It would be better for the House to reject the Senate HCR bill and send it back to them to "start

[clear eye]

over" than to accept their bill if they claim in negotiations that they can't do better. As bad as the status quo is, the ongoing endless bailout of the insurance cos. and the increased clout they will be given will inevitably make things worse, not better, for middle and working class Americans. It will also worsen the economy in general, which is already moving in the direction of bringing those who need to work for a living to our knees.

I called and told my House representative that today.

[KatieW]

1. I agree. Even if passed today, the bill doesn't go into effect for 3 or 4 years. Why the rush then?

[debbierlus]

9. SImple and effective talking point.

[nevergiveup]

2. What if this Senate HCR bill saves lives?

What if this bill provides some basic health care for thousands of folks in desperate need? "Start over" means no bill and everyone knows it.

[clear eye]

3. I'm not guessing here. I've done my research.

While like everyone else I'm not infallible, I've read both the 200+ page summary of the House bill and a point by point analysis of the Senate bill, I've read articles by experts who have always backed the well-being of gen'l public so they can be trusted, I've seen what the economists working for the major labor unions think, I've considered the history of the actions of the insurance industry and projected from that what they would do w/ provisions in the Senate bill, I've considered it's impact on the gen'l economy as the costs to the gov't to subsidize the premiums in a mandated environment increases and who always pays in taxes for industry bailouts, and the cost of continuing the employer obligation to underwrite premiums, I've looked at what happened in the two states TN and MA who have enacted similar legislation, I've figured in the ban on state public plans, I've figured what future conservative administrations would do w/ the power over the program given to the Dept. of HHS. To the best of my ability, trying to be as fair as possible and picture what this bill would really lead to, I've concluded that it will increase suffering in many ways, both economic and in terms of security of coverage, not decrease it. The House plan just might be helpful, though it still tilts the playing field in favor of the insurers and would cost so much that it will create political momentum to cut benefits in the future.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

4. In other words, you've actually LOOKED AT and THOUGHT ABOUT the provisions

as opposed to parroting press releases.

I haven't done as much research as you, but I know a fair amount about health care in other countries, and this steaming pile doesn't

provide universal access
or
control costs

So what good is it?

[cali]

5. That's just not going to happen. It's not how it works. Ever.

Should the House reject it there will be no starting over for many years to come. That is the reality. If you believe the legislation is worse than the status quo, support killing it on that premise, not the absurd fantasy premise that anyone will start over on hc reform anytime soon.

[zipplewrath]

6. And in there lies the rub

It really is that bad. The House bill is very close to that bad, it's only redeeming quality really is the presence of the public option. It is that presence that will allow the evolution to the sytem we need and the one that will work. Without it, the evolutionary direction for healthcare in this country is a system that will virtually bankrupt our goverment and our people. Passing the Senate bill will potentially accelerate us towards that end. The "status quo" is not sustainable, but the Senate bill very likely will be worse. It depends greatly upon how one believes it will evolve over the next decade. Killing this whole mess may, in the long run, be the better option. Yes, it will delay reform for probably another decade. And it is very likely that it will be done by the GOP when it is passed. But by then, even they will see that the only solution is to get control of the COSTS of healthcare, so that it is affordable to individuals, and ultimately to the government as well.

[clear eye]

7. This DUer, who's done even more research than I, thinks otherwise.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7371034&mesg_id=7371034

The underlying premise for needing to get this bill through is based on erroneous assumptions. These arguments presume if this bill is defeated we will see no attempts to reform health care again for many years. Of course, we think that. It's what happened before so we think we've seen this movie before and we think we know how it ends. There are key differences today that were not the case in 1993 and these differences are very powerful. The emotions and fear connected with the issue and some brilliant maneuvering by the insurance industry and our politicians have obscured the facts. Once we see the reality we will realize the insurance industry needs reform of the system even more than we need it. The push for reform will not go away with defeat of this bill.

Since as she said (downthread) that she's uninsured, she has every motive to want real reform passed quickly. She's done even more research than I. She looked up figures on the situation of the insurance industry, and read the whole Senate bill.

I don't doubt you believe what you're saying and are influenced by what happened in the Clinton years. Things for the industry are different now, and that means their reaction to an absence of legislation will be different. Though the public wanted change in 1993, they feel much more strongly about it now. If the House sends the Senate bill back b/c the Senate negotiators refuse to budge that will NOT be the end of it.

[rucky]

8. If I told that to my rep, he'd thank me & put me on the mailing list.

Boehner.

[Marr]

10. It's not really a "bailout" of insurance companies, so much as a "handout".

Isn't that so? I mean, the insurance companies are already making massive profits. They've got enough money to buy the government, after all.

Actually... it's even worse than a handout. It's more like the government is acting as the enforcement department for big insurance companies.

[clear eye]

11. They're making plenty now, but they have to appease shareholders

w/ ever increasing earnings, and Baby Boomers will age out of the market in just a few years as they become eligible for Medicare. Actually insurers are in a panic, which is why they "motivated" the Senate to create this guaranteed earnings plan for them, of part mandated private money and part gov't subsidies, which will be on the backs of the middle class forever.

While the issue will be revisited if the House negotiators won't accept the Senate demands and force a stalemate, it won't be looked at again in the foreseeable future if the Senate bill becomes law, b/c when the punitive aspect of hit really hits the public during Pres. Obama's 2nd term, they will turn away from the Dems and vote in a Republican or even Libertarian President and R- Congress, who insist on private everything to "save" us from "big gov't".

This will seize defeat from the jaws of victory (to reverse the saying) and make us a minority party from 2014 'til Kingdom come.