Awful HCR law won't be made better in future. There will be no "first step".

[brentspeak]

The claim that the bill's provisions will be "improved" in the future is a lie or a self-delusion the bill's supporters have been parroting.

Cite the last bad law that was "improved" in future Congresses. You can't. In fact, it almost never happens that a truly bad law is even rescinded in modern times. Just this week, Chris Dodd admitted that repealing Gramm-Leach-Bliley -- the act which helped torpedo Wall St. by its repeal of Glass-Steagall (a good law) -- is http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BG3YP20091217?type=politicsNews">unlikely to happen.

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. The PATRIOT Act was tinkered with quite extensively

IMHO the only way to get a bill improved in the future is to set a deadline for it to fall away unless renewed. I don't know if the HIR will have such a provision, but without it, the best we could hope for is minor tinkering.

[MNDemNY]

5. The patriot act should be 'tinkered" down a drain.

This HCR bill needs to be flushed before a final vote.(unless it is improved upon before) But "we'll fix it later" is pure bullshit.

[Cronus Protagonist]

32. I'm with you on that one

And why do people keep calling it the HCR? It should be HIR (I being for "Insurance") because it's not about healt care, it's about insurance company profits.

[DJ13]

2. I've always believed you dont try half assed when you can get it right

.. with just a little more effort.

K&R (but the un rec Rahm squad negated it.)

[jaxx]

3. Post that final bill from the conference committee will ya?

I didn't get to see it.

[MNDemNY]

4. Yes, the "we'll fix it later" is the most asinine argument yet.

Only real "hopers" buy into that.

[DURHAM D]

6. Dodd and Schumer were originally the two Senate Dems most responsible for the repeal.

Why would Dodd want to change it back - its his baby.

[phleshdef]

7. All of our programs are constantly being strengthed or weakened, depending on who is running things.

More bullshit posts from a desperate poster who is full of nothing but lose.

[POAS]

9. +1

Best example one can give is Social Security which is today much more inclusive and comprehensive that it was when passed.

[damntexdem]

8. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Older Americans Act.

The list goes on and on.

FAIL!

[Lord Helmet]

10. right you are

[POAS]

12. All of them got improved with age like

fine wine.

However, the bitter whine we have seen lately is rapidly turning into vinegar.

[backscatter712]

14. Bingo.

Add France, Britain, the rest of Western Europe to the list of successes in health care that started with an imperfect, brain-damaged initial implementation, and were later improved.

[Ikonoklast]

15. The OP has blinders on.

You cannot make him see anything that doesn't fit into his world-view.

Another one with an agenda that differs from anything remotely democratic.

Unrec.

[uponit7771]

16. +1!!!!

[Armstead]

17. NAFTA, Broadcast and banking Deregulation...etc.

Lot of bad things that were supposed to be "beneficial" and a "good start that can be improved" have gotten written in stone, and later it is "too late" to fix them.

Look how reasonable China has become after Clinton rammed through Most Favored Nation Status.

The sad truth is that too many bad bills and bad policies get embedded, and are allowed to become unchangeable over time.

[phleshdef]

20. Citing programs that haven't been improved after passing does NOT cancel out the ones that have.

The OPs argument is seriously flawed. Any given program could be improved or weakened at any given time in the future, depending on the makeup of the Senate and who happens to be serving as President. Trying to make some end all, be all prediction as to whether or not we can make existing programs better is flat out stupid and not even worthy of debating. There is just as much a chance of making things better as there is leaving them the same or making them worse. This bullshit didn't even deserve its own thread.

[Armstead]

21. No it is a key point as a possibility that is very real

Many of us have "been there done that" when some truly awful things were crammed down our throats with promises that defy common sense and that any problems would be "fixed" later on.

But then, the awful things -- like repeal of Glass Stegal (pardon my spelling) -- lead to things like massive monopolies that become "too big to fail and too big to control."

Maybe -- MAYBE -- this bill will be improved upon in the future.

But based on experience, it is more likely that once private insurance corporations become even more entrenched and more powerful, any future attempts at fixing the damage will meet the same fate as efforts to fix the problems that have been created in the financial markets over the last decade.

[phleshdef]

22. And what scientific data can you provide that proves what is or isn't more likely?

Your own "been there done that" experiences don't count for anything, sorry.

Especially considering the numerous amounts of programs that other have listed off that HAVE IN FACT been improved upon. You can't produce any hard data, you are just providing an assessment based on "feelings".

The fact is, you simply don't know what may or may not happen, neither do I and definately neither does the OP. Given that knowledge, its only logical for those of us who actually want to make progress to take as much as we can realistically get, given the political cards we are being dealt and live to fight for improvement another day. Thats why my grandmother is living comfortably off of social security right now.

[Armstead]

23. None of us have a crystal ball but it is not "my" experience

It is a pattern.

If this were merely weaker than people would prefer, it would not be such a problem. But this bill, like banking deregulation, is opening the doors to further concentration of the power of private insurers over our healthcare system.

Even beneficial programs like SS and Medicare become really hard to fix. And as the Republicans have found, they are also impossible to get rid of.

Yes they have been expanded over the years. But even ardent supporters of them acknowledge that they also contain some problems that are difficult to repair to make them better.

If we are setting in place a new foundation for healthcare coverage, why not start it out on the right footing, instead of this cobbled together mess whose basic bias towards protecting and enshrining the role of private insurers?

[phleshdef]

25. You can't concentrate more power to private insurance when it has all the power all ready

There is no amount of "more power" to give them. Requiring them to do things like use 85% of their premium intake for care takes power away from them (loopholes or no loopholes). Creating a national exchange that requires participating companies to adhere to regulations or face being booted off the exchange (and thus losing all customers and profits that go with that) takes power away from them. Requiring them to cover people that are a higher risk to their bottom line takes power away from them. Requiring them to continue to cover people for their entire life takes power away from them.

Yes this bill will provide them with more customers and yes there should still be a non-profit, preferably a goverment owned, option provided as an alternative choice. But you can't make an argument that a bill that makes these companies, that are all ready all powerful in their own right, do things they otherwise wouldn't do as something that gives them a higher concentration of power.

[Armstead]

26. Some of those are good things

Anything that makes them more accountable is good.

And, to be perfectly honest, I hope that your more optimistic view of the ability to build a more positive system turns out to be true, and the suspicions of we critics are proven wrong over time.

But I still get this strong "been there done that" feeling. The basic problem is that in exchange for these concessions, we are embedding them further into the system through mandates. It is establishing private insurance as the official healthcare system

[brentspeak]

24. Those were "bad" laws?

I specifically wrote "bad laws". Also by "modern", I mean within the past 30-35 years The laws you cite are all at least 40 years old. This is the new age of K-Street corporate Congress, and things do not get changed or amended the way they did a generation or two ago.

Getting back to your post and my OP -- the laws you cite were all GOOD laws to start with, ones that did no damage; Social Security did not force Americans to purchase useless and unaffordable private health insurance, for example. The new HCR law is debt slavery right out of the starting gate.

[Milo_Bloom]

30. FAIL!

All of which established fundamental priciples.

The only fundamental principle established in this bill is that the government now has the right to force you to buy a defecitve product from a private corporation.

This bill is the reason the democrats have lost my vote and my money.

WTG

[27inCali]

31. ironically, all of these bills deals with health care too

meaning, historically, if a health related bill passes in the U.S. it is almost certain to be amended and expanded with the passage of time.

[CTLawGuy]

34. but your post...

EPIC WIN!

[RBInMaine]

11. Wrong wrong and wrong. It can be amended. Give me a break.

[cornermouse]

35. definitions.

Can't - vb contraction of cannot - "my definition, a person who has the wish or desire but no means to perform"
Won't - vb contraction of will not - "my definition, a person who has the means to perform but who has no wish or desire to perform and who refuses to perform"

Cannot vs. Will not. You're obviously confused about use of verbs. See the difference?

[Avalux]

13. Wow. Just wow. That subject line is just plain stupid.

How the hell do you know the "awful" HCR law won't be improved upon? What makes you an authority on such things? Your link provides nothing of value related to HCR.

Your mission on this board seems to be one of failure (i.e., whatever Obama and Dems do is a failure).

I want to know why.

[Armstead]

18. It is a usefukl example of what happens when a bad policy gets entrenched

Substitute "insurance industry" for financial industry, and it is a good example of what is likely to happen if there are attempts to change this down the line.


"The bills reflect a desire by some lawmakers to take a more structural approach to overhauling financial regulation than the Obama administration or Democratic leaders in Congress have proposed in the year since 2008's banking crisis.

"I want to see these institutions go back to their core businesses as well," Dodd, a moderate Democrat, told reporters after a meeting of his panel where members voted to approve the renomination of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.

But Dodd added: "I think you'd have a hard time repealing Gramm-Leach-Bliley on this point."

...Charles Gabriel, an analyst at Capital Alpha Partners, said he doubted Cantwell-McCain would gain much traction.

If it did, he said, "market tantrums" could ensue and "it would provide a must-win challenge for Treasury Secretary Geithner and the Obama administration."

[Avalux]

19. Thanks for the reply,

but it didn't answer my question, unless you have first hand knowledge of what's going on in brentspeak's head. ;)

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

27. Jesus H. Christ....

This is from the CCH Website, which keeps a MONTHLY FUCKING LOG of changes to federal law.

Senate passes bill approving FMLA coverage for flight attendants, airline pilots. By unanimous consent, the Senate approved a bill (S. 1422) November 10, 2009, that would close a loophole in the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) and give flight attendants and airline pilots access to 12 weeks of unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA). Called the Airline Flight Crew Technical Corrections Act, the Senate bill is substantially similar to a bill (H.R. 912) that passed the House February 9 by voice vote. The bill closes a loophole which, because of the way many air crews' hours are calculated, effectively excludes more than 200,000 flight attendants and pilots from coverage under the FMLA. Before it can be signed into law by President Obama, minor differences must be resolved between the House and Senate bills.

GINA's employment provisions take effect November 21. Employers must begin complying with the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act on November 21, 2009. Title II of GINA prohibits private and state and local government employers with 15 or more employees from: (1) discriminating against employees or applicants based on genetic information in hiring or any other terms, conditions or privileges of employment; (2) acquiring genetic information, except pursuant to the following limited exceptions: (a) inadvertent acquisitions ( i.e., the "water cooler" exception where a manager or supervisor overhears someone talking about a family member's illness, (b) acquisitions obtained as part of a voluntary wellness program, (c) acquisitions through the FMLA certification process, (d) acquisitions through commercially and publicly available documents, (e) acquisitions where the information involved is to be used for genetic monitoring of the biological effects of toxic substances in the workplace and (f) acquisitions where the employer conducts DNA analysis for law enforcement purposes as a forensic laboratory or for purposes of human remains identification; and (3) disclosing that genetic information.

President signs National Defense Authorization Act, includes revisions to FMLA military family leave provisions. On October 28, 2009, President Barack Obama signed the FY 2010 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (P.L. 111-84) into law. The law contains provisions amending the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993's (FMLA) military family leave entitlements. The Senate voted 68 to 29 to approve the Act on October 22 and the House approved the Act October 8 in a 281-146 vote.

FUTA extension signed by President. The House and Senate have passed, and the President has signed, the Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009 (H.R. 3548). Among other things, the bill extends the FUTA surtax and delays a scheduled decrease. The House passed their previous version, the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2009 (H.R. 3548). The bill extends from 2009 through 2010 and the first 6 months of 2011, the 6.2% surtax on employers imposed under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA). It also delays a scheduled 2010 decrease from 6.2% to 6% through 2011. The change is effective for wages paid after December 31, 2009.

That just four that I thought were particularly interesting. There were eleven entries, in addition to eight pieces of legislation currently under review by Congress.

Now -- Do you have something else breath-takingly ignorant that you'd like to share with the class.

[burning rain]

29. First one's sort of unfortunate...

given that as little as airline pilots and flight attendants make, any unpaid leave they take truly comes out of their hide. Oh well, this isn't "socialist" Europe where they have crazy things like paid family and medical leave. But, it's better to have access to unpaid leave than not even to have that.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

37. I agree....but that being said

FMLA is a good example of how federal laws are later amended to improve the original legislation. The original FMLA was so watered down that, if I remember correctly, it was supported by George H.W. Bush (but signed by Clinton in 1993).

[burning rain]

38. Bush had vetoed it.

That and Bush's hardline anti-choice policies killed him with women in 1993. While it's obviously better for FMLA to be extended than not, it's a modest law that costs business little--someone takes leave and you give existing workers more hours, or hire a temp--some expense but nothing big. It can't really compare with the robust changes progressives would like to see in future regarding health care, public option and drug reimportation especially, as those two would eat into private concerns' profit margins in a serious way, and they will fight any such proposals like dogs.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

39. I stand corrected

What was it? Assault Weapons Ban? Something like that where Bush was in favor of something you wouldn't have guessed.

Zrrelevant in any case, I suppose. Not enough time in the world to Google all that stuff.

[burning rain]

40. Bush had a modest import restriction on foreign-made...

semi-automatic rifles--but still enough to piss off the NRA and hurt him in 1992. Clinton's "Assault Weapon Ban" in the 1994 Crime Bill went a lot further.

[ipaint]

28. It's a massive money grab.

Those kinds of bills don't get better. Naively people think this is just the beginning with improvements on the way but our owners understand this is the successful end for them. After giving the teabaggers and progressives months of useless busy work the elite are getting ready to wrap up a victory.

And Goldman Sachs opens up a health insurance company as soon as the bill is signed in January. If goldman sachs sees a profit to be made we are most definately fucked.

[dionysus]

33. blah blah blah obama sucks blah blah sellout blah...

[ima_sinnic]

36. I see the ones who can't wait to be robbed are bashing your post

have to agree with poster a little upthread who sees the ruling elite got what they wanted (and they do thank the gullible loyalists who made it all possible for them) so why should it get any "better"? Our "representatives" started from a position of compromise and weakness and caved like wimps to whatever the greedheads demanded, with no discernible resistance, and somehow this is supposed to be "a good starting point." At what point are these ass-lickers going to "make it better"? Why should they? They have everything to gain and nothing to lose from the bill just the way it is: unlimited unregulated profits!

when the hell do we get any actual HEALTH CARE, now that the leeches have a guaranteed, IRS-enforced blood supply?