Kill The Bill? Stand With Dr. Dean. Continue To Fight For An Improved Bill!

[TomCADem]

I am amazed at how many "liberals" are so eagerly advocating quitting on health care reform. Even Howard Dean is being mis-quoted. He is not saying that he is against reform or that the bill does not have good features. He is not saying "kill the bill. Rather, he merely says that he cannot support the current bill. Big deal, everyone at one time has said that about a particular version of the bill. What does this mean? It is merely leverage to try to improve the bill.

However, many liberals are misreading this. They are advocating quitting. They are celebrating leaving the Democratic party based on the inclusion of fringe elements like Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and Joe Lieberman, who is not even a Democrat. Does that make sense?

There is a lot gnashing of teeth, but no real plan, but capitalation before corporate interests, yet some liberals are celebrating this as the triumph of principle. Dr. Howard Dean is not advocating outright abandonment of the bill or reform. Instead, he advocating engagement, not abandonment by liberals. Yet, this is being spun by the astro-turf types as Dr. Dean saying that he opposes reform, and wants to kill the bill.

The real issue is whether liberals have the stomach for a fight against those oppose us (Republicans and conservadems) or do they simply want to bitch about our allies. For all the angry posts, how many people have actually demonstrated in support of health care reform, or called a congressman or woman to push reform. How many have contributed to a pro-reform group? I think that is what Howard Dean is trying to get people to do.

Yet, the media is hyping this into a WH v. Howard Dean fight, and many of folks are falling for the corporate media bait. Again. Here is Dr. Dean in his own words pushing for reform and continued work on improving the bill:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/16/AR2009121601906.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Improvements can still be made in the Senate, and I hope that Senate Democrats will work on this bill as it moves to conference. If lawmakers are interested in ensuring that government affordability credits are spent on health-care benefits rather than insurers' salaries, they need to require state-based exchanges, which act as prudent purchasers and select only the most efficient insurers. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) offered this amendment during the Finance Committee markup, and Democrats should include it in the final legislation. A stripped-down version of the current bill that included these provisions would be worth passing.

[Pirate Smile]

1. Too late. People think Dean said to kill the bill so that's what they keep screaming, consequences

be damned.

If this Bill goes down, Republicans and Conservadems wont be blamed. Progressives will. Wow, won't that be awesome. People can wait. No hurry. I'm sure Congress is anxious to start over. What a glorious victory it will be defeating the largest health care expansion since Medicare.

[Eric J in MN]

2. There are a lot of things I would rather see change about the bill...

...than the addition of state-based exchanges.

- public option

- Medicare at 55

- ban on insurers placing an annual limits on medical coverage

- real ban on rescission, no "fraud" loophole

- right to sue when claim for life-saving treatment denied

- more protection against consumers getting soaked by premiums-and-copays

- No "Free Rider" provision which says that companies have to pay when their employees gets subsidies to buy insurance, but if the wages are so low that their employees are on Medicaid, then the employer doesn't have to pay.
http://ufcw.blogspot.com/2009/12/senate-free-rider-provision-or-how-we.html

[lapfog_1]

3. If there isn't a public option or an expansion of Medicare

then remove the mandate.

[maglatinavi]

4. kill the bill

and, start all over with the righ concepts... I am for it...:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: