Answer me a question. If we dont have the votes to "fix it now" how can we expect a "fix it later"?

[NightWatcher]

I keep seeing "this is a good start" and "we can always come back and fix it later", but really. If we cannot muster the votes and 60 Senators or some other pie in the sky threshold for defeating the minority repukes, how/WHEN are we going to be able to magically fix it? After we take a hit in 2010 and lose a few seats?

The repukes are going to run against "Obamacare" for the rest of the year and again in 2012 and if most Americans do not feel super duper about their insurance and healthcare in general, they are going to think that it is because of "Obamacare" and they are going to send the Dems packing. Then the repukes and the corporations they represent will have the power by mandate to force whatever down our throats they deem fit.

[Romulox]

1. You're not going to get a real answer. nt

[Luciferous]

2. We won't get it fixed, we'll be stuck with this bill.

[beardown]

27. Too optimistic.

When this all started I said that the bill would be corrupted in such a way as to make it fail and then the right and the insurance industry could say "I told you so" and make a push back towards the private health insurance industry, but I was overly optimistic. They decided to make the bill work for them right out of the gate.

My guess is that the health insurance industry will now use the same overwhelming resources they used to turn a public option goal into a mandatory insurance outcome to start hanging more and more profit generating and consumer defeating hooks on the bill. No politician will want to enter the ring again to defend consumers from what will most likely be a continuous stream of corporate slanted "adjustments" to the bill because unlike this time when the entire congress was involved, they'll be easy individual targets for the corporate juggernaut that will come to bear against them in the next election.

I think that the folks that have been contending that we'll fix the bill later on are half right. The fixing will be done by and for the health insurance industry and I think that over time we'll look back at this bill and it will be noted for making health insurance mandatory and not for fixing the nation's health insurance payment system.

Yet another case where I hope I'm wrong.

[NYC_SKP]

3. The alternative is to do nothing, which is not acceptable. n/t

[Romulox]

5. This is what is known as a "tacit admission". nt

[NYC_SKP]

10. It is. Real reform clearly can't be done with this Congress.

And wish as we might that it could, we have to do something.

Even small changes are changes to the motionless boulder that has been HCR.

It has to start somewhere, with something.

[NightWatcher]

8. do something that is bad or do nothing and you choose bad?

:facepalm:

[NYC_SKP]

14. Not all bad, not all good, but movement is movement.

There will forever be disagreement over the details, and I don't love every one.

But to move a boulder, to get it rolling, you first have to nudge it.

Sometimes it doesn't go in the precise direction you wanted, but it's easier to redirect once in motion.

[Raineyb]

36. Oh yes I do so enjoy the movement toward enslavement to corporations.

If Republicans were trying shit like this we'd be screaming. But the Dems put up a bill that's a wet dream for corporations and we have people celebrating the future screwing of the populace.

Lovely.

[NYC_SKP]

40. Which is why the Republicans just love this thing to death, right? Ain't that right?

Hello?

Wanna name a corporate Republican who supports the bill?

Wanna explain why, if your proposition is valid, not a single Republican is FOR the bill?

:popcorn:

[CTyankee]

41. I think it is plain by now that the Republicans are against ANYTHING

that Obama is for. They are playing a perverse game here. Their ONLY consideration is defeating Democrats in any way, shape or form that they can. To paraphrase the famous cartoon, "It is not enough that Republicans win. Democrats must lose."

I know it's crazy but there it is...

[Raineyb]

65. If you think the Republicans are againsts this bill you're delusional.

Oh they'll make the usual noises but this is a Republican wet dream. The entire country forced by law to buy a faulty product from a private for profit company? This is EXACTLY the type of shit they like. And they're going to have it both ways; they'll have a bill they like without having to take responsibility for passing it.

They WANT this to pass and when the horror stories about health care continue. And they WILL continue as there's no price controls, loopholes you can drive a truck through and this idiotic idea of a high risk pool is a human interest story waiting to happen as some poor soul is only able to pay for the absolute worse piece of crap policy and end up hospitalized and they can't afford the deductible and their family has to have bake sales and car washes to raise enough to pay their bills. (Like they do NOW I might add) And when it does happen the Republicans will be right there telling the suckers. "See we told you this would be bad and we tried like hell to stop it from passing. Elect us." And watch the Democrats end up losing because people are pissed that they gave us this sham of a health insurance bill.

[beardown]

30. Sometimes do nothing is the best option.

After 9/11 many Americans said that we had to so something so Bush invaded Iraq. Simplistic, but it illustrates my point.

The decision matrix wasn't do nothing or do this bill. If the dems had pushed harder and pushed sooner and discovered that there were too many of them that were beholding to the health insurance industry they could have dumped this giant overhaul and started making a set of simpler adjustments like pre-existing conditions, etc. and none of the adjustments would have required making insurance mandatory.

I fear that we've gotten the worst of both sides of this bill in that it's marginal reform and the dems will get pounded for the next several elections by the mandatory clause just as much if they had gone full single payer.

[NYC_SKP]

32. Fair enough, everyone is going to have a different perspective. My COBRA runs out in October.

My retirement was in AIG funds and my home.

Ha. Ha.

And my parents' wealth is disappearing due to their health care costs.

If I had a different job or was younger, maybe I'd feel differently about it.

Fortunately, I do have insurance even if I lose my job.

Until this October.

[tomm2thumbs]

4. uh, I guess

I guess while Congress isn't busy licking them, they are off chasing them.



Oh, not balls. Lobbyists.

[NYC_SKP]

6. And why not balls? I prefer balls.

Provided they are NOT attached to lobbyists.

:P

[blm]

7. piecemeal.....the way they should have been doing it all along. It's easier to FIGHT that way.

IMO, the Dems would be much further along the singlepayer path if they had gotten behind Kerry's KidsFirst in 2005, which would have replaced SCHP (that still left too many uncovered kids) giving full healthcare to ALL 18 and under. That would have been the first, logical BIG step to singlepayer for all.

[zipplewrath]

25. That's what the PO was suppose to be

It was suppose to be the "piece meal" approach. Get the program set up, let people see how efficient and useful it was, start adding more folks. It was why the medicare for people starting at 55 was suggested. I agree, I think at this point the best approach is going to be some sort of "medicare for children" plan. Even if we did a "medicare for college students" we'd be creating a generation of people who just expected this.

But this plan undermines much of that. Requiring companies to cover kids to 26 on their parents plan for example. And if we do get towards any of these other ideas, this bill will ensure that the method chosen will be to have insurance companies sit between the government, the people, and the doctors. I am a tad concerned, when the GOP get in charge again, they'll use this model of "insurance companies as the health care system manager" to privatize medicare with a similar system of subsidies and mandates.

[Skinner]

9. And if we kill the bill, how do we "fix it later"?

Do tell.

[LynneSin]

13. +1

Thank you

I see some good works in HCR that will make a different for millions of Americans who currently are not covered or can't get covered.

And I see room with improvement.

Any great change in this country does not happen overnight. Look at Civil Rights. We passed countless bills protecting the rights of millions of people in this country but there is still plenty of room for improvement.

[Marr]

70. If the Civil Rights Act had begun with the reinstatement of slavery, the comparison

might make sense.

This bill is not about making an incremental step towards creating a real national healthcare system. It's designed to do just the opposite, in fact; to protect the problem industry and make meaningful change impossible for another generation.

Just as the crisis the health insurance industry created came to a head and people demanded change, our political establishment stepped in and rescued it by attaching it to government. They've guaranteed the industry a whole new crop of "customers", actually required by law to purchase their fraudulent products, and promised to shovel unspecified amounts of tax dollars right into the industry's coffers in the form of subsidies.

It's amazing to me that they can do this without being stampeded by a mob, especially after running largely the same play with the big banks.

[NYC_SKP]

19. Yep.

To move a boulder, to get it rolling, you first have to nudge it, to change it's inertia.

Sometimes it doesn't go in the precise direction you wanted, but it's easier to redirect once in motion.

I can't bear to watch it just sit there for another generation.

:patriot:

[NightWatcher]

20. I dont know, I'm not the one with the majority, capitulating to the minority

we are so scared of a filibuster. We have been told we dont have 60 votes, we need 50 +1. Maybe instead of playing hardball with Kucinich, Obama could have played hardball (not Cornhusker Kickbacks) with the Dems who were against true meaningful health care reform.

I'm also not the one making closed door deals in the White House with Big Pharma. (http://www.alternet.org/health/141856 )

There is no "Fix it later" because they dont want to and they never will. Thinking that there will be a "fix" somewhere magically down the line is delusional.

[Skinner]

23. Fine. You think it's delusional.

But I'm still not clear on the alternative. Let's say we kill the bill. Given all the obstacles to reform that you have yourself identified... If we kill the bill, how do we pass a better bill?

[NightWatcher]

26. I dont think we could start over

I think we wandered down the same road we did back in 94, we didn't hit Single Payer For All hard enough and had to drop it and not come back. When we dont make it a hard and fast goal, we allow the waters to be muddied by a deal here and a deal there. The insurance and pharma companies see this weakness and start attacking (using their lobbyists and the reps they outright own) to poke so many holes that it sinks. It's a planned response and it works. If we had the resolve as a party to force Medicare for all or single payer as a bill with no riders, no amendments, no unnecessary delays we MIGHT get it passed a lot easier than the mess we are seeing today.

It's a nasty spot we find ourselves in and we are going to pay for it in 2012 and 2012 I'm afraid. Too long we've allowed the repubs to define the arguments and we still act as though we are the minority even when we have the support of 80+% of the people behind meaningful healthcare reform.

I just think it's a mess and we need to work on other problems so that maybe we can hold on to some kind of majority in 2010 and 2012.

[Skinner]

29. If I'm reading your post correctly...

...it sounds like you're saying there is no "fix it later" after killing the bill, either.

There are all sorts of possible outcomes that might have come to pass if President Obama and the Democrats had approached Health Care differently. But we have no way of knowing how it would have turned out. You admit as much when you put the word "might" in all caps.

What we do know is this: We've got a bill, it's not perfect, and we can either pass it or not pass it. That's the choice we face. Pass it or don't pass it.

I don't know which option will be better politically for Democrats. But I do know which option is better from a policy standpoint.

[Raineyb]

37. And if we can't pass a decent bill how will we pass a fix we're dealing with the same

clowns who gave us this crap.

[TheWraith]

24. +100.

Thank you for spreading a little common sense around here.

[CTyankee]

31. Skinner, where is the plan to fix it later? So far, we on the left have had everything

we wanted in health care insurance reform taken away, one after another. If there is no plan to fix it, why are we so confident that we'll do any better with fixing than we have with creating this bill?

I'm not against helping the people who need help now. That sentiment leads me to lean in favor of passing it. But I would be much more encouraged if I had some inkling of what exactly (or in general) is planned in order to fix it. Don't you wonder about that yourself?

[Skinner]

34. That's not the argument I'm making here.

Other than passing some immediate fixes through reconciliation, I don't think there will be any additional fixes for a long, long time. If changes are made, I suspect it won't happen until the law is completely phased in, and we have experienced how it works in practice.

In fact, if it turns out that there are any parts of the new law that cause great hardship or are wildly unpopular, I think it is a safe bet that Congress will fix those things very quickly.

But other than the immediate fixes, there is no plan, nor could there be any real plan. As long as the political will does not exist for changes, then they aren't going to happen.

[Political Heretic]

63. You're kidding, right?

How about not passing something broken in the first place. It would be one thing if this bill simply didn't go far enough, but was a starting point - if it laid a strong foundation from which further positive gains toward excellent universal health coverage could be made...

But it doesn't.

It's not a foundation to build on, its an obstacle in the way of further positive gains toward excellent universal health coverage in the future.

It's something we'll be wasting time, money, and energy on un-doing years from now. The time to "fix" that would be now, before we pass a subpar corporate giveaway with no cost containment provisions, no regulation of premium prices and no competitive alternative to the private insurance racket.

[KittyWampus]

11. How did African Americans end up being able to collect Social Security?

[NYC_SKP]

28. Well, I tell you this: It was a MISTAKE to give African Americans the Right to Vote!

:sarcasm:

By the logic of some progressives, we should have held out until Women were included in the legislation.

The 18th amendment didn't pass for fully 47 years after the 15th.

If we waited for the changes we say we must have, the kids that I never had would be in their 90's.

:patriot:

[bigtree]

12. It's not unheard of in Congress

. . . for 'fixes' to come later.

[G_j]

17. it will reguire relentless pressure

seems the battle has but begun.

[deaniac21]

47. 'fixes" is all congress does.

[martymar64]

56. decades and centuries later.

Our great-grandkids MIGHT see a fix. But us? Not a chance in hell. Rahm will see to that.

[TheWraith]

15. What is this "fix it later" nonsense?

The House is voting on both the bill and a package of fixes simultaneously.

[Javaman]

16. This is the "high water mark".

the masses who believe this is actual reform with promises of more have been satiated.

There won't be anything else from here on out.

This. is. it.

and, what, exactly is "it"?

Kabuki theater.

[Individualist]

38. You're correct on all points,

"Fix it later" is a DLC meme, an attempt to fool the gullible into thinking it will be improved.

[goclark]

60. Do you have a crystal ball?

:shrug:

[pampango]

18. No guarantees. It was killed in 1994 (obviously nothing to "fix later"). If killed again or passed

this time, there are no guarantees that it will "fixed later" (or a better bill passed), especially since we figure to lose seats this November.

[depakid]

57. Actuallly, there were two "fixes" -HIPAA and federal mental health parity

which sunsetted out in 2001 and took the financial collapse to get back onto the books.

[NorthCarolina]

21. Fix it later.....

when pigs can fly.

[emulatorloo]

22. Same way medicare and social security got fixed later. n/t

[CTyankee]

33. So have you read anything about these fixes we can see coming after it's passed?

I haven't seen anything myself. Maybe we can do it, just like with medicare and SS. But why haven't we been told HOW this will happen...I truly don't want to believe that "fix it later" is really just wishful thinking...but I am nervous because the progressive community, AFAIK, hasn't been let in on what the fixing plans are. Don't you think they would want us to start organizing around certain "fixes"? Start planning to implement the strategy of fixing it? How can we do that if we don't even KNOW the strategy?

[CTyankee]

42. Medicare and Social Security got its fixes in a different world.

A world where we still had pensions and before the world economy almost collapsed and gave us a very cold shower of today's reality. It's much more of a badass world out there now...

[Hell Hath No Fury]

35. I have been asking this for over a week.

And have not received a single answer.

[mvd]

39. Wish I could answer that with certainty

At least we only need 50 for things affecting the budget like the public option. And Obama apparently told Dennis he'll work on his "broader concerns." Best I could come up with.

[Brickbat]

43. Well, just look at how they fixed NAFTA later, just like they said they would.

Oh. Wait.

[B Calm]

44. Using reconciliation we do have the votes to fix it!

[deaniac21]

48. Not after November and after Easter nothing will get done

because everyone is out campagning.

[madville]

45. I wouldn't worry too much

The courts will probably tear this bill to shreds and make it unenforceable and ineffective before it ever goes into effect. I can't see SCOTUS letting it force people to give their money to private corporations, it will be interesting to see if the justices rule for the people or for the insurance corporations, I would predict 6-3 against mandates.

[Faryn Balyncd]

46. +10

K and R

[Stinky The Clown]

49. How dare you rain on the parade of the supporters of the Unsurance companies?

How damned dare you?

Wait till this bullshit bill passes and watch them all do the happy dance and tell us "WE GOT IT DONE"

What got done is the enriching of the Unsurance Companies.

[laughingliberal]

53. Happy Dance, Indeed!

And all the 'PROUD incrementalists' will be just as quiet as mice.

[gravity]

50. It is much easier to fix something once the foundation is in place

The very big and controversial step of changing the structure of healthcare would be in place, and politics can start focusing on the specifics.

For example, if a group of people isn't receiving enough subsidies to afford insurance, then it would be easier to pass a resolution to do so because it is a small step instead of a huge one.

[Bluebear]

51. Magic.

[laughingliberal]

52. Nobody expects it to get fixed later

That was a talking point nauseatingly repeated over and over by those who want this bill and do not want a public option to get some support for passing the corporate giveaway bill. Once they have their Rose Garden party, you will hear nary a peep about fixes. It will be 'mission accomplished,' and on to teacher bashing, union busting.

[Solly Mack]

54. K&R

[kath]

55. pink unicorns.

[Eyerish]

58. K&R

[lwcon]

59. The people who say it don't have to believe it

The only thing that matters is that they convince you to believe it. Then we'll all STFU like we're supposed to.

[democracy1st]

61. we the people allowed this bs to happen,this admin basically spat in our face ! Now we have

no alternative but to support this bill.

[Kablooie]

62. It's not a 'good' start but it's a start. To fix it isn't going to happen soon.

But it will happen sooner than if we didn't pass anything.
Either way it will take years.

But years are better than decades.

[Umbral]

64. Pssst - come over here, I'll tell you a secret...

They think you're stupid.

[upi402]

67. They know

our alternative is batshit crazy Fox News, Teabaggin' Republicans from hell.

can i get a "DING DING DING!" ?

[BzaDem]

69. How would it be "smart" to vote down a bill that would help tens of millions of people?

You say "they think you're stupid" as if there is something smart about voting down this bill (even if it were very difficult to fix). Luckily, Democratic opposition to this bill is so small that it doesn't even register double digits in polls and doesn't have a single representative in either house of Congress that agrees with them.

[bigwillq]

66. I'm a skeptic. Not sure they will "fix it" later but

you have to have a bill in order to fix it later. If there's no bill, there's nothing to fix. And I feel this is the last time for a long time for there to potentially be a bill. I'm not a huge fan of the bill but, at this point, it needs to be passed.

[BzaDem]

68. Compared to the status quo, it is still a good bill even if we DON'T fix it later

The bill is actually a good bill (relative to the status quo), so the ability to fix it later is not very relevant to whether we should pass it now. Of course it can be fixed later (in and out of reconciliation), but even if it were really hard to do so this bill would still be a monumental achievement over the status quo. Sure, there is a single-digit percentage of the Democratic party who opposes the bill from the left, but if we start not passing bills because of opposition from a tiny minority of the Democratic party, nothing would ever get done (which would be fine with much of this tiny minority).