Michael Moore and short-sighted liberals...

[kentuck]

First of all, I am a big Michael Moore fan. He has been at the front of the liberal movement for many years.

However, like many of our brethren liberals, he tends to see things in black and white. Sometimes there is no gray area to work with.

The HCR bill is the latest example. He says it is a payoff to the "capitalists". And it is.

But, in return, we finally get the teeth of regulation into the insurance industry. That is no small deed. Once they are restricted by law from doing certain activities and policies, it is to the people's advantage. The laws are in place.

In the short term, it looks like a victory for Big Pharma and the insurance companies. However, in the longer run, it looks like a victory for the people.

Those that think the Democratic Party should have passed a single-payer or public option, and I was one, were not looking at the entire picture. We were short-sighted.

Look at the money we are giving the insurance companies. At the rate of increases, they would have gotten that money anyway. They are greedy corporations. They do not care about 31 million people without any healthcare coverage or those people with pre-existing conditions, or old folks paying more than their share thru the "donut hole". They care about their stockholders and their bottom line.

Granted, if nothing else is done, this would be a victory for the insurance industry. However, who believes this reform will not have to be re-visited? And when it is re-visited, it will be reformed even further. Step by step, we will get the reform that the people need.

[joeybee12]

1. I'd love to be proven wrong that they will "improve" this bill...

...but I'm 99% sure I won't be.

[havocmom]

4. considering how pointing out where the bill needs improving gets shouted down here at DU

and the people posting critical facts on the matter get called all sorts of derogatory names, I fear you are (sadly) correct.

We can't fix what we can't speak of, and we were promised 'we'll fix it later.'

Oh, and of course they'll all respect us in the morning :grr:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. Bullshit.

No one shouts anyone down for saying the bill needs to be improved. And if you continue distorting facts, you will not be respected.

[joeybee12]

8. Well, you certainly proved your point.

:eyes:

[havocmom]

21. search: havocmom & 'yer either with us or with the terrarists'

and see how often just this week I have pointed out the hypocrisy of posters who have attacked, labeled, otherwise disparaged people with legitimate critical arguments.

And I don't sit here all day responding to all the lock step police

[JVS]

30. LOL

[joeybee12]

9. We have history on our side...history of saying something will be fixed later

and then ignored ad nauseum.

[Moochy]

44. Shh don't mention history! someone might realize we are about to repeat it!

[tabbycat31]

16. get your member of congress to cosponsor Alan Grayson's bill

that would be the next step in healthcare reform

[Deep13]

2. .

:kick: :thumbsup:

[dionysus]

3. K&R

[kentuck]

6. We, the People....

will decide if this is the end. The Congress represents "Us". We put them there to do our job. Because all of us cannot fit into that small building...

[dkf]

7. How bad does the situation have to get for you to realize MM is right?

The problem with this bill is there is next to no cost containment therefore the federal and state obligations will only balloon.

When we have to implement austerity measures because our costs are out of control will that be proof enough? As long as the system rests on shoveling 15 to 20% off the top to insurance companies in addition to paying the highest drug costs in the world our system is unsustainable. We will find this bill a pyrric victory.

[joeybee12]

10. The bill is unsustainable as it is...

...regardless of whether we got what we did or didn't want...it does not address cost controls at all, and until you rein those in, there will never be universal health coverage or anything close to it.

[kentuck]

11. Either the glass is half-full or half-empty...

The situation was bad already. And getting worse. No controls whatsoever.

The only political option possible was the status quo or this present bill. We could not pass single payer with the Democrats we now have in the Senate. Political reality.

So we choose. The status quo or this bill? I think the glass is half-full.

[GreenArrow]

18. "We could not pass single payer"

Well you sure can't pass it if you're not willing to even talk about it, much less fight for it.

[Raineyb]

47. Thank you. This rather obvious points seems to be ignored constantly n/t

[kentuck]

49. The reality is :

They were not willing to fight for it. There would not have been sixty votes out of the Senate if there had been a single payer option. Period. It doesn't matter if they have 51 votes now. They did not have it when it was necessary. Blame it on the Democrats. Or we can look in the mirror...

[zipplewrath]

23. The glass is broken

It's why they were talking about "fixes" before it was even passed.

[dkf]

24. We have the votes for po in the senate.

[beardown]

26. Half full of what is the key question.

Sorry, hard to pass up another play at the old standby.

If this bill is what we get by having a democratic president and majorities in both houses of congress then whatever the actual bill's glass is half full of I know what I'm thinking that the glass for what direction future adjustments to the bill is half full of now.

I just think that the same power of the health insurance industry that devolved the target from public option and single payer to conscripted customers and guaranteed profit margins in 12 months is going to start shaping the bill in the same direction.

[hfojvt]

28. Was he right when he lobbied Stupak to vote FOR the bill?

"BLITZER (3/22/10): Michael Moore, your congressman in Michigan, Bart Stupak, a Democrat. I think it's fair to say that because he and about half a dozen other anti-abortion Democrats decided to vote in favor of the bill last night, there will be health care reform signed into law at the White House tomorrow. How much credit do you give Congressman Stupak?

MOORE: Well, he did the right thing. My neighbors and I, we spent the weekend up here, hundreds of us, sending him e-mails, calling his office, and putting as much pressure on him as we could, including coming up with a candidate to run against him in the August Democratic primary.

So I think that he heard us. It was one of these rare instances where a politician actually listens to his constituents. And he did the right thing. And I think that he made a very brave speech. I realized that he has a lot of personal religious feelings about this. I understand those feelings. I was texting him from Mass the other day."

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh032310.shtml

[dkf]

31. Apparently he'd settle for a slice of bread for now

But we didn't get anywhere near half a loaf much less a whole one.

[EFerrari]

33. Yes, he was. And organizing his district shows he certainly doesn't think

in black and white terms.

[Karmadillo]

12. And Sandra Bullock will leave her husband for Karmadillo. Clap your hands everyone!

Better health care and a cool significant other for all in the very near future!!!! That's the plan!!!! Just keep clapping!!!!

[zipplewrath]

13. It worked so well with the banking industry

"But, in return, we finally get the teeth of regulation into the insurance industry. That is no small deed. Once they are restricted by law from doing certain activities and policies, it is to the people's advantage. The laws are in place."

Kinda like our banking regulations? Or were you thinking of our bankruptcy protections?

Regulation has it's role, but it is not a replacement for the recognition that health care is a right of the people. It is not enhanced by making the purchase of health insurance an obligation of the people. It was the democrats that repealed Glass Steagall.

This bill is very weak on health CARE access features and very strong on individual obligations to the insurance industry.

This bill, by design, creates a market designed to support the for profit insurance industry, be an obstacle to universal health care, and ensure a long stream of lobbying dollars for congress and the democratic party.

Congratulations. You've just put "teeth" into the idea that health insurance is an individual obligation, and health CARE is an option.

[kentuck]

15. I look at FICA taxes the same way...

as I do the mandate on health insurance.

It is a tax on possible future use of the system. It is a shared responsibility. If I do not wish to get SS Disability if I become disabled, can I opt out of the FICA taxes?

The Health care "reform" will be what the people make it. It is up to us. We cannot whine and cry and say it is all over and expect anything to get any better. This is not the end. This is the beginning. Unless we are ready to surrender already?

[zipplewrath]

22. So which company do you send you FICA

You sending that money to a for profit company of some sort? When it doesn't buy what you need, do you have to personally make up the difference? And then when it comes time to actually receive the service, and there are co-pays and deductibles, where does THAT money come from?

[canoeist52]

38. Spot on. We've just bought health insurance that isn't really health INSURANCE.

[GreenArrow]

14. Short sighted?

Who exactly is it that is telling us we have to pass this bill right now?

And who is going to revisit the bill? Why, it's the same fuckers who concocted it to begin with, along with some new fuckers elected to replace some of the fuckers who voted for it.

The only victories here are for the insurance and pharmaceutical companies and a very Pyrrhic, purely political victory for the Obama administration.

Moore shortsighted on this? Hardly. As Einstein put it, "you can't solve problems with the same kind of thinking that created them," in this case, the kind of thinking that can't get past the idea of health care as a for profit commodity rather than a hallmark of a civilized people. All this bill has done is further cement the existing foundations even more firmly in place. It's a bill that attempts to serve two masters.

[kentuck]

19. Nobody thinks it is an ideal solution.

Time will tell. Expectations have risen. If they are not met, people will make further demands from their elected officials. It is not a quick fix. It was not possible to have a quick fix. We have been working on this for 100 years. You expect to get it done tomorrow??

[GreenArrow]

29. No, I don't expect it to get done tommorow.

I don't expect that the people responsible for this now, or in the near future are going to be any less paid off, influenced by or otherwise co-opted by the very industries that are largely responsible for our health care problems. I don't think this bill was created with the interests of the people of this country in mind, but rather, with the interests of those same aforementioned industries. I don't consider what they've done with this bill to be a fix at all. It's an excuse and a pretense. It's partisan gamesmanship. It's lukewarm.

And until Americans, and/or her owners can get over the idea of health care as simply a profit making commodity, there is going to be no fix, quick or otherwise. Given that the business of America is business, which means at heart, putting profits above people, this is the health care model we're likely to be stuck with.

[kentuck]

32. We will get what we settle for.

Simple as that. Perhaps nothing else will be done. We will deserve what we get. Maybe it will be worse than the status quo? If we look at it as a final product, then we probably are justified in being discouraged.

[JVS]

34. An odd post in a thread dedicated to badmouthing those who don't want to settle.

[Cal Carpenter]

59. Exactly

This issue brings out the weirdest projection/doublespeak I've ever seen at this site.

It's like - we have to insist on making it better, therefore we can't talk about it in critical terms. We must sit here and be very very quiet.

It's confusing :)

[GreenArrow]

40. Settle is a good word.

It's not about what we want; it's about what they'll let us have.

[EFerrari]

17. Moore is not shortsighted.

It is shortsighted to believe that further ensconcing the insurance companies in our health care delivery will not have blowback. It's shortsighted to assume the benefits the bill intends will be delivered by an industry that is dedicated to their bottom line at the expense of American lives. It's shortsighted to think that millions of people who could not afford health insurance will now be able to afford to use it and that they will have adequate access to health care. Given the track record of the insurance industry, it's just as likely these already strapped people will be paying fines not to receive health care.

That is the likely big picture, not the promise of reforming the "reform".

I'm glad the Democrats won this round but that's politics, not health care.

[graywarrior]

20. He confuses capitalism with corporatism

[EFerrari]

27. That's true. The two terms have been collapsed in our usage

haven't they? And that's likely a PR strategy to buffer the corporati from being criticized for their horrible abuses.

[blindpig]

56. For good reason

'Corporatism' is but a stage in the evolution of capitalism.

Hint: it ain't getting any better, actually, it can only get worse.

Tear it down.

[Pryderi]

25. K&R I feel the same way. I'm not happy with the legislation, but people are more aware of the

possibilities. Eventually, Americans will pass either public option or single payer.

[kentuck]

35. This is an opportunity for progressives...

It is the progressives that will demand the changes that are needed in this bill. It will not be moderates or conservative Democrats, it will be progressives. That is the role that has been handed us. I am not not minimizing Michael Moore. He is necessary for the change needed. As are the rest of the progressives here. But, let's not overlook the opportunity.

[GreenArrow]

53. "it is the progressives that will demand the changes ...

that are needed in this bill." As they should continue to do, regardless of result. But it is the moderate and conservative Democrats that will continue to ignore, devalue, marginalize, and otherwise insult those demands. We may get the occasional crumb, but we carry no real weight.

[Jakes Progress]

36. Rubber teeth and short memories.

That's what the corporations wanted. There had been a build up of anger and disgust with insurance companies. They had to let out a little steam.

So they let some vague regulations with no private oversight agency go through. They promise to be better. Then they wait. You ask who believes this reform will not have to be re-visited. The answer is the politicians who can either bask in passing a bill or thump their chest about opposing it. They don't want to wade into this ever again in their political lives. I would love to be proven wrong, but we will see if any "revisits" take place in the remainder of the first term.

What we got is all we will get. What the insurance corporations got will keep growing and growing. Sorry to be such a downer on the subject, but after the poorly played moves of the administration and the cowardly and dishonest behavior of our congress on this matter I don't see change a-comin'. Add to this the contributions of that wholly owned subsidiary of the neocon movement, the "free" press, and it is just bleak for those without the rosy glasses.

Boy do I wish I were wrong.

[kentuck]

39. They are re-visiting it as we speak...

They are attempting to make changes thru reconciliation on the Senate floor at this minute. Maybe I have rosy glasses? But I am an optimist, I confess. I believe if further changes are needed, they will be addressed. I am also a realist. I realize that this is a very small step toward reform. But, I believe it is a step in the right direction.

We may never get single payer? We may never get portability? We may never see our premiums go down? But, I am convinced we could not continue the direction we were going. Something had to be done. It is up to us to keep their feet to the fire.

[western mass]

37. "improve the bill" meme is simply delusional

I realize that many of the people spreading this meme are the DLC crowd who count on being able to fool Democratic voters time and time again. But for those voters who honestly buy into this: The Democratic control over government is at a historic high. They will never, ever be in a better position. They could have instituted sweeping reform now. Instead, they BEGAN the process by taking the most basic reforms, like negotiating drug costs, off the table. They have constantly LIED about their support for a public option. They have shown themselves in every facet of policy to put corporate interests above the peoples' interests. What do you think is going to change?

[Romulox]

41. When did "liberal" become an acceptable epithet on this board? nt

[kentuck]

42. "Short-sighted" is an epithet??

Hmmmm...

[Romulox]

43. Yes. "short-sighted liberal" sounds like an insult to me. nt

[kentuck]

46. Insult = epithet?

short-sighted is an opinion about this specific issue. I may be wrong? I may be the one that is short-sighted. I do not want insurance companies enshrined as the only means of coverage for American citizens. But that was the status quo. So nothing has changed, if that is the case.

I will attempt to keep my mind as open as possible.

[Romulox]

48. The words are not interchangeable, but are synonymous in this context.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/epithet

[kentuck]

50. Not hardly the same.

Sorry.

[Romulox]

51. Um, yes. "a disparaging or abusive word or phrase". nt

[Romulox]

52. Also, "a word, phrase, or expression used invectively as a term of abuse or contempt..."

"a word, phrase, or expression used invectively as a term of abuse or contempt, to express hostility, etc. "

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/epithet

:hi: :eyes:

[sabrina 1]

61. Well, Michael Moore is anything but short-sighted.

Maybe you're not familiar with his work, but even the Corporations know he is right and has been for the past 20 years predicting much of what has gone wrong with this country long before it was apparent. That is why they have spent so much money trying to shut him up.

You may not mean to be doing what you are doing, but you are helping the most despicable and corrupt element of this society when you attack someone like MM. We have so few voices on the left and each and every one of them has been attacked right here on this progressive board.

One thing I'll say about him is he is consistent on the principles he stands for. Unlike our politicians who one day are FOR something and the next they are against it.

You are unwittingly doing the work of the corrupt Corps, which you will see in this interview below. They actually targeted Democrats to let them know that if they supported Michael Moore, the Party would remain a minority party. In other words, Democrats were bribed to marginalize MM. And you are helping to do that dirty work, intentionally or not.

Wendall Potter, Cigna Whistle-blower talking to Bill Moyers on how the Private Ins. tried to shut Michael Moore up by discrediting his movie SICKO, because far from being short-sighted, he was way ahead of everyone else on the disastrous U.S. HC System and he wasn't being quiet about it:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2.html

BILL MOYERS: So what did you think when you saw that film?

WENDELL POTTER: I thought that he hit the nail on the head with his movie. But the industry, from the moment that the industry learned that Michael Moore was taking on the health care industry, it was really concerned.

BILL MOYERS: What were they afraid of?

WENDELL POTTER: They were afraid that people would believe Michael Moore.

BILL MOYERS: We obtained a copy of the game plan that was adopted by the industry's trade association, AHIP. And it spells out the industry strategies in gold letters. It says, "Highlight horror stories of government-run systems." What was that about?



WENDELL POTTER: The industry has always tried to make Americans think that government-run systems are the worst thing that could possibly happen to them, that if you even consider that, you're heading down on the slippery slope towards socialism. So they have used scare tactics for years and years and years, to keep that from happening. If there were a broader program like our Medicare program, it could potentially reduce the profits of these big companies. So that is their biggest concern.

BILL MOYERS: And there was a political strategy. "Position Sicko as a threat to Democrats' larger agenda." What does that mean?

WENDELL POTTER: That means that part of the effort to discredit this film was to use lobbyists and their own staff to go onto Capitol Hill and say, "Look, you don't want to believe this movie. You don't want to talk about it. You don't want to endorse it. And if you do, we can make things tough for you."

BILL MOYERS: How?

WENDELL POTTER: By running ads, commercials in your home district when you're running for reelection, not contributing to your campaigns again, or contributing to your competitor.

BILL MOYERS: This is fascinating. You know, "Build awareness among centrist Democratic policy organizations--"

WENDELL POTTER: Right.

BILL MOYERS: "--including the Democratic Leadership Council."

WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely.

BILL MOYERS: Then it says, "Message to Democratic insiders. Embracing Moore is one-way ticket back to minority party status."

WENDELL POTTER: Yeah.

BILL MOYERS: Now, that's exactly what they did, didn't they? They--

WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely.

BILL MOYERS: --radicalized Moore, so that his message was discredited because the messenger was seen to be radical.

WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely.

No, Michael Moore was far from being short-sighted. He 'hit the nail on the head' as Mr. Potter, who ought to know, says. So, the only way to stop him from reaching people with the truth was to use Rovian tactics of lies and distortions even with Democrats, who as we see on this board, were more than willing to sell a great advocate like MM down the river. It's just plain despicable. What you would expect from the far right and now we have to expect it from the Democratic Party. Do you really want to be a party to this? I know I do not.

No surprise either to see the role played by the rightwing of the Democratic Party, the DLC. just shameful.

[Moochy]

45. When Rahm was hired

[Individualist]

54. If I told you, my answer would be deleted.

[JoseGaspar]

55. Ah, the zeal of the newly converted.

Unfortunately, the OP is entirely wrong. The only thing unprecedented here is the spin.

There is no precedence needed for the regulation of health insurance companies. They have been regulated for decades. This Bill is a broad, but very thin, alteration of the details of that regulation.

There is no precedent set for universal health care. There have been many reforms around the edges of health care, of which Medicare and Medicare are only the most notable and SCHIP the most recent. This Bill continues that pattern. There is no addition to the Bill of Rights. There isn't even a simple declaration of that sentiment in the Bill.

There is no appetite for further reform. The President stuck like glue to the original Senate Bill and that is what passed. The Congress barely had an appetite to go this far. The need to "revisit" is the same as before the Bill was passed... only, this time with less urgency.

There are only two real precedents in this Bill:

1) The personal mandates are a precedent. You can debate if they are a good one.

2) For the first time since FDR, a major social issue has been "addressed" by a purely private solution... and this, not by having the necessity imposed by a bipartisan coalition in Congress, but by a "Liberal" President and Congress, both exclusively Democratic.

Somebody's problem got solved here, but it wasn't yours and it wasn't mine.

[lonestarnot]

57. We shall see what we shall see.

[Cleobulus]

58. First off, I find the regulatory sections of the bill to be weak...

with few mechanisms or penalties laid on the insurance company's feet when they fail to meet some standard.

Moreover, I fear that you put far too much optimism in further improving this bill by assuming that not only will the Democrats stay in power in the foreseeable future, but that they will trend to the left, when history has not born this out. This bill is so weak, the Republicans, or even conservative Democrats can destroy the few provisions designed to help people fairly easily once they get the votes to do so.

[tabasco]

60. K&R

I'm very sorry. I unrecc'd by mistake.