Just curious. How opposed to this health care legislation are you?

[cali]

Obviously that question is for those who have declared their opposition to it. So are the following questions.

Would you vote against a congress critter because she voted for it?

Do you hope that the repubs manage to repeal it or get it substantially overturned in court?

[Jackpine Radical]

1. It's here. The job now is to improve it.

I wouldn't vote against anyone for having supported it, nor would I support efforts from the right to zap it by whatever means. I would certainly support efforts from the left to put in a usable public option, and would much prefer to simply see it replaced with universal Medicare.

[cali]

5. completely agree.

[Lex]

13. that's pretty much how I feel too. nt

[MUAD_DIB]

31. That's it in a nutshell.

[goclark]

37. Now that is class

thanks for your well stated comments.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[piratefish08]

3. I was opposed in hopes of a better bill. BUT, I support it 100% now that the right is going

absolutely batshit crazy...........

[ixion]

4. Yes; And (a qualified) Yes.

The qualifier being that it's more than just rethugs who are opposed to this legislation.

[cali]

6. but the only people who are trying to repeal it or destroy it in court are repukes

the only people organizing to vote out dems who voted for it are repukes.

[ixion]

10. There are many people on this board who are opposed to this.. however

we've largely been told to shut up.

I'm not really happy about the fact that the only people challenging this in the courts (at the moment) are rethugs, however, that a) doesn't mean it's exclusive to them; or b) doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of progressives who opposed this. There are.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

26. But you know that progressives are against this bill too. You're here on DU every day

and have heard our complaints about, for Excellent Progressive reasons. Reasons that do not correspond to what the Repukes are doing except for IMHO the mandate.

[cali]

32. Actually, the vast majority of us progressives support this legislation- even

if it's not wholeheartedly. And as I said, the only ones working for repeal or to dismantle the legislation via the courts, are repuke fuckwads.

You're in a very small minority.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

33. I have been in the minority before but being in the minority doesn't mean one is wrong.

Thank God It Passed? Remember the banking bill? I was also in the minority of the 25% who opposed the Iraq War and even the small minority of those who opposed Afghanistan. Being in the minority right now means nothing at all to me.

[cali]

39. yes, I'm glad it passed. You may not care about the thousands of lives

that will be saved because it passed, but I do. And I never said that being in the minority means one is wrong. I simply pointed out that most of us progressives are not on the same page with you. Simple really.

[Mari333]

11. what you said.

[TorchTheWitch]

20. Ditto

My state is getting very close to passing universal healthcare that is government run, non-profit, no co-pays/deductibles, etc. and includes dental, mental health and vision (and not just preventative dentistry either). It's a FAR better plan, and though it will cost me, it won't be as much, I'd actually GET something for my money and it really reigns in the for-profit health industries.

Dental is a HUGE issue for me, and though I doubt my falling apart dentistry will last before this state plan gets passed there's a good chance that at least some of it would be covered, and I won't have to worry so much about future dentistry since my dental issues are always going to be ongoing. I wouldn't have all the dental issues I've had most of my adult life if REAL dental insurance was even available to purchase. I'm thrilled that my state realizes that dental and vision is part of regular health care and wants to treat it that way.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

27. Exactly.

[Fumesucker]

7. There isn't any point in giving a damn about it..

We got what the powers that be wanted, the private mandate and we didn't get what the powers that be didn't want, any sort of public option.

It was clear a long time ago how it was going to wind up, I'm too lazy to go and dig up my old posts but I called this result months ago.

Kaa-Boo-Kee

[Echo In Light]

9. 'Bout sums up my position as well. It was rigged from the get-go i.e. profit over people

[havocmom]

14. yep

[galileoreloaded]

18. Masterful gamesmanship, the likes of which we have never seen, n/t

[ixion]

12. exactly

[lonestarnot]

8. Certainly do not approve of an insurance industry bail-out, but I would never cut off my nose to

spite my face.

[T Wolf]

15. At this point, after all the bullshit flying about this law, the only SANE thing to do is wait and

see what health care in the US looks like a year (or two or three or four) from now. I don't think anyone really knows.

Individuals will be able to make quick, limited decisions whether it is good for them personally - for the "system" - that will be harder.

One thing I am confident about - our betters in Congress and the WH will NOT be willing to tackle this issue again anytime soon. Dems will declare victory and move on to something else on their corporate agenda. Pukes will rail against it for political purposes, but will not be able to significantly reverse any/much of it. So this law, whatever its consequences, is what we are stuck with for the foreseeable future.

So, let's just watch the pharma and insurance corps stocks and profits rise. At least investors will do well.

As for voting against those who supported it - I don't vote for my Rep or Sen anyway.

[leftofcool]

16. Only opposed to the mandate. Would never support a repuke

or go against a Dem who supported it. Was hoping for a PO.

[nevergiveup]

17. It is a huge first step.

and just like Medicare and Social Security it will get better. Our job is to stand together for the necessary improvements and also to support those this fall who will be on our side. The more rabid Republicans there are in congress the more difficult it will be.

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. Only there is no foundational structure to build on here -

both SS and Medicare created a foundation that could be improved upon - what this did was nothing more than set in stone PRIVATE INSURANCE as being the foundation of our healthcare system - and as such, it even undercuts the idea behind Medicare, and I predict it will lead to the collapse of Medicare. If you want to build on something, build on Medicare as the structure for a Public Option or eventual single-payer - don't cut the legs off Medicare and defund it.

All of the things being touted about this bill COULD have been done separately, without tying them to a mandate for private insurance.

It is a huge first step backwards.

[optimator]

19. mandates are the most grotesque thing Dems have ever done

My grandfather fought in Italy in WW2 against this shit.

[zipplewrath]

21. Mixed

Would you vote against a congress critter because she voted for it?

I'm not a "single issue" kinda guy. And of course it depends greatly upon who the opposition would be. There aren't alot of credible primaries against incumbents. Furthermore, I am sympathetic to a congress critter who was beginning to see the hand writing on the wall. Basically, not voting for it could put one in Pelosi's "penalty box" for a while. To be a congress critter is to be someone who has committed to playing the game. Sitting on the sidelines ultimately puts you out of the game, potentially for a long time.

"Do you hope that the repubs manage to repeal it or get it substantially overturned in court?"

If I thought for one minute that the mandate could be overturned, without a wholesale change of the commerce clause, I'd support that. But this court would almost assuredly overturn such a large portion of the commerce clause (the infamous "Wheat" case) that it would undermine everything from social security to the civil rights acts.

In terms of "repeal", they will never try. A bit like Medicare Part D, it quickly becomes tpo hard to overturn, and all you can try to do is make it stink less. Which ultimately is my complaint here. This bill, when originally conceived by Baker and Dole was specifically designed to block universal health CARE. Now that it exists, any attempt at such a thing will have to run head long into the aspects of this bill that make that difficult. Primarily that it establishes insurance companies as the conduit between citizens and the health care providers. Unweaving that web will be hard, as the original authors intended.

[bigtree]

22. same as with most legislation

hoping to change the bad and include more good. These bills are always a work in progress after passage. There's appropriations; there's enforcement, there's enactment and interpretation; and challenges by states in court . . . standard fare. I'll be as happy with the bill as we are vigilant and diligent in correcting it and enhancing it. But, it was quite a moment yesterday for our party. I'm quite pleased with that.

And, it was quite a moment for the folks who shared their stories with us here and elsewhere, who believe they will be helped by this legislation with their life-threatening medical needs. I'm ecstatic about that prospect.

[madokie]

23. To the contrary I'll be voting for the opponent to my congress critter because he did not vote

for it,. Blue dog, sorry ass Dan 'DINO' Boren

[shotten99]

24. It's a start.

But all I see is that we're all going to get at least catastrophic coverage.
No dental, vision, eye care, etc.

[harun]

28. No, no. This was Health Insurance Reform. Most will disagree but I think

HIR was needed to get to HCR. While the Health Insurers will gain revenue with this bill, the passing of the bill symbolically says the United States Federal gov't is not going to simply let every man fend for themselves in terms of Health Care. That they have a role and are going to act on it. I think this symbolic step had to be taken first. We are a country that embraces inequality. Legislating against that is very difficult, usually impossible. I think this bill will help us when we get ready to take the next step and I support those who voted for it.

[Yo_Mama]

29. Pretty Opposed

I have read the bills (the Senate version, which is now law, and the House amendment, which will probably shortly become law). They are good efforts in many ways, but in the end I think this is a failed attempt at reform because it does not address the underlying issues.

I just can't see how many individuals and families will be able to access health care under the law, even in 2014. I only concentrate on access. If a lot of low-to-moderate income people won't have real access, this bill will end up being a pretense at reform that will serve to block real reform.

It looks to me like this bill is good for insurance companies and hospitals, but that many people driven to the exchanges will find themselves in the bind of being basically not able to access reasonable ongoing medical care because their premiums and out-of-pocket shares will wind up being more than they can pay.

Maybe some of this will be fixed in regulation (there are ton of implementing regs that have to be written). Maybe it won't.

I feel a tombstone coming on, because people just won't want to hear this. But I have threatened to walk out of companies who tried to pull this crap, and I am not going to change my standards now.

I would have supported universal care, even if it were implemented through insurance companies. Germany has such a system and it works decently. But people didn't want to pay the tariff (in Germany, 15.5% of your salary), so we tried to do it on the cheap. And if doing it on the cheap means that a family with a diabetic member or a neurological disease or any one of the numerous medical conditions that inflict high medical costs year after year is basically relegated to medical poverty for their entire lives, then it is a crappy bill and nothing anyone can do will make me pretend it is not.

This bill will eventually help some people who are now paying huge amounts of their income for bad insurance, with very high copays. But I doubt it does enough to provide genuine access to care for all the workers who will be forced on the exchanges. If going to a doctor and buying medicine is going to come with high copays for average persons, this will not do the job. And in the end, if a diabetic can't get effective medical care, we will all pay much more over the diabetic's lifetime and we are being very cruel to that person.

[Union Yes]

30. 50/50 but supported it's passage. IMO heres a few reasons..

good elements in the new law.(it feels good to say that.."new law")

-it will lead to cost control in the near future. Rising HC costs will literally mandate it.

-it will force repeal of anti-trust exemption IMO. Cost control will require said repeal.

-children will be covered from the start.

-30+million will have coverage. Of, course it will take 4 years to implement and for those folks to get access to coverage.

-that will create a huge new need for ton of new Docs, Nurses, staff, med record keepers etc. Perhaps millions of new jobs?

-this law is amendable. Meaning we can add individuals reforms at later dates. Individual reforms are much easier to pass than gigantic, sweeping reform legislation. This new law is actually a pretty good foundation for starting reform and for adding much stronger reforms hopefully in the near future. A PO can be added to this law at a later date for instance. I'm hoping that Dems keep fighting for repeal of anti trust exemption. Passing that repeal might be more doable as a stand alone bill.

-this may help the Dem party avoid an election nightmare in Nov.

-real deficit reduction. Proves that the more we reform HC the more we can reduce our deficits. Now if they'd apply that logic to war funding..

bad elements..

-4 years to implement much of the new law. I don't buy the argument that it will take 4 years to properly implement. I'd compromise and be happy if it were done in 2 years instead. I hope Dems will amend the law in the future to speed it up. 4 years is too long.

-No PO, SP/MC for all.

-No anti-trust exemption repeal.


Much of the above is my opinion. I support it but it's only a start. Dems still have a lot of reforming to do in the future.

But the party took it's first step toward HC reform and I support those who made it happen. The DLC'ers that killed the PO can still kiss my ass. So can the entire GOP.

Peace

[northernlights]

34. there was health CARE legislation? nt

[Green_Lantern]

35. I think it's a great bill considering how we're so politically....

Conservative in how our govt. operates. Instead of working on a future end goal of Medicare for all it gives relief to people now who are stuck relying on private insurance. Many of us don't have the time to wait around until a better system comes along.

If someone offered a starving man a hamburger he shouldn't say "No...I'm waiting for a steak."

I think we need to continue on with reform though.

[Prism]

36. Very. Maybe. Sort of.

I think this bill will be every bit as catastrophic in the long-term as NAFTA.

If I were on the fence with my representative, this would probably tip me into not voting in the race at all (I don't vote for Republicans). Since I very much like my rep on so many other issues, she gets my vote despite our disagreement over this. The only practical effect of this bill on my political activities is that I will not be donating this election cycle nor volunteering for any campaign. This is the first time I'll be abstaining from politics in that way since I was old enough to vote.

I would like to see the mandate overturned by any means possible. As long as there is no public option, the mandate is a travesty against poor and working class Americans. The Republicans of the 90s couldn't have imagined a more successful "reform" in their wettest dreams.

[goclark]

38. K and Recommend ~ good civil discussion

I learned a lot about both sides of the issue without all the name calling -- this is what DU should be about.

BRAVO

[Xithras]

40. I'm very opposed to it.

No money for the local reps who supported it, and I'll be voting for their primary challengers in the next election if they surface. I would never vote for a Rethug though. My goal would be to oust the sitting reps in favor of more progressive candidates, not more REGRESSIVE ones.

And yes, I do hope that the mandates are overturned in court. I do have objections to other parts of the bill as well, but I'll bite my lip and live with it if the mandates can be gutted.

[mdmc]

41. I see it as a feather in the dems cap and a black eye for the gop

I dont want to see it overturned

[Texasgal]

42. There are plenty of things I dislike

about this bill, however... I realize that this is one small step in the right direction. I look forward to building ON to this and making it better.

I support it, I never expected perfection.