Let's get a few things STRAIGHT, boys and girls.

[TheWraith]

First thing's first: everyone needs to stop pretending that there's not a large number of genuine reforms in this bill. No more pre-existing conditions. Premium increases need to be justified and approved. It will be illegal to drop people when they get sick. Insurers will be incentivized to reduce the price of insurance. No more charging larger premiums to women than to men for equivalent insurance.

Yes, we know you don't like the mandates. I don't like the mandates either. And given that he campaigned AGAINST them, I doubt the President is really wild for the idea either. But the President doesn't get to singlehandedly write legislation, just in case you forgot what a co-equal branch of government is. Add to that the fact that without some kind of reform, tens of thousands more people are going to continue to die who could be saved, and given that this ISN'T the final version of the bill that will be passed, the amount of screaming and blame directed at Obama is ridiculous.

Passing this bill isn't the end--it's the guarantee that we continue to have a legislative agenda. If the Republicans can kill this with the scare tactics and the filibuster, then they are going to do the EXACT same thing with every following piece of legislation on every subject. Period. Say goodbye to cap and trade. Immigration reform. Don't Ask Don't Tell. Everything.

In order to have a future, we need to win this fight. And winning it now gives us the chance later to potentially pass something via reconciliation early next year. There's no guarantees, but there rarely are in politics. The only thing we can be SURE of is that if this bill dies, we can look forward to another 20 years of pre-existing conditions, healthcare only for the rich, and tens of thousands dying every year from illnesses that could have been prevented.

You want to put all that energy to good use? Go pester your people in the House and Senate to tell them that the mandates should be removed in the conference committee. And tell them to bring back a public option in reconciliation. But what's going on now is not productive in the least.

[rug]

1. You left out the part about the country going bankrupt without this bill.

[jgraz]

30. If we don't pass this bill, we're gonna get hit again.

:eyes:

[HuckleB]

2. You're being much too honest, and much too logical!

Don't try to push that crap here!!!!!

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/illusions-and-bitterness/

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/the-left-playing-fire


:thumbsup: :fistbump:

[quiet.american]

3. This is like finding a tall, cold glass of water in the desert. Thanks. nt

[GreenArrow]

17. which proves to be a mirage...

.

[quiet.american]

22. Right on cue. nt

[RoyGBiv]

4. Just to add a bit ...

... to your point about making policy ...

The specific pathology that Brendan, Matt, and Ezra debunk is a fixation on the president in the policymaking process. Presidential power is assumed to be essentially limitless — e.g., if Obama would just say so, Joe Lieberman would roll over and vote for a single-payer system. (I exaggerate, but only a little.) When members of Congress don’t do exactly what the president wants or when (God forbid) the president “lets” Congress do actual legislating, reporters start in with “news analysis” like this silliness from John Broder in Sunday’s New York Times. Here, climate change is framed around what Obama can or cannot accomplish, complete with portentous questions like:

Can Mr. Obama surmount those problems in his latest effort to save the world?

A while back, I posted about a Ted Lowi essay in which he characterized this sort of news coverage as “unbelievably primitive.” And it is. Understanding policymaking means taking Congress seriously and treating legislators as autonomous. It means acknowledging (repeatedly) the multiple veto points that are built into the system. Policy change is not solely a matter of presidential will or skill — as I and others have noted.

Of course Obama has an agenda with regard to health care, climate change, etc. And of course legislative success or failure has implications for his presidency. But Yglesias and others have rightly pounded away at the notion that policymaking should somehow be framed around the president’s goals, actions, and standing. This frame gets the policymaking process wrong, and it arguably hurts our understanding of the policies themselves, whose details are subordinated to armchair quarterbacking about the president’s decisions or lack thereof.

http://www.themonkeycage.org/2009/12/what_we_have_learned_from_the.html

[midnight]

5. First off they are going to offset that little issue of a preexisting condition by

a fantastic loop hole. They "the insurance co." get to set the price. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ortjRL5LyuA&feature=player_embedded

[itsrobert]

6. Boys and Girls?

Who are you calling a boy? You can take your insults and shove it!

[Hannah Bell]

7. you think you're talking to boys & girls? maybe that's part of the problem.

[Nikki Stone1]

8. You left out paying up to 5X more for pre-existing conditions

You really don't get it.

[Justitia]

9. Sure, they'll cover pre-existing conditions - at a price no one can afford.

You can absolutely still drop people when they are sick - just claim that their original application included fraud (there was a recent article in the Washington Post about this very prevalent practice), make them appeal that judgement for long enough that they die or cannot receive insurance anywhere else.

Can't charge women higher premiums? BUT, if women want comprehensive reproductive healthcare, they have to pay ADDITIONAL for extra "riders".

Every wishy-washy "reform" item has a loop hole you could drive a truck through - with well-worn practices that will NOT be obstructed in anything in this bill.

Know what you are selling.

[JamesA1102]

10. Let the Senate bill pass and then everyone needs to call their Congressperson

and demand that the public option be restored in the conference committee. That's the way to win this.

[TheWraith]

14. That won't work.

The conference committee report is still subject to filibuster.

[JamesA1102]

26. So what do you suggest?

That we just give up.

[TheWraith]

28. Pass the current bill now, then pass another via reconciliation. nt

[JamesA1102]

33. But are they really planning on doing that? nt

[hfojvt]

11. the title is more than a little patronizing

"boys and girls" Are you talking to some twelve year olds?

Probably sometimes it feels that way when reading some of the tantrums. I think some might find two or three provisions in a 2,000 page bill that are simply unacceptable and will lead to certain doom, when their real bottom line is 'it's not single payer'.

[TheWraith]

15. If the shoe fits.

And if people are going to take offense at my figure of speech, then they were LOOKING for an excuse to be offended.

[Waiting For Everyman]

12. Anything you say, Mommy.

Rhetorical question: What's with the condescending attitude?

Fix it or f*** it. Financial slavery ain't cool. Line in the sand. And if they don't fix it... resistance. There. How will that play out politically? Resistance is inevitable if this is done "as is".

And as for the "legislative agenda", if this goes through it will be more of the same crap law, just like this is. No thanks, pass. Our laws are bad enough already.

[WT Fuheck]

13. and no price controls to ensure that the insurance gangsters

don't charge a fortune for the "reforms"

this is not reform. this is more corporate piracy.

[TheWraith]

16. Price increases will have to be regulator approved.

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good tirade.

[WT Fuheck]

18. just like the regulators control Wall Street speculation

don't let reality get in your way.

[lonestarnot]

19. Fuck that watered down teabagged piece of shit bill. You suck it.

[quiet.american]

23. What bill? Have you seen it? nt

[lonestarnot]

29. On the TV.

Looks pretty phat.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dysfunctional press]

21. "no pre-existing conditions"- BUT- they can charge you 300% of the going rate if you've got one.

if the normal rate for your age group is $400/month, and you've got a pre-existing condition, you can be charged $1200/month for the same coverage.

that sure as fuck isn't any kind of change that i can believe in.

[madfloridian]

24. Today it is not about the bill. It is about being written off...

by our party leaders.

It is the contempt that has showed in their attacks on Dean.

Since I feel just like he does on the sell-out on the bill...I take the attacks as personal ones on me.

If you think it is just about the bill, you need to think about it more.

[shireen]

25. for gods sake, let us be outraged.

we need to put pressure on Congress and the WH. We need to let them know how mad we're feeling.

They need to be worried about us.

Dr. Dean has done a very smart thing -- he's shining a bright spotlight on the shortcomings of the bill, and forcing people to look up and take notice.

[ZombieHorde]

27. I am really concerned that people with pre-existing conditions or

serious chronic illnesses will not be able to afford their co-payments, since they have no cap, or that they may use their annual allotment fairly quickly, since annual allotments are still allowed.

[upi402]

31. Dad, is that you posting while drinking again?

I thought we talked about that.

[LeftyMom]

32. Unrec'd for condescending delivery of tired talking points nobody bought to begin with.