Is health care reform without a public option still worth passing? Unequivocally, unambiguously yes.

[el_bryanto]

This is from a round up of views over at Salon - this particular bit is from Jonathon Cohn.

Is health care reform without a public option still worth passing? Unequivocally, unambiguously yes.

The case for is simple and straightforward: 30 million additional people, maybe more, will have health insurance. Many more who have insurance will see their coverage become more stable. The ability of insurers to exclude people based on pre-existing conditions will diminish significantly, if not disappear. And that's on top of a host of delivery reforms which should, in combination, help make medical care less expensive over time. The bill could be much better, for sure, but to argue that it's worse than nothing you have to make the case that nothing will somehow lead to more progress in some reasonable frame of time.

I don't see that. Failure to pass health reform won't lead to a progressive revival or resurgence. It will cripple the Democrats, hand the Republicans more political power, and likely to send health care reform into hibernation for another ten to twenty years.

Makes sense to me, I am forced to admit. Forgot to add link --> http://www.salon.com/news/healthcare_reform/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2009/12/15/kill_not

Bryant

[mullard12ax7]

1. Until the criminal and corrupt industry collapses dues to fraud

which won't be long. If this corporate bail-out bill doesn't pass, IT DOES NOT MEAN THE END TO HEALTH CARE LEGISLATION. Why do people constantly say that? Oh yeh, propaganda works.

[el_bryanto]

4. Well in fairness, history is kind of on their side

What happened the last time we had a healthcare bill fail? 15 years passed before we tried again. Can you be sure that won't happen again?

Bryant

[mullard12ax7]

15. The entire failed system of predatory capitalism collapsed, that's the real history

It's only been propped up by the very same tax-payers who are now expected to prop up the insurance side of the corrupt equation.

[el_bryanto]

17. What economic system to you favor? n/t

[mullard12ax7]

19. One that works

Capitalism is only as good as its regulation and the U.S. already has a mix of socialism and capitalism which, needs to be expanded upon.

[el_bryanto]

20. Oh - so you favor a well regulated caplitalism - well that's what I favor as well n/t

Bryant

[Ozymanithrax]

2. And I agree, absolutly yes...

Change in incremental. Without the bill, we have the status quo, a systme that increasingly keeps health care for those with the money to afford it, relagatin the poor to early deaths.

When we have "some good" vs. "no good" we should try for some good change, no matter how small.

But we still need to fight for the best bill possible.

[LooseWilly]

3. Pull the mandate too, and it won't be so bad.

No public option, no mandate... let the bill do something nice for the middle class who're being swindled by the Health Care Industry... but making those of us who get by with jobs that don't offer benefits into Health Industry peons (forced into bondage by a mandate) is not reform. It's a giveaway to the industry.

Like Obama said in the campaign, if a decent health care product is offered, people will buy it. Force us to buy a shitty one, and we're sure as hell not gonna have any money or time to donate to your political career... to say the least.

[bluestateguy]

5. I agree

But don't expect me to be toasting champagne when its signed into law.

Pass this weasel bill (there are a couple of good things in it) and then get right back to work doing more.

[Vinnie From Indy]

6. Ya know I am starting to come around to this silly point of view

If reality were somehow the playing field in regard to HCR, the positions of folks that are trying to force feed this giant turd to Americans would be completely obvious and folks would not stand for it. Since this battle about whether ANY bill as better than no bill will be fought in the messy world of paid opinions, lies, deceipt and misdirection, maybe it is a good thing. Specifically, maybe it will be good in the long run to have millions of folks learn that they have been duped, conned and lied to on a massive scale. I think pain focuses the mind. I think the millions of people that will be MANDATED to pay for shitty care that doesn't deliver will get a good dose of pain. It could be that this painful experience will force change at some point in the future. From Obama and some Senate Dems point of view that far in the future is someone elses problem.

I will also add that many of the "amen choir" here on DU repeatedly use the phrase that "30 million people will now have health insurance with passage of a bill". Really? Who are these 30 million folks? Who will pay these 30 million insurance premiums?

Further, you can be reasonably sure that the insurance companies have already figured out ways to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. There are many ways to skin a cat! One such way to avoid this so-called excellent part of the health care bill for the insurance companies is to give coverage, but make the receiving of that coverage so onerous and difficult that it becomes effectively the same thing as denying coverage.

As for Salon writers or anyone that suggests that Americans should get on their knees and thank God that SOMETHING passed, they are wrong.

[el_bryanto]

12. The people deserve to suffer for not seeing the truth, eh?

Not sure I agree with that, but to each their own.

Bryant

[Vinnie From Indy]

13. Deserve or not deserve is your idea not mine

The fact is that they WILL suffer regardless of any opinions you or I have.

Also, I noticed you neglected to respond to my query about who these 30 million people are that will be magically covered and who will pay the 30 million insurance premiums.

Is el_bryanto Spanish for Wellpoint? :)

[el_bryanto]

14. No - it's spanish for bryant69 - my previous ID

I don't get the reference to Wellpoint, but I can guess.

As I understand it the bill sets aside $900 billion to help those who can't afford health care to get it.

Bryant

[Vinnie From Indy]

24. So, you are admitting you have no fucking idea?

Thanks! Just wanted to be clear about your knowledge level in regard to the health care debate.

[el_bryanto]

27. Nice. I am pleased to see that the level of debate at DU remains consistent.

Bryant

[peace frog]

7. From the same article - I hold with this one:

Stephanie Taylor, co-founder of Progressive Change Campaign Committee, told us:

The "Joe Lieberman Senate Bill" is ugly. Democrats stand on the verge of ushering in a world of nearly unregulated mandates, in which we're all forced by the state to hand over our money to failed private monopolies, with no cost control in return. Without a public option and no hope of expanding Medicare coverage, this bill is not worth supporting.

We got to this point due to a complete failure of leadership by President Obama--who chose to negotiate with out-of-touch senators instead of rallying their own constituents against them. It's also a failure of leadership by Harry Reid, who failed to exert any leverage over Joe Lieberman--by threatening to take away his committee chairmanship or use reconciliation to make his vote irrelevant.

When Democratic leaders refuse to fight, they can't then ask progressives to cave with them. The Progressive Change Campaign Committee is continuing to fight for the best health care bill possible, and we're intent on holding Democrats' feet to the fire. But we need to think very seriously about whether there will be a moment when it is clear that the bill does more harm than good--we need to be prepared to kill the bill.

Part of being a great negotiator is being able to walk away.

[el_bryanto]

11. It is a fair point, but I do not find her suggestions practical.

I kind of think that Obama can't afford to walk away. He can't for himself politically, but also for us, as failure to pass a healthcare reform bill, even a flawed one, could delay dealing with this issue by years.

Bryant

[peace frog]

16. Why should we care that

"Obama cannot afford to walk away"? Obama did not fight for us, we the people, did not fight the best HCR legislation that could have been created had he done so.

[el_bryanto]

18. Well we should care because of the consequences of this effort failing

Again look at the history - last time we tried to get serious about healthcare reform, it failed, and set the movement back some 15 years. I don't think we owe it to Obama to support this bill; but I do think we owe it to the uninsured and underinsured who will be harmed if we go back to the drawing board for another decade.

Bryant

[peace frog]

21. I can't care

knowing that too many administration and congressional Dems do not care either. Simple as that.

[el_bryanto]

22. Do you mean that literally? Seems like an odd way to live your life.

I generally choose what matters to me myself.

Bryant

[peace frog]

23. It's OK

I'm not making myself clear enough to be understood, evidently. No matter, we would probably disagree anyway.

[laughingliberal]

31. Obama can't walk away but some enterprising progressive Senator could

We need one progressive in the Senate to threaten filibuster if they don't restore some benefits to the people to this bill. We just need one on the progressive side to tank the damn deal, too. It might force some real negotiation. Until now, negotiation over this has been defined as progressives write some decent proposals into the bills, conservatives demand they take them out and give more to the insurance companies, progressives cave while Rahm beats them on the head.

[hfojvt]

25. rallying their own constituents against them?

yeah, if only he had gone to, say, Montana and gotten Baucus' people to force Baucus to support HCR. If only he had gone to Montana.


http://www.billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_263834ba-8903-11de-b0c8-001cc4c002e0.html


and where else should he have gone? Maybe Louisiana?

http://louisiana.sierraclub.org/pdf/Obama_visit_PR2_101309.pdf

or Florida?

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2009/10/obama-to-stretch-his-florida-visit-.html

or even Connecticut? Not that Lieberman gives a damn about his constituents.

http://newsblog.projo.com/2009/10/obama-to-visit-massachusetts-c.html

It sure is too bad Obama never bothered to try to rally the people to force the hands of the Senators. It might have been ...

[peace frog]

35. It might have been

but won't be.

[county worker]

8. No it isn't.

That shit about 30 million more will have health insurance sucks! They will be forced to buy it. What is the difference between now and then? FORCED to buy it. Now they have a choice and they chose not to buy it. So why is force a good thing?

As far as insurance reforms, one is that the insurance companies can locate in any state and will chose the state with the least restrictions, that is not progress.

They can still deny coverage or refuse to pay for a treatment or medication.

No this is not good for us, it is more of the same with mandates!

[liberal N proud]

9. What would the uninsured say about that?

[laughingliberal]

34. This uninsured person can tell you she would still be uninsured under this bill

In actuality, I would probably now qualify for Medicaid.

But, I am looking back to when I was still a working stiff who was making it but just on the edge. It would have put us outside the income level to receive a subsidy but paying a premium that constituted 25% of our income. I, in fact, would benefit from the current legislation but it's not all about me. It's about whether we continue to pass more and more legislation in this country that soaks the working class and renders them poor while we increase the corporate profits on their backs. It's wrong and I don't support it.

[quinnox]

10. No this is worse than what we have today

Forced buying from private for profit corporations is not the way to go, it will set a precedent that is unconstitutional.

Anyway, I predict even if this bill is passed, it will either be ruled unconstitutional or it will be completely gutted with future amendments when outraged people throw Democrats out of office in 2010 and won't mean anything anyway.

[Romulox]

26. This has turned into a politically disastrous boondoggle. Unrec. nt

[laughingliberal]

28. Yep! nt

[el_bryanto]

30. Hmmmmm. A question for you.

I admit I haven't been around as much lately. But when you unrecommend aren't you saying that this is the sort of thing that shouldn't be posted at Democratic Underground? This is the sort of opinion that is offensive to you? Or am I misreading you?

If so what exactly is it about this opinion that renders it unsuitable for DU discussion?

Bryant

[Romulox]

32. An unrec means I strongly disagree with the opinion voiced in the OP.

Not that your opinion is offensive, or that it should be censored.

[el_bryanto]

33. Interesting. Not sure that follows, but ok.

[laughingliberal]

29. I would agree with this if I thought the bill would do what the article suggests. I do not, however

And, BTW, Joe's not done, yet.