"Kill the bill" is nothing but hot air.

[ProSense]

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.

[BeatleBoot]

1. Couldn't agree more

It always has been hot air.

[liberal N proud]

That is a no brainier

The GOP is nothing but hot air.

[bluestateguy]

2. They think that if you kill the bill everybody will get right to work on a single payer bill

Uh huh. Sure. You go ahead and believe that.

[Edweird]

12. That's not what I think at all.

What I am certain of is that 'health care' will be written off as 'dealt with'. Checked off the list, despite claims of 'going back to fix it later'. See: NAFTA.

I am also sure that the insurance companies, that have no purpose other than making care expensive and difficult to obtain, will side step whatever minimal regulations end up existing while using every tool at their disposal to wring every last cent out it's new mandated customer base.

This is not 'reform'.

[WillyT]

3. Oh, I'm Quite Certain The Deal Is Done... I Just Hate The Deal...

Let me ask YOU...

Does this Bill's passing, and the foundation it creates, make a public option more likely, or less?

Does this Bill's passing, and the foundation it creates, make single-payer more likely, or not?

And if so, explain how.

And if not, explain why this is a good thing?

:shrug:

[ProSense]

6. Here:

Does this Bill's passing, and the foundation it creates, make a public option more likely, or less?

Yes.

Does this Bill's passing, and the foundation it creates, make single-payer more likely, or not?

Ever heard of the Swiss health care system?

"To compete in the market for compulsory health insurance, a Swiss health insurer must be registered with the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health, which regulates health insurance under the 1994 statute. The insurers were not allowed to earn profits from the mandated benefit package, although they have always been able to profit from the sale of actuarially priced supplementary benefits (mainly superior amenities).

Regulations require "a 25-year-old and an 80-year-old individual pay a given insurer the same premium for the same type of policy..Overall, then, the Swiss health system is a variant of the highly government-regulated social insurance systems of Europe..that rely on ostensibly private, nonprofit health insurers that also are subject to uniform fee schedules and myriad government regulations."<2>

The current bill creates a non-profit plan. It's a start.

[laughingliberal]

10. The insurance industry under the Swiss system is rigorously regulated and

the regulations are stringently enforced. Tell you what. Give 'em a call and see if they'd like to trade what they have for what we're getting.

[ProSense]

15. The bill is an

excellent start: "There is a lot of new oversight of the insurance industry"

[laughingliberal]

16. I don't think you've read the bill. nt

[Oregone]

36. Some of the people this poster cuts and pastes from haven't even read it

Hey, for some Congress people, if its not Danielle Steele, they won't touch it. :)

Its naive to think that just because someone is a politician and they are talking about a bill, that theyve actually read it completely (or at all). Remember that quote from the Moore movie about the Patriot act (and other legislation)? :)

[WillyT]

13. Ok... Sounds Good... How Many Of Us Get To Join The Non-Profit Plan ???

And how soon?

:shrug:

[laughingliberal]

18. There you go again. Messing up a perfectly good talking point & expecting those who use them to have

actually read the bill. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[WillyT]

29. I'm Constantly Ashamed Of Myself...

But not about this stuff.

:evilgrin:

:hi:

[ProSense]

22. Are you confusing the non-profit plan with the limited public option? n/t

[WillyT]

27. No... We're Not GETTING A Public Option... So How Many Of Us Can Switch From Profit To Non-Profit...

and when?

I don't want to give a penny to any for-profit insurers, as I'm sure most Americans don't, so when do we all get to tell our for-profit leeches that we are out of here and are joining the new non-leeching non-profit plan?

:shrug:

[freddie mertz]

37. Sounds great. When we get a fully non-profit plan, I'll support it.

Till then, not so much.

[Edweird]

4. Oh, well, since you put that way, I guess I'll support the McCain/Romney senate bill.

NOT.

[dkf]

5. I'll support the Howard Dean can the mandate and expand Medicare plan.

[Edweird]

7. Absolutely.

[laughingliberal]

9. +1 nt

[laughingliberal]

8. There was a time when the concept of applying political pressure to get our representatives to

move further towards what we want meant something to Democrats. Funny, how that all ended once Democrats actually had the power to do anything for us.

[WillyT]

17. Psst...

Happened when the party LEADERS started moving away from unions and common working folk, to the Monied Class.

:shrug:

[laughingliberal]

20. +1 nt

[Oregone]

23. How the hell else are you supposed to get elected?

It doesn't just take money to run, but it takes cooperation of the owners of the industry. Sure, you can collect all the internet donations you want, but if you don't have the right narratives being casts about on the news channels, in print, on the radio, at work, you are shit-out-of-luck.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Kill it? Hell, just bury it. It's already been drowned by lobbyists and politicians.

[Oregone]

14. Which Democractic members of Congress are part of the FDR/Truman Democratic Party?

This aint your Grandma's party anymore.

Your argument is based on logical fallacies. The number of people who will vote for it, as well as their affiliations, does not therefore make the bill right.

[WillyT]

25. The ONLY Way We Will Know THAT...

(FDR/Truman Wing)...

is if they bring the public option, weak or not, up for an up or down ON-THE-RECORD vote.

Right now they can all hide behind "We don't have the votes."

So... put it up for a stand-alone vote, and if it fails it fails.

But at least we will know where everybody stands. And they are deathly afraid of that.

:mad:

Hell... Hoyer's talking about a stand-alone bill for Stupak and his disgusting ilk!!!

:puke:

[Oregone]

30. It still depends entirely on what the ambiguous public option actually would be

On not sold on this ever changing carrot. At this point, they could call anything the public option and win over half the country.

[WillyT]

34. It's Part Of The Genius Of Invertabrates...

Having no spine means you can fit into almost any hidey-hole, configure yourself into any shape, and are really really hard to pin down.

:shrug:

[ProSense]

26. "Your argument is based on logical fallacies." Not that bogus claim again. May I remind you:

Senator Boxer: Boxer Speaks on Historic Health Care Bill

Senator Feingold: Feingold: "U.S. Senate will vote on passage of the most sweeping health care reform in generations"

Senator Leahy: The bill...will rank alongside other major decisions such as the creation of Social Security and Medicare and the Civil Rights Act.

[Oregone]

31. Please google "Logical Fallacies"

They are not bogus claims. Appealing to the popularity of the bill, or to someone's authority is a baseless argument, dictated by logic.

If you call logic "bogus", it makes you look incredibly silly. If you use subjective quotes from authoritative people to disprove you are making a logical fallacy, it looks sillier.

Take a logic course at a community college and it'll help you e-shill.

[laughingliberal]

35. You don't understand. If it's not a cut & paste job from the WH talking points, it must be bogus. nt

[ProSense]

38. Same response as always.

Maybe those who are advocating that the bill should be killed need to face reality and begin working on its repeal. Or they can continue blowing hot air.

[Oregone]

39. "Or they can continue blowing hot air"

So when you are not regurgitating clever marketing (propaganda), its called "hot air"?

Nice black and white world you must live in. You better be getting paid for this.

[WillyT]

33. That's Called Marketing And/Or Propaganda !!!

Now that they've all settled that this bill is the best they can do, or all they are willing to do, they are going out and selling it.

They tried the same thing with New Coke too.

"New Coke" is the unofficial name of the reformulation introduced in 1985 by The Coca-Cola Company to replace the original formula of its flagship soft drink, Coca-Cola (a.k.a. Coke). Properly speaking, New Coke had no separate name of its own, but was simply known as "the new taste of Coca-Cola" until 1992 when it was renamed Coca-Cola II.

The American public's reaction to the change was poor, and the new cola was a major marketing failure.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke

:shrug:

[Lord Helmet]

19. It's a start.

It most definitely is a start.

rec.

[Oregone]

21. Yes, rejecting socialism and institutionalizing private insurers is a start

I honestly don't want to see what the finish ends up being though.

Everyone keeps wanting to talk about "incrementalism" though, as if there is but a single trajectory. Naive, simplistic thoughts can't always find their way out of a paper bag.

[Lord Helmet]

24. Believe it or not the mandate prepares the ground for universal healthcare.

>>> Naive, simplistic thoughts can't always find their way out of a paper bag.

Don't be so hard on yourself.

[Oregone]

28. Not non-profit, egalitarian, affordable, progressively funded UHC

No, it does not do this. As long as for-profit private industry is involved, lobbying for the interests of their private shareholders, they will be calling the shots. The care will remained rationed (if not personally due to economic reasons) due to a system engineered to boost profit.

Any form of socialism (the real answer for an egalitarian and efficient approach) has been rejected in its most moderate form (mixed market competitor) by the most liberal party. Not a whole lot of redeeming value is left for any real comprehensive solution.

Sure, you might universally cover everyone, but it wont make everyone have universal access to care. If you are all about semantic word games and winning political victories, this is good enough. If you are concerned about social justice, its a bit lacking.

[coti]

32. Great posts on this issue. nt

[bvar22]

42. Forcing every American to BUY Health Insurance...

..isn't really "Universal Healthcare",
no more than forcing every American to buy a house is a solution to homelessness.

[Atticus]

40. "the Democratic bill is an excellent foundation for health care reform."

Do you not see that this quote from your OP could also be characterized as "blowing hot air"?

[ixion]

41. it has nothing whatsoever to do with 'reform'

in my opinion.