I am unhappy with this "reform" based on pragmatism --not " ideological purity"

[Armstead]

My basic disagreement with this version of "reform" from the beginning has been that it is wrong to have mandates that rely on forcing people to become CUSTOMERS OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS....It is especially wrong if those private corporations are not regulated forcefully (like we used to do with public utilities, before the "deregulate and privatize" con game of the 80s and 90s and 00s that was aided and abetted by both the Republicans and Centrist Democrats.)

This is not based on "ideologial purity." It is pragmatic for a very simple reason. You give these insurers an inch and they are going to take a mile. We've seen that pattern of kowtowing to corporate oligarchs over the public interest in many realms over the last 30 years -- That has been a major cause for the collapsing of the economy, pushing down our standard of living and preventing our ability to solve many other issues.

If there is to be a mandate for coverage it should have been based on a PUBLIC SINGLE PAYER NOT FOR PROFIT PROGRAM (like Social Security) with payments based on income.

IF THAT IS NOT POLITICALLY POSSIBLE the ONLY compromise that makes sense for mandates is offering a REAL public option as a universal backup alternative to private insurance. A public option that operates in a straightforward way that ANYONE WHO WANTS IT can choose it rather than private insurance.

Instead the Democrats have been bending over backwards to placate private insurers and right-wingers who will never support true reform.

AND HERE IS MY RESPONSE TO THE 'REALISTS.' If you say we have to only go for crumbs, then we should have seperated mandates from the reforms that are less controversial. Do other real reforms now and go for a real single payer and/or public option as step 2.

In other words, start by regulating rates and behavior of private insurers. REGULATE RATES AND ACCESS AND THE TERMS OF BASIC COVERAGE so that, under the private system, insurance would at least be affordable and more widely available...It's true that would still not be palatable to insurance companies and to right wingnuts. But among the sacred moderates that would be very popular.

DON'T GIVE US THE WORST OF WORLDS BY FORCING PEOPLE TO BUY INSURANCE WITHOUT A STRONG PUBLIC BACK-UP OF EITHER SINGLE PAYER, A REAL PUBLIC OPTION FOR EVERYONE OR -- AT LEAST -- REGULATION OF INSURANCE LIKE A PUBLIC UTILITY.

P.S. I'm not even going there on the question of why Democratic leadership agreed to gut women's choice while telling progressives to suck it up.

[still_one]

1. and this bill is still a long way from becoming law, and I have no doubt that it will

change when it gets to the Senate

[Ineeda]

2. Right, and I for one, will keep the pressure on. n/t

[Vincardog]

3. IT will change when it gets to the Senate. It will get worse.

[still_one]

4. Will it be worse than what we have today? Will it be worse than the republican bill presented?

I doubt that. I think it will at least retain pre-existing conditions

[Armstead]

5. That's the trade off for mandates without universal coverage

[Vincardog]

10. Sure they will cover pre-existing conditions and the premium will be $10,000/mo more than you make

[Armstead]

6. Kick bewcause if I see that goodam word "purity" one more time today, I'll

...hold my breath til I turn blue.

:wow:

[brentspeak]

7. The insurance shills are using the word "purity" simply as a strawman

If anything, a universal public option without the individual mandate is the true pragmatic way to go. And, of course, a single-payer system would be the most pragmatic.

[FrenchieCat]

8. purity.

[Armstead]

9. Okay then.....

:crazy:

:wtf:

:boring:

:wow:
:woohoo:

:yoiks: