"stop pretending the new health reform law is some great progressive victory. It is not."

[Better Believe It]

Obama Again Admits His Health Care Law Is Republican, Not Progressive
By: Jon Walker
November 8, 2010

One of my strongest hopes is that everyone in the media, especially on the left, can simply stop pretending the new health reform law is some great progressive victory. It is not. It is a conservative, pro-corporate piece of legislation. From the CBS News:

"Obama: Well, partly because I couldn’t get the kind of cooperation from Republicans that I had hoped for. We thought that if we shaped a bill that wasn’t that different from bills that had previously been introduced by Republicans, including a Republican governor in Massachusetts who’s now running for president. That we would be able to find some common ground there. And we just couldn’t. And that was costly partly because it created the kind of partisanship and bickering that really turns people off."

In its basic design, the new law is even very similar to George Bush’s Medicare Part D, which also provides help by using extremely wasteful subsidized private health insurance exchanges. Obama even promised PhRMA he’d leave in place all the corrupt sweetheart deals from Medicare Part D that Democrats claimed to have found so offensive.

It doesn’t matter what prominent Democrats were telling the base when they were trying to sell the vote. Just because a basically Republican health care law was passed by Democrats doesn’t make it some great progressive policy victory. It is clear from this 60 Minutes interview not even President Obama honestly believes that, despite what he once tried to convince the base.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/11/08/obama-again-admits-his-health-care-law-is-republican-not-progressive/

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. /pretending

:thumbsup:

[Egnever]

2. If this guy says so

I for one am extremely happy it passed as i no longer have to worry about my diabetic son being dropped or unable to get insurance.

Till the "real historic" health care reform passes. I'll take what we got in this one and be extremely gratefull for it.

[Skinner]

7. This.

:thumbsup:

[TheWraith]

34. +100,000. nt

[EFerrari]

40. I'm glad your kid is taken care of. In 2014, I'll be 58.

If I manage to get a job by then, I will be able to afford the fine for not buying insurance. If not, I'll be in the same crap public system I'm in now which is pretty much no access at all.

[Cleita]

196. Keep up the hope that with Jerry Brown as Governor

California will get single payer health care before then.

[jpgray]

41. The problem isn't that it does good things, it's that it does so many wastefully

This is mostly due to the decision to ally early with AHIP and PhRMA. Problems and waste include: a mandate coupled with mass subsidies for the insurers, with no public option to compete; getting pharma to leash their mighty lobby and partially fill the doughnut hole by forswearing graft-cutting measures like Medicare negotiation, re-importation, etc.; the tax on "Cadillac" policies that many union workers received in place of wage increases.

It's a big enough bill that we can acknowledge good and bad here. On the whole, I'd say it's a centrist bill in the Beltway sense. All that means generally is that it's not aggressive in the public sector, and looks to private institutions for answers, providing tax-payer funds to two massively profitable industries in this case.

[The Wielding Truth]

207. Well, now is the time to tweak it and make it better.

[mdmc]

44. God willing your son will be able to access medical treatment

Once you get the for-profit-health-insurance you still need to be able to afford to use it. For me that means seeing my $25.oo primary, then going to see the $40.oo specialist. So I'm out $65.oo before medication costs JUST TO USE MY HEALTH INSURANCE!

[MedicalAdmin]

176. And from the docs side of things. They might not get paid.

They will provide you with help and then have to wait at LEAST 6 months to get paid, assuming they do get paid and often docs will settle years later on a claim at pennies on the dollar.

They system screws everyone except the ownership class.

[The Wielding Truth]

206. What? That sounds bogus to me. Do they have to wait that long for S.S.?

It will most likely work the same or similar.

[GOTV]

46. You benefitted personally, in the short term, but that's not how everyone judges legislation ...

... I would be very grateful for a "GOTV gets 10% of all tax collections" bill but that doesn't mean the bill doesn't have problems.

I'm happy for you though. You and your son shouldn't have to worry about that.

[Kennah]

51. What you said

Did healthcare reform contain a lot of flaws? Yes.

Does it give the insurance industry a payday? Yes.

Did the President fail to do enough? Yes.

Been on COBRA for 18 months and private insurance for almost a year since. Now I can't get rescinded. Healthcare reform did improve the situation, at least a few steps forward, for many.

Still a whole lot of people are in a deep hole because there was no public option.

Without a severability clause in the healthcare reform law, the law remains vulnerable to being struck down in it's entirety in court; however, some of the right wing is worried because past courts have exercised severability without the presence of a severability clause.

[PassingFair]

158. You can get rescinded if you can't come up with the premium.

My girlfriend in Texas STILL cannot afford
health care premiums because of her pre-existing
conditions. The "pool" price is still WAY too high.

She would be better off here in Michigan.

[Hawkowl]

169. This is the "free market"

This is why I will not vote for Obama again. He is wedded to the idea of a "free market" and "free trade" that simply calculates a price on people, and then determines that it is cheaper for people to die, than to live.

[MedicalAdmin]

180. You must not be republican.

If you were you would have said, "we'd all be better off if she were dead ... and soon."

I feel your pain. I too have a pre-existing condition and I can't get medical insurance that I can afford without living on the streets for anything. I just can't afford it. And in 2014 I'll get to pay a fine so I can't afford health insurance even more. Wheeeeeeeee.

[Kennah]

251. No argument

Healthcare remains Pay To Live, not a right. I suspect no improvements will happen in the next two years--please no one saw off the limb upon which I'm venturing onto with that bit of clairvoyance--and perhaps something might have been possible had the Dems held the House.

It's all now hedging on 2012. If the wicked witch of the north wins the Republican primary, then I'd say it's a safe bet Obama wins re-election and the Dems retake the House.

[defendandprotect]

52. How much happier would you be if we had MEDICARE FOR ALL ....???

I'm happy that things have improved for you and some others --

but we have a tremendous need for MEDICARE FOR ALL in America and

we need universal health care for EVERYONE .... not just the few!!

[Egnever]

97. And no one said we dont

That does not take away from the fact that this health care reform bill will help millions of people.

[defendandprotect]

104. MEDICARE FOR ALL is what is needed ....

difficult to rejoice when so many are left out of the equation!!

[TZ]

179. Did the more than half of the country that voted Republican die while I wasn't looking?

You know the ones who think this bill is already too much government? No? Because until a majority of people believe that Medicare for all is whats needed that ain't happening. I live on planet Earth. Where do you live? Cause it ain't this country obviously

[Matt Shapiro]

236. There's a big difference between what is politically feasible and what the people would support.

Before the big push for a health care reform bill, single payer medicare for all polled at 60%! On planet earth in the U.S. of A. This public sentiment was not allowed to have any influence in shaping the legislation by the centrist controlled Democratic Party. Obama could have used his great oratory and position to rally this sentiment into a movement that could not be denied. He did not, however, have the slightest interest in doing so. He and the centrist Dems forged there alliances with the insurance industry, big pharma, and the hospital association to give us an industry based "reform" which will help some people and hurt many others, while assuring rising profits for the industry giants.

It is disgusting!

Medicare for all is not politically feasible nationwide right now because of what they and the mainstream media did to marginalize it. That does not mean we should stop working for it. It is the obvious solution to the crisis in health care costs that leave over 50 million uninsured and twice as many under-insured. Instead of accepting the msm decree that no one wants this, we should all be demanding it and working strategically for it in individual states.

Once adopted and implemented in even one state (California, Vermont?), the economic advantages that result for the people and businesses of that state will force an unstoppable nationwide movement. Getting that first state to pass it and, even more difficult, getting it implemented, is what we should all be working for, instead of lamenting the supposed state of public opinion.

[Riley133]

191. Who? Who does this help?

Yes, the reform covers screening testing - but does not pay for the treatment. If you can't afford a $20 co-pay, how will you afford the treatement? Yes, I could have added my kid - for $300/month which I don't have. Insurance companies are allowed to raise rates as long as they can justify them which is pretty easy to do with rising medical costs. Over 30 companies have applied for and received a one-year waiver (possibly renewable) against the provision which determines the percentage of costs spent on care. You need to know if you have a tiered or grandfathered plan or non-grandfathered plan, because that affects if you will receive the full benefit of the 2011 provisions. You might and then again, you might not.

Here is the table for the state health exchange for high-risk in Ohio. At 50 years old, you would pay a minimum of $323/month with a $1500 deductible. Yep, you might be able to qualify for it but paying for it is a whole different ballgame, particulary with so many older workers having to take jobs in the $10-12/hour range.

http://www.ohiohighriskpool.com/global/docs/OHRP%20Rate%20Flier%20(1500%20Plan).pdf

It sucks. Romneycare was known to be terrible before Obama was even elected, so shame on Congress for allowing it on a national level. Shame on Max Baucus for what he did to those wanting single payer, using Liz Fowler as a cohort. Shame on those who voted for it without insisting it go back to be tweaked and worse, recently admitting they didn't read it.

[Mimosa]

262. Here in GA $688 a month for over 55 ($2,500 deductible)

Who the hell can afford that? I can't.

[bvar22]

63. And as long as YOU can afford the ever rising Premiums....

....you won't have to worry.

However, those of us without the long green are in the same shape as BEFORE the "historic" Health Insurance Reform.

Did you know that the term "Medical Bankruptcy" is unknown in civilized countries?
It will still be Big Business in the USA even after 2014.

"A Uniquely American Solution"....indeed.

[AlabamaLibrul]

125. +1 for the non rose-colored truth n/t

[Jakes Progress]

133. +1 for the most often overlooked loophole in this legislation.

Oily insurance rep: "Sure you can have insurance. The wonderful new HCR law demands it. Now. That premium will be $24,000 a month. Thank you for your support. (heh, heh, heh) "

[MedicalAdmin]

188. I was recently quoted $2000 per month with a ...

$12000 deductable and $40 co pays. In other words I get to pay $36000 before I get 1 thin red penny from those blood sucking bastards.

Of course I can't afford it but at least that was the cheapest I was quoted so far. Yaaaaaaahhhhhh. HCR has done so much for so many. I can celebrate now. I still can't afford the surgery, drugs, therapy, PT or any other medical care that my surgeon and doctor say is critical to me living out the next decade (I'm 40) but at least I can celebrate others fortune.

I am happy that there are those who will get access to health care insurance and I hope against my better knowledge and experience and that the insurance will actually translate into care for those so blessed.

But I am especially happy for the investors, CEO's, administrators, and others of the ownership and enabler classes who will be able to pocket billions of the publics money. They deserve another vacation - they work so hard.

[sendero]

248. Exactly..

... only of one many huge loopholes in this byzantine pile of crap.

And in a few years, many are going to find that a lot of the promises made for this bill are not going to work out in the real world.

[Myrina]

154. +10

Indeed.

[TZ]

182. Ah so those of us who are bieng helped should just shut up eh?

Because you know, its more important to BITCH AND SCREAM ABOUT WHATS NOT THERE and WHOSE NOT BEING HELPED than it is to realize that it IS helping chronically ill people like me.
Thanks for treating me just like the Repugs do..like I'm unimportant shit!

[MedicalAdmin]

190. I'm glad it is helping you.

Perhaps it will help some of us to understand better if you could put a human face on how the HCR has helped you. What is your HCR story?

I know I want to hear it. It would really help me put it in perspective because it hasn't helped me or any of the patients I have talked to at our clinic. Help me to understand.

[Riley133]

194. You are helped, but others are having to drop insurance

Which rather negates any gains made. Yes, some people can now qualify for and afford coverage; but others are having to drop insurance because of the rise in rates.

Justice for all.

[Jakes Progress]

244. So you got yours.

To hell with everyone else. Sounds familiar to me.

Look. I'm glad you got yours. But the point of all the bitching is that most didn't. If it is truly going to help you, that is fine, but check the fine print. Are your premiums going up? How much? If you had premiums of $2000 a month and a $30,000 deductible, would you be celebrating.

So you got yours and you want those who didn't to shut up and celebrate with you. If you were decent about it, you would be protesting with the others so that they could have what you have.

[woo me with science]

264. +1000

Thank you.

[lumberjack_jeff]

90. ah-yup. n/t

[SunsetDreams]

111. Wow Egnever +infinity I agree

Thank goodness that your son, and your family do not have to worry about him being dropped, or worse yet if you are, you can get the insurance elsewhere. They can't deny Pre-existing conditions!

I wish the best of health to your son, and may he continue to get the care he so richly deserves and needs, and you have the piece of mind knowing that he is covered.

[readmoreoften]

117. But maybe you should worry about being forced to pay outrageous fees for the privilege.

If I'm forced to pay $1000 a month for my partner's coverage, we'll have to quit work and go on public assistance.

Glad it's working out for you--or you think perceive it will--but others of us don't see it going in any direction than being unjustly bankrupted by an insurance industry.

[LWolf]

131. I, for one, am extremely unhappy that

my insurance premiums increased by 30% this year, and my deductibles tripled. Having insurance is not the same thing as getting care. I'm now paying 30% more for an insurance policy that I couldn't afford to use BEFORE the rate hikes. Why did they go up so much MORE this year than we've been seeing in the last decade? According to our insurance providers, it's Obama care. It seems that the companies are adding all those extra costs in NOW, before any price regulation goes into effect.

It's quite a racket to make a profit by selling people insurance they can't afford to use. What is the industry really "insuring?" They are insuring that enough policy holders don't actually get the care they need as they continue to profit off of that need.

[PassingFair]

157. Until it is discovered that there is no money to PAY for it.

Like the pharmacy give-away brought to us by GWB.

No controls on COSTS, no negotiated prices, just more and more money
to hospitals, pharmacies and insurance co's.

[grantcart]

174. Yup

[Riley133]

192. You are fortunate you can afford it. (NFT)

[The Wielding Truth]

203. I agree with you. It's helped my family and will continue to many others.

[UrbScotty]

208. +1

[roguevalley]

210. I feel your pain and hug your son long distance. I just with it had

been the way it was supposed to be. I don't think Obama really truly understands what he has down and how it was so bungled. I think he's getting a clue now when he's facing all the problems and the increased idiots in congress.

[mzmolly]

222. Hear hear!

:toast:

[jeanpalmer]

265. At what cost?

That's the key. If people can't aford the premiums, or deductibles or co-pays are too high, it's worse than not having insurance except for catastrophic events. What the source of your insurance, and what are the deductibles and co-pays?

[jeanpalmer]

266. So long as they keep fighting the muslim windmill

and chasing the natives around Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, etc., there will be no money for real health care reform. This is where Obama really fell down. He should have started re-directing the war money into positive undertakings. It's his biggest failure and has hurt us badly.

[derby378]

3. For all the wailing and gnashing of teeth some have done over FDL...

...what has been said about this "healthcare reform" bill is undeniable.

If you're going to have Democrats passing corporatist Republican legislation, you might as well have Republicans doing the same damn thing.

We demand change from our Democratic legislators. That's the only way they're going to recover from this year's drubbing at the polls.

[defendandprotect]

58. It continues to be those who want to come to DU to be protected from ..... the news!!!

Ironic, isn't it ???

[ProSense]

4. Stop pretending

single payer had a chance and that somehow people would be cheering Democrats for an election loss because they passed nothing.

Some people are lacking in perspective.

Why Republicans are So Intent on Killing Health Care Reform

[derby378]

18. The Democrats lost the House over this bill

There's your perspective. When Democratic voters want someting done, we don't want the same old song and dance - we want it done.

[JuniperLea]

43. The Democrats were historically set to lose the house...

It always goes that way. But what we also "lost" were a bunch of Blue Dogs who stood in our way.

[jgraz]

80. Yeah, it wasn't their fault. It was an act of god

:eyes:

That excuse ain't gonna work so well in 2012. How's about we actually *learn* something from this debacle instead of pretending it all went as planned?

[derby378]

149. +1 brazillion

If you plan to fail, chances are you're gonna fail. You must have a mindset of "win, win, win" all the time, every time, otherwise last week's election is what you get.

[littlewolf]

96. what we also lost was a ton of state houses ....

[glitch]

98. just in time for redistricting... nt

[MedicalAdmin]

193. And that's the danger.

I am in Michelle Bachmanns district - Mn 6th. Here election was the direct result of redistricting and due to that it is VERY unlikely anyone except a nutcase like her will EVER be able to win.

Redistricting is a disaster.

[Art_from_Ark]

114. It's a little more complicated than that

The Democrats controlled the House for 40 years straight from 1955-1995. That included 3 Democratic administrations during which they kept control. They lost the House in the 1994 elections and did not win it back until the 2006 elections. Now they've lost it again.

Since 1930:
Democrats gained control of the House in the 1930 elections, and held it all through the Roosevelt era.
The Republicans took control of the House in the 1946 elections (Truman, mid-term), but lost it in the 1948 elections.
The Republicans retook control of the House when Eisenhower was first elected (1952), but lost it again in the following mid-term election (1954), and they remained the minority party for the next 40 years.
The Republicans took control of the House in the first mid-terms under Clinton (1994), and held on to it for the next 12 years.
The Democrats took control of the House in the 2006 elections, but lost it 4 years later.

In summary, of the 7 Democrats who have been President since 1930, all have had a Democratic majority in the House for at least part of their respective terms. Three of those Democratic Presidents (Truman, Clinton, Obama) lost their House majorities at some time during their terms, while the other 4 (FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter) retained a House majority throughout their terms.

[RaleighNCDUer]

172. No, it doesn't always go that way - the party in charge usually loses seats

in the mid terms, but do not necessarily flip congressional power. Just because it happened in 94 and in 06, that does not mean it is a law of nature.

[Riley133]

197. Not 2 years after Bush, they weren't.

It should never, ever, EVER have happened like this so close to Bush leaving office.

[defendandprotect]

53. Exactly ... had Dems passed MEDICARE FOR ALL...there would have been no defeating them....

[CTLawGuy]

122. did Russ Feingold and Alan Grayson oppose

Medicare for all?

[leeroysphitz]

142. There is a vast difference between supporting and providing.

If millions of Americans had been enjoying new, formerly unaffordable, health care benefits in October they would have turned out in droves in November to defeat any party that promised to repeal them.

This is just common fucking sense and I can't believe we are still debating this. The "Affordable Care" act is anything but and hurts working Americans and the party that passed it deserved some sort of rebuke and we should all be grateful the election didn't go worse for us than it did.

[CTLawGuy]

268. so Grayson and Feingold lost because they didn't provide medicare for all?

nt

[treestar]

65. No, they did not.

[salinen]

112. xactktly!

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

36. As long as we're going to stop pretending

can we also stop pretending that the ones who made sure single payer did NOT have a chance, were ever Democrats.

That includes not only Baucus and Dodd who wrote the poison bills, but the ones who stocked both houses of Congress with Republican ringers (Rahm, Schumer, and their replacements Van Hollen and Menendez).

[JuniperLea]

42. Indeed...

The loss of Blue Dogs in the House is yet another silver lining to this past election.

[defendandprotect]

54. How about Obama who made back room deals with Big Pharma and Private HC Industry ...????

Why shouldn't that count -- ???

Baucus and Obama were highest on the list of those receiving corporate $$

from health care industry!

[GOTV]

39. It's possible the P.O. or S.P. were infeasable AND the HCR we got was far less ...

... than a progressive victory. Plus you're attacking a claim the OP didn't make.

It was a republican bill. It has some good things in it. It's also less than great. Far less than 90% of what we should have.

[mdmc]

45. Why didn't single payer have a chance

oh yeah, a Democratic super majority was too corporate and could only deliver Bob Doles 1996 health care plan..

[sabrina 1]

92. Single payer was approved of by a majority of the American people

With someone in either of these two corporately owned parties willing to fight for the people, it was the only way to go.

Democrats refused to see how unpopular it was. It was unpopular when proposed by Republicans, did they think that was going to change when Romneycare was proposed by Democrats? Whoever is advising the WH needs to be fired.

Funny too, I remember making that comparison and being told 'this is not Ronmeycare'. Well apparently the president thinks it is.

The ONLY reason it didn't have a chance, was NOT because of a lack of public support, it was because of the billions of corporate money poured into Congress to get a bill that retained the despicable, for-profit system that has been such a failure for so long.

And yes, you are right, as long as we keep voting for corporate politicians, nothing the people want will get done. We'll get a few crumbs, as with this bill, but that's about it.

And that is why we now must change that. No more 'lesser of two evils' is what I keep hearing from people. A sea change is needed and just may be already have begun.

[Egnever]

100. So was the teri shaivo BS at the time

Just because a majority of Americans approve of an idea doesn't make it happen or right. Our congress was set up specifically to avoid the tyranny of the majority.

[Hawkowl]

170. Rahm?

Are you the voice of Rahm? Or maybe Larry Summers? Jeebus I have to put you back on ignore Herr Goebbels.

[RaleighNCDUer]

171. Who said anything about single-payer?

The people who elected the people in Washington favored a public option by 70% - by 85% among Democrats. Why was it impossible to get a public option?

Simple answer - Obama took it off the table to appease the Blue Dogs, you know, those guys who were KICKED OUT in this last election.

Just as those of us who favored it SAID would happen.

If we had passed the public option - if Obama had thrown the weight of the bully pulpit behind it - we would still be in control of both houses, and his re-election would be assured.

[Name removed]

175. Deleted message

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

[Ignis]

229. Simply fighting for the Public Option would have gone far.

Especially since we called for a public option in our own freakin' 2008 platform! :argh:

[kenfrequed]

235. Err...

Even the crappy version didn't technically get the votes to pass. So stop pretending like we needed republican votes to get the thing through budget consolidation, which is how it was passed.

If we didn't need to be bipartisan then why the hell did we try to tailor the bill so much just so that Olympia Snowe would be willing to support it.

[indepat]

5. Leaving in all the corrupt big pharma sweetheart deals just makes HCR even more of a Republican

bill that is possibly more harmful than the good HCR will do in aggregate. :shrug:

[Raine]

85. EXACTLY

you are completely on point.

[liberalmuse]

6. Oh, I'd say it most definitely was.

Not a single conservative voted for it. In today's world of the Tea Party, Palin and all other such wingnut nonsense, there's no doubt this is progressive legislation. Perhaps 30 years ago, it would be a no brainer, but it looks like The Idiocracy has grown to epic proportions since then.

[derby378]

Just because conservatives boycotted it doesn't make it progressive

This law delivers us all into the hands of the corporations that made health insurance the mess it is today. Nobody has been able to refute this most basic truth as of yet.

[Mimosa]

260. Some here will keep lying about it, sad to say. n/t

[jgraz]

76. If it's progressive, what centrist position is to the right of it?

:shrug:

[MedicalAdmin]

212. The position to the right of it.

That would be Jonestown.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

141. No, they were playing "Please don't throw me into that briar patch"

Their opposition was theater to give the ConservaDem's cover to impose Romneycare on the nation.

[Recursion]

8. Two decades ago this was a moderately conservative bill

Today it's a progressive bill.

Time doesn't always make things change in our favor.

[Hydra]

68. It's still not a Progressive Bill

Even Obama says so, and he's center-right at best.

That doesn't negate your point though- far right, falling off the cliff is the new center.

[Winterblues]

9. and people wonder why Democrats wouldn't run on it....

They were ashamed and embarrassed...as well they should have been..

[ProSense]

12. The Democrats who ran away from it lost:

The blue dogs who voted against it.

People like Boxer, Reid, and countless House progressives won.

The President was making a point about the bill to demonstrate why it's ridiculous for Republicans to have opposed it and now want to repeal it.

Every health care bill since Nixon's has included many of the same elements. The President's plan does include elements similar to the Mass plan, which was in large part written by a Democratic legislature.

Health care reform was a huge victory for Democrats.

[derby378]

20. How?

:shrug:

[ProSense]

26. How?

Because they voted against it and lost.

Did you mean how it's big victory?

More perspective

[derby378]

27. We lost the House over this bill - that ain't victory

The individual mandate was no victory for the American people - just for the corporations who screwed up healthcare in America to begin with.

You know it, I know it, and the American people know it. We don't like being had.

[ProSense]

28. LBJ lost House members over the Civil Rights Act

doesn't mean it wasn't a victory.

[derby378]

30. The Civil Rights Act extended freedom for the American people

The individual mandate in this health insurance bill, however, took some freedoms away. Not smart.

[ProSense]

33. And the House still lost 48 Democrats.

The analogy is completely flawed.

[defendandprotect]

55. Nonsense ... Americans supported by 76% and more MEDICARE FOR ALL....

single-payer, government run health care --

Obama made back room deals with Big Pharma and HC industry to prevent Medicare negotiation

and to keep single payer off the table --

LBJ faced a nation with LARGE STATES STILL PRACTICING SEGREGATION.INC. --

Entirely different --


Had we had a referendum on Civil Rights across the nation the Southern States would have

voted for Segregation!!

Had we had a referendum on MEDICARE FOR ALL across the nation, 76% and MORE of Americans

would have supported it!!

[ProSense]

69. No, the logic is flawed

Simply claiming that the strength of any piece of legislation can shield a party from midterm losses is flawed.

You're showing that 76 percent of Americans suported Medicare, and the House still lost seats that year.

This year, 61 percent of Americans support Wall Street reform, and Democrats still lost seats.

There are variables.

[defendandprotect]

106. That makes even less sense ....

It's not about legislation -- it's about PASSING LEGISLATION ---

Had Obama worked for and gotten MEDICARE FOR ALL through, then the Democrats would

have been set for the next decades!!

As Ralph Nader so easily pointed out the other day -- and I've been talking about for a

year here -- Democrats NEVER called out their voters to demonstrate for MEDICARE FOR ALL.

And as Nader clearly pointed out, Democrats made no response to T-baggers with by

responding with a grass roots Democratic organization.

It's basically the party now of "I can't hear you!" --



76% of the PUBLIC SUPPORTED MEDICARE FOR ALL -- and even higher numbers among Catholics ....

when Latinos/Latinas added 83% SUPPORT for single-payer government run health care!!

The House lost seats .... BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS DID NOT RESPOND -- OBAMA RESPONDED BY MAKING

BACK ROOM DEALS WITH BIG PHARMA AND HEATH CARE INDUSTRY to prevent Medicare from "negotiation"

and to keep single-payer off the table.


Americans support Wall Street reform which is effective .... what the Democrats/Dodd passed

is not sufficient to prevent another crime wave by Wall Street such as we've just had!!


We need to overturn the trade agreements and begin creating jobs here.

We need to reinstitute NEW DEAL rules and regualtions on capitalism --

unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime!






Re this .... huh?

Simply claiming that the strength of any piece of legislation can shield a party from midterm losses is flawed.

You're showing that 76 percent of Americans suported Medicare, and the House still lost seats that year.

This year, 61 percent of Americans support Wall Street reform, and Democrats still lost seats.

There are variables.

[ProSense]

115. Speaking of not making sense

Had Obama worked for and gotten MEDICARE FOR ALL through, then the Democrats would

have been set for the next decades!!

<...>

76% of the PUBLIC SUPPORTED MEDICARE FOR ALL -- and even higher numbers among Catholics ....

The votes weren't there. Ask Alan Grayson, who supported the health care bill.

Also the public is not Congress. The public, at least some of them, voted Rebublicans back into power in the House.

That is not going to get the public what it wants.

On who gets elected, the public has a vote. On legislation, the people they vote into office get a vote. Not the same thing. Tell Eric Cantor, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell about representative government.

[Kermitt Gribble]

181. defendandprotect didn't say the votes were there

The votes should have been there. The point is, a large majority of the population wanted a Medicare For All-type system. As our employees, our elected officials should have an obligation to vote how their constituents want them to vote. If our elected Dems would have done this, they would have had much more support in this year's elections. Instead, we got mandates and more profit for insurance companies. Same with Wall Street reform - if they'd have passed real reform, instead of the watered down bs that they tried to pass off as reform, people would have been much more eager to cast a vote this year.

[defendandprotect]

241. And, your post reminds me that even DOCTORS now support MEDICARE FOR ALL...

because they see the trend of predatory capitalism in health care --

which not only harms the patient, but also does harm to the system -- and the doctors and

nurses. All of these insurance profits have really crippled our health care system and

dismantled it.

And again would emphasize what I've been talking about here for more than a year --

THERE IS NO RESPONSE BY OBAMA/DEMOCRATS -- because they are under the thumb of corporations --

and the public has no leverage on them ...

As Nader pointed out -- two telling examples I've talked about --

NO CALL OUT OF DEMOCRATIC supporters for MEDICARE FOR ALL from the first days of the administration

to the very last moments of the debate. Had Democrats done that the response would have been huge!


Also -- still no response to the faked T-baggers run by Koch Bros out of a PR firm --

No equivalent organization -- which would be legitimate -- by the Democrats!!

This is purposeful in both cases --



:)

[defendandprotect]

240. Back room deals by Obama didn't work for putting thru MEDICARE FOR ALL....

How is it you think it would work when Obama made a deal with Big Pharma to

prevent Medicare "negotiation" on drug prices?

How do you think it would work when Obama made a deal with private health care

industry to keep single-payer off the table?



The votes weren't there. Ask Alan Grayson, who supported the health care bill.

Many supported what they call the "health care bill" because Obama asked for that support,

not because they felt it was worthwhile.

But it was also Obama who pretended to support true health care reform.

Many in Congress would have voted for universal health care -- MEDICARE FOR ALL.


A confused public has put Repugs back into Congress in a mid-year election -- granted

the numbers 70, I think, are largest ever.

Had Democrats and Obama brought out supporters for MEDICARE FOR ALL there would have been

an overwhelming response by Americans.


Government is intended to respond to the needs of the public -- MEDICARE FOR ALL is what

is required -- not only for the public, but for the nation.

What is preventing that is PRE-BRIBERY and PRE-OWNERSHIP of our candidates and elected

officials by corporations.

Now so more than ever!!

[Catherina]

59. Profound nonsense n/t

[displacedvermoter]

173. Of course, as I have pointed out before

you are always right, many, many of us are always wrong.

[USArmyParatrooper]

280. We lost the House because unemployment is high.

I love all this ridiculouds jockeying over "we lost because (insert your Obama disagreement here)"

I disagree with Obama over legalizing marijuana. So I guess we lost the house because Obama doesn't support legalization.

[Radical Activist]

10. Just like Bush's! You don't say...

I feel so defeated now, like we're getting nothing done at all. Might as well give up.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=508877&mesg_id=508877

[defendandprotect]

56. Don't give up ... keep pushing to the left ---

the only way the right wing can rise is thru violence -- stolen elections -- and lies.

And, by demoralizing voters!!

Especially Democrats!!

KEEP PUSHING TO THE LEFT --

[RaleighNCDUer]

183. Well why don't you? Do us a favor and get out of the way of the

progressives who want to accomplish something. Your blue dogs got a well-deserved ass kicking. Learn something from that.

[emilyg]

11. K

[BlueJac]

13. Pretending

:thumbsup:
Mandated insurance is NOT health care reform.........

WTF is wrong with people!!!!!

If you're going to get hung for something, make it count, not a half assed attempt at nothing!

Call me far left, go ahead! I'll call you a republican or Blue Dog. I see the Blue Dogs are mostly gone now. Mostly Republicans everywhere now!

[Recursion]

21. Yeah, the blue dogs are gone. When you pass progressive legislation...

...it's the conservative members in your caucus (you know, the people who actually represent people who oppose that legislation) who pay the price.

[RaleighNCDUer]

198. That's rather twisted logic.

The blue dogs who opposed the legislation - confirming their 'conservative' cred - were kicked out for being too liberal?

Ya think, maybe, they lost because Democrats didn't see much point in supporting legislators who voted AGAINST their interests, and THAT is why dems in repub drag were replaced by REAL republicans?

No, obviously you don't think so - that would require a progressive world view.

[Recursion]

247. What's twisted is thinking that they would have won if they had been more liberal

The blue dogs who opposed the legislation - confirming their 'conservative' cred - were kicked out for being too liberal?

Yes. Just like what happened with Lincoln Chafee, but reverse 'conservative' and 'liberal'.

Ya think, maybe, they lost because Democrats didn't see much point in supporting legislators who voted AGAINST their interests, and THAT is why dems in repub drag were replaced by REAL republicans?

No, they lost because conservatives in their districts didn't want a Democratic majority in the House anymore. Again, like Chafee in reverse.

I don't get why this is so hard for people to grasp. Conservatives will put up with conservative Democrats until our caucus accomplishes liberal legislation, like we did. So they got rid of them.

It was worth it, in that we used our majority to improve people's lives. But pretending that the blue dogs who lost would have won if they had supported the party's agenda more is ridiculous.

[RaleighNCDUer]

267. Again, that makes no fucking sense - if they don't want liberal legislation

THEY DON'T ELECT DEMOCRATS. The Dems were elected in 06 & 08 to stop the wars, stop the corruption, and get us away from republican misrule. And then, when the dems failed to accomplish those things, they got the boot. If we had gotten a PO in the HCR, if we had closed Gitmo, if we had pulled out of Iraq, we would not be in trouble today.

[Recursion]

269. Why were Rhode Islanders willing to elect Chafee for so long?

THEY DON'T ELECT DEMOCRATS.

Well, now they certainly don't.

The Dems were elected in 06 & 08 to stop the wars, stop the corruption, and get us away from republican misrule.

Hm. To the extent that we had a national platform, it was a competence and anti-corruption ticket. As I read Obama's mandate, it was about transparency and ending corruption. His lobbying reform for the Executive branch was awesome, but Congress fell down on the job.

And I do think that if the health reform negotiations had in fact been held on C-SPAN as promised, the reaction to the bill would have been a lot better. Most people are much less concerned with ideology than we are.

[deutsey]

136. Thumbs up

:thumbsup:

[SidDithers]

14. Unrec...nt

Sid

[jwirr]

15. It is one big step on a road that started in the 1930s. Democrats have

been working on this for decades. We are not done (I hope).

[BlueJac]

16. they were done when they started.....

quit pretending mandated insurance is healthcare reform

[pampango]

23. Exactly. Social Security has evolved and improved over the bare-bones program it initially was.

If republicans had been successful in defeating it or if FDR had tried for the full version of Social Security that we have today (benefits for spouses, widow/ers, and children, disability benefits, Supplemental Security Income, etc.) right away and lost, who knows where we would be today.

And with HCR, about 95% of the progressive caucus voted in favor while 100% of repubs voted against and the Blue Dogs held the balance of power.

[ipaint]

48. Really, what giant private for profit industry controlled the implementation and hand out of social

of security benefits while flooding congress with hundreds of lobbyists and millions of dollars for business friendly terms. I'd be interested to know how social security and medicare progressed with that massive leach sucking the lifeblood out of it.

[bvar22]

66. Flawed comparison.

Social Security established the FOUNDATION of a Government Program.
The flawed Health Insurance Reform established NOTHING that can be built upon.
The only RIGHT contained in HCR if the right for the Industry Cartel to make profits.
HCR establishes an OBLIGATION for citizens to purchase insurance.
How can this be "improved"? :shrug:
It will have to be undone BEFORE we can take a step forward.

[pampango]

71. "It will have to be undone BEFORE we can take a step forward."-There are plenty of teabaggers

and repubs who will be more than happy to help you "undo" HCR.

Good luck with that. I hope you are successful convincing people that the repeal of HCR is really a progressive accomplishment not a conservative reaction. We'll see how many members of the progressive caucus vote for your repeal and how many repubs/teabaggers vote against it. :hi:

[bvar22]

74. I see you backed off your flawed comparison between SS and HCR.

Smart.

[jgraz]

78. And instead decided to call you a teabagger

Not quite as smart.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[jgraz]

116. Not sure if you've been paying attention, but the best ally the Repubs have had of late

are the credulous Democrats who enabled the current losing strategy. But hey, keep making excuses -- maybe the voters who abandoned us will start believing them by 2012. I kinda doubt it, though.

[Hoyt]

135. Well the legislation does limit their profits. That is something.

Agree single payer or public option would have been better. But the Bill does limit the profits health insurers can make**, and when the exchanges come in, that will further limit their profits.

And, if people read the legislation, they'll find a number of provisions to improve the delivery of health care at lower costs.

And, it will cover folks who never had it before with subsidies.

And, it establishes a framework that can -- and should -- be improved in the future. For example with a change of a single number in future legislation (85% to 90%), we can squeeze insurers' profits.

Perfect -- NO. Better than nothing -- I think so.


**How it limits profits: The legislation includes a limit that requires health plans to rebate to consumers the amount of the premium spent on clinical services and quality that is less than 85% for plans in the large group market and 80% for plans in the individual and small group markets. That cap effectively limits increases in premiums above actual health benefits paid (admittedly, regulators will have to closely monitor the insurers' attempts at creative accounting, especially for quality improvements) . . . . . well unless the Republicons remove the provision.

[Better Believe It]

140. Republicans won't approve the subsidies and there are no controls over premiums, co-pays, deductible

[Hoyt]

147. I disagree.

Sure it is possible Republicons might not approve the subsidies -- but I think that will be hard for them to get away with now that we have legislation. They dang sure wouldn't approve subsidies if something had not passed last year.

The exchanges will put pressure on premiums, as does the requirement that insurers have to pay out a certain level in actual medical benefits. In fact, that's a pretty effective provision in the legislation.

Further, the legislation does specifically limit Deductibles, and totally removes them on preventive services.

Again, I would have preferred single payer. But this legislation does a lot more than the critics seem to recognize, or are purposely ignoring. Maybe more folks ought to read it, or summaries of its provisions.

[Better Believe It]

275. "the legislation does specifically limit Deductibles" What's the limit on deductibles, co-pays

and premiums under this legislation?

[dflprincess]

285. I'm working from memory here but I seem to recall that for a singl person

deductibles are $1,200 annually (maybe $1,500) with a maximum annual out of pocket of $3,500 (plus premium and anything that isn't covered, like adult eye & dental). They're pushing the "consumer driven" scam so you will pay that $1,200 out of pocket before your carrier coughs up a dime, and that includes your prescriptions. Then you'll have the next $2,300 come at you as an 80/20 or 90/10 copay deal.

And there is also a provision that the out of pockets may be raised each year.

But there is no guarantee that you will actually be able to access care.

[bvar22]

160. No it doesn't establish a "framework".

You said:
"And, it establishes a framework that can -- and should -- be improved in the future.

What new "framework?" :shrug:
The States and the Feds have always had the power to regulate Insurance companies.
There is nothing NEW in the HCR Bill, except the MANDATE to BUY Insurance.
THAT is the ONLY "New Framework".

Unlike the HCR Bill, Social Security & Medicare DID establish a NEW Framework that COULD be built upon. They established Publicly Owned, Government Administered Programs that WERE improved.
There is NO such "framework" in HCR.

Even the much ballyhooed Community Health Centers were NOT created by HCR.
They existed prior to this bill.
It was lusciously Machiavellian for The Democrats to give us something we already HAD, and then take credit for creating it.

In their defense, the Dems DID increase funding FOR CHCs and Medicaid, but this was NOT a reason for us to have to eat the WHOLE shit sandwich know as HCR.
We could have easily done this through reconciliation with 51 votes.

[Hoyt]

163. So requiring insurers to pay out at least 85% of premiums in medical benefits is not valuable.

I suppose, limits on deductibles are worthless in your mind. Developing a mechanism to insure 30 more million people is wrong. Exchanges are worthless. Eliminating "pre-existing conditions" is worthless.

I think it was better than nothing, and that is what we were going to get short of this. I blame those that opposed anything.

As to the mandate to acquire insurance, What do you propose? -- allowing people to wait until they are sick to acquire (with subsidies for those that can't afford it). A single payer system would not have been "free" either.

As to a framework, now Congress can vote on a simple piece of legislation -- Amend Section XXXX to allow a public option . . . . . .

Since it wasn't perfect, I guess we should join the Republicons and call for repeal. That does not make a lot of sense.

[bvar22]

166. That is NOT a "new framework".

That is called regulation,
and the States and the Feds have ALWAYS had the power to regulate Industry.
There is nothing "NEW" here.
There is nothing "Historic" here.
There is no "framework" here.
These regulations SHOULD have been implemented LONG ago.

As we argue here, the Insurance Cartel is ALREADY implementing accounting strategies to evade these regulations.
Since the new regulations specify a percentage (85%), ALL the Industry has to do is RAISE Premiums to INCREASE their overall take. THAT is happening NOW.
While this regulation appears GOOD on the surface, ALL it really does is MANDATE PROFITS for the Health Insurance Industry...a Mandated 15% PROFIT skimmed Of the Top.
Most Vegas Casino's operate at a Lower Profit Margin,
and the 15% Mandated Profit is actually MORE than most of the Insurance Corps were skimming BEFORE the "historic" HCR.

SEE: Wendell Potter

Let me repeat:
The States and the Feds have ALWAYS had the power to regulate Industry.
There is nothing "NEW" here.
There is nothing "Historic" here.
There is no "framework" here.
These regulations SHOULD have been implemented LONG ago.

[Hoyt]

167. Sure, they can raise premiums IF they INCREASE benefits. The Exchanges will make that difficult.

Try to look at the the "15%" a little closer -- out of that 15% they have to pay the greedy executives, marketing costs, lobbying expenses, claims adjudication costs, etc. Thus, the 15% is NOT "profit." That is a huge provision when you take the time to look at it.

I'd also suggest you look at little closer at what State Insurance Departments can do. Most have little power over premiums, pre-existing condition clauses, etc. About all most can do is make sure the insurer has sufficient reserves to pay claims (when actually paid).

One can repeat stuff over and over, that doesn't make it right. Nor, does it help us deal with or understand what we got. Beaching about things ain't particularly helpful at this point. What we got is infinitely better than "nothing." Not as good as we deserved, but better than "nothing."

[MedicalAdmin]

216. Here's why the limit is not a limit.

The insurance crook industry has already asked for and recieved permission to vary from the 80/85 % limits by allowing them to apply a certian type of "patient care" research to the limit.

What does this mean? It means that every dime that your insurance company spends in denying you care gets to count toward the total they spend on your care. If they hire an independant medical exam (IME) then that is part of the 80/85%. If they have you followed and videotaped that is part of the 80/85%. If they hire private investigators to dig into your background, health, finances, etc. or to tap your phone or internet connection, that is part of the 80/85%.

What this really means is that the insurance companies are now financially incentivized to make sure that you don't get the care that you paid a premium for. So go ahead and squeeze that framework all you want. It won't bother them a bit.

[Hoyt]

233. Except once "pre-existing" is gone, that won't do them any good. If they try for some reason . . .

you will switch to a better/fairer/cheaper insurer from the Exchange.

Why in the world would they have you followed and video taped? This is not "disability" insurance. Do you think people are going to have major neurological surgery that might leave them paralyzed by claiming you can't walk because you like the high of being under anesthesia for several hours. Come on, think for a minute.

This legislation changes the rules, and is better than nothing.

[eridani]

118. So what you are saying is that the first Social Security bill

--MANDATED people to invest in Wall Street retirement accounts, and was later changed to a government insurance program.

[defendandprotect]

57. Which Republicans have been trying to overturn for 70 years and more!!

And they're almost there!!

When Bush couldn't privatize and knock out Social Security they sent in

Obama!! Keep in mind it was also the corporate Clinton who ended 60 years

of Welfare Guarantees!!

Obama made deals with Big Pharma that they'd be no Medicare "negotiation" on prices --

And with Health Care Industry that there would be no "single-payer" option --

[RaleighNCDUer]

187. Actually, mandated insurance, confirming private for-profit insurance as

the singular basis for health care, built a WALL across that road.

Look at what we've got - that's ALL we're going to get for at least a generation. Another generation of corporations sucking money from the citizens; another generation of medical bankruptcies; another generation of further stratification of our society.

You BETTER love it - that this is IT.

[Capitalocracy]

17. The mandate uses the same false logic as the bailout.

You give more money to the banks, they'll lend it out. Guess what? It didn't happen. You give more customers to the health insurance companies and lower their cost of coverage per customer, guess what? They're not going to lower their rates.

Of course, the Republicans somehow managed to pin the bailouts (their doing) on the Obama administration, and got the Obama administration to take the political hit for passing the health insurance mandate they came up with just a few years ago.

And now they've won a majority in the House and we're going to start looking at cutting taxes for the rich, so they'll have more money, and will therefore create more jobs. Guess what?...

[grahamhgreen]

287. +1

[LawnLover]

19. Who ever said it was? This is a straw man argument

Not even the bill's most strident supporters ever said it was progressive or "pretended" it was.

The point is that it's PROGRESS. More progress than we've ever made re: healthcare.

[derby378]

22. One step forward, two steps back

That's not progress.

[LawnLover]

38. How about one giant step forward?

Or would you have preferred we maintain the status quo?

This legislation may not have been everything we wanted, but it's a far cry from two steps back.

[ibegurpard]

84. status quo: people have to purchase insurance...

to have access to healthcare.
Healthcare "reform": people have to purchase insurance to have access to healthcare.

[LawnLover]

91. People who previously weren't ALLOWED to have insurance

can get it.

People who have children with preexisting conditions can now get it.

Kids who are no longer in college can get it under their parents' plan.

The list goes on.

Just because we didn't go full bore doesn't mean it isn't a giant step forward. If it weren't, the insurance companies would not have spent millions trying to step it.

[dflprincess]

109. Insurance doesn't guarantee access to care

The majority of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills and most the people declaring bankruptcy thought they were "covered".

We needed reform that would give us access to care like people in civilized countries have. Instead we got mandates to continue buying the same shoddy products from the same crooks - with no guarantees that we'll get care when we need it & nothing to stop premiums and deductibles from continuing to go up.

[derby378]

152. Exactly - THAT'S why this health insurance bill isn't progressive

Individual mandate aside, this does nothing to prevent medical bankruptcies - instead, such bankruptcies may have only just begun.

The only winners in this equation are health insurance companies and the collection agencies and repo men that they employ.

[MedicalAdmin]

220. I happen to know one of my senators socially.

What I found out was that they health insurance lobbyists didn't try to stop HCR. They just wanted to "massage" a few details. And they did.

[LawnLover]

258. So they spent millions for a massage?

The sounds credible.

[bvar22]

272. Spent Millions for a massage....

...that will put BILLIONS of Public Money into their greedy private pockets?

That is more than "credible".
Its the "Uniquely American Solution"!!!
:party:

[ProSense]

32. It's designed

not to define health care reform, but the President.

FDL is on a quest solely to prove that President Obama is not progressive because a piece of legislation isn't purely progressive. Whenever anything emerges that is progressive, e.g., the consumer bureau led by Elizabeth Warren, the message must go out that the President opposed it or did something else to stand in the way.

It's not about governing, it's about the President. They're trying to tear him down, albeit not as much as Republicans.

[LawnLover]

37. Yes, hence the straw man

It's obviously an Obama hit piece.

[zipplewrath]

47. No, it's not

It isn't progress. It moved in a generally bad direction of establishing health insurance companies as the mandated conduit to health care, doesn't obligate them to actually deliver it, nor any health care provider, and moves away from actually establishing health care as a right. It was basically a move sideways, and backwards in some senses. Predominately its biggest accomplishment was lowering the cost to the federal government, despite not lowering the cost of health care to individuals. The White House themselves predicts the cost of health care will continue to rise at about 6%, just as it has been doing all along.

Basically we passed a GOP health insurance bill without getting a single GOP vote. And they laughed all the way to the voting booth.

[ibegurpard]

83. whatever

can't count the number of times I read the nauseating claim that it was the greatest achievement since the Great Society.

[RaleighNCDUer]

202. You want to repeat that claim now, after reading through this thread?

:crazy:

[AtomicKitten]

24. Patrick Kennedy leaves note on Teddy's grave: "Dad, the unfinished business is done."

I am profoundly grateful that I can no longer be excluded due to preexisting conditions. As with Medicare, this bill is the first step, a foot in the door, to be improved and expanded over time.

RIP, Teddy. Pres Obama kept his promise to you.

[mdmc]

49. that really sucks

cause I still lack access to medical care and am fully insured. unfinished business is done is utter bullshit..

[AtomicKitten]

60. You're fully insured?

Lucky you; it is your axe-grinding that is utter bullshit. Those who are not fully insured are grateful for the many provisions in this bill that will improve our lives.

[eridani]

119. Don't bet on that. You can be excluded for having bad credit

Should you not be excluded, they can charge you whatever the fuck they like, and they are under no obligation whatsoever to pay any particular claim.

Hopefully people won't be dropped for illness, but they can still be cancelled instantly for being unable to make a payment.

[Riley133]

199. Also it can be cancelled for any misrepresentations

and that is how they were cancelling before - by finding 'mistakes'. Be honest about everything - don't cheat and select non-smoker rates when you smoke.

[MedicalAdmin]

223. It was called recision and it sucked.

An insurance company would find a mistake that they could use to cancel or deny a policy. However they would stick that fact in their pocket like a hole card until you got sick and then cancel your coverage after taking years and years of premiums. It is now illegal for a company to sit on those details.

That has been outlawed. However, don't worry, the insurance companies already have an work around solution. If they can't do that within their company they will start a separate company to do the underwriting investigations and have THAT company keep their hole card. It can always be turned over to the insurance company when they need it.

Gotta love crooks. They are tricky.

[eridani]

256. Also, recission happens all the time in states where it has been illegal for years

Very simple. Rescind a policy that is going to cost you a lot money. The patient files an appeal. By the time the appeal is settled in favor of the patient, the patient is dead. The fine you have to pay is a small percentage of the cost of the health care you have denied.

[stray cat]

25. There are some big victories within it

elimination of limits, mandatory coverage, mandatory spending on reimbursements, coverage of children up to a later age

[zipplewrath]

50. Small victories

Those are relatively small, and affect a relatively small percentage of the population. Probably the biggest accomplishment was the employer mandage, as soft as it is. But really all that does is perpetuate the employer based system we have now, that isn't working.

[ibegurpard]

82. and that's what insuracorp was financing when they gave to the repigs

repeal of that stuff
you can bet mandates aren't going anywhere though

[LoZoccolo]

29. Fire Dog Lake: automatic unrecommend n/t

[JoseGaspar]

31. Pretense is moot...

When no Democratic Congress-person will run on the Bill (well, one did and he lost), its character is undeniable. The only remaining question is whether it was an intentional game of "bait-and-switch".

[ipaint]

35. This country will never be able to afford industry controlled health insurance.

We can't afford it now and another 3 years of high unemployment and rising premiums will bury it. The tens of millions who will need to be rolled into medicaid alone will be a staggering cost. Subsidies, ha...wait till the repubs start attacking those payouts.

We can't afford the cost for both the for profit health industry and adequate health care. Either or and democrats chose to float the industry for as long as they can.

[progressoid]

61. It is a victory.

For insurance companies.

[Better Believe It]

62. Most people have not benefited from the health insurance industry bill.

Most haven't seen the health insurance bill improve their lives even a tiny bit.

Those who can't afford health insurance wonder if and when they will be covered and how much they will have to pay.

So far it has done nothing for them.

Meanwhile, millions who have health insurance have seen their premium rates, deductibles and co-pays go up a lot, frequently with cuts in benefits.

And they say to themselves "So this is health reform? It stinks!"

Well, it's actually going to get much worse in 2014 when people will be required under the law to buy a "bare bones" policy with sky high deductibles and co-pays. They will get little or no financial help from the government to pay the premiums because Republican legislators will not approve those "deficit creating" funds.

[bvar22]

67. 2014 will be a disaster for the Democratic Party.

Millions of Americans will be herded into the "Exchange" and forced to BUY Insurance they won't be able to afford to use (High Co-Pays, High Deductibles).
They WILL blame "The Democrats", and rightly so.

ALL the Republicans have to do is sit back and say, "Yep. We opposed it."
Democrats will be unelectable for a generation.

It boggles my mind that the Democrats passed a Republican Bill without forcing the Republicans to take ANY responsibility.

[Mimosa]

178. BVar, they won't believe you until it happens.

I saw the Repig's strategy, too.

[Riley133]

200. Depends on who runs.

If they run the wrong person (and they might), we're fine.

[RaleighNCDUer]

204. Trusting your victory to an enemy's mistakes is always a losing strategy.

Read up on your Sun Tzu.

[MedicalAdmin]

225. I'll pay the fucking fine.

It'll be cheaper.

The Dems are done like dinner over this one. Stick a fork in the party - it's over.

[treestar]

64. Unrec'd, yes it is

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[bvar22]

70. AND,

There ain't gonna be no "Fix it Later."
As many of us predicted, we WILL be stuck with Mandates to BUY without a Public Option for a long time.

Those who insisted "Pass it now, Fix it later" should hang their heads in shame.


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[beevul]

103. I think people miss something through all this.

To many people, it - the bill as passed - has nothing to do with health care where thier opposition to it is concerned.


If I had a dime for ever time I heard someone say "my opposition to this is not because its healthcare, its because I'm against the government having the power to COMPEL me to buy a good or service simply because I am alive, or face a fine" (paraphrasing)...I'd be a rich person.

And I tend to agree with that sentiment, entirely.


It sets a disturbing precedent.

I can not for the life of me see how that can pass constitutional muster.

[RaleighNCDUer]

205. Single payer - otoh - paid for by taxes collected by the government and

run by a government entity, not a private for-profit industry, entirely passes constitutional muster.

The government has authority to collect taxes. The government is mandated to "promote the general welfare".

There is NO constitutional grounds by which the government can require that you purchase anything from any private company.

[beevul]

238. That was my thinking. N/T

[defendandprotect]

243. Agree -- well stated -- !!

[defendandprotect]

242. Heartily -- and sadly -- agree with you .... the "deform" of health care will stand....!!

And the Obama game-playing with Big Pharma and private health care industry --

to "preserve PRIVATE health care system" -- will continue to be ignored here!!

[xchrom]

73. Recommend

[amborin]

75. K&R it's a huge subsidy to huge private insurance corporations

certainly NOT any "progressive" measure

[somone]

77. It's a Profit Guarantee and Enhancement Act

for insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

[Enrique]

81. Mitt Romney: a great progressive

:sarcasm:

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

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

[LostInAnomie]

87. Proudly unreccing this FDL crap.

[Number23]

88. May I join you?

Unrec'd.

So many here seem DETERMINED to not see the forest for the trees. Hell, some are too stupid to see either.

[ibegurpard]

89. "So many here seem DETERMINED to not see the forest for the trees."

I'd have to agree with that sentiment...but I'm afraid you're on the wrong side of that equation.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

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

[ibegurpard]

95. I could just as easily throw out troll accusations

against the people who were steadfastly opposing any attempts by others to try to keep the corporate taint out of at least SOME of this fiasco.

[Number23]

99. I didn't accuse you of being a troll but that obviously didn't stop

you from alerting as though I did. But you must have thought I was on to something or you would not have alerted.

Go find someone else to pester with your ramblings.

[a2liberal]

139. Proudly countering with a rec :)

The truth hurts. Though I know it's risky for me to post this and I stand the risk of being accused of trolling given my low post count, it seems like enough people are with me that I should be safe :)

[mstinamotorcity]

93. This may not be the plan I want

But for the MILLIONS of Americans who were helped because of the Affordable Care Act I am HAPPY they deserve it and more. And I hope that it will one day be the bill we as Americans need so that it will make everyone all inclusive. MEDICARE FOR ALL sounds nice.


TOMBStone

[RaleighNCDUer]

209. And how do we get there, now that we've give the insurance industry

billions of more dollars, and Citizens United says they can use every penny of that to buy the legislation they want?

We're fucked.

[mstinamotorcity]

226. And will remain that way until

Americans grow a spine and take their money back from these mfkrs!!!!We keep buying products from their businesses instead of patronizing business that are community based.We know that Wall Street as far as investments are concerned is not fixed. Financial Reform had more consumer protections for Credit Card Abuses and Fraudulent Lenders. But did not take care of those risky investment products,swaps,derivatives,and hedge funds,and people are still letting them take their money out their paychecks every pay period to be falsely invested.I know they expect a return on their money,but how do you expect anything when it is based on a false economy. They just got ripped off for twenty four percent of the Nation's wealth and the Middle class has gotten smaller.Health Care was at the point of eating one sixth of the average Americans weekly paycheck and going higher.Everyone was screaming about Health Care cost. And the lack of Health Care. Now that some employers can afford it they don't want to. But I bet they pay the premiums on those Dead Peasant Policies without fail.I will say it again. Most people felt that when they elected the President they would receive CHANGE. But still do the same things and expect different results. When do we change our habits???? If we expect CHANGE we must expect it of ourselves first!!!!! As long as we give them the Money to work us over isn't that sorta of like giving them permission to do it???Just asking????

TOMBStone

[BzaDem]

101. Perhaps the reason most people disagree with him is because he is wrong?

Just a thought.

[elana i am]

102. hmmm

<<<stop pretending the new health reform law is some great progressive victory. It is not.>>>

i think it would behoove this person, as well as anyone else who thinks "progressive victory" was ever anything other than an utter fantasy, to get real.

the more common sense, reasonable approach is to say what we got out of the health reform is all that we could of hoped for. the political reality that i live in, with a centerist president whose only recourse for passing legislation (meaningful or otherwise) was to barter and plead with a minority of blue dogs, precluded any chance of a progressive direction.

[Better Believe It]

113. So you think President Obama did a fine job of begging and pleading.

Well, that's certainly a ringing endorsement of his strategy to change things.

[RaleighNCDUer]

211. Bartering and pleading? That's the way to get things done?

How about the Prez - elected by the greatest majority in decades - buttonholing the recalcitrant blud dogs and saying "I want a public option. And you are going to vote for a public option. Now, we can work out what you want for that vote and I will back you on it. Or, if you don't give me what I want I will support a challenger in your next election, and I will stump for him, and the DNC will fund him and you will be out on your ass. Which way is it going to be?"

It was NOT his only recourse. It was his choice. And he chose...poorly.

[Codeine]

105. unrec nt

[Bobbie Jo]

107. Unrec. nt

[slipslidingaway]

108. knr nt

[bigtree]

110. stop pretending it's not significant progress

It is.

[eridani]

120. The bill is a political disaster because there are almost NO front-loaded benefits

If 100 people are drowning and a a lifeboat comes for 10 of them, what in FUCKING HELL do you expect the other 90 to do? Stand up and cheer?

[Vinca]

123. Exactly. A person can only tread water so long.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

144. Exactly! This was a clumsy piece of legislation, deeply flawed, and poorly sold

Obama needed legislation that benefited the majority of the population either immediately or within in his own first term, NOT in 2014 when someone else might be president.

Most people do not have 19-26-year-old children.

Many people cannot afford the high-risk insurance they are now eligible for.

The long timeline for full implementation has given the insurance company vultures plenty of time to raise their rates and profiteer.

A lot of people (both for and against HCR) THINK that the Obama plan is single payer, because the righties kept talking as if it were and the Obama administration was slow to correct that misinformation.

I had to scour the Internet to find even executive summaries of the House and Senate bills, and the first ones came not from the Obama administration but from the Kaiser Foundation.

Full details didn't appear in places easily visible to the general public till after the bill was passed.

A great example of the ConservaDems (deliberate?) ineptness at PR.

[eridani]

257. The bottom line is that any bill that REQUIRES the public to be educated about it-

--is an automatic political disaster. If benefits were immediate and obvious for really large numbers of people, their own experience would spike the conservative noise machine.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

259. When I lived in Oregon, an attorney who was knowledgeable about the initiative syste

told me that voters automatically rejected any ballot measure that they didn't understand.

Something like that probably happened with HCR.

[pecwae]

121. K&R.

[Scuba]

124. Tell that to the parents of a little girl born with spina bifida.

[eridani]

126. No benefit for them unless they can pay outrageous premiums n/t

[Scuba]

127. They've been paying all along. But the insurance company can no longer drop the girl.

[eridani]

134. And what about parents in the same situation who don/t have the money? n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

146. Yes, I know a family whose son had a brain tumor

They have insurance, but there were so many uncovered expenses that they had to take out a second mortgage on their house. The boy's mother wondered what happens to families who don't own a house to take a second mortgage on.

(In all the single payer and national health service countries that I know of, a child or teenager with a life-threatening condition would absolutely be first in line for treatment, whether that young person's parents were millionaires or convenience store clerks.)

[MedicalAdmin]

227. I've travelled and lived internationally and there is one thing uniquely american

Fundraising posters EVERYWHERE all the time to raise money for someone who can't afford basic treatment. Do you see them in Canada, the EU, Japan, China, Australia, New Zealand, Cuba or Venezuela? No you do not.

But here in America you can't go into a convenience store, gas station, or bar without seeing bulitin boards chock full of posters of American's dying and losing their homes all at the same time. It's a worse tragedy in terms of death than medical mistakes or much worse than war. By comparison, 9-11 wasn't even a blip on the radar screen.

[Catherina]

270. +1 n/t

[bvar22]

273. To full appreciatre how really BAD the HCR Bill is...

....simply compare it to what the rest of the civilized WORLD takes for granted.

...but WE had to have a "Uniquely American Solution!"

/Laughing and Crying on-line.

[PassingFair]

159. Unless the parent loses his or her JOB.

But it's not like there's a possibility of THAT happening.

:crazy:

[Riley133]

201. COBRA subsidies were not renewed

And that's another thing - Congress did not renew the COBRA subsidies so if you lost your job after June 1, 2010 you have to pay full COBRA rates.

[Mimosa]

261. Noibody can afford those. Yikes. n/t

[area51]

128. +1

Each day, 273 people die due to lack of health care in the U.S.; that's 100,000 deaths per year.

We need single-payer health care, not a welfare bailout for the serial-killer insurance agencies.

We don't need the GingrichCare of mandated, unregulated, for-profit insurance that is still too expensive, only pays parts of medical bills, denies claims, bankrupts and kills people.

Republinazi '93 plan:

"Subtitle F: Universal Coverage - Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005."

"We will never have real reform until people's health stops being treated as a financial opportunity for corporations."

"Any proposal that sticks with our current dependence on for-profit private insurers ... will not be sustainable. And the new law will not get us to universal coverage ...." -- T.R. Reid, The Healing of America

[JVS]

221. I'm tired of supporters of shitty legislation hiding behind very sick kids.

[ibegurpard]

250. you want the death of MILLIONS on your head?

:sarcasm:

[LWolf]

129. I've never pretended it was anything but an insurance corporation victory.

:(

Health insurance policy = Republican. Check.

Education policy = Republican. Check.

Economic policy = Republican. Check.

Or perhaps we should just say neoliberal and be done with it.

[gulliver]

130. "Do nothings" often have a gripe with "do somethings."

That's just human nature. Some people gripe all of the time. It's nature's way of telling the rest of us who to shun.

[Scruffy1]

132. it simply boils down to this

All working Americans with health insurance saw their rates increase Yeah there a couple of good things in it which you all being DUers know, but the bottom line its not gonna get the average working person excited.

[madrchsod]

138. exactly...the company she works for....

raised their rates 10% this year and raising them again next year. we have decent insurance but can not afford to use it.we had to file chapter 7 last year because of my medical debt because of botched surgeries. i`ll be drawing medicare next year and we are considering divorcing so my medical bills won`t effect our estate.

[gibby2433]

137. Don't know anyone who DID think this was some historic PROGRESSIVE bill

I'd like to think no one was fooled, from the very beginning, that this health care bill was going to be anything even close to progressive. Even with the Public Option it was still a pro-insurance industry piece of legislation. BUT, I think we all sighed and admitted, "Ok, it's a start," and that's why we backed it. It was a start. And the Republicans knew this. And that's why they're so amped up to repeal it. Because once the major pieces of the bill start to kick in the Right is going to watch more and more of the country embrace it, and demand more.

At least, that's my hope :)

[RaleighNCDUer]

215. Hope is good, but it doesn't pay the bills.

And with public option it WOULD be progressive - the public option would have presented the only real brake on the insurance companies' power to constantly raise rates; people who were tired of being screwed by the private insurance would have the PO to turn to, at lower cost; it would be a framework on which single-payer could be built - combine the PO with Medicare, Medicaid, VA, and other government programs and you would have 60% of the country already in the government system.

It is NOT a start. It is a roadblock to single-payer, which is really the only viable system.

Without the PO, it is nothing more than the '93 Republican plan - and hand out to the insurance industry.

[ChiciB1]

143. My Son's Insurance Premiums Have Already Been Raised By $100.00 A Month!

Perhaps there are "some" things that have helped, but cost protection from Big Insurance and Big Pharma doesn't seem to be one of them!

Drug costs are simply UNREAL. Recently my pharmacist made a mistake and overlooked my insurance coverage, and the meds that were costing me $26 a month were billed at over $400.00! I'm fortunate that my husband had a Union job and we have better insurance than most. I simply wasn't aware of how expensive drugs were. And didn't Congress pass a law saqying it was illegal to buy from Canada because we have a HEALTH CARE BILL??

TRUE STORY HERE... happened just last week, funeral was last Saturday. My daughter-in-law's Aunt, age 51 was prescribed thyroid and high blood pressure medicine. Both lost their jobs and couldn't afford the meds. SHE got sick because she stopped taking the meds, went to the emergency room as a stop gap, but still no meds. Got sicker, throwing up and was unable to get out of bed. Went to sleep one night, woke up dead the next morning.

Now, I realize THEY might have not been all that smart and didn't seek the right kind of help, but in the end... she died because she felt they had no where to turn. Not everyone KNOWS what to do or where to go for help, but they did got to the emergency room, which was only a band-aid.

[Mimosa]

184. Incidents like your daughter-in-law's aunt's death happen 1000s of times a day

Even to people who carry insurance but have insufficient coverage and high deductibles. I fear that happening to me. But at least my partner wouldn't have to struggle to pay the BC/BS premium for me any more.

[MedicalAdmin]

230. TI had to stop taking my pain meds. They went up 2000%.

That's not a typo and it's morphine so it aint patented. It's price gouging pure and simple.

So now, in addition to everything else, I get to live with constant pain, migraines, spasms from the pain, etc. Thanks HCR - it's greeeeeat!

[fascisthunter]

145. some won't... the more Obama is criticized

the more his most ardent supporters will come to his defense.

The Health "Law" is complete shit and a huge give away to private company interests.

[COLGATE4]

148. None so blind as those who will not see. Kind of reminds me of

the great 'Bush is wonderful, we needed to invade Iraq' posts, even after it became crystal clear that Saddam didn't have WMD's, wasn't planning on invading the US and had nothing to do with 9/11. Strange.

[fascisthunter]

156. exactly...

[Faryn Balyncd]

150. Are we now about to pretend that gutting SS & Medicare is another "progressive victory" too?????

(K&R)




:kick:

[QC]

155. Yes, that will be within six weeks or so, so start practicing now! n/t

[pnwmom]

151. What you fail to realize is that the Republican party has moved

far to the right of its health care positions ten or even five ago -- and, except for the fact that MA is one of the most liberal states in the U.S., the Romney plan wouldn't exist either.

[Edweird]

153. Some of us noticed that quite a while ago.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

161. Pretending? I don't know of any Democrat or progressive who believes that.

Now, the wingnuts and the Republicans, along with the acquiescence of the Corporate Media, have turned the health care reform law into a "progressive" bill when it certainly is not. Of course, they know it's a lie. A truly progressive reform bill would be, at the very least, a public option.

[PinkFloyd]

162. Yea, it's Dole's bill from the 90's.

Whats funny though is I don't remember the right being outraged when Dole presented it back then and it's basically the same damn plan. Like Maher said this weekend, the right in this country keeps going farther to the right and demanding left meet them in the middle so now even pieces of legislation like Dole's old health care plan looks liberal.

[Divine Discontent]

168. the GOP has pushed themselves off the iceberg...

they are marching to the extreme right drum of teabagginsanity, and mock facts such as the ones you mentioned above. They don't realize they're a joke, but we do...

[ehrnst]

164. Social Security is more inclusive now than when it passed 70+ years ago

Doesn't mean that it should have been scrapped at the start.

[Hoyt]

186. Amen.

[RaleighNCDUer]

217. And, as has been explained sooo many times, SS established an

entirely new framework, a new paradigm, on which further improvements could be build. This legislation merely tweaks the established order, while confirming by law that the ONLY way to access medical care is through employer-based private insurance - even to the point of mandating the purchase of said private insurance no matter the cost.

You are talking apples and lug nuts.

[FedUp_Queer]

165. Providing health care should be a not for profit enterprise.

[TZ]

177. Hey Jon Walker my life is important to ME

and as someone who IS being helped by this bill as a chronically ill person..you and all the other idiots who don't think my health or life and important call go FUCK OFF AND DIE...Here's a big middle finger to all those Right AND LEFT who ignore me and people like me because of political beliefs. MY LIFE ISN'T A POLITICAL FOOTBALL TO BE KICKED AROUND.

[Dinger]

185. It Just Keeps Getting Better And Better

:sarcasm:

[leeroysphitz]

189. For me it all comes down to one question.

Why would you create a legal government mandate for the People to BUY health insurance without also creating a government regulatory body to give the People some control on cost?

It just doesn't make ANY sense. It hurts working people.

[Orsino]

195. HCR was exactly as progressive as it could be...

...while still passing--barely--in the Senate.

Given the make-up of Congress, it was the greatest possible progressive victory.

[GSLevel9]

213. proud to rec and give a kick! nt

[GreenTea]

214. Fuck its a start-Even SS evolved from humble beginnings-Republicans please destroy Health Care ASAP!

Who really gives a fuck anyway!

FOOLS!!

[BrklynLiberal]

218. -puke- The best I can say is that it is definitely better than nothing...

[bos1]

219. stop pretending HCR isn't a historic victory, a major first, and then stop whining and support the

Dems to get it going further.

[mzmolly]

224. Stop pretending that FDL speaks for progressives.

They're a biased, anti-Obama organization, these days.

[JuniperLea]

228. You've got that right...

I'm not sure why this fucking thread is still alive... :banghead:

[mzmolly]

237. What's the difference between Sharon Angel's "don't vote" ads and this

crap? :shrug:

[JuniperLea]

239. Not a damn thing!

I hate the hypocrisy we own, and we do own it! It's being done under the Big D Tent, so it reflects on all of us.

It's hard to figure out how to counter it all.

[Jakes Progress]

245. That you call this hypocrisy

and don't understand why people are pissed, is exactly the reason that we got "shellacked" in the last election. Too many refuse to understand. They could "get if" if they thought for a minute, but they don't want to go there. But you go on with your head in the sand pretending that it's everyone else who is hypocritical.

[JuniperLea]

246. Well, thank you for your opinion...

But you go on with your bad self and your sand and whatnot... whatever blows wind up your skirt.

It, IMHO, is pretty fucking hypocritical to do what you chastise others for doing. Oh... wait... that's the actual definition. :eyes:

[Name removed]

252. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jakes Progress]

286. Hypocrisy is where you find it.

I find that you alert and complain about others doing what you do on a regular basis pretty fucking hypocritical.

[mzmolly]

249. I guess all we can do is call it out.

Peace JuniperLea. :hi:

[Name removed]

253. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

254. Deleted message

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

[mzmolly]

263. I've been over the arguments about health reform for months.

In fact, here are a few of my own topics on the subject.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/mzmolly/188

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/mzmolly/192

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/mzmolly/198

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/mzmolly/199

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/mzmolly/186

FDL has proven they're not credible on this issue. Klein destroyed them here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=85131&mesg_id=85131

I'm not going to respond to their repetitive propaganda over and over again.

[JuniperLea]

255. You're so very correct!

Peace, mzmolly!

:hi:

[Jakes Progress]

274. Without facts, that is all you can do. Just call out.

[mzmolly]

278. This from the person who has yet to post ONE

fact? I've posted facts. Ignore them if you like.

[Jakes Progress]

279. I've given them. You avoid them.

And again. Your facts are just pr and blind opinion.

[mzmolly]

281. You've not provided a single

fact.

[Jakes Progress]

282. True, I've referred to several.

Where are yours?

[DesertDiamond]

231. Pres Obama! They are about their own power! They will NEVER be bipartisan!! WAKE UP!!

[chill_wind]

232. Physicians in Massachusetts have stopped pretending.

http://www.healthcare-now.org/massachusetts-doctors-snub-state%E2%80%99s-health-reform-as-model-for-country-pick-single-payer-system-instead/

In other words, the doctors with the most on-the-ground experience with the Massachusetts plan, after which the Obama administration’s new health law is patterned, regard it as one of the least desirable alternatives for financing care.

[ramapo]

234. Gives me a big headache

The fact that this thread generates such a plethora of replies proves its point. The legislation is a big mess that includes a few good provisions which should have been enacted within about the first month of work on this issue.

I think this issue proves that the United States is a totally dysfunctional country. Problems that the rest of the world solved long ago fester among us.

Campaign talk is nothing but swill whether it comes from the mouth of a Republican or a Democrat. Our elected representatives are there to serve the interests of the lobbyists and contributors with the citizens a distant third.

Add to that the natural inclination of most Americans to be stupid and irrational and you get what we have been witness to, a country and society slowly devolving.

[Catherina]

271. +1 and horrifying to watch n/t

[BlueCheese]

276. If nothing else...

... this bill exposed the raw political motives behind both major parties.

Philosophically, this bill is the same as George W. Bush's Medicare Part D. The government essentially pays for-profit corporations to provide health insurance benefits to people.

At the time of Medicare Part D, a majority of Republicans voted for the bill, most Democrats voted against.

This time, it was the opposite.

What changed? Nothing but which side held the presidency and which side could count a political victory.

It's hard to escape the conclusion that the politicians hardly care what's in the bill, so long as they come out on the winning side.

The people who really do care what's in the bill--the health insurance industry--get what they want.

[andym]

277. It is progressive and a major blow against conservatism

How so?
There is a war between advocates of total freedom ("freedom to starve" conservatives) and advocates of increased "equality" at the expense of some "freedom" (liberals). HCR increases government control over one's life and corporate entities (the anathema of conservatives). HCR provides more people with HCR and is an attempt to make health care near universal, which is a move toward increased equality. It reverses the inertia of the Reagan revolution ("government is the problem, not the solution"), which is why conservatives are so angry.

So how is HCR Republican? It is because it works with the existing corporate structures. However, it is not conservative in the modern sense.
And that is the biggest anti-progressive aspect, that it promotes large corporate entities (insurers) by giving them government money and mandated new customers. However, anti-corporatism is not as fundamental a progressive principle as increased equality.

There are other legitimate criticisms:
The HCR plan is mediocre at best, and will eventually need to be replaced by a more efficient system (single-payer?) that holds costs better and is even more equitable.

Bottom line is that it breaks the constant move to the right in this country (less government and more freedom). But that it is not anti-corporate.

[johnaries]

283. Although far from perfect, it IS a great progressive victory.

Yes, there are some Republican ideas in there, and some pretty good ones. No, it' not as good as single-payer, and even just a Public Option would have made it much stronger. But there are many GREAT Progressive provisions in the bill and it is a GREAT Progressive victory.

If you don't agree with me, then just read the bill.

and in closing - Fuck Jane Hamsher. She's a lying bitch.

[Better Believe It]

284. You began to make some rational, intelligent sounding arguments until your comments degenerated into

this thoughtless personal attack: " Fuck Jane Hamsher. She's a lying bitch."

I don't like those kinds of low-level personal attacks against progressives on DU.

You're now on ignore.

Bye.