Obama FAIL

[Matariki]

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/12/09/obama-fail/

I don't agree completely with Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake that full responsibility for the Health Care Insurance Plan falls on Obama. But I do think we need to be making a huge stink and putting pressure on the President AND the entire House and Senate over this.

What's concerned me with this all along is that THIS will happen - and it seems to be happening:

What does this deal do? It forces Americans to buy the products of large corporations, then the IRS penalizes them if they refuse.

[regnaD kciN]

1. Matariki FAIL

Neither we nor Hamsher know what's in the current proposal. (All I know is that Howard Dean seems to like it.) Until we actually know the details, could we stop the knee-jerk condemnations based on nothing other that Chicken-Littleism?

[HuckleB]

3. +1

[lamp_shade]

5. +1 more. Jayzus.

[Matariki]

7. No. We need to make sure our voices are heard WHILE they are creating legislation

Because you can be damn sure that the Insurance Industry is making their voice heard.

It's absurdly passive to sit and wait and hope that Congress is going to come up with the right thing.

Call or write the Whitehouse and your Congressman. Don't just sit there and hope for the best.

[951-Riverside]

24. Well said.

Just because I'm a democrat doesn't mean I'm going to plant my head up my ass and ignore everything these party leaders do or force myself to believe everything they do is in my best interest.

[HuckleB]

52. Duh.

But that's not what your OP is about.

[Matariki]

62. Tell me. What is my OP about?

[HuckleB]

77. Your OP contradicts itself.

[Matariki]

13. And BTW - For your (lack of) information:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126030062798482341.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond

Senior Senate Democrats reached tentative agreement Tuesday night to abandon the government-run insurance plan in their health-overhaul bill and to expand Medicare coverage to some people ages 55 to 64, clearing the most significant hurdle so far in getting a bill that can pass Congress.

Liberals dropped the public insurance plan that was a central plank of the Democrats' health bill in favor of a more limited alternative, following intense pressure from a small group of Democrats who had insisted for months that it was a deal-breaker. While disputes over abortion coverage and other issues remain, Democrats appeared a whisker away from having enough votes to overcome Republican opposition and pass a sweeping health overhaul in the Senate.

The Senate bill -- including the lack of a public plan -- is likely to form the core of any final legislation, though it will have to be reconciled with a health bill passed by the House last month.

[emulatorloo]

69. You mean Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal? Not a great source for "information"

especially when it comes to spin and Democrats.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

20. That's the problem: We DON'T know what's in the bill

They need to break it down into smaller, more transparent bills.

[yurbud]

2. if it is true that Rahm has pushed for triggers all along, he is a bigger idiot than I thought

[laughingliberal]

9. His priority is campaign contributions for the midterms and 2012

He's counting on those coming to Democrats if they pass a bill which rewards the criminal insurance enterprises. His goal has never been to provide Americans with a decent, accessible health care system. I'm not sure if this bait and switch was the goal all along or if President Obama was swayed after being elected but it is disturbing.

[yurbud]

11. that's extremely short sighted since the money won't be able to buy votes of people

who got screwed by pro-corporate policies.

[laughingliberal]

16. I didn't accuse him of being a visionary

One clue was in an article I read recently explaining Rahm's lack of belief that a 'base' actually exists.

He recruited and fielded candidates who could win in their area regardless of their stands or political leanings. If he thought they could win and they were willing to run with a (D) behind their name, they were 'in.' He thought Dean's 50 state strategy was wrong and is, likely, pissed that anyone sees Dean's strategy as successful. He was quoted as calling progressive ads run by progressive groups "fucking stupid." He has referred to those who were fighting for the public option as "the left of the left."

Pragmatism has its place but, to Rahm, its his God.

[yurbud]

91. Rahm is not pragmatic--he puts corporate compliance ahead of even winning

he would rather run a corporate candidate and lose than a progressive one and win as we saw in the cegelis/duckworth primary.

[laughingliberal]

92. Sadly true nt

[county worker]

4. Progressives do not have the clout that corporations and wealth holders have.

It seems to me that progressives will get their way when they find a way to have more clout than corporations. I don't know when that will be or if they even have the will to work toward that day. Progressives will not get their way by wanting it. We all want our way. God helps those who help themselves.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

6. Yes, unfortunately being forced to buy insurance...

...is what happens when you no longer allow insurance companies to deny care for preexisting conditions. Just as no auto insurance company would allow you to buy coverage after you've had an accident (coverage that would cover that accident) no health insurance company is going to allow people to buy coverage only when they become sick, then drop it afterwards. This is exactly the reason that health care systems like those in German and the Netherlands mandate that you purchase insurance. The biggest hurdle that I see is ensuring that lower income people are supported in buying reasonably priced insurance coverage. I don't think any of the current plans I've heard of go far enough in that respect.

[Matariki]

10. What about middle income people?

That's who will bear the brunt of this when they are FORCED to spend hundreds of dollars a month on insurance.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

14. What about them?

When I lived in England I paid approximately three hundred pounds per month to the NI system, most of which went to the NHS, and I was a "middle income" person. Middle income Americans do not suffer from overtaxation. This idea is ridiculous.

And yes, if you want a system in which insurers are not permitted to deny care for any reason, you must mandate that all people buy insurance. Otherwise only the sick would buy insurance. This is a fairly simple concept, and again it is the structural foundation of many health care systems in Europe which somehow manage to provide care to all of their citizens despite insurance in those countries being a private, for-profit business.

[Matariki]

17. Being forced to buy from a private industry is NOT taxation.

I'm not sure what you would call using the IRS to act as an agent of Corporations, but I'm sure it's not good.

People's budgets are stretched to the limit as it is. Being forced to spend another $500 - $1000 a month is going to break people. (I've read that the cap for an individual will be $5000 a year. I don't know about you, but I can't afford that on my middle class income)

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

21. It's also not the evil abomination you make it out to be.

If you moved to the Netherlands, Belgium, or Germany you would be required to do exactly the same thing. And at least in the case of the Netherlands, within ten days of your arrival in the country.

People's budgets are stretched to the limit as it is. Being forced to spend another $500 - $1000 a month is going to break people.

I'm sorry, but did you really expect that someone was going to magically provide you with health care free of charge? No system in the world does that. The best solution would be to increase taxes on those in upper income brackets and use that money to fund health care for those who could not afford it. But to be completely honest, the single mother working at McDonald's is going to be first in line for that money, not you.

[Matariki]

25. That's for health insurance NOT HEALTH CARE

That's money going to a FOR PROFIT company.

From what I've read about your supposed similar systems in Europe is the insurance companies are non-profit. I.E. they don't have a motivation to gouge people who need HEALTH CARE.

And all your snotty 'I'm sorry...blah blah blah' is not going to help struggling families who suddenly have to add hundreds of dollars to their monthly budget or have the IRS after them. To be completely honest, if this piece of shit legislation passes, I hope it happens to you.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

29. What the heck are you talking about?

Most European insurance companies are most certainly for-profit. Where are you getting your information?

And all your snotty 'I'm sorry...blah blah blah' is not going to help struggling families who suddenly have to add hundreds of dollars to their monthly budget

Again, if you are expecting someone to give you, as a middle class person, health care for free then you are sorely mistaken. Again, there is no country in which this happens.

To be completely honest, if this piece of shit legislation passes, I hope it happens to you.

You hope what happens? That I get health care for a reasonable price? Oh, the horror... the horror.

[Matariki]

34. Separate the concept of INSURANCE from HEALTH CARE

And you'll understand what I'm talking about. You seem to be having a very difficult time understanding the difference between these two things.

I'm perfectly happy with the idea of paying taxes to an expanded Medicare or Single Payer system.

I am NOT happy with being forced to shell out money to a for profit corporation whether I want to or not. A business that has absolutely NOTHING to do with HEALTH CARE I might remind you.

[superduperfarleft]

49. "ou seem to be having a very difficult time understanding the difference between these two things."

LOL. Pot. Kettle. Etc.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

83. Medicare is - get this - AN INSURANCE PROGRAM.

Really, is this so freaking hard to understand? If you have Medicare do you go to the special Medicare hospital? No, you go to the regular hospital that everyone else goes to and Medicare reimburses them. Because it's an insurance program. Medicare has never provided a single bit of medical care to any person anywhere, ever. It reimburses health care providers for expenses. Because it's insurance. And that's what insurance does.

[Matariki]

84. The important element in this, that you seem to be ignoring, is the FOR PROFIT part

It adds a layer of cost (and I would argue, greed) smack in the middle between a person needing health care and their physician.

The profit motivation, by it's very nature, makes insurance companies want to limit access to the physician.

Do you disagree with that?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

85. You said that you wanted health care, not insurance.

In fact you have made that statement repeatedly. So now you've modified it so that you don't want for-profit insurance. Great. You just adjust your argument whenever it's pointed out that you're making no sense at all.

And for the record, MOST countries that provide universal health care rely on for-profit insurance.

[Matariki]

87. I don't consider single payer to be the same as insurance.

You seem more interested on pouncing on words and twisting them and missing the point than you do on actually discussion the issue. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

The real issue in my opinion is getting for-profit corporations out of the mix and not standing between people and the health care they need. Also, I believe that requiring every citizen purchase the product of a for-profit corporation is very, very wrong. Probably unconstitutional.

For the record - you should back that wild claim up with a link. Most countries don't pay for Universal Healthcare by requiring their citizens carry private, for-profit insurance. You are just saying that.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

88. But single payer IS insurance.

You can call it whatever you want, but it's insurance. It follows the same basic principles as all insurance.

The real issue in my opinion is getting for-profit corporations out of the mix

No, the issue is getting people affordable health care. I don't particularly care if that's done within a for-profit setting or a non-profit setting. Both systems demonstrably work.

[AndyA]

8. Obama was quiet for too long on health reform. He should have made his expectations

clear from the beginning, and helped Dems in Congress put pressure on those who were siding with the health insurance companies.

Perhaps that was the plan all along, to let things play out on their own.

But if we wind up with a half-baked, piece of shit bill that places more pressure on America's families to pay their bills and meet expenses, Obama has FAILED US. If he'd promised us this during the campaign, he wouldn't have been elected.

It's not totally his fault, but he's a contributing factor, that's for certain.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

12. Yes, he was so very quiet...

...that he's managed within his first ten months in office to get (admittedly imperfect) health care reform to the verge of passing Congress after FIFTY YEARS OF NOTHING BEING DONE WHATSOEVER. Man, what a loser.

[AndyA]

18. There was a time when I thought just getting something passed would be good enough for the first

round. Things could always be fixed later. But with the GOP obstructing everything, I no longer feel that way. And if Obama allows a bill to pass that forces people to either buy health insurance or pay a penalty for not buying it, he truly will be a loser. A big time loser.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

19. If you want a health insurance system that doesn't deny claims because of preexisting conditions...

...then you have to mandate coverage. It's the only way it will work. Otherwise people will only buy coverage when they fall ill. And that screws the entire idea of insurance, for-profit or non-profit.

As for the GOP obstructing everything, get used to it. They didn't spend thirty years building a network of media personalities and think tanks to pervert public opinion so that they could sit on their ass and watch Lost.

[AndyA]

28. I understand how it works, thanks, but I didn't ask.

The issue is with so many unemployed, I'm not hearing much about how they're supposed to come up with the money to pay this hand out to the health insurers.

The math isn't working. Forcing another monthly expense on the unemployed or on those who barely make ends meet despite having a job isn't the answer. Americans don't need another burden right now.

Sympathy, much? :eyes:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

30. People who cannot legitimately afford it should be subsidized by the government.

On the other hand, middle class people who earn decent wages are just going to have to pay for it themselves. Plus paying for the government subsidies to the poor.

[AndyA]

35. You just answered my question about sympathy.

Many middle class people CAN'T AFFORD IT, despite earning decent wages. They are losing their homes because their payments have gone up this year.. Their credit card minimum payments have also doubled this year.

Ultimately, it's a new tax being put on the American people, and we were told this wouldn't happen. America can't afford Obama's health care as it stands right now.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

36. Hint:

Don't buy a house you can't afford and don't use a credit card.

Ultimately, it's a new tax being put on the American people

Yes, health care costs money. Where did you think that money was going to come from?

and we were told this wouldn't happen

Really? You were told you would receive free health care? By whom? When?

[treestar]

44. Insanity

Just crazy. That's not happening to absolutely everyone. If you can't afford it now, do you really think it will be worse under the health care plan? Like you still won't be able to afford it, even more so?

[Matariki]

47. Next up - 'cure' homelessness by making home ownership mandatory.

It boggles the mind.

[treestar]

50. What part of subsidies is hard to understand?

Of course people can't buy what they can't afford.

Another dodge to change the subject. What other issues can you drag into it?

[Matariki]

56. The middle class will NOT get subsidies. What part of THAT is hard to understand?

What will the cut off point be? Will those subsidies take into consideration each person's individual circumstance - what their expenses are?

[treestar]

61. If middle class, we can afford it, so it's not a problem.

If the middle class can afford it, they will pay for it. They usually do. The middle class is generally the one that can afford insurance and have good reason to want to protect themselves from the huge costs of disaster.

I am middle class. Ergo, I don't qualify for welfare or medicaid. Ergo, I pay insurance premiums. Because I am not rich. To take the risk of being uninsured, I would want to be rich. In case I ended up with a huge medical bill. Since I cannot afford huge medical bills if they occur, I pay premiums for insurance. They are a lot less than that potential medical bill could be. So I pay them. I could go without them, but then I could end up with a medical bill I can't pay. I don't take that chance. That's what insurance is.

[Matariki]

64. Right. That's just willfully ignorant.

Read Walldude's post. As a freelancer he was paying HALF his income for insurance. Can you afford to do that? You must live some sort of privileged life, willfully ignorant of the struggles of your neighbors.

[laughingliberal]

66. Okay, here's the low down on who gets help with their premiums:

Those who earn up to 400% of the poverty level will get subsidies to offset premiums costs so they do not exceed 10-12% of their income (not nailed down, as yet). Everyone else at the mercy of the private insurance thieves. The premium for my husband and myself was $1200 per month until that became beyond us and we dropped it.

Here's the chart for poverty guidelines:

The 2009 Poverty Guidelines for the
48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia
Persons in family Poverty guideline
1 $10,830
2 14,570
3 18,310
4 22,050
5 25,790
6 29,530
7 33,270
8 37,010
For families with more than 8 persons, add $3,740 for each additional person.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/09poverty.shtml

So, for a couple that means they will receive no help if they have income of over $58,280. That breaks down to $4,856 per month. A $1200 dollar per month premium is 25% of their monthly income. Most people consider that a mortgage payment. And it is, generally, thought your mortgage should be the biggest monthly expense. Know many people at this income level who could afford to be paying for a 2nd home? People with that sort of income would not, likely, qualify for a mortgage of that amount. We made a lot more than that when we applied for our home loan and the payment on our mortgage was right about that amount and it was almost the maximum amount we were eligible to borrow. And we had great credit scores. So, if a reputable lender would not lend someone enough to incur a mortgage of this amount, why does the government think we can afford the premiums for private health insurance? Problem here is the federal poverty levels are, artificially, low.

[Matariki]

67. Thank you very much for posting this.

Is %400 above poverty level in the latest Senate bill? I'd been hearing %200 from my Senator, so maybe it's changed.

[laughingliberal]

72. That's possible. 400% is the most generous that has been in any bill

Senate Finance voted out, I think, at 300%. My hope has been that this might be one part of the House bill that will survive. 200% sounds pretty draconian. There are proposals to raise level for Medicaid eligibility to 133% to 150% of FPL. So, 200% for the cutoff for subsidies doesn't really make sense but, really, nothing would surprise me now.

[Matariki]

70. ps - you really should make this it's own post.

You broke it down very well and explain how it will affect people's financial lives.

It's an important component of the health care discussion.

[laughingliberal]

73. Good idea. I think people are rummaging around in their heads about these bills and hearing terms

and percentages with no idea how our government defines poverty or what kind of numbers we are actually talking about. I, also, don't think most people who have employer sponsored health insurance have a clue what premiums really look like especially for those over 50.

[Matariki]

75. Yes. We can all forget about saving for retirement if this passes.

I really do hope you make an OP of your post.

[laughingliberal]

76. Just posted it. Already at <0 on the recs. Lol. Guess the cheerleaders for "pass anything" are out

As for retirement savings, 30 years of stagnant wages already sank that ship for a lot of folks but, yes, this would put the nail in that coffin.

In my darker moments I start thinking they know the middle and working classes are doomed and this is the last ditch effort to steal the last pennies from our pockets before they pull out of our failed state and move on to whatever new developing nations best suits their purposes now.

[Matariki]

33. Not just the unemployed - but contractors, the self employed, part time employees

etc, etc.

What's the cut off point for assistance going to be?

I know plenty of contractors who make okay money, but $500 a month added to their monthly budget will RUIN them. And for what? To line the pockets of For-profit Insurance Companies.

And when these folks reach retirement age, Republicans, or the likes of 'Cessna Invesco Palin' will rail against their lack of 'financial planning' because they couldn't put money away while they were working.

This is making me so angry.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

38. Most people in Western European democracies pay around $350 - $600 per month for health insurance.

Again, my outlay was around 300 pounds for month, which depending on the exchange rate at the time translated to anything from $450 to $600 per month. Of course people making less money paid far less - in some cases nothing.

And when these folks reach retirement age, Republicans, or the likes of 'Cessna Invesco Palin' will rail against their lack of 'financial planning' because they couldn't put money away while they were working.

Umm... folks at retirement age get medicare. I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest.

[Matariki]

40. Most people in Europe don't have $100,000 in school loans either.

[treestar]

43. So you're going to throw in some new issue?

And do you know if it's even true?

[Matariki]

55. It's completely related when it's part of a person's total budget

and yes, I know it's true.

[walldude]

41. Congress pays about 183 a month plus co-pays. When I went freelance

and lost my employer insurance I was paying $1540 a month for a family of 4 with pre-existing conditions. I was making around 40,000. That's almost half my income. Of course because of said pre-existing conditions I can't get insurance now at any pice. Soon I'll be forced to get it and forced to pay whatever someone who has no idea what kind of situation I'm in determines will be fair. And frankly I have seen what the Government and the Insurance think is "fair" and I doubt it's going to help me. It would probably be cheaper for me to do what I have been doing for 8 years and that's pay as I go.

[Matariki]

54. Frankly, I think members of congress live in some alternate universe where $1540 is pocket change.

[laughingliberal]

78. The difference is I think it is based on income. I don't think there is a break point where the

citizens are left to fend for themselves with a for profit insurance corporation. I'm guessing it is a progressive type tax of some sort. Or do I have that wrong? I mean would there be people paying 25% of their monthly income, there? Cause if you're over 400% of the federal poverty level here and over 50 it could well cost that much.

[treestar]

45. There are going to be subsidies to buy it

When they reach retirement age, they'll be on medicare.

It sounds to me like you would go without insurance in any event, just to avoid "lining the pockets of insurance companies." Then when you get sick, and you're without coverage, you'll see just what lining their pockets was for.

Don't buy a car, either, you'd just be lining the pockets of the huge corporations that make autos and auto parts.

Why buy anything? You're always lining their pockets. If you get health care you'd be lining the pockets of nurses and doctors.

What do you do for a living, and why should we line your pockets. Just give it to us for nothing.

[laughingliberal]

74. I have posted the breakdown on who gets subsidies in my reply #66 nt

[Matariki]

26. +1

"if Obama allows a bill to pass that forces people to either buy health insurance or pay a penalty for not buying it, he truly will be a loser"

You said it. He can always veto a piece of shit legislation like that. We'll see.

[HuckleB]

15. What deal?

[JFN1]

22. Fascism.

"It forces Americans to buy the products of large corporations, then the IRS penalizes them if they refuse."

Isn't this fascism defined??????

How can we stand behind the President if he allows this under the guise of "personal responsibility?"

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

23. No, it's not fascism defined.

Unless you consider most of Europe fascist, because that is exactly the system that is used in many western European countries. The primary difference between the proposed system in America and the existing European systems is that the European systems do more to subsidize lower income individuals.

[Matariki]

27. Fascism by definition

Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism<1><2><3><4> with a corporatist economic system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

31. This has what to do with health insurance? n/t

[Matariki]

32. You responded with a lack of information, to JFN1.

The POINT is that the bill in it's current state is looking like a big fat give-away to Insurance Companies. Not just a give-away but using the arm of the law to FORCE every citizen to do business with them.

JFN1 was pointing out one use of the word Fascism, which is a Corporate State.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

37. No, requiring people to buy insurance without changing the rules would be a giveaway.

The fact of the matter is that the rules are to be changed, and insurance companies won't be able to pull the same crap they've been doing any more.

JFN1 was pointing out one use of the word Fascism, which is a Corporate State.

No, fascism is a merging of right-wing nationalism and corporatism. This isn't fascism.

[Matariki]

39. Invesco - is that the name of an Insurance Company?

[treestar]

42. You're going to ad hominem

Lacking anything but blind hate. Come out and say you expect to get health care for nothing; you thought that was what President Obama should do for you and that he could do it by himself, and that you have a closed mind to why this system might work.

The other person's name looks like it came from that site where you put your name in and it spits out what Sarah Palin would have named you had she been your mother.

[Matariki]

46. I really have to repeat myself because you don't read the thread?

I don't want free health care. What I want is HEALTH CARE - not health INSURANCE. Something I am perfectly happy to pay increased in taxes for.

What I vehemently object to is FORCED purchase of a privately owned, for profit product.

What do insurance companies have to do with health care? Do they heal broken bones or treat cancer? NO! The exist for the profit of their share holders and they have just been given a GOLDEN gift from our Senate - requiring every man, woman and child to BUY THEIR PRODUCT. It's obscene.

And, fwi, after reading post after post of either densely not understanding this fundamental difference or willful complicity, I'm curious why Cessna Invesco Palin seems to have so much invested in the insurance industry.

[superduperfarleft]

48. Um, I think you're confused as to what health CARE and health INSURANCE is.

Care is the stuff you get at the doctor's office. Insurance is what pays the bills, whether it's a private company or the government (as in a single-payer system).

If I hear one more person say "I don't want health INSURANCE, I want health CARE" I'm going to fucking scream.

[treestar]

51. Insurance companies pay for it when you need it

This is the concept of insurance: You pay a regular premium during times when nothing goes wrong, in case something does go wrong. When something goes wrong, the insurance company pays for it. You could end up paying the premiums for nothing, but what you paid for was peace of mind in case something did happen.

I've paid for car insurance for years but had no accidents. None at all. So should I rage against the insurance company? If I did get into an accident, and the repair bill for my car was very high, say $6,000, the insurance company would pay for it. If I did not have the insurance, I would have to pay the $6,000 myself. That's why I'm insuring against it. That's why I pay the insurance company. I still actually hope not to have an accident in the car, even though I will still be paying the insurance company every month. Are they robbing me?

You pay for health insurance even if you don't get sick. In case you do. And the hospital bill would be unaffordable. But since you paid the premiums, the insurance company will pay that hospital bill you couldn't have paid yourself, if something does go wrong.

A lot of people have an interest in insurance companies. They or their family might work for one. They might work for a company that sells stuff to insurance companies. Like computers or IT services or clerical supplies. Again, what do you do that insulates you from the economy and allows you to condemn others and how do the rest of us get into that line of work so we can be "pure?"

[Matariki]

53. Stuffing a big lot of it into their pockets while they stand between patients and doctors.

That issue becomes very, very relevant when we are all forced to pay them. They provide NOTHING in the way of health care and their profit motive induces them to actually limit health care.

They need to be taken out of the equation completely. I don't know why here anyone would be defending them.

[treestar]

58. They pay for the health care

You can't get it if it is not paid for somehow. Unless you are independently wealthy. Do you pay out of pocket for medical expenses? You can afford to pay out of pocket if you get a huge medical bill? Again, what racket are you in? I want into it.

Are you against auto insurance too? It is those evil insurance companies that sell that. Surely you don't defend them. Surely you are against malpractice insurance, earthquake insurance, homeowner's insurance? So many people paying so many premiums to line their pockets, when instead they should just save up in case they have to pay a huge amount in the event of a disaster of some kind? Only the rich could save the kind of money a bad luck disaster could cause.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

82. I have not a single penny invested in any insurance company of any kind.

I currently have no health insurance because I am unemployed (thankfully this will be the last week of that awfulness) and beyond paying premiums for things like car insurance and insurance on my belongings, I have never had any financial dealings with insurance companies whatsoever.

I don't want free health care. What I want is HEALTH CARE - not health INSURANCE. Something I am perfectly happy to pay increased in taxes for.

What do you think a single payer system is? It's insurance. It operates under the same basic principles as all other forms of insurance. Even in highly structured systems like the NHS, the government doesn't really run the hospitals. They're run by taxpayer-funded trusts and reimbursed by the NATIONAL INSURANCE program for care provided.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

80. It's a joke.

It's a takeoff on the weird names Sarah Palin gives her kids.

[HughMoran]

57. That's NOT a title that leads to a constructive discussion

It's what I'd expect to see on Free Republic.

Yeah, you're sucking a lot of people into posting in your thread, but it may not be the result you expected (then again...?)

[Matariki]

59. Godwin's law should extend to invoking 'free republic' on DU

anyway, it's the name of the article I was linking too.

[HughMoran]

60. Posting an article with an inflammatory subject - so we can post anything?

Seriously, that's not a standard I think we should be using "well, it was written by ____".

Oh, and I was quoting DU rules in using the Free Republic comparison...

[Matariki]

63. I'm very angry about this sorry excuse of a health care bill.

I think that if it passes in it's current compromised state, it's going to be very, very harmful to the middle class.

I agree with Jane Hamsher that Obama is failing on this issue.
And this: http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/12/09/obama-claims-victory-over-this/

I'm getting pretty disgusted with people's knee-jerk reaction to any criticism of the President or Democratic members of Congress. You want to talk free-republic?

If we don't hold our elected officials accountable, and pressure them to pass the legislation we want, then we'll only have ourselves to blame.

[HughMoran]

65. I was also dissapointed that Obama seems to be giving this compromise BS the thumbs up

Let's talk about that - there's no need for the FAIL BS - heck, it's not even accurate since nothing has passed yet. Yes, I am pissed, but I also don't know what's in this compromise other than the distasteful stuff that was leaked. You want to talk healthcare? Let's talk healthcare. I'll discuss if all night long if you want.

[Matariki]

81. There are good threads on the healthcare issue

and sadly many of them sink without much discussion. I've come to realize that conversations happen on DU in threads which are contentious in some way. It's very unfortunate. Too many people react to subject lines without even reading the post, for that matter.

Let's move this healthcare discussion to laughingliberal's thread. It's full of good information, yet there are only 7 replies.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7192133

[laughingliberal]

86. "it's full of good information, yet there are only 7 replies"

Yes, and half of those are mine, lol. It does seem the inane or the inflammatory get the attention here. But, thanks for the referral. :)

[seeinfweggos]

68. it also regulates the living shit out of insurance companies

and of course it's mandatory - universal coverage is by definition mandatory.

[emulatorloo]

71. don't confuse me with the facts n/t

[geek tragedy]

79. Fuck Jane Hamsher and her flying monkeys.

Fat lot of good the whole lot of them have ever done.

[Techn0Girl]

90. Yeah I mean it's not as if Hamsher and Marcos helped elect the President or anything !

Oh wait....

Say, did anyone get the number of that bus?

[shadesofgray]

89. Obama was the one who said we needed PO to keep the insurance companies "honest,"

So did they suddenly get honest? Of course not. And they never will. And Obama really hasn't acted like he much gives a shit one way or the other throughout the whole process, so why did he ever act like he cared?