Dems shrink from health care

[IndianaGreen]

If you haven't done so already, please read first the LBN thread by mike r "Democrats Plan Political Triage to Retain House"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4528912&mesg_id=4528912

Dems shrink from health care

By JENNIFER HABERKORN | 9/5/10 7:24 AM EDT

A handful of House Democrats are making health care reform an election-year issue — by running against it.

At least five of the 34 House Democrats who voted against their party’s health care reform bill are highlighting their “no” votes in ads back home. By contrast, party officials in Washington can’t identify a single House member who’s running an ad boasting of a “yes” vote — despite the fact that 219 House Democrats voted in favor of final passage in March.

One Democratic strategist said it would be “political malfeasance” to run such an ad now.

Democrats have taken that advice to heart; it appears that no Democratic incumbent — in the House or in the Senate — has run a pro-reform TV ad since April, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) ran one

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/41777.html#ixzz0yf9tErnI

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[earthside]

3. Consequences of the Mandate.

Everyone who has health insurance now can look for this kind of increase in premium.

Thank the 'mandate' or else you pay a big tax/fine provision.

I lay this consequences on Pres. Obama. By playing the ridiculous 'bipartisanship" game almost to the bitter end and by never drawing a line in the sand for a public option, this is what we got: a federal government guaranteed customer base for some of the greediest corporations in America.

I mean, what did Pres. Obama and the Democrats in Congress think that the health insurance companies were going to do?

Maybe all Democrats running for re-election this year should join the Repuglicans and come out for repeal of this monstrosity.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[NorthCarolina]

5. Sure,

because requiring a "For Profit" middleman in the mix is just so much better. :eyes:

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[RC]

8. So why is it better for money grubbing health insurance companies to do this?

The wasteful, monetarily inefficient health insurance companies each with their own over paid CEO's and Board of Directors, stock options, golden parachutes, junkets and sometimes private planes vs the Federal Government with none of those things to drive up the cost of your health care.

Single Payer, Universal Health Care would be cheaper and more cost effective than the corrupt 'get sick, die quickly so as not to cut too much into our bottom line" system we have now.

BTY your 50% wasted, stolen, or misappropriated was the last administration's war policy.

[Dr.Phool]

9. Medicare is the most efficient program in the government.

It's got a 4% overhead. Fraud wouldn't be so rampant if they had the people to crack down on it.

Take your right-wing talking points elsewhere.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[rasputin1952]

17. The answer to this is to prosecute those that are perpetuating...

said fraud, waste and abuse. Physicians, hospitals, clinics, medical supply businesses...and pharmaceutical companies. Add to the list, but Medicare is not causing said fraud, waste and abuse...providers are.

Time after time, when professionals are about to be taken to task for such things...the R's in congress get it buried. Essentially, they are aiding and abetting criminals. The GOP coddles white collar criminals, they have for at least a generation.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[rasputin1952]

19. It's up to the Justice Department to onvestigate and prosecute individuals involved in F,W & A

The president can talk all he wants, regardless of whom is in the WH. Congress can authorize investigations as well, and subpoena power inherent to either house for such investigations.

Some of Medicare is outsourced to various insurance companies...in any case, Medicare is not inherently subject to F,W & A, only those that receive payments or charge incredible fees to do the book work are capable of taking advantage of the situation. Those that authorize payments for services rendered do not have access to payment through the system...however, there may be a very few that in the system that may receive kickbacks or another form of payment, in which case, they should be prosecuted.

[gateley]

11. And how much of every dollar of our insurance premium goes to the CEO? nt

[d_b]

14. shit gimmick is shit.

step up your game, bub.

[HillbillyBob]

2. WEll if they had not been such wimps and sold ever good bit

of the thing out to the pukes......let them drown I say..tho IM terrified of another puke administration when are the idiots going to wake up and realise that the corpse parties dont give a fuck about us..when they really should,

[metapunditedgy]

7. This is a conundrum for the "pragmatic" blue dogs. On one hand, these

Democrats are doing what they need to do to get elected, which is what politics is all about (we're told). On the other hand, they're TALKING DOWN THE SUPER-AWESOME HEALTH CARE REFORM!

I wonder how some would react to *Progressives* (those who think HCR failed to go far enough) talking down HCR in order to boost their election chances?

[ckwalker1984]

10. Surprised?

A majority of Americans disapproved of the bill passed. But not everyone thought it was too much -- a good tenth of Americans wanted MORE from their representatives, wanted MORE in the health bill.

46 percent of Americans approved of the bill with 49 percent opposing it. But 10 percent opposed the bill because it didn't go far enough, didn't do enough to curb prices and increase coverage. So...56 percent of Americans supported the bill or wanted more, with only 39 percent of Americans opposing the bill for going "too far."

I am unhappy with the outcome of health insurance reform. I support a single payer system. I think many Americans would have supported that as well.

[gateley]

12. I can see the "I'll take a ham sandwich if I can't get the whole hog"

approach, but the problem with this is that increased rates will, in their minds, PROVE to those who were vehemently opposed to "Obamacare" that they were right! They won't be aware of the actual improvements, only the negative (and I admit I've heard of some pretty horrendous increases). I fear it might make future steps toward Single Payer even more difficult. :(

[ckwalker1984]

13. Agreed.

Indeed -- we may have shot ourselves in our own feet in passing health insurance reform so severely watered down. I'm not a socialist -- but I do believe that certain parts of our society need to be socialized. Police and fire protection, the military, the post office -- all these things, if controlled by private interests, would result in dividing two classes of people, those who can afford the "services" and those who are left to fend for themselves without them. Health care fits in that category as well.

We need single payer, and failing that, a public option to allow Americans to get the care they can afford.

[Tutankhamun]

16. Of course this will make single payer much harder to get.

That's the idea. The insurance companies were scared to death of viable, government sponsored health care that would end their shakedown of the American people (who they haven't yet killed).

Enter Obamacare -- a health care "fix" so bad that Americans will see the horrors of "socialism" (actually corporatism disguised as such) for decades. Score another point for "liberalism." Our HCR fiasco will be held up as an example of the failure of liberalism/socialism for decades, even though it is neither liberal nor socialist.

[eridani]

20. Laundry lists of the small number of people benefitting from it aren't worth shit

--to voters. Given all the hallelujahs, people expected more visible benefits for more people. Had they just lowered the Medicare age by 5 or 10 years, that would have been hugely noticable, even though it would have been incremental also.

[grahamhgreen]

21. Because without a public option or Medicare expansion - IT SUCKS!!! NOW 'FIX' IT!