"Pass it now, we'll fix it later" - Pres. Clinton on NAFTA 1993.

[last1standing]

"Pass it now, we'll fix it later" - Pres. Clinton on Welfare Reform 1996.

"Pass it now, we'll fix it later" - Pres. Obama on Health Care Reform 2010.

So many threads and so many establishment bloggers, pundits and columnists are crying that we must pass HCR in the senate's form and then work to fix it later but, like all propagandists, they always omit one key point...

How is it going to be fixed?

Health care, in its current form, is what we got from a senate with 60 senators caucusing with the Democrats. Now we have 59 senators doing the same and the newest member is rabidly anti-healthcare. To continue with this thought, all indications point to massive losses in the house and senate come November due to voter frustrations with the Democratic majority.

Based on all this, how does Pres. Obama, along with the bloggers, pundits and columnists, expect to pass any reform to this admittedly broken bill (these people wouldn't be calling for later fixes if they didn't agree it was broken) when at the peak of their power Democrats couldn't get a proper bill passed? The simple answer, he (and they) don't expect to fix it at all. Otherwise they would be pushing for it now instead of in the indeterminate future.

To be blunt, Mr. Obama and assorted propagandists, stop blowing smoke up our asses. Either fix the bill now, when the possibility of doing so is greatest or pull this monstrosity that even you believe is faulty and unworkable and start again. Doing anything else is a violation of the trust we placed in you last November.

FIX. THE. DAMN. BILL. NOW.

FIX. THE. DAMN. BILL. NOW.

FIX. THE. DAMN. BILL. NOW.

[anonymous171]

1. FIX IT NOW, PASS IT LATER! nt

[Raine]

51. On point! nt

[Leopolds Ghost]

52. On Charlie Rose: Creep Klein sez Clinton told him "I SHOULD HAVE DONE WELFARE REFORM FIRST, NOT HCR"

Read it and weep, fellow progressives / populists. He always WANTED to screw the poor.

[Leopolds Ghost]

53. And Charlie Rose said "Imagine if he'd gone and FIXED welfare sooner. He'd have been more popular"

And able to pass Hillary's health care bill requiring all Americans to join HMOs (an utterly failed business practice some 15 years later).

I'll never listen to fucking Charlie Rose again.

Fucking dirtbags should spend some time poor.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

78. and he ended up screwing the poor and the middle class

with NAFTA.

[pattmarty]

84. Bill Clinton IS a conservative Dem. What exactly did he do for the............

............"masses" in his 8 (yawn) shit years as President? I know what a lot of "Clinton people" say; the greatest eight years in world history and such crap, but what did he do for the working class? NAFTA!



Edit to add: I am not nor ever was a "fan" of Bill Clinton.

[HeresyLives]

2. NAFTA was fixed later.

There were additions to it on labor and the environment.

[jgraz]

3. It was amended later. It's still far from fixed.

[laughingliberal]

81. Correct. And if HCR were to be changed at all it would be some lame 'fix' that won't fix it

Or would these people argue that now NAFTA isn't stealing our jobs?

[BlueJac]

4. NAFTA still sucks

[last1standing]

5. Very weak amendments were made that had no effect in stopping the loss of jobs.

Or of really helping the environment. That's kind of my point here.

[Elwood P Dowd]

7. Worthless side agreements.

NAFTA was/is a total disaster. NAFTA is an investment/outsourcing scam that's masquerading as a free trade agreement. None of these trade deals -- NAFTA/GATT/WTO/CAFTA -- are free trade agreements. It's not free trade when we charge a 2% tariffs on imports, and our trading partners hit us with a 2% or higher tariff along with a 20-30 percent VAT on the exact same products. It's not free trade when our trading partners are operating under totally different rules regarding the environment, labor, and consumer product safety. David Ricardo would never consider any of these agreements free trade.

These fake free trade agreements have cost us trillions of dollars in current account deficits and millions of net job losses.

[Elwood P Dowd]

9. We are now up to 5 NAFTA supporters out of 153,708 DU members.

Now go back and look up some more corporate pro-NAFTA talking points from 1993.

[gkhouston]

12. Time travel works!! What year are you visiting us from? n/t

[Elwood P Dowd]

13. 1993 (nm)

[gkhouston]

14. funny, most DUers don't seem to think NAFTA has reached that "fixed" state

yet. Sure it's not time travel from 2025?

[Elwood P Dowd]

15. Her talking points are from 1993.

Next thing you know she will be blaming The Great Depression on Smoot-Hawley tariffs.

Edit: The side agreements were added in the fall of 1993 with the implementing legislation. Bush Sr negotiated and signed the agreement. Clinton pushed through the implementing legislation.

[DisgustedInMN]

73. And what a fucking WONDERFUL fix it was!

Especially how it brought all of those good paying jobs FLOODING back into the USA and revitalized our manufacturing sector! (Do I really need to put this: :sarcasm: here?)

[pattmarty]

85. Oh, is that why it's now working so well? Gimme a fucking break!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

6. That's what I've been saying

I can't think of a single example of a bad bill that was "fixed later."

That's the lame excuse the DLC types always use, along with, "That's not politically feasible" (Translation--"We've been bribed not to do it.")

[laughingliberal]

82. They always point to SS and Medicare getting 'fixed' later but they started out as good programs

which were expanded. They did not start out as bad legislation that needed to be 'fixed.'

[cascadiance]

8. That's what they also said about the Telecomm Bill with the Communications Decency Act in it

... That the courts would "fix it" later, but we needed the bill passed then. The court did throw out that part of the bill as being unconstitutional as it was, but that part of the bill also was used to distract us from the crap that was in the rest of the bill that we are still suffering from many years later with the likes of Clear Channel, etc. now.

[Kermitt Gribble]

87. Also the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

It was stated that if the Dems won a majority in 2006, this legislation would be fixed or repealed.

[OHdem10]

10. Lesson: Beware of Fix It Later Promises. The Republicans will

really F I X IT. Sarcasn

The HCIR will get worse. Either do it right in the beginning
or do nothing.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[last1standing]

16. LOL! That completely skirts the OP. You really don't care about anything but Obama's image, do you?

You don't care about the poor.

You don't care about the working class.

You don't care about real availability of health care.

You don't care about the continued funneling of cash to the uber-wealthy.

You just want to make sure that poor little Obama doesn't get his feeling hurt.

That's sweet in its own simple way.

[Aramchek]

17. you don't care about any of that if you'd rather have the status quo than the Bill that exists

[last1standing]

18. A bill that even its creators say is broken? I think not.

There is not one word in the bill the senate approved that prevents insurance companies from offering catastrophic care insurance as their base for those currently without insurance. This means the rest of us pay for mandated insurance that the recipients can't even afford to use. Could you afford to pay 40% of an ER visit? I couldn't and I'm not poor. So people will still be forced into bankruptcy at the same rate as before but Obama gets to say he signed 'historic healthcare legislation'.

I really don't give a fuck about Obama's legacy, I care about offering the uninsured coverage they can use.

How about you and your "pretty little head"?

[Aramchek]

19. you seem to want to make this all about Obama.

the millions with pre-existing conditions and no insurance are my concern.
I take it that you are not one of them.

and who are these 'creators' you speak of?
It seems you are confusing 'room for improvement' with 'broken beyond all repair'.

[last1standing]

20. Oops! You're dodging the comments again. You have no answers, just propaganda.

I'd suggest you go ask your cohorts for some talking points before coming back. You're looking very foolish.

[Greyhound]

21. Spinning contorted lies and half truths is all they have, take pity. n/t

[Aramchek]

23. So you're for the Status Quo as well?

and have no pre-existing condition, right?

[Greyhound]

68. Not at all. It is not an either/or proposition.

Obama fucked this up from day one, now we get to pay the price.

BTW, We're in the midst of two families medical crises and dealing with the mess "our leaders" made of Medicare as well as the morass of private insurance for a catastrophic illness, which if survived, makes that relative uninsurable. So yes, I have a personal stake in this and why I'm outraged at the course these jackasses took.

[Aramchek]

70. Obama is not a Dictator. Read up on how a Bill becomes a Law...

[Greyhound]

80. That is the weakest and most pathetic argument you guys have. It's utter bullshit and

you all know it. You see it all crumbling, all the work, money, and good will was pissed away that's why you're in a blind panic now.

[Aramchek]

96. so the actual function of the Legislative Branch is a weak argument?

your bitterness is overwhelming.

and be sure to let me know when Kucinich accomplishes one damned thing, just one.
I won't hold my breath...

[Greyhound]

116. It is the Presidents job to lead, to rally the people and in doing so, bend the

legislative to the will of the people. The opportunity to lead the nation with the support he enjoyed comes very rarely and instead of seizing that opportunity, he hides behind the institutional obfuscation.

[pattmarty]

86. I am another one that has a "personal stake" about this piece of shit.............

.....bill. I have 4 kids w/o ANY insurance. I have had throughout my life good, crappy, decent, and no insurance and have never made more than 46K in my 63 fucking years. So yeah, I am for NOT passing a piece of shit bill that Republicans could have written. Do it in the simplest, cheapest way possible: Medicare for all and it WILL be done right.

[Aramchek]

22. propaganda is comparing NAFTA to HCR. they're not the same thing at all.

but why would you let details get in the way of your righteous anger?!?

and speaking of dodging, let's make it clear.
You stand against this bill despite the fact that it eliminates Pre-Existing conditions, correct?
and you don't have a pre-existing condition, right?

[last1standing]

24. Propaganda is claiming I ever said they were. You're not very good at this.

I'm pointing out that the same thing was said about various bills in the past and that the necessary changes were never made. Were you really unable to gather that in context? Really?

And I'll humor your "pre-existing condition" comment with this. What good does "insurance" do for your pre-existing condition if you can't afford the 40% co-pay to have it treated? How many families living in poverty have that kind of money? Please tell me.

[Aramchek]

26. is that not the point of your OP? i.e."The same thing is happening again"

You act like all things are equal between the 2 bills.
Yet you fail to take into account that the Congress and the Country are completely different.

So, I assume, based on your refusal to admit it, that you don't have a pre-existing condition?

Can you at least admit that your "40% Co-pay" BS comes directly from your ass, and you have no proof whatsoever that this would be the case?

It is a fact that this Bill will force Insurance companies to cover millions of desperate Americans who are currently dying for lack of Healthcare.

What FACTS do you have to dispute this?
and, no, made-up, fuzzy mathematical scare tactics do not count.

[last1standing]

29. If you've never heard of catastrophic care insurance you should look it up.

I know about it very well because I've had it. How's that for pulling something from my ass? I was to pay 40% of any visit regardless of situation. You want to argue that?

So you can bullshit about "fuzzy math" all you like but this isn't a scare tactic, its reality for millions of poor people who are being used by this administration to enact insurance care for the wealthy.

And if you can't comprehend that I'm talking about the promises made, not the bills themselves, then you are not up to this conversation.

[Aramchek]

50. so you have no evidence that your personal experience would occur under the Bill?

you're letting your bias taint your perception of the good things the Bill offers

[last1standing]

55. You're joking, right? I understand fetishizing Obama is paramount but face some fact.

There is nothing in this bill that prevents that kind of coverage. Do you think insurance companies are going to provide better coverage than they're forced to? They're in the business to maximize profits, not ensure health. Every school child knows this.

Fix this bill, THEN sign it, nothing else will serve the people.

[Aramchek]

69. you don't get it. if this Bill isn't passed, we get nothing

that, sure as hell, will not serve the People.

and you still haven't provided any evidence to support your claims other than your biased opinion on what Insurance companies might do.

[last1standing]

76. I've proved these plans exist and that there's nothing to prevent them from being the base.

You need more?

Look, you can throw out insults because I've attacked your beloved president but in the end I'm still right; this bill, as it stands, is far worse than nothing.

This bill will mandate payments to private monopolies.

In many, if not most cases this bill will not provide coverage that the average recipient can afford to use.

This bill places the brunt of the costs on the backs of the working class leaving the wealthy to reap the rewards.

This bill does nothing to reign in the runaway costs of medical care.

This bill does not stop insurance companies from charging exorbitant prices based pre-existing conditions and age.

This bill does not stop insurance companies from denying coverage to the ill. They will just claim fraud and destroy the ill person financially in the courts.

This bill does not stop executives from changing the terms of what is an actual "medical expense" so that more and more premiums will flow into executive pay.

Unless these items are fixed, there is no point in passing the bill anyway, as the people have already shown that they will vote in republicans to crush it if it becomes law. So why are the Democrats pushing so hard for something that doesn't serve their constituency and will be the number one cause for their defeat in the fall?

This bill is not better than nothing, it is far worse than the status quo as it does absolutely nothing to fix current problems yet costs a great deal more.

[Aramchek]

95. you haven't provided a shred of evidence. all you have is your trumped up fears

and guess what?

the Bill will be passed, despite your 'concerns'

You're so up in arms about saving some cash and killing the evil corporations, that you are willing to sacrifice the lives of those who will be helped by this Bill.
You should be ashamed of yourself.

[last1standing]

120. LOL! If you're so enamoured with this president that you refuse to even look at the bill...

I can't help you. No one can.

I'd suggest actually checking out what is said and what isn't in this bill that you think is so wonderful because its obvious you've never bothered to read it. If you get all your "facts" from the other BOGlodytes you're going to come up short in every debate.

Also, what's this I'm hearing about your pre-existing conditions exclusions? Not for anyone over 19? A six month wait for coverage? What's likely to happen there?

[GinaMaria]

77. You haven't provided evidence to support your claim

that if this bill isn't passed we will get nothing. Where do you get this? What evidence do you have to support a statement like this? It sounds like an emotional response based in fear. Get a grip. We have an opportunity. Yes, Mass. gave us an opportunity to get it right. That opportunity needs to be seized and delivered on.

[Aramchek]

93. it's based in Political reality. we don't have 60 votes anymore.

the only way Insurance Reforms, such as forcing coverage of those with pre-existing conditions, can be passed is with 60 votes.

they cannot be done through reconciliation.

if you don't understand this, then you need to do some more research.

[GinaMaria]

99. No. Your claim is if we don't get this we get NOTHING

I call bullshit. We can take the time to do this right. We can get what we need through reconciliation. We can expand medicare to anyone who wants it. There's no need then to mandate anyone to buy insurance or to mandate insurance companies cover pre-existing. If they have to compete against a medicare option that does cover pre-existing, they can decide to change their policies to compete or not. If we can't get that then there are a lot of people in DC who need to be fired. But your notion of pass this crap bill or we will get NOTHING, is not a political reality. It is a poor attempt at political fear mongering. Go threaten someone else with 'or else'. Your this or nothing is like holding a squirt gun to the head of the electorate.

The only reason to ram this garbage through is for the dems to deliver on the promises they made the insurance companies and that the insurance companies paid for. This is an insurance company bailout. But we both understand this. That's why you are so busy crying about pass it or we get NOTHING. Peddle bullshit some where else. We want health care reform not health insurance company bailouts.

Unless you want to try again... Where is your proof that we will get nothing unless we pass this. Remember, you said 'nothing' not one little thing. NOTHING. Stand by that statement or step off.

[B Calm]

101. DAMN RIGHT! They could pass through reconciliation Medicare for all

who want it!!

[GinaMaria]

103. A few thoughts about what we need

Make it simple, make it understandable, make it affordable for people (not insurance companies), and make it available to anyone who needs it. What we need is pretty straight forward. An expansion of Medicare would be a good option. It's understood by most. It's a process that has been up and running for years and most of the people it would impact already pay into medicare. No branding needed. It's a recognized name. We get it.

We don't need mandates to buy insurance. They can even pull out mandates on insurance companies about pre-existing and caps. As long as there exists a Medicare option for anyone to use if they choose, insurance companies will alter their policies to compete if they want the same customers.

It's unfair to have taxes on employer based health plans unless a public alternative like Medicare is offered.

We need to end the idea of health care being tied to an employer. Congress and the administration need to walk out of the past century and walk boldly into the present. We need health care that is tied to the individual. No matter how that individual makes money. This will free up businesses and make them more competitive. This will free up people to work where they would really thrive and contribute.

It's time to end relationships that are holding them back from accomplishing what they have the potential to accomplish. This starts with the CONservatives in both parties.

Our elected officials need to free themselves from the Health Insurance Lobby and do what people elected them to do. This is an opportunity. What happened in Mass. is really an opportunity to get it right. They squandered the mandate and political will that carried them into office. They cannot squander this opportunity or the electorate will turn their backs on them.

It's time to walk away from these two bills and take the opportunity as a do-over. Start over with ideas that will give people what they need, not insurance companies what they want.

Anything related to health care reform that wasn't written by an elected official, needs to be thrown out. If our elected officials cannot write bills themselves, then they lack a basic competency for the job and need to go.

And we need to primary and vote out any politician that tries to sell us crap that doesn't do what we need it to do. Enough is enough. Do your frickin' jobs or you'll be fired. We all live by that rule. So should our elected officials.

Some would have us believe that this is asking for too much.

[B Calm]

117. Great points, all of them!

[Aramchek]

105. Medicare is not going to be expanded to everyone. If you don't know this, you don't know much

[GinaMaria]

106. Please tell us your proof about NOTHING

You claim if we don't pass this crap insurance company bailout bill we will get nothing, nada, zip not so much as an immunization or a tylenol. Please present your evidence. How do you know we will get nothing, not even one tiny little thing. Waiting......

[Aramchek]

110. this was our chance. it was passed with 60 votes.

if we don't get it we don't get insurance reform.

they can try something with Reconciliation, but they won't get pre-existing condition coverage, etc.

You think we can just go back to the drawing board.
You're ignoring the fact that the drawing board is gone.

[GinaMaria]

113. everything is impossible to the unwilling

you lack imagination. There is no proof that we had one and only one chance. If this doesn't pass that doesn't prove we will never have insurance reform. The drawing board is never gone. They are very cheap at the art store. I will go buy a new one for Congress, though I would like to know what they did with the last one. They are meant to be used over and over. Every problem has a solution. It is just a matter of finding it. Not everything is so black and white or so extreme This or Nothing! It's a crappy way to think and helps no one. It's the kind of thinking that makes us settle for far less than we deserve. It is also not reality based. There are many shades of grey.

Where do you pull these proclamations out of? Seriously It's this or Nothing. We won't get pre-existing coverage. You don't know that. You sound like an addict with this kind of thinking. It's really toxic.

Especially considering, if the dems don't push this bill through, they will face the wrath of their financial masters. If they do pass it, they will face angry voters. Who do you think they fear most? They fear the insurance companies. So chin up, they will find a way to ram your beloved bills through for the insurance cartel. They've made it clear, they do not act on our behalf.

[GinaMaria]

107. still waiting

Can you not stand by your statement? Prove it or admit it was nothing but fear mongering.

[GinaMaria]

109. on hold with crappy elevator music

still waiting

[last1standing]

119. That's my original point. We won't have 60 votes to fix this catastrophe.

And now no pre-existing care for those over 19? A six month waiting period for pre-existing care being floated? My oh my!

[flyarm]

62. none of them are very good at their propaganda..they expose themselves daily..and anyone that deems

them credible..is a damn fool!

some i have no doubt are on DLC payroll..others on health industry payroll!

they don't give a flying fuck if anyone has health care!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

63. Oh, I'm certain that there are people on the DLC and health insurance payrolls

Unfortunately, the mods get tetchy if you directly accuse anyone of being a paid operative.

However, I'm pretty sure I know who some of them are.

[last1standing]

64. I can't claim with any certainty that anyone here is paid.

But I can say there are some who conveniently agree with Obama regardless of his positions from one day to the next. I've seen some do a complete 180 in their "political opinions" within the course of 24 hours and pump out each opinion with complete confidence that it was the only possible way to think.

The funny thing is I've even seen a "pro" full of non"sense" have these conflicting views on the same page of GD: P at the same time. :rofl:

[TheWatcher]

71. It isn't just here, it's all over the Internet.

There are trolls, of course. Every Message Board, every Community has them.

But there ARE paid operatives who get specifically paid to promote an agenda.

We have them on DU.

I'm not going to say that you've specifically named one.....

That would be against the rules. :)

[Raineyb]

25. And bill doesn't do all that much for them either.

You've completely skirted by the previous poster's point about plans that people wouldn't be able to afford to use. And we have over 50 million people without insurance. This plan, such as it is, only covers 30 million at best. So what about the other 20+ people? It's okay to throw them to the wolves?

There's nothing in there that stops the insurance companies from offering plans to people that are so expensive that people won't actually be able to afford the plan itself. (Not to mention the co-pays and/or deductibles which has already been mentioned albeit ignored by you.) And then there's the "no rescission. Only there's a loophole big enough to drive an ambulance through with the "fraud" provision as if it ought to matter what the hell you tell the insurance companies if they're supposed to cover you anyway.)

This bill as it stands is worse than the status quo. At least at this point I can manage my budget and if necessary not pay for insurance in order to keep a roof over my head and food on the table. The bill as the Senate passed it uses the IRS as an enforcement agency for the private insurance companies to whom I am forced to give money whether I can afford to or not.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

58. But there is no requirement to make the insurance affordable, and

the affordability criteria that I have seen are totally unrealistic.

You may say, "Oh, they can't charge people with pre-existing conditions more."

What makes you think they won't jack up the prices for EVERYONE (especially those of us over 50) to ensure their profits?

There is NOTHING in the bill that requires the insurance companies to justify their base rate increases and nothing to prevent them from colluding on price increases (now that the anti-trust part of the bill has been bargained away).

Case in point--I live in Minnesota, supposedly a "good" state for insurance. All companies that sell to individuals are supposed to be non-profit (although their headquarters are lavish and their executives live high on the hog). They all charge within a couple of dollars of each other for the same lousy individual plans. They all raise their prices in lockstep.

There is nothing in either the Senate or House bill to prevent that.

In countries that rely on private insurance, the companies have to get approval from a citizens' board (like a utility commission) to raise rates.

Here they can gouge as they please.

[mdmc]

72. I have insurance that does not allow access to affordable health treatment

Having insurance is worthless if it does not allow for access to affordable health treatment..

[sendero]

108. You actually..

... believe that people with chronic conditions are going to get insurance?


ROFLMAO

The insurance companies have a thousand ways to make sure you don't. Easiest? Oh, you've had a heart attack? Your premium is $3000 per month. Enjoy.

This reform is bullshit.

[Little Star]

33. .

[hfojvt]

27. I don't remember Clinton saying that about welfare reform

Plus, it was not Democrats who passed welfare reform, it was Republicans

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=1996_Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Reconciliation_Act

Here's the house vote for HR 3734, Republicans voted yes by 226-4 and Democrats voting no by 30-165. So it's not like Clinton convinced a bunch of Democrats to vote for a bad bill. Even if all Democrats voted against it, it still passes by 226-208 even in the best case scenario.

In the Senate, 23 Democrats voted for it, including Feingold and Harkin, but not Feinstein. It could still have passed 52-48 without any Democratic support.

Now here my memory seems to be faulty because I thought he vetoed TWO previous attempts at welfare reform, but this list only shows one

http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/98-147.pdf

of HR 4 on 9 Jan 1996.

HR 4 seems kinda odd. It originally passed the Senate by 87-12, but then the conference report only passed by 52-47 with only one 'Democrat' (Baucus) voting for it.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d104:6:./temp/~bdu8NN:@@@R|/bss/d104query.html|

[last1standing]

30. I do. He said it just after signing the bill.

He claimed it was a "good bill" with some features that needed to be addressed. Oddly enough, they never were....

[AGMONEY]

28. NAFTA

Most of the Republicans at the time NAFTA was passed where for it.

[xchrom]

31. Recommend

[KharmaTrain]

32. The PTB Like It Just The Way It Is...

Both parties...no matter what it does to the American worker and in some cases in spite of them. Off shoring and cheap labor mean bigger campaign contributions...and now moreso since those same corporates can buy whatever they want.

Right now the Senate is totally dysfunctional...they can hardly pass the minutes from the previous session yet do anything constructive.

[gulliver]

34. "Real progressives" (tm) weakened Obama

I would not look for NAFTA to be touched at all until world poverty equalizes its way across the U.S. border for a few more years.

Maybe Obama can find some sort of inspiration in this darkness and rise to the occasion. Hope so. His "real base" (tm) flees from the battlefield when the enemy drummer plays his first bar.

[last1standing]

36. Exactly who is Obama's "real base"?

Is it the People he's screwed over repeatedly or the corporations whose interests he's worked so hard for this last year?

[gulliver]

40. If I understand your framing, then I think his real base...

...would be "the People he's screwed over repeatedly." "The People who think he's screwed them over repeatedly" are the ones I was referring to as the "real base (tm)." They're self-screwing really.

To me, it's like watching a lifeguard try to drag a flailing, panicky swimmer out of an undertoe. The swimmer wants to keep trying to swim toward the beach, because he doesn't understand the nature of an undertoe. So, they both look to drown.

[JVS]

44. Obama let the "moderates" turn the bill into a heinous turd that the public hates.

[bvar22]

46. Essentially,

Obama let Joe Lieberman and Olympia Snow WRITE the damned thing.

Mandates + NO Public Option + Trillion Dollar Corporate Welfare +raising taxes on the Working Class=
A REPUBLICAN Health "Care" Plan

"When given the choice between a Republican, and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, the voters will choose the Republican every time." ---Harry Truman

QED

[gulliver]

47. Defeating Obama on this is far from a victory.

If the bill has even the slightest possibility of helping anyone, then it has to pass. The alternative is not an Obama Waterloo as the GOP would have it. It could be a decades-long health care Armageddon for Progressives.

We told Obama to pick the fight. He picked it. A loss does not return us to status quo. It sends us into the wilderness.

[JVS]

48. Obama painted himself into a lose-lose situation. He either gets a bill that the public hates...

passed and loses a lot of political capital as well as suffering huge losses this November, or the bill is killed which will rightfully be an embarrassment after such a long time attempting to do something, but would probably be best for our ongoing political situation as well as the possibility of someday getting a real HCR bill, because the current one does nothing. There is no winning on this bill. His lack of leadership on the issue long ago let this thing become a gong show. It's time to cut losses by not forcing congress to ram through this piece of shit and suffer the electoral consequences.

And it's not the fault of progressives that this happened. It happened because Obama made no effort to reign in the right wing of the Democratic caucus in the senate and never took a left wing position to the negotiating table

[gulliver]

59. I don't know how everyone seems to know...

...so much about what Obama did or didn't do. They also seem to know that passing the bill will bring huge losses in November.

To me it seems like one of those awful reverse logic situations. Someone didn't get everything they wanted, so they feel bad. Then, they create a perceived past, present, and future that matches their feeling. They don't feel good about the bill, so Obama didn't fight for it, it isn't a good bill, and it will cause problems in the future. Obviously.

Much more likely is the prospect (based on real history and the obvious difficulty of creating something new). If this health care bill does not pass, it might not be touched again for two more decades. There's no risk of that I guess. There's no risk that Obama's presidency could be swamped and the Republicans could get the country back in their incompetent clutches either.

If we don't get a health care bill form the current two, we had better hope Obama tries for another and that the Congress thinks it is politically possible. If not, the "real progressives" (tm) have screwed us all.

[JVS]

61. Speaking of reverse logic, how the hell do you get the idea that progressives screwed Obama

Is Lieberman a True Progressive ™? Senator Nelson? What kind of history are you confabulating where progressives gave Obama guff?

[DisgustedInMN]

75. WTF??????

"Someone didn't get everything they wanted, so they feel bad."

That sir, is a despicable, condescending, fucking lie.

Here's the reality:

"Someone" got almost NOTHING they were PROMISED by the PRETENDER they worked their asses off to put in office.

I don't want "a pony."

I don't want "a decoder ring."

I want access to AFFORDABLE health care.

I want a decent job that pays a living wage.

I want my Nation to spend less on killing people in foreign lands and more on taking care of it's citizens right here at home.

The Democratic Party used to stand for the same things, although you wouldn't know it by their actions of the last year.

I want my Democratic Party back.

[pattmarty]

88. AGREE!!!

[dana_b]

89. well said n/t

[last1standing]

90. Excellent post!

That should be its own OP.

[JVS]

91. +1

[anonymous171]

56. Obama defeated himself on this. He will have no one to blame but himself when it fails. nt

[amborin]

35. NO SENATE BILL

[omega minimo]

37. FIX. THE. DAMN. BILL. NOW.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

38. To be fair

After 1994, Clinton NEVER again had a Democratic Congress to work with. What did you expect? :shrug:

[last1standing]

39. I expected him not to lie to us.

I expected him to work for the People not the corporate structure. I know he couldn't get much done, but he could have worked harder to stop some incredibly bad bills like DOMA, DADT, and Welfare Reform.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

41. I don't remember if Congress could have overridden vetoes of any of these bills at the time

I'm not happy about any of these but as bad as the aforementioned laws were, the Republican alternatives to any of those at the time would've probably been rather horrendous. I don't think, leaving political realities at the time aside, he would've done things the same if he had a Democratic Congress to work with. DADT was the only initiative that he signed while the Democrats were still in control of Congress but the Republicans and some conservative Democrats were in favor of writing the gay ban into law, which, on balance, certainly would've been worse than DADT- and Clinton recognized it as such at the time. Hopefully, the current Congress sticks a repeal of it into the 2011 Defense Re-Authorization Bill and gets it through.

[JVS]

43. To be fair right back. Supporters of this bill use the supposition that we will lose seats in...

the Senate to argue a "now or never" situation that would logically imply that Obama will never get a chance to fix this bill either.

You can't say "now's the last chance" and "we'll be able to fix it later"

[Proud Liberal Dem]

67. Well, I guess it might depend on how soon it might be "fixed"

I thought that, in reference to HCR, the plan that is being considered would have the House pass the Senate version and that the Senate would more or less immediately pass through a "patch" via reconciliation. I would argue that if they're going to do this, it pretty much needs to be done now. 2010 probably won't be a "rout" like 1994 but Obama will have fewer Dems in Congress to work with, so he needs to get HCR in NOW one way or another IMHO. He can then use the next two years to continue to press his agenda and can run against the Repubs' inevitable obstructionism in 2012 to try to win re-election and help regain/enhance Democratic majorities in Congress for the start of his (presumed) second term.

[blues90]

42. How do you fix garbage ?

This Health ins re-form is so distorted and screwed up it needs to be scrapped. This is NOT what the people wanted at all. Most were for single payer and that like impeachment was off the table before it even got in the room.

If Obama wants to do his job he would stand up and admit this was a mistake and done the wrong way and he should also stand up and say the wars are now over.

But no , just keep pushing the crap and funding it and the only ones who win are the corporations and the pentagon, big pharma and the military industrial complex.

Without living wage jobs and a economy no one but a few will be able to afford to breath.

I constantly get bashed because I don't see the hope or change others hang onto.

People kept saying they were going to hold Obamas feet to the fire , well that worked out well didn't it? When are the people going to wise up and admit things never worked like this.

All the people who protested the wars seem to have gone , you see a few if you really look yet we are still in the wars.

You can call and write your reps all you want and get the form letter.

The more the politicians get away with this the less power the people have and the more politicians will do their own bidding.

[Leopolds Ghost]

54. Yes, why DID we stop protesting the Iraq war, for instance?

What is with the "walk and chew gum" progressives, the people who said "That's not as pressing now that we're not being killed on a daily basis, issue X is the issue of the day!"

[blues90]

60. That's one of the problems I have wondered.

Somehow, it is fine now , no one talks about the wars as if they do not exist anymore. You hear nothing which is the norm of mainstream media. I hear most on a few liberal shows like Malloy and Bob Kincaid, two of the very few who are not bowing down for popularity sake.

Moving the marines out of Iraq into Afghanistan is not ending the wars.

It seems like as time goes by people just get caught up in today and forget all about the issues that are still present on a daily basis.

Today with media owned by corporations both radio and TV and newspapers we really have little.

I don't know how people put up with this crap when it affects everyone in one way or another.

Certainly there are blogs and such but this does not reach out to everyone unless they take the time to look through it.

The wars were a big issue when GW was in office now because of an election people think it just went away.

Impeachment went away and now we have GW with Clinton with Haiti , this is insane surreal world as far as I can tell.

[Leopolds Ghost]

65. Immediately after election, KO actually apologized for continuing the "Xth day in Iraq" bit.

He basically said, "sure, the war may seem to be over, so it may not be as big a deal, but our boys are still in harms way there, but I apologize for harping on it." :eyes:

[blues90]

66. I didn't see that , I don't watch TV but if he did pass it off as you say

Then maybe KO should give up his high paid TV slot and go suit up .

[last1standing]

57. A start would be ensuring minimum coverage which this bill doesn't do.

I can accept a lot of shit to get minimum coverage so that those in need can actually get the service we're all paying for.

[GinaMaria]

94. They need to pass it, for the insurance companies who

wrote and paid for this bill. If the dems don't deliver for their financial masters, there will be trouble. They need to ram this through as fast as possible and call it a victory. Those who benefit from it passing are out in force... telling us if we don't pass this we'll get nothing, or Pass it now and fix it later. Bullshit. They have no intention of fixing it. The fix is already in the bill, for the insurance companies.

[blues90]

115. Yes , the fix IS in the bill . It sure is not for the worker

It is for the ins corps who should have never been allowed to get in on it. It's a scam just to get something done. Want something done that will make a huge difference , end the wars. Create jobs that are jobs anyone can do to make a living wage and then be able to get a good education but we can't have that.

Then there is that news speak called " jobs created OR saved " what exactly does that mean , it's an empty statement. Jobs saved AND created means something with numbers attached to it.

[joeybee12]

45. Nice catch...fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice,

shame on me.

[B Calm]

49. The democrats need a straight up and down vote to dump NAFTA.

Show these brainwashed freepers where the conservatives really stand on this issue!

[NorthCarolina]

79. They would never do that because it would expose the DLC within the Democratic Party

as the Corporate Loyalists that they are.

[B Calm]

98. When NAFTA was passed into law it was passed by 100% of the republicans

and with a small handful of DLC democrats. NAFTA always was a republican bill, even though it was signed into law with a democratic president! These teabaggers need to know who and what in hell they're voting for when they vote republican. By having a straight up and down vote on repealing NAFTA, maybe the light will reach into their small brain. . .

[blue_onyx]

102. Actually....

In the Senate, 26 of 55 of Democrats supported NAFTA. Liberal Senators Kennedy and Kerry voted for it, as did VP Biden. In the House, 102 of the 258 Democrats voted for NAFTA. It was more than "a small handful of DLC democrats."

[B Calm]

118. You didn't mention how many republicans voted for NAFTA. . .

[blue_onyx]

121. Because the purpose of my comment...

was to point out your statement that only "a small handful of DLC democrats" were involved in the passing of NAFTA was wrong.

In the Senate, 34 of 44 Republicans voted for NAFTA. I miscounted the Dems by one, so 27 of 56 Dems in the Senate voted for Nafta.

In the House, 132 of 175 Republican voted for NAFTA.

So your statement that 100% of Republicans voted for NAFTA is also incorrect.

BTW, if you want to address the content of my comment, rather than asking me to do your research for you, feel free to do so.

[earth mom]

74. Anyone who believes the powers that be will "fix it later" is a fool. nt

[laughingliberal]

112. Fix us later, maybe

As in fix us good.

[mother earth]

83. Major applause for this, last1standing! Fix it or kill it, this is BS.

They are finally getting some spine and might use reconciliation for a BS bill masquerading as reform.

Kill the bill or make it right, they are willing to do neither because this enriches special interest. The gov't is now in full-swing of enriching the corporations. They didn't get enough out of GW for all their greed, it continues on unrestrained.

All in the name of reform? This is pure BS. Nothing has changed, right down to bin Laden being paraded out by the CIA...BS, BS, BS.

[GinaMaria]

92. The only reason to pass this quickly

is for the dems to deliver what they promised to the insurance companies. This is an insurance company bill. They wrote it. They paid the dems for it. They expect to receive what they paid for. Anyone who votes for this insurance company bailout bill needs to be fired (voted out).

[laughingliberal]

111. Yes, pass it quickly before the public figures out that the industry is now a house of cards

Can't have them knowing it's the industry that needs help. If we knew that, we'd expect some concessions from them.

[GinaMaria]

114. LOL oops too late

I think the word is spreading. They are collapsing under the weight of their own greed.

[treestar]

97. Different times, different bill

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

100. Piss on it now and construct a bill that serves the people.

[GinaMaria]

104. How about we use both bills

for a bon fire and weenie roast? There's quite a few weenies in DC that need roasting (and a few on this board).

[seabeyond]

122. yes. he did say that, didnt he. patriot act too. nt

[Orsino]

123. Yeah. Consider what "later" will mean...

...in light of certain recent Supreme Court rulings. What Congress will be capable of passing a more progressive bill?