OK, for the HCR bill-killers:

[damonm]

No one has as yet answered this question.

But to be fair, it's usually been posted mid-thread somewhere. So I put it here in an OP:

Name ONE time in US history where a bill has made it this far, been pulled back by its proponents, and then sucessfully passed as a stronger version of itself. Bonus points if it did so in the face of a MORE hostile Congress.

Do this, and I'll join you.

Until then, I say pass what we got now and fix the bugs later.

[IndianaGreen]

1. Pass this crap and you won't be able to fix it later, ever!

The blue dogs are against reconciliation. Blue dogs support the health insurance bail out bill that the Senate voted on.

Blame Evan Bayh and his ilk!

And blame Ben Nelson for poisoning the well.

[damonm]

4. Nice try - thanks for playing.

And the question remains unanswered.

[Hello_Kitty]

21. Because we reject the entire premise upon which your question is based.

It's a false dilemma. It's akin to the "We either fight them here or we fight them over there!" canard we heard from the Bushies.

[damonm]

34. Utter whiff on the point.

There's no premise to reject. I'm asking for a historical precedent for killing this bill where it sits and coming back with something better. If you can show me one such, you've sold me - kill it.
You can't - you've shown this.

[dionysus]

65. no shit. they're like "WE CAN TOO MAKE THOSE BLUE DOGS VOTE FOR SINGLE PAYER!"

:rofl:

[jenmito]

5. Not true...

we won't NEED the conservadems to fix SOME of it through the reconciliation "patch."

[johnaries]

9. And if we don't pass it, when will it get "fixed"? We've been trying

for 60 years to get single-payer, including the most recent HR 676. Should we wait another 60 years?

[deaniac83]

20. It doesn't matter if Bluedogs are against reconciliation

It doesn't even matter if conserva-Dems in the Senate are against it. That's why it's called reconciliation. It can pass with a majority vote.

That said, however, they can still slow things down - and we should not wait till they get something to everyone's liking through reconciliation to pass the Senate bill in the House. We should work for a reconciliation bill, but no holing the Senate bill hostage.

We must pass it. Here's why:

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2010/02/its-this-bill-or-everybody-dies.html

[brooklynite]

60. I know a Blue Dog who voted for the House HCR bill and is taking the heat for it...

...but don't let me ruin your stereotypes.

[JI7]

84. why don't you get people in Indiana to support something and someone more liberal ?

[thunder rising]

2. The thing is they are not going to pass it. They don't want to pass anything for HCR.

The Congress has reached it's goal of procrastination until a real excuse shows up.

[DJ13]

Fix NAFTA to show it can be done, then we'll talk

[damonm]

7. Nice dodge. Not buying - and you STILL haven't answered the question.

[IndianaGreen]

10. We were told the same lies about fixing NAFTA later, and PATRIOT

Congress has a dismal track record when it comes to fixing things on behalf of working people.

[DJ13]

12. Not a dodge, just pointing out bad bills never get fixed once passed

Oh sure the liars in Congress will tell you what you want to hear, but they just want to get this bloated piece of insurance welfare passed, they dont care about following up later to fix anything.

[Dr.Phool]

86. One thing I can remember in my fairly long life.

Once a bad bill goes on the books, it's never fixed, and never gets repealed.

The last one I can think of was Prohibition.

[johnaries]

3. K&R, because I'd like to hear that answer, too.

[BeatleBoot]

8. No takers.

Fools.

[tazkcmo]

17. I'm rubber

you're glue. What ever you call me bounces off and sticks to you.

[BeatleBoot]

30. I'm sorry.

That your rubber.

[Armstead]

6. Well, first of all, trying to improve or fix something is not the same as "killing"

Second of all, if it is pulled back and changed, maybe a "stronger" bill is not the best answer.

It is possible, if incremental change is considered better than the real answer (a strong form of public coverage), then a more narrowly focused bill -- that is aimed at fixing specific problems -- might be a better start.

As it is, the bill further embeds private insurance as the only choice. Even with some of the "reforms" it gives more power to insurers ultimately.

better (in my opinion) to start by curbing their excesses and abuses, and providing assistance to those who can't afford it, than a bill that has so many facets that will reinforce systemic problems.

[johnaries]

23. Not agreeing or disagreeing, but can I ask for some more specifics?

What are some of the things you would like to keep in the current version, and what would you definitely want to remove?

Personally, I definitely want to keep the subsidies, the band on "pre-existing conditions", no increases once you get sick and the caps on out-of-pocket at the very least. Expansion of Medicaid and increased funding for community services could be taken out and put through reconcilliation. As well as the incentives to lower Health Care costs directly and to increase Health Care education.

I also think the mandate is a good thing and the primary reason I supported Edwards' version over Obama's. I know a lot of people want to see the mandate stripped out, but if we do that all of the above would have to come out, too.

What are your suggestions?

[Armstead]

38. No mandates, first of all

I would agree with many of the things you mentioned. Here's where I differ.

First, let me explain what I believe the goal should be.

1)To have a public "social insurance" coverage system with pahyment based on income. Ideally, it ought to be a universal form of Medicare. But realistically, if the country is not ready to join the rest of the civilized world, at least offer that as an affordable option to everyone.

2)If we are going to continue to have private insurance, have very strict regulation of insurance companies. Treat them like we used to treat public utilities, where they had to abide by very strict guidelines, and had to justify any proposed rate increase.

In my opinion (and I live in Massachusetts) a mandate without the option of a public plan is a recipe for disaster. First of all, it throws too many people to the wolves. Many of them are the same ones who now struggle because they make too much money for Medicaid but can't afford the extortion that private insurers require.

Mandates for private insurance will also poison the well of public opinion for any future efforts to institute public insurance. It will cause people to consider any future reforms as an intrusion on their freedom and pocketbook by "big government." And they would be correct.

So leave the damn mandates out for now. "How could things like no denial of preexisting conditions be done?" you might ask. The question itself shows the danger of this bill. It assumes that the only form of economics that can be applied to healthcare are the logic of "free markets."

There are other alternatives. One idea might be to allow anyone who is not able to ob tain coverage because of a condition or their age to automatically be qualified to buy into Medicare.

Another problem with the present bill is a lack of real regulation. It's all indirect "market forces" and "competition." How about instead, as I noted above, some real regulation of rates?

Those are some of the systemic problems I referred to in my previous post. That why I believe that if a bill that truly gets to the heart of the problems is not "politically feasible" at this time, then let's address the most pressing core problems in a more focused way now, and continue to work on an ongoing process of developing political support for more meaningful reforms in stages.

[johnaries]

47. Except for the mandate, I agree with you. and almost everything

you suggest IS in this bill. Well, everything except the PO, although it does include a provision for non-profit co-opts. However, if we can get the framework for the exchange passed, we can add the PO through reconciiation. Frankly, I agree with the House version more and the current "tone" in the House - "we'll pass this now if you agree to a reconcilitation vote later". And that includes revisions to the so-called "Cadillac tax". Frankly, I like the House version of that, as well.

But the Senate bill does have strict restrictions on profits by requiring a MLR of 80-85%. Further, in the Senate bill premium increases for the exchange must be reviewed and approved by both the State and the DHS.

So, in essence, the only thing you disagree with is the mandate. I would be willing to compromise on that, although I don't think you can get any kind of "universal" coverage without one. Further, if we don't get everyone paying in, then it will hurt both the private and public sector. Especially when the rest of us have to pay for those without insurance when they need care.

Fair enough?

[Armstead]

52. I'd like to see more direct regulation and control of insurers

My basic problem with the b ill is that there is too little direct control over the behavioer of insurers. It is too market oriented....In my opinion, regardless of how people feel about public insurance, a majority would support clamping down on the abuse and extortion that insurers currently inflict on everyone. (And it should be assumed that the "keep government out" conservatives will not support any sort of reform.)

In my opinion, the formula for MLR and profitability is too indirect and too much subjected to gaming by the insurance companies. And the exchanges are too much based on "market forces." The insurers can just say "to hell with being part of the exchange" if they decide the conditions are too strict.

If this were up to me, there should be a body that sets and/or approves rates and terms, and enforces it...It could be fair to the insurance companies if necessary, but its guiding principle would be affordability.

I also believe they should have adopted something I think Hillarty proposed last year, which was a requirement that all insurance companies offer a very basic low cost universal plan, in addition to their own plans.

[johnaries]

90. I doubt any more direct regulation would have any more chance

of passing than a single-payer. In which case - let's go for single-payer! But I agree it would be nice if they could at least float a trial balloon just to see.

As far as Hillary's proposal, the bill does include options for low cost "catastrophic coverage" - what used to be called "major medical", for younger participants that would fulfill the mandate requirements.

[jenmito]

46. Then the OP doesn't apply to you since there ARE posters here who want to kill the bill. n/t

[DatManFromNawlins]

11. First, show me one time where a horribly flawed bill benefitting big business

was ever fixed to benefit the common man.

[tazkcmo]

19. No takers.

But I won't call any one a fool.

[johnaries]

28. Have you even read the bill? I'd say NO, by that flawed "assessment". nt

[mdmc]

13. I admit I cannot think of any other bill that went this far, got killed, then improved

[gorfle]

14. That's no excuse to rush crap through Congress.

Name ONE time in US history where a bill has made it this far, been pulled back by its proponents, and then sucessfully passed as a stronger version of itself. Bonus points if it did so in the face of a MORE hostile Congress.

Just because it has never been done before does not mean we should settle for shit with this bill.

I am not interested in any bill that does not include a public option that competes directly with private health insurance.

Anything else simply hands money to private insurance companies with no incentive to cut costs.

We need to work on getting the PROFIT out of the health insurance system.

[frazzled]

39. RUSH it through Congress? You're sound just like Mitch McConnell!

It might behoove you to remember that an entire YEAR was spent on this piece of legislation, sucking absolutely everything else out of the air like a giant vacuum cleaner. Let's not even mention the SIXTY YEARS that were spent talking about and trying, every fifteen years or so, to pass something on health care. And each time it got weaker. Not stronger, but vastly weaker.

If this bill does not pass now, it's over. No legislator in their right mind will expend any more of their political capital on it. It's dead. Kaput. Someone isn't going to try to reintroduce something better next July. (Well, they might, but no one will touch it with a ten-foot-pole).

There are certain political realities. And this is one of them: it's not that there just won't be a better bill ... there will be no bill whatsoever. It will be over.

And the Republicans will then bring you their next big idea (read about it today): privatizing Medicare.

[gorfle]

53. 1 year, 10 years, it still sucks.

It might behoove you to remember that an entire YEAR was spent on this piece of legislation, sucking absolutely everything else out of the air like a giant vacuum cleaner.

And in spite of this massive effort, it still sucks balls!

And why does it suck balls?

Because for the past year congress has been completely befuddled on how to sell the American people that they did something to benefit their health care while hiding the fact that they are completely balls-deep with the insurance industry's cock in their mouths.

If this bill does not pass now, it's over. No legislator in their right mind will expend any more of their political capital on it.

Unless, shocking concept I know, we vote the people out who were too busy gargling on insurance corporation cock to get out a decent health care bill.

The voters need to send a message about what they want. What they want is health care reform that stops rising health care costs and insures the uninsured.

[frazzled]

70. What sucks worse is the totally unregulated, unfair, and out-of-control system we've got now

Yes, Virginia, something really is better than nothing.

[tazkcmo]

15. Bonus points? Oh boy! n/t

[Oregone]

16. Pass it. Well fix it right after fixing NAFTA to work for us

[deaniac83]

25. NAFTA?

NAFTA passed under the President's fast track trade authority. Congress had to vote it up or down. There was never an option to "fix it later" in Congress. It'd have to have another trade agreement.

[Oregone]

31. There is always an option to fix it later (as some promised). Even Obama promised to do so

(before getting caught in that nasty lie)

[Hello_Kitty]

18. You need to explain how the bill will be fixed later.

You need to walk critics of the bill (not all of whom want it to be killed entirely BTW) through how the Senate bill, which is apparently the best thing we can get with Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress and a Democratic President is going to be improved later. Bonus points if it can be done in the face of a MORE hostile Congress.

YOU like the bill, YOU defend it and sell it.

[Armstead]

22. I notice the silence as answers start pouring in -- Maybe it was...

just a rhetorical question.

[damonm]

29. You notice silence...

As I await an answer. None yet. Lots of dodges, but no answer to the basic question.
I notice YOU didn't answer it, either.

[Hello_Kitty]

37. And you made an assertion in your OP that you are dodging.

How will the bill be fixed later if it's the best we can get now?

[damonm]

76. No such assertion exists. Please reread the OP.

[Armstead]

40. The answer to your specific question is "I don't know. " The second answer is....

that as has been noted, there are numerous instances where bad poliicies have been passed and we get stuck with them.

This "bill" is not like the early stages of Social Security. It's more like NAFTA where something bad is pushed through with promises of subsequent improvement, but then we find that improvement or removal becomes almost impossible as the bad policies get embedded into our system.

[damonm]

26. Still no answer. Fine. n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

35. It's a bullshit question. Now defend your assertion that the bill will be fixed later.

I'll wait.

[damonm]

77. See #76.

[johnaries]

27. Actually, there are multitudes of articles across the internet about

how to do just that.

And you still haven't explained how killing the bill is a better idea.

[Hello_Kitty]

36. So why can't those "fixes" be part of the Senate bill?

Since it's the absolute best thing we can get right now? What is going to change in the future to make fixes possible? Please explain and "there are articles out there" isn't sufficient. You like the bill and you want it to pass the way it is. I'd like your explanation for the assertion that it will be fixed later.

[johnaries]

45. Here ya go.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GWYA_enUS318US318&q=house+health+care+reconciliation

[Hello_Kitty]

51. So why hasn't the House passed the Senate version then?

Maybe the reluctant House Democrats don't have as much faith that problems will be resolved in reconciliation as you and others do?

[johnaries]

91. It's making progress, but they haven't gotten the "guarantees"

from the Senate as yet. Or at least that was the last I heard. That is what some of us are pushing for - pass the Senate bill in the House and then use reconciliation in the Senate to make it more like the House bill since we don't need the votes of Lieberman or Nelson. Some of the other Blue Dogs may be a problem, but it should be much easier to bring enough around to get 51 votes for reconciliation than it was to get the 60 to avoid filibuster.

[deaniac83]

24. There's no answer to that

because of course, it has never happened. The bill-killers simply want to turn this into an ideological battle and use scorched earth policy to try to kill it if they don't get their way.

[johnaries]

32. DING!DING!DING! We have a winner!

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Hello_Kitty]

33. Of course there's no answer. It's a nonsense question.

And the OP makes an assertion that she, and you, need to defend. How will the Senate bill be "fixed later" if it's the best thing we can get from a Democratic Congress and President now? Realistically, I mean, not under some pie-in-the-sky fantasy where progressives win sweeping majorities in Congress. Walk us through it, deaniac83.

[Armstead]

41. No the "bill killers" gave immense ground in compromise at the beginning and then got knifed

The only scorched-earth ideological killing that went on was when any form of public coverage was taken out of consideration at the beginning.

The "bill killers" (a stupid phrase) tried to support this shit even as the compromise of a public option got weaker and weaker.

The real "scorched earth" was when even the tame little remains of a public coverage was killed by the Blue Dogs with the help of Obama and the Congressional leadership.

[GinaMaria]

48. That's a horrible thing to say

about people who have been fighting for real health care reform for years. No one wants a scorched earth policy because they are not getting their way. That's an easy way for you to minimize and dismiss people who see things differently than you.

The senate bill is a bailout to the Insurance industry, and their plans are already in motion. They now have a monopoly with no real competition. Their goal is to keep as much money as possible. The result will be less health care not better health care. There will be a hell of a lot of interference between patients and doctors in the future. There won't be much that 'affordable' plans will cover, unless they have high deductibles and co-pays. What good is it to have insurance if you can't afford to use it? They will bend the cost curve by breaking our backs. The one thing that would have balanced this bill was a public option. People would have a real choice and insurers would have to compete.

The one thing the current dem leadership will never deliver is a PO. It messes up Rahm's plan for medicare. Once people are mandated to have health insurance, many will have to buy individual plans (the biggest profit margin for the insurance companies). Once that is in place, an end date for Medicare will be decided. Those retiring after the end date will have to pay for their own insurance... no more medicare. It's a right wing wet dream. It's not about getting more later or improving it later, it's about dismantling the little PO that exists today, Medicare. Our elected officials can do so much better. We can do so much better too, in terms of who we elect. These are our employees. If I performed like this on the job, I would be fired. I plan to do some firing in the next election. That's not scorched earth. That's democracy. It's about actually being represented in our government, not sold out for big profit insurance companies.

There is some reform in this bill, but at what price? Was it really necessary to pay this high of a price for what we are getting? Again, I think we can do better.

Realistically, this is a done deal. The senate bill will pass in some form or another, pretty much in tact. There's nothing any of us, can do about it. It's been clear for a long time, we are not listened to. The right wing CONservadems will win. You have nothing to fear and do not need to bash people who have different views than you. Many of us wanted more for our families, friends and communities. We certainly deserve better.

[deaniac83]

58. I don't know anyone

who has been "fighting for years for real health care reform" (just putting up bills don't count if you are not willing to actually engage in the legislative process of advancing the ball - ala Kucinich's co-sponsorship of HR 676 but refusal to vote for the House bill with a public option) that now want to kill the Senate bill if they don't get their way.

No, the Senate bill isn't a bailout for the insurance industry, the status quo is.

[GinaMaria]

68. keep telling yourself that

The bill aligns with Insurance Companies strategies. Everything they want is in that bill. That's to be expected of course, since they wrote the bill. Not surprising that you don't know anyone who has been fighting for years for real health care reform, but it doesn't sound like it would have an impact on you any way. Why get bent out of shape that there are people who do not like this bill? They can't do anything about it. It will be forced on the country. The dems can't turn back now. They owe the insurance lobby. You will get your beloved bill. Why so nasty? You're winning. You and insurance companies' senior execs will get everything you want.

[damonm]

81. "everything they want is in that bill"?

Reuters seems to disagree with that assessment:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BK0KA20091221 - emphasis added -

Q: Are there protections for consumers?

A: Yes. Insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage to anyone because of a pre-existing condition. They also will not be able to charge higher premiums because of gender, health history or occupation. Insurers also will be prohibited from dropping people when they get sick.

There will be no more lifetime limits on coverage and annual limits will be restricted. Insurers also will be required to cover preventive healthcare services. Co-payments and other out of pocket expenses for beneficiaries also will be limited.

Q: What do insurance companies and hospitals get?

A: Insurance companies will get 31 million more customers, many of them subsidized by the federal government. However, in addition to new coverage regulations, insurers will be required to spend a minimum of 85 cents of every premium dollar on medical care for large group plans and 80 cents on every premium dollar for individual and small group plans.

[deaniac83]

82. You're right, but

You see, a lot of people already made up their mind, and if they admit there are good things in the Senate bill at all, they'd be admitting they're wrong. Whoa, there! People can't admit they're wrong! Heels are dug in already.

[GinaMaria]

87. Insiders don't agree with Reuters

What the insurance companies 'gave up' vs. what they gained is great for their bottom line. They wrote it that way. CEOs are giddy and are confident they can go on with their strategies because their bill will be delivered. Do you really think that if you get one of these new plans with the very high deductible, co-pays and out of pocket cost (So expensive you can't afford to use it), that the insurance company will give you 80% of your money back? In the current system, insurance companies claim to spend approx. .83 cents of every dollar on health care. They've experienced tremendous profits from that 17% plus what they keep in unused policy funds. They've now been handed customers, some of them subsidized with our tax dollars and some in groups they've been trying to get their hands on for a long time (20-somethings). They also see an increase in individual plans, their biggest profit margin. They would not agree to anything that did not benefit them. They wrote the bill for craps sake. They've been awfully quiet since the senate bill was written. No more astroturf alerts asking those that carry their insurance to call or write congress on their behalf. No more pressure on their employees to do the same. The silence speaks volumes.

[damonm]

95. Define "insiders" please.

with links. Further, when it comes to crediblity, who does one trust? Your unnamed "insiders", or a world-respected news organization? I know which way I go.

And as to your assertion about "no more astroturf alerts" - my dad calls bullshit, as he's gotten 5 in the past week.

And you BELIEVE insurance companies when they claim to spend 83% of every dollar on healthcare?

OK, I'm clear as to how seriously to take this.

[GinaMaria]

98. Dude, you told your dad on me?!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

OMG! Is it time for your nap?

[depakid]

55. Impressive how folks just LOVE to demonstrate their ignorance- then take potshots

using juvenile language.

[mwooldri]

42. I don't know specifically but it took some kind of major disaster to get what we have today.

Took the Great Depression and WWII to get Social Security. Took the death of a President to get Medicare.

I think WWIII conducted on American soil will virtually guarantee healthcare for everyone because everyone will be bombed the heck out the insurance companies won't care anymore, because there won't be any money in it anymore. There may well not be an America left after WWIII.

It took WWII to get national healthcare in Europe. Would it take another World War to get healthcare to America? And would it have to be fought on US soil to achieve this?

Mark.

[GinaMaria]

50. Very interesting thought

It does take a crisis, doesn't it? I would have thought this was crisis enough but I guess not. We apparently haven't hit bottom yet and are still digging.

[Faryn Balyncd]

43. A No-Pub-Opt Mandate is NOT just "not as strong" as Medicare-for-All.....It is the DIRECT OPPOSITE

That's the point...

Once a Corporate-Insurance-Only mandate is the sanctioned paradigm, it's not a matter of "fixing the bugs later."

Private-Insurance-Only, backed up by the force of a government mandate is the POLAR OPPOSITE of Medicare-for-All.

The few crumbs of "benefits" will be illusory &/or transient, but the mandate will be FOREVER.

We compromised, and compromised, and compromised. Foolishly perhaps, I supported for many months the "Public Option" against charges by the Single Payer advocates that only Single Payer was worth fighting for. I argued that a gradualist approach would work, since "every American would have the choice of a public plan."......But now that the last vestiges of a "public option" has been stripped, leaving only a pure 100% mandate for private insurance, we find that what is now being called "reform" has no way to evolve to Medicare-for-All.

The corporatists have turned "reform" into a mandate to buy their unaffordable product.

Only by defeating corporatist pseudo-"reform" can the possibility of real reform be kept alive.




:kick:

[Armstead]

44. Bingo --You hit the nail on the head

[centristgrandpa]

49. mandate trillions to the insurance industry, i think not....n/t

[grahamhgreen]

54. Name one time a black man was elected president! So why even bother trying! Yes We Can!

[grahamhgreen]

56. Why not pass the amendments to fix the bill FIRST? Could you agree with that?

[damonm]

74. If it can, absolutely!

I'm just not that optimistic about that, though.

[grahamhgreen]

92. Apparently, they can pass the bills in any order - the only order that matters is which one our

President signs first.

[depakid]

57. How many examples would you like?

The bankruptcy legislation comes immediately to mind: (notably- this one also put the screws to ordinary Americans- and ironically, to the interests it was meant to protect). It was also backed by tons of "Democrats," including the erstwhile Senate Majority "Leader:"

Check out the legislative history of the so called "Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act"

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

[deaniac83]

59. Huh?

How is that an example of "a bill has made it this far, been pulled back by its proponents, and then sucessfully passed as a stronger version of itself?" I don't get it. It's not as though Congress hasn't been making and amending bankruptcy laws before the most recent act.

[depakid]

62. Certainly WAS pulled back by supporters

and what resulted was arguably "stronger" legislation- and this has happened repeatedly throughout American history, though many here may not be old enough to remember the workings of the 20th Century.

The bottom is that your argument is bogus from the outset.

Significant parts the legislation are fatally flawed, do next to NOTHING to solve the root causes of the health care crisis, unjustly enrich the major sources of the problem (while associating the party with them) create economic incentives that drive everyone into high deductible, high copay junk insurance that many can't afford to use- and according to lead researchers, will have no appreciable effect of the appallingly high rate of medical bankruptcies in America.

Rather than pass this abomination, and suffer the consequences for years to come (which will make it even more difficult to EVER pass responsible reform) the sensible route is to split the legislation into 50+1 provisions- pass those and then use matters like regulating insurance company abuses, etc., as wedge issues in the Senate.

DARE anyone to vote against a Patient's Bill of Rights.

[deaniac83]

63. That's silly

about the bankruptcy legislation - one bill didn't pass one year and another passed another year - on an issue that Congress has been toiling in forever. What they brought back was essentially the same crap. Tomorrow, Congress can pass another fix (and probably will in the near future) to bankruptcy law. It's nowhere even close in magnitude and impact to health care. Health reform has eluded Congress for nearly a century, or in a conservative estimate, 60 years. Comparing the two is just ridiculous.

[Hello_Kitty]

64. No True Scotsman. eom

[depakid]

69. We got health reform in the 1990's

Where do you think HIPAA and Mental Health Parity came from?

Salvaged from Clinton's convoluted disaster.

[deaniac83]

83. There's mental health parity?

Where? I don't think insurance companies are required to cover mental health as part of a basic package at all.

[depakid]

85. Federal Parity (such as it was) sunsetted out in September 2001

and was only reauthorized after some savvy lawmaker had the nerve to attach it as a rider to the TARP legislation in 2008.

Many states go much further with parity mandates- and there has been considerable question about the fate of parity and other coverage mandates in the ongoing health insurance legislation.

[last1standing]

61. "Decribe another situation EXACTLY like this one or else you fail".

There's no point in trying to answer because no two situations are ever identical.

It's nothing but a strawman argument.

Sad.

[dionysus]

66. FAIL. he's actually saying "Decribe another situation ANYTHING like this one or else you fail".

[depakid]

72. Which has been done- but apparently he didn't like it., so "it doesn't count." FAIL.

[damonm]

75. It's called "I was offline because I have a life." Your example will be taken into consideration,

as it merits further study.

THANK YOU, sincerely, for putting that out there.

[depakid]

79. Sorry about that- crossed user names

My mistake. (Too much multitasking).

[damonm]

80. No sweat - I hadn't considered the bankruptcy bills,

but will take a closer look.

[last1standing]

89. Why do you purposely type things that aren't true? He did not say "ANYTHING" in his OP.

He listed an extremely specific instance and said 'match it'.

I guess that makes your post the biggest FAIL of them all.

[damonm]

96. Pot, meet kettle.

Neither did I say anything like your characterization.

So for the sake of your reading comprehension:

Name a bill - ANY BILL - that has reached the point HCR has, then was pulled back by its proponents, then reemerged as a stronger version of itself.
Do this, I join the calls for "kill the Bill".

Only ONE person from that contingent had the intellectual integrity to actually answer the question, and I'm studying that now - I may have to eat my words.

[w4rma]

67. This bill fails and we'll pass single-payer, state-by-state. Or they can pass P.O. by reconcilation.

The Senate bill should not pass, though.

[damonm]

78. Question then becomes:

How long will your first selection take? And how many die from want of health insurance in the meantime?

And you have more faith in reconciliation than I.

[niceypoo]

71. Congratulations

This is the most idiotic thread Ive seen in weeks

[PHIMG]

73. Bring S.703 and HR 676 to a vote

Watch Republicans vote it down and then remake the Democratic Party the party of real healthcare reform - Medicare for All. Run against this obstructionism.

Bring Medicare for All to a vote and it will clear the stench of the House and Senate bills and be a paradigm shift.

[dkf]

88. Isn't every bill an iteration of bills that came before it?

No idea is new after all.

I'd say every bill that ever passed had a version before it that failed.

[hayu_lol]

93. Health Care Reform as it stands now is nothing but an...

insurance company boondoggle. What it reforms are the patients, not the current badly-flawed insurance companies and their long history of not providing health care to people who need it.

Fix this flawed vehicle? Two bills come to mind:

Joe Biden's badly-flawed Bankruptcy Bill that comforts the credit card companies and all the miserable financial interests that took our economy to this point and condition.

Republican enforced Medicare Part D...still a dangerous wreck.

NEITHER BILL, AFTER PASSAGE, HAS BEEN ALTERED IN ANY WAY. BOTH BILLS/LAWS ARE FAILED EFFORTS.

For health care reform: A SINGLE-PAYER NATIONAL HEALTH PLAN.

Current farce of health reform should be relegated to the garbage can. 'They' will never take time to fix what they have broken.

[newspeak]

94. I am against this bill without a strong PO

It seems we got repukes and some democrats wanting to privatize the shite out of everything-from education to our military. Once something is privatized, see how much representation the people will be left with. It's called accountability-evidently, some of those "too big too fail" corporations have little or none.

A couple of days ago Tweety had another repuke on jabbering about privatizing SS again. First, we pay into the system for years, then someone like Reagan starts syphoning our money--now they tell us SS is in trouble. Nothing like creating the problem, then coming up with their brilliant solution--NOT.

We get to pour more and more of our money into a greedy for profit enterprise, and we'll be getting no representation for the shite we have to buy. I've worked at SSA--when there's a problem with a claim and the claimant calls their rep--we listened-that claim was "red" flagged as special priority. See what happens when corporations take over services that should remain in the hands of the government.

Pass the positive parts of the bill like closing the donut hole--but forcing people to buy for profit insurance goes against everything I believe in. Don't start on about auto insurance--I CHOSE to drive-driving is a privilege, not a right. My son rode a bike and used transit for years without buying a car or having insurance--you going to penalize him for not buying auto insurance? At the time of mandatory auto insurance, California knew it was wrong-knew they were forcing people to buy from corporations, so they proposed a gas tax to cover everyone (minimally). Then, those with assets could by additional insurance from their insurance agents--but the insurance lobby spent millions to defeat that plan. Now consumers are, especially the working poor, are left at the mercy of insurance companies. They can even up your insurance or deny you because of your financial statement (not if you've had tickets or accidents). And those who can afford it the least, pay more.

[Better Believe It]

97. Medicare for All is not a "stronger" version of the Health Insurance Industry Protection Act

It has nothing in common with the health insurance industry bill.

Nor does an affordable, universal health care proposal with a strong public option have much in common with the Senate bill.

The Senate bill stands as a wall designed to prevent either of the above health care proposals from being achieved.

So what's your point?

Your comment seems unrelated to political reality and actual legislative proposals.