it that way because they don't want the public option- they want to stick to the deal they have already made.

When there was a 60-vote requirement for the public option, we had 56 or 57- only a few holdouts. Now that the bar has been lowered, we suddenly have less than 50? Come on.

They absolutely could do it if it was part of their agenda.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[coti]

19. Self-delete. nt

[laughingliberal]

22. +1000 nt

[laughingliberal]

14. Here's a thought

Perhaps it is inherent on those who do not like this bill to keep petitioning our Senators about what we want. Or, when there are quite a few signing on to support the PO under reconciliation, do we give that up before it's over? When more Senators sign on every day or so, we're supposed to go along with pronouncing it dead? Or do we keep on while there is hope? Remember hope? There was a guy who ran on it a while back.

It very well may do no good cause the industry's votes count more than ours but does it do any harm to keep fighting until the fight is won or lost? Is this one of the problems with our party? "Pretty please, pass a bill that won't hurt us too much" is a strong negotiating position?

[coti]

17. No, of course we don't give up. We keep pushing that letter to fifty.

I'm interested to see what happens if it gets close- our senators know that the Obama Administration doesn't want the public option, so what happens if the letter gets 48 signatures? The momentum would show that other Dem senators are afraid of losing their base in the elections, but there's only signature left to be had before the next one would push the letter over the 50 limit. Would there be a rush to be that 49th signer?

Then what happens if we hit 49? That would put serious pressure on the Administration to get that last signature, and pressure on senators not to be that signature, because, uh-oh, that means commitment to the public option.

And 50? What if we only got 50? Would Biden vote for or against the bill as a tiebreaker?

Interesting stuff.

[laughingliberal]

21. It has been my impression that FDR did not come into office with a plan to push a liberal

agenda but was forced by circumstances and public unrest to go that direction. It was a different time but I would hope there are a few in the Senate who still have some fear of the electorate. Perhaps even the WH would have to look at it if the public outcry was big enough. But they do have almost 3 years before they face the electorate again.

[Davis_X_Machina]

13. Take the long view.

When the present effort fails -- and it must fail -- we'll just come back stronger, this time with single-payer. Of course, that will be defeated, too, but it will be a much more righteous defeat than being defeated on this shit sandwich.

I figure that in thirty years, after two more defeats, the bill that gets defeated that time will create -- well, actually only call for the creation of, because that bill just got defeated, but you catch my drift -- an American National Health Service, staffed by civil servants, with bricks and mortar belonging to the state.

Now losing a vote on health care reform that sweeping -- now that's progressive.

But losing that vote lies far in the future. We have to start small, by losing votes on less comprehensive plans now, and gradually increase the scale of the plans that we can't get passed.

Now people will carp, and say "What about the uninsured and un-insurable today?" That's just a lack of vision. Our future HRC plans will of course also provide for a National Day of Commemoration for all the un- and under-insured who died in the meantime, in recognition of their completely avoidable suffering. Do you think they'd like to be on a stamp? Or is something tasteful and not too showy on the Mall in Washington more appropriate?

I'm sure their next-of-kin will understand the place their sacrifice will have played in our inexorable march towards a truly progressive solution to the problem of health care.

[zipplewrath]

16. Here's the long view

Really, regardless of whether this current mess gets passed or not, it won't address the long term cost problems of health care. Ultimately, mostly because the cost will have spun so out of control, the major corporations will be screaming for some help. And with so many people forced to buy insurance (if this thing passes) it will mean there will be a huge push for some sort of "bailout". Unfortunately by then the GOP will have blamed the whole thing on democrats, either because they didn't "fix it" or if this passes, because their "fix" didn't work. So we'll get some sort of GOP version of single payer.

Of course this will probably take about 10 years, so in the mean time we'll have people still dying, still going bankrupt, and basically suffering just as they are now.

[Fumesucker]

18. California has essentially given up on regulating Blue Cross Anthem

I doubt it's going to be any different nationally, which is why I think the current health insurance reform is going to end up a disaster.

There is no doubt in my mind that the private mandate will be strictly and vigorously enforced by that favorite of all taxpayers, the IRS, there is little doubt in my mind that regulation of the insurance companies will be weak and sporadic.

http://cbs5.com/business/anthem.blue.cross.2.763636.html

California regulators admitted Thursday that for more than a year they didn't even try to enforce a million-dollar fine against health insurer Anthem Blue Cross because it feared they would be outgunned in court.

In early 2007, the Department of Managed Health Care pledged to fine the state's largest insurer for "routinely rescinding health insurance policies in violation of state law." But they never did.

The department's director, Cindy Ehnes, told The Associated Press on Thursday that, when it comes to rescissions, the agency has had success in forcing smaller insurers to reinstate illegally canceled policies and pay fines, but Blue Cross is too powerful to take on.

"In each and every one of those rescissions, (Blue Cross has) the right to contest each, and that could tie us up in court forever," Ehnes said of the approximately 1,770 Blue Cross rescissions between Jan. 1, 2004, and now.

[rve300]

20. And the Boomer's could sacrifice their SS payments...

For the fiscal benefit of a reduced national debt for future generations. We will give them a stamp!

[laughingliberal]

23. I'm pretty sure the deficit commission is working on that as we speak. nt

[PATRICK]

24. Interesting

The benefits and claims all, repeat all, went couth. The emotional bridge too far was saying we would actually be defeated. In HCR there will be benefits but it is the overall effect and immediate corruption and political doom that seem inevitable. Also that the good parts, stretched over too much time(politically insupportible) can be picked away and even gamed away. As long as it is about a money gold rush for the big guys it will all fail.

[coti]

26. Great point. nt

[David Zephyr]

25. A valid comparison.

K&R.