I really don't understand about 60% of the people on this site ...

[dawg]

We are on the verge of a massive expansion of health care availability and all you can do is complain. Obviously, there is much that is wrong with this bill, but what is the realistic alternative? Bernie Sanders said it today on MSNBC, single-payer would be great but we have about 5 votes for that in the U.S. Senate right now.

The thing to do is obvious. Work and support liberal candidates in the primaries. Party primaries are where real change takes place in this country. That is why there are no more moderate republicans to negotiate in good faith with in the Congress. They all lost their primary elections to troglodytes.

The thing not to do is to blame our President and members of Congress who acted in good faith to get the most they could get considering the political realities of the day. It may not be as much as any of us would like, but if it happens, it will be far more than Truman, Nixon, Carter, or Clinton were able to accomplish.

We need to face reality. This is a country that believes itself to be conservative. It is highly resistant to new government initiatives and very susceptible to right-wing propaganda. Comfortable suburban voters may have some liberal leanings, but they are easily frightened back into the republican fold when they think they might actually have to make some small sacrifice so that others will not have to suffer.

If health care reform does pass, which now seems likely, republicans will attempt to use it as an albatross to hang around the necks of Democratic candidates in the midterm elections. The last thing the country needs is for liberals to join the republicans in a Greek chorus of woe, carping on every perceived shortcoming in the bill and raining damnation down on the whole endeavor.

Don't kid yourself. It is vitally important to your family's future that republicans do not regain control of the levers of power in this country. Things could be much, much worse.

[Captain Hilts]

1. Because it will affect costs for those already insured and there's no cost control and the insurance

industry's anti-trust exemption is still in effect.

[dawg]

8. So that's why you support the status quo?

My understanding is that plans will now be regulated as to how much they can spend on general and administrative expenses, requiring them to dedicate at least 80-85% of premiums to actually paying for benefits. That sounds like cost control to me.

[Captain Hilts]

9. No, I don't and at this point I still support the bill. But opposition is valid. nt

[dawg]

45. If you still support the bill, as you say you do, then ...

we are probably in pretty close agreement. My point is that this is all we are going to get right now. It can't be helped, so now is the time to stop criticizing and start fighting the fight to keep our majorities in Congress and hopefully to expand the liberal component of those majorities through aggressive primary campaigns.

Trash talking our own bill is damaging to our party, and, I am convinced, damaging to our country.

[timeforpeace]

87. Your " 60% here" may even be low but it would not pass if voted on here or by the general public.

[Larkspur]

2. It's an historic tax giveaway to the corrupt health insurance companies

It's not something to be proud about. Mandating that we have to pay corrupt private health insurance companies 8-20% of our income for their crappy products is not something to be proud of.

[Hamlette]

5. except it doesn't mandate that

which of course you know. I don't know what you intent is in spreading these lies. Which I think was the intent of the op

[Larkspur]

52. There is no public option or Medicare plan so that means we are forced to pay for-profit

companies our money and if we get a tax subsidy.

[EOTE]

70. Care to explain how this bill doesn't mandate that? NT

[Ignis]

96. In what way does it not? (nt)

[Captain Hilts]

10. It's a big, wet kiss. nt

[dawg]

14. Are you currently uninsured?

You seem aghast at the thought of being forced to purchase coverage. That would ring kind of hollow if you are already paying the bastards your money.

[laughingliberal]

16. I'm uninsured. And I plan to never give a penny to feed this beast

I can get my husband enrolled in VA. I have 12 years til Medicare eligibility. I will take my chances til then. If it costs me my life, it does. The coverage which people will get under this system will be too expensive to use, anyway. And I remind myself daily that we made no gains in the direction of progress in the nation without casualties. People here are quick to sell out our unions forgetting that people died for you to have that right. They are happy to let a bill go through that will set up a challenge to Roe, forgetting many women died before that right was run. If I lose my life in order to stand for the principle of starving this monster, so be it.

[dawg]

24. Even if the subsidy allows you to be insured at little or no cost?

I don't know your income level, but most people who are uninsured are on the lower side of middle class and would qualify for a significant subsidy under this plan. Do you mean to tell me that you would not elect to be insured by private insurance even if the government were paying almost all of the premium?

[laughingliberal]

41. yep nt

[Arkansas Granny]

57. Having health insurance does not guarantee that you can afford health care.

Even if the subsidies bring the premiums down to a level that is affordable, do they do anything about the annual $5K - $7K co-pays and deductibles that I've seen on the coverage that I can obtain for myself? I haven't seen anything yet that addresses that issue. At my income level, those amounts would put me in severe financial hardship.

[dawg]

63. The bill deals with this ...

There are limits on copays and deductibles. In fact, that is one of the things that pisses conservatives off the most because they favor those high-deductible plans that backstop their health savings accounts. They want to move everyone toward high deductible plans. They think the high deductibles impose market discipline on people seeking care.

[clear eye]

98. If you're middle class you'll pay for the bloated price in taxes

one way or another. They'll go to where they always go to get money for corrupt spending--as in "Here's your $5K write-off for health insurance, and, oh, by the way, your taxes are $7K higher this year".

[salguine]

106. Being insured doesn't mean you'll actually get any care. That's the one thing you

bill-supporters can't seem to get through your skulls.

[hfojvt]

25. what challenge to Roe?

[dawg]

28. There is no challenge to Roe in this bill.

That is just as ridiculous as the convservatives who say it violates the Hyde amendment. People just make up their damn minds in this country and they never let the facts get in the way.

[laughingliberal]

44. It leaves the door open for a challenge to Roe

It matters not to me if I convince you. There will be a challenge to the amendment in the bill. It will leave the door open to revisiting Roe.

[TreasonousBastard]

50. WOW! That's some principles-- willing to die just to avoid...

having health insurance you don't like.

I hope you don't die, but if you do, you realize that nobody on earth will care about your sacrifice. All for naught.

(Isn't there something else you could sacrifice yourself for, like maybe working for peace in Africa or something.)

[laughingliberal]

59. I am not interested in the effect my decisions have on those unaffected by them

If I thought the only issue was that I "don't like" the insurance I would go along. I've never completely liked any insurance I had in the past. This legislation will have effects far beyond the health care system and will do nothing to improve the current system. It will, in fact, in a lot of ways make it worse. We are feeding a beast and we are doing it, once again, on the backs of workers and the middle class to the benefit of the wealthy.

Belittle me if you must. I am sure many belittled those who stood for the rights of workers in the past.

[JetCityLiberal]

90. Thank you laughingliberal, they have theirs so they belittle

others who will not march lock step to keep feeding the for profit corporate beast.

They got theirs.

Your posts here are excellent, I get what you are saying and agree. The backs this will be carried on to again benefit the wealthy are beyond the breaking point already.

:thumbsup:

Paul

[laughingliberal]

93. Thanks, JCL. Yes, my back is already broken by the system in this country

I have hope of regaining some of what we have lost in the next few years and, if so, I have no intention of ever spending one dime to feed the beast if that I can avoid spending. I won't buy their worthless insurance policies and I will buy only what we need for basic survival. These past 2 years have educated me well on how to do that.

[Larkspur]

51. I'm on COBRA

I don't like paying for-profit health insurance corporations my money. I'd rather pay for Medicare but can't because I'm 48.

[Richardo]

3. Well said. K&R

Although the political reality that Sanders speaks of is apostasy to many around here, and will be met with many fingers in many ears and many loud keening wails to prevent any reality-based information from entering.

[rudy23]

4. It makes the corrupt insurance industry as certain as death and taxes.

It gives them absolute power over all of us. How can we revisit a bad bill when the insurance companies are even MORE powerful next time?

[vi5]

6. I agree with your third paragraph....

..about the natural inclination of americans to view themselves as conservative even when they have liberal leanings.

But that's why this bill needed to be the best it could be so that people see results without question. That's not going to happen with this bill. And if it takes that much work and so many "but at least this is good" equivocation to convince people on here who are much more friendly to dems and obama and liberalism then that means there is just no chance we are going to be able to convince the average citizen who is resistant to government that it is good precisely because there is so much in it that is bad for the average american who is already employed, already insured, or if not then already healthy and doesn't feel they need insurance.

And I'd be all for supporting liberal candidates in congress but I'm not going to do that and then sit and watch the power structure of the democratic party (including Obama, Reid, etc.) support the incumbents and put their money and their fundraising and their support behind more conservative dems. If I thought the party was working as a whole to get more senators, etc in office who were more favorable towards the platforms and positions of the majority of democrats then I'd be the one out there working the hardest. But when I see them time and again supporting incumbents and supporting those that are already members of their little clique and club and those who are favorable to their corporate fundraising interests then what happens is I ended up fighting the party that I supposedly want in power. Yes, I know that Obama supported Lamont when he won, but he initially supported Lieberman and even afterwards his support of Lamont was halfhearted. It's hard enough battling Republicans to get the types of candidates we want elected. I don't want to have to fight my own party as well.

[JustAnotherGen]

27. Amen

[begin_within]

7. As time goes on, it matters less and less which party is in ostensible "control,"

because powerful moneyed interests get their way no matter which party is sitting in the seats of power. It wasn't this way many years ago, there actually was a time at one time when Democrats did stand up for "the little guy" against the powerful, moneyed ruling class. But those days and those Democrats are long gone, with a few exceptions here and there (Kucinich). If there was any doubt that those days are gone then this current debacle over health care wipes away that doubt. The Democrats are nothing more than Republicans with a coat of paint, and they are answering to the wishes of Wall Street and big corporations rather than the needs of their constituents. There is no cure for it except to change to publicly financed campaigns. Until then, third parties such as the Greens are the only ones worth supporting and voting for. The constant refrain of, "then you'll just hand control back to the Republicans" means nothing any more. Democrats and Republicans are the same thing in different frilly packages.

[phasma ex machina]

74. +1 K&R nt

[ixion]

11. yes, how DARE I complain about being an insurance company serf

:eyes:

This bill is unconstitutional piece of trash, and you'll not get me to support it with spin.

And while I agree with you that a return to the GOP majority would be a bad thing, I don't see how it will be avoidable with the dems producing garbage like this.

Never before, in the history of United States, has the Federal Government mandated the purchase of a product from a for-profit company.

It is unconstitutional, and I hope to see many lawsuits if it passes.

[havocmom]

15. Yep, and 'HCR' doesn't do much to help any of us actually get into an office

to actually get health care.

I HAVE insurance, but I still can't get real care. I get lip service at best, and generally a hurried MD not having time to LOOK at me and figure out what is really wrong. At worst, that leads to dangerously WRONG care.

This all seems about 'reforming' payees to Big Insurance without much regulation of same.

[LibDemAlways]

40. You have a valid point that never seems to be discussed - the

availablility of quality care whether or not a person is insured. My elderly father started displaying symptoms of dementia last year. My family simply could not get him properly diagnosed and treated. Every doctor I called in the local area would not give him an appointment for weeks. When the situation became dire, we brought him into the emergency room, and the hospital did not know what to do with him. I repeatedly called UCLA Medical Center, which has a geriatric mental health unit, and they had no room for him - offered no help at all. It was a nightmare for all concerned. Finally found a psychiatrist willing to see him. The Dr. simply plied him full of psych meds, and dad had a heart attack and died within a week.

Any discussion of health care reform should be addressing health care provider reform and patient advocate reform - or it's of little value. People are dying - and will continue to die - not only because of lack of insurance but because of lack of quality care.

[TreasonousBastard]

54. Yes. Although I'm not against the pending bills, most...

of the provisions are healthcare payment reform, not healthcare reform.

[dawg]

26. Would you rather they just raised your taxes ...

and then spent that money to purchase the same product for you, from the same private company? I don't see the distinction. Like you, I would have preferred a government plan, but it was clearly not going to happen.

[ixion]

56. I would rather they not send 626 billion to the MIC

and not raise my taxes.

And what does taxes have to do with health care? Nothing.

[dawg]

67. The point is that you can't get something for nothing.

Either you pay the insurance companies (hopefully with help from the government), or the government taxes you and pays the insurance companies on your behalf. It simply was not politically possible to cut the insurance companies out of the picture at this time.

[ixion]

71. until it is possible to remove insurance companies from the equation, there should be no mandate

never in the history of this country has purchasing a product from a private, for-profit company be requisite for legal citizenship. I am not willing to trade that away to insurance companies.

[LibDemAlways]

32. Yep, if the "mandate" goes through and Obama is foolish enough to sign it,

the legislation will be tied up in the courts for years.

The OP has a point that life under the GOP sucks, but the Dems seem to be doing everything in their power to make it happen.

[EFerrari]

36. It's not even about the parties any more. It's about the corporations

running our policy from soup to nuts. We're just collateral damage any more, as far as I can tell. This naked giveawary really made that clear to me.

[MadHound]

12. The trouble is that they did not work and act in good faith on this bill

Instead they allowed themselves to be run over by conservative and corporations, conceding point after important point of the original proposal, refusing to stand up and fight for anything. Thus this bill is now nothing more that a corporate giveaway, one that we the people will have to pay dearly for.

And funny that you bring up Nixon, after all, much of this current bullshit bill is modeled on what Nixon came up with thirty plus years ago, isn't that scary, it should be.

We had the momentum, we had the political capital, we had every single advantage to establish a strong public option and to protect women's rights. Instead, the Democratic party squandered time and opportunity after opportunity, and now we wind up with this poison pill of a bill that has no public option, mandates people actually purchase a product, and reduces women's rights.

This isn't victory, this is a fucking disaster, one that is going to become more and more evident as the insurance industry raises their rates time after time, after all, we all have to buy.

[dawg]

19. The majority of our members did act in good faith.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and for us, those links are Lieberman and Nelson. There is no sense in heaping scorn on all the others who wanted a much stronger bill. It was not attainable. Who was going to be the 60th vote if not those jackasses?

Your very premise is faulty. If we actually "had the political capital", we would now have a bill more to both our liking. We did not have that much capital and that is why the bill is so compromised.

Much of what people are saying on this board is every bit as uninformed and alarmist as the right wing emails that were circulating this fall. There is a reason the republicans are fighting this bill so hard. This thing does regulate the insurance companies and it does limit how hard they can screw us. Currently, there is no limit to how hard we are screwed. The only option under current law is to not buy insurance and run the risk of bankruptcy or death. And people who make that choice often end up being subsidized by the rest of us when they wind up in the hospital or emergency room.

The current bill is an improvement over the status quo. Anybody who thought Obama was going to be able to magically pull single-payer out of his ass is not a person who had any idea of how this country works.

[MadHound]

43. I never thought that Obama was going to pull single payer out of his ass,

And neither did most of the other people on this board and IRL. Most of us thought that he would push for a strong public option, you know, like he promised in his campaign. That didn't happen.

As far as Nelson and Lieberman being the only ones to blame, yeah, they're convenient scapegoats, but the fact of the matter is that's all they are, scapegoats. Obama should have been providing strong leadership on this issue from the beginning, much like LBJ did. Instead, he simply let it drift at the beginning, then tried to come in and save the day when it was already lost. The same applies to the rest of the Democratic leadership in both the House and Senate. As far as the rest of the Congressional Dems, well virtually none of them actually stood up and fought for what is right, a handful, literally, in both the House and Senate actually tried to fight the good fight, the rest simply caved.

And you state that we didn't have the political capital, geez, are you blind? We had large majorities in both the House and Senate, we had the WH, we had a popular president elected by a large majority, and we had public opinion solidly in our camp. Yet we squandered all that.

You think that there is no limit to how hared we're getting screwed now, wait until your insurance premiums start rising under mandated insurance. Are you willing and able to pay down twenty seven percent of your income on insurance premiums? Are you willing to stand by and watch as the women in your life have their rights limited? This isn't an improvement, not by a long shot. The trade-off is simply too great.

[StreetKnowledge]

104. What kinda Crap is this?

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and for us, those links are Lieberman and Nelson. There is no sense in heaping scorn on all the others who wanted a much stronger bill. It was not attainable. Who was going to be the 60th vote if not those jackasses?

One word: Reconciliation.

Your very premise is faulty. If we actually "had the political capital", we would now have a bill more to both our liking. We did not have that much capital and that is why the bill is so compromised.

Much of what people are saying on this board is every bit as uninformed and alarmist as the right wing emails that were circulating this fall. There is a reason the republicans are fighting this bill so hard. This thing does regulate the insurance companies and it does limit how hard they can screw us. Currently, there is no limit to how hard we are screwed. The only option under current law is to not buy insurance and run the risk of bankruptcy or death. And people who make that choice often end up being subsidized by the rest of us when they wind up in the hospital or emergency room.

The current bill is an improvement over the status quo. Anybody who thought Obama was going to be able to magically pull single-payer out of his ass is not a person who had any idea of how this country works.

Under this bill, all Americans MUST buy health insurance from for-profit private companies. MUST BUY IT. And those insurance companies are the ones controlling the prices, a fact which will within two years tops bitch-slap millions of Americans. The subsidies will get cut away by the Republicans, the situation we have now will get worse. If this bill passes, we will have mandated that profit-driven insurance is our way to universal health coverage, a fact which will make the United States' already ugly financial situation that much worse. And the only way to fix that is to cut off the subsidies - which will bankrupt tens of millions. This bill is a giant corporate giveaway, nothing more, nothing less. This is not something a Democrat can support, period, and any Democrat who does support it needs to be voted out of office, pronto, starting with those misogynistic, lying pigs Lieberman and Nelson.

The "regulation of insurance companies" is something these assholes will find a way around, or have one legislated to them in a few years. There is one way to fix the healthcare problem, and it is a universal, available to all Americans medicare option. That's it. Anything else leaves the insurance industry in the driver's seat, something which will guarateedly lead to millions more Americans dying due to either lack of coverage or pathetic bare-bones coverage, and the personal bankruptcies which will inevitably result when the subsidies are cut off. Howard Dean had it correct from minute one, and this bill CANNOT pass. If it passes, in a decade we'll be looking at this thinking "what in the fuck were we thinking?!" But by then, bankruptcies will have claimed many of those 30 million newly "covered" Americans, and millions more will be dying.

All because the President and a handful of sorry ass DEMOCRATIC Senators haven't got the balls to put their foot down and lay down the law, yet have the guts to attack people who advocate that. Obama sold us out right from the start, and still his cheerleaders are saying "this is a victory! this is a victory!" In a few years, it'll be me and others saying "We told you so, morons." And by then, we'll probably have the GOP back in power and paying for the insurance fuckups by gutting Social Security and killing Medicare, thus making a bad problem considerably worse.

At that point, people like me will also probably have told his cheerleaders where to get off, and either support real Democrats who fight for the people or just get the fuck out of the way of the people who do so.

[EFerrari]

13. I don't understand people who keep saying things could be worse

as if that somehow mitigates the willfully terrible. lol

[RetroLounge]

18. +1

RL

[dawg]

37. This bill is not "willfully terrible" and you are a child if you think so.

This bill forces insurance companies to cover everyone. It places new limits on the degree to which they can discriminate on the basis of age. There are new regulations that limit the amount of premiums that can be spent on items other than medical benefits. And there are large subsidies that help middle-class families afford coverage.

It is not what I would prefer, but it is not "willfully terrible".

[EFerrari]

47. No, I'm not a child, thanks. This bill was written by the industry

for the industry. It is willfully terrible for us by further entrenching this industry that has been shown to be homicidal in its pursuit of profit.

This is not putting lipstick on a pig. It's putting lipstick on a serial killer.

[AzDar]

60. +2

[nomaco-10]

103. No shit. This times ten. n/t

[JustAnotherGen]

17. I don't blame the President

I blame Harry Reid. Pelosi gave him a solid bill. He gave up all the things I like about the bill to garner Republican buy-in - but the Reps in the Senate still did NOT vote for it.


OP - Read with an Open Mind - I'm honestly :-) not trying to give you a hard time . . . :pals:


I get Sanders - and I appreciate him fighting the good fight. He *I believe* wanted it SOMETHING.

I disagree with individuals being MANDATED to buy something from corporations that have proven TIME and AGAIN that they do not have a Code of Conduct on file and moreover? Have proven time and again that they are incapable of being good corporate citizens and that they lack business ethics.

I further disagree with a bill that could force a single woman whose birth control fails (and it DOES happen - let's not pretend it doesn't happen) making $45K a year in New Jersey to buy something that does NOT cover her entire reproductive health. She now no longer has the money to pay for her abortion - because she is giving money to that jerk in a mansion in Red Bank. The reality is - if it's HER money and not government funded - the government should NOT be standing in the way of her being able to buy a comprehensive (I use that term loosely) health insurance plan where it's already included with maybe the exception of a $20 copay.

So since the Reps won't be voting for this anyway - and the Government will NOT be 'paying for her mandate health insurance' - FORCE those bastards to cover abortion and ALL reproductive health services. They are going to cover Viagara and Cialis - so why not cover abortion?

When I read through the bill - and I have read through it. Print it out two pages on one side, and print both front and back and it's manageable -

There is asbsolutely no reason to NOT mandate that a woman MUST be able to purchase a health insurance plan that covers abortion services - regardless as to why she requires the abortion. The Health Insurance Corporations should be REQUIRED to offer several a la carte plans that all cost the exact same amount.

The Republicans will not be voting for it one way or another. Tell Ben Nelson to STFU and take his anti-woman stance and shove it up his yin yang wazoo sideways. HE would not be paying for it. Some Born Again Christian in Wyoming won't be paying for her abortion. SHE WILL.

This is simple.


This is also just one 'taste' of why ONE person might be extremely disappointed in how this has played out. They took abortion out to appease Nelson and the Repugs. But what we have ended up with? There's not a single reason why a Health Insurance company should not be mandated to provide comprehensive plans that INCLUDE Abortion. No riders, no extras, no b.s. Keep it simple for her to make her purchase.


All that said - I have to make very clear . . . I'm probably one of the few Pro-lifers at D.U. I abhor the number of abortions that take place in this country each year. However, my belief that we have an innate right to privacy FAR OUTWEIGHS my dislike of abortion. And the example I used? I use that because I'm a single woman in New Jersey. I understand the Cost of Living here. I also make over 3 times what my example makes. Knowing the cost of living: I cannot imagine/fathom/comprehend how they will expect her - no- DEMAND she buy something that doesn't cover HER needs to protect her health, her financial health, be productive at full throttle in America, make an active decision to not start a family when she is just getting by herself . . .etc. etc.


I agree with you that we should not abandon the Democratic party. But I also think we should be doing a full court press to fill our 'seats' with nothing less than a bunch of Grayson knock offs. If we can't get them in Nelson's Red State - then we need to lay in wait and slither in our bellies and give that venom to Dodd and LIEberman. We need to have our President and Congressional 'well knowns' give EVERYTHING they've got to support Cestak's run in PA.

That's the anger. Don't tell us to support blindly - when time and again they are supporting par and parcel Republican Turn Coats who are just trying to hold onto their seats. Don't tell me to support blindly when Dr. Dean gets denigrated by the people surrounding the President (I was no deaniac - I supported Wes in 2004). Don't tell me to support blindly when LIEberman gets catered to and his ass kissed.


So for the OP - I'm not posting this to give you a hard time. :pals: But DU has a pretty good cross section of people on the left - wherever we may fall in that spectrum. What you are seeing here is an anger for those of us on the far far left that believe in individual rights to happYness (marrying who you fell in love with regardless of your gender, reproductive rights unfettered by government and religion, a true separation of church and state, etc. etc.) see IN ACTION ourselves and ideals being thrown under the bus. I don't think any of the far lefties will vote for a Republican Senator or Representative next year.

I can see us staying home if we don't have candidates that look a lot more like Grayson and Sanders (so those two have more compadres to shove a public option down the Republicans throats) and just letting the Tea Baggers run amok a the polls.

[Taitertots]

20. Because the current plan is not a step forward

We are not going to jump from a failed corporate handout to a functional public health system.

If it works we will be stuck with it.
If it fails we will only get pushed further back.

[quiller4]

83. The current plan is a HUGE step forward. The elimination of

discrimination for pre-existing conditions is major. So is the mandate (in both bills at different percentages) that insurance companies pay out 85% (Senate)/ 75% (House) of revenues in payment of health claims. Restricting the additional charge for age is significant. Now seniors in the private market pay 7-10 times what younger adults pay in premiums. Both bills eliminate gender discrimination in premiums and restrict the additional charge to seniors to 3 times the rate for those 20-30.

The expansion of Medicaid allows many poor adults their first access to care.

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. sorry, I don't buy it.

When 70% of the people poll as wanting a strong public option, there is NO reason for us to not have 70% of congress willing to back a strong public option.

When 80% of the people support abortion rights, there is NO reason for legislation to be held hostage for ONE senator's anti-abortion views.

If congress would simply accurately reflect the will of their constituents, instead of being beholden to corporate donations and special interest parties, we'd HAVE a decent healthcare reform.

So FUCK YES I have something to complain about.

[hfojvt]

30. I rather doubt that 70% of Nebraskans support abortion rights

Nor am I seeing how the Nelson amendment takes those rights away.

[JustAnotherGen]

34. It's not the 'right'

She has the right in NJ.

She will continue to have the right in NJ - even with someone whose feet are hanging out of Karl Rove's ass in the Gov'nah's mansion. :rofl:


She lost the right to <b>afford to purchase an abortion</b> - because she has to spend the money on her health insurance or face a 2% increase/penalty on her Federal Taxes. Her plan does NOT include abortion. Show it to me. I've done nothing but read/plow through this since Sunday morning. I finished last night. Show me the line item that says abortion is covered. I quadruple, triple, double dog dare ya! :rofl:


I work with several women in my example. They 'roomie' with others. Still - just to live? Rent, auto insurance, feed themselves, purchase gas for work, AND pay their astronomical student loans . . . they cannot afford that in NEW JERSEY.

So basically the five or so people in Nebraska f*cked the millions in New Jersey. Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiice.

I'm getting a little sick and tired of a few religious freaks in the middle of the country making rules for the liberals on the coasts. They have way tooo much power and oh - btw . . . their 45k? They can secretly go and get the abortion to keep favor with their church - because they can afford it.

It comes down to dollars and cents.

[RaleighNCDUer]

49. I lived in NE, and I assure you, well over 50% support abortion rights.

And even if that state should NOT, there are enough other states that do that should make NE opposition meaningless - except many of them are in the Republican bloc and are ALSO ignoring the will of their constituents.

It has been explained, on many other threads, how mandating insurance but sequestering abortion from that insurance is an untenable burden on low-income women who can afford the mandated insurance OR the out of pocket abortion procedure but NOT both.

But you won't see it now, here, either - because you don't WANT to see it.

[hfojvt]

82. I lived in Nebraska too, so you cannot trump me there

they are so conservative in that state that they thought Bob Kerrey was a liberal.

It is politically untenable to demand that the large group of anti-abortion fanatics pay for a procedure that they do not even want to be legal, but you won't see that now, here, either - because you don't want to see it. Can we stick with a discussion of facts, rather than speculation about blindness and motives?

As for those blue states with Republican Senators, it is up to them to drum them out of office. They have that chance every six years - if, that is, your supposition that they care so much about choice is true. But the way DU talks, we would like to see Nelson drummed out of office and replaced by Lamont who would then lose in the general election to a Sam Brownback clone and we would then all live happily ever after.

[hfojvt]

38. in fact, your abortion numbers seem to be way off

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

In that poll, abortion beats anti-abortion by only 54-44.

This poll shows only 18-23% against abortion

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

but if you look at details there is a combined 60% that says "illegal" or "legal in ONLY A FEW CIRCUMSTANCES"

that seems like pretty solid anti-choice sentiment, or at least "choice restrictive" and I bet that would be even more anti-choice if it included just Republicans, who, as you know, are a majority in some states.

[RaleighNCDUer]

55. Don't know much about people, do you?

FYI, when somebody answers a question like "legal in only a few circumstances" there is NO WAY that is equivalent to 'illegal', and cannot be lumped with the 'illegal' vote.

That 'few circumstances' means, in cases of rape, incest, or if I OR SOMEONE I LOVE NEEDS ONE. That very clearly puts it in the 'legal' column.

Also, FYI, it is already legal. So those are bullshit questions anyway.

"In that poll, abortion beats anti-abortion by only 54-44."

"that poll" is a link to a dozen DIFFERENT polls (some of which coincidentally have the exact same wording, despite being from different organizations) so I don't know WTF you are referring to.

But looking at all the different polls, the majority, by far, favor total or some abortion rights, while the vast minority favor none - and as I'm sure you are aware, there is no such thing as a little bit pregnant so the real comparison is 'No abortion rights' vs 'all others'.

[hfojvt]

79. I don't think that is the real comparison

also you equate NEED and WANT

"If somebody I love NEEDS one" vs. "If somebody I love WANTS one"

You are just pretending for convenience that those people who are willing to restrict abortion are your allies, but then when Stupak or Nelson even offer seeming restrictions, then suddenly they are the vilest of all enemies. You cannot have it both ways. It seems evident to me that the "legal under all circumstances" group which is the majority of DU is not significantly larger than the "illegal under all circumstances" group 24-20 in Jun 2005, 24-18 in Jan 2003, 25-15 in Jul 1996, 26-18 in May 2006. Even further down, where they split between pro choice and pro life, the split is about 52-40, and not 70-30 or 80-20.

[RaleighNCDUer]

85. WTF

I really don't know what you are talking about.

If a person allows for ANY exceptions, that person is an ally of those who want unfettered access - because, obviously, access denied doesn't give a shit if you WANT it or if you NEED it.

The person who would deny ALL access will not make allowances for the person who would allow for rape or incest victims.

There is another thread, about a Catholic family who were anti-abortion, who discovered (after years of protesting abortion clinics) that the NEEDED the so-called late term abortion as a medical necessity at Dr Tiller's clinic.

They were solidly in the total restriction column, until THEY needed it.

Whether THEY admit it or not, those who would make allowances for any reason, as well as many of those who claim to be 100% against abortion, ARE allies with those who believe to a woman's right to choose. They are only held back by their own ignorance and lack of understanding what the medical procedure is really about.

Nelson's position is in the 100% against - and it is NOT about his personal choice, because if anybody in his family WANTED, for ANY reason, to get an abortion they could do it because it is legal and he is fucking rich. His position places an untenable burden on POOR women only.

I can't have it both ways? HE ALREADY HAS IT BOTH WAYS. A law which penalizes the poor, which he, being rich, doesn't need to worry about impacting him or his family.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

22. we are better than the alternative isnt a very good argument.

and arguably cost us the 2004 elections

[dawg]

31. There are only two realistic choices.

"Better than the alternative" is the only relevant argument in American politics.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

33. yes, and people who would vote dem stay home for that reason.

[SidDithers]

23. Now, don't be going all sensible and reasoned...

This is Democratic Underground. We don't do sensible and reasonsed 'round these parts.

Sid

[LibDemAlways]

29. If the r's do "regain control of the levers of power in this

country" - which I predict will be sooner rather than later - the Dems will have only themselves to blame. If Obama signs a bill mandating that people buy overpriced insurance from known thugs, and they have no public option alternative, the Dems can kiss their majorities good-bye. Under the r's we'd have no health care reform, true, but all we're apparently getting under the D's is screwed.

[Tailormyst]

35. This isn't a team sporting event.

This is life. You don't cheer on bad behavior just to "win" because in the end, everyone loses that way. If 60 % think the bill sucks and that our leaders in the house and senate have sold us out, then maybe it's because they have. If that spoils your "win" I know I don't care anymore. Shake the ooga booga, palin, 911, repukes r' worse stick all you want. Doesn't work anymore. it would only work if the Senate and the congress were indeed working for us instead of for themselves.

[laughingliberal]

48. yeah. politics is now like football. as long as my team wins it matters not the results nt

[johan helge]

39. Well said! K&r (nt)

[joeybee12]

42. I really don't understand about 40% who can't see this crap for what it is...

...and no amount of lying from the White House changes that.

[LynneSin]

69. I just love that 'Either you're with us or you're against us mentality'

:eyes:

Some of us think it much different ways. Stop assuming stuff - just adds to the bullshit.

[Bobbie Jo]

46. K&R

:kick:

[Oregone]

53. If they only have 5 real votes for single-payer in the Senate today

There should only be 5 people getting anyone's votes here. The unwillingness to vote for a meaningful efficient and fair health care system that benefits the people implies that a congressman only cares about themselves or corporations.

[Blasphemer]

58. I don't understand those who are apparently getting what they want but can't be content with that

You like the bill or at least are comfortable enough to support it and the bill is clearly going to pass. You think it's going to work out just dandy for the people and the party, then why do you even CARE about the complaints or frustrations of someone who disagrees? Why is it so important that we stay silent? Why are people so determined to force us to agree? Why is dissent suddenly a bad thing? Why are words like, "immature", "quitter", "crybaby" tossed around and self-aggrandizing words like "pragmatist" and "realist" thrown out there in condescending posts offering civics lessons? Why do we have to agree with you and why do we have to support the bill? Why is it so important that we march in lock step? There is something positively frightening about an unspoken demand that we shut up, be quiet and take our medicine like good little children. I am utterly fed up with this mentality. You are getting what you want, be happy about it and leave me to the misery and irrelevance you presume that I am relegating myself to.

[dawg]

65. Because I've seen this before ...

The mindset on DU today is exactly the same as that of the Naderites that brought us 8 years of George W. Bush. No one is saying you have to love this bill. If you would re-read my original post, you would see that I recommend actively challenging Democratic members of Congress in the primaries as a means of changing things for the better. But all this talk of staying home, Obama the same as Bush, Dems selling us out, worse than the status quo, etc. is counterproductive crap. Why give support and comfort to the republicans?

A few people agree with me. No one on this board of course, but a few DLC types like Bernie Sanders, Paul Krugman, and (reluctantly) Howard Dean. But they are all just shills for the insurance industry, as is the President.

[Blasphemer]

68. That did not happen because of Nader and his voters

That was election fraud, plain and simple. I believe STRONGLY that anyone who wishes to run for office should so as long as they meet the eligibility criteria and if someone sees fit to vote for her or him because they feel they are the best candidate for the job they should do so. I would never blame anyone for the outcome of a vote they made because they truly believed they were voting for the best candidate using whatever criteria they use to make that determination. I am not at all convinced that primary challenges are the solution. I believe the answer lies, ironically, in the right wing. If the teabaggers and Conservative Party can truly organize themselves into a national force, then that would allow for a similar movement on the the left without the predictable blame that would be cast their way for daring to abandon the flawed two party system. If 4 national parties were in existence and current day Democrats, Independents and Republicans all split their votes, I believe we would be far better off.

[dawg]

72. Our only hope ...

is that the teabaggers are just as stupid as we are, and are willing to split their vote just like we are willing to do.

[Blasphemer]

77. How droll. Interesting how quickly the tone of the response degenerated

If not voting for a political party (or supporting any organization) which no longer represents what one believes in is stupid then I wish to never be called smart by those who hold such thinking. In this, the teabaggers are miles above those who march in lockstep. And yes, if Americans of ALL ilks abandon the current structure, it would be for the best. I didn't see any argument on that point. :hi:

[daa]

78. My brother has a small business

This year his health premiums went up 21%.

So you are glorifying that fact that he can BUY insureance again next year for a 21% increase. At what point does healthcare become too expensive for you, since I am diabetic and it is already too expensive for me?

[dawg]

86. I have a small business, too.

There are subsidies in this bill that help people with reasonable incomes to afford coverage. There are also subsidies to help small businesses cover their employees.

[daa]

97. OK so you vote

for the corporate dems in 2010 and 2012, count me out. If Paul
Wellstone and even Kennedy were alive this would not have happened. And if you think they will fix it you are naive, they never fix anything. There is NO cost control. There are not enought subsidies to cover 21% per annum increases in premiums.

[daa]

99. I am glad that as a small business person you have the time

to do all the paperwork for government subsidies and to fight with the insurance company over whether a claim is denied or not.

[Greyhound]

61. It's only a "massive expansion" of profits, the "optimistic" 1/5 of the uninsured that will, maybe,

eventually, if the repubilks don't ever come back to power, be graced with the corporate blessings of "coverage", can hardly be called massive. And as a special bonus we get all this extra non-care at the expense of further debt poured into a system that is guaranteed to fail because that is all it is designed to do. And what of the 40 million that will remain un/under insured after all this cash is showered onto the culprits that wrecked the system in the first place?

Fuck them. If they're still alive in 20 years, we can use their ongoing tragedy to win another election.

To pretend this charade has anything to do with the will of The People is disingenuous at best.

[daa]

62. One

They did NOT act in good faith.

Two. What the hell good is "expansion of health insurance" when nobody can afford the copays or prescriptions to go with it?

This is CRAP.

And you need to explain why I am worse off if republicans regain control? The difference from Obama and Bush? Rising unemployment, bankers bailed out, insurance companies bailed out, War expanded.

We got screwed.

This is not change we can believe in and this is certainly not change I voted for. But god bless corporate America, we will probably spend MORE than twice as much and other countries and people will still go bankrupt and be stuck in dead end jobs.

If Obama and dems think voters will be excited in 2010 and 2012 like 2008, well we shall see. I won't vote republican but I just won't vote.

And son't fall for tht "We will fix it" BS. The donut hole has been in the drug plan for 7 or 8 years now.

[BREMPRO]

64. agreed. we should put efforts into unseating blue-dogs and "New" Dems,

not complaining about the end of the world because the HCR bill, which had to be compromised to pass with a fragile majority, is a unmitigated disaster. It's political reality and significantly better than the status quo. We currently have NO health care system. This builds a framework that can be improved over time. Sure, i wish BO had put the screws to Lieberman, I'm disappointed we couldn't get either the PO or Medicare buy in, but read the chart comparing the HCR bill with the status quo posted here is a compelling reason to support it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x83255

I still hope we can get at least a PO trigger in the final bill- that would be a great victory and something to fight for. In case no one noticed, the health insurance co's will be required to spend 85% of their premium on actual health care (80% for individual plans). That's a great improvement over the current 70-75% (25-30% profit and overhead) they had been able to get away with.

[donco6]

66. Repubs haven't lost the reins at all

They just call themselves Dems now

[goclark]

73. Oh my ~ you are making way too much sense

You are a bad person. : )

[Edweird]

75. No, you're on the verge of insurance expansion. Insurance /= health care.

The insurance companies have a vested interest in denying care. They are not the good guys. They do not care about you. They are required by law to do whatever makes the most money for their investors, and that means fucking you over every step of the way. And now they are quasi-government agencies, with the IRS as their enforcer. Nothing about this is good.

[Duke Newcombe]

76. Shut up and get in line, toadies. Got it. n/t

[Cleita]

80. Thom Hartmann offered the silver lining.

When Americans are forced to buy the POS insurance policies from the insurance companies and they see that they aren't getting any bang for their buck, then you will see an uprising in America that will force Congress to go back to the drawing board and get it right. In other words, Thom says this is going to have a backlash that the politicians and health care industry didn't see coming.

[apocalypsehow]

81. Kick & Rec. n/t

[branders seine]

84. 'acted in good faith '

:rofl:

[Laelth]

88. This bill is far worse than doing nothing. Thus, we complain.

We actually care about the American People.

Beacuse of this bill, if it passes, states will be PREVENTED from enacting single-payer systems.
Not passing the bill will ALLOW states to address this issue themselves. Passing the bill will prevent state action on this issue

California will probably pass single payer on its own in 2011. All they need is a Democratic Governor. The legislature has already passed the bill. Schwarzenegger vetoed it. Once California has single-payer, most (if not all) states will follow suit.

It's likely that if we pass a new law now, the new law will preempt single-payer, i.e. the Federal law will preempt state law and prevent states from enacting a single-payer system.

THIS is what the health insurance companies fear. THIS is what brought them to the bargaining table. THIS is why they are not fighting Obama's tepid reforms, and THIS is why it is extremely important that we do not pass any health insurance reform bill this year.

Let's not settle for a bail-out of the health insurance industry. Let's insist on the eradication of it. In all likelihood, California will lead the way in 2011 ... if we can just give them time.

Canada got its single-payer system one province at a time, and it looks like that's the only way it can happen in the United States.

I don't think the Federal Government is capable of reforming the system right now. If this bill is the best the Federal Government can do, then the Federal Government should do nothing. It's time to let the states try.

Kill the bill.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the answer to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth

[laughingliberal]

89. We are on the verge of a massive expansion of high cost, low coverage health insurance availability

and the resulting massive transfer of money from working and middle class Americans to the top.

[live love laugh]

91. Anything good said about this effort is trashed here. The unrecs are

unfathomable. I'll be glad when DU cleans house. The overwhelming negativity here is not representative of the progressive point of view.

[salguine]

107. Because this "effort", as you call it, is a steaming pile of shit, and everyone who

doesn't have their walls plastered with Obama pictures torn out of Tiger Beat knows it.

[omega minimo]

92. Women are 51%. Talk to the other 9%.

[AlinPA]

94. Un-recommending a post that pleads for not allowing republicans to regain power?? What?

Un-recommending a post that calls for work and support of liberal candidates in the primaries?? What again?

[jgraz]

101. No, we're unreccing a post that lays out a strategy for failure.

[Hello_Kitty]

95. Shorter OP: Shut up, dirty hippies. eom

[clear eye]

100. For one thing, w/ all the new money private insurers will get they'll corrupt the process even more

and the regulations will get worse, not better. Throw this turkey out and roll up your sleeves in the New Year, Congress and do right by us!

Oh, and it seriously threatens the public portion of Medicare. See my post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7300834&mesg_id=7300834

[nomaco-10]

102. I don't even have a reply to this BS....

What a load.

Instead of propping up this admin (which I voted for by the way) we should be done with commiserating about the bush/cheney years, and actually start trying to formulate a new plan that sends the message that we came out in record numbers to vote for CHANGE! Not the same old bullshit.

Obama, where are you? I hardly knew ye.

[salguine]

105. You know, all that crack you're smoking is a "pre-existing condition".

[eridani]

108. Health CARE availability? Are you nuts?

This is not CARE, this is shitty mandatory garbage that covers only 60-70% of actual CARE?