Sadly, I believe that Obama will laud any healthcare "reform" bill that emerges

[cali]

and he'll sign it. And what's going to emerge is very unlikely to be meaningful reform and could well be worse than nothing. But Obama knows that not signing healthcare "reform" legislation will seriously weaken his presidency and make it unlikely that he'll be re-elected. So he'll sign whatever appears on his desk.

There won't be a Medicaid option for people 55+ and there won't be a public option. Insurance companies will still have their privileged status re anti-trust laws. The pre-condition requirements will be loopholed to the point of being inconsequential. People will be forced to buy private insurance.

It's sad. It's outrageous. It's disgusting.

[niyad]

1. not exactly the change we were looking for, that is for sure.

[HughMoran]

2. We're all pissed off right now

:mad:

[cali]

5. I'm honestly more sad than angry. Kind of heartsick about it, to tell the truth.

[Echo In Light]

10. From what is seen here, it's been a hard slap of realization for many

[cali]

14. My expectations weren 't high and I've been saying this for several months

but I did have a sliver of hope that something would make this legislation better than not doing it at all. Now I have no hope whatsoever for that happening.

[ananda]

3. Agree.

I've thought from the beginning that this bill will
be worse than nothing.

I mean, look who's writing it... from the back
benches of insurance, big pharma, and those who
do not want to pay for women's healthcare.

[MNDemNY]

8. Yup, worse than nothing.

As it is , it must go down.

[MNDemNY]

4. Yup, any stinkin' thing he can call "reform".

Must be killed before he gets it!(If it can not be made worthy)

[Vincardog]

6. Sad but true

[DURHAM D]

7. He will sign it.

Most people will think he accomplished something as they don't pay close attention.

Life goes on.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

9. I'm sure that there will be other bills in 2010 coming after this

this is not the end of the road

[ThomCat]

13. Political will to tackle an issue again usually comes around again

only after another 10-15 years. We won't see Health care reform come up again seriously until 2020 at the soonest. :(

Any time before then and we'll just get excuses that they did all they could do, nobody has the political capital to do it again, it can't be given time to work, etc.

[niyad]

16. at a rate of 45,000 dead per year from lack of insurance--that is a LOT of dead bodies.

[ThomCat]

19. I agree.

:(

But politicians have an amazing collective ability to ignore large numbers of deaths. Has it ever been any different?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

33. As long as the general public remain apathetic

the only people who seem to take to the streets are the people opposing healthcare for all.

[niyad]

18. and which of those bills will be dealing with this particular issue? 125 people are dying each

day without health insurance-- it is most certainly the "end of the world" for them.

[still_one]

11. If there is a HCR bill, I think you are right. However, baring reconciliation or some other tricks

I do not even think there will be a bill. If they don't have a public option or Medicare buy in option, there are enough progressive Democrats who will NOT vote for it

[pampango]

42. That will be the kicker for me. If progressives don't vote for it and it passes anyway,

it must get a lot of republican support. In that case the bill must stink and he better not sign it.

If, on the other hand, a bill lands on his desk that 95% of progressives vote for (like the House bill that passed) and 99% of repubs vote against, then he had better sign it. I have not interest in doing the repubs' bidding or hanging our progressives out to dry. :)

[Solly Mack]

12. He will..and not just him either.

There will be a special news break where members of Congress speak for several minutes...phrases like history making and ground-breaking will be used. Back patting and self-congratulations all around.

[cali]

15. yep. it'll be a red letter day for

this smilie:

:puke:

[Ozymanithrax]

17. Equally, Republicans and Conservatives will excoriate any Health Care Bill that emerges...

Which allows them to join hands with the liberals who will abominate any health care bill that emerges.

There is a real possibility here for the emergence of a Progressive Tea Bag Party.

Change occurs in our system in incremental steps. Any bill will be better than what we have. Over time, we will make it better.

[enlightenment]

23. "Change occurs in our system in incremental steps."

Really?

Since WHEN? Please provide examples of substantive, positive change, referencing the modern political machine of the past 30 years.

If you look at Medicare (which is what most people haul out as an example of 'incremental' change), you'll notice that virtually no improvement to the plan has been enacted since the mid-70s. Mammography and paps were added in the late 80s - at the same time that catastrophic care and comprehensive prescription coverage were enacted AND repealed. By the 1990s, Medicare 'plus' was in place and private insurance companies had their foot in the door.

I'm an historian. I'm all for citing historical examples . . . but history teaches that in politics, it is important to look at the system the currently exists, not the system that existed in the past.

[Ozymanithrax]

32. The long history of the Civil Rights

Lets take the Civil Rights act of 1964. It has been amended to make it better more than a dozen times, including title IX that provided equal pay and access for women in public schools. But that was a direct decedent of What began with Brown Vs. the Board of Education. But I forgot it took dozens of court cases to and decades to get the SCOTUS to end segregation in schools. Which was only passed more than 80 years after the end of the Civil war and slavery. You can add Loving V. Virginia in there, where it was made illegal to deny people of other different races to marry. Incremental change is the way we do things in this country.

And look at the incremental change in health care. Teddy Roosevelt thought it was a good idea. FDR and Truman tried and failed. Medicaide was created in 1965, through Title XIX of the Social Security Act. (More of that incremental change by ammending a bill.) Medicare was created at the same time, the first real success more than 70 years after the first attempt. That defines incremental change. Medicare was been amended many times to improve it, including the prescription medicine bit. Then we add Schip, originally created by repuglicans so they can fake caring about children, but it was improved by Democrats.

We should fight for the best bill we can get. But we need to recognize that incremental change is the way things happen in our system. We need to bring a little more change and keep moving forward, not join with Republicans in destroying something that isn't perfect.

We may want it all and want it now, but we only get things a little bit at a time. That is the way it is.
Perfection is beyond or means but not beyond our grasp.

[enlightenment]

37. Nice, but you didn't address my question, which was to

discuss the idea of substantive change that has occurred in modern history (in this case, in the past 30 years).

You had to go back quite a ways to find your examples - which are true and valid as far as the concept of incremental change goes . . . but that's not the point.

Can you find examples of positive, substantive change beyond SCHIP, which was not really incremental but delayed? The fundamental aspects of SCHIP were in place at the initial passage, but not acted upon until the Dems were able to push it through. The only real change since passage was the inclusion of coverage for children of legal immigrants. That is a different kettle of fish from passing something that does not contain the fundamentals and hoping that those missing elements will be added in the future.

[KharmaTrain]

20. And If It Fails...

It will be used as a millstone around his neck by right and left. This could stall any other initiatives as so much political capital was spent on healthcare that there's little else for anything else...not a good thing for Cap & Trade, card check or any other hoped-for reforms. It means the batards who want the status quo have won and weakens this administration in how it moves forward in other areas; such as the economy and the war and demoralizes the Democratic party going into the 2010 elections.

Now if you're satisfied with that kind of outcome, then so be it.

[cali]

22. I'm not satisfied by that outcome. Neither am I satisfied by a bad bill.

[KharmaTrain]

25. Thus We Have A Shit Sandwich...

I'm not satisfied in what some of what I see in the bill, but I'd rather ammend a bad bill than try to start all over again with mostly the same cast of players. Walking away with nothing would paralize this administration. It's a shame so many people's lives have become pieces in a byzantine game of politics, but we are where we are. All said, even a "perfect bill" would need revision and it's easier to chip away at bad parts rather than to start from scratch and go through all this kabuki theater again. I'd far prefer to work in getting more Progressive/Liberals elected and onto the relative committees that oversee healthcare and fix it from the inside than the outside.

Cheers...

[chimpymustgo]

28. Obama had a MANDATE for healthcare reform and the goodwill of a huge majority of Americans.

He could have pushed for REAL reform, but d*cked around, playing footsie with Phrama and Rethugs - and now we've got this sh*t sandwich that is LOSE/LOSE for EVERYONE.

Talk about grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory.

[kath]

40. +1!

[mike_c]

43. agreed 100 percent....

eom

[blues90]

21. That about sums it up to reality . nt

[Kablooie]

24. It changed from an important aid for Americans into an evil extortion racket by corporations.

People that need health care still will not be able get it.

People will still lose their homes and all their savings to cover health costs.

Except now, people that don't need or want expensive health care will be forced to buy it.


And nobody will do anything about it.

God Bless America. Yeah. Right.

[dave29]

26. Cali's Daily Downer

Yes She Can

[Pisces]

27. Sadly, no matter what happens you and many like you will be disappointed and outraged.

[cali]

35. You clearly have no idea who I am. n/t

[RDANGELO]

29. Any bill that expands coverage

As it stands now, both the house and the senate bill would expand coverage to millions of people. This would save the lives thousands, who wouldn't otherwise have insurance. Looking at the other industrialized nations, the way that they have kept the costs down is by eliminating or restricting the insurance companies. Obama will campaign on the public option for reelection.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

30. I'd say that's a 99% probability.

[dgibby]

31. I hope he won't sign it if it still contains the loophole.

If that's still in the final bill, a lot a people are going to get hurt very badly.

[GeorgeGist]

34. It's stupid too.

[WI_DEM]

36. I actually think vetoing a bad bill would be better politically for him

it would show he has backbone. Not getting health care didn't defeat Clinton.

[dysfunctional press]

38. one of these decades, the people might even get fed up enough to consider marching on the capitol...

but i doubt it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

39. I get the feeling it's all about the signing ceremony in the Rose Garden.

And not much else. I take that back, the original intent was honorable, but the result will be not much to brag about.

[Umbral]

41. Now only will it be signed...

the bill will be lauded by the players and the press as the greatest liberal legislation since the Great Society. You know it's true.

edit: And the really sad thing is - it may be a fair statement.

[Lord Helmet]

44. what's sad, outrageous & disgusting is excoriation based on a prediction

but that never stopped the keyboard prophets

[bvar22]

45. I rarely agree with you, Cali.

Today I do.
And you are correct.
This is very sad.

[QC]

46. Yes, it's all about the signing ceremony. n/t

[dflprincess]

47. If Obama had any kind of a spine or concern for the people who elected him he'd veto this bill

and make it very clear to the public that he was doing that because the bill is designed to screw the peasants.

But, Obama will sign the bill - not because he thinks it will weaken his presidency if he doesn't - but because this scam is exactly what he, Rahm and the rest of the corporate stooges were pushing for.

And after this is signed, they'll turn their attention to Social Security and Medicare "reform".

I've begun to get very nervous whenever I hear a Democrat talk about "reform". It's a lot like Bush and his "Clean Skies" initiative, just assume the bill will be designed to do the opposite of what its name sounds like it's meant to do.

I wonder how he'll look Vicki Kennedy in the eye after this deal goes down.

[donheld]

48. Chump change

[Union Yes]

49. Word, Cali. It's depressing. knr nt

[WT Fuheck]

50. ...it's stimulus II

[Raine]

51. I agree ... unfortunately. nt