I have decided it is better to support the health care bill than to oppose it

[RainDog]

I've been trying to read up on where things stand at this point. I've read information provided here. I've listened to various talking head politicos whose opinions I respect (The Gentlemen from Vermont, for example)

the last thing I read was this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-gleckman/a-real-persons-guide-to-h_b_399307.html

Like a few people (ahem), I do not trust insurance cos to provide health care via health insurance. But the community health clinics provision is a good thing. There are valid reasons to not trust the insurance cos' capacity to actually work with people on health care, rather than against them for their own profits.

I'm pissed that a corporation is coming between citizens and health care. I think that the future for these people should be toward non-profit status. I won't hold my breath.

I don't understand how a mandate could be constitutional. This is a major stumbling block because of what it represents to me, in terms of the way govt and business treat citizens v. consumers. And this is worrisome to me because of previous actions the govt took in relation to the Wall Street bailout.

However, this is the bill that's going to make it or not, and, yes, that can be modified (for good or bad). I think the whole thing should kick in sooner. Otherwise it is going to be a political football. It needs to have some tweaks (poor women shouldn't have to pay for abortions and they will be prevented from receiving health care in situations that are just not humane - it's such a double standard/class kick in the head sacrifice of poor women for religious zealots.

President Obama, please hear the American people after this moment. The inequity of American life is tearing this nation apart. It has to be addressed. The wealthy need to contribute to the general welfare in a more meaningful way. They have had years at the trough and it has hurt this nation's standing and well being. Our nation cannot survive with a decimated middle class.


This is really not what I wanted to see from my govt. But if it does some of what it is supposed to do, then I support it.

[Mojambo]

1. I'm with you

I won't oppose the bill, but I don't think it's one I want to celebrate either.

I'm not looking forward to all of the hoopla and celebration that's to follow when the bill is signed.

[Bluebear]

2. Anything that uses women's choice as leverage is a deal-breaker to me.

Not negotiable from the starting block.

[Eric J in MN]

3. I'll have to see the merged bill before I decide if I support it.

So far, I support the House bill and not the Senate bill.

The bills haven't been merged yet.

[RainDog]

5. yes, the Senate bill is far worse. and, yes, contingent on the merged bill

...and I am sincere when I say that poor women's health must not be sacrificed on the alter of religious zealots. the majority of Americans support the Roe v. Wade trimester divisions. we cannot, as a nation, take backwards steps - this is both a class issue and a violation of separation of church and state.

I don't get to decide if my federal dollars go to war or education so why should religious zealots get to make that choice for poor women?

[xchrom]

4. O suppose a cast of characters -- different

From today's cast of characters could give us a better version.
But they are only going to add layers of complexity
to an already bad bill.

Is that just beyond everyones scope? -- cause
it sure seems like it is.

[rwheeler31]

6. Just get it out of the senate.

[comtec]

7. I suppose you could try to appeal it to the SC and see what they think

Being that it directly contradicts a woman's right to privacy as outlined in roe v wade (being told you will loose something because of a medical procedure IS a violation of that right to privacy!

maybe the SC will be sane for once (in the last 10 years) and overturn at least that part... adn the mandate part, and the giving the fucking farm to the health insurance scam corporations.

maybe

but I doubt it.

This is a horrible bill as it stands, and I hope it gets improved. Maybe we should consider allowing it to pass and improve it. but the step backwards it takes on women's rights....

It's a tough decision isn't it...

45,000 lives a year saved because they have insurance, or a woman's right to safely have options.

As women are half the population (53% in some surveys) that would mean we may be sacrificing as many as 22,500 lives a year?

OK fewer, or maybe more. What are the current abortion numbers?

When do the number of people saved a year exceeds the number of fatal abortions a year? the number of unwanted kids put into the system a year, the number of vagrants who started out as unwanted children a year?

When is the deficit greater than the benefit?