"We WIN" On HC Reform!

[ihavenobias]

After http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7933996|my HC blog yesterday> you're probably surprised by the title. At any rate, I think most of us forgot about this incredibly http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1209/Insurance_industry_insider_We_win.html|damning email> from December (save your fingers and don't bother typing about how it's not relevant because it's 4 months old, the bold quote portion below entirely applies to the CURRENT bill):

With the Senate shifting sharply away from a "pure public option," an insurance industry insider who has been deeply involved in the health care fight emails to declare victory.

"We WIN," the insider writes. "Administered by private insurance companies. No government funding. No government insurance competitor.”

Also don't bother telling me about how Politico/Ben Smith are right wing, because if anything that makes the opposite case, i.e. if they're biased right why in the hell would they want everyone to know that the insurance industry loves a mandate with no public option/Medicare buy-in?

Speaking of which: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7938786|Poll: Voters Reject Health Care Mandate Without Public Option, Medicare Buy-In>

PS---As I wrote yesterday, I'm uninsured with a pre-existing condition and my GF is in the same boat, so no, this isn't an "it's easy for you to say" situation. Finally, let me close with another damning quote (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7945016|Credit to DUer boston bean>):

"I have rejected a whole bunch of provisions that the left wanted" - Barack Obama

So yes, somebody "wins" out of this. I'll let you figure out who.

[county worker]

1. People will soon forget what you are now saying.

[NJmaverick]

4. Hopefully you are right, and all this misinformation and wrong minded positions

will take their rightful place in the dustbins of history.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[rhett o rick]

54. You call wanting single payer wrong minded? You call wanting PO wrong minded?

With help from "friends" like you we have a piece of crap for a bill. You seem to be ecstatic. You attack and attack the left. Makes me wonder.

Why do you hate the American people?

[Raineyb]

121. He thinks anything that helps humans is wrong minded. He only cares about corporations n/t

[liberation]

131. Some people are of the opinion that the only requirement for something to be correct...

is wether or not it makes the current administration look good. Apparently there is some sort of "implication" that if something is beneficial for the PR narrative of the administration d'jour, that will eventually lead to beneficial outcomes for our society.

It is interesting to note, that many of these individuals are the same ones who bought the whole concept behind "trickle down" economics.

[theFrankFactor]

43. A Standing Exhibit of the Fraud, Colllusion, Bribery and Extortion ...

A piece of shit sprayed with cheap perfume all because Democrats couldn't represent the people over industry. The expansion of Medicare was the most efficient and sensible path but no. Max Baucus came out of the gate with his marching orders. Rotted from the top down and yes, I mean the TOP! This is a fucking embarrassment and there's no turning back.

America is the Short Bus nation.

Great fight Tom! I'm with you.

[eridani]

61. Until they get arround to noticing that nothing whatsoever has changed

Premiums double again, copays and deductibles up. And it will all be the fault of Democrats.

[northernlights]

146. when I'm forced to buy a shitty product that gives me zip in return

based on my actual experience with having once had health insurance and being denied basic care? I won't forget. I'm done with this administration. DONE.

[NJmaverick]

2. This is a bad as the nonsensical dated poll you posted

next thing you know you will declare all people believe in banning dentists because 99% oppose pain.


As for some damning email posted on the republican Politico website, it's a simple work of fiction.



Better yet here is my email from an insurance insider

The American people win! Millions with out insurance will finally be able to get some. People we have rejected for pre-existing conditions will now be covered. This is terrible for our industry!

See how easy it is to produce emails form unnamed sources with vaguely described positions?

[ihavenobias]

15. 2 Things

1. I refuted your "nonsensical dated poll" line http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7938786#7939620|yesterday>. I'll leave it at that.

2. NJmaverick's "insurance insider" doesn't exist, but there is a clear motive for you to pretend otherwise (it's a mocking joke, I realize). On the other hand Smith has no clear nefarious motive, unless you think he's a radical fabricating sources to 'expose' the insurance industry wishes with the hope that it would crash anything but single payer? Yes, we all see how absurd that sounds. I hope you do too.

[NJmaverick]

25. No, having your opponent grow tired of your misguided and wrong minded rebuttals is

not the same as refuting. You wave around an outdated poll addressing a small aspect of an over all bill and declare it superior to new polls that address the WHOLE BILL and declare victory. That sort of intellectually folly grows tiresome very quickly.

My insurance insider is just as real as your insider and that is a fact.

[sabrina 1]

77. I'd like to know that also. Do you support Single Payer or

the compromise, a Public Option?

[Mithreal]

95. Unless that's a nickname for the "O" I am gonna say no on both counts.

What O wants, O gets. Same goes for his entourage.

[liberation]

133. I call that "trickle down" politics....

Which makes sense, since one of Obama's personal heroes is Reagan.

Apparently, if the pols in DC get everything they want (regardless of how counter it is for the interests of the average citizen) it will somehow trickle down to the average citizens in the form of good outcomes from the fact that Dear Leader knows best. Same shit we were told about the economy: the rich need to get everything they want, since they know best and will make the economy better for everyone.


Obviously they are correct, look at how great the economy has been, it is not like we have gone through any recession or our national debt is through the roof.... oh, wait.

[rhett o rick]

55. Just one question. Do you or dont you support single payer. nm

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[ihavenobias]

147. Crickets. n/t

[Capitalocracy]

57. Actually, there are insurance industry reps on the TV supporting the mandate

I've seen insurance industry representatives pretty much saying the same thing on TV, they openly support the mandate, which shouldn't surprise us. They make the argument that people only buy insurance when they get sick, and they're willing to accept a ban on exclusion for preexisting conditions as long as a mandate forces everyone to buy insurance, but not without a mandate. Now, that's a pretty good argument, but look who it's coming from. The bottom line is, is a mutually beneficial arrangement for consumers and the insurance industry possible? I think you're contending that it is, but some of us aren't satisfied that this bill will do anything to contain cost, and believe that the problem of the insurance industry putting profit above health care access will continue.

Now, as for the polling, the 89% of liberals in favor in the poll you've been referring to are in favor of "the president's health care reform efforts", whereas in the admittedly older poll, more specific aspects of the plan were mentioned. In all polling where specific items such as the mandate or the public option were mentioned, people have been against the mandate and for the public option. What you seem to contend is that this new poll indicates that liberals are now in favor of the mandate, that being the current plan, but I'm not sure that's the case. It could be, or it could be that people understand that it's as good as they're going to get, or it could be that some of them had misconceptions about what "the president's efforts" meant. The most likely answer is that it's a combination of these factors, but I think it's a misrepresentation to go around saying that means the current plan is better than sliced bread in the eyes of the liberal electorate, especially when you've been calling it 97%.

Here's something I'd like to submit for your consideration, because if I'm wrong about this, I'd like to know it (and frankly, I'd be happy to be wrong). While they may no longer be able to deny insurance due to preexisting conditions, depending on what's in the final bill, how far does this go, and what's to stop them from being really selective about what is covered and what isn't in other ways? If someone has a preexisting condition, under the Senate bill, would a health insurance company be unable to deny them insurance, but be able to deny them coverage of costs related to that condition? And what's going to keep the insurance companies from raising their rates, or putting together insurance plans with ridiculously little coverage for people who can't afford better plans but need to buy insurance to meet the mandate requirement? In other words, how strong are the protections in this plan against insurance companies using it as a way of forcing people to give them as much money as possible without providing as little actual health access as possible?

See, for me, it's not all about making sure everyone has some insurance policy which may actually do more to prevent access to health care than enable it, it's about making sure everyone has access to whatever health care they need. That's why I'm in favor of single payer, which seems so impossible in the U.S. even though it's so common all over the world, or at least a public option where no care could be denied.

[rpannier]

90. The 2nd sentence is not true

People we have rejected for pre-existing conditions will now be covered

If the refuse to provide insurance for pre-existing conditions they will be fined -- I've heard around 100 dollars a day.
If insuring them will cost the HC provider 50,000, they'll pay the fine and hope the person dies quickly because then the fine is ended

[Mithreal]

97. Insurance execs pleasure themselves gambling with patient lives.

Must have been cigars, high fives, and popping corks when that one got through.

I know, greedy people and corporate sharks, er corporate people, aren't evil, my bad. What was I thinking, I should be ashamed of myself.

[nightgaunt]

130. Psychopaths don't consider themselves evil either

But are they right? Only to other psychopaths and their adherents an wannabes. Stalin, Moa, Hitler, Mussolini & Franco considered themselves "good guys" too. Bernie Madoff too though he was just doing what comes naturally for a wolf, fleecing trusting sheep, not being a criminal thief. They also abhor a sheep dog too, naturally. I think the same general mental state permeates the various industries including the Health Care one. Who needs the drama of "death panels" when it is your accountants that guide you on what you tell the doctors to do and prescribe. The Death Panels are real and people like Michell Bachman support them! How ironic is that?

[Greyhound]

111. Will be covered...

in four years...

If they live that long...

If the insurance industry fires all of it's lawyers in a cost-cutting spree...

And if they can find one federal judge that isn't already either a reich-wing ideologue or a wholly owned subsidiary.

I can hardly wait.

[SergeStorms]

118. And what do these people do............

while waiting the four years before the part about covering pre-existing conditions kicks in? Many people don't know about that. They think they're going to be covered the minute this bill is passed and they pay their first premium. Are they ever going to be surprised! :wow: How many will still be alive to finally get that coverage? And do you think the insurance companies are going to sit idly by for the next four years, just waiting for the "pre-existing" shoe to drop? You can bet they'll be thinking of new ways to stick it up these peoples' asses once again.

[democracy1st]

3. K & R thank you Tom when you get a chance take a look at this post also

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7945016&mesg_id=7945016

I'll be back to checkout this post

[johnlal]

5. Watch for Dems to pat themselves on the backs for

passing this horrible bill. Does anybody really think they're going to "fix the bill in reconciliation"? Just look at recent history.

Congress passed so-called "Credit Card Reform". Somehow the "couldn't get enough votes" to limit the APR on credit cards, some which charge 30% - 40%! Did they "fix the bill in reconciliation"? Hell no. They patted themselves on the back for being tough against the banks.

They're not serious about reform.

[pampango]

10. The Progressive Caucus may pat themselves on their backs, but the Blue Dogs and republicans

won't be doing much patting.

[kenfrequed]

122. Exactly the opposite

The progressive caucus will be meekly saying that 'we did something' and 'we hope to grow it later' while the DLC and Blue dogs will be crowing about this stupid bill for years. Well at least until it is proven to be a large mass of corporate wealthfare, at which time they will join the repukes again and complaining about the dangers of big government beauracracies.

[ihavenobias]

143. That's my fear. n/t

[Lorien]

11. Very good point. nt

[Individualist]

53. The whole process has been a dog and pony show.

[The Hope Mobile]

74. Actually, they're very serious about reform . . . but corporations are the beneficiaries

NOT we the people. That's long gone!

[truedelphi]

110. Well, let's be honest here - the whole thing about "reform" is that it is just

Insider speak for "Campaign coffers are open and waiting for donations."

As a n anti-pesticide activist, I watched this for the last twenty years. If you are an elected official, and you start talking about eliminating the rights of the F---wads at Monsanto to be injuring children with their noxious products, low and behold, you will be visited by lobbyists and you will soon collect some big bucks. Then you water down your bill (or get a colleague to do that for you), and voila "Pesticide Restrictions," which end up not being worth the paper they are written on.

[Nikki Stone1]

6. K & R

.

[20score]

7. Very good info! Thanks for posting! K&R

[RandomThoughts]

8. It is not about winning or losing.

Also depends what you think winning is.

So my response if someone said something like that insurance insider is quoted as saying, would be this song.

Everyone Loves a Loser. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJivZCImsIQ

This time, you have to face your future
Although it’s just a dusty road
It’s clear that backing down don’t suit you
I’d hate, to break your sacred code
People, along for the ride
High noon, getting closer

I think you’ll find, everybody loves a loser
So you’ll be fine, you won’t be lonely long
I think you’ll find, everybody loves a loser
So you’ll be fine, you won’t be lonely long

I see, you need a trial of fire
A coward would wisely walk away
Help them, help us bide your time
Hideouts get discovered

I think you’ll find, everybody loves a loser
So you’ll be fine, you won’t be lonely long
I think you’ll find, everybody loves a loser
So you’ll be fine, you won’t be lonely long

I think you’ll find, everybody loves a loser
So you’ll be fine, you won’t be lonely long
I think you’ll find, everybody loves a loser
So you’ll be fine, you won’t be lonely long



Might as well add a foot note :)
Another one bites the dust.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE



I do support the health care legislation if it helps people as it seems to do, it is just so silly when people need to think in terms of just what they think is winning.

Also I think of the song as metaphor, I do not believe in violence.


Might as add a little more definition to some of the songs.

We Will 'Rock' You.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tJYN-eG1zk

With love of coarse :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO6D_BAuYCI

[Lorien]

9. K & R for the painful truth

[quinnox]

12. There was a thread mocking the win of Health Care reform

weeks ago, and it listed all the things we were getting that were bad, and all the really good and progressive things that were left out and sacrificed.

It turned out to be rather prophetic, except maybe the bill might have even gotten worse than it was back then.

Still, I am for it now. At least this is one thing President Obama will own responsibility for and he will either take the credit or the blame for whether it ultimately turns out to be a great success or a catastrophic failure.

Its all on him now once the bill passes, and he has incentive to make sure it turns out to be a success and liked by the people if he wants to be re-elected.

[TZ]

13. I guess those people with pre-existing conditions who the insurers can't drop

with the new rules are losers...If by "losing" you mean actually being able to you know..live.
Fuck all you people who think winning or losing or scoring political points are important. Or that it doesn't have everything YOU want in it.
Its not about YOUR political agenda. Its about saving people's lives and you know what. HCR WILL do that.
FUCK THE STATUS QUO!

[ihavenobias]

17. By all those people I guess you mean me and my GF (we have pre-existing conditions).

And we're currently uninsured.

Next time read the post before you comment.

[laughingliberal]

37. My husband and I also. But we can't afford the premiums

and if we could we can't afford the out of pocket expenses. And if we could afford both of those items, there is every chance we would face a 'conditional' annual cap on our most expensive conditions so maybe 1/2 of our care for those conditions would be provided. Then, if we make it through all that, there's still the loophole for rescissions they could pull out at some point.

Yay! our team's winning! Course we aren't supposed to talk about what it is we won. That could spoil the Rose Garden party.

[Mithreal]

20. We had momentum to see every person's life was treated this way

and one man stood in the way and he is head of our party. I talked with my Senate leadership Senator's Chief of Staff. He put the blame squarely on Obama. I always knew Obama would get what he wanted, he controls the purse strings after all.

You know not of what you speak. Some was never good enough, sorry.



I hope this bill does enough to save the lives of some DU'ers, especially those who worked hard to put comprehensive quality PO available to everyone or SP on the table.

[eridani]

62. Yes, they are losers. The useless murdering intermediaries will price them out of the market

I have a friend who had very expensive back surgery last year. No recission, just a tripling of her premium as a self-employed person. They'll keep raising it until she drops the insurance.

[havocmom]

78. except for the folks with pre-existing conditions who DIE before it kicks in

or who won't be able to afford the RATES if they live that long

[ScreamingMeemie]

105. Bingo...and the fact the pool is priced so high as to drown in.

[Uncle Joe]

14. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, ihavenobias.

[BurtWorm]

16. The alternative to this bill is nothing but the vain hope that a better bill will come.

If this bill passes and it really does get worse for most Americans, wither things will get hot for politicans and insurance companies, or the cattle that is the American people will continue to graze and shit and wait for the farmer to make things better as they usually do.

But if it doesn't pass and Democratic power slips in November, do you think a better bill will come? Do you think life for people with pre-existing conditions is going to improve if no bill passes?

Just as they've been improving for the last 30 years, I bet, right?

[ihavenobias]

18. I addressed this in detail yesterday.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7933996|The Worst Case Scenario For Healthcare Reform?>

[BurtWorm]

24. I see no reason why I should believe your vision of the future over anyone else's.

If Dems do not pass this bill, chances for Republicans instantly improve for November. Why? Because the Dems will go down as defeated on their biggest issue of election 2008. The recent history you need to consult is 1993, the last time Dems' attempt to reform health care went down in flames.

Maybe it would be a good thing if Dems lost the House or the Senate or both if that's the price to pay not to pass this bill? Would you agree with that? The important thing with this legislation is not which of our two lame-ass parties is in power over legisaltion, right? The important thing is to not pass this bill. Right?

[ihavenobias]

28. Yes, let's go back to the 90's.

Let's look at NAFTA and deregulation, things that progressives were screaming against at the time (but which the establishment Dems were all too eager to push through). Unfortunately they were proven right. As for insurance, the political climate now is quite different, and skyrocketing insurance costs and horror stories have become quite common.

And frankly I don't give a damn about political victories if they don't translate into GOOD policy victories. Who cares if the Dems have a majority IF they don't use it to pass GOOD legislation that benefits the majority in the long-term? That's the bottom line, or it should be for non-partisans who put country over party.

[BurtWorm]

38. Apples and oranges.

NAFTA and telecomms deregulation were *designed* to enrich corporations. You may say the same about HCR, but I think the truly unfortunate pro-corporation points in it (such as the removal of the public option and the weakening of the schedules for the start of real consumer-benefitting reform) were (don't laugh) bargaining chips used to get the thing done. Am I happy with those concessions? No. Should any consumer be? No. But I don't believe this bill was created to cynically entice donations out of insurance companies.

Any Democrat with a brain can see that it had exactly the opposite effect. Sure, insurance companies are betting on a Republican sea change in November, whether HCR is passed or not. (Do you want Republicans back in control of law-making?) A cynic would even say the insurance industry has been calling the shots the whole time. I think, though, that it is the bill it is because the Democrats have become used to being political weaklings. The sad truth is, they're doing the best they can, poor fuckers. It's awful, but that's where we are.

Having said that, why would I want this bill to pass? Because I would rather these lame-ass weaklings hold the reins, however unsteady, than risk the firm grasp of the Republikan Zocialist machine. I'd rather they fool the public into believing they're capable of achieving something than have it confirmed for them that they're pathetic wastes of political space.

Yes, I admit it! Fear is driving me somewhat. So is my near certainty that nothing better than this is going to come out of this fucked up political system anytime soon--and you can write it off for our lifetimes if the Republicans are permitted to resume driving the country straight to hell.

[ihavenobias]

40. A bunch of rotten apples and oranges.

On the bargaining chip point, it reminds me of something else I wrote yesterday:

The Dems/WH proposed a half a loaf solution (public option) rather than a full loaf (single payer). Even a mediocre haggler knows you don't open with the offer you want to end with. So the fact that Dems did this is questionable at best.

You start with single payer knowing full well it would never fly. After all, politically the right and MSM reacted as if the Dems had proposed destroying private insurance, private hospitals, private drug manufacturers, etc. The rhetoric and political damage couldn't possibly have been worse, and yet in the end we get a watered down corporate giveaway/mandate. In other words, it's not only terrible policy, but also terrible politics. Even supporters of the bill have to concede this point.

PS---Of course I don't want R's back on power. Dems are significantly better on minor issues and slightly better on major issues, generally speaking (I'm referring to policy outcomes, generally Dems are much better in rhetoric obviously). But if we keep going with the "half a loaf" strategy we don't end up with half a loaf in the end, we end up with crumbs. So we delay the starvation, but only barely, and only temporarily. That's why I'm willing to take a stand, as someone with a pre-existing condition and no insurance (again, with a GF in the same boat). I honestly believe based on what I know that this will be a net loss for the majority of Americans in the long run. And I refuse to take the payday loan on my future out knowing it's going to come back and bite me in the ass 5-10 years from now.

[BurtWorm]

42. It's too late to 'start with single payer.'

They fucked that up from the beginning.

I think we should let what happens with this bill happen and get behind Grayson now. If they won't put a public option in this bill, who gives a shit if a separate public option bill gets traction?

[ihavenobias]

44. Right, but I'm talking about motives and or horrible politics.

But yes, I love Grayson's proposal...unfortunately the establishment hates it.

[BurtWorm]

45. What will the establishment love that is a real benefit to the people?

Nothing.

I don't know what their real motives are. Unquestionably they have shown what wankers they are at politics.

[ihavenobias]

52. Motives.

http://www.opensecrets.org/

It's the terrible truth of our broken system.

[obxhead]

96. I don't think the bill passing or not passing

will make a bit of difference for the Dem party come November. They screwed the pooch on this entire thing by throwing everyone except the corporations under the bus.

[BurtWorm]

112. If they 'win' this, it might give them some confidence and appetite to win some more.

I wish they would develop a taste for Republican blood.

[sabrina 1]

109. I think you are wrong. I think that if this bill passes without

a public option, when there is absolutely no excuse anymore not to include it in the Reconciliation bill, the Democratic Party will lose its base. The base is what helps a party win or lose.

That is what happened to Republicans. Once they lost their base, they were finished. And I know exactly how and when that process began. Like the Dem Party Loyalists, Bush loyalists were rabid supporters of him and of his policies. We could see the lies, but they were blind.

I remember people saying that he could murder a puppy on national tv and they would still support him.

But that turned out not to be the case. There is one thing a politician cannot get away with, and that is betrayal of the principles that attracted the base in the first place. The Republican Party began to lose their base after the Dubai Ports debacle. I was watching rightwing boards at that time. They could not believe that the man they believed hated the Muslim and Arab world as much as they did, had been lying to them.

I remember showing them photos of Bush and his Saudi friends but they refused to look and on rightwing boards those photos were banned. That's how willfully blind they were. But that deal split the base and some of them woke up and realized they had been fooled. Half of FR left or were banned and formed their own sites. Disgust with the party in general was rampant and the people who helped Republicans win, dropped out and did noting in the next election. The fallout from that discovery prevented the usual blind defense of Congressmembers who got in trouble and they lost their majority in 2006.

We were lied to. That is obvious now and for many people this is the last straw. The enthusism of the last election is gone and unless there is something in the bill that represents the base of the party, the proof of the betrayal will be clear. Reconciliation, no need for 60 votes, no Republicans involved. They have run out of excuses and we have run out of patience.

[BurtWorm]

113. The Republicans are clearly not finished.

The Bush base has remained firmly in place. They make up about 20% of the electorate. They will not budge. Roger Ailes will not allow them to budge and they hear Roger and they obey. The Bush base has only one principle: politically kill Democrats. We will always have them, just as we will always have the poor.

The enthusiasm of the last election, you may recall, didn't arise until after the primaries. Before the primaries, I admit, there was a restlessness on the Democratic side that drove millions of new voters to the polls. Some of those were Republicans who were not part of the unmovable 20% and, thus, not part of the base. But it wasn't until Obama was assured the nomination that it became clear he was going to get the full support of a united Democratic Party.

Before then, there was all sorts of talk from pundits and Democrats that the coalition was broken, that the primaries were so bitter, the Clinton people would sit on their hands in November. We know now that that did not happen. We don't really know how passage of this bill is going to affect either party's chances this November. We're all speculating.

But one thing seems clear to me: it's very difficult for people outside a district to predict how the voters in that district will vote, let alone how voters in all districts will vote. In order for your prophecy to come true however, this vote will make enough Democrats in enough districts decide not to vote for the Democrat in the race. How likely is that really? Are you not going to vote for your Democrat? No matter who your Democrat is or how your Democrat voted? (My Democrat is Charlie Rangel. He's going to win his primary if he has a challenger, and I'm going to vote for him in the general. Just to disclose my intentions. He's also without a doubt going to vote for this bill.)

[sabrina 1]

141. Did the Republicans win in 2006 or 2008, after the base

believed they had been betrayed? No, so now the cycle continues, Democrats believe they have been betrayed, and yes of course there will be a resurgence of support for Republicans, although their numbers still are not very encouraging. All that has to happen is what happened to them in 2006 and 2008, enough of the base stays home and like Mass, the current leadership of the Democratic Party will have given us a Republican majority once again. For even the possibility of such a nightmare, I cannot forgive them. It was so easy, all they had to do was fight a little and rather than giving us Ronmeycare, do what the majority of Americans wanted. Instead, conjuring up every excuse they could think of, now all exposed as baseless, they catered to Big Business in a way that must have made Republicans envious.

As to your question, I know Charlie Rangel, he has credibility as being a fighter up to now for liberal causes. I met him personally, through my summer job and found him to be a good human being as well as a good over all Democrat. I don't agree with this vote, but because of his past record, I would like him to stay in Congress. I also think that it is a disgrace that his party put him in the position of having to rubber stamp another giveaway to big business. From what I know of him, he would have enthusiastically voted for a Single Payer system or the compromise, a PO. What a waste of our good Democrats' votes.

In my dist., I just moved so I am now in a Republican Dist., I will support a real progressive democrat if they enter the race. I will not support, ever, a Rino like Jane Harman, as there is no difference between or anyone who participated in promoting this bill and refused to consider at the very least, a PO. Those people are not democrats.

[BurtWorm]

142. I don't think the base left the Republicans. They just never do.

They don't even threaten to. They are robots who do what Rush and the Roger Ailes tell them to. There are fringers so far right they think Republicans are too moderate, and then there are the center rights and Reagan Democrats who are more liberal than they are comfortable admitting to themselves or their constipated neighbors. It's those ones who left the Republicans in 2006 and 2008, not the base. The Republican base does not move. In return they get politicians who stroke them with words and actions they want to hear and see.

The Democratic base, on the other hand, has a lot of difficulty getting the party to do what it wants. We have a terrible relationship with our party. I think there's mutual mistrust and disrespect. I think the disrespect is much worse coming from the party toward the base. Obama's remark to the Fox dude is a good example of that. The way they've treated the PO is a good example. The fact is the leadership hasn't earned our trust. They've betrayed and disappointed us over and over. Unfortunately for us, there are no other horses in the race. None. I at least get to feel good about voting for an actual liberal--though his ethical troubles don't have me thrilled--for Congress.

We're not like Republicans. We're not robots. We don't do what we're told. We do have power in a negative way to sit out elections. Unfortunately, the Dems in Congress have the power to threaten us with Republican rule as a consequence of that, and, equally unfortunately, they have a point.

This is fucked up, the way Democrats are. We're often too rational and too fair for our own good.

[kenfrequed]

123. The price of losing?

It is a good thing for the DLC/Blue dogs who would prefer to operate with the cover of "Well the big bad republicans made us vote this way." I think they prefer to have to compromise with the republicans more than they do the left wing of their own party.

[BurtWorm]

125. Is Kucinich a DLC/Blue Dog?

I'm with Kucinich on this one.

[kenfrequed]

128. Well which is it?

At least formulate a complete and hashed out thought in this half attack-spin dive thing you are doing.


No, Kucinich is not with the DLC. He is sort of on the opposite side of them within the Democratic party, being extremely liberal. But you already knew this.


So make your point clearly and stop muddying the waters already.

[BurtWorm]

132. The waters are muddy. That is my point.

As easy as it is on this board to accuse people who think this bill should pass of being DLC or Bluedog, you need to unmuddy your own waters and see clearly that you're oversimplifying things. You admitted it in the post I'm responding to, but I'm willing to bet you'll continue making the same logical error.

What we have going on at DU over the past couple of days is a lot of grandstanding and playing to the crowd on this issue. On your side, you see good guys vs. DLC/Bluedogs. On my side I see idealistic crowd vs. political realists. I'm not happy to be a realist on this issue. I'd much rather be in the crowd. I agree with a lot of what the crowd says about the stupidity of this bill. I don't see a good choice now that momentum is going the other way. I think this bill has to pass or the Dems' feebleness will be exposed, and I don't have much hope or faith that they can learn fast enough how to cover that feebleness up again. I do have hope that winning might be good for them, might give them a taste to win more--or more to the point--to make the Republicans choke on their own blood more.

[kenfrequed]

139. Nuts.

The DLC as realists? No. Absolute nonsense. They manufacture their own brand of faux realism and are allowed to broadcast non-solutions on the major networks because the various media. They obstruct, they take massive contributions from the very industries that we are trying to regulate, they refuse to allow our own party to win when we have every chance to do so.

The realists are being realistic by refusing to hear progressive policies (see Bachus treatment of the doctors petitioning to be heard before the finance committee on single payer) or they are somehow being realistic by refusing to vote for cloture again and again and again.

These people are not moderates and they are not realists. Unless being a realist has as much to do with reality as Rationalizations have to do with being rational.

[BurtWorm]

140. Can you hold more than one thought in your head? Maybe not.

My preference for the bill to pass has nothing at all to do with the DLC or Bluedogs. Nothing at all. I doubt Kucinich or Dean or Sanders gave those fuckers a single thought either.

[Mithreal]

22. Bogus - alternative is nothing claims.

Your logic is faulty in so many ways, not very appealing to engage it.

[BurtWorm]

Help me, then: What is the something that is the alternative?

Grayson's bill? Is Grayson's bill dead if this bill passes? Wouldn't Grayson's bill mitigate a lot of the horrors the kill the bill left is warning against?

[Mithreal]

39. It's how you framed your argument that led to the weak positioning.

We'll see with Grayson's Bill.

Call Congress and get your rep to support or adopt another rep(s) and persuade, make the appeal, request.

LIST OF TOLL FREE CONGRESS SWITCHBOARD PHONE NUMBERS ty to orleans

1-800-828-0498

1-800-459-1887

1-800-614-2803

1-866-340-9281

1-866-338-1015

1-866-220-0044

1-877-851-6437

At least one of these didn't work for me and the switchboards have been slammed. The only way around this is to phone directly or look for a toll free number in your state. When I go to my reps' contact pages, it's easy to find more toll free numbers, maybe for yours too.

The fight isn't over when this bill is signed.

[BurtWorm]

46. It better not be over.

It's up to us to see that it's not over.

PS: The fuckers in Congress want this to go away. We can't let them let it go away.

[Mithreal]

48. indeed

[BurtWorm]

29. X

x

[eridani]

63. It is passing it that will defeat us in November n/t

[havocmom]

80. all part of the plan. Both sides can complain to voters "we can't, we aren't in power"

as an excuse to continue to let the common citizen wither and die from corporate and economic abuse. I am coming to the sad conclusion that, with very few exceptions, Team D and Team R are playing for the same owners.

The fans are screwn.

[BurtWorm]

86. Can you explain the logic of that?

Is that the same logic that said Obama was doomed to lose the general election because Dems would never unite behind him? Or is this predictiom based on more solid reasoning?

[eridani]

145. It is based on Obama's very effective 2008 campaign in which he ran on opposing mandates

--and on opposing taxation of benefits. Republicans noticed that, and will be using those same points against us. Their bad faith on the issue is utterly irrelevant.

[liberation]

134. The logical dissonance is strong with this one...

... or maybe I missed the sarcasm somewhere...

[BurtWorm]

136. I don't follow you.

What can I help you with?

[amborin]

21. K&R excellent OP

[Wetzelbill]

23. ihavenobias tells it like it is

I think there are reasons to vote for this bill and reasons to not do so. I don't totally support it or condemn it one way or another. I basically think it was a giant missed opportunity though. In the end, to the extent that it has some good things it's simply not as good as it could have been. Not even close. And the president spent lots of political capital and lost lots of support for the party as a result. It's been an embarrassing process to witness.

[Political Heretic]

26. K&R even though your name bugs me ;)

No one is bias-free.

[ihavenobias]

30. Apparently you never read my profile!

Which contains the following: Hopefully people realize I'm poking fun with my screen name. Of course everyone has bias to an extent, we just need to be aware of it and check ourselves to make sure it's not regularly clouding our judgment.

[tbyg52]

66. I am the master of "see what you expect to see"....! -

Or other than what is there, at any rate. This is far from the first time I have done something like this:

For what, six months, a year, more, I was seeing your user name as "ihavenophobias"!

[Political Heretic]

84. Haha I hadn't! :)

Nice one. Got me :D

[RaleighNCDUer]

27. Thanks.

The way I'm feeling now is remarkably similar to how I felt after the supremes' ruling in 2000.

It's done, and now we get to see what the results are. I don't want my fears to be realized, but believe they will be.

[mvd]

31. I know that both parties have corporate influence, and..

I'm not sure we can make big strides until we fix that. But I have such disdain for the Repukes that despite my frustration and differences with Obama, I want to see him succeed. There's still a significant difference between a pResident who nominated Roberts and Alito and a President who nominated Sotomayor.

[RaleighNCDUer]

36. Which is why I understand Kucinich changing his vote -

but it burns my ass to think what kind of bill we could have had if Obama had fought for the original House bill the way he's fought for this one.

We lost "Kennedy's seat" in MA because we showed ourselves to be weak and untrustworthy, not because MA did NOT want healthcare reform. We didn't strike while the iron was hot - we first doused the fire and THEN hammered on the pig iron, and now are baffled by the results.

[laughingliberal]

93. Same here

I am so angry to be put in a position of having to choose to oppose a President of my own party who I worked to help elect (Nevada went blue for the first time in ages) or support a bill I know is wrong for working and middle class Americans. And then he goes on Fox and brags about screwing over his left wing. It sucks!

[Mithreal]

102. You weren't supposed to be watching. He was playing to his audience.

Yeah, I don't buy it either. Over and over again, speech after speech, it was mostly always there. Hints of disdain and worse for our side of the party. Rahm is Obama's representative. Do we need to be hit with a bigger 2X4 than Rahm to realize what the Obama admin is about? More eyes are opening and that can't be a bad thing, I think. Yes, it definitely sucks.

Maybe he'll keep surprising us and change his party affiliation. Wouldn't surprise me at all. jk

We know it is up to us and not him anyway.

[kenfrequed]

127. Evan Bayh deserves considerable blame

After all he did this kind of BS before Obama's inaugeration. Forming a Senate Subcaucus isn't too common (unlike congress-wide congressional subcaucuses) and given the timing of organizing it this was clearly an attempt to hold legislation hostage.

Look up Bayh's bandits and you will find it is a list of people that have refused to vote for cloture on dozens of republican fillibusters. These guys didn't give a damn about the party or the American people and, given Obama's lobbyist reforms, they probably wanted one last stab to feather their beds as much as possible.

So they screwed everyone over and wrecked our majority because they were selfish, arrogant bastards who wore the cloak of 'centrism' while committing acts that were anything but.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/14/evan-bayh-forming-conserv_n_150874.html

[Mithreal]

135. Plouffe: Obama's Veep Pick 'Coin Toss' Between Biden And Bayh

"Seeing Bayh right after Biden provided some interesting contrasts and comparisons. Listening to Bayh talk, I thought, There's no way this guy will color outside the lines. Biden may cross them with too much frequency," Plouffe writes.

Kaine, with his lack of foreign policy experience, was at the bottom of the list. After Plouffe and Axelrod briefed Obama on their meetings, the future President still wasn't sure.

"It's a coin toss now between Bayh and Biden," he told his advisers, "but Kaine is still a distinct possibility."

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/plouffe-obamas-veep-pick-coin-toss-between-biden-and-bayh.php

[kenfrequed]

138. Even scarier.

Kaine should have been put out to pasture. There was no reason to elevate him to the position he assumed. No reason unless you wanted to run a bunch of democrats that sounded like conservatives, probably wouldn't win because of that, and if they did win they would demolish their own party.


Really stupid strategy to be honest.

[Mithreal]

99. Agreed, I believe most of us knew our vote was being cast for a better SCOTUS if nothing else.

I thought it was so much more but at least I am not alone.

Not bad to remind ourselves, of course.

[pleah]

32. +1

[Individualist]

60. +1

[pleah]

33. K&R

[FiveGoodMen]

34. "I have rejected a whole bunch of provisions that the left wanted" - Barack Obama

What a shame that the left -- meaning those of us who desire a good life for everyone, not just the lucky -- didn't have anyone to vote for!

(Well, except that guy the media cropped out of the debate photo, and they made damn sure that he didn't get anywhere near the White House.)

[Individualist]

35. K&R. The pharmaceutical companies win as well.

[Raine]

41. K & R nt

:kick: :thumbsup:

[pecwae]

47. Everyone knows who wins.

Some just don't want to admit it.

And I'm very, very sorry, but I accidentally hit the Unrec button. Believe me, I didn't mean to!

[Rhiannon12866]

49. K&R. Who "wins?" With what's on the table, I know it's not gonna be me...

;(

[Eyerish]

50. K&R

This thing is such a clusterfuck and it has Obama's name proudly written all over it. I thought Republicans were the only ones who were proud to pass legislation that screws the people...guess I was wrong.

[leftstreet]

51. K&R

[DearAbby]

56. When I can get to see a doctor

in his office, I was denied for so many years due to pre existing condtions. I WILL WIN!!

Its not a perfect bill, but it pisses me off to no end this ALL MY WAY OR NOTHING....I can't live on NOTHING..I NEED HEALTHCARE

[ihavenobias]

58. At the risk of sounding like a broken record

*I* have a pre-existing condition (more than one actually) and *I* am uninsured (same with my GF). So this isn't some "all my way or nothing" purist rant, not even close. I just refuse to accept something that might help in the short run (emphasis on might) only to make things much, much worse in the medium/long run.

[bvar22]

59. Good Luck.

This bill in no way guarantees you will get to see a doctor.

It WILL allow you to BUY Health Insurance of questionable quality from a For Profit Corporation.
To use it, you will also have to cough up the Deductible and Co-Pay.

Good Luck.

[truedelphi]

65. And good night.

Just hope everyone supporting this bill has the dough for their evening meds.

It sure won't come to them if they are not already rather rich.

[4lbs]

64. Interesting how if this bill is such a "win" for the health insurance companies, they are still

spending gobs of money trying to prevent it from passing.

It doesn't make sense. Why would they try to kill someone that is a "win" for them?

[tbyg52]

67. Are they? I sure haven't seen any "Dick and Jane" ads (or whatever the name of that couple was)

of course, that could just mean that they realize the American public is irrelevant to any decisions of our government.....

[4lbs]

69. They are using the U.S. Chamber of Commerce so their names aren't attached.

All the big health insurance companies are members of the USCoC.

[Marr]

104. That's called lobbying. They can always argue for a little more.

C'mon. They have not been trying to block this bill. I haven't seen an insurance industry anti-HCR advertisement for months and months. I haven't even seen their more prominent lobbyists on television for a long time, come to think of it.

[4lbs]

126. As I said, that's because they hide behind other groups that they fund extremely well.

Americans For Prosperity, US Chamber of Commerce, America's Health Insurance Plans, Conservatives for Patients Rights, etc.

You call them lobbying groups, I call them shell companies financed almost entirely by the insurance companies. A sort of PR outsourcing.

[mwrguy]

75. They've been on board the whole time

If they were fighting we would be seeing those ads all over prime time.

[ihavenobias]

68. They've fought it to win numerous concessions.

They rightfully know that by fighting reform from a corporate/right wing frame it will ultimately result in "reform" that either minimizes the damage to them or directly benefits them in some ways. This has been going on for some time:

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/07/business/fi-healthcare7|Private insurance companies push for 'individual mandate'> - June 07, 2009, Los Angeles Times

As for the Republicans, it's the same deal with a twist. They fight it because it's great short term politics, and as they win more and more concessions they create weaker and weaker policy. When that policy inevitably backfires (or at least fails to live up to the hopes most Americans have for it) they can claim that Dems and Dems alone fought for "socialist, communist, big government takeover of healthcare" and blame all healthcare problems on Democrats/Progressives/Liberals/Government.

That way they win politically, and when they gain more power they can strip away the few good things in the original reform effort and create a situation that's even worse than what we have today.

[tbyg52]

72. Yeah, it's a lose-lose for the regular people. nt

[Uncle Joe]

71. If you're the most despised entity, how do you get what you want?

One way to do it is run your pleas through a third party, in this case the Chamber of Commerce, but that's only one aspect.

The other is to use reverse psychology, the "please don't throw me in the brier patch" approach and make no mistake about it, the for profit "health" insurance corporations know they're despised, they were told as much as if they couldn't read it for them selves.

Consider what the public would have thought had the for profit "health" insurance corporations not run any opposition to this bill? Would the American People have wondered why, particularly after Harry and Louise?

I believe if that scenario had taken place even more red flags would have been raised in the publics' mind in regards to mandates and such.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2010/03/16/change/index.html

(Scarborough also asked, perhaps sincerely, why the insurance companies haven't run their own "Harry and Louise" campaign to kill this bill if they actually hate it and don't secretly see it as a subsidy to them. The answer is that Frank Luntz warned last year against raising the industry's profile in a debate where they are the entities most despised by the public -- and that they have instead run their campaign against reform through other corporate outfits, notably the mammoth U.S. Chamber of Commerce.)

[tbyg52]

73. Bingo. nt

[defendandprotect]

76. Too late to rec??? Where's this thread been???? kick . . .

[bread_and_roses]

79. a big K&R here....too tired and mostly too sickened to write anything else

[Cha]

81. I'm not surprised by

anything you're pushing.

[ihavenobias]

82. I'm not pushing anything and I very sincerely hope I'm wrong about this bill.

I hope you at least believe that much, even though I know we overall disagree on the reform effort.

[SlingBlade]

83. K & R Fuck the Corporatist !

[MellowDem]

85. Bullshit...

anyone who seriously thinks the insurance companies want this bill are delusional. Obviously, they'd like this bill compared to single payer, but a "win" would be to keep the status quo, which so many on here keep advocating for.

[ProudDad]

88. Sorry, but you're pretty much wrong

They get 30 (or 31) million new "customers" subsidizing their profits with US Taxpayer dollars.

They lose next to nothing...

It was Kabuki theater. The fix was in, Big PhRMA bought off early and the insurance industry making little mewing noises against it while gaining complete access to the process via their bought and paid for congresscritters.

You've been had!

[MellowDem]

89. According to you...

but I don't think I'm wrong. I think the chances are much much greater that you are wrong. You are the one implying there was some grand conspiracy where the health insurance companies somehow collaborated together to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying efforts on the members of Congress, who would have to be in on it as well.

The only new customers that will be subsidized by taxpayer dollars are those covered in an expanded Medicaid bill. The rest are required to buy health insurance themselves with their own money.

As it is in the current system, those 30 million or so uninsured are already being heavily subsidized by society, and in the most inefficient way possible, through emergency room visits. And those 30 million don't pay into the system right now either.

The thing that the insurance companies know they have to watch out for is that if their insurance remains unaffordable and becomes even more so, it will simply push voters and Congress towards to public option or single payer faster. Insurance companies are scared of this bill because it puts us on that path regardless.

And then there is the requirement that health insurance companies must spend 80% (or something in that range) of their revenue on medical care. And they can't deny someone insurance for a pre-existing condition (eventually). And they can't drop someone because they get sick... Really, there is a lot that will eat into health insurance profits and put us on the road towards single payer.

[Mithreal]

92. Why call it a conspiracy, when con job will do?

[Capitalocracy]

98. That's EXACTLY what happened!

"You are the one implying there was some grand conspiracy where the health insurance companies somehow collaborated together to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying efforts on the members of Congress, who would have to be in on it as well." Are you not familiar with how our government works? Yes, they spent hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying efforts, and yes, it worked! That's why they do it!

They don't care who's subsidized or who's not. The insurance companies gain anyway.

If insurance remains unaffordable, and it primarily will, or what I'm afraid of is that they'll find ways to insure everyone but weasel out of actually covering anything (insurance in name only to satisfy the mandate requirement), it won't necessarily bring about single payer. If this bill is passed and turns into a fiasco, the resulting Republican majority will use it as a bludgeon to beat down any further reform, and say we need to get back to free market fundamentals. They'll gut the good parts of this legislation, hypocritically leave in the mandate, and pass legislation so you can "buy insurance across state lines", causing all health insurance companies to move their official headquarters to the state which offers the most deregulation (like the banking industry in South Dakota). That's what they're betting on, that this bill won't lead to single payer but will lead to huge profits for them and a fear of any further reform, or more fruitless and advantageous reform efforts for their benefit. Now, maybe we can prove them wrong, but I'd say they're making a good bet.

[MellowDem]

114. But insurance companies know...

that if Republicans do take power, and they do deregulate the heck out of the system, and the companies take full advantage of it, it would be a disaster for the American people and would drive many of them to vote the Republicans right back out and vote for single payer. Most Americans already want a public option, and that scares the hell out of the insurance industry, because to them it is an existental issue. Their whole industry could go under with a public option and most definitely with single payer, at least as we know it today. Of course, other countries with single payer still have private insurace, but they wouldn't have much power anymore.

[Uncle Joe]

119. The "health" insurance corporations also know death by a thousand cuts.

Any Republican Administration doesn't need to deregulate all at once just a little at a time.

They also know the Supreme Court just handed them unlimited access to the nation's megaphones in regards to political spending.

They also know the corporate media propaganda machine is firmly on the side of corporate supremacism over the American People, so when the Republicans screw the pooch again and piss off enough people, the corporate media will do their best to enable corporate friendly Democrats to power, whether it's by giving them center stage and the lion's share of time during debates or their 24/7 slanted commentary.

Pubic support for single payer universal coverage and/or a strong public option was overwhelming during this cycle and it meant nothing to the current political leadership. The former was all but dropped out of hand and apparently the latter had already been decided against last August, it was just Kabuki theater.

[obxhead]

100. I believe the saying goes

It takes money to make money. Quite an old saying from what I understand.

[Mithreal]

91. Ridiculously wrong. When you squeezed all the juice out of the orange, whatya gonna do?

You look for another orange? We just told the Insurance Industrial Congressional Complex we are going to backstop their profits.

The current situation was not just unsustainable for average Americans, the profits were unsustainable as well.

There is only so much juice to squeeze.

We just guaranteed the IICC profits for possibly another decade or more.

They deserve their bonuses, those lobbyists and executives. Pathetic marks.

[MellowDem]

115. If the insurance companies...

squeeze all the juice from the orange, they are finished. A majority of Americans already are for a public option, and if insurance remains unaffordable, they'll be even more for it and maybe even for single payer. Americans know that this was a compromise bill with the insurnace industry, and if that industry causes the health situation to get worse, that is who they will blame. Even if Republicans somehow got in power and deregulated the whole system, the resulting disaster would be the end of the health insurance industry as we know it. Hell, as America's economic situation gets weaker and more and more of the middle class see their real wages fall, the push for a public option will be greater and greater. Part of the reason we've been able to have this system for so long is that we are such a rich nation that the vast majority of Americans can afford this bloated and inefficient system, but that is becoming less and less so every day now.

[Mithreal]

137. We just backstopped the profits.

I could have written the same points you just presented to make my argument. With this Dem Leadership doesn't matter what the majority of Americans want. We are setting up a perpetual bailout for IICC profits.

[Marr]

107. A mandate that everyone buy their products and government subsidies are a hell of a lot better than

the status-quo. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise.

[MellowDem]

116. What goverment subsidies?

The status quo has society paying for those 30 million through the most inefficient way possible already. The only government subsidies will be through Medicaid expansion, those 30 million will have to buy health insurance on their own. And when there is a mandate on a product, people will scrutinize the product that much more. Health insurance companies will have to have affordable coverage, or the public option will be right around the corner. And the CBO is the one estimating this will cut health care costs and premiums. Remember, health insurance companies make a lot of money by denying people coverage and they won't be able to do that soon after this bill.

[ProudDad]

87. You do realize that...

Lots can happen between now and 2014...

And if you can't afford the premium you'll still be an Emergency Room baby...

I hope for the best for you...

I have Single-Payer -- Medicare -- I wish you did too...

You could have Single-Payer Health Care too if the dems weren't as committed to Korporate Kapitalist USAmerika as the pukes are....

Problems with the "Health Insurance corporation and Big PhRMA stimulus act of 2010"

--------------------------------------

THE MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA'S BILL

* The cause of the problems with our health care system is not addressed at all by this bill, & in fact, the underlying problem is being cemented into place..... namely, allowing health care to be distributed as a market commodity.... for profit. Instead of being distributed according to medical need, our health care is available only to those who can pay, & the highest quality care is available only to those who can pay the most.

* There is no public option at all in this plan! Instead of punishment for allowing millions of Americans to die just to line the pockets of greedy investors & billionaire CEOs', we are now going to reward the same for-profit industry that got us into this unconscionable situation in the first place.

* Especially in this time of economic hardship, we cannot afford to spend money for a plan that offers much less & costs much more than a universal single payer plan which offers much more & is less expensive.

* This bill proposes an unprecedented taking of $500 billion from American taxpayers & over a period of 10 years, will hand it to the private profiteers who have already amassed record blood money profits every year for many years!

*This bill forces every American to hand over even more of their money to these same companies for plans that may or may not cover their needs, & will offer only partial coverage at best.

* In June of 2009 the U.S. Census Bureau cited the number of uninsured Americans at 45,657,000.
Obama's plan will cover about 31,000,000... leaving 14,657,000 still uninsured.

* The Massachusetts plan has the same exemption from coverage for people under financial hardship, that Obama is proposing, & it is failing miserably! There are now even more people in Mass. without coverage than before they began this plan.... the very people who need coverage the most.

* The Federal govt. will pay for the new expansion of Medicaid, only until 2017, when the states, many of which already unable to pay for their current Medicaid membership (AHCCCS is already cutting services here in Az.) will have to somehow take on the huge number of new Medicaid members. This is not even close to a realistic expectation! It is great to expand Medicaid, but do it as a stand-alone measure... not as part of this untenable plan, & not by foisting the total cost onto the backs of the states in 7 years... ready or not!

* The insurance companies have already been raising premiums by almost 40% just for 2010. These increases & the ones to come, will affect the proposed tax on "high-cost" insurance plans because more and more people are finding themselves having to pay more for just the average-run-of-the-mill plan..... bringing them into the category of plans considered "high cost" & therefore being taxed.

* The Medicare D "doughnut hole" does not close for ten years! This is not going to help people on small fixed incomes like me.... I am in that "hole" for 10 months out of the year every year.... right now! And there are many, many more like me.

* What is the amount of the "allowance" which the bill states is to be granted to employers re the fees they pay if the gov't. has to subsidize the employees' coverage?

* It is great that there will be subsidies for households making up to 4X the poverty level, but how much will these subsidies be?.......

* Will they be enough to actually afford not only the premiums (which are already increasing exponentially, & are certain to continue increasing) but also to cover the copays & deductions?

* What is to stop the private insurance industry from increasing copays & deductions, or even levying new kinds of "fees" to make up for their "lost profits"?

* Will people with lower incomes be unable to use their plans because of the unaffordable out-of-pocket costs, which are not subsidized?

* For that matter, what will these plans actually cover? Is there any safeguard in the bill to stop the industry from decreasing coverage offered in these plans to a bare-bones minimum that leaves Americans with meaningless coverage that does not really do what insurance is supposed to do..... cover us against unforeseen catastrophic illness & accidents?

* People who currently have coverage through large employers will be stuck with the plans they now have.... whether they like it or not & whether or not they could get better coverage at lower costs somewhere else.

* Some Americans say that they want to have the same deal that members of Congress have. This bill is misleading those people. On average, members of Congress, pay only 28 % of their premiums, while taxpayers pick up the remaining 72 % for them. This bill does not do that at all. It gives the public access to the same expensive plans, but without covering 72% of the premiums. This is NOT a good deal!

* This bill discriminates against women. No plan would be required to cover abortion. Women will have to pay out-of-pocket for the procedure. In addition,
states could ban abortion coverage in plans offered through the exchange.

* Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician of internal medicine & pathology, & the first female editor-in-chief of "The New England Journal of Medicine" is right.... this is a step in the wrong direction!

* This idea of passing "something" in order to "give the Democrats a win" so they can keep the Republicans from taking over in the fall, is dead wrong. This bill has so many problems that will inevitably come out in trying to implement it, that passing it will just make it harder for Democrats to win. The majority of the very people who are most responsible for Obama & the Democrats being in office, are already disillusioned by the lack of follow through on getting what a strong majority of Americans want.... an end to profit in our health care system! This sellout of a bill will cement their alienation, & bring about exactly what this misguided effort is trying to prevent!

* Anytime an objective poll has been taken with questions that are not presented in ways to skew the answers, the results show that a strong majority of Americans want an Improved Expanded Medicare For All. Since the election, there has never been a valid reason for Obama & the Democratic Congress not to (at least) pass a Medicare Buy-In Option available to any American who wants it. Now that they are agreeing to use the Reconciliation tactic, it is even more glaringly obvious that there is no reason not to do this.

* When the Congressional Budget Office does the assessment & states what implementing this bill will cost, it does not consider the overall cost to the system as a whole, or to the out-of-pocket cost to Americans. They look only at the cost to the Federal Government's Budget. They also have to make assumptions.... they are projecting what it will cost. They have not always been correct in their assumptions.

* The worst thing about this plan is that it will fail just like the Clinton plan did, & for the same reason..... not getting the profit out!!!!! And when it does, then it will have set us back another 16 years because people will not understand the details of what really happened. They will just think.... "Well, Obama & the Democrats tried health care reform, & it didn't work.... things are even worse.... let's not try messing with it again".

* If we do not do something to get a single payer plan in the not-so-distant future, we will find ourselves living in a third world country! Our health care costs have been increasing more than twice as fast as our gross domestic product. Under the "for-profit" system of health insurance, the cost of premiums alone is going up at a rate so steep that the cost of health insurance premiums will surpass the projected income for an average American household in less than 14 years!

We cannot afford to be taking these steps in the wrong direction!


BELOW ARE QUESTONS WHICH EVERY AMERICAN DESERVES TO HAVE ANSWERED:

* Obama promised us a more "transparent" administration, but he met behind closed doors with lobbyists for the "for-profit" industry to make deals with the very industry which has profited off the suffering of Americans for years, while barring Conyers, Sanders, or any advocates of a single payer system or an expansion of Medicare, from even being present. Why?

* Why did Obama & the Democratic leaders in the Senate & the House block any hearings or votes on the only bills that would offer true reform through a much less expensive, more efficient, universal single payer system?

* Why are we the only industrialized nation on the entire planet that does not have universal coverage, & yet our President is still proposing a plan which will not cover almost 15 million Americans?

* Why do we pay two to three times as much per capita as every other industrialized nation, yet rank below them in quality of care?

* Why do the residents of other industrialized nations have full coverage, while the average American's coverage is limited, even though we pay far more?

WHAT WE NEED TO DO:

* This bill needs to die! We need to insist that Congress & the President do what they were elected to do..... represent us..... not the corporate interests.

* We need to insist that they pass a bill that will cover every American, & cost every American taxpayer less than we are currently paying. A universal single payer plan, & only a universal single payer plan will do that! Here is the link to a presentation we prepared on YouTube, which covers in detail, the benefits & savings of a universal single payer plan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8dVwxknTh8&feature=PlayList&p=C26D0D7EFAAC56ED&index=0&playnext=1

* We need to improve Medicare to make up for all the cuts in funding to Medicare over the years (which has kept it from covering things such as Rxs, glasses, dental, etc. & which has resulted in the underpayment of physicians).

* We need to expand Medicare to cover everyone, which will still cost about $400 billion LESS ($1,400 per capita) per year than what we are currently already paying!

* Representative Grayson has a 4-page bill that would accomplish this.

[area51]

124. +1

Great post, it deserves to be on the Greatest Page. :thumbsup:

[ihavenobias]

148. Lots of good points. n/t

[Citizen Worker]

94. Definition of Fascism

Fascism is the merger of state and corporate interests. What is it called when the state mandates that its citizens by a product from a corporation or pay a fine? Dare I say it, Fascism?

[Mithreal]

103. Gotta love private taxes.

[Marr]

108. Yep. If GW Bush had done this, the very people cheering now would've gone apeshit.

And rightly so. But put a new mascot on the can and they slurp it right up.

[Individualist]

120. Hear, hear!

[Skittles]

101. well, the White House has been firmly on their side

so it never really was a contest, was it? :puke:

[Mithreal]

106. Put on a good show though. Running the clock out.

[ProSense]

117. Americans

win

[florida08]

129. That statement by Obama leaves me cold

Who does he think worked so hard for him to get elected? There are too many republican amendments in this bill. I heard Mike Moore say that these insurance corporates are really not mandated to insure pre-existing. They're only to be fined a Benjamin a day. If the government is going to help cover those who can't afford to get into the exchange what's to stop them from refusal? We're already covering the uninsured with higher premiums and I don't see that changing.

Had hoped the bill would get tweaked before passage but with all the arm bending that's going on that hope has left the station. Once the neocons are back it will be over. If the dems think it's been hard now just wait till next year. Medicare for all would be so much better. Thanks Tom for being straight forward with no agenda. As usual you are right although I don't see it as a win but a loss..the status quo remains. Medicare and medicaid will be next on the chopping block.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

144. so true. Insurance companies will make a killing off of this

and have even more power over our congress.