How is Congress Going to Make HCR Better Next Year?

[last1standing]

This is a serious question and something that bothers me greatly when I hear senators or congress people say it. How do they honestly expect to make HCR better over the next year or so when they couldn't do it now?

I remember Bill Clinton said the exact same thing about NAFTA and welfare reform but it never happened. Now people are saying the same thing but I'm not hearing any actual plan of attack, just vague promises and frankly, I've had enough of those. Looking at the expected future, its very unlikely that the Democrats will pick up enough seats in the senate to get past Lieberman, Nelson, Baucus and whoever takes over from Dorgan so there will never be 60 votes to over-ride the filibuster that crushed the best reforms of the current bill. Reconciliation has been completely eliminated as an option so that won't happen and since the Obama administration didn't push for better reforms when we have the best chance, it seems unlikely that they will do so when there is less opportunity.

So is there anyone supporting this bill, as it stands, who can offer better insight as to how these improvements occur?

[OHdem10]

1. This shows how out of touch the Senate really is. They think we

are stupid and ill-informed enough to believe they can
do something next year when they cannot do it this year.

Not one thing is going to change other than maybe a few
more Senators will decide to give up the ghost and retire.
This does not strengthen anyone's hand.

I could respect them more if they just said this is it.

They developed a Center Right Bill favoring Business over
the Middle Class. This is how they believe..if not they
would never have designed it this way. Trying to placate
us by saying we will fix it later--is more than lame.

[Clio the Leo]

2. Here's one of my favorites....

"The Insurance Industry Competition Act of 2009, House Bill 1583"

http://www.asashop.org/news/2009/march2009/PR27.htm

(obviously they'd have to change the year :) )

[last1standing]

3. That's a great bill but what is the plan to actually get it passed?

How do the sponsors plan to get it through with the threat of a filibuster? That's my question. How do they plan to make this plan better later when they can't do it now?

[Clio the Leo]

4. Oh I agree, it's not an easy task...

.... but what's your ultimate point?

This isn't one of those "oh what should have been!" OPs is it? ;)

[last1standing]

5. Nope. Not one of those "oh what should have been!" OPs.

The ultimate point is that this is the bill we will get. There will be no improvements to it so every time someone states that it will be improved next year or the year after, they are not telling the truth and the bill as it stands is not a good plan for me, you or anyone else other than the wealthy.

Of course, if you or anyone else can tell me how the senate is going to pass improvements, I'm very willing to listen. Unfortunately, I haven't heard a single plan of attack as yet.

[Clio the Leo]

6. Well, a month ago I didn't think they would get Lieberman or Nelson's votes...

.... for cloture. Now, we may not have liked how they got it ... but they got it.

There are too many progressives (Sanders, Harkin, Schumer, Rocky, etc.) who are telling me this is the starting point .... I'm not quite cynical enough to say that they're FOS yet. If you choose to have absolutely no confidence in your party leaders that what they're saying is true then that's on you. I wouldn't expect them to know more about how to do MY job than I do and I owe them the same deference.

(Now if you're an actual member of Congress, please forgive ;) )

[last1standing]

7. The got those votes by removing the very things they're promising to put back.

And I'm no longer going on blind faith in politicians as we've been burned so many times before (like with NAFTA and welfare reform mentioned in the OP).

It all comes down to the fact that in order to pass a health care plan the leadership in the senate was forced to remove nearly everything that made the plan palatable. This includes every senator you named above. They have now stated that they will reform the reform in the next year or so, and I'm asking how they plan to do this. I don't think it is unreasonable for me to ask those people on this board who repeat their claims to answer this question. It seems silly to just follow a politician in any party without hearing how they plan to turn their promises into laws. Especially when we have already seen these promises crushed in the best case scenario likely to occur in our lifetimes.

I'm not saying it can't happen, I'm merely saying that without a plan of attack (and not a super-secret plan that no one can know) there's very little chance of anything happening for the better. If this makes me cynical, then I'm proudly so.

On the other hand, if there's a plan out there that I'm not aware of I'd love for someone here to tell me what it is. So far, I've heard nothing to that effect.

[niceypoo]

74. They gave away the farm for Lieberman's vote

He was the biggest asshole on earth yet they handed it to him on a silver platter.

[dionysus]

18. or, your opinion is not gold and you have no way of knowing what will happen.

[last1standing]

33. So you don't know of a plan but you can try to shit all over the thread with snark.

Sounds a lot like what we're getting out of congress lately.

[dionysus]

82. neither of us know anything. it's the future. either one of us, or none of us could be right on what

happens.

[niceypoo]

75. Saying, 'they will fix it later,' is another way of saying, 'they blew it.'

..it just sounds better.

[dionysus]

85. or, it's believing it's a starting point to build upon. all a matter of opinion...

[last1standing]

8. I'm kicking this because there hasn't been a single attempt to explain a plan.

I keep reading that the senate will improve the bill from posters, so please explain how they can do it.

[depakid]

9. That's because there isn't a plan

and if Republicans regain control- the aspects of the bill that don't kick in until 2014 will be toast before they even begin!

[last1standing]

10. Exactly! This plan will only get worse, not better.

As more and more Democrats lose seats because this travesty hangs around their necks like a lead albatross, republicans will gain power and remove what little protection is in there to begin with. What we'll be left with is an unregulated monopoly with the ability to force us to pay for little or no service. And in the eyes of the populace, it will be entirely the Democrats' fault - and they'll be right.

[last1standing]

11. Still no takers?

Really, how can people come to this board and post time and time again that this bill will be made better when they have absolutely no idea of how it will happen? One should only have blind faith in their religion, not their politicians.

[jenmito]

22. You're ignoring the takers now here. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

23. Who have nothing to contribute other than snarky comments

What was this I heard about the lack of discourse?

BTW, the "snarky comments" refer to another poster.

[jenmito]

26. Nobody has replied to MY post. n/t

[last1standing]

32. That's because you couldn't wait over 10 minutes before throwing a fit about it.

I've responded now.

[last1standing]

30. You couldn't wait past 10 minutes? Very weak.

n/t

[IndianaGreen]

12. They will fix it the same way they fixed NAFTA and PATRIOT

x(

[shadesofgray]

13. +1

[yourout]

24. +2

[dflprincess]

87. And NCLB (nt)

[boppers]

90. PATRIOT has been revised many times,

If, by fix, you mean "eliminate health care reform entirely", that's different.

[slipslidingaway]

14. knr for an answer ...

also the public option will lead to SP so support the public option.

[BklnDem75]

15. All the answers to your questions are right here

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_law.html

[last1standing]

16. So the plan is to read how a bill technically becomes law?

Not a very good plan. In fact, its no plan at all, its just a silly post with no real clue as to how this horrible health care plan can be made better with fewer Democrats and no more progressive ones.

[BklnDem75]

20. Here's a thought

Wait until there's an actual law before asking how to improve it? How is it good planning to make changes to something that's not there?

[last1standing]

36. Yeah, it's always easier to try to fix something twice rather than once.

This is about working to make it better now instead of letting corporations screw us over, yet again. In fact, the entire point of this thread is that what we get now will never get better.

[BklnDem75]

43. You don't know what needs fixing

If you're really serious about your questions, why post them here? Do you need a link to your Congressman's phone numbers? Why not go to the source?

[jenmito]

17. Next year? They're NOT. Nor will they in two years. This is the best bill they can get

which is why we want THIS, since it's a start. Those who want to kill the bill have to understand that they won't get any bill for years, either. Example-Ed Schultz said we should just start over in two years when we "get some more progressives in Congress." Talk about naive! The change can happen once we DO get more Dems. back, like in FOUR years, maybe, if the Repubs. gain seats in '10 and make things even worse for the country. The point is we will be able to improve the bill sooner or later. I don't know anyone who said it can be made better in one or two years.

[dionysus]

19. you're wasting your breath. *sigh*

[jenmito]

21. I suppose I am...

I saw your post above. Good try. :hi:

[last1standing]

28. It is a waste of breath when she doesn't answer the question.

It's a waste of yours to to continue it as well.

[jenmito]

37. Are you saying I didn't answer the question? n/.t

[last1standing]

40. Yes, I am.

You didn't tell us how the Democrats who have stated that they will make this bill better plan to do it. Harkin, Sanders (yes, I know he's not a Dem) and Obama have all said they would fix the problems later. I'm asking how.

[jenmito]

41. None of them said they'd fix the problems next year. I answered your question. n/t

[last1standing]

46. You answered with a false statement. Weak.

There's no point in continuing this discussion if you're just going to regurgitate the latest propaganda. Bush* said he never claimed Iraq had WMDs as well. So did Cheney.

[jenmito]

53. Find me ONE link anywhere on the web where a Dem. in congress says they can fix the bill next year.

You're not telling the truth and you're insulting me with that Bush propaganda BS.

[jenmito]

60. Kick to repeat the request. n/t

[depakid]

25. How sad is it that Obama supporters have gone from Yes we can! to No, we can't

in little over one year's time....

And actually- we could have- had the administration pushed for 50 +1 reconciliation (which Republicans would surely have done were the shoe on the other foot).

What would even have been better- is that we could have pushed for a beauty bill of REAL reforms on abusive insurance company practices as well- and set that up as a campaign issue.

Now of course, instead of being on the side of ordinary folks being- and continuing to be abused- the party and the administration are aligned with two of the most "popular" industries in America!

I'm sure that Republican strategists- as opposed to the rank & file knuckleheads in Congress and on the street- are delighted with their good fortune. Best of both worlds!

[jenmito]

29. What's sad is that you, a Dem., don't consider yourself an Obama supporter.

And this has nothing to DO with Obama. This has to do with the congress. Obama is working with them because he has to. And yes he CAN and WILL get a health care bill passed, which hasn't been done in decades.

[last1standing]

31. When Obama starts supporting us, that might change.

n/t

[jenmito]

35. He IS supporting us. You just choose to ignore everything he's doing and

blaming him for things the congress should be blamed for.

[last1standing]

39. Obama has gotten the bill he wants. He even said so.

It's right to blame him AND congress, which I do.

As for your statement that I'm ignoring all his good work, I agree he's made some small moves in the correct direction in some places. The bad however, still greatly outweighs the good with this president.

[jenmito]

44. He also said he got the bill he wanted when the House had the public option in it...

as he said he got the bill he wanted when the SENATE had the public option. He is doing the best he can with the congress he has. And he has signed more legislation than most presidents so far.

[last1standing]

48. Once again, that is completely not true.

He said it after Lieberman's deal with the senate leadership. Why are you saying things that aren't true?

[jenmito]

51. What? You're saying he didn't praise the House version, the earlier Senate version,

and every version that passed at each stage??

[last1standing]

54. Once again, Yes.

He applauded the house version but did not say he had gotten what he wanted with it like he did the senate version. You know this.

[jenmito]

59. He was just as pleased with every version that passed because he knew they were the

best that could be done at each stage. His comment about the last bill from the Senate was in response to a question. And you know this.

[IndianaGreen]

67. DADT, DOMA is not what I would refer as supporting us

[depakid]

50. I support policies- not politicians

and the fact is that there was a procedure to get much more effective (and popular) public policy in place, but apparently effective policy that serves the public interest was less important than the corporate interests involved.

Now- as a beauty next step, we have the president supporting another unpopular policy that will further erode health care coverage- at the expense of a far more popular and effective policy of progressive taxation on those with the most ability to pay.

Why? Who can say- but when the administration plays such games (or when it fails to lead- or stand up and fight for ordinary Americans- choosing instead to make back room deals with PhARMA and the health insurance lobby) you bet {i]I'm not an Obama supporter.

Nor should most anyone else be.

[last1standing]

27. If they're not going to make it better, its not a start its an end.

The point is that this bill isn't just watered down, its seriously malformed and weighted against the middle class and poor. The only winners will be those who already have interests in health insurance and pharmaceuticals.

Also, several senators and many DUers have been making the claim that they will make it better before it actually comes into effect, mostly stating this year.

[jenmito]

34. Wrong. Just because it can't be improved NOW doesn't mean it won't EVER be

improved. Can you show me ONE post where someone said it could be made better this year? You can PM it to me.

[last1standing]

38. We have 60 Democrats and a massive electoral victory behind us.

When is that going to happen again in our lifetimes? No, if they can't do a massive bill now that actually works (and this one doesn't) then they should piecemeal it to get the better features and leave behind the crap.

Also, I don't have the search feature so I can't go digging up posts. Feel free to ask someone who can.

[Warren Stupidity]

42. It seems 60 wasn't the number.

Maybe it was 80. Or maybe 90.

Or maybe the real number in the Senate is 88-12. 88 corrupt center-right to far-right corporate asshats, 11 'liberals', 1 democratic socialist.

[IndianaGreen]

47. K&R

We elected the wrong kind of Democrats. We merely put in Congress the servants of the bankers, financiers, Big Pharma, Big Insurer, and MIC.

[jenmito]

49. We don't have 60 libs/progressives.

And you know that. It could happen in '12 like I said above, after the Repubs. gain seats and mess up the country instead of improving it.

That's ok. I spend a lot of time here and haven't seen ONE post saying that.

[last1standing]

55. That's not a plan, its a wet dream.

Your only point here seems to be to back up this administration regardless of how badly they sell us out. I'm not going to waste any more time replying to you unless you have a real statement either on how the Democrats honestly plan to make this bill better or admit they, and the DU posters who've said the same, have no plan and no clue on how to do so.

[jenmito]

57. You can't reply to me because I'm calling you out on your false premise that Obama or another

Dem. in congress said they could fix the bill next year.

[burning rain]

71. Harkin's been pushing the "starter home" metaphor.

The health care law will be improved with time, etc. He's said he's going to reintroduce the public option next year--something most of us, and certainly I, would probably call a partial fix. Now, so far as I know he hasn't predicted it will pass, but speaking about it at this time appears aimed at mollifying critics on the left. Of course, only blind faith could induce one to believe it would have a chance this year, given that it didn't have the support of 60 senators this go-'round. Also, Byron Dorgan predicted passage this year of drug reimportation, also far-fetched, given that it only got 51 votes this time around. Plus, that would involve the president backstabbing his friends at PhRMA after they'd cut a deal--who would suggest he'd betray his values by doing such a thing?

I did see your admission you consider it unlikely improvements will be made in subsequent legislation this year, and I agree. But congressional Democrats have been holding out the carrot even in the near term, indeed, this very year, so it bears discussing.

[last1standing]

73. Don't expect an answer to that.

Yes, members of the senate have stated that they would fix this bill but no one has come out with a plan that overcomes the fact that these fixes have already been filibustered to death. Sadly, instead of discussing this very real problem, many want us to just go along with whatever happens. I can't do this.

Unless major issues with this bill are resolved in conference (and that seems like an extreme longshot at this point) the bill should be killed and the better parts of it resubmitted piecemeal. It won't be the grand gesture we were promised but it will be better for the American people.

[jenmito]

84. Yes, "with time" the "starter home" can be built upon. But again, nobody said the bill will be

fixed next year. Even if a senator says he'll reintroduce the public option, that is NOT the same as saying the bill will be fixed next year. False premise.

[burning rain]

86. It's not a false premise.

Top Democrats are clearly putting the carrot out. Obviously, fixing the law would be gradualistic and not an all-at-once affair, and Harkin's and Dorgan's proposals are obvious gradualistic, partial fixes--besides carrots for lefties.

[BklnDem75]

58. Ask your Congressman

I take up Mind Reading 101 next semester.

[jenmito]

62. Nobody SAID they could make the bill better next year. PERIOD.

[BklnDem75]

65. He knows that

Don't be fooled. He's not interested in serious answers.

[last1standing]

66. LOL! I'm not interested in running around in circles with a propagandist.

And you haven't brought anything to the table but snark, yourself. Doesn't it embarrass you to have nothing else?

[BklnDem75]

69. Why should I treat your questions seriously?

What have YOU brought to the table other than outrage? You don't even know what's in the bill that needs fixing. All the information you've provided throughout this whole thread came straight from your ass. You can't back up your own statements and no links to dispute what others have claimed. You got your answer in the second post, but like I said, you wasn't interested in the answer. How is that bill gonna get through a filibuster? Are you fucking serious?

[last1standing]

70. Like I said, plenty of snark and bullshit but no answers from the cheerleaders.

Not wasting my time on this. Come back when you have answers instead of spin.

Or spam the thread and keep kicking it like your friend. Either way.... :shrug:

[BklnDem75]

72. Yeah I know...

Blah blah blah

[Proud Liberal Dem]

45. Well, if the bill is as bad as most people here claim it is

I doubt that there should be a significant difficulty in mustering popular support for ushering in a single-payer/public option revolution or- if the Repubs get back in power the whole thing will just get repealed and we'll just go back to how things are now (which apparently quite a few people here seem to be comfortable with since the current bill- even with its more universally accepted and supported provisions- isn't completely to their liking). Of course, we COULD stop hand wringing and fighting and mobilize and work hard towards getting the future changes that we want- instead of threatening to jump ship on the Democratic Party and/or not vote and let the Republicans waltz back into power. :shrug:

*In regards to fixing NAFTA and Welfare Reform, well, people here DO realize that Clinton never had a Democratic Congress to work with after 1994 and the Democrats were completely out of power for the first 6 years of the last decade and they still couldn't do much with Bush still in the WH even when we won back Congress in 2006.

[last1standing]

52. "Hand wringing" is whining about those of us pointing out the flaws here.

We ARE working to change this bill, to little effect. We are also stating that either the party starts fighting for the middle and lower classes again or we will find someone who will. That is how you change a politician's behavior - take away his money and votes.

And I am making the same point now that you are making about Clinton. How are we going to make this bill better when it will be the same people voting then as now?

[freddie mertz]

56. Maybe Dorgan's drug reimportation bill has a chance.

That has or has had some Repub support.

[last1standing]

63. The Obama administration killed the last attempt at reimportation.

They don't want to mess up their deal with big Pharma. I doubt they could get enough votes to override a filibuster and veto.

[last1standing]

61. So far, plenty of snark, insults and denials but no answers.

Could it be there isn't one and that when this travesty passes we'll be stuck with the affects for at least a generation? :shrug:

[jenmito]

64. Yes-there ISN'T an answer to how the bill can be fixed next year because nobody

sait it WOULD be! :shrug:

[last1standing]

68. I told you that I won't continue responding to propaganda and deceptions.

You can spam this thread all you like, it just keeps kicking it, but I'm done with you until you drop the propaganda postings.

[niceypoo]

76. Is this the last, last, last time you will say it?

Or will you be back later to reiterate your non responding?

[last1standing]

77. Way to butt into something that doesn't concern you.

You must really entertain your friends with that kind of talent.

[niceypoo]

78. A simple, 'yes,' would have sufficed

[jenmito]

83. You can say you're done with me all you want. It won't stop me from posting the TRUTH-that NOBODY

said the bill would or could be fixed next year!

[ProgressOnTheMove]

79. Clinton did lose congress though and under Pres. Obama welfare got several extension in these hard..

economic times. Simply if he loses congress we don't get any further progressives it's off the table if we do expand congress we have a shot to improve it. Voting and not voting is a choice bwtween life and death that's just the way it is. Republicans will step it up next time if they even get an inch in the door, we can never forget that. Impeachment will be on the table. DADT will stay forever and ever amen, we will always be at war with Eurasia so come on let's be real in the great scheme we are not worst off under Pres. Obama. If GOP return extensions to welfare don't think so, minimum wage increases not likely. Further stimulus packages we could dream on, to cripple Pres. Obama in the congress is to punch ourselves in the nose really, really hard.

Pres. Obama will not do andy further stimulus packages till the hard of thinking on the right realize it's helped them, but he definitely won't do it if congress doesn't expand in 2010. Besides any of this the bill was set for a 2 year period. When these construction workers get to work they need food and clothing that helps the economy too. The ones deserving of punishment are Republicans not Democrats for not working with the country in a time of crisis, for stopping vital key positons getting to posts to get stimulus money out, please plet's be real folks. I don't figure how we want to repeat 1994 and expect a better result ??? All those ripple effect actions gave us GW* what will it give us next time? We are ridiculously hard on Democrats when they are dealing with coprotist mindset that Republicans cultivated over many years, they have to balance that out and show government is not the problem.

[CTLawGuy]

80. for one

the senate could pass a public option separately through reconciliation, which is much easier to do for that alone rather than for a giant health care bill. If we pass at least a basic framework, it becomes easier to tweak it to get more and more of what we want. If we pass nothing, I guarantee we won't take it up again for at least another 15 years. Get it passed, put pro-PO Dems in office and make the bill better.


I suggest you read the history of social security. Would you have demanded FDR veto the original social security bill because

(1) it did not apply to workers in certain fields like "agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers."
(2) nearly half the working population was not covered
(3) it systematically disadvantaged and excluded women and minorities, as the NAACP said at the time?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Act#Controversy

Thankfully social security passed and it was amended MANY times since the 1930's to make it into the effective program it is today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Act#Expansion_and_evolution

I suggest you read about it.

[last1standing]

81. Why regurgitate talking points that have already been proved false?

As I said before, reconciliation has been taken off the table for health care. Completely. It is a dead issue.

And comparing this to social security is facetious at best. SS had proponents who wanted to improve it and a senate that didn't filibuster every single piece of legislation that came up. Also, when was the last time SS was amended? That wouldn't be 27 years ago in 1983, would it? Why yes it would and that was to enact taxes on higher income households while increasing retirement age. So are you telling me that its fine to suffer through this travesty for 27 years in the hopes that eventually congress fixes it?

Perhaps you should do the reading.

[CTLawGuy]

88. if you asked many senators

i.e. Tom Harkin, Bernie Sanders, etc. they would say they want to improve the bill. There is a lot of room to improve the bill--if you ask almost ANY dem senator, they would agree with that. over 50 wanted the PO, for example.

And so what if SS hasn't been amended in 27 years? What relevance does that have? It was amended many times since enactment to improve it. You can't deny that, no matter how much it torpedoes your argument that nothing ever gets improved. And it doesn't follow that, because the last amendment to SS was 27 years ago, HCR won't be amended for 27 years. That makes no sense.

Reconciliation has been taken off the table for THIS particular bill. All bets are off for future changes to health care.

If you really want to do nothing about health care for another 27 years, kill this bill...

[last1standing]

94. You're using a false analogy. That was the point.

And yes, I'd rather do nothing about health care than to pass this bill that forces us to pay monopolies for a service that will harm the working classes. SS was a helpful service from the beginning that didn't go far enough. This is a harmful bill that goes too far.

These talking points keep changing and changing yet you guys still haven't found one that works. It's like a flashback to GWB's WMDs.

[CTLawGuy]

95. my positiion has always been the same

pass what we can and make it better. What is possible to PASS might have changed, but we were not going to get a perfect bill no matter what.

The problem is your points don't make sense.

-Health insurance harms the working class? I was unaware of this. Maybe I will have to get rid of my plan... I'm no fan of mandates, but in both bills there are at least subsidies and hardship exemptions to help the people who can't afford insurance.

-The monopoly is what exists in many states WITHOUT the bill to give people access to an exchange. And the exchange would most decidedly NOT be a monopoly as it would offer different plans to compete against each other, including a non-profit plan under the senate version--PO under the house version.

[last1standing]

98. Yes, health care harms the working class when they still can't afford to use it.

Many states will be offering little more than catastrophic health insurance because their states will allow this. Because of that, many working poor will be receiving checks (paid for by other working class people) to send to monopolies who then provide 'insurance' that covers little in the way of preventative treatment. If a doctor visit costs $150.00 and the insurance company pays half of that, it still leaves a $75.00 co-pay. Many will still not be able to see a physician except in the emergency room where the co-pay will be even higher leading to continued bankruptcies, continued write-offs and continued taxation of the working classes to pay for this. So now we get hit twice for services that still will never be used. Brilliant!

[CTLawGuy]

100. that would still be better than having no insurance

if we need to tweak the benefits, we will have ample opportunity to do so. Again, not sure where you get this "monopoly" idea from. The exchange involves multiple competing plans, including, even in the senate plan, a non-profit option.

[CTLawGuy]

89. btw

should FDR have vetoed the SS act as presented to him in 1935 . . . with all the drawbacks I outlined?

[last1standing]

93. Did the original SS force people to pay money to monopolies?

Did the original SS create a tax on the middle class to pay for a product the recipients couldn't afford to utilize?

In other words your analogy is very weak. There is a massive difference between a bill that doesn't go far enough to help the working classes and one that goes too far in harming them.

[CTLawGuy]

96. it taxed working people

to pay old people.

[last1standing]

97. It taxed working people who then received the benefits. You know this.

Stop pretending that those taxed by SS don't get benefits from it, unlike this insurance care plan. There's just no comparison, just the shifting lies of an administration that's proving to be just as ethically challenged as the last one.

And the shills who have invaded DU with these lies and propaganda points just reinforce that image.

[CTLawGuy]

99. this bill gives people access to insurance

through an exchange with competing plans. Don't try to claim that getting people coverage is not a benefit. Isn't that what we wanted, or was it to punish and/or destroy the insurance companies?

With SS, I'm sure many workers were uncomfortable with the idea of being taxed to pay the current old people (who were NOT asked to pay into the system BTW) and then getting "benefits" only when they got old. When they got old, SS could have been repealed, royally screwing them over. Yes it worked out in the end, but I would NOT be surprised if a significant number of workers criticized SS on that ground.

Bottom line, SS at the beginning was a tax on working people to pay a windfall to old people.

[last1standing]

102. Iit doesn't matter how often you try to link this with social security, it's just not working.

It doesn't match up in the slightest. Not one little bit. You can try to stretch it into the mold but its just propaganda spit out by e-blast and regurgitated word for word at forums like DU. It's all over the place and not one person can really make the claim work. You certainly haven't.

As for competing plans, everyone knows that's bullshit. The real effect in many states will be to allow insurance companies to provide no real coverage to those without the funds to pay excessive co-pays. That's not health care, it's insurance care.

[CTLawGuy]

103. fine

believe what you want to believe. I'm done trying to reason with you. My use of SS was to give an example of how something that wasn't so great to begin with (The NAACP criticized the original SS as discriminatory against blacks) was made much better over time.

[last1standing]

104. Propaganda isn't reason, it's just regurgitated talking points.

I've read this social security comparison all over the net and yet no one can claim there are any real similarities. It just doesn't work and I'm tired of reading the same responses that have been proved false over and over again. I'm also tired of this administration pushing new talking points every time the previous one is debunked. It's the same propaganda bullshit that bush* used and I voted for better than that.

[Nikki Stone1]

91. They can't: the leverage will be gone.

All it can get is worse as insurance companies demand more and more, like they are doing in Maine.

[TheKentuckian]

92. They aren't and they won't be improving squat before another effort would HAVE to be tried

because the path we are on is completely unsustainable. As premiums double again over the next several years and the system implodes under the weight of its own avarice the population will simply not allow it because they won't be able to bare it.

Killing this nonsense just by the pure gravity of the situation puts us closer to real reform and its not even close. There will be no talk of doing crap with this mess for seven years between going live and some time to let it shake out. In seven years big insurance will have a foot in the grave.

Probably if I had insurance I'd have a harder time saying to axe this thing but since I'm on the dungheap myself, I think I can say with clear conscience to kill this corporatist abomination rather than to further entrench and enrich some of the worst monsters in this fucked zoo while doing almost nothing to get at the root issues.

Passing this piece of pigshit is forging our own chains in exchange for a lie to browbeat poor people with. The sick, poor, and underinsured will now be utterly ignored as the penalty for not taking advantage of their mandated and partially subsidized bootstraps.

If the Republicans were trying to shove this garbage down our throats nary a soul would be dumb enough to fall for it and would pause to think of the system the bill will create and make some basic projections on some of the easier to see ramifications and would fight to the death to avoid this horrible yoke but some will go like lambs to the slaughter because they see a (D) next to the names no matter how many lies and obvious sell outs they do along the path.

How can any sane person willfully subject themselves, their children, and their countrymen to a mandated predatory cartel that uses the IRS as muscle? State exchanges? Pinning our hopes on regulation to get even the most basic relief from the most hideous practices but leave the criminals an anti-trust exemption and no enforcement system other than the ones they punk and roll right now? Instituting a tax that will inevitably lead to widespread benefit reduction in just a few years? Doing nothing about affordability and in fact promoting cost shifting to consumers already stretched past their limits? A plan that would leave millions as insurance slaves to their employers obligated to pay for whatever slop they are served?

There is nothing to build off of here and nothing to expand, we are getting fucking rolled like old drunks. How in Gods name do some cheerlead for serfdom to some of the most toxic fucks that breathe? The House bill was the little starter home, a compromised and weak piece of legislation that had basic structures that could be expanded on and funded in a much fairer way. The House bill is the fucking half a loaf, something we could make a real case that not passing it would be letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

This piece of shit over time probably will make our overall situation worse while burning our one shot moneywise. This Senate bill is not something that can be patched up by adding a public option sometime down the line because it is designed to be a Pottersville aka a ghetto built to prey on the poor and working folks.

You'd have to be suicidal to accept, much less encourage any bill with an anti-trust exemption, small state risk pools, and nothing to address affordablity just as something to base some small hopes on much less any real assurance. The House bill minus Stupak and the public option should be the final compromise, if they can't pass that then there is little chance the situation can be workable enough to help people and over time more and more and we'll have to fight this another day with a better hand even if it holds less Democrats but with a public than not only wants real reform but won't put up with less.

[johan helge]

101. Improving the bill

will be difficult, because of Lieberman etc., and e.g. because of liberals who won't support the Dems because of Lieberman etc.


But the bill, as it is, is much better than no bill, it's "the biggest piece of progressive legislation since Medicare" (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/obama-get-me-rewrite/).

[CTLawGuy]

105. dont'cha know that Krugman

is under the "progressive" bus now?

[johan helge]

106. You mean

that many progressives disagree with him?

I'm sure they do. But, of course, many progressives agree with him.


Krugman (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/opinion/18krugman.html):

A message to progressives: By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy. Declare that you’re disappointed in and/or disgusted with President Obama. Demand a change in Senate rules that, combined with the Republican strategy of total obstructionism, are in the process of making America ungovernable.

But meanwhile, pass the health care bill.

(..)

The result would be a huge increase in the availability and affordability of health insurance, with more than 30 million Americans gaining coverage, and premiums for lower-income and lower-middle-income Americans falling dramatically.

(..)

Bear in mind also the lessons of history: social insurance programs tend to start out highly imperfect and incomplete, but get better and more comprehensive as the years go by. Thus Social Security originally had huge gaps in coverage — and a majority of African-Americans, in particular, fell through those gaps. But it was improved over time, and it’s now the bedrock of retirement stability for the vast majority of Americans.

(..)

Whereas flawed social insurance programs have tended to get better over time, the story of health reform suggests that rejecting an imperfect deal in the hope of eventually getting something better is a recipe for getting nothing at all. Not to put too fine a point on it, America would be in much better shape today if Democrats had cut a deal on health care with Richard Nixon, or if Bill Clinton had cut a deal with moderate Republicans back when they still existed.

[TheKentuckian]

107. A plan that will degrade a bad situation won't need to be improved or expanded but rather replaced

This isn't about gaps or limited qualifiers and everyone should just fess up to it rather than spinning the same little bullshit.

There is nothing to build off of or improve. Nearly the whole thing is just as much a mess as what we have now because it is based off of what we have now. Good programs have good foundations that can be added to and benefits expanded and if people would even try to be objective they would know we failed on this one.

The House bill is a starter that can be built on, even minus a public option. The Senate bill is almost as if someone wanted to make a mockery of the idea of reform rather than being trusted to shape it.

[last1standing]

108. No, we still like him, we just don't agree this time.

It's sort of like how he fell under the Obama bus for supporting Hillary in the primaries. You guys weren't to fond of him then, were you? I remember all the posts calling him a hack economist for pointing out that Obama's proposed health care plan was weak. Now that Obama has dumped just about every promise he made on the campaign trail (he didn't even fight for most of them) you're standing up for the same Krugman who you said was full of shit a year ago.

That's some high velocity spin there.

[CTLawGuy]

109. he dumped just about every promise?

I'd like to see you back that statement up.

[secondwind]

110. amendments and revisions will come slowly, thru the years, but we need to ram

this sucker down their throats NOW! We will never have a chance like this again....