I'm sorry, but why on earth are some of these House "no" votes even Democrats?!

[liberalpragmatist]

Seriously. Look, as my name implies, I'm a pretty pragmatic guy. I understand that politics and legislating always requires compromise. I understand that we have lots of Democrats serving in somewhat unfriendly districts. I realize there are genuine differences of opinion among Democrats; we have a big tent and a capacity for internal dissent that is much greater than the Republicans have. And I realize that on many issues - even some major ones - there needs to be some leeway, given that diversity.

But this is different. Health care has been central to the Democratic platform for decades. It has been the central, remaining goal of the Democratic Party since before any single member of Congress was even serving.

Why the fuck are these people even Democrats if they're going to vote against health care? What did they expect to be voting for? What made them decide to become a Democrat if not health care? There's absolutely no reason that this - health care should be coming down to the wire. And frankly, if both Allen Boyd (Blue Dog co-chair) and Dennis Kucinich can back this bill, there is not a single Democratic member of the House who shouldn't be able to do the same. Even allowing for a *few* no votes from particularly vulnerable districts (like Chet Edwards'), nearly all the remaining House Dems should vote for this.

I think Pelosi probably has the votes. And worst case scenario, if she doesn't, she'll probably delay the vote at the last minute until she has them.

But that this thing is coming down to the wire is inexcusable. There are a lot of useless Democrats in Congress.

[LeftyAndProud60]

1. Been wondering this for a while. Useless. They should either become republicans or just resign. nt

[Kalun D]

2. BECAUSE

THIS IS NOT REAL HEALTH CARE REFORM

"There are a lot of useless Democrats in Congress."

you got that right, they are almost all useless, you can't even really call them democrats, they are corporatists.

[Zynx]

3. When I compared the quality of Democrat voting for this to the quality of those

voting against it, something does not add up in your statement. You better think this one through.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Telly Savalas]

25. I thought Kucinich and Dean supported passage of the bill.

But I guess pointing that out constitutes an ad hominem attack on you.

[Kalun D]

39. Browbeating by the Corporate Majority

Kucinich and Dean etc are voices in the wilderness, a finger in the dike of corporate corruption

they can only hold out so long before it becomes hopeless, and who knows what kind of threats/coercion they have been enduring BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.

they did not support the bill initially, they support it now only with obvious reservations. It is not at all what any true progressive wants.

If you think what you just posted is an ad-hominem attack you have absolutely no clue of the definition.

[Zynx]

27. Nearly all of the good progressives in the House and Senate are voting for this bill

including Kucinich and DeFazio. The Democrats voting against it are overwhelmingly much bigger corporate whores than Pelosi or Reid. You best think again.

[Kalun D]

40. This is a Corporate Whore Bill

Kucinich et al have been browbeaten into submission by the corporate majority

the dems voting against are probably doing it out of survival in a purple state/district

dems/repugs is a false dichotomy in large measure, just like Pro wrestling, it's a duopoly.

the real fight is between the working class, represented by a very small minority of true progressives and true conservatives,

and the large majority of repugs AND dems that are completely sold out to the corporations.

[HughMoran]

13. klunk

[treestar]

38. that doesn't explain Blue Dogs, they would vote for it, then

sorry but you are trying to hijack the OPs thread with inaccuracy.

Kooch is voting for it. The far left is voting for it.

[Ozymanithrax]

4. Because there are only two parties in this country...

In a country where you had more parties, these people might be in a center right,centrist, or center left party. But here, there can be only two. Because of that parties are more like coalitions than a strict political party.

Remember when Republicans became purists and started driving all the centrists out. That drive for party purity created opportunity for moderates who took the label of Democrat.

[liberalpragmatist]

6. There is nothing "immoderate" about this bill

If anything, that's why so many liberals are half-hearted about it. Conservative Democrats have no excuses on this one.

I am not a purist. But health care is a central, defining issue for Democrats. There is no compelling reason why so many so-called "centrist" Democrats cannot support this bill. They're cowards and fools.

[Ozymanithrax]

7. It is funny, because the consevatvie Democrast ar the onse opposed to it...

just like their GOP buddies.

[mkultra]

37. and the insurance industry plants.

[last_texas_dem]

43. Good point

In most cases, I think the opposition of conservative Democrats at this point has more to do with politics than policy. The bill is far more "moderate" than it is "liberal," and should logically be a policy that the vast majority of "moderate" to conservative Democrats should have no problem supporting. (And it's likely that most of them *do* support the bill, privately.) However, I think most of them are making the calculation that fending off the attacks of Republican interest groups and future Republican opponents, who will characterize the bill as "liberal," "socialist," "Obamacare," etc., in districts where none of those characterization would be popular, should they cast as a "yes" vote, would be more difficult than supporting policies that would likely benefit their districts and that they personally agree with. Why they don't see that the Republicans are going to be just as nasty towards them and they are going to have just as difficult of a time holding on to their districts regardless of the votes they cast I'm not sure, but many Democrats seem to never learn to *not* play defense at all times.

[LibDemAlways]

8. Some of them are thinking about November and the

non-stop bashing they are going to receive from their Republican opponents on the topic of the mandate, which will prove to be as popular as a turd in the punch bowl. I suspect they are weighing whether or not they want to have to constantly defend their vote when people ask, "Where's the public option?"

[liberalpragmatist]

9. Mandates may be unpopular...

... but they're an essential component of any universal health care program, whether public OR private. And despite some progressive fantasies, there wasn't some massive block of moderate or conservative voters who were fine with the mandate so long as their was a public option. Mandates would be unpopular with right-leaning voters at the outset whether there was a public option or not.

[LibDemAlways]

26. The mandate will be unpopular with voters across the spectrum. Agreed

that people on the right will hate it. Period. More moderate voters would likely be more willing to accept it if there were a public option. Forcing people to buy private insurance without some sort of public option is a huge (IMO) mistake and will dog the Dems in November. The WH is advertising this bill as providing health care to 30 million people. When the public learns that's BS and all they are being provided with is a mandate to buy private insurance from a bunch of crooks three years from now, I think more than a few people are going to feel like they've been had.

[jeanpalmer]

41. They're worried not only about mandates

but about a lot of things in this bill, like taking ~$500 billion from Medicare, cutting Medicare payments to providers which essentially will undermine Medicare. And also raising taxes. And also about the real possibility that this bill will increase overall health care costs and insurance premiums. And that it does little to reduce overall costs. And that it creates a huge bureaucracy. And that it will increase the deficit. It's really not an improvement and it's not worth voting for.

[liberalpragmatist]

46. $500 billion from Medicare ADVANTAGE

Which is blatant corporate welfare in which we're subsidizing insurers to offer the same benefits Medicare offers, but at a higher cost. It does not create a huge bureaucracy, and it doesn't increase the deficit. Stop with the right-wing talking points.

[msongs]

10. alan grayson's medicare for all bill is still available for a vote I hear nt

[salguine]

11. You still haven't grasped the fact that this bill has nothing to do with health care and

everything to do with health INSURANCE. And they aren't even remotely close to the same thing. Having health insurance, the way it's administered in our country, not only isn't a guarantee you'll get care, but in many cases you stand a better than even chance of being denied care even with insurance. Three-fourths of all the medical-bill bankruptcies last year were of people who HAD INSURANCE.

When are you people going to see that difference? WHEN? That's why this bill is such a travesty.

[liberalpragmatist]

12. This bill eliminates medical bankruptcies

It eliminates lifetime caps and rescission.

[provis99]

14. you sure are woefully misinformed.

The bill does NOTHING to stop or even slow medical bankruptcies. In fact, the CBO expects medical bankruptcies to increase towards 2019. It does not eliminate lifetime caps, since insurers can drop you as you approach the cap they set internally (ie. they have a cap, but don't tell you what it is). Thirdly, it does nothing to eliminate rescission. In fact, insurance companies can now drop you for medical "fraud" (as they define it) ie. they can drop you for any reason, as long as they can say a form wasn't filled out properly, or you had an illness you hadn't disclosed, or you used too much of their money. etc. It's in the bill.

But we are forced to subsidize and buy private insurance at penalty of fines or prison, so if you consider that a plus, then the bill is a step forward.

[liberalpragmatist]

17. ...

Insurers cannot drop you for not reporting a medical condition and claim fraud because they cannot ask you any medical condition because of guaranteed issue. I would be interested in seeing a source about the medical bankruptcies increasing towards 2019 if you have one. However, all annual caps and lifetime caps are completely eliminated by 2014.

And no, you cannot go to prison for not buying health insurance because the IRS is banned from assessing tax evasion for people who don't pay the bill. The dirty little secret is that the mandate is cosmetic; you suffer no actually penalty for not purchasing insurance AND not paying the fine.

[depakid]

24. The author of the Harvard medical bankruptcy studies notes that the rates would not diminish

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. I’m Steffie Woolhandler. I am a primary care doctor in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and professor of medicine at Harvard. I am also senior author of two studies on medical causes of bankruptcy, one published in Health Affairs in 2005, and the latest in the August 2009 issue of the American Journal of Medicine. Both studies were done in collaboration with colleagues at Harvard Law School and Ohio University.

In our most recent study, medical bills and illness contributed to 62.1 percent of all personal bankruptcies. Between 2001 and 2007, the proportion of all bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 49.6 percent. The striking conclusion from our study is that private health insurance is a defective product that leaves millions of middle-class families vulnerable to financial ruin. Unfortunately, the health reform plan now under consideration in the House would do little to address this grave problem.

We found that most of the medical bankruptcy were middle class — before their financial crisis hit. Two-thirds were homeowners and three-fifths had gone to college. In many cases, high medical bills were part of a cascade of problems that resulted from illness, along with lost income as illness forced a breadwinner to lose time from work. Often illness led to job loss, and with it the loss of health insurance.

The overwhelming majority of those bankrupted by illness in our study had health insurance. Seventy-eight percent were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness; 60.3 percent who had private coverage. These families had done everything right. They worked hard, paid their premiums and thought they were covered. Yet when illness hit they found themselves unprotected, ruined by co-payments, deductibles and bills for uncovered services like home care and physical therapy. Medically bankrupt families with private insurance ran up uncovered medical bills that averaged $17,749.

Our study raises a warning flag that leaving most Americans to rely on private insurance plans means leaving them unprotected...

...In Massachusetts, we have three years of experience with the kind of plan the House is now debating, and it’s a sad experience. Reform hasn’t made care affordable for the middle class, and it has decimated the safety net that the poor continue to rely on. In 2007, only 5.4 percent of Massachusetts were uninsured — the lowest in the nation. Yet, medical problems underlay 3 out of 5 bankruptcies — the same proportion as in the rest of the country.

In our state, failure to buy insurance is illegal, punishable by a $1,000 fine — as big a fine as for beating your wife or making a terrorist threat. For a middle-income 56-year-old, the cheapest coverage available through the Connector — the state’s insurance exchange — costs $4,900 for a policy with a $2,000 deductible before it pays for any care, and a 20 percent co-payment after that. A diabetic with such coverage is almost certain to lay out $10,000 each year for medical care. In two years he’d accumulate $20,000 in medical bills — more than the amount that bankrupted the average family in our study. This kind of insurance — sold with the stamp of approval of the Connector — is a cruel joke which Congress should not repeat.

More: http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/july/testimony_of_steffie.php

[jeanpalmer]

42. Private health insurance is a dinosaur

It was on the verge of extinction, the system was about to implode. Obama is rescuing it, and entrenching it. He's going to ensure its survival beyond its normal life expectancy. And in the process, extinguish any chance we had of getting real reform (single payer).

[golfguru]

15. Duh..they are in repug districts and want to get elected again?

[Oregone]

16. "if they're going to vote against health care"

Health care? You mean mandated private for-profit insurance, right?

Regardless, everyone and their dog HATED the Senate bill when it was first released. So now you are question why these people are Democrats if they vote against it?


You know, there was a time when it would be surprising when Democrats would vote for this bill...that time is gone, but have some perspective.

[liberalpragmatist]

18. Look, I know you don't like this bill

And I know I'm not going to convince you. Yes, I would prefer single-payer. But when we have a system where 50 million Americans have NO health care, then yes, private insurance is far better than nothing. Plenty of countries rely on purely private systems and do fine. Members of Congress - who receive gold-plated benefits - all use regulated, private plans. And the bills actually dump all members of Congress and their staff into the exchanges and out of the Federal Employees' Health Benefits Program.

The bills also don't preclude states from setting up their own public options and although there is, admittedly, some dispute over ERISA provisions, Sanders' state waivers provision could permit state single payer.

And look, if we had passed this plan in '94, where would be today? We could be working to improve the program, add a public option, put in place greater cost controls, etc., instead of doing the basic things we're trying to achieve this time around.

[Oregone]

19. Pass it in 94?

Huh? You mean the Democrats should of folded and passed the Republicans plan then? Is that what you are trying to say?

[liberalpragmatist]

20. I'm saying that a first step is a first step

And yes, I realize this plan bears a lot of resemblance to the Chafee plan of '94. What I'm saying is that had even THAT passed - and, from what you've said, you wouldn't have supported the Clinton plan either with its mandates for private insurance - we'd be debating ways to improve the system today, not starting completely from scratch.

Moreover, what do you plan to do in the interim if single-payer can't pass? Just let the system get worse and worse, let more and more people go without access to, at the very least, health insurance, until the whole system collapses? What is your backup plan if single-payer doesn't have the votes? We cannot afford to go another 10-20 years without doing this. All that will guarantee is that we'll still be debating pre-existing conditions and rescissions, still arguing about lifetime caps, and everything else. And along the way, millions MORE won't have any insurance or access to health care.

I don't feel like debating this yet again, because I know you aren't going to budge on this, so I'll let you have the last word.

[Oregone]

23. A first step to where?

A step that institutionalizes non-egalitarian private inefficient multi-tiered insurance.

What is the idealogical goal this is a first step to? Where is the road map? What idealogical foundation was this reform started upon?

This has been the constant narrative since summer, but not one person has adequately tried to answer this query. No one wants to face the fact that the "post-partisan" Third Way approach is not guaranteed to produce a beneficial result in their favor over a large span of time. Its just a directionless step in an attempt to make everyone happy at once, with an emphasis on the concerns of private industry.

[Telly Savalas]

29. Institutionalizes?

So you're suggesting that the current structure is transitory and would eventually dissolve if it were not for the Health Care Reform bill? That's a very interesting theory. My perception is that the the current system is already institutionalized and that shy of a revolutionary transformation, the only changes that can occur will be within this institutionalized framework. If you feel to the contrary that significant changes are possible outside this framework, then wouldn't it make sense for you to move back to the States and actually participate in realizing these changes?

The constant narrative here since summer has been that Washington is hopelessly corrupted by money but that we should be astonished and dismayed by anyone behaving in a manner consistent with someone trying to win a few chips in a game where the deck is stacked.

This bill for all its faults makes health care more affordable and accessible for millions of Americans, a point which is conceded by most of its critics. If a superior alternative is readily attainable then why haven't you pointed out a constructive course of action towards realizing it? Getting on the internet and smugly shitting on everything doesn't really accomplish much, does it?

You have the luxury of ideological purity because you don't have to live with the results of the political strategy for which you advocate. Those of us who actually live in the United States do.

[Oregone]

34. Is the current structure not unsustainable?

It would seem that has been accepted as a priori by almost every side in this debate. How can something be unsustainable, but yet permanent?


"You have the luxury of ideological purity because you don't have to live with the results of the political strategy for which you advocate. Those of us who actually live in the United States do."

I also have something called "perspective". Being less emotionally involved and not so influenced by a constant barrage of media does help me to be somewhat more objective.

[Whisp]

22. can't figure it either, to compare... how many repugs act all liberal like...

it just doesn't work that way on the other side. They stick together like the shits they are to a blanket.

but dems, all over the fucking place. some call this a good thing, a big tent, yada yada, but in the end, it fucking stinks when you come to having to get shit done.

[ellie]

28. Marcy Fucking Kaptur

is one of those no votes because of abortion. I had no idea she was a religious zealot. The area she represents includes Toledo, which is ninth in the nation for poverty. That's right, ninth. It isn't even a big city. So, this area is poor and needs help and she is quibbling over settled law, in both Roe v. Wade and the Hyde Amendment. One legalizes abortion and the other says no federal funds can pay for it. But that isn't good enough for her. I don't know how she can say she is for the working people of Toledo when she holds such contrary views. And she coasts to victory here. I hope her worthless ass is primaried.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

30. Take Lipinski.

Please.

The guy is a pathetic, useless conservadem. I plan to work on defeating him somehow.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. Wow. According to DU for the last two weeks only Kucinich

had any criticism coming. Kucinich who is voting yes. So many posts claiming he was not going to, calling for 'setting up tables' to oppose him, although it is too late to primary him, so they were suggesting opposing the only Democrat.
And none of them spoke of any others who were planning on actually voting no. Those who are going to vote no were given a pass, it seems. While Kucinich was subjected to an endless attack by a pile on squadron.
And you claim now that other Democrats are voting no, while Kucinich is a yes? Where are all the threads attacking those members, suggesting primary or even as they did with Dennis, favoring the Republican?
All those seams burst over Dennis. Not one seam burst over the actual no voters. Seems to me, that whole things was about attacking Kucinich, not no voters. They claimed he was the only deciding no vote. They said he stood alone. They lied.

[BklnDem75]

47. Get over it

Kucinich asked for the fire and he got it. Those who vote no now will be treated no differently. The only difference is they didn't jump in front of the camera to do it.

[olegramps]

32. It is way pass time that these DINOs be targeted in the primaries.

These worthless bastards clearly demonstrate that their only concern is to feed at the public trough. They have absolutely no moral principles when they claim to be Democrats and oppose the very platform of the party. Stupak is a prime example of a worthless bishop ass kisser that claims to be a Democrat in order to get elected and then throws in with the Republican Tea-bagging assholes. It is far pass time to rescind the tax exempt status of any church that attempts to impose their nitwit beliefs on the entirety of society.

[Thrill]

33. This has been a problem with the party forever

They never stick together. Unlike Repukes, who would walk in lockstep on this.

[Gin]

35. according to the paper..Glenn Nye is a NO....well..kiss your

cushy congress job goodbye Nye...you had my one vote and that is it. His NO vote is all about job security..calls and letters didn't sway him.

Bye Nye

[Kalun D]

44. That doesn't make any sense

What do you mean by "job security"?

If he's afraid of job security then that would be what his constituents think, but you say that hasn't swayed him?

do you know the numbers on what his voters think?

are you sure he's not voting on principal? Because this bill is mostly a corporate giveaway.

[Bryn]

36. Maybe it's because democrats can think for themselves?

Repukes are like Stepford wives, all alike, same talking points as if microchips were inplanted in their brains!

[Donnachaidh]

45. you'd think with some of these nonsense postings the Dems should have a purity test

After all, why should their be any room for dissent in the Dem party? The reublicans can get their ducks in a row quicker -- why don't we emulate THEM? :sarcasm:

Gee -- didn't know the Dem party has become as black or white as the pukes. :puke:

[Tailormyst]

48. This is democracy

If every politician voted in lockstep with their party, what would ever be the point of having votes?