I'm sorry, but if you are against this HCR Bill, you really are against HCR in our lifetime

[berni_mccoy]

The reality is, if this bill dies, so does any possibility of reform in our lifetime. That is a reality. And according to many independent policy analysts, if we don't enact HCR today, by 2020, premiums will more than double and so will the number of uninsured in this country. Only the wealthy will be able to get medical care because programs like Medicaid will become unsustainable.

If you are still in favor of killing the bill, you are in favor of killing HCR altogether. Again, this is the reality of it.

[NYC_SKP]

1. Big fuckin' K n R!!!! nt

[jaxx]

2. You are absolutely right.

This is the time.

[jpak]

3. yup

:thumbsup:

[RoyGBiv]

4. I'm not sorry ...

You speak the truth. Never be sorry for speaking the truth.

[demtenjeep]

5. Today will be historic

I for one will be on the side that makes it happen and will be proud!

[laughingliberal]

50. 9/11 was historic

Lots of fucked up things have been historic. We've seen historic abuse of the constitution in recent years. We saw a historic Rx plan for Medicare passed under Bush. "Historic" does not necessarily mean good.

[Kalun D]

89. What are you proud of?

Did you read and comprehend all 2700 pages?

Or are you going by what a corporate paid spokesperson said, in political office, or on the corporate Orwellian TV, who told you this bill was A-okay?

[paulflorez]

100. I'm proud of the mandate to use electronic transactions for instant claim acception/denials

which is in the bill. It's required that when you go in for a medical service, the health care provider is able to electronically file a claim with your health insurance provider and have it instantly rejected or accepted along with the total amount you will owe, so that you know whether you're going to be stuck with a huge bill before you actually go through with the service.

There are many more good regulations like that in the bill. Did you bother to read and comprehend any of the 2k pages before turning against it just like all the Know-Nothing Tea Partiers?

[Kalun D]

112. I didn't read it and you didn't either

2700 pages, how do you know there's not loopholes for all the good things you point out? Generally the longer the bill the more the loopholes, and this thing is way excessive.

I'm going by what the politicians like Kucinich, Sanders, Grayson are saying. Of course they had to cave to the corporate majority, but they only support it with reservations and obviously under duress.

It's a piece of crap that doesn't come close to anything meaningful for the majority of workers. In just the last 2 years my coverage went from $150 deductible to $1000 deductible with a 10% rate increase, pathetic. Will that be reversed? LOLZ, rates are only going up, just like when they made car insurance mandatory.

Of course you have to get in the ad-hominem dig and try to compare me, a longtime liberal progressive dem, to the tea baggers. Your thought process parallels the idiot bush boy, if you're not with us you're agin us. If you're not with our criminals, the DLC corporate whores that wrote and pushed this crap bill through the corporate congress, your with the criminal repugs. What's the damn difference? They are both pwned by the criminal corporations.

What's the matter your thought process can't cover the fact there could be more than one reason to object to this POS bill? Do you really think Kucinich opposed it for the same reason as the repugs? Would you like to buy a fricking vowel?

You inaccurately call me a repug. I'll accurately call you either a dupe of the DLC corporate machine for believing what the corporate Orwell TV told you to believe or a DLC operative, although I think it's the former.

Apologies to the mods for the personal leanings but it seems germane to the overall argument about why this bill is a POS and why otherwise good dems mistakenly believe it's somehow okay.

[paulflorez]

116. You didn't read it, I did.

The sheer fact that you have to jump to the conclusion that I did not read it shows how weak your argument is. It depends on everyone not reading the bill at all, which is certainly not the case. I can guarantee you that this bill has been combed through not just by me and other supporters of this bill, but by the people fighting this bill, looking for the best possible way to attack it.

It's not my fault that you are too lazy to read the equivalent of two harry potter books within a period of more than a year, or even 3 months, since granted that's how long it's been since the Senate bill was finalized. If you couldn't read the whole thing, you can at least read a few pages from a few different sections so that you could point them out in a debate.

I don't consider cynicism to be a effective way to convince others citizens or my representatives in a debate.

[tigereye]

125. that's what MA providers have to do now, and some insurers do right away

yeah, I don't like all the Orwell references when some of this stuff has been vetted out the wazoo by CBO and healh-care analysts - it's not as if most folks have read all 2700 pages.

[DrDan]

6. oh brother . . . .

[havocmom]

7. More 'yer either with us or with the terraist' crap

Um, no, it is not either or. We could have had REAL reform that would have really helped. We still could work toward that end.

Either/or thinking is just plain false and a disservice to democracy, as illustrated so well in how issues were framed in the last administration. To see the tactic used again sure as hell makes a lot of us question the promise of 'change'.

[Donnachaidh]

12. dontcha just love the fearmongering?

fascism - it ain't just a RED sweater anymore.

[laughingliberal]

52. Kind of gives one a nauseating sense of deja vu, yes? nt

[laughingliberal]

53. delete, posted wrong level

[Red State Rebel]

61. You are so right!

The important issues that are not addressed or delayed in this reform are too important/deadly.

We are settling and it stinks.

[paulflorez]

101. You're for letting ins. dump people with pre-existing conditions? Work "towards" by starting over?

I don't get it. There are many good things in the bill, including the fact that ins. will no longer be able to kick people off plans for having pre-existing conditions. I know you're probably not for letting ins. do that, but they will be able to continue doing that if this bill fails. Also, we could still work towards "that end" by doing what, starting over? Why does that sound familiar?

Just because this bill gets passed doesn't mean that's the be-all and end-all of health care reform. The only way to get towards "that end" isn't just through scrapping the bill and starting over. You can also get there by passing the bill and passing additional bills late to get the other things that will also help.

[havocmom]

109. Jesus, there's another one!

Is there a gene that enables critical thinking? Is it recessive? OMG

[paulflorez]

118. Have you ever worked on a project in your career which in the end contained flaws?

If I were working on a project in my job, and only 80% of what we wanted to accomplish was actually completed and it also contained flaws, it'd be idiotic to scrap the whole project to start over. Instead, you either adjust the deadline or defer the 20% that was missing for a later time and mitigate the problems; flaws in projects can go through as long as they are not severe. Typically keeping the deadline is a higher priority. Although the work that Congress does is not exactly like the work that I do, but certainly there are parallels between the two as I've stated above.

As far as critical thinking, well, I'm a software engineer, I'd say that requires a pretty hefty amount of critical thinking, perhaps more than even your average Congressperson requires.

[havocmom]

132. My reply was a rant against the false premis of either/or

guess that just sorta zipped right by.

[tigereye]

128. just seems like common sense to me...

[tkmorris]

8. No, that is completely disingenuous

Not everyone agrees with all of the presumptions you made in that assertion. It's rather ridiculous and an extremely poor debating tactic. Further, you don't get to define what potential future is "reality" You don't know, and you don't get to act as if you do.

[Kablooie]

19. No, it's likely that he is basically correct.

The bill may be horribly flawed but if it is passed it is the beginning of a road to making a better health care.

Without it there is no road at all and the companies will remain free of any regulations indefinitely into the future.

And with the new SCOTUS decree it will only become harder in the future to get something new started.

[tkmorris]

30. Possibly. But he is asserting that such is a fact...

And further that anyone opposing this bills knows this and is against it in full knowledge of that "fact". That's just a dishonest argument, intended to shame people.

[Kablooie]

46. Point taken.

[TreasonousBastard]

120. And those against the bill are not asserting such "facts"?

[Edweird]

9. No actual reform appears likely under this administration. This bill is a giveaway to insurance cos.

[gateley]

23. I am so tired of hearing that -- but I agree it's true. But it doesn't

have to end here - we can keep the momentum going with our support of Grayson, Weiner, Dennis, Bernie, Barney, et al -- this is the FIRST STEP. We can do it!

[Edweird]

29. Look, Obama wants the senate bill. That's it. Nobody is getting anything else.

The fantasy of 'fixing it' or 'improving it later' is just a carrot to garner the support of 'undecideds'.

[gateley]

36. I'm talking about taking it a step further, like Grayson's Medicare

Buy In -- I think we can work to get that done as a stand-alone bill. None of the BS that's in this current bill, (which won't be helping me at all by the way) but I'm viewing this as a first step. Not necessarily any of the provisions included being a first step, but rather that this has actually gotten to the floor, garnered huge interest, and gotten the movement headed in the right direction -- REAL health care reform.

I changed my stance on this, I was totally against it. But looking back over the years when a movement failed, the issue seemed to just die for the remainder of that administration, and even into the next. So that's what I don't want to see happen this time. I'm not for THIS bill, I'm for getting SOME bill passed so we can take it from there.

[Edweird]

39. If this wasn't blatant far right policy I might be inclined to agree with you.

http://healthca.newamerica.net/blogposts/2008/reform_newt_gingrich_on_free_riders_and_the_individual_mandate-18127

[gateley]

47. I think there's lots of stuff in there that could be considered almost

far right, and I think they are there as a result of Obama's misguided belief that we could garner some Republican support.

I'm not looking at any one point in this bill. Although there are good provisions and some will even help some people immediately, I think in its entirety it sucks. So this particular policy, as infuriating and wrong as it is, doesn't affect my overall stance any more than any other policy with which I disagree.

I'm determined we have to keep moving, keep this in motion, and get real reform. This crap won't matter then. The sooner the better.

I have no faith that if this is defeated, that it will be a long fucking time before we get this close again, regardless of those who want to start all over and do it right promise.

[Edweird]

66. Hm. So Newt isn't far right?

[gateley]

72. Now really, did I imply that? Of course not. nt

[Edweird]

79. The foundation of this bill is far right. It's not 'some parts', but the non-negotiable basis.

"The reality of an individual mandate (when coupled with subsidies so that insurance is affordable and market reforms so that coverage is accessible), is that it would not only address the "free rider" problem, but also serve as a tool to enhance insurance market competition. When combined with market reforms and subsidies, the mandate would help move insurers away from a business model that relies on marketing and underwriting and towards a strategy that involves competing for customers based on performance and price. This is a good thing...and something those in favor of market competition could get behind."

Mandates, subsidies, 'reforms'. That's what we're getting. Newt Gingrich-care.

[gateley]

102. And I told you I don't like this bill either -- it fucking stinks, but I see it

as an opportunity to keep the ball rolling, to be able to say "you don't like this? How about THIS?" and present a real piece of reform.

If you're trying to prove to me this is a RW bill, don't bother. I think our views are similar. We just differ about whether it is a good first step, a tool to use, or not. I think.

[Edweird]

106. Ok.

That seems to be the issue with the reasonable people here - we want the same thing, but disagree on the path there.

[gateley]

107. Yeah, and my opinion on the best path has changed, and will probably

change again. :hi:

[paulflorez]

103. Gringrich isn't talking at all about banning pre-existing conditions.

If you ban the rejection of people with pre-existing conditions, you have to require everyone to pay into some kind of insurance plan. Otherwise, why would anyone buy insurance until they actually needed it? That argument really does make sense to me. People are mandated to pay taxes for Medicare coverage. If we expanded Medicare to everyone, our Medicare taxes would go up and we'd be facing the same sort of mandate, except our only choice would be the government.

Also, if insurance companies abuse the mandate by keeping prices high or taking exorbitant profits while prices remain relatively unaffordable, that will put them at risk of public opinion swinging towards a public option or even a single-payer system.

[Edweird]

104. You don't really understand what single payer is, do you? Medicare is single payer.

I'm perfectly fine with paying taxes for government run health care. That's single payer. Like Medicare. Like what Canadians have.

The for-profit insurance/health care industry is the problem.

Lastly, Newt's plan would have only mandated those making $75,000+/yr. That puts the senate bill TO THE RIGHT OF NEWT GINGRICH.

[paulflorez]

119. I understand what single-payer is...

but I do not agree that that is the only option. I'm not fond of the insurance companies, but I don't think we have to put them out of business. I'm not necessarily against single-payer either, but no one seems to bother to try to convince me in a civil manner why private insurance companies existing alongside government-run programs with effective regulation will never work.

Also, Newt's plan did not imply the banning of rejection based on pre-existing conditions. Instead, it's goal appeared to be simply premium reduction. I'd say that while the mandate may be a right-wing initiative (debatable, as it violates their constitutional principles although they haven't exactly religiously adhered to those), banning pre-existing conditions is a very left-wing idea that at the very least cancels out the effect, especially when you take into consideration that people in certain poor financial conditions will not be subject to the mandate.

[The Hope Mobile]

91. +1 nt

[Citizen Kang]

70. Exactly....

I'm still waiting on a Health Care Reform bill. This abomination is another bailout to a failed industry.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

84. the bill SUCKS. When the problem gets bad enough, THEN we will get Medicare for ALL

not enough people have been screwed by Health Ins cos and
too much money from INS Cos given to our Congress.

[LibDemAlways]

111. Damn right. Those who are rejoicing today are going to

be getting a strong dose of reality come November when the voters throw out enough of those who did this to them to assure a Republican takeover of Congress. The Dems failure to enact some sort of public option to compete with the insurance company crooks will go neither unnoticed nor unpunished.

[NightWatcher]

10. No, if you are against this bill, maybe it's because you want a BETTER ONE

Maybe we want a Health Care bill that supplies Medicare for All or has a viable public option.
Maybe we want one that is not an immediate hand out to the Insurance Companies and Drug Companies.

[gateley]

25. Of course that's what we all want, but wanting it didn't make it

happen, did it? We've got the momentum going, and we don't have to stop here. I'd much rather take this legislation as a stepping stone, rather than trashing the whole thing and starting again. Again. I don't have another 50 years to wait until this comes up again.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

85. the problem is that making the INS COs richer gives them even MORE power over congress

so we enable them and make them stronger and further weaken our own voices.

[JBoy]

11. Passing the bill will also de-electrify the 3rd rail of HCR.

[Karmadillo]

13. I'm sorry, but if you're not against this HCR Bill, you really are against HCR in our lifetime

nt

[DrDan]

57. continuing to make this ridiculous statement does not make it anywhere near true

it is amazing that some can not handle the simple fact that all do not agree with them . . .

[Karmadillo]

60. Sorry, but it's the first time I've made it. I thought this thread was about mindless sloganeering.

Am I mistaken?

[DrDan]

62. nope - not mistaken - right on target

[NJmaverick]

14. K&R

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[area51]

16. I'm sorry,

personal attacks will not convince anyone that this insurance industry bailout is good for Americans.

[bigtree]

17. a bit much

but this train has left the station. Who really knows what would have happened if the entire process behind passing this particular set of initiatives would have had collapsed? So, to paint those opposed to this bill as against health care reform is just an exaggeration.

What's the purpose of this thread anyway? I can understand lambasting republicans who NEVER wanted health reform, but if this is directed at opponents here and among our party I'd think we have enough division without working on this unified day for Democrats to widen gaps among those of us who have argued for different remedies and are sincerely unconvinced of this legislation's promises and sincerely wary and opposed of others in the bill.

[obxhead]

18. If your for this bill, you are for putting more of the middle class

into a poverty situation.

[shotten99]

20. Wish it were stronger, but the door is open now.

Instant campaign weapon: The GOP desire to repeal this means they want recission and pre-existing conditions in your life again.

[eridani]

124. Pre-existing conditions will be in my life until 2014

Besides, which, there is no enforcement mechanism at all. Ditto recission. Many states already have laws against those things that they don't enforce because they can't afford to.

[Riftaxe]

21. If your not with us, your against us.

I see what you did there.

[Gormy Cuss]

22. The reality is, if this bill dies it will be because the party didn't broker enough votes.

What we think about it makes no difference on the Hill. That's been obvious since the public option was dropped.

For the record, I'm not in favor of this bill. I'm also not in favor of killing it because it's better than nothing but I want the pols to continue working on real health care reform after this health insurance reform bill passes.

[TroubleMan]

24. That's bullshit.

The private insurance companies are the bad guys, and forcing us to buy from them is the exact opposite of what any progressive should want. There are some good things in this bill, but they are greatly outweighed by the mandate.

What we need is system similar to the Canadian or French one. This bill IMHO is a step in the opposite direction - towards more corporate control.

[Cal Carpenter]

26. ROFL!

It must be nice to be so far removed from the reality of this bill...

Either you have NO idea what the real-world consequences are or you are in total denial.

If you want to defend the bill, at least be honest about what it is.

[yourout]

Bullshit....

That is all.

[leeroysphitz]

27. I'm sorry but you are full of it. This doesn't qualify as health care reform and if this is the best

that we can do in our lifetimes then we are a truly sorry lot.

[grahamhgreen]

28. No, this bill will be used as an excuse as to why we don't need real reform.

[berni_mccoy]

31. Sorry, wrong again. SS has seen more than 20 major amendments between 1935 and Today

that have improved it.

[Edweird]

65. Yeah, but SS wasn't based on far right policy.

[Sebastian Doyle]

92. President Obama said that he intended to be the LAST PRESIDENT who has to deal with "health care"

So either that means, he didn't mean that, just as he apparently didn't mean "the bill I sign will have a public option", OR it means that he, like the DLC, has no intention of any "reform" (real or imagined) beyond this piece of shit bill.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

32. Actually, portions of healthcare are addressed about every 7 years.

1965 Medicare- passed
1974 Nixon- failed
1982 Carter- failed
1985 COBRA- passed
1993 Clinton- failed
1996 HIPAA- passed
1997 SCHIP- passed
2004 M Part D- passed
2009 CHIP- passed

[Jakes Progress]

33. I'm sorry you're sorry.

[Prism]

34. More false choices

The reliance on the false choice (It's a shit sandwich or nothing, people!) really does betray the weaknesses of this bill. Of course, not once do you advocate for pressuring politicians to do the right thing right now and craft an actual good bill. No, the entire process has been a veritable Niagara of watering down, and there you and others have been, cheering it every. step. of. the. way.

When your opening offer is "Whatever the politicians tell us is ok, I will passively and obediently accept that," you really do have nowhere to go but down.

And you really have no business whatsoever telling other people what they should or should not be willing to accept. Not all of us have your crazy low standards - which is to say no standards outside of a signing ceremony for the sake of the party.

If this bill were as good as it is claimed to be, if it really was that first step, why are we, at this late hour, watching all these Democratic politicians trying to wriggle out of a vote so they can go home before November and explain to their constituents they had no part in it?

It seems to me all these politicians would be proud to support this historic, revolutionary step in health care reform.

So why do so many of them look so absolutely petrified?

[DefenseLawyer]

35. Why?

I'm just a caveman. You say it is the only chance to pass health care reform "in our lifetime", but why would that be the case? Are you just assuming that the makeup of the Congress will be more conservative than it is today for the next 40-50 years? Rather than just making some unsupported blanket statement, how about you explain your reasoning to me slowly so I can grasp it.

[sendero]

37. I'm sorry...

.... but your lack of intelligence is equalled only by your persistence in trying to sell shit to people who are smarter than you.

[Marr]

38. If this bill passes, it will make meaningful reform more difficult later.

It institutionalizes the very industry that has caused the problem. It will be very difficult to disentangle the beast and institute meaningful reform later.

[LWolf]

40. Well, your rhetoric is sorry, anyway.No

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I am against this health insurance bill, which has nothing to do with care.

I am FOR comprehensive health CARE reform NOW, which is why I oppose letting this bill pass. It will stand, in it's Orwellian splendor, as health care "reform," and the efforts in my lifetime will be to act on this bill, tweaking INSURANCE reforms.

Health care itself will never get a hearing again if this thing passes.

[bridgit]

41. I feel sorry for people, even DUers that thought Obama would be able to just flip a switch...

and they were going to wake up in Toronto, or Paris, Knightsbridge or some Havana-esque setting with a fresh bag of fully funded, easily accessible elective medical procedures and a free bottle of meds...though that could happen over time; it was never going to happen initially. If it were that easy, they could have flipped a similar switch and The Gordian Knot would've just fallen away into pieces

[Stinky The Clown]

42. Man ..... and people say I post the same crap over and over and over.

Today's do or die day. What's your purpose in posting this sort of shit?

[havocmom]

45. And how many years did we complain about: Fear! Fear! FEAR!

Change did not seem to come with any new tools in the tool box, did it?

[dana_b]

81. no shit

a one note song.

[northernlights]

43. bullshit. this bill has nothing to do with health CARE reform.

Premiums will double anyway, or triple. And there won't be one bit more health CARE for anybody. Less, more likely.

The only difference I see is now I will be forced to pay insurance companies thousands of dollars and the next time I get sick, they'll tell me it's "all in my head" and leave me to die.

Just like they did the last time, when I was septic. I wasn't worth a CBC then, and I'm not worth a CBC now. Only next time I may not have a dentist who recognizes the skeleton sitting in his chair with impacted wisdom teeth needs antibiotics fast.

[Feron]

44. HCR != health insurance company bailout

Bailing out health insurance companies by mandating that all Americans must buy their crappy overpriced products isn't reform by any means. Having health insurance doesn't mean that you can afford to see a doctor...just look at the flood of bankruptcies by those who have it.

Now health care companies can double dip by hitting Americans both in the wallet and by taking government subsidies. There's nothing to keep costs down and every incentive to raise prices.

Some Democrats are more interested in a win than they are about actually changing something for the better. This bill is more of the same-entrenching corporations and making regular Americans the serfs of the elite.

[stillwaiting]

48. Bullshit. Difference of opinions. That. Is. All.

[havocmom]

49. Calling crumbs cake and telling people that is all they will get

reminds me of something....

[SlingBlade]

51. Don't be sorry, Just stop shilling for a second rate Bill

True HCR was scuttled by this administration. That's a fact even though the majority
of Americans wanted single payer medicare for all.

Don't hand me a stinking piece of turd and tell me its better than the other turd.

It stinks and everyone knows it.

[walldude]

54. According to many...

yeah and according to many this bill will sink the country. And according to many it's a great bill. And according to many it's a shit bill. And according to many it will be fixed. And according to many it won't. And according to many Democrats are on your side. And according to many they aren't. And according to many this will help people. And according to many it won't. And according to many...

The only reality here is I noticed you have stopped using that article you were posting everywhere to prove this exact point. What? Was it... DEBUNKED? Now it's not "According to the RWFJ" anymore? Now it's according to some?

And your entire point is bullshit anyway. There is no way you could know this. NO WAY. All it would take is someone with some fucking balls and we could get a decent bill passed. I hoped it was Obama. I was wrong.

[laughingliberal]

55. I find it hard to believe that, on the way to a doubling of premiums by 2020, there would be no push

to reform the system. And I really find it hard to believe that the insurance companies losing 11 million customers a year starting next year and continuing for 20 years won't produce an outcry for reform long before 2020. Let's see. 11 million a year. By 2014 when most of the bill takes effect they insurance companies will have lost 44 million customers just to Medicare. That's not counting the businesses or individuals who will be forced to drop coverage.

You really think there will be no push for reform under those conditions? I disagree. This bandaid will just pacify things enough to kill any push for real reform. This bill will give up the chance for progressive reform for 20 years.

[Cha]

56. KickR

You're talkin' to my blue dog, berni!

[Raineyb]

58. Bull fucking shit

K&U

[dana_b]

59. you beat me to it

just by a hair...

[TheWatcher]

77. But, But, It's such a big Political Victory for "The Football Team"

Why Do You Hate The DLC?

Why Do You Hate The Insurance Companies who only have our BEST INTERESTS in mind, and would NEVER put Profit before Humanity?

Stand aside, and put away your anger, Citizen.

It's all part of the "New Freedom."

:sarcasm:

[Edweird]

63. The reality is that I oppose Newt Gingrich's plan - which is what this is.

You, comically, call people 'teabaggers' for opposing it.
http://healthca.newamerica.net/blogposts/2008/reform_newt_gingrich_on_free_riders_and_the_individual_mandate-18127
"The reality of an individual mandate (when coupled with subsidies so that insurance is affordable and market reforms so that coverage is accessible), is that it would not only address the "free rider" problem, but also serve as a tool to enhance insurance market competition. When combined with market reforms and subsidies, the mandate would help move insurers away from a business model that relies on marketing and underwriting and towards a strategy that involves competing for customers based on performance and price. This is a good thing...and something those in favor of market competition could get behind."

The truth, as you say, 'hurts'.

[laughingliberal]

78. How far right has this country gone when Democrats think a plan Gingrich supports is a

Democratic win?

Gingrich is also well on board with the dismantling of public education under way in the administration now.

We (the Democratic party) are a little to the right of Reagan in 1980.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zhade]

67. Nope. You're wrong -- and you'll come to realize it soon enough.

The real fact is that by urging the passing of this corporate giveaway that rewards the same companies who deny care to fatten their bottom line, people like you are assuring no reform happens in our lifetime.

Premiums will still double. Take that to the bank. Same for the current abuses -- and capitulation like yours, as praticed by the Dems, ensure no movement on actual reform will take place. What could have been a truly historic change turned out to be a monumental failure to affect the status quo.

It's cool if you don't agree with me now. You will at some point, when it's too late.

[Juche]

68. This bill can shift public consciousness

That is a big but underlooked aspect. This bill will cement into people's minds that health care is an entitlement and a right.

Even the teabaggers with their rage against gov. intervention in health care and welfare will never give up their medicare and social security. They have had it cemented that socialized medicine and welfare are something they are entitled to.

If you pass universal health care and it lasts 10 years, what do you think will happen when those 10 years are up? Are people going to give up UHC? no. They are just going to renew it but reform it in the meantime.

This bill could lead to the subtle political shift needed to bring in the more meaningful reforms our country needs down the road.

[eridani]

126. The only "right" that I see is the right to be forced to purchase a crappy product

--that will not pay for care until you impoverish yourself.

[Juche]

134. Then people should regulate the industry more forcefully

This bill is a step forward, and future regulations will hopefully be better.

[eridani]

139. Bullshit. If there was the political will to regulate, why isn't it in the bill now?

And why will shovelling a trillion dollars at mass murderers make Congress more willing to regulate them?

[NoSheep]

135. Well reasoned!

[readmoreoften]

69. A coward's accusation. I guess you really are afraid of the Republicans and insurers.

You know how you win? YOU FUCKING FIGHT, THAT'S HOW. You don't capitulate, get your payoff and make excuses.

[berni_mccoy]

71. The real cowards are the ones who want the bill killed. Repubs, Teabaggers, Insurance Industry, and

oh yea, people like you.

[eridani]

127. Repubs, no. Insurers? Hell yes! They won big today n/t

[Odin2005]

73. This bill does nothing but shovel money into the gaping maw of the Health Insurance parasites.

[ljm2002]

74. I have to agree!

What is on the table is what we have. Let it die, and this will be a political third rail for another 30, 60 years.

Let's pass it, it's a start.

[Raine]

75. BullSHIT nt

[Hekate]

76. This bill, whatever its flaws, will establish that we have the RIGHT to health care insurance...

Up to this point we have had no such right.

Build on it.

Ron Brownstein had an interesting take on Obama's methods, here http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20100320_4698.php

It's well worth reading the whole thing (it's a short essay), but here's one of my takeaways:

>>> Obama's core health care goals have been to establish the principle that Americans are entitled to insurance and to build a framework for controlling costs by incentivizing providers to work more efficiently. He has been unwavering about that destination but flexible and eclectic in his route. He has cut deals with traditional adversaries, such as the drug industry, and confronted allies to demand an independent Medicare reform commission. *** But Obama has also waged unconditional war on the insurance industry. He has negotiated and jousted with Senate Republicans. He has deferred (excessively at times) to congressional Democratic leaders but has also muscled them at key moments. He has pursued the liberal priority of expanded coverage through a centrist plan that largely tracks the Republican alternative to Clinton's 1993 proposal. <<<

Hekate

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

83. I don't want HEALTH INSURANCE aka known as TRICK OR TREAT

I want medicare for all

[Sebastian Doyle]

93. If you are FORCED to pay a private corporation for something

How the HELL is that considered a "right"?

[eridani]

129. That is an entirely useless "right" We need a right to CARE n/t

[ipaint]

80. That's not the only realistic outcome. It never was.

"A decade from now a family with an income of $100,000 will not be able to pay an insurance premium of $25,000 plus a $25,000 deductible plus a coinsurance of 30% of the balance of the medical expenses.

The private insurance industry never has been and never will be capable of reining in health care costs. Health care costs are now so high that the reliance on pure market forces can never be effective in ensuring that everyone receives the health care that they should have. Only the government has the capability of slowing spending and improving the allocation of our health care resources so that everyone is taken care of.

A decade from now costs will be so high that almost every informed individual will recognize that we can no longer afford the additional waste inherent in our fragmented, dysfunctional financing system. In all reality, only a single payer system will work. Opposition will be limited to the “I got mine” folk who do not accept the enlightened, civilized view that we are all in this together.

We likely are now about to begin an experiment to see if a combination of greater government regulation of private insurers along with a system of government subsidies can provide everyone with the health care that they need without busting the budgets of families, businesses and the government. It is an unfortunate delay since the results are in before the experiment has even begun. Tens of millions will be left out of the system, and by selecting the most expensive model of reform, budget busting will only compound.

So as William Pewen states, if the bill before Congress is blocked, the likely outcome a decade from now will be a single payer system. But health policy science tells us that, if this bill passes, the likely outcome a decade from now will be a single payer system."

http://pnhp.org/blog/2010/03/17/sen-snowes-policy-advisor-single-payer-in-a-decade/


There are other outcomes much more realistic than your do or die, black vs. white baloney.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

82. actually, when enough people are screwed by INS cos, Medicare for ALL will win

you can't make people buy health insurance. You can't make us buy cars from Chevy,
You can't make us buy Campbells soup. You can't make us buy vitamins.

Its private insurance and I don't want to pay for that.

[berni_mccoy]

87. Right. Keep hoping for that day that will never come if this bill fails.

[Cleobulus]

138. Question, is that day now guaranteed when HCR becomes law?

I don't see how, hell, people still talk like access to health care is a privilege, and those are the HCR supporters, by the way.

[Fire1]

86. I agree and so do most Americans. n/t

[Kalun D]

88. I'm Sorry, But This is NOT HCR

so HCR is dead now and will continue to be dead whether this corporate giveaway bill passes or fails.

the reality is the corporations have almost total control of Washington, we are just not going to get anything beneficial for the working class as long as that's the case.

there's only a small majority of the national level politicians that are not bought out, Kucinich et al, and look at what happened to them, browbeaten by the corporate majority on both sides of the isle.

[avaistheone1]

90. What a load

of crap.


:thumbsdown:

[Maru Kitteh]

94. I agree with you Berni - 1000%. It was positively delusional and ignorant of history to believe

a perfect healthcare bill was attainable in one fell swoop. The right of women to vote didn't happen that way, slavery didn't end that way, civil rights didn't happen that way......... no major progressive changes in this country have happened that way.

This is a beautiful day.

[Kalun D]

97. How do you know?

did you read and comprehend all 2700 pages?

or are you going by what a sold out corporate politician told you on the corporate owned TV news?

Remember NAFTA? They told us they would fix it later, hasn't happened yet.

[Kalun D]

95. Sounds Like Bush Boy Rhetoric

It's the exact same tactic

""If you are still in favor of killing the bill, you are in favor of killing HCR altogether. Again, this is the reality of it.""

there is no middle ground, you can't be against this corporate giveaway bill for different reasons than the repugs, there are no other reasons to be against it

If you are not with our criminals you are with their criminals

that's bush boy bullship, exact same tactic, so by your own reasoning you must be a bush supporter.

[lumberjack_jeff]

96. Exactly right. It's this bill or we try again in 2028 or 2032.

Killing this bill will kill hundreds of thousands of people, not counting the people that the Republicans will kill as a result of another generation of incompetent governments.

[eridani]

130. Even with the bill, hundreds of thousands will die n/t

[Cleobulus]

137. That's the one thing I can't figure out, why do people think this bill will save lives?

As far as I can tell, without cost controls, and ways to have affordable access to health CARE, people will still die, even when "covered" by insurance.

[Swamp Rat]

98. 'Our' lifetime? I may not get access to heathcare in my lifetime.

I have not had it for over a decade, and the current bill leaves me completely out in the cold.

[quakerboy]

99. I'm sorry, but if you are for this "HCR" bill, you are really against HCR in our lifetime

This is not HCR reform. This is a patch on the system we have.

That said, I am supporting it, with closed arms. Its the best that our nation will be allowed to have under its current system of governance. And until we as a people wake up and are willing to do something about it, its all we deserve.

[Ardent15]

105. More RW corporate DLC propagnada

nt

[berni_mccoy]

108. Yeah, because the RW wants this bill passed sooooo much.

[Kalun D]

115. the Shell Game

The shell game goes right over people's heads.

dem and repug is largely a false dichotomy, they "fight" each other but they are backed by the same people. Just like Jesse Ventura says, national politics is like the WWF, the fight is fake, they are working for the same people behind closed doors.

It's like Bill Clinton and the blue dress, OH NO HE GOT A BJ IN THE WHITEHOUSE, months and years, everyone look over here at what Clinton is doing.

Meanwhile (WITH THE HELP OF REPUBLICANS) he's a** raping the American worker with NAFTA GATT.

the petty crime distracts from the real one.

Obama never pursued real reform like he did the $700BIL crooked banker bailout or defense appropriations for the same crooked contractors that were under bush, in fact he was working behind the scenes to scrap real HCR. When the bill got to where it was acceptable to the corps he finally came out twisting arms in support.

Obama is nothing but a corporatist tool. Talking the working class talk a mile a minute, walking the corporate walk at 100 mph.

Of, by, and for the crooked greed-pig corporations.

[Toasterlad]

110. You Are So, SO Boringly Transparent.

[inna]

113. nonsense. this bill is not a HCR anyway, it's an insurance reform.

[XOKCowboy]

114. Whoopee! It passed and I still can't afford health care.

Zippity Doo Dah!

[cecilfirefox]

117. Hell yes, and yes we did! Health insurance reform is passed, and Gods bless America! nt

[mmonk]

121. Or it is prolonging the inevitability of the conflicts engendered in this system.

Hopefully you are correct and some of our fears are wrong. We will see.

[TreasonousBastard]

122. I agree-- Nixon failed, Clinton failed, and this is the last chance I'll see...

for anything to be done.

The primary opposition from the left seems to be that insurance companies aren't going to be vaporized overnight, showing a certain shallowness of thinking and even shallower grasp of the reality of just what can be done. The right isn't doing any better with its hysterical claims of socialism and whatnot, and shows it won't be beaten in any shallowness contest.

Won't they both be surprised if this thing actually works, though-- but don't expect any apologies from the loudest complainers. They'll just enjoy the bennies and demand still more. And if anyone does try to repeal it after it's dawned in the public consciousness that they won't go bankrupt over an appendectomy, I pity the fool trying.

(American politcs is still the greatest spectator sport out there, and the ticket prices won't kill you.)

[eridani]

123. Guess what? Premiums will be doubling even with reform

1Estimated Financial Effects of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009,” as Proposed by the Senate Majority Leader on November 18, 2009, CMS; http://www.politico.com/static/PPM110_091211_financial_impact.html

The bill ignored proven ways to cut health care costs and still leaves 24 million people uninsured, all while slightly raising total annual costs by $234 million in 2019.

“Bends the cost curve” is a misleading and trivial claim, as the US would still spend far more for care than other advanced countries.

• In 2009, health care costs were 17.3% of GDP.
• Annual cost of health care in 2019, status quo: $4,670.6 billion (20.8% of GDP)
• Annual cost of health care in 2019, Senate bill: $4,693.5 billion (20.9% of GDP)



CBO Score, 11-30-2009
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30-Premiums.pdf
• Annual premiums in 2016, status quo / with bill:
• Small group market, single: $7,800 / $7,800
• Small group market, family: $19,300 / $19,200
• Large Group market, single: $7,400 / $7,300
• Large group market, family: $21,100 / $21,300
• Individual market, single: $5,500 / $5,800
• Individual market, family: $13,100 / $15,200

[On the Road]

131. That's Pretty Much What Turned Me Around, Too

A lot of the good provisions of the bill have been barely visible in the public discussions. Some of them, like the controls on insurance profits, provide a basis for future improvements.

[apocalypsehow]

133. This is true.

:thumbsup:

[Zoeisright]

136. You're absolutely right.