If you set the bar low enough, anything's a victory.

[FLAprogressive]

n/t

[mmonk]

1. And the thing is, it was set low for Democrats, not Republicans.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[midnight]

3. True.

[Lagomorph]

4. I think there will be...

...a lot of health "crisis" in the future as they try to make this thing work. It will give them something to do on The Hill.

When it becomes law, they will HAVE to fund it, with your mandatory premiums, of course. It will be a permanent blank check against your bank account. It will come out of your income before food, gas, your bills, education.....etc....

That's the main problem I have going forward. We need to stop borrowing our great great grand children's money and start paying our collective bills.

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. They will have to do something PO, Medicare buy-in, serious regulation in order to

clamp down on the insurance costs which are going to continue to soar. Thing is it could take years before they are willing or really chip away at it enough to make a difference, and that is worrisome.

[DCBob]

6. This is anything but "low"..

This is the most complex sweeping piece of legislation in many many decades. Frankly I am amazed they got it passed.

[rug]

7. This bill looks best after a night of drinking.

[Javaman]

18. heavy, pass out, still like a zombie, drinking. nt

[pampango]

8. I woud have preferred a national health service, but with repubs and blue dogs a majority in the

house, I probably wasn't going to get it.

Obama could have pushed it anyway and gone down to a highly-principled defeat. Odds are the political climate would not have been kind to a "OK now that we spent a year on a national health service bill, let me suggest another bill which we can spend a year on." He would have ended up with nothing other than the satisfaction of people like me that we gave it a shot. (Of course, I would probably be complaining that he didn't work hard enough for my national health service bill. Otherwise I would have to admit that my idea was just not politically feasible and few of us want to look into a mirror that way. :) )

He chose to "lower the bar" to achieve significant improvements (all the progressives voted for it in the house) that were politically achievable (just barely). My guess is that if weren't the president and was home posting to DU, he would be complaining about President Clinton or President Biden or whoever not going for a perfect bill.

[Myrina]

9. ... clue for ya there, pal ... there are always going to be Blue Dogs and GOP'ers ...

... so this shit sandwich is NEVER going to be 'better'. It is NEVER going to be improved. This was the insurance industry's bailout and we all just got sold into economic servitude to them.

[havocmom]

15. Yep

[pampango]

16. Obviously there will always be Blue Dogs and repubs. If their numbers don't decline,

we will not get more progressive change in many areas including health care. For better or worse, that's how the legislative process works. If Blue Dogs and repubs always have a majority in the House, it doesn't take a political genius to know that progressive legislative change is going to be difficult. If we get more progressives (than the 79 there now) in the future and fewer Blue Dogs and repubs it will be easier to enact progressive legislation.

You may consider it to be an "insurance industry's bailout" but all 79 members of the Progressive Caucus apparently disagree with you, while it's possible that the Blue Dogs and repubs (based on how they ended up voting) agree with you.

[stray cat]

10. so yours is a vote to keep the current system versus this change?

the vote looked a bit close to me.

[cali]

11. wow. a one line cliche as an argument

that's new.

:rofl:

[Umbral]

12. Not just a victory, but "The Greatest Victory Since the Great Society©" n/t

[troubledamerican]

28. I heard it was bigger than Normandy, Lincoln or Jefferson

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

13. Dude....It passed with three votes to spare

Three. And those Democrats who voted against it did so because they thought it was too "Big Government" for them to support. Single Payer was NEVER an option here.

The Public Option was DOA.

It was NEVER going to happen. And it won't happen until we replace about 30 House Democrats for whom this bill was "too liberal"

In the meantime, we made progress.

Today's a good day.

[Richardo]

14. Enjoy your moping

Plenty of company around here.

[11 Bravo]

17. 32,000,000 people who will now have health insurance probably would disagree.

[Mari333]

19. yep. knr

[lonestarnot]

20. You know, maybe you just don't like wagons. Wagon allergy?

[donheld]

21. If you set the bar too high, nothing's a victory.

[scheming daemons]

22. Meh.

You want a bar placed so high as to make it impossible to get anything accomplished.

[Individualist]

23. K&R

[Major Hogwash]

24. Yeah, we all know that, shit, after 8 years of Bush, for Christ's sake.

At least Obama hasn't invaded any new countries!
Damn, give the man some credit.

[Withywindle]

25. After 8 years of Shrub, the bar is already extremely low.

Only Republicans are capable of limbo'ing under it.

This bill is extremely disappointing, but as long as it helps even ONE person, it's worth it. That's more than we've had for the last near-decade.

[The Straight Story]

26. Is that a quote from your Spouse? (nt)

[bridgit]

27. Accept in Limbo, cause it would be really hard to get underneath it

:(