I support the president's HCR proposal

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Why not support it? It's almost certainly better than what we'll get.

Probably a slight political positive. Helps some people.

Yeah, full of defects, large and small, but I'm cool with it.

As always, if one prefers nothing I can understand the argument. But the choice really is this or nothing. Actually, I take that back... the real choice is between a 50-50 chance of this passing in some further watered down form versus nothing.

Assuming that's the only choice before us, I'll take the bill.

(On edit: This is a case where my cynicism realism makes me more enthusiastic. Whether or not we lose the House or Senate we are definitely going to lose a bunch of seats. The next congress will, no matter who has a majority, be more conservative than the current congress. So I would like to see something done with our current historic-but-almost-useless majorities.)

[Jennicut]

1. There is some positive stuff there. I would rather have this then have it further watered down

to absolutely nothing. Even Krugman wants this passed. But any other changes and forget about it.

[Clio the Leo]

2. I like that attitude. NT

[katandmoon]

3. I wonder how high health insurance stock will go today

[frazzled]

4. It strengthens a number of proposals

Summary from Ambinder at Atlantic. I've boldfaced a few things, only because they are fairly new and undiscussed. It's not to say the others aren't good:

It proposes to cover 31 million Americans who don't have health insurance; it creates a new federal facility to help states crack down on insurance industry abuses and unfair rate increases; it includes significantly ramped up efforts to crack down on waste and fraud within the Medicare/Medicaid systems -- this is a nod to Republicans (Peter Roskam and Mark Kirk are behind proposals to do just this); it adds a Medicare tax of 2.9% on unearned income -- hitting the wealthy; it immediately closes the Medicare Part D donut hole gap -- something seniors should notice before the November 2010 elections if this gets through Congress; it increases tax credits to families to help them buy insurance; it spends $11 billion on community health care centers; it endorses but adds consumer protections to the Senate's proposal to grandfather in insurance plans that people want to keep; it adopts the Senate proposal to require that Americans who don't buy insurance pay a flat fee -- but lowers the fee; the bill provides $40 billion to small businesses to help them defray the costs of providing health benefits if taxpayers pay for the coverage; the president delays by five years the Senate's excise tax on so-called Cadillac insurance plans; it increases fees for brand name (as opposed to generic) drugs, depriving the pharmaceutical industry of an extra source of profits; it gets rid of the Nebraska exemption for Medicare payments and adopts a universal, phased-in approach to help states pay for the increased costs of expanding the Medicare program. 100% of the increased costs would be paid for three years; the bill turns the fee on medical equipment providers in the Senate bill into an excise tax and delays its implementation; it also delays by three years the tax on insurance companies. Finally, the bill gives the executive branch $1 billion to help efficiently implement the plan.

[SPedigrees]

6. Thank you for enumerating the important points. Much appreciated! nt

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. I would like to see more regulation of generic drug comparability

I am all for generics but there are enough plausible stories about differences in effect to raise questions about whether people can always be safely shifted to a generic.

The active ingredients are the same but the time-release element--a factor of the pill's design more than the active ingredients--isn't always the same.

For some drugs (like some psychiatric ones) a difference in how fast and for how long can be quite dramatic.

So since we are bound to be pushing generics let's require a higher standard of comparability than we have.

[sandnsea]

5. Should have taken the HELP Bill last June

*sigh* Will anyone learn from that?

[Perky]

7. me too

[freddie mertz]

9. I have given up.

I don't care what they pass anymore.

There will be no real HCR whatever happens.

[Bobbie Jo]

13. Yes, we know. So why do you insist on bringing the rest of us

down with you?

[GreenArrow]

14. "There will be no real HCR whatever happens".

No, there will not. They've never been serious about real health care reform, prefering instead these "have your cake and eat it too" quarter-measures.

[jefferson_dem]

10. Word!

Of course, it's not perfect. At the same time...of course, it's infintely better than granting to teabaggers their great wish -- "keeeel the bill".

[Enrique]

11. is it really a choice between this and nothing?

what about the effort to do the public option via reconciliation? Is that dead?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

16. Nothing is dead... only sleeping

But since Obama isn't proposing a public option it's hard to see where sufficient impetus for such would come from.

???

[dkf]

12. Senators can pass the public option through reconciliation. Obama's bill is inferior to this

[BeyondGeography]

15. Sensible

K&R