Here's the new battleline (thanks mzmolly)

[Political Heretic]

Article from just a few hours ago:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100316/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

Democratic leaders are considering using a legislative procedure that would allow them to pass fixes to the Senate bill without taking a direct vote on the underlying legislation. The maneuver is a kind of legislative fig leaf to spare House Democrats from directly voting to approve a Senate bill many of them had bitterly criticized. While Republicans also used the tactic when they controlled the House, they are indignant that Democrats would employ it on legislation of such significance.

This is critical.

If the house passes fixes first and forces the Senate to approve those, we could end up with something that - while imperfect - is actually worth supporting.

Changes required:

- bring the out of pocket caps back down to House bill levels, and reintroduce income-based caps
- increase premium subsidies back to House levels
- remove the insurance industry anti-trust exemption
- make regulatory elements of legislation federal and not state jurisdiction

Additional needed:
- strip all of the giveaways that were part of Senate dealmaking for specific states
- Public Option, available up to 200% of poverty line.
- rules limiting insurance company's ability to deny claims
- rules limiting insurance company's power to cancel policy based on illegitimate claims or "fraud" (You didn't disclose you had a pimple at 14, now we are terminating your policy and denying your claims)

If they House passes solid fixes, it may sufficiently limit the potential of HCR to harm rather than help ordinary Americans, in which case I'd then support it.

However - we're not there yet. As it stands right now, the Senate Bill itself - standing alone - harms working families over the long run. But if those failures could be patched up - if we were really dealing with a bill that just did some good, but maybe not as much good as we all want - I'd be fine with that passing.

Our problems as so much bigger than this legislation, so structural and entrenched - that I certainly have no problem any time some marginal good can squeak through Washington. But the Senate Bill wasn't a marginal good. It's good were completely outweighed by its serious long term "bads" for working families. If they House can patch that up.... then its a new game.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

1. NO. the public option should be available to EVERYONE

otherwise this is a "Lets make insurance companies richer" bill.

[laughingliberal]

3. I'd go for it even being open to anyone eligible to buy from the exchanges

So simple. Just put it in there, pass the bill and 70% of the public is now happy. After all, Pelosi has said before she was not privy to nor bound by the back room deals made by the White House.

[Johonny]

5. I'll got with a Universal health care plan

I'll settle for this * now. But the end of this vote doesn't END health care for me anymore than the recovery of the stock market ended my interest in economic reforms. I was never expecting a 1 vote/ 1 fix solution to such a complex problem. I wonder how many in the legislature understand that their job on health care reform with passing this bill, it has just begun.

[Ignis]

6. Yup, I'm willing to be thrown a bone at this point. (nt)

[Political Heretic]

4. What you and I want - single payer - won't happen in a health reform bill.

It will happen via a political revolution.

As long as the financial elite control the purse strings of every political faction in Washington politics - single payer or a serious "public option" that would threaten moneyed interests is out.

If, while we keep fighting that long term battle - they want to pass something that makes it even a little bit easier on people, I'm for it.

The reason I've vehemently opposed the Senate Bill or passing it as is, is because that bill actually does HARM. It wasn't that it was good but not good enough. It was that I firmly believe it will harm people in the long run.

If they can put together a package that I don't believe will actively harm people in the long run more than the nothing we have now, then I'll support it.

Because in the end it really doesn't fucking matter. We're not going to get the kind of serious transformative change we really need as long as the financial elite control Washington.

[Oregone]

8. Advocating a full mixed-market isn't the same as single-payer at all

Its like choosing between USPS and FedEX, which works well enough for most people these days.

[Political Heretic]

10. Regardless - neither will happen in this system as is. Making it happen requires

more than passing a bill. It first requires the disentanglement of corporations and government. It requires politicians that are not bribed by the financial elite, meaning we have to stop voting for the people who prioritize their wants and whims ahead of our interests, and we have to try and build a movement for economic justice.

No small task, probably unlikely. I don't know all the steps or have all the answers. But I'm convinced its quite literally the only hope there is.

[Oregone]

7. And fuck the "level playing field" bullshit

So, how are they going to do that? Add bloat?

[deaniac21]

2. The only bad part is the destruction of the Democratic Party.

[mzmolly]

9. Thanks for continuing to examine the issue Political Heretic.

K and R. :hi:

I can't think of anything I disagree with on your wish list.

[Political Heretic]

11. kick