So Bernie, Sherrod, Al, Barbara, Anthony, Debbie, etc. are all sellouts ?

[RBInMaine]

Let me find the logic here. Those incessantly bashing the HCR bill are willing to say that Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Al Franken, Barbara Boxer, Anthony Wiener, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and many other "progressive" Democrats supporting the bill as a START after a century of trying to get universal coverage are all sellouts who should be challenged in the primaries and removed from office? Unreal. Even Bernie Sanders? It seems many trashing the bill, even before conference and as imperfect as it may be right now, are only seeing the criticisms and not the whole picture that Bernie Sanders and others are somehow seeing. Whom should we trust more on this issue? Hamsher and Huffington, or Bernie Sanders, Anthony Wiener, Barbara Boxer, Sherrod Brown, and Al Franken? Sure, the bill is not all I wish it was. But it seems to be about the best start we can get right now, and this is one "progressive" who thinks we need to actually make some "progress" and that means making a start. We've heard the "This is worse than nothing" arguments, and they don't wash. The ultimate bill WILL pass, Obama and Dems will be rewarded, and the effort deserves a chance. "Kill The Bill" and waiting more decades is NOT "progress." Something close to the Senate version is what is doable NOW. I wish more was doable now, but the reality is that it is not. Still, it IS worth it, and it CAN be improved down the road. I eagerly await the thoughtful replies.

[freddie mertz]

1. We are saying the Senate bill in particular is a bad bill.

We are trying to mobilize an 11th-hour effort to improve it in reconciliation.

Do you oppose that effort?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

2. An effort to improve the bill is totally different from "kill the bill".

Kill the Bill rhetoric doesn't really reflect the reality that starting over from scratch *isn't* going to happen. It took almost a year of rumbling in the Senate to get this far. They aren't going to waste another year on it.

[RBInMaine]

7. Yes, if we can get a few more improvements good. But you are right. Starting from scratch can not

and will not happen. They have come too far. I say get the best we can at this point in time, and then we'll tweak it down the road.

[freddie mertz]

11. Maybe so. But whitewashing and soft-pedaling the the bad parts of the Senate bill

Is not helpful to the ongoing efforts to improve it.

If we had your support, we might improve our chances.

[RBInMaine]

14. We all know very clearly what the votes are in the Senate. That won't change. This is about the

best we can get for now. True, the bill is very far from perfect. I would personally prefer Medicare For All. But this is what we can get now, so I stand with Bernie, Sherrod, and Al. And let's train the fire on the RePUKES where it really belongs. There's a thought too.

[freddie mertz]

16. This is defeatism. and quite frankly, Bernie and Al, bless them, helped get us here.

I have no animus for them, they did what they felt was right, or bowed to pressure of political realities, or both.

As for me, I am not going to surrender an inch in the fight for true reform.

[RBInMaine]

23. Who is saying "surrender"? We join Bernie et al with this START, and then continue to "fight" to

improve it down the road. But we make this START along with Bernie et al. Also, you can "fight for true reform" at your state level as well, and even at the local level. This is no where near the be all end all. I myself will continue to fight for Medicare For All, but that doesn't mean I am a
"KILL THE BILL" person on this. It is one step, and it is worth it. Then we go on to the next steps.

[freddie mertz]

32. How can we expect any further action if we give up and fold NOW?

YES, maybe the fix is in.

YES, Bernie et al have already tossed in the towel at this stage.

But WHY should we expect them to take ANY further action if we suddenly go silent at this crucial stage?

If they know there is active, even fervent support out there for better legislation, this will surely have amore positive impact on future action than a chorus of crickets accompanied by whitewashing "acceptance" of this bad bill.

I don' t understand the strategy of defeatism and surrender.

What has it gotten us in the past? Nothing.

The pukes NEVER give up, and the lobbyists and insurance shills (the real architects of this legislation in the end) won't either.

We need to show some fortitude and commitment.

[POAS]

39. What is the history of Social Security?

Was it a compromise plan in the 1930's that evolved into the plan we have today or was it created with all the benefits like disability and COLA?

[bvar22]

41. Social Security provided a FOUNDATION that we COULD build on.

The Senate Health Care Bill ONLY enshrines the For Profit Health Insurance Cartel AS The Gateway to Health Care in the US.
There is NOTHING to build on.
We WILL have to tear up this foundation to reform Health Care in the US.

[POAS]

43. Using CAPS doesn't make

your THESIS any more PLAUSIBLE.

Facts and history are inconvenient, I know, but the facts are that no major legislation such as Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid or Medicare ever got through in the forms we find them in today. They were all compromises in their original forms.

Those that would try to kill this bill because it is flawed are just plain wrong.

Work to fix it, work to change it and later continue to improve it!

[freddie mertz]

46. Which is what I was arguing.

[bvar22]

47. No. You are wrong here.

Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid, and Medicare ALL established as a FOUNDATION these programs as BASIC RIGHTS protected by The Government and funded from the Public Treasury so that ALL citizens would have equal access.

ANY and ALL adjustments and improvements were possible because this basic foundation was established.

There is NOTHING remotely like this in the Senate Version of HCR.
Some may make the argument that the House version DOES contain a foundation.
They would also be wrong because:

*the "Public Option" in the House version is NOT funded by the Treasury,

*is NOT administered by The Government but a coalition of the For Profits

*and is NOT available to all Americans

It is obscene to try to compare the Democrat's current version of "Health Care Reform" to the triumphs of Medicare and Social Security.
In fact, I fear the seeds for the destruction of Medicare ($500Billion Dollar de-funding) are planted in these new "reforms".

[freddie mertz]

45. Not relevant to my argument, which is a call for activism to continue.

[RBInMaine]

4. Here are more than ten reasons why reconciliation won't happen:

1) Joe Lieberman 2) Max Baucus 3) Arlen Specter 4) Ben Nelson 5) Bill Nelson
6) Blanche Lincoln 7) Mary Landrieu 8) Mark Warner 9) Mark Pryor 10) Evan Bayh

And I could probably add more. Therefore, Harry Reid won't do it. The problem is this is too big a bill and too large an issue to go reconciliation. It is problematic in many ways, least of all in terms of that kind of precedent-setting on something this big. Way too many Senators will not support it on this bill, and Reid is determined to vote out a bill with a 60-Senator mandate. Hey, again, we all agree the Senate version falls short. No one is diputing that. But something close to it is the best we can get. Bernie recognizes that, and I'll stand with Bernie. We need a start, and we can not blow this chance. We have waited too long. There is merit in the insurance reforms, subsidies, and exchanges including non-profit options. Let's give it a chance and tweak it down the road.

[freddie mertz]

8. It is a last stand, to be sure. If we had more support and less defeatism...

...we might have a "sliver" of a chance.

We know that the so-called "progressive" Senators have thrown in the towel.

But if we could hold enough House progressives to the word of the pledge they signed not to vote for a bill without a public option, they could act as a pr-people equivalent of the Senate dirtbags you mention.

Worth a try.

[RBInMaine]

24. What you call "defeatism" I call "political reality at this point in time." Not happy? Try to get

Lieberman et al replaced with the kind of people you would like in those Senate seats. Otherwise, you do the best you can with what you have. This is it. And it is still worth it.

[freddie mertz]

28. Are you sure you really want the legislation to be improved?

I am getting strong "give up and accept it" vibes from you.

[TreasonousBastard]

38. Who's this "we"? Anyone actually have the clout to improve...

the bill who hasn't been heard from already?

(What improvements are possible, anyway?)

[DrDan]

3. so . . . "mandating" a contribution to obscene insurance company profits, under penalty of fines

is "progress"

interesting.

Awaiting a thoughtful defense of this progress.

[RBInMaine]

5. Subsidies. And the fear-mongering about jailing people is hogwash.

[DrDan]

6. please show me where I mentioned "jailing"

and it is a "mandate" on citizens - the citizens are not providing subsidies - that is the role of gov't.

If the mandates included a public option, then perhaps they would be justified.

[RBInMaine]

10. Others ARE talking about jailing. That won't happen. Non-profits/exchanges/co-ops

are what we have the votes for at this time. It is worth giving this a chance right now. Then we can hopefully improve it down the road. But we need to get a bill, and we have come too far to wait any longer. We have waited long enough.

[freddie mertz]

13. I would support organized efforts to resist the mandate, if it came to that.

Beginning with a challenge in the courts, and including civil disobedience.

It is extortion to force the entire populace to buy private health insurance from corrupt and dishonest providers.

[RBInMaine]

19. NEVER gonna happen. Is it happening in Massachusetts? No. What about auto insurance, and MANY other

kinds of insurance mandates (homeowners) etc. which may or may not be subsidized. Your efforts would be futile. There must be a mandate to get everyone in and spread the risk. Subsidies and hardship exemptions trump your resistence.

[freddie mertz]

21. There is a thread about a court challenge under consideration in Florida.

It is being considered by the AG, a miserable and familiar puke named Bill McCollum.

He's a shit, but I support the general notion of a court challenge.

PS. I am from Mass and the rates have just shot up for next year on the Romney plan.

[RBInMaine]

25. The courts will chuck it. Plenty of precedent for mandated insurance.

[freddie mertz]

27. Not of this sort. I think a challenge is at least warranted.

Defeatism be damned.

[Gravel Democrat]

31. You are talking about state mandates. Never before in 233 yrs have the feds

ever mandated a citizen purchase a single thing.

This is as big as it gets, precedent wise.
Surely you won't object when a (R) mandates
the next "critical" thing. Expect it.

When Hillary was trying for mandates in 93 the CBO said this
:
"A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States."

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, THE BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF AN INDIVIDUAL MANDATE TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE, (1994)
available at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/48xx/doc4816/doc38.pdf.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/48553

Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

[freddie mertz]

33. Thanks for the information. Maybe the best way to "kill" the mandates

Is through the courts.

THEN they will HAVE to look at other options....yes?

[DrDan]

18. and others are taliking about not voting for Obama - but I am not accusing you of that

again - "mandates" on citizens to contribute to massive, obscene profits are "progress"?????

[RBInMaine]

20. I didn't "accuse" you of anything. I was pointing out an argument SOME make. Fine, Not you. Happy?

[jgraz]

37. Subsidies == taxpayer bailouts for big insurance.

Can you explain why I'm paying a private, for-profit company to provide too-expensive insurance to poor people rather than paying the government to provide reasonable coverage directly? How does that make even a little sense?

[whistler162]

9. Everyone is a sellout except you and me......

and I am starting to wonder about you.

It is one of the easy diatribes.

[RBInMaine]

12. Well, if only it was a perfect world. But it's not, so as adults we get what we can and then work

to improve it down the road. What we don't do is rant and rave and holler KILLTHEBILL like a child who doesn't get the right dessert. Name ANY piece of major legislation in the last century, and we can argue about how imperfect it was. This is just a start, but one that we need to make. No more waiting.

[freddie mertz]

15. As adults, we can start working now. Reconciliation has not even begun. nt.

And even if this monstrosity passes, I would submit that defending or whitewashing its many faults it is not likely to contribute helpfully to future "improvement" efforts.

[RBInMaine]

17. Reconciliation can't happen because there is not enough support in the Senate for it on this bill.

No one is "whitewashing" anything. All of the progressives supporting the effort have said time and again it is very imperfect and doesn't do all they wish it would. BUT, as Sanders says, simply trashing every aspect of it and chanting KILLTHEBILL is just as wrong. I take the middle ground. Pass it, make a start, and work to improve it down the road if possible. The mandate MUST happen to get everyone in the system and broaden the risk pool. There are subsidies, non profit options, exchanges, and co ops. Let's give it a chance. No one is going to jail over it either. And they are not lined up in the streets in Massachusetts to kill their program, and it has a mandate. Auto insurance, even for the very safest drivers, is mandated, (as are many other kinds of insurances) and no one screeches about that. Let's give this a chance.

[freddie mertz]

22. Sorry, I am going to hold out to the last second.

Wish we had one or two with the stones in the Senate, but that ship has indeed sailed.

Let's see how we can fare in the House.

[RBInMaine]

26. Because of the Senate rules, it will be close to their version. And it WILL pass.

I wish the House version with a public option could pass, but it can't. So, we go with the Senate version. Best we can get now. Then we work to do more later. HCR will be an annual issue from now on.

[freddie mertz]

29. You have just given up.(Like Bernie and Al, I'm afraid)

I haven't.

[change_notfinetuning]

30. I still trust Sanders, Brown, et. al., but I disagree with them on this. The

Democrats have all closed ranks because they don't want the R's to get any boost from beating Obama on this key issue, which they think will lead to disaster in the midterms. They think that when Obama gives his pretty little speech proclaiming this defeat is a great victory (that deform is reform), Americans will be so giddy with delight that they will flock to the polls and vote like they did in 2008. Fat chance.

Besides worrying about the midterms, Democrats also fear that if this bill fails, it will give R's the idea that they are on a roll and can defeat everything else on Obama's agenda, clearly something we all want to prevent. Unfortunately, the flip side is that we give Bill Daley and Rahm Emanuel the idea that they are on a roll, can say "fuck the progressives", and go full throttle ahead on passage of their pro-craporate, pro war agenda and squash everything we were working for, all the while expecting you to come crawling back, tail between your legs, in 2012, because where the fuck else you gonna go? Palin? Pawlenty?

Sorry, I'm in no bigger hurry to let Emanuel think he can do whatever he wants than the Republicans. This was our one chance for real heath care reform, and the guy we bet on - Barack Obama, the Hawaiian Hammer - took a dive. Yes, we were suckers, but suckers deserve an even break, too.

If you party/Obama loyalists, admitting that this deform bill is a piece of shit that will have to be fixed later (good luck), feel comfortable empowering Rahm Emanuel to do whatever the hell he wants to do from now on, if this is what blows air up your skirt, then don your tutu and go for it. At least now you'll be dressed for all that spinning.

[freddie mertz]

34. Ouch! Couldn't have said it better.

Defeatism never leads to victories.

[jgraz]

36. Bookmarked. Awesome reply.

:thumbsup:

[cry baby]

35. I'm waiting to see what these very people say about what comes out of conference.

I'll follow their lead...I have always trusted them.

on edit, I recommended your thread because you make sense, but it didn't get you out of the negative...sry!

[grahamhgreen]

40. If the bill passes, tirllions will go to big insurance to crush any real reform - it's a no-brainer

It must have a public option, or no mandate.

[bvar22]

42. Is this the NEW talking point?

I didn't get my fax from the White House Message Discipline Program this morning,
and I need someone to tell me what to support or oppose today.

Thanks!

[TheKentuckian]

44. Why do people have to be sell outs because they either believe wrongly or have been beaten

and have to take what they can?

This would be less contentious if bill supporters would at least stop whitewashing the many bad elements of the bill in an effort toward a unified front. Painting the bill as good negates much of the pressing need to fix it, if nothing else.

On this lame path we'll be playing the game of waiting the three years for implementation, then we'll be told to give it a chance to work out the kinks, then we'll need time to study on what can be done, and then another legislative slog to make some changes which of course must be re-compromised and on and on.

This doesn't get us where we want to be any quicker than letting this bide for a time, allowing the corrupt system to spread more pain which will finally kick morons in their ass to get behind doing something effective, reasonably fair, and good for the people. Probably, in a faster time frame than getting this profitcare mitigated into something akin to sane policy, even if it has to be wholly market based. I don't get why people can't see that this fails at reform regardless of any ideology save corporatism.

I'm not a true kill biller because I realize their are ramifications as far as electoral politics and probably making a broken Senate even less functional but it'd be a bold faced lie to pretend that I wouldn't feel like a bullet was missed if this turkey goes down and I will call for it to be defeated if the exchanges come out state based rather than national because then it will be more than clear that there isn't enough foundation to build on, meaning the effort has failed completely.

Without at least a national exchange and getting rid of the Max Tax, the bill is literally fucking stupid at this point and you can't FIX stupid. You don't build off a foundation built on quicksand.