It's Not a Health Care Bill. It's An Insurance Bill.

[David Zephyr]

This is not health-care reform. It's restructuring how insurance companies get to market what they alone decide what is "health-care."

I oppose this bill. It's a disgrace that a Democratic President pushed such a corporate bill.

Health care? Not even close.

[ProSense]

1. MOYERS: Is the president...saying that the gist of this bill is oversight of the insurance industry?

BILL MOYERS: Is the president essentially saying that the gist of this bill is oversight of the insurance industry?

WENDELL POTTER: Much of it is. There is a lot of new oversight of the insurance industry that this legislation would bring at the federal level. There's-- there has not been anywhere close to adequate oversight of the insurance industry at either the federal or state level, and most of the regulation occurs at the state level, and it varies from state to state.

What we're seeing is regulation can work, but it can only work if the insurance departments have adequate resources and if they understand the importance of regulation. And there needs to be a federal component, because a lot of states don't do it adequately. It has been deregulated, or there has been deregulation a lot of states. And we have seen these price increases go up, and in a lot of states, the insurance coverage is woefully inadequate because there aren't many customer protections in the new states.

<...>

BILL MOYERS: So I hear Wendell Potter saying that if he were in the Senate or the House, he would vote for this reform?

WENDELL POTTER: I would vote for it. I was distraught when I saw what happened, what I saw the Senate voting on. But then I realized, you know, I studied a lot of these efforts over the past many years to get reform. And often we've come short because we've tried to get the perfect, and we've never been able to get anything as a consequence. So I fear that we may be--

BILL MOYERS: Not since Medicare, right?

WENDELL POTTER: Not since Medicare.

link

Those who disagrees could, instead of complaining, join Jane Hamsher's new campaign.

[Edweird]

77. I'd rather see those that support RW policy drummed out of the Dem party.

[laughingliberal]

81. +1 nt

[Jakes Progress]

187. You mean those who support tax profits for corporations?

But the president can't have a chief of staff who isn't a Democrat.

[yurbud]

160. that would be a better sell if it were framed that way.

[uponit7771]

281. FUCK FACTS!!! /sarcasm

[Trillo]

2. What a frame! Very effective, at least for me.

It's one thing to read about a Health Insurance bill. This can easily be confused with a Health Care bill. We're conditioned to immediately think of insurance, or its lack, when thinking of Health Care.

But simply remove that one word, "health".

Not a Health Care bill, an Insurance Bill!

It's the Insurance Bill, Stupid!

Health Care, no insurance needed!

I wish enough of our legislators would vote for a Health Care bill! It seems so very popular. Pay 2% or another reasonable figure in your income tax, and get Health Care with No deductible and No Copay with a real doctor!

But listen to them, the poor and middle masses? Oh, there's not enough support....

[David Zephyr]

7. Thanks.

I think this has been the most maddening to me is how too many of us allow the supporters of this corporate giveaway to continue to dishonestly call it a health care bill. It is not a health care bill, it is an insurance bill.

I will only call it that from now on as I'm sick of playing into the big lie.

[WinkyDink]

23. HEY! We call Illegal invasions "Being at war" rather than "Committing war-crimes"!

[liberation]

58. Don't forget: torture is now "enhanced interrogation technique"

The double think in this society is out of control. Orwell would be ever so proud!

[inna]

109. I've been referring to this scam as health care deform.

[leftstreet]

3. This bill saves THEM not US

In 2011 79 million baby boomers will start turning 65.

Over the next two decades, 162 to 172 million people!


That's a whole lotta people shifting from for-profit insurance to Medicare, and that's precisely what this bullshit healthcare 'reform' is all about.

:mad:

K&R

[David Zephyr]

8. Yep. The entire scam is about for-profit insurance.

Mandated. And taxed, if it is a good "plan".

It's an Insurance Bill, not a Health Care Bill.

[sam sarrha]

97. the bottom 80% Americans only possess 7% of countries Financial wealth 70+% of debt..why? Fascism!

when will our elected representatives get the guts to wear their arm band's outside their shirts.!!

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woIkIph5xcU

[dflprincess]

17. Exactly (nt)

[inna]

104. While, interesingly, Medicare is being defunded by half a Trillion $ -

- which is being redirected to private for-profit insurers, in the name of this health care deform.

[SammyWinstonJack]

279. Not hard to figure out is it? Wonder why so many don't understand this.

:shrug: De-fund Medicare and force millions onto the private health insurance scam industry.

Simply brilliant! :evilgrin:

Thanks President Sell-us-0ut! :yourock: :puke:

[havocmom]

4. Yep

Nothing in there will make it easier to get medical care. Nothing in there will make it likely a doctor will see you for more than a few moments. THAT is not medical care, that is McMedicine so corporate clinics can bill insurers.

Problem is, no doctors can actually practice medicine. The young ones never had a chance; they are only employees and have to produce numbers, not healthy people. The old ones, who remember practicing medicine have had to give up for their own good.

This is 'HCR' is just shoring up the funnel of $$ to Wall Street with Insurance companies taking their cut for the money laundering.

It's shameful and frankly, sad as I was when Ted Kennedy died, I am glad he did not live to see this disgrace.

[David Zephyr]

11. Well, at least some of us know better, havocmom.

Every word you wrote is true.

What is pathetic is watching how easily Democrats are rallied to support this garbage just because Obama wants it. That's pathetic.

I oppose this insurance bill.

[Skittles]

5. CORRECT

it's fucking DISGUSTING and an INSULT to any thinking person

[David Zephyr]

13. I was beginning to feel like I was alone on this, Skittles.

It's like everyone is suiting up to play in a game we shouldn't be participating in at all. Thanks!

[closeupready]

24. You are most certainly NOT alone.

I stand with you in solidarity. :yourock:

[David Zephyr]

33. There's a false narrative "If you are a good Democrat you must support this bill."

The truth is that a good Democrat would oppose this corporate mandate on Americans. It's vile.

Thanks, closeupready.

[Donnachaidh]

48. it's not only false it's frightening

There is a definite group that would use the lowest Republican fearmongering, spin and outright lies in order to push their agenda. They claim to be democrats, but the tools they use say otherwise.

[liberation]

60. Indeed...

... you know when the best argument they can come up to defend this putrid piece of legislation is posting shirtless pics of Obama, you know we have gone down the rabbit hole.

It really feels like we're in an episode of the Twilight Zone. Cult of personality, regardless of where in the political spectrum comes from, frightens the hell out of me.

[howmad1]

228. On the other hand:

If Obama were a democrat, we could have had single payer health care, or a least a strong public option. Instead, we got us a hopey, changey corpratist rethuglican disgusied as a democrat for president. What an abject failure he turned out to be.

[kenny blankenship]

6. It's a preemptive strike against HC reform - it was conceived of as such from the get-go

by the insurance mafia and their moles in Congress and the White House. And like DADT, it will take an "Act of Congress" to undo, or lessen its harsh effects.

[David Zephyr]

14. Interesting observation.

I hadn't considered that. It's a preemptive strike against real HC reform.

I so oppose this nonsense.

[inna]

103. And don't forget:

Obama:

"I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last. (Applause.)"

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/remarks-by-the-president-to-a-joint-session-of-congress-on-health-care/

[humpty dumpty]

9. We need jobs.

The people without jobs WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PURCHASE the mandated insurance (which is written in Obama's bill).

Can't anyone see it -- FIRST we need jobs -- then reform the whole health care industry -- not just the insurance piece of it. The whole industry needs reform.

Without jobs, nothing much is going to help we, the people.

[leftstreet]

12. But we'll need at least 10 million claims denial specialists!

See? It's also a jobs bill!

Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[David Zephyr]

25. LOL!

Excellent, leftstreet!

[Taitertots]

26. They will get one american guy to say no to everything for 10 million dollars a year

And 10 million Indians will take care of the rest.

[pecwae]

181. Good god, you're right.

As much as I've been involved in denials I should have put those two together.

Yep, great jobs will be available stamping "CLAIM DENIED" on EOB forms.

[David Zephyr]

16. One would have thought they would have started with that.

But know, business (the insurance business) came first.

[dflprincess]

18. There would be more jobs if employers weren't expected to provide insurance

The insurance system we have now, stifles job creation, keeps many people who might want to start a small business from doing so and hurts every other sector of the economy.

We can't fix the economy as long as we continue to allow one sector of crooks to hold us hostage. There's no difference between the insurance companies and mobsters who demand "protection" money.

[Mithreal]

75. +1

[Jackpine Radical]

224. What makes you think big business wants a bunch of startup companies

screwing around with their monopolies? Denying health care coverage to wannabe entrepreneurs is a wonderful way of preserving the status quo.

[dflprincess]

245. That's an excellent point and probably one of the reasons

the big companies aren't screaming for reform. Not only does the current "system" stifle competition it gives them something to hold over their workers heads so employees put up with all kinds of abuse, including lower wages.

[Jackpine Radical]

246. Amazing how cleverly intertwined it all is, no?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

272. Nice angle.

Competition cost savings trump payroll cost savings. I hadn't thought of it that way before.

[t0dd]

10. K&R

[slipslidingaway]

15. knr - the Republicans could not have pushed this bill on us ...

it could only be done by our own party.

:(

[Mithreal]

76. +1 Lot of that going around.

[inna]

115. +1

[slipslidingaway]

165. Yes, too much! n/t

[Plucketeer]

102. They could have a few years ago.

Before we got "our guys" in the driver's seat. :sarcasm:

[slipslidingaway]

164. And I can only imagine the backlash from the Dems and people on DU. n/t

[Name removed]

151. Deleted message

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

[Autumn]

19. "The Insurance Industry Profit Protection Act of 2010" is

what one DUer called it. That has kind of stuck with me.

[David Zephyr]

34. That's truth in advertising. I like it, too.

Thanks Autumn.

[Jackpine Radical]

226. If you want to stay true to the acronym, it's

Health Insurance Profit Assurance Act. HIPAA.

[Crunchy Frog]

128. Though the insurance companies themselves don't seem to happy about it.

They have the teabaggers out frothing at the mouth, and these horrible ads on TV about the "gub'mint healthcare takeover". They have an elderly friend of mine convinced she's going to be killed if it passes.

This bill at least seems to regulate them in some ways that they really don't want.

[aaronbav]

153. It's all KAbuki. And to stop ANY discussion of a Public Option, let

alone that which is really needed: Medicare Buy-in/Single payer. The bill that the Insurance GANGSTER CARTEL wants is WHAT BO promised them: No Single Payer, NO PUBLIC option and MOST IMPORTANTLY: MANDATES - ENFORCED under penalty of LAW by the IRS.

[johnaries]

20. WRONG! If you have actually READ the bill you'd know there are

several provisions that impact Health Care directly, and not just Insurance. As far as the Insurance portions are concerned, it puts many major restrictions on Insurance companies. In fact, it is so restrictive that if the mandate were not added it would drive Insurance companies completely out of business. That may be a good thing in the long run, but any such measure would never pass.

It's not a perfect bill, it's not even a great bill. But it's a damn good one and hopefully it will be improved. It's an excellent start.

[557188]

21. lol

I can't believe people honestly believe what you're typing.

You're wrong on everything.

[johnaries]

30. Try reading the bill. You'll see that I'm right.

[557188]

39. Are you sure you read it?

I don't think you did. Lets see some quotes about how great this bill is!

PS: Anything with a corporate mandate makes it an awful bill by default. But keep trying to rationalize it.

[johnaries]

92. Yes, I even have the Senate version on my thumb drive.

Try reading the President's proposal, which is what we Progressives are trying to get accomplished via reconcilliation:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal

[Juche]

129. Holding out for single payer or nothing is not a solution

I'm not sure why so many people seem to feel it is either a perfect bill or nothing. This bill reforms health insurance, and it will hopefully do a decent job.

Close the medicare donut hole
Mandate 80-85% minimum of health insurance income go to medical care
Set up competition
Reduce the federal deficit by a trillion over 20 years
Let people with pre-existing conditions get coverage
Fight rescissions
Slow the rate of medical inflation
Subsidies for those who need them
Expansions of medicaid
More community mental health and primary care services
Banning pharma from bribing generic drug makers from releasing generics
Allow kids to be covered under parents plans until age 26

This is a good health insurance reform bill. It is not a perfect health care bill, but it is a good health insurance reform bill.

[johnaries]

253. EXACTLY! Thank you! nt

[laughingliberal]

79. I've read the bill. I read every bill that every committee passed and the original Finance committee

bill and the blended bill Reid wrote and the manager's amendment and the Senate bill as passed. And I don't see you're right. What I see is it's even worse than those here opposing it even know.

All the 'reform' of the insurance industry is negated by loopholes and weasel provisions. And no funding AFAICS for any enforcement of the weak, loopholed regulations.

[johnaries]

96. I disagree with your analysis, then.

There are always loopholes, many of them unseen at the time the original bill is passed that have to be fixed later. But the mandated MLR to reign in profits and the combined State and Federal approval for premium hikes are pretty solid. As well as the provisions to eliminate the worst practices.

[laughingliberal]

108. Ok. But, despite the support Potter expresses for the bill, he has said the 85%

MLR was the level the industry insisted on. He has told us that is the level at which the numbers can most easily be manipulated to avoid the intent.

And you don't really have to look for the loopholes. They are pretty obvious. These were not oversights. The loopholes are intentional and were written in by the Finance committee insurance industry prostitutes.

Forgive me, that whole 'fixing later' thing is a tad too nebulous for me. Watching the sellout of the American people during this process does not instill confidence that our lawmakers intend to 'fix' anything except us.

[johnaries]

120. NOt "fixing" later, but "improving" later. This is nothing like the

NAFTA bill which sucked from the beginning. But as I have said there are always unforseen loopholes that must be plugged later in any legislation.

[laughingliberal]

127. It is exactly like that. It sucks in every way it could suck

The only way this bill could suck worse is if just read, "send as much money as they demand to the insurance company and maybe we'll make them give you a policy for it" Yeah, it's better than than but not by much.

I admire your optimism but I don't trust a body of lawmakers who feel this is the best they can do for the American people to ever have the will to fix it.

Again, the loopholes are not unforseen. I've been aware of them from the time the bill came out. They did not get in there by accident. Someone wrote them and the prostitutes in the Senate will protect them.

[johnaries]

254. OK, not trying to be an asshole, but can you just give me an example

of what you consider a loophole in the bill. You don't have to give me "chapter and verse" just give me enough of an idea so I can find it myself. Also, just a general idea of why you think it's an obvious loophole. Again, I'm not looking for you to quote specific language, just a general idea. I would like to read the language myself to see if I might have missed something.

But just saying "it sucks and is full of loopholes" means nothing unless you can give me some examples.

[unapatriciated]

180. Your right on the mark LL

In the early 90's California passed some very strict laws in regards to Health Care and the Insurance Industry(Fair Claims Practice Act and laws dealing with Pre-existing conditions).
The problem was the Insurance Industry helped write them, loop-holes and all.
I know this from personal experience and over ten years of fighting with my Insurance Company.
I had a 'Cadillac Plan' :sarcasm: plus a Catastrophic Plan. I still had to sell my home and my son was permanently crippled due constant denials and reviews.

[laughingliberal]

193. God help us. I'm so sorry to hear about your situation and your son.

I fear a lot of people who are leading the support for this bill are in for some very tragic awakenings.

[unapatriciated]

201. This was in the early 90's - 2005

My son has been in remission since 2005 he is an adult now. He is permanently disabled due to muscle wasting and on SSI. The last three years he has been able to attend SF Art Institute in hopes that he can someday actually be employed.
I remarried in 2007 to a wonderful man (duer lame54) and we were able to buy a modest home.
I just wish people would understand that this has already been done in California and without penalties the Insurance Industry will use the same loop-holes.

[laughingliberal]

209. So glad things are better for you! Holding good thoughts for your son's future!

I'm not sure here, a lot of the time, if I'm talking to those who really don't get it or those who do get it and mean to mislead us. It's disturbing.

[johnaries]

256. I am so sorry for your son and your situation. But that just proves

how necessary it is to pass this bill.

I don't know the details of your situation, but there are very strong provisions against denying care. Also, under this bill you can change your insurance company and they have to accept you, pre-existing condition or not.

I am curious, if you had a "Cadillac" plan (sarcasm or not) why would you need a Catastrophic plan as well?

[aaronbav]

154. "passed that have to be fixed later" O.K. My answer to you on that: NAFTA

NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA
NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA
NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA
NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA
NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA
NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA
NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA
NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA

[johnaries]

255. As I said before, this bill is NOT NAFTA. It is a very good bill.

Here, read the Senate bill for yourself, or at least one of the summaries:

http://dpc.senate.gov/dpcdoc-sen_health_care_bill.cfm

And read the President's Proposal:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal

and then come back when you learn a new word. There is no comparison between this bill and NAFTA. It is a false argument.

[sam sarrha]

98. see post ....#97

[laughingliberal]

113. Done. See post #108. nt

[Hepburn]

47. +1

[eridani]

22. Any bill founded on the presumption that people between the ages of

--50 and 64 are disposable human garbage is worthless.

[johnaries]

29. WTF? That's an absolutely ridiculous statement. I'm 53, btw.

[eridani]

40. Right. Just call names. Horrendous discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions

--is enshrined in this shitty law. It does not consider age to be a pre-existing condition.

[johnaries]

99. Who did I call names? I said the statement is ridiculous.

And the bill lessens age discrimination by reducing the age difference ratios from how they are calculated today.

[eridani]

222. And it sets in stone the fact that AGE DISCRIMINATION IS OK!!

AT least now if you can't afford their shitty age-rated policies the IRS isn't going to be on your ass.

[johnaries]

257. It's already set in stone, as far as Health Insurance is concerned.

But this reduces the discrimination greatly. And I really don't understand your statement about the IRS. Explain, please.

[eridani]

264. Less discrimination is like being less pregnant

As of now, I can afford both my shitty overpriced age-rated "insurance" and my ongoing medical costs. If I have a financial emergency now to the point where I can't pay both, I'm free to drop the shitty insurance. AFter "reform," the IRS will fine me for dropping it.

[Mimosa]

268. Exactly so, Eridani. n/t

[progressoid]

49. As a 53 yr old, you'll probably be singing a different tune in a couple years if this thing passes.

I just heard this on Bill Moyers...

"They allow for insurance companies to charge three times as much for older people as for younger people.

So from the point of view of the insurance industry, this is a God-send because either way, they win. Either the 55-year-olds cough up three times the premiums, and that's good. Or else they can't, and that's probably the more likely situation. They can't, and then they're fined. And the insurance companies don't have to take care of people who might actually get sick. They're left with all of the thirty-year-olds, who are less likely to get sick, but who are required to buy their products.

So this sets up a situation which probably all plans, for 55-year-olds, are high priced. So they can't afford to buy it, or if they do buy it, they have to pay an excise tax on it. This is a real poison pill for these older people. It's a gift for the insurance industry.

Good luck!

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03052010/transcript3.html

[laughingliberal]

84. Exactly. The community ratings model is the weasel on banning denials of people with preexisting

conditions. And, if you think you're safe cause you have insurance at work, you're gonna love what the Ensign amendment does for you....

[AllyCat]

210. Which one is the Ensign amendment. I missed something. Thanks.

[johnaries]

260. If I'm not mistaken, he's referring to the amendment offering

discounts for "healthy behaviour" such as not smoking, etc. Actually, I am a smoker and I already pay a higher rate. The Senate bill as passed limits the ratio to 1.5 to 1 which is less than I am currently paying extra for engaging in a "non-healthy" behaviour.

[AllyCat]

267. Help me understand why a smoker, doing something that he or she has control over

only has to pay 1.5 to 1 and someone who is elderly (no control) has to pay 3 to 1 under this bill?

Thank you for your answer, but this makes zero sense to me. Except to help the tobacco companies.

[Donnachaidh]

52. so where exactly in the bill is this disproved? You claim to have read it.

Post the section.

[johnaries]

101. First, I'd like an explanation of what eridani means by

"treating people 50-64 as waste garbage." It's a ridiculous statement on it's face.

[Donnachaidh]

106. what a WEAK way of ignoring a direct question.

So you don't have an answer, I take it?

NOT surprized.

[johnaries]

114. Well, why don't YOU explain it, then? Or can you?

[Donnachaidh]

119. what is this -- I have to explain a question I asked YOU?

How OLD are you? Hit puberty yet?

:rofl:

[johnaries]

258. When the question makes no sense, yes. And I am 53 as I said

before.

Now, if the question has to do with the age difference ratio as some others have suggested, I have already answered that. The bill limits the age difference ratio to 3 to 1, which is a damn sight better than the current average 5 to 1 or more. Currently there are no limits to age difference ratios. At least this way I have some guarantee.

Thanks for playing.

[laughingliberal]

111. The community ratings model in the Senate bill will price most out of the market is my guess

about what the poster was referring to.

[johnaries]

116. Thanks for that explanation. But it will not with the subsidies

and pricing restrictions.

[laughingliberal]

123. People may be charged up to 3 times as much due to age

A couple making over 58,280 per year is outside the income level to qualify for a subsidy. My husband and I (who have now had to drop our coverage) were paying $1200 per month for our coverage. That's over 25% of the income of a couple making $60,000 per year, in essence another mortgage payment every month. Now, the good new is they can get a waiver which means they won't be fined for not buying the coverage if it's over 17% of their income. Bad news? You guessed it! They still don't have insurance!

[johnaries]

252. Yes, it is LIMITED to 3 to 1. Right now it's around 5 to 1 or more.

One of the things I have discovered when discussing the various bills is that people don't realize how bad the current situation is! I'll admit that I didn't. But they will see things like this 3-1 age discrepency and think that's horrible. But what they don't (and I didn't in many cases) realize is that it is MUCH BETTER than the current situation.

As far as the subsidy is concerned, according to this calculator:

http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

a family of 4 in a medium cost area where the policy holder is age 50 with an ANNUAL premium of $13,112 would be eligible for an $8128 subsidy under the Senate bill.

A single adult would get $0 in subsidies, but the annual premium would only be $5,428.

Here's the key: you wouldn't be paying such an outrageous premium in the first place.

[David Zephyr]

35. Truth written here. Thanks, eridani.

Those in this age bracket, already discriminated against in the job market are paying higher premiums because of their age and will now be taxed for that privilege because their high premium makes puts them in a "Cadillac" status. Vile.

[johnaries]

112. It does NOT put them in "Cadillac" status. That's pure bullshit.

And it actually reduces the age difference ratio.

[laughingliberal]

117. Actually, the compromise during the House/Senate negotiations which were stopped with the election

of Scott Brown would have mitigated that effect. At this point, though, that is not part of the bill. The House is being asked to pass the Senate bill as passed in the Senate and there is no 'fix' for this in that bill. The President's outline does include some good changes to the excise tax situation, although I'd prefer they had not used it at all. But, there is no certainty at all that they will fix this under reconciliation. The bill the House is being asked to swallow right now does do what the poster says it does.

[closeupready]

27. LOL - just like NAFTA!!! "Yes, it sucks; it's a piece of shit, but we'll fix it!!!"

:rofl: Yeah, right.

[johnaries]

28. It DOESN'T suck. It's a damn good bill.

It eliminates pre-existing condition denials. It eliminates raising rates when you get sick. It restricts yearly caps. It eliminates lifetime caps. It restricts profits. It increases competition. It requires approval for rate increases. It provides for more community health centers. It widens access to Medicaid. It provides subsidies for those who cannot afford insurance. It helps fund education for more health care professionals. It provides funds to help computerize records.

And much, much more.

[glowing]

44. No a good bill would be opening Medicare to all and creating a universal healthcare system.

A bill that would provide more funding to educate nurses and doctors and other health care providers that are going to be in great demand and already are in some places. A bill that would deal with the price gouging with drugs. A bill that would create standards and make hospitals and facilities more on par and price with one another. Health care reform would be reform within the system of delivering health; not handing insurance co's money.

What happens when a bill goes thru with a mandate for buying ins or a fine on a populace that is reeling from the financial collapse. This is the time to sweep everyone into a single-payer system. And tax the damn bankers, they made quite a bit from their bonuses, it would be a nice jump start for paying to sweep everyone into medicare.

AND you know, more than a few people would go off on their own from their shitty coporate overlords and create a business for themselves and be able to hire and retain good employees because they wouldn't have to compete with the bennies coming out of coporate Amerika.

[johnaries]

105. You mean like all the single-payer bills that were introduced

and sent to committee to die?

And actually this bill DOES provide more funding to educate nurses, doctors, and other health care providers. And it does more. The President's proposal goes even farther.

http://dpc.senate.gov/dpcdoc-sen_health_care_bill.cfm
http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal

[RBInMaine]

141. Nice, but a pipe dream now. You do what you CAN, and this is it.

[Mithreal]

172. Love your CAN DO spirit. I am getting tired of the pathetic weak Dem coalition and their supporters.

[Hissyspit]

54. You really think that's all going to work? You really think the insurance cos. aren't going

to find the loopholes and the ways around it? The devil is in the details.

[laughingliberal]

131. Find the loopholes? Hell, they wrote the loopholes. nt

[GinaMaria]

225. + infinity

We should all work for the health insurance companies. They will need to hire a lot more people once this is passed.

[unapatriciated]

197. You are right they will.

This bill is basically the same regulations that California enacted in the early 90's, the only difference is the mandates.
'Fair Claims Practice Act' and laws requiring coverage for pre-existing conditions.
The Insurance Industry loop- holes are delay and review. The only penalty for wrongful denial and reviews is they have to provide coverage.
So they delay or put you through endless reviews until they are forced to provide the coverage in the policy.
Unfortunately I know this from personal experience when my son was diagnosed with Dermatomyositis in 1991.
It was very aggressive and hard to control and because of the constant interruptions of care due to "Reviews" he is permanently and needlessly disabled.
Not to mention losing my home to pay for medications and care during those interruptions.

[liberation]

62. ... so what you are trying to say is that you haven't really read the bill.

LOL

[johnaries]

90. Yes, I've read the House bill, the Senate bill, and Obama's most

recent proposals. I even have the Senate bill on my thumb drive. Maybe you should try reading them and educate yourself.

For starters, here's Obama's most recent proposal:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal

[bread_and_roses]

69. It MANDATES private profits paid for from the public till

the vampire insurers will get around anything else. And if you think the rates it mandates we pay are affordable for the uninsured, I don't know what economy you are living in. As far as raising Medicaid eligibility to - what is it - 133% of poverty level? - that's a paltry and inadequate sop, given how out of date and unrealistic those poverty thresholds are.

Paltry and inadequate and a sham - just like almost everything else this administration does - a sentence it gives me great pain to write, but hey, I live in the real world.

"Insurance Profits Protection Act" describes it quite well.

[AllyCat]

74. All it does is require the insurance cos to provide a policy to the previously uninsurable

I knew an ER nurse in Milwaukee who suffered a needle stick from an HIV-infected person. He now has the disease as well. Not a union shop and has since lost his job when he was so sick he couldn't work. He found a company that would offer him a policy for only $4600 a month. How much money do you think he makes a year? Does that sound affordable to you? Of course not.

This is the kind of crap the insurance companies are going to pull with the way this bill is written. Have diabetes? Sure, we'll cover you...for $3000 a month. Out of work? Well, wait 6 months and you can sign up with the federal plan (I assume that little clause is still in this bill. Frankly, after the first read through, I didn't want to look at it when it resurfaced again). Don't make that much money? Sorry, after some means testing, we've confirmed that you will still be required to buy this plan, take it or lose your house.

Who will approve these rate increases? Congress?...the same group who is bought and paid for by these con artists? Some "independent" commissioner? The community health centers are a great idea, I just hope people can afford to use them. We need more access to Medicaid and that's good, but the states are broke. What good is a subsidy when you can't afford to buy food now to put on the table? Or are losing your house?

Computerizing records sounds like a great thing. However, with the insurance companies still running the show, they will use them to find out things about you and put you into that higher risk group. Or say your policy is null and void because you forgot to tell them about a yeast infection your daughter had 5 years ago.

Insurance companies SUCK! They do not provide care and are not health care professionals. We need to take them out of the equation or this bill cements their legitimacy.

[johnaries]

110. No, it does a lot more.

As for "who spproves rate increases" it's a combination of the States and the DHS. Community health centers are free. Here, you really need to read both the Senate bill as passed and the President's newest proposal:

http://dpc.senate.gov/dpcdoc-sen_health_care_bill.cfm

http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal

[Mithreal]

174. Does it provide health care to everyone?

Does it stop bankruptcies due to medical costs?

Does it continue multi-tier levels of care, so those with more dollars get the better care?

Does it continue a system of middle men who skim dollars away from actual care?

Does it continue to saddle American companies with costs that make them less competitive?

We don't need something like a bank to tell us what services we will receive based upon the dollar value of our account.

Just tell Dems to take it or leave it, the President needs to ensure the dollars will be there to elect more conservative Dems and win his re-election.

The debate at the WH was never about universal quality health care. It has been about preserving an American For Profit Health economy. Think of all the money lost to legislators if that structure is not preserved. Think of all the money in Wall Street that would go away if that For Profit structure were dismantled or there existed real competition.

The American people know what they like. Go peddle your snake oil to people who still believe in superstition.

The New Dem Party slogan should be, BETTER THAN NOTHING!

[AllyCat]

204. Just looking for two minutes brings me two problems. Already.

1. Says that the insurance companies can't charge higher rates for those with pre-existing conditions. They don't do that now. They just offer a different POLICY. For someone like me, I could buy that POLICY too at that horrible price. But I don't because it's at the horrible price. Because I'm healthy, I get the less expensive policy which is unavailable to the person with the pre-existing condition. It's not a different rate. It's a different POLICY. They do that now. There is nothing in this language that will prevent them from doing it in the future under the new bill should it become law.

2. "Insurers will be prohibited from rescinding health coverage when a beneficiary gets sick as a way of avoiding paying the person's health care bill".

Here's the thing. They don't really do this now. What they do is wait for you to get sick and then say that you didn't fill out something correctly on your forms. You forgot to tell us about that strep throat you had in 1992. Or my personal favorite: We approved the surgery for your son, but now that it is done, we are not going to pay for it because his congenital abnormality was a pre-existing condition. (Then see #1 again). Think this doesn't happen? How about all the parents in the craniosynostosis support group to which I belong who come back with this report after a $100,000 surgery to correct their kids' skulls. It's usually BC/BS that pulls this, but others do it too.

Insurance is a racket. They should NOT EVER be allowed to profit from basic medical care. This bill will give legitimacy to the crap these people pull every single minute of every day and make it harder to get rid of them forever.

[Donnachaidh]

51. ahh the mandate -- that's the key to keeping insurance companies going, isn't it?

That's the prize Obama promised to his future campaign contributors -- "We'll give you 31 million NEW customers to rip off - you back our play down the road"

Change we can believe in. :puke:

[donco6]

188. And a guaranteed income for generations, with which to oppose any change forever.

Lovely. We've been so had.

[Individualist]

59. You're trying to defend the indefensible.

[johnaries]

118. Why is it "indefensible"? The rhetoric does not stand up to the facts.

[laughingliberal]

134. The rhetoric doesn't stand up to the facts, alright

The rhetoric that this is a beginning and people will be helped does not stand up to the facts, at all.

[AllyCat]

71. Drive the insurance companies out of business? That would rock!

Lets do it! Get rid of the mandate, get rid of the insurance company gangsters and get on with real health care for everyone. Love it!

[Greyhound]

158. RIGHT! (my caps work too) The so-called health care provisions

are nothing but an unenforceable, inconsequential smokescreen so people like you can pretend that this is something other than the largest corporate welfare program in the history of the world, larger even than the Pentagon's trough. All that these provisions will do is to serve to further delay implementation of anything except the mandate to buy, while the lawsuits drag through the courts to be knocked down.

All we're going to end up with is a huge bill for the still broken, unsustainable insurance scam system.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. I oppose this bill as well. Disgrace is a perfect word for it.

[ProSense]

32. " It's a disgrace that a Democratic" caucus Senators Boxer, Brown, Feingold, Sanders

and other support this bill?

Why do you think that is?

[David Zephyr]

36. Thanks for kicking up the thread.

.

[ProSense]

53. Is Senator Boxer a "corporate sellout"?

Are you planning on leading a primary challenge against her?

[liberation]

65. If people complaining about politicians have to run against them in an election...

... those supporting them should be required to provide them with rim jobs.


Your move.

[Mithreal]

148. Make way, it's a cricket stampede!

[David Zephyr]

285. She voted against the War in Iraq.

Since you are always linking my OP about Primaries in many threads (and thank you very much for that, by the way), you might read the OP where I lay out my own criteria for who I would or would not support in a primary. Since Boxer voted (not just gave one speech on the subject) against the War in Iraq, she has my support.

And again, thanks for kicking my thread.

[557188]

38. Because they are corporate sell outs

Kucinich doesn't.

That should tell you everything.

[Mithreal]

82. Actually Sanders got something for his vote unlike many Dem senators

who rolled over to have their bellies rubbed by Rahm.

Sanders was successful in securing the largest increases in funding in their history for community health centers and the health service corps in the reauthorization bill passed by the Senate health committee and in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (aka the stimulus package).

http://sanders.senate.gov/legislation/issue/?id=a5823331-b1c8-46a1-864f-a5986cf82a9b

The President is head of the party and is exercising his control over not just your reps in DC but even your local party. Cutting people off if they don't go along is President Obama. The whole bottom up grassroots efforts were just for show, not to govern.

Prosense makes a point here despite my liking next to nothing she usually says because the Obama can-do-no-wrong mentality is strong in her.

Wish my senators could show they got something for their support when they sell unions and the rest of us out. Oh wait, Obama is not selling everyone out, to be fair. Too Big To Fail Insurance, PhRMA and for profit hospitals will do very well. See human people don't have the deep pockets Big Dems are after, only BIG corporate people need have a voice in DC.

I won't be surprised in the slightest if Obama figures out how to cut more good stuff out or put more loopholes in to cater to the deep pockets crowd. Sorry, won't.

[upi402]

37. There are scant few Democrats in the Democratic Party anymore

And those left realize we have to take the table scraps from the banquet table... because we're dying out here.

[Raine]

41. EXACTLY and there is no way in hell

that I will support this mess or be forced into it when it goes into effect.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

42. K&R!

[Starry Messenger]

43. k & r

[DisgustedInMN]

45. The Insurance Bailout Scam is a ..

... more appropriate name for this POS legislation.

[Hepburn]

46. In a nutshell, that is EXACTLY the problem.

It's healthcare for all ~~ not insurance for all ~~ that is the issue.

Fuck the insurance companies.

[pecwae]

50. FWIW here's another knr.

It's truly mind boggling that some actually see this as 'health care'. It is not health care. Insurance does not equate health care. I don't know how much plainer it can be said.

[midnight]

55. But does it become a Health care bill when they take away mandates?

[RBInMaine]

57. Explain how to get the costs down without EVERYONE in the risk pool?

[harun]

67. Mandate is to increase for-profit insurers profit and revenue, it won't lower any costs.

[laughingliberal]

91. True. In fact it may not even slow the rise of costs very much

It's a bailout for the industry, a law mandating us to prop them up with our money. You'd think the least they could have done after doing this to us is write something in there requiring the lowering of premiums but, alas, not even that could we get from "our" representatives.

[RBInMaine]

145. I think there will be regulation along the lines you indicate if not now then soon. Still, this is

at least a start with many positive regulations too. It is just a start.

[Mithreal]

162. The change, it's too fast.

[RBInMaine]

143. Mandate is to broaden the risk pool to drive down cost, and to get everyone in and covered. Single

Payer is nice, but there is no way it can pass in this generation. The votes and national movement for it are not there. Even Kucinich says so. And we don't have one or two more generations to wait. So we do this and work to improve it over time.

[harun]

221. We could work to improve it with a solid PO, but we can't even get that.

Article from Reich on why it won't drive down cost:

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/12/how-few-private-health-insurers-are-on.html

I also had an interview where a House Rep admitted they are gifting healthy people to the insurers to increase their revenue, I couldn't find it but the Reich article sums it up.

No mandate without a PO.

[Mithreal]

86. Seriously? Can't believe anyone informed about this can't answer that.

ONE option, get rid of insurance companies. They are middle men that are there just to skim dollars from care.

There are others.

[RBInMaine]

142. Rhetorical question. Yours is a nice pipe dream, but we don't have 50 more years to wait for it.

[Mithreal]

146. So let me get this straight, someone answers your question and you mock?

This leads me to think you are member in good standing to the Party of No Can Do. You know, the folks who want to make excuses why it wouldn't be prudent to do what the American people want and need done.

I am sure you will ignore that.

Sorry, not buying the whole 50 years theme either. This President wanted to be the last President to deal with health care. By suffocating our economy with this industry and killing your fellow Americans, he may succeed in being the last President of THESE United States to deal with the problem. Thank you for bankrupting our nation with more war, more privatization and more for profit in every sector, Mr. President.

[RBInMaine]

56. I am all for it. It regulates the ins. co's and is FAR better than the PUKE plan. It's a START.

[unapatriciated]

184. California did that in the early 90' (Fair Claims Practice Act')

and I see the same loop holes in this bill that I experienced in regards to the "tough" regulations that California enacted regarding pre-existing conditions.
It's called the delay and review loop-holes.
It causes interruption in care for those who do not have the luxury to wait.

[glinda]

61. If it is Insurance "jobs" they hope to save the focus is dead wrong. They should be saving people.

[SandWalker1984]

63. US proudly takes it's place among 3rd world countries - those w/o universal health care

Great thread. As more and more people find out the details of the Senate bill (which is the version that will get passed, if any), more people understand that this bill is NOT about our health care but instead is protection of future profits of the insurance industry. That's why I've been calling it the Health Insurance Corporations Profits Protection Act of 2010.

I came across an excellent blog yesterday by Ted McLaughlin in which he makes a point about exactly what kind of insurance coverage you can expect from the big corporations once the Senate version of HCR is passed in which he was discussing how the bill falls short. Just because you have a pre-existing condition and they must provide insurance does NOT mean you will have decent coverage!

"That means the private insurance companies will continue to raise the price of their premiums and cut the number of things those premiums will cover. I can remember that years ago a private insurance policy would cover virtually all medical costs. These days a person is lucky if their private insurance covers a significant part of the costs (and there are many medical procedures not covered at all because private insurance considers them too expensive).

With each rise in premium cost, more people are squeezed off the insurance rolls -- thus making it necessary for the companies to again raise premium costs and further cut coverage. Soon we will be left with expensive private insurance policies that cover virtually nothing.

I believe the CEOs of the insurance companies know they can't keep their spinning plates in the air indefinitely. They know that at sometime down the road their policies will become so expensive and cover so little that the health care system will implode. They just don't care as long as they can continue getting windfall profits for as long as they can stretch this farce out.

Consider the following: Anthem Blue Cross brags that a woman can still get a private insurance policy for only $156 a month. That may sound good to some until they consider this policy has a $1500 deductible, and then only pays for 30% of most medical procedures and tests, makes the woman pay up to $500 a day for a hospital room, and doesn't cover pregnancy or delivery costs at all. How good a policy is that?"



Take a good look at that last paragraph, for that is the future for the millions of Americans without health insurance that will be mandated to become corporate slaves of the health insurance profiteers. Still want to stand up and cheer for reconciliation?


It's a great article. You can read it at
http://theragblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/private-health-i...


What a majority of Americans want is a true public option like Medicare for all. If the brain dead Neanderthals on the right want private corporate care, let them give up their Medicare and go buy insurance in the private market, while the rest of us get Medicare part E (for everyone) without parasitical profit driven insurance corporations getting between us and our health care affordability.


Now THAT would be real change we could believe in!

[gtar100]

73. +1

[Mithreal]

88. +1

[Beetwasher]

64. Hmm, Let's See Thousands Of New Community Health Centers, No More Denials For Pre-Existing Condition

Medical Loss Ratios, insurance exchanges that must contain non-profit options with regulations on limiting premium increases and mandatory minimal care levels, huge expansions of medicare, medicaid and SCHIP, closing the donut hole and subsidies and tax credits for low incomes and small businesses...

The insurance industry is going to be regulated on a federal level like they never have before.

Sounds like a whole shitload of people are going to get access to health care that never had it before and there is going to be systems put in place to regulate the industry that have never been there before.

[juno jones]

78. Have fun with your community health center.

It looks good on paper.

May all who think community health centers are the perfect fit for 'the poor' wind up having to deal with them firsthand.

For example, those dental clinics of theirs look swell until you realize that they are 1)emergency only, 2)will only work with one problem at a time, 3) can't do much more than pull bad teeth and give you floride treatment for those remaining.

your mileage may differ, caveat emptor.

[Beetwasher]

121. Well Then, Let's do nothing

That's better. :eyes:

Community health centers work. You don't know what ur talking about. U also ignore all the other price control and regulatory features.

[Mithreal]

171. You played a logical fallacy.

The choice is not between Obama bill or nothing, is it?

The Profit takers will never figure out how to work around the form of price control structures they authored. Just list them, please. And yeah, when Republicans are back in control, regulation will certainly be tops on their agenda. I can't see why you are immune to the weaknesses in your argument.

[Beetwasher]

185. Its This or nothing

that's the reality right now. Deal with it.

This bill accomplishes a great deal despite yr pissing.

[Mithreal]

194. Yes, that is it, "whining" or "pissing" from SP or PO advocates.

The reality you advocate is based upon taking options off the table, including an option with overwhelming support of average Americans.

If you want to ally yourself with the party of no, have at it.

Just say NO to Public Option, wouldn't be prudent.

[Beetwasher]

215. LOL! Umm, You're Saying NO Reform At All

If this doesn't get done, nothing does. There's no way you don't get this. Perhaps that's really your objective?

[Mithreal]

218. Yes, of course, that must be it. If you can't have your false choice

it must be that the person questioning your argument is a destroyer.

When the fallacy and excuses become such a strong part of someone, how can those ideas even be challenged?

"If this doesn't get done, nothing does." "You're Saying NO Reform At All" - Laughable.

Do you go out of your way to mischaracterize arguments in debate or does it just come naturally? I asked you earlier to post your supporting arguments and offered an open mind, but you would have none of that. As I speak with members of your coalition, you know, the Better Than Nothing, Take What We Give You and Like It types, all I get is weakness in response. I really don't want to feel contempt, but I do. Convince me it is "this" or nothing. You might also answer my question why you are fighting for weaker legislation. This is not the first time.

[Beetwasher]

227. Not A False Choice, You ARE For The Status Quo, Deal With It

Unless you can tell me how you will get reform done if this package fails.

You are for nothing. You are for keeping the system the way it is. That is unacceptable to me and to those who are suffering, and if you have your way, they will continue to suffer. That's YOUR problem.

Thankfully, people like you who stand in the way of progress will not get their way this time and HCR will pass.

[Mithreal]

231. Convince me it is "this" or nothing, please. And stop mischaracterizing, it's unbecoming.

[Beetwasher]

248. Your Cynicism And/or ignorance is not my problem or concern

It's quite clear you have an agenda to paint the legislation in a completey negative light. I will not waste my time trying to convince u of anything. I couldn't care less what u think and the thought of holding yr hand and spoon feeding mollification to u repulses me.

[Mithreal]

251. ok, we'll let it go there

[Beetwasher]

276. Good Call

You were getting your ass kicked.

[Mithreal]

280. You really are funny. We'll have opportunity for discussion again.

Just remember, look back and see, I originally asked for you to post supporting arguments and offered to meet them with an open mind and your response threw away the opportunity. But see, I asked not just for me, but for the overall debate. If your angle is better it deserves to shine. I expose too many of my personal eccentricities and malfunctions sometimes. Just had a reasonable conversation with my state senator and I am just not frustrated enough at the moment to participate in a substanceless discussion.

I'll repeat, if you want to list your supporting arguments, I will do my best to see your point of view. Really.

[Beetwasher]

284. Nahh, I'm Just An Asshole

With very little tolerance for bullshit.

Here's my arguments: read the bill. Everything I've listed is in the bill. There are MANY good things in this bill. It will improve and regulate a fucked up system. One that's been fucked up for a very long time and is controlled by some of the most powerful special interests in the history of the planet. Will those special interests try and get around regulations? You bet they will, but that's not a reason to NOT try and regulate it.

Here's further arguments: I've yet to see a single supporter of this bill claim that it is an end-all be-all panacea. I've seen pretty much, every single supporter admit the bill is far from perfect, but it's a start at reforming a system in bad need of reform.

What I have seen, over and over and over again by critics of the bill (not all, but most of the loudest one's), is the claim that it is a steaming pile of shit with no redeeming qualtities.

This is dishonest and destructive rhetoric and I have no tolerance for it when people's lives are at stake. And I'm willing to bet the cretins that make these arguments have insurance and don't have pre-existing conditions or they'd be singing a different tune.

In fact, I challenge all such critics to cancel their current insurance and contract deadly illnesses and THEN hold out for single payer.

[Mithreal]

287. If you are an asshole, I am one too.

I respect strong feelings, really do. I know that sounds silly and irrational, it's just who I am.

You are not acknowledging the nuance of those with opposing point of view.

You'll see if you look under this op I actually praised Senator Sanders for what he fought for in the bill. Much of what you just said is righteous, some of it not so much. I like this response of yours a lot better.

[Beetwasher]

288. It's Passion

I respect it in other as well. Yes, this is a subject I'm passionate about for various reasons, not the least of which is the unfairness of so many people going without proper health care and being denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition.

What I don't respect is black and white thinking. Because some people are selfish and don't want to be "mandated" to purchase insurance froma an "evil corporation" they want to deny health care and coverage to millions of needy people until they get what they want.

Not to mention the argument is bullshit. No one is going to be forced to buy insurance from an evil corporation. You can choose to pay the tax if you don't want insurance. You will have the option on the exchange to purchase insurance from a non-profit carrier.

[Mithreal]

289. There is more than one way to approach this philosophically

I think that is the right word. Until the bill is signed I say push. If you pull more people your way with the force of your arguments, you know because they are more persuasive, fair enough. Yes, passion is the right word. I can get pretty angry, I am glad you pushed past it. We're still gonna disagree even vehemently, but I think I understand your intentions better, you know, you want to focus on the good in the bill. I can understand that, even respect that. In my mind now, it is clear your intentions are good, not saying I know you better, just am more confident I understand where you are coming from.

[Beetwasher]

290. Fair Enough

:toast:

[Mithreal]

89. Insurance that you can't afford to use is not health care.

[Beetwasher]

125. MLR's, minimum coverage mandated by federal law

federal oversight and regs of premium increases, non profit options on the exchanges. I guess you ignore that.

[Mithreal]

126. Take them one at a time and post a link. Would be helpful to "both" sides.

[Beetwasher]

137. Go For It

I'm on a mobile device. Are u suggesting those elements r not in the legislation?

[Mithreal]

139. Ok, maybe you can pick it up later. Wanted to see your supporting arguments.

I'll wait and look over what you have when you get time.

[Beetwasher]

147. Read The Bills

it's in there. That's my support.

[Mithreal]

150. I can read the bills and still acknowledge another's advice

that includes understanding unintended consequences, loopholes and steps that are outright in the wrong direction. If you have no supporting arguments, then no reason for me to continue talking with you.

[Beetwasher]

152. Unintended Consequences?

Would those b known unknowns or unknown unknowns? Why ever attempt anything? There's always a chance of unintended consequences and scumbags will always try to find and exploit loopeholes. Same as it ever was but that's not a reason to do nothing.

[Mithreal]

161. My Senator's CoS is under the impression we want something, anything

and she is a member of Senate leadership. If one can't acknowledge a weakness in that position, then I have a hard time imagining one understanding the opposing pov, the one that actually wants HCR for ALL Americans, not insurance bailouts with a cherry on top.

I am not arguing for doing nothing.

You seem to be under the impression that we are dealing with "scumbags" in this legislation or that they can be shamed into doing the right thing. These corporations to which we seem to be beholden have one overwhelming purpose, the accumulation of profit. When they are the ones in the room, instead of the scary libruls, you know, the single payer advocates and the like, it isn't a matter of finding and and exploiting loopholes, it's another matter entirely.

All I am asking is that instead of throwing words around, like MLR's, you actually flesh out the supporting arguments. If you have good info, arguments, I am just asking you to lay them out for the good of us all.

[Beetwasher]

173. We r dealing with a lot of scumbags

And u have to take what's practical and can be accomplished now. I would love single payer. It's just not doable now and those advocating for it now r advocating doing nothing right now. Rightly or wrongly the calculus was examined at the onset of this initiative and it was dtrmnd that single payer was not possible to accomplish right now. This legislation imperfect as it is will b significant progress.

The details r in the bill, I am not going to get dragged into a snipe hunt for u or anyone else. Everything I've mentioned is in the bill, I suggest everyone read at the very least summaries of it. I'm not getting dragged into spoon feeding people.

[Mithreal]

175. Right, because on individual points you know they will go challenged

and your position appear all the more weak?

You are so misrepresenting the opposing pov I hope you are not anywhere near a legislator. Yeah, you love single payer and not a mention of public option.

I know a person by what they are willing to fight for and it is obvious some folks here are part of the party of Better Than Nothing.

Squandered. Pathetic weak coalition, I am sick of it. If you have strong arguments, present them, I will look at them with an open mind, but don't tell me what is doable when the President and Dem Leadership fall all over themselves to compromise on compromises and take what the American people want and NEED off the table from the start.

[Beetwasher]

177. I Know Pathetic Whiners Will Try To Drag The Conversation

Into semantics and bullshit. I encourage everyone 2 read the bills and make their own determntions.

[Mithreal]

178. I would encourage them to do the same and hire a lawyer to interpret them.

That's a favorite of the conservadem, to call the opposition whiners? Congratulations for outing yourself once again.

[Beetwasher]

179. LOL!

Whatever u say cupcake. :rofl:

[Greyhound]

166. So how many minutes after passage do you think it will be before the insurance industry

gets it's first injunction against these provisions? How many years do you think they will spend fighting this? How many billions can the government afford to spend fighting the industry while the rest of this welfare program infinitely funding them?

Wake up and look at where you are.
:eyes:

[Beetwasher]

176. Booga Booga!

Ok, do nothing cuz yr frightened of a possible court filing. How pathetic.

[Mithreal]

182. Really are enamored with that particular fallacy, aren't ya?

[Beetwasher]

249. Yr living in fairytale land where we kill this bill and then click our heels together

and magically pass single payer and everyone lives happily ever after.

[Mithreal]

270. uh huh

[Beetwasher]

275. Booga!

[Greyhound]

247. So if I understand you, in your mind there is nothing between nothing and mandating participation

in a blatant con-game? That's really kind of sad, isn't it?

But all the conjecture is meaningless, it is a done deal and the bill will pass; the corporations will get what they want; the injunctions will be ordered and we will see incompetence and fraud run rampant while profits soar.

[Beetwasher]

250. There Is Nothin If We Kill This Decent Bill

Please tell me what fantasy you've concocted to pass HCR if this bill dies.

This bill will help millions of people. I dare u to give up yr current insurance and contract a deadly disease and then wait for single payer. Come on tough guy, show us how principled u r.

[Greyhound]

261. "It's can't be done so why bother to even try"...

I'm not advocating stopping this monstrosity because there is no stopping it, it's done.

We will all bear witness to the results.

[Beetwasher]

274. Umm, It's Reactionaries Like You That Are Against Trying

This bill IS trying to change the system for the better. It will succeed. It won't be perfect, far from it, but it will be signigicant.

[Greyhound]

282. And it's simple-minded boobs, like you, that allowing this shit to continue.

The problems are obvious and solutions self-evident, and fools like you just accept the pacifier and quietly proceed down the chute.

All sheep share a common destiny.

[Beetwasher]

286. Cancel Your Insurance, Contract A Deadly Disease And Hold Out For Single Payer, Tough Guy

Until you do that, your talking out of your ass.

[Greyhound]

291. Incapable of comprehending what you've read as well.

That's another of the tragedies, the appalling lack of meaningful education, that you sheeple have passively accepted as your lambs are prepared to follow you.
:eyes:

[Greyhound]

262. Oh and for the record I have no insurance and no means of getting any,

so go fuck your self asshole.

[Beetwasher]

273. Sure You Don't

If that's true, and I doubt it, you will get it now, despite your whining. I have an even better idea, how about when this bill passess and you now have the opportunity to get insurance, refuse, and stand on your principles, tough guy.

[berni_mccoy]

66. People with chronic diseases who have been excluded from coverage would beg to differ

There is no difference in this country. If you can't afford Insurance, you sure as hell aren't going to afford health care. That is the fundamental truth that none of the Single-Payer-Or-Die advocates understand. That we'll die without health insurance because there will be no single payer solution.

[laughingliberal]

94. Sure the ones who could already afford it may find it a help

Others will just be priced out. The Senate bill's community ratings model puts it out of reach for most who have preexisting conditions. And those who can afford it will find it has loopholes allowing annual caps and rescissions to continue.

Just wait til you see the goodies your employer has in store if you have coverage at work, thanks to the Ensign amendment.

[Moochy]

68. As soon as the Insurance Lobbyists secured their promise of No PO

the hope for change was dead, and who was holding the weapon?

[Mithreal]

95. Hope and change were squandered.

[inna]

133. This reminded me of:

A Minor Correction

Alan Grayson's heart is in the right place, but he got this wrong:

"If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: die quickly," said. "That's right. The Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick."

No, the Republicans don't want you to die quickly, they want you to die profitably. And as long as you're doing that they're happier if you stay alive longer, because after you shuffle off this mortal coil you stop being a human ATM for their various constituencies, like health care-denial corporations, pharmacidical firms, and residential fleecing facilities for the elderly.

And of course it's not just Republicans.

Other than than, totally agreed.

[Mithreal]

138. +1

[liberation]

70. Also, I am waiting for anyone to actually make a case as to why Insurance carriers are a requirement

I can understand private insurers value proposition in countries with socialized medicine, since it allows people to opt for the "deluxe package" if they want to upgrade from the baseline every citizen is entitled to.

But as the primary distributors of health care, it simply doesn't make any sense. For starters, they are not even that efficient market conduits... since we are paying well over twice as much as the next most expensive health care system (and that is Switzerland which is as wealthy of a country/society as they come). As it stands, insurance carriers only value proposition is to add an overhead which represents over 1/3 of the cost. That is insane. And given that the last time the rankings were made the USA placed almost 40th in quality of health care among other industrialized nations, this system is not only a disaster economically... but also it is not a very efficient way of dispensing health care given the piss poor service the average American gets from it.

Other than preserving the entitlement to profit by a few corporations, no one... not even the most ardent defenders of Mr. Obama can make an actual case as to why health care has to be managed by private insurance companies for most American citizens. At this point, it seems that what we are doing is paying 30 to 40 cents off every dollar we spend on health care paying for the "privilege" of being denied coverage. That is the magnitude of it, if one really thinks about it.

[Mithreal]

100. If For Profit wars are going to succeed, can be damn well sure

we won't give up For Profit "health" care.

Turning out to be the great shame of this party.

[daleanime]

72. Got that right...

:argh:

[Biker13]

80. But...

the Insurance Industry LOVES this bill! So does Big Pharm!

They only have our best interest at heart, right?

[SlingBlade]

83. David Zephyr ...... K&R THAT !

There's still a few of us who haven't been Wow'd by Speeches,Beat'en down by partisans
or intimidated by Blue Dogs, Lieberman Liberals , Rahm or the Health Insurance Lobby blogger
brigades.

They are now Foaming at the mouths over this $70 Billion dollar payday that the sellouts are
attempting to give 'em.

Call people,
Time is running out and arms are severely being twisted as we blog.

Contact the White House
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Call the White House
[phone]

Call, Write, Fax and E-mail your Representatives, House and Senate
http://www.contactingthecongress.org /

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

85. It's an insurance payoff. And, after caving to them, the politicians promise to "fix" it.

Kinda like the Washington Generals promising to win the next game against the Globetrotters.

[Bluebear]

87. Highly recommended.

[Little Star]

93. Your right David Zephyr!

[asdjrocky]

107. Once again the joke is on us.

"If the gods had intended for people to vote, they would have given us candatates." -Howard Zinn

[Juche]

122. Yeah, its an insurance bill

So what? Are you claiming health insurance reform isn't needed, or that we shouldn't implement it?

We need a massive fundamental change in how health care works in the US. And health insurance reform is a part of that.

[nannah]

124. ala lakos: the die was cast when the term "health insurance"

was substitued for the words "health care". what's in a word????? everything.

[Mithreal]

136. +1

[AllyCat]

211. Yup. n/t

[freddie mertz]

130. I have to agree. It is a fiasco. K & R.

[AzDar]

132. K & R

[Juche]

135. What is the solution then?

To me, the solution is a dramatic restructuring of health care combined with as much outsourcing and comparative effectiveness of major care as possible.

However, I don't know how realistic that is.

So for the people who say this bill is a travesty, what is your alternative? And is that alternative realistic right now? What happens if your alternative does not pass?

[Mithreal]

169. Outsourcing is not advocated by Progressives.

Alternative? There are many. Medicare E for one. We already have an organization in place. Simple bill, less than 100 pages, allowing people under 65 to buy-in.

What happens if your alternative doesn't pass? You're kidding, right? What makes you think whatever Obama reform is created doesn't come crashing down and we need to replace it entirely? Why are you setting the goal posts as failure? What happens to us and our local economies when we don't fix this the right way now while the public OVERWHELMINGLY supports a public option and we have majorities? Since the President will not fight for what the public wants, he doesn't deserve a place among the great ones. I know it's still early but it's a damn shame we didn't elect someone who was willing to go to the mat for us while spurning the corporate overlords. Wouldn't want to have a bad day on Wall Street, never mind.

[Juche]

192. I'm progressive and I support outsourcing

If you can get a bone marrow transplant in India for $20,000 vs. $400,000 in the US, then people should do that. Buy Canadian drugs. Get your surgeries in India. Health care is a very labor intensive field so outsourcing can keep the system more solvent. Some of the progressives I know are huge outsourcing fans for medical care because it makes them/us feel we are abandoning a plutocratic system and giving our money to different systems. I'd rather go to France for surgery than the US, at least that way my money is propping up a decent system. Or India, where some of the money will be reinvested in community care for the poor. A big appeal of the public option, aside from it being cheaper, is it lets you bypass all the corrupt private insurance companies and not fund them. Outsourcing does the same thing.

I'm all for medicare E. However I don't think the 2 ideas are contradictory. What is wrong with passing health insurance reform in 2010 and trying to pass medicare part E at a later date? I'd like to have both reforms.

I see a lot of people say this bill is terrible. However, what is the alternative to not passing this bill? The realistic alternative right now is nothing (it took a year of work to even get this bill). More rescissions, more bans, more oligarchy. This bill is imperfect, but it is still progress forward over the current system.

This bill with Medicare E or a public option would be better than the bill w/o them (single payer with strong regulation, means testing and effectiveness research would be best), but this bill is better than the current system. So I support it.

[Mithreal]

198. All over the place, aren't ya?

1. This isn't a different system.
2. How is this not more oligarchy?
3. I answer your question and you come back with we can do what the American people want later, let's get something, anything done now.
4. Right, you are going to tell me what realistic is, not buying that hogwash. It is pathetic, spineless, weak apology and compromise to a higher power.
5. Significantly scaled-down smaller separate bill that includes ending rescission and banning exclusion for existing condition could be passed with likely Republican support. We needn't give up anything to get those reforms. You know, have the government regulate an industry, adults are in charge?
6. It's the For Profit model that made health care tourism a reality. We needn't lose more jobs to save money. We can regulate pricing.
7. Importing drugs is not outsourcing unless that term has been degraded, could be, idk.

I guess you will get what you deserve, damn shame for the rest of us.

[Juche]

207. I'm pragmatic and think things through

You should try it.

It took a year to get this far. If you think we can get Medicare E passed then go for it. But those of us who pay attention and live in reality notice it isn't happening as an alternative to the current bill anytime soon.

Not only that, but not passing anything at this point will cement how weak the dems are.

[Mithreal]

213. My Senator's CoS places the blame solidly on Obama

I tried to get him to blame Rahm, just wouldn't go there. See, the debate was tainted by keeping certain options so far removed that when the inevitable PoS bill was delayed and the resolve of the Regressives was obvious to even those least aware, it would be a slam dunk to give industry what they wanted. Dems could feign, oh, we tried, it just wasn't possible. See, this reality you live in is a weird sort of bubble, it is very fragile. The American people see through it. No matter what the boots on the grounds types can do will change the suspicion and for many knowledge that the Dem Leadership sold us out to our Uniquely American form of wealth care.

I only get hostile when I feel like I am being spun. Maybe it is unintentional. What you are advocating doesn't seem to me that of a concerned citizen, just a member of the Better Than Nothing mentality. See, the American people want a public option, they don't just want another bullet point on Obama's resume.

Sell it to someone you might be able to better deceive. Please keep repeating what can't be done, very persuasive that. Can imagine your spin on the MA Senate race.

[Juche]

259. I am of the better than nothing mentality

A public option would be nice. Not a deal breaker, but nice. But we live in a plutocratic society where private insurance doesn't want the competition. And we don't have reimportation or medicare negotiations because pharma doesn't want them.

I'm saying this bill is better than doing nothing. It is plutocratic, but it is better than nothing. In fact I'm one of the people on this board telling people who support the public option that it won't happen because private insurance has enough money to spend on lobbying and advertising to threaten politicians out of supporting it, and I told people not to get their hopes up about senators clammoring for a public option, because they will find a way to cop out when push comes to shove (same with EFCA). I think I clearly see what is going on. We are a corporate state, but in a corporate state this is the best we can do right now. It will expand coverage, lower rescissions, cover pre-existing conditions, expand community care, end the medicare donut hole, subsidize families, lower the national debt, cover kids on their parent's plans, expand medicaid, etc.

PS, have you told the American public that you speak for them?

Single payer is realistic on the state level in various states, but IMO not realistic on the federal level right now. We can't even get a public option on the federal level right now after a years worth of debate and voting.

[Mithreal]

266. Would prefer if DU'ers pushed this harder than settled.

Since you ask, actually I am an elected Democratic party representative in my community. At least one person told me he doesn't believe me and since I prefer anonymity, I will let it go at that. As a fellow Dem I guess you are, am I right, I would expect you to push as hard as you can for average Americans too. Speaking for the lower and middle classes is not just something for those who hold a position within the party btw.

I don't advocate mediocrity.

[scarletwoman]

140. K&r -- I stand with you. This is a great thread, thank for so much for starting it!

Enough with enslaving us to the "Market".

[pleah]

144. K&R

[colsohlibgal]

149. Amen

I'd like for anyone, Barack or whoever, explain to me why we need a third party to make millions in the health care equation between us and our medical professionals. Well Point, Med Mutual, UHC, they are nothing but death dealing bloodsucking leeches, leeches who make millions on premiums from people, millions that could provide better and smarter care and much, much lower premiums. They don't put band aids on us, take our blood pressure, nothing.

These robber barons from the medical field need cut down, not rewarded by forcing more people to buy their evil coverage. It's outrageous.

And, as Dr. Angell so smartly pointed out, there is nothing concrete to stop them from continuing to raise rates so their CEOs can maintain their lifestyles of the rich and famous.

No other civilized, industrial country operates like this this people. None of them. Just us.

And I think that for the most part, in Western Europe and Scandinavia health care is total health care, dental and vision is included. Nobody loses their house because they had the nerve to get sick or get hurt.

The bottom line is Obama caved, nothing new about that.

[treestar]

155. Don't Germany and Switzerland have such systems?

So what, if if pays for health care. It has to be paid for in some way.

[aaronbav]

157. I believe there they are REQUIRED to be "Not for Profits" and are highly

regulated BY GOVERNMENT.

[AllyCat]

212. Basic health care coverage is non-profit there. They all have insurance

but the insurance co cannot make a profit on the coverage. Basic care is minimal cost. If you want something more elaborate, then you may purchase it if you have the means.

I like that plan too. Prefer single payer, but I'd take Germany or Switzerland's plans any day over what we have now and what this bill will create if made law.

[Wardoc]

156. David, I absolutely agree with you. (nt)

[LSK]

159. which bill? the Senate bill or the one that will follow?????????

:shrug:

[Mithreal]

163. Always a good question.

[shireen]

167. there are several ways to deal with this healthcare fiasco

It depends on who you are.

1) are you a member of Congress who is not owned by big money? (There are some out there, like Bernie Sanders.)
Then it's your job to fight as hard as possible for your constituents. But in the end, when you cast the final vote, you have to ask yourself: will this bill provide a net improvement in healthcare and affordability for most of my constituents? If the answer is YES, then you have to vote YEA, even if there are aspects of the legislation that are disgusting. The bills can be changed at a later date, if there's enough support,.

2) Are you a voter?
Then keep putting pressure on Congress for a public option, even eventually single-payer. You should be angry and disgusted, just like the OP. You have to be relentless. You have to be loud. If your progressive member of Congress casts a vote that you don't like, let him/her know that you disapprove.

Just keep in mind the different roles of voters and elected officials in politics. You can afford to be idealistic and principled in your opinions. But members of Congress who genuinely care about their constituents have to make some very hard choices that pits their values against practical outcomes that will provide some net gain to their constituents.


3) Oh, and are you a member of Congress owned by big money?
Your days are numbered. In case you haven't noticed, people are dusting off the pitchforks.


Dear voter, don't get bitter and give up. Don't vote for a 3rd party candidate that will lead to a Republican win. You keep doing your job to exert pressure, and let your progressive member of Congress do his/her job making pragmatic decisions. It's not a sprint, it's a marathon.

[Mithreal]

183. Well said.

[Better Believe It]

168. The House "fixes" to the Senate bill are dead. Some Republican proposals Obama likes might make it

Some Republican proposals supported by President Obama may be in a reconciliation bill such as so-called "tort reform" .... if, and this is a very big if, if a reconciliation bill is even put up for a vote in the Senate.

[ProSense]

170. Question:

here.

[donco6]

186. For the curious - here's where the spam link goes:

For those who want the bill killed: Which Democratic members of Congress are opposed to this bill?

Boxer, Feingold, Wyden and Leahy are among those up for re-election. Why aren't they running from this bill if it's so horrible?

The kill the bill contingency is blowing hot air. The fact is that the Democratic bill is an excellent foundation for health care reform.

Same question posted above earlier.

[laughingliberal]

190. Pretty typical. nt

[donco6]

191. yup. n/t

[ProSense]

195. "Same question posted above earlier." Obviously, comprehension is a problem.

"Boxer, Feingold, Wyden and Leahy are among those up for re-election. Why aren't they running from this bill if it's so horrible?"

is not the same as this:

"Is Senator Boxer a 'corporate sellout'?"

Is it?

The fact is, the kill the bill contingency is blowing hot air.

[Mithreal]

199. What part of thinking do you not comprehend?

There are many reasons "representatives" fall in line with their party's leader.

Pathetic, weak, spineless.

[ProSense]

202. "Pathetic, weak, spineless." Boxer, Feingold and Leahy? n/t

[Mithreal]

208. .

Was talking about the Dems who wield excuses so well, not those legislators.

I knew I could get a response.

[ProSense]

216. "Was talking about the Dems who wield excuses so well, not those legislators."

So why do those legislators support the bill? Are they excused?

[Mithreal]

223. I haven't done my homework why those Senators may or may not.

I also don't take your word for it that their support is not nuanced, not that you said one way or another.

I am responsible for my Senators though and have kept up communication.

Why not tell me, unless you don't know. And why would I be surprised if they think this is the best that the President is willing to fight for. My Senator's CoS said they would not sign the Bennet letter but actually both made statements of general support. The blame for the mess of health care was placed squarely on the leadership of Obama. I didn't say lack of leadership because that would imply he wasn't exercising his influence. He was, just not for what the overwhelming majority of average Americans want.

What you are doing is propagating a sort of fallacy. If A supports B, then how can B be wrong.

[donco6]

203. Not really - it's this question:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7859732&mesg_id=7860784

It's a disgrace that a Democratic" caucus Senators Boxer, Brown, Feingold, Sanders and other support this bill?

Why do you think that is?

Spam.

[ProSense]

205. Comprehension:

"Boxer, Feingold, Wyden and Leahy are among those up for re-election. Why aren't they running from this bill if it's so horrible?"


Not the same.

[donco6]

234. Spam is canned ham.

Or so they say.

[Mithreal]

200. +1

[arcadian]

283. I'm not clicking your blind link.

Man, that is underhanded.

[kgnu_fan]

189. Indeed!

[Jakes Progress]

196. Maybe the this-or-nothing bobble heads are right.

Maybe this pice of shit, insurance blow-job, sell-out of the American public, crap bill is the best that this administration can do. It ain't good. As a matter of fact, it sucks. But Obama is trying to tell us (in political face saving language) that we are screwed, that he just wasn't up to the job, that corporations control the congress, his advisors, and his campaign. So we lose.

The really defeating part of this, the part that will keep voters home in droves next year and in 2112, is that once some kind of bill that has the word health in it does pass, the administration and congressional Democrats will start the victory dance. What they should do is hang their heads in shame. The DLC should confess incompetence and corruption. But even though everyone will know that they failed, they will trumpet their victory. In the last presidential election the driving words were Hope and Change. Next time around, the words that drive voters will be "Who the fuck cares" and Why bother".

[Mithreal]

206. And to compound the tragedy, when a real Hope and Change candidate

is available, the message will be tainted.

Republicans are spinning their party drunken, reckless and leaderless. It should have been a Slam Dunk for Dems to humanely euthanize them though I prefer whatever sane ones that exist leave our party and take back theirs. Instead our Dem leaders fall over themselves and wave failure like a standard and Better Than Nothing their battle cry.

We are gonna have our work cut out for ourselves this decade to keep this country in one piece.

[girl_interrupted]

230. K&R Mithreal And Thank You David Zephyr

for your OP and expessing the frustration so many of us feel.

[LWolf]

219. +1,000

[GinaMaria]

232. maybe they can dust off the

mission accomplished sign for their victory party.

[Bryn]

214. I completely agree

K&R

[Agony]

217. Exactly! Stop with the HCR crap already.

[RoccoR5955]

220. I've been saying this for months. n/t

[GinaMaria]

229. We are all in the same boat

and Health Care is the Titanic. Some will get life boats, but many will be left to sink with the ship. We all need a way out of this mess. Not just some of us.

[Mithreal]

233. Well said. We were supposed to be the Party of WITT.

We're In This Together.

I just didn't realize corporations were people and even just SOME of them more important than others.

When will our local communities, lower and middle class be treated as Too Big To Fail?

[GinaMaria]

235. Self delete

Dupe

[GinaMaria]

236. When? Not sure but I have an idea

Maybe when we all stand together and say "Either we all get out or none of us do". We need a giant union, not just for labor, but for health care and whatever else we need to bargain on. Anyone can join. Once united, politicians will realize they were never so big and they will fail!

[Mithreal]

237. I like people power.

[GinaMaria]

263. Me too and I really appreciate your posts

they keep me going. I'm an avid Mithreal reader :-)

[Mithreal]

265. I really feel like I am malfunctioning sometimes.

Too kind, thank you. :hug:

[nahant]

238. Single Payer

Single is the ONLY Health Care Reform American wants and needs. Time to get the Money Lenders out of Health Care. Besides making a profit from someone's illness is just sick (pardon the pun) Until We decide that every man, woman, and child has a right to comprehensive health care we are failing as a nation...
Remember 45,000 + die each and every year because they don't have access to health until it is too late to be helped. Thats is almost as much as the whole Vietnam war had in what 10 years?? Shit that would be almost 1/2 a million in ten years... Smells like genocide to me.. Ya know from the "CLASS WARFARE" that IS being waged by the Rich & Powerful(top5%) against the rest of us... Time to man the walls with pitch forks and torches... What ever happened to the America I grew up in and was glad to serve... Now it seems like such a waste as I watch our society rot with greed...

Disclaimer... RANT!!

[RedCloud]

240. Welcome nahant. +1

for your journey here at DU...

[Mithreal]

242. Agreed, his argument was VERY well stated and deserves praise.

:applause:

[IndianaGreen]

239. K&R

The worst shameful thing is that this White House is now appealing to the same people they put the screws on to call their members of Congress to pass the very bill that will screw them over, under the name of health care reform.

[madville]

241. Going to be a bunch of unemployed congressmen and senators come November

I almost believe the administration wants big Democrat losses so it can just blame everything on the Republicans for awhile.

[Mithreal]

243. Those majorities really were too much pressure.

Rahm must be tired having to work so hard for his corporate masters.

I honestly suspect there is going to be relief in the WH. I could be imagining things but that's just my take too. Will be easier to be bi-partisan, if Dems are slaughtered. When the DNC poors money into the conservadem campaigns and those people return, they'll consider it proof that Americans wanted more conservadems. If people aren't aware of their state Dem strategy, time to get informed and involved. This isn't Dean's DNC anymore and DLC thinking has infected the states too.

[Melissa G]

244. Say it again...Insurance Bill. Not remotely Health Care reform

Not even close.

[Hamlette]

269. My my, what a refreshingly original thread! There must be only 100 of them this week!

Those damned Democrats. All they want to do is screw us over. How dare they not change the world and remake it into my image overnight!

I know everything and they know nothing.

Fuck Bernie Sanders. How dare he.

Michael Moore forever!

(my childish response to the childish op because that is all it deserves.)

[donco6]

271. Well, you got "childish" right.

Anything substantive to offer?

[QC]

278. You have a genuine talent for childishness.

Of course, it's an ugly, useless talent, but let's give credit where it's due.

[blindpig]

277. kick