Ever wonder why the health care law is considered a major progressive achievement

[ProSense]

Because it is.

Congressman Grayson said, “I may be in Congress for two years or twenty years, but whenever I leave Congress, I want to be able to say that there is no blood on my hands. I want to know that I did everything I could to save lives. That’s why I voted for health care reform. That’s why I had to vote for health care reform. I am pleased that I voted for life.”

link

Congressman Grayson said, “This is the greatest step toward accomplishing a good life for middle-class Americans that we’ve seen in a generation. The bill will provide virtually every American with universal, comprehensive, and affordable health coverage. It is truly the triumph of hope over fear.”

link

Krugman:

Guys, this is a major program to aid lower- and lower-middle-income families. How is that not a big progressive victory?

link

The answer is no. It seems the Democrats have done it. The Senate version of health reform will become law, with an improved version coming through reconciliation. This is, of course, a political victory for Obama, and a triumph for Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker. But it is also a victory for America's soul. In the end, a vicious, unprincipled fear offensive failed to block reform. This time, fear struck out.

link

[ProSense]

1. No comment? n/t

[derby378]

2. Crickets

Just because you say it's progressive doesn't mean it's so.

Just because I call myself a Bavarian creme doughnut doesn't mean that it's safe to take a bite out of me. I wouldn't like that one bit.

[earthside]

3. I'm being forced to buy ...

... health insurance from some of the greediest, immoral, unethical corporations in the United States.

There is nothing progressive about it.

[ProSense]

10. "There is nothing progressive about it." For the first time in history

it does something Medicare didn't do: make "preventive care – including annual physicals, wellness exams, and tests like mammograms" free for seniors as well."

That is something, and mind you, not the only thing, new and unique to this new law.

[derby378]

13. That in itself doesn't make the bill progressive

At most, this is an incrementalist bill - a bill that guarantees we'll have to go back and fix it further down the line, wasting time and taxpayer money instead of getting it right the first time.

[ProSense]

15. "At most, this is an incrementalist bill"

Yeah, a "bullshit" incremental bill like Social Security.

It's one significant change and historic in nature.

[eridani]

70. If HCR is like Social Security, then why isn't a government insurance plan available?

I suppose you think that the first draft of Social Security was to force everyone to invest in Wall Street for pensions.

[blindpig]

32. Ok, it is not entirely worthless...

it is almost entirely worthless.

Some people will buy anything 'new and unique'.

Bet you got a 'Pet Rock' in the closet.

[AlabamaLibrul]

66. So it expanded Medicare bennies, and in turn made everyone else buy shit insurance. Great. n/t

[eridani]

69. And when the Catfood Commission cuts Medicare, then what? n/t

[JoePhilly]

83. The HCR bill sucks because you expect Medicare to be cut??

Has Medicare been cut? No.

[Bandit]

87. Actually as part of the Health Care bill 500 billion was cut from Medicare.

They say it was cutting fraud and waste but it was a half trillion dollar cut, no matter how you look at it.

[eridani]

91. And your plan for stopping the Catfood Commission is?

HCR left Medicare vulnerable. With its mandates, it provides a ready excuse for means testing Medicare and pushing all but the desperately poor into 3 times as expensive private insurance.

[Riftaxe]

20. Unless progressive switches from auto insurance

to health insurance... :evilgrin:

In the end unless your invested in health insurance companies or a politician running on illusions of fulfilled promies, the bill is a joke.

[Statistical]

4. Self congratulatory praises from the people the bill to themselves is proof of what again?

The HCR is complete and utter garbage and will do nothing to bend the cost curve.

It helps the working poor gain access to subsidized care but that also subsidizes the profits associated with that care.

For everyone else it is next to worthless. Being forced to buy insurance you can't afford isn't meaningful reform. Having the IRS act as an enforcement/collection agent for corrupt for-profit health care companies isn't even in the same ballpark as progressive.

[VMI Dem]

5. Unrec for bullshit.

:thumbsdown:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

6. +1!

[Warren Stupidity]

8. +1

[ProSense]

12. - pick a number

for denial.

[jannyk]

63. ooooh, a brazillion pluses!!!!

Total. Unadulterated. Bullshit!!!!!

[leftstreet]

67. +1

[asdjrocky]

7. Oh please.

I still can't get insurance because I can't afford it, and I can't go to the doctor.

Recently I did have some very good progressive friends raise money to help with my lack of teeth. That's what I call progressive, real people helping real people. Not the government we elect giving piles of money to insurance companies.

This is a silly post when you look at what is going on in the real world.

[zipplewrath]

9. Short lived

The assistance that this will provide to about the 8% or so that wasn't aided before, will be very short lived. The rate of increase of health CARE costs in this country will continue to rise such that far more people will suffer reduced ability to access health CARE than the few that were helped, in the short term, by various features in this bill. This bill was left with virtually no features to control, much less reduce, the health CARE costs of the majority of Americans. It merely perpetuates the for profit system that has resulted in one of the most expensive health care systems in the world. It places the insurance companies in a position in which they become the conduit to health care. The provision of health care becomes even more so a feature for the free market to decide what will be provided, and for the first time obligates every American, and many businesses, to purchase insurance from for profit companies.


Within about 10 years we'll be in another crisis, and we'll speak of this bill much in the way we speak of NAFTA or DADT today. Only by then I fear the GOP will be in charge and we'll get their versions of mandates and cadillac taxes.

This bill was based upon a collection of ideas drawn up by the GOP in the early '90s to try to ensure that universal health care wouldn't become a reality. The progressives voted for it because in the short term it provided some features upon which they could campaign, and which would help a few. But this was like getting a can of fix-a-flat so that you could continue down the road a bit further. It ignores that you're on the wrong road, headed in the wrong direction, and it's still strewn with roofing nails.

[ProSense]

14. Not short lived

The changes are real and will have an impact.

[zipplewrath]

28. But not for long

The impact of the changes will soon be overwhelmed by the steady rise in health care costs. The bill was designed to save the government money on their medicare, medicaid, and subsidy costs. It did little to address the constant and speedy increase in health care costs to individuals and insurance companies.

Most of the biggest changes have already been made by insurance companies. The HMO movement, and the "in network" efforts have been made to attempt to improve efficiencies. It's not that there isn't anything more to do here, but the margin of improvements have been reduced such that they cannot keep up with the increased costs of providing health care. In the last several years, better part of a decade really, the insurance companies had all but abandoned efforts to reign in costs, and instead were focused on getting rid of the more expensive clients. That's why all the focus on "pre-existing" conditions and caps. The deal was struck to get them to accept these patients, and basically keep them. They would allow the premiums to rise, as long as profits stayed under a certain percentage. They negotiated certain basic costs would be covered at 100%. They would remove life time caps, and annual caps. And there were a few other bennies thrown in. For that, the insurance companies got a mandate, and they got many more businesses into the employer based insurance market. The government controlled it's costs by limiting how much of a subsidy they would provide. Too high, and you are just exempt from the mandate.

But none of this is doing much at all to affect health CARE costs. It's all about spreading the cost of insurance over larger markets. It was designed to get as many folks as they could into privately funded health insurance, even if it needed some government subsidy. Better a subsidy than be in medicaid. So the government was calculated by the CBO to see a decrease in their overall costs, as compared to the status quo. However, individuals won't see large scale savings. Those that do see savings, will see them erode quickly over the next ten years as health care costs continue to climb.

And those links go straight to the White House information site, which is designed to put the information in the best light, and ignore the larger down sides. It's basically a campaign site. It's hardly an objective source and really is brought to you by the same people that campaigned against mandates and cadillac taxes, and claimed they never really campaigned on the public option. Kinda goes against their credibility and objectivity in assessing the value of what they got passed. You might as well ask Toyota about the quality of their cars.

[ProSense]

30. No,

"The impact of the changes will soon be overwhelmed by the steady rise in health care costs. The bill was designed to save the government money on their medicare, medicaid, and subsidy costs. It did little to address the constant and speedy increase in health care costs to individuals and insurance companies."

There are others in addition to Medicare cost controls and the rate reviews.

The five most promising cost controls in the health-care bill

<...>

(1) Create a competitive insurance market: This is the bill's first, and most important, step. Right now, the insurance market's version of competition is pretty brutal. Companies compete to avoid the sickest people and sign up the healthiest people. Offering the best coverage for the lowest cost isn't much of a priority, because most consumers don't know whose coverage is best, and the ones who really do know are probably sick customers who spend their days researching this stuff.

<...>

Also, while people jump at the opportunity to characterize a public option as a cost control, they overlook the impact of a true non-profit plan in the competitive mix.

[zipplewrath]

33. Insurance isn't the problem

The insurance market isn't going to save health CARE costs. They just pass them through (with profit tacked on). As the health care costs rise, uncontrolled, they will cause health insurance costs to rise across the board.

The rest of those things are how the government will control THEIR costs, which is predominately the cost of insurance to them. It will do little to control health CARE costs, especially to individuals. One of them, the cadillac tax, specifically is designed to obstruct you from actually recieving health care they consider excessive.

[ProSense]

37. This is pure speculation

"They just pass them through"

This is the kind of claim people make about everything. It's a grasp without evidence.

That's like implying that Banks didn't find away around regulations before the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

The fact is that the laws have been changed, the regulations are being put in place, and the impact will be there. The point is that if the outcome isn't as strong as one would estimate, those issues can be addressed.

[zipplewrath]

52. If there were savings coming

They'd be shouting them from the mountain tops. The only folks who are saving money are the feds, and they've scored it and explained it. There are no significant savings anticipated from the plan. The most that was accomplished was a reduction in the rate of increase, it is what they negotiated with Big Pharma from the outset, 80 billion in reduced increases over 10 years.

Face it, you got diddly, or they'd have written about it in their propaganda and would be campaigning on it. The reason the critics complain so much about the give away to the insurance companies is because they didn't really get anything from them for the vast majority of us. A few here and there will get coverage that was harder,or more expensive than before. But the cost will continue to climb as it has for the last 3+ decades. The most they accomplished was to regulate the cost increases in premiums to make sure their is a minimum of abuse through the transition as more folks are pushed out of "cadillac" plans and have their plans altered from their current, non-qualifying, employer based plans.

But they left health care alone. And they dumped the only real feature that had any future hope, the public option. And its only real power was going to come as more and more folks were force into it, and they developed the economic clout of a "single payer" plan. The chose a regulatory model, and it is predominately a regulatory model over insurance not health care, that is still handled predominately at the state level. And it will have all the features and effectiveness that banking regulation has had for the last 2 decades. And it will take a collapse of that proportion to undo this mess and get to a model where we actually control health CARE costs.

[eridani]

74. Right. Do you know what the civilized world calls our "Cadillac" plans?

Barely adequate coverage, that's what.

[TheKentuckian]

41. What competitive market? Exchanges that only a tiny portion of Americans can access even in 20 years

The exchanges left to overwhelmed and captured state regulators?

That's not a competitive market.

If you leave the insurance industry as gatekeeper, the employer system in place, states in charge of oversight, and individual states as the scope of the market them its not reform, it is the same system in place.

[ProSense]

43. Wasn't that the same argument used

against the public option, which some people are lambasting the President over now?

[zipplewrath]

53. No

because the public option was national. There were attempts to "regionalize" the public option, towards the end they were desperately looking for a way to have something called the public option, but that really wasn't. The insurance companies didn't even want that. They feared the concept alone, in any form. Lieberman did their bidding, and Obama never even called him.

[ProSense]

55. Yes,

the biggest complaint about the public option was that it was only going to cover 10 million people. The actual numbers were higher and the plan was to expand it, but that was the complaint.

[zipplewrath]

57. Exactly

Everyone knew, including the insurance companies that the biggest threat to them, and really the primary chance to move towards universal health CARE was the public option. Because of the utility of the program, it would have steadily grew in size. It would have been the "go to" option for every group, and short coming of the other insurance options. As long as it could be on a national level, it would have had virtually no competition in the market place. Lower over heads and larger abilities to leverage economies of scale, no one could have competed. Ultimately it would have drawn so many people in (mostly because they could no longer afford commercial insurance) that it would have functionally become universal health care. And everyone knew that, which is why Lieberman fought it so hard, as did many others.

And it is also why Obama didn't really care, because especially in the short run, it could have increased direct costs to the government. It would have put them in the position of actually having to deliver health CARE. They already have that burden with Medicaid and it is costing them more every year. Obama wanted a plan that would reduce the direct costs to the government, not increase it. His only interest ever was in having a plan that could attempt to drive down the cost of insurance to the government. He got that so he abandoned the public option, and tried to claim he never campaigned on it.

[ProSense]

59. Exactly what?

"Everyone knew, including the insurance companies that the biggest threat to them, and really the primary chance to move towards universal health CARE was the public option."

People were constantly complaining that the public option was weak because it wasn't open to everyone, therefore it would be ineffective.

The same is true of recently proposed the public option.

[zipplewrath]

80. It was weak

And it was getting weaker. That doesn't change the fact that it was the last remaining feature that had any real substantive chance of getting health care costs under control, especially for the individual, in the entire bill. As it got passed, the only entity that will particularly "save" any money is the feds, and that will only be in the sense of reduced rate of increase. The vast majority of us will see little if any significant reductions in our health care costs as a result of this bill. And I haven't seen a study yet, but I'd hazard a guess that the majority will actually see an increase. This will mostly be as a result of people being coerced/bribed/cajoled into getting health insurance that will be significantly more expensive. This is mostly folks who are young and otherwise would have gone without, or had access to extremely inexpensive health insurance (that they would never use) based upon their health histsory. The administration already had to fight a misleading fact out of the CBO scoring that explained that costs for many people would go up. They would go up because they would CHOSE to get better insurance, for a slightly higher price under the new plan.

[TheKentuckian]

90. The last incarnation of the public option had a high chance of being a dumping ground

I've never disputed that and as such my focus went to a national exchange, expanding individual access, combating anti-choice language, increasing the actuarial value of basic plans, killing the anti-trust exemption, increasing subsidies, defeating the benefits tax, primary Federal oversight of the market, actual cost controls, and removal of Republican cost shifting time bombs like Ensign's bogus "wellness program".

All also failed resulting in a disaster of a reform effort and a dicey at best expansion of coverage since it comes at the expense since we are now moving to a model that heavily depends on self triage and inverse selection of care in other to reduce premium amounts via "cost sharing" structures.

This will largely have to be scrapped, there is essentially nothing here to build a first world system on. Neither a "utility" model, a NHS, nor a Single Payer system can come of this and after the bells and whistles, consternation, struggle, and paperwork we are left with our garbage "uniquely American" that we had before including high and ever increasing costs, criminal cartel gatekeepers, employer dictation of oppositions, and all the rest with the IRS playing hall monitor for the predatory cartel.

[eridani]

73. Competitive insurance markets are the problem

In the area of health care, they fuck people over by imposing the costs of competition on patients and health care providers. The biggest, cheapest risk pool of all is the entire population. Splitting it up by definition must increase costs. Why would anybody want to "shop" for health insurance? That is a despicable concept on its face, like shopping for a fire department.

The Medicare Commission: cutting costs on the backs of seniors.

Tax on Cadillac Plans: Guess what? These plans are defined by how much they cost, not by what they provide. If a company employs a lot of folks between 50 and 64, their crappy plans will instantly become Cadillac by the simple virtue of costing three times as much. A really wonderful way of getting them to fire people in that age range.

Medicare bundling programs: This actually will help cut costs, but trivially.

Changing the politics of reform? Geez what horseshit. Changing the politics of reform would have involved giving the 60% of providers who are in favor of single payer a seat at the table. It would have involved telling big Pharma to fuck off and imposing government price negotiation and drug reimportation. HCR is nothing but more of the same, reinforcing the absolute dictatorship of employers and insurance companies over provider choice. It remains based on the totally despicable value that people don't deserve care unless they have money.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

47. You mean Grayson and Krugman? n/t

[sendero]

50. Grayson.....

.... is right often enough to be wrong sometimes. Krugman, well I'm not a fan he's really been wrong a lot of the time.

[ProSense]

51. "right often enough to be wrong sometimes. "

So you think he's wrong because you don't agree with his opinion of the health care law?

What exactly is he wrong about?

[eridani]

71. Sure. People 50-64 will get torally fucked over.

You Platinum People have nothing useful to say to us Dirt People.

[Scurrilous]

11. Thanks

K & R :thumbsup:

[Coyote_Bandit]

16. It's not reform

It's a politically expedient corporate serving clusterfuck. Nothing principled or progressive about it. You ought not pretend otherwise.

[ProSense]

18. "It's a politically expedient corporate serving clusterfuck"

that will save the lives of millions of Americans every year.

[Coyote_Bandit]

19. ....and will continue to leave millions utterly lacking

meaningful access to health care.

Those fucking subsidies are just more politically expedient crap - window dressing - designed to camouflage the real impact of this clusterfuck.

[ProSense]

21. "Those fucking subsidies are just more politically expedient crap"

Yes, because Medicaid was always "politically expedient crap"?

[zipplewrath]

29. Well, not really

Medicaid isn't insurance per se. Medicaid is basically on the hook for the cost of the care. And you should also know they try to control their costs by controlling what they'll pay for health CARE. The result is many people can't find providers for the health care they need. Which means they go without.

Subsidies on the other hand don't pay for care, they pay for insurance. The feds prefer that because it removes their exposure to health care costs. If the subsidy won't get you the coverage you need, you just go with out, and it saves the government money. It was politically expedient in allowing the CBO to show a cost savings to the federal government, because it reduced costs by reducing their exposure to health CARE cost increases. Their exposure is limited because the amount they'll pay is predefined in terms of dollars, not care.

[eridani]

75. How does giving people crappy insurance save lives?

Nothing in the law that says they actually have to pay any given claim.

[havocmom]

62. ah, let her pretend. Delusions and jingoism won't change the truth

and you nailed the truth:

"It's a politically expedient corporate serving clusterfuck. Nothing principled or progressive about it."

[LWolf]

17. It's certainly a major achievement by insurance companies. nt

[walldude]

22. It might be a major achievement.. in the future...

but then again it may not. As often as I have seen the Democrats cave in to Republican lunacy and right wing lies and bow to their corporate sponsors, well I'm not holding my breath. Right now the bill helps some people and hurts others. It's nothing to brag about.

[derby378]

23. "...and a triumph for Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker"

This, despite the fact that this new law denies women in high-risk pools access to abortions, even if necessary for preserving the health and lives of women, even if they offer to pay for it themselves.

I don't give a damn if a bill strokes Pelosi's ego. I do care, however, how many people are going to be hurt by this law.

[LostInAnomie]

24. Indeed

Whiners will never admit it though.

[derby378]

25. A woman who complains about denied access to life-saving medical care is not "whining"

She's simply demanding the same access to health care that anyone else would get regardless of race, gender, etc.

[LostInAnomie]

26. Did the HCR deny that woman?

Nope.

Is the HCR going to make sure she isn't denied? Yep.

[derby378]

27. Prove it

She says she's been denied. The government said they're required to deny her. What's your answer?

http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/07/obama_abortion_high_risk_pools.html

[LostInAnomie]

34. The full bill doesn't go into effect until 2014.

Until then, the Hyde Amendment rules are still in place (which allows for abortion if the life of the woman is in danger). Until then the hypothetical woman in question (The article doesn't actually make reference to a real woman, which is odd.) who would have been unable to buy insurance in the first place because of a pre-existing condition, will be placed in the governments Pre-Existing Conditions Insurance Plan. In this plan, she will be subject to the laws that are already in place until 2014. After 2014, the legal restrictions in place will be lifted.

[pampango]

31. Social Security was quite limited in the beginning. Nothing for wives, widows, children, disabled.

If Obama's health care reform is improved upon in future decades, it will be seen as a transformational beginning, since all previous efforts had been defeated. This broke the logjam of opposition to national health care.

If repubs successfully freeze it or even are able to scale it back or repeal it, then it's legacy will be more problematic, since the "victors" write the history. ;)

[Cleobulus]

35. The argument you made would be for expanding Medicare...

Medicaid is getting expanded a little by this bill, still far too limited, but the bill is a much larger expansion of the private insurance industry, a step to the side, or a step back, rather than a step forward.

[eridani]

76. It was a FUCKING GOVERNMENT PROGRAM from the beginning

There was no shitty requirement to invest in Wall Street for your retirement or get your pay docked by the IRS.

[Hannah Bell]

81. +10000

[Statistical]

88. False comparison. SS stated with a good solid govt run non-profit program.

It was later expanded to cover more than the individual paying the taxes/contributions.

HCR simply extends the status quo. The analogy would be if 75 years ago INSTEAD of passing SS they instead passed a system where citizens were FORCED to gamble money with Goldman Sachs. It didn't matter if they didn't want to, or if they couldn't afford they were forced to "plan for retirement" by handing their money over to Goldman Sachs who would rack up huge profits and leave most people with less than what they contributed.

To add insult to injury those who refused to play the rigged game were turned over to the IRS for enforcement who siezed a percentage of their income as punishment for not helping the profit margins of Goldman.

If that was the "foundation" of SS it would be worthless also.

[Odin2005]

36. forcing people to buy something from a corporation is not progressive.

[grahamhgreen]

38. Forcing us to pay trillions for crapsurance that will be used to destroy the weak reforms in the

bill is not progressive - it is regressive, and foolish, unless ones wants to entrench criminals into our health care.

Although, if we create a bit of bipartisanship by joining the repugs in killing the punishing mandate - it could be OK.

[Vinca]

39. I suppose if you currently have good medical coverage,

you can look at the bill that passed and scream "Whoopee, we did it!" On the other hand, there is a large group of people just hoping not to die before 2014. They should have instituted an immediate Medicare buy-in for anyone. Progressive is the very last word I would use to describe a bill that delivers us all up to big insurance.

[LAGC]

40. I guess its "progress" if you have to take one step backwards to move two steps forwards...

Only the public option can save this catastrophe from enriching the private insurance oligarchy... mandatory "mandates" without it is just plain criminal.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

46. "The politicians that wrote and pushed the law praise the law."

Krugman is a politician?

"People are not buying what you are selling here...Try something new."


What did you have in mind: "The President, his policies and everything he does suck"?

[Stinky The Clown]

44. Ever wonder what the sound of one hand clapping is?

n/t

eom

[progressoid]

48. Ha!

I LOLed. :)

[wickerwoman]

49. It's a one-handed activity, but it's not clapping. n/t

[Mimosa]

54. People are still in the same sinking boat until 2014 and even then ...

Partner and I struggle to pay $895 a month for $10,000 annual deductible, 70/30 in network BC/BS health insurance policies. The deductible for Rxs is $1,000 a year for each of us. Co-pays for all services.

2 weeks ago I tried to see if I could change the Rx coverage. The answer was no. If we try to change the policies then we have to be underwritten again and pre-existing conditions apply so Blue Cross wouldn't have to accept us. The HCR rules about pre-existing conditions are only for children until 2014.

The rep was almost laughing at me as she explained how we're 'stuck'. I ended up slamming down the phone in frustration.

The HCR bill does nothing to aid people who are self-employed and whose costs for policies are unaffordable because of the rates being higher because we're over 40 or 50. There is no serious attempt at cost controls because there is no public option.

ProSense, these kind of topics come across like P.R.

It's like you're dishing out old macaroni and cheese which was a week old in the fridge before you put it in the freezer a month or 2 ago. You keep defrosting and reheating the same old dish. Nobody wants to eat it, no matter how much new cheese and bread crumbs you add each time you re-introduce it. :eyes:

[ProSense]

56. "ProSense, these kind of topics come across like P.R. "

PR = I don't agree with anything positive.

Paul Krugman is not a spokesperson for the administration. It's also funny that Grayson is a hero until he says something positive, then it's PR.

[zipplewrath]

58. Actually everything grayson says

Is PR. The man is a one man slogan machine. Sometimes its pure truth, and some times its pure PR. Most of the time its somewhere in between. This was in between, but a bit more towards the PR side.

[ProSense]

60. So he's grandstanding?

"Sometimes its pure truth, and some times its pure PR."

And I suppose those who don't agree with his opinion on health care get to decide which is which?

[zipplewrath]

79. Actually, it's all grandstanding

It's how the guy got elected, and how he plans on staying elected in a red leaning district. Whether you agree with the substance of his statements or not, you can't miss the attention getting features of what he says, and more importantly, how he says it.

[Mimosa]

61. I would LOVE to be 'positive'

ProSense, I sincerely respect you. I want to be supportive of the President who I helped get elected.

But if you can put yourself in my shoes, imagine you are just hanging on. You're not poor enough to qualify for public assistance. You're paying taxes as a self-employed person but you don't make enough to put up the money to pay taxes to the feds. Self-employed pay an 8% extra FICA. But if you're like us your incone varies between 28-30,000 and 45,000 annually but you're paying all your own expenses. Health care insurance alone is running $13,000 a year plus dental, co-pays and prescriptions..

This is the case for many people. Corporations are not wanting to incur the costs of hiring fulltime or even part-time employees. So they pay per job or project for independent contractors. Those kind of employees never get benefits or vacations. No job security. No unemployment benefits. There are many of us now.

And the politicians are doing nothing to help us.We are the invisibles. We're HURTING out here.

[ProSense]

64. People have been hurting

People are hurting, but you are not the only one with difficulties. Do you think that every Democrat who still supports the President is living a rosy life? I fail to see how it's reasonable to take burdens that have been building over decades, laying at the President's feet, demanding that he should fix them immediately, and if he cannot, he sucks.

The President didn't create the corporate structure, and he's trying to undo decades of damage. He has made some improvements, but did anyone really expect that anything he did or could do would dismantle the financial, health care, military and other systems in 18 months? People aren't even willing to give the programs a chance. They've been labeled failures before they're implemented. Well, if that's the case, people are resigning themselves to their perception that the administration is a failure when they refuse to give newly established, yet to be implemented policies a chance. There's nothing more to it, and nothing the administration can do to change the fact that someone believes the health care plan is a failed policy. That is not a sign that someone is willing to give the President a chance.

[zipplewrath]

85. 18 months of chances

Many of us have "given" him 18 months of chances, and he has broken promise after promise, and important ones to boot. He has fought many of us in the polls, and in congress. He and his administration have been dismissive and insulting to many people within his own party. And he has simultaneously been accomodating to those who most strenuously oppose him. He goes on Fox News and brags about rejecting their ideas. He locked the single payer folks right out of the room, and made secret deals with Big Pharma that violated promises he made in the campaign.

We've "given" him every chance, and he's stuck it to many of us repeatedly. And we're gonna go out and vote democrat anyway, and will probably be stuck voting for him in 2012 as well. All the while homes will foreclosed by bankers that he bailed out and gave them money for bonuses. And the torturers will still be free because he "has their backs". And thousands of gays will be out of the military and out of jobs because he didn't want to exercise his authority to stop it while the military did its study.

But yeah, the victims where are the problem.

[sabrina 1]

77. Grayson is still a hero for going after Republicans. He's just wrong

on this.

Your thinking is so black and white that you assume because someone is popular everything they say must be right.

That would be hero worship. You should know by now that the 'professional left' doesn't do hero worship. When someone is wrong, they point it out no matter who it is. You, otoh, don't believe your heroes can do any wrong or if they do you think it's best not to mention it.

Try to grasp this. You can like, even LOVE someone and still recognize and be willing to admit when they are wrong.

I guess you thought by posting Grayson's words on this issue, you would change minds or something. Do you not realize that grown-ups think for themselves? Blind loyalists allow others to do their thinking for them.

[Umbral]

65. No, I know why - political expedience. nt

[depakid]

68. Question begging and circular reasoning all in a few short words!

Nicely done.

[sabrina 1]

72. Grayson also voted to defund ACORN based on rightwing

Fox lies.

He did try to make up for that later, but even good guys are not perfect.

He is wrong about this bill, and when he comes to realize it he will admit it I'm sure.

Mandated for-profit private insurance based health care could not be further from being progressive if it tried.

This is a Republican bill, introduced long ago by Republicans.

This is the third time Grayson has been monumentally wrong on an issue that I am aware of.

But he's good when he goes after Republicans. And if he had been president, he would have fought for at least a PO, because he has spine.

Spine doesn't translate into always being right as Grayson has demonstrated on more than one occasion.

[old mark]

78. It is "Progressive" because the congressional Democrats and the Administration say so,

and they NEVER miss an opportunity to tell us how to think and how wonderful they are.

I think there is some good in the act, but it is slow in coming and people are suffering NOW from lack of health care in "the greatest country in the world".

Mr. Obama, you seem to have no regard at all fro the progressives in the party that elected you, but you never hesitate to use our name when some watered down sadly lacking bill is passed.

If this is the best the Democratic majority can do, then, well, thanks for the enjoyable show, but I guess there is little real hope left for the American people.

The GOP used to call Senator Obama the "most liberal Senator"...I wonder what happened to that guy.

mark

[Hannah Bell]

82. lol.

[JoePhilly]

84. And under the purity bus goes Grayson ....

[zipplewrath]

86. No one has thrown him under the bus

Quite the opposte, everyone understands exactly what he is doing, is making the best of a bad situation and sticking it to the GOP. Make no mistake, when I'm talking to the right wing nut jobs and they complain about HCR, my common response is "because the GOP status quo was so desireable right"? Grayson is in a red leaning district. He's doing exactly that. Just don't expect that kinda approach to fly around here.

[eridani]

93. +10

Making the best of a bad deal describes the entire congressional progressive caucus.

[JoePhilly]

94. That was my point.

I think Grayson is great. And I think you described his motive accurately.

He, like many of us is pragmatic.

And as you note, around here, acts of pragmatic progressivism, are generally not tolerated very well.

[court jester]

89. There's Serious and there's Not Serious

A Progressive achievement passing a Republican bill from the early 90's?

LOL

[Barack2theFuture]

92. mostly because people are really careless how they define 'progressive'?