Notes From The Realistic Wing Of The Progressive Wing

[RBInMaine]

I am a progressive. I support the ideal of Medicare for all. I support a woman's right to choose.
I support equal opportunity employment. I support a living minimum wage. I am a union member and support card check. I support serious trade reform. I support serious environmental laws.
I support the right of choice in marriage. I opposed the Iraq War and have marched against it.
I have worked tiressly on numerous political and pro-progressive electoral campaigns. I could go on and on.

But I am also a student of history and a realist who has sat upon many boards and committees and has served in various kinds of leadership positions. Our nation is founded upon compromise and the art of what is possible at a given time and given numerous variables. Change usually happens slowly and incrementally. This is the real world. This is life.

Regarding the above, as a realist I know that there must be reasonable limitations on choice. As a realist we do the best we can on a minimum wage, even though at present it is not really enough. Card check is tough to get passed, but we try and keep trying even if we fail. If not card check, then other measures. Gay marriage can not pass in statewide elections as of yet. Therefore the focus should be civil unions. The oil companies have huge power, but we keep working on alternative energy and products at all levels, even if they emerge very slowly. Iraq is being wound down, and in the meantime we support the troops and veterans and continue to stand up the Iraqi army and government so we can transition to them. Afghanistan, which was neglected due to Iraq, is now finally being handled in the right, balanced way as clearly promised in the campaign.

And on healthcare, while if I had my magic wand I'd waive it and create Medicare for all, I can't. So I can either scream and yell and bitch and moan and say "kill the bill" which would only help the evil R's derail any effort for however many more decades, or I can remain a realistic progressive and get what I can under current circumstances while keeping my eye on the bigger picture: that this is just a START as with all STARTS in our history. It is a FOUNDATION for much more work to come. -- Should we not have declared independence because all people were not really equal? Should we not have freed the slaves because it didn't also have the civil and voting rights acts? Should we not have passed minimum wage because it wasn't really enough of a wage? Should we not have passed Medicare because it didn't include everyone? Should we not have passed the GI Bill because it wasn't enough to pay the entire amount of tuition at all colleges and could be used at private schools, a "giveaway" to the private sector? This healthcare effort comes after 100 or so years of trying. It would be very, very foolish to throw it away even with its imperfections because we are at a moment where we can achieve something, and it would likely not arise again for a very long time.
I understand the disappointment and frustration among some progressives, but I also know that many of us become equally frustrated with those for whom it is "all or nothing." There are many good reforms in this bill, and it is a START. Just a START. Let's give it a chance, and we can continue to work on it further down the road. This is reality.

To the "kill the bill" folks I would also add, no, Kucinich will never, ever, ever, be president so you might as well stop wasting your energy on that pipe dream too. Please consider that. Please consider reality in all things. And for those who haven't, please consider getting directly involved in government or other leadership capacities. Then you'll see what the real world is like and what needs to be done to get things done, that is, if you are actually interested in getting ANYTHING actually DONE.

[Armstead]

1. Here;s some "realism" for you...

IF THIS BILL really was an "incremental" improvement and DID NOT CONTAIN THE POISON PILL OF MANDATES, us "non-realists" could accept it.

This bill is not a small step in the right direction." It is going in the wrong discretion and deliberately UNDFERMINES any future efforts to have anything other than continued uncontrolled private insurance dominance

It is building the WRONG foundation by refusing to even put in any form of public coverage program, and forcing people to buy private insurance with no real price controls.

"Subsidies" are a fig leaf that will siphon money from the treasury into private greedy hands, and an ineffecient use of public resources.

[RBInMaine]

2. But it can PASS. And what you want CAN'T. (And there are some good provisions.)

[Armstead]

4. You are missing my point

yes there some good things in the bill.

But the fundamental structure locks us into the status quo, and prevents any possibility of actual improvements down the line.

As I said above, if the issue was how much reform were enactred now,I could accept something with a very low bar.

But THIS BILL IS DESTRUCTIVE. It does more harm than good. It will make it impossible to get anything else in the future, by its very nature. It embeds a bad system with mandates that force people to buy private insurance. We can't ever come back and expand Medicare or offer anything better.

[RBInMaine]

8. Why does it "permantly" lock us in?

[Armstead]

29. How often do such major policies ever get cghanged once in place?

The logical solution would be expansion of Medicare or some other kind of public coverage program. If that cannot be done now, at least do not make it harder to do that in the future.

Once this bill establishes a system that requires people to buy private insurance it will become embeded in the system. It will deliberately preclude any effort in the future to expand eligibility for Medicare or similar improvements that offer peopel a better way.

The mandates we are putting in place now will also poison people's attitudes against universal coverage because they will be so resentful against any form of government involvement as they recall being forced to buy private insurance, which will continue to become more expensive.

If the goal is to build a foundation for further improvements, we shouldn't be building a bad foundation that underminbes that goal now.

[Bullet1987]

78. The willingness of so many people to bend over and accept

this legislation says something very sad about the state of our country. Especially when many of the people who KNOW the bill of garbage STILL accept it...what sense does that make? That's insanity.

[area51]

83. +1 (n/t)

[IndianaGreen]

3. Your 'realistic' wing went along with NAFTA and Iraq War Resolution

to name two flops we had to swallow.

[griffi94]

6. and the patriot act

[RBInMaine]

7. Sure, and I too was very disappointed. Can't turn back the clock though. This is about now, and we

have a chance to make a start. The insurance reforms, subsidies, and exchange provisions are worthy beginnings. I think too many people aren't seeing the whole picture.

[IndianaGreen]

9. and the 'we' has zero credibility and a losing track record

It's about time you all start listening to the principled progressive wing of the party.

[Tippy]

42. Problem is we don't have enough true progressives to get the job done...

[Armstead]

10. NAFTA was supposed to be a "start" too

That one turned out really well.

I pretty much guarantee you that 10 years from now people will be saying "Why the hell did we pass that stupid healthcare bill that made the insurance companies even more powerful, and allowed prices to rise even higher?"

[Politicub]

16. But allowed more people to be covered by Medicaid

And provided subsidies to people to buy insurance, and made the notion of pre-existing conditions a thing of the past?

My, what a terrible time that will be, right?

[Armstead]

17. Medicaid could be expanded without the other crap

Howard Dean was correct.

Democrats should pass the stuff that is good for people, and take out the things that are worse than the current system.

[Politicub]

33. Hate to break it to you, but Howard Dean isn't some kind of cosmic, infallible health care sage

Do you not think we understand that it would be nice to have medicaid or medicare instantly expanded?

But it isn't in the cards anytime soon. Why not bundle some things that will help others with the expansion of medicaid, which this bill does.

Democrats "should" do a lot of things, but we have a bicameral legislative system, and it doesn't work as some perfectly ordered machine. Never has, never will.

This is like beating my head against the wall. Howard Dean isn't some kind of modern health care Einstein. He has his opinion, and the progressives in congress have another.

Please read about the bicameral system of government here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism

And then come back to me and tell me how it would make a dimes worth of difference if Dean, Kucinich, Ghandi, or any of the liberals you completely agree with would change how our government is run?

[Armstead]

57. He is not a sage but his suggestion makes sense

Why not focus the bill on the things that most people could agree on now and do some good now.

If the real solutions are not possible now, why not start working on those without an artificial deadline, build the neceessary support and consensus and then come back with something that makes sense?

Instead, this is the key point, there are some poison pills inn the present bill that is going to HARM and may make it impossible to the kind of things that MOST PEOPLE WANT which is some version of an expansion of Medicare.

[pocoloco]

48. I didn't realize that the Progressives had a Wimp wing......

until now.

[harmonicon]

82. "Progressives" only have one wing: it is imaginary, and it doesn't flap, it sucks.

The term is completely meaningless, and if it ever had meaning, that was gone as soon as H. Clinton decided to label herself as one a few years ago.

[Politicub]

14. Please - this is not NAFTA or a war resolution

Do you honestly equate those bills with this legislation?

If you've gone that far down the rabbit hole, I doubt there is any argument that will convince you that this imperfect bill from our imperfect system will relieve suffering for millions.

But, if it isn't perfect, let's throw the baby out with the bathwater, right?

There is a mob mentality that has fomented on DU, and I hope we are able to move past it.

[IndianaGreen]

19. it is the same sales pitch for the same kind of bullshit legislation

from the same cast of characters.

[RBInMaine]

28. Not happy? Go run for office yourself. Go legislate something yourself. Step up.

[Armstead]

21. The same arguments and non-cfritical acceptance of crap swas being pushed

This is not a matter of perfect being enemy of good.

It is good versus bad -- and this bill has bad stuff that will hurt people more than help them.

[Politicub]

25. Prove it

What is your evidence. I continue to post what reforms this bill has that will help people. Show me the evidence that it will reduce the number of insured. And opinions do not count.

It will not cause ONE person to lose their current insurance. It only expands the number of people with some type of medical coverage - Medicaid, subsidized private insurance, catastrophic health care plans if you want it.

[RBInMaine]

31. Thanks you ! The naysayers are seeing only what they want to see, not the whole picture.

[Armstead]

41. Don't be so rigid

In my opinion YOU are refusing to take a step back and look at the whole picture.

It's basic that when people disagree, each thinks they are right and the other is wrong.

Using that as the only point to debate is useless.

Reply to my contentions on their own content.

Tell me how forcing people to buy insurance they cannot afford is helpful to the real improvements you claim you would like to see.

I believe portions of this bill will do more harm than good,. Tell me why it will do more good. Don't just whine about "realism."

[Armstead]

37. I will quote President Obama

"Using mandates to improve access to coverage is like trying to solve homelessness by telling gthe homeless thathave to buy a house."

That was the old Obama.

You explain to me how telling someone who can't afford insurance that they have to buy private insurance is helping them? yes there will be subsidies, but they will not close the gap for many people and will become meaningless as insurance companies continue to boost their rates.

It will also poison the attitudes of the public against any government role in health care. It will make it impossible to build support for the only legitimate for of mandate, which would be a public health program (i.e. expanded access to Medicare and/or a public option.)

Pass the good stuff. Set aside the things that further entrench the insurance industry and take the time to actually do it right.

[RBInMaine]

30. Like ending pre-existing conditions, subsidies, a health exchange, ...?

[Politicub]

34. I'm waiting for someone to prove it - prove how it will harm more than it will help

And I mean evidence, please. Not just opinion.

[Armstead]

43. How about evidence that mandates will help? -- Not just the good trhings we agree on

Just put yourself in the position of someone whose budget is already totally taken up with the basics. There is nothing more for insurance. And yet they are now forced to pay whatever the insurance companies decide to charge. Even with "subsidies" it will not cover the entire cost...And they make just enough that they do not qualify for Medicaid.

Now move up a notch on the economic ladder. Someone who has insurance, but the price is killing them. They make too much for subsidies, and the insurance company keeps jacking up their rates. They do not have any options, and they know that the government will not allow them to drop their coverage. They don't want to drop it, but they may have no choice. But the government has locked them in a shitty situation.

These are improvcements?

These are gong to make the general public want to support any further involvement by government in healthcare, after it has held a gun to their head with this travesty.

Theerefore real changes that would help, like expanding Medicare, will become politically impossible -- NOT more likely.

[Politicub]

46. The ranks of the insured or covered will grow - this is the gist of my argument

It won't grow for everyone, but more individuals will be covered due to medicaid expansion, subsidies for private insurance and abolishment of pre-existing condition clauses, and people with insurance from their employer or whatnot today will not lose coverage

Therefore, the net number of people with health care coverage expands. Yes, mandates are a negative part of this bill. But, I'm making my argument based on the expansion of the number of individuals or families who will be insured or have access to some type of coverage. Not that some will be inconvenienced by mandates and some will be morally opposed to them, even though paying your federal taxes is a mandate, too. And yes, I do wish this bill aimed for the full monty of single payer, but the bill is a product of our bicameral system and is what the committee made it out to be.

[Armstead]

53. It is possible to do those things without mandates

[RBInMaine]

24. Very well said. There is the ideal, and then there is political reality. In the U.S. we MUST

compromise.

[Armstead]

44. Going against your actual goals is not compromise.

This pushes true universal care further away.

[high density]

5. What pisses me off is the free pass that Republicans are getting on blocking it

There's a lot of focus on Lieberman and Nelson, but they wouldn't matter if the Repukes were not marching in lockstep to their tune of "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO"

I remember the cries in the media for up or down votes when the Democrats were attempting to slow down the process, yet these same voices are now cheering on the blockage by the Republicans.

[Armstead]

12. The GOP is just doing its job -- We should be doing ours instead of theirs

They wantr to block any form of government role in healthcare, and keep us at the mwercy of "free market" health insurance.

Unfortunately, the Democrats are accomplishing the same thing with this bill. Only the trimmings are different.

[JamesA1102]

18. Blame the MSM.

They've been giving the GOP a free pass all year.

[Kahuna]

45. This is true. Every time the m$m fails to present the known truth which

is always the opposite of what the repukes are spewing it, they are in essence vouching for their dishonest representations. The viewers, think, if it's not so, the media would point it out. Sadly, they do not. Even the Prez has pointed this out on a few occasions.

[Politicub]

11. I stand with you - I believe this bill is a foundation on which to improve

There has been nothing perfect from our congress. It is essentially a committee, and the nature of committees is that they reflect a wide swath of opinion of the members.

It saddens me that so many DUers have started advocating to "kill the bill." Do they not understand that this legislation will affect millions in a positive way? Yes, there are things that many of us don't like about it. But there is never EVER going to be a perfect bill.

And even if Kucinich were to become president, he can only sign bills that are put before him.

There are amazing reforms in this bill. Medicaid being expanded, elimination of pre-existing condition clauses, subsidies for people, etc. etc. etc. Yes, there are problems too. But every bill has them.

I sometimes wonder if the kill the bill people are lucky enough to be insured or who have never had to go through the horror of being at the mercy of the hospital when you go through the emergency room without insurance. I lived this with my family when my father had emergency surgery and 18 or 19 year old me went to the business office with my mother and signed a lien over on the property and home. The hospital made us do this, and when a loved one is in the hospital bed, it's difficult to make rational decisions and explore all options. Had my dad not gotten assistance from the state, they would have lost everything or would have needed to go bankrupt. It was a horrific time, and it was one of those things that hit me at my core and has shaped who I am today.

I hope this bill passes for the sake of people it will help. And then, like social security, it will be improved over time.

[Armstead]

15. How is forcing people to buy insurance they can't afford helping them?

Subsidies only cover part of it, and will be meaningless as prices continue to rise in the future.

[Politicub]

22. I don't know. But I do know this bill has some positive reforms

There are multiple regulations that will govern the insurance industry, and those will have an effect, too. It tightens insurance regulation, not liberalize it.

Answer me this, what do you want from this bill? Eliminate insurance companies? And if you do, honestly, do you think that will happen any time soon from congress?

Maybe I'm just thick, but I do not get the kill the bill argument, unless it's from the perspective of let's fuck over people until something perfect comes along that *I* can agree with. You know what? There will NEVER NEVER NEVER be a perfect bill. No matter if Kucinich were president, no matter if most members of congress labeled themselves as progressive, or Howard Dean himself was invited to draft a bill.

[RBInMaine]

35. VERY WELL SAID ! For some it is either Medicare for all or nothing. ZERO reality/compromise. Like

trying to talk reason with a Teabagger.

[Politicub]

38. Another outlet that pits opinion against fact is Fox News

And if you place your trust solely in opinion, then the factual argument will not sway you.

It just dawned on me that this why this debate on DU isn't going anywhere. People post facts about what the bill will do, and most are honest about the parts of it that are negative.

But then the counter argument is nothing more than an opinion, or parroting of some else's opinion (Dean), to try to assert this bill is so evil it needs to be killed.

So prove it, bill killers. I'll keep posting that. Let's discuss the bill using facts.

[Armstead]

52. That is bullshit -- Most are not demanding anything like that and you know itr

You claim to be a rational "realist" but you just spout off your own cliches and derisive nonsense that characterizes the position of many of us.

[griffi94]

39. a bill that mandates

people buy health insurance from private for profit companies will certainly fuck over more people than it helps.
the insurance lobby will either kill or loophole any efforts at cost control, or else raise the copays and limit the coverage down to nothing.

on a differnt note, i saw on tv recently a lobbyist from the banking industry who was asked about the lack of available credit for small businesses, even the ones with good track records and established credit. the lobbyist stated that the lack of credit was due to over regulation by the feds in the wake of the bank bailouts, and that was the price people had to pay for more regulation.

same problem different industry. mandates for private, for profit insurance are bullshit because an insurance company isn't in business to provide healthcare, just turn profits.

[Orangepeel]

66. what if there are nonprofit companies in the exchange?

I don't know if this bill is going to be good or not. I'm expecting it not to be. But it *could* be, depending on what companies are in the exchange and who regulates them.

The insurance that government employees have actually works because the restrictions on which companies can be part of it are strong enough to protect people and the pool is large enough that companies want to participate anyway.

Now *will* this work as well as it does for federal employees? Will the subsidies be enough? Will the regulations be strong enough? Eh, I'm not optimistic. But it's not a foregone conclusion. There's a theoretical possibility, for what little that is worth.

[Armstead]

47. What do I want in it? Many of the same things you do.

But I don't want to see more harm than good, which IMO this bill is.

I realize we can't eliminate private insurance. But I don't want to see insurance further embedded in the system and their power expanded, which this bill does.

I do want to see them become very highly regulated, and treated like public utilities. The regulations we have now continue to be "market based." Not good enough.

Most importantly I want to take out the poison pill of mandates to buy private insurance. It does more harm than good, since they are not offering the alternative of a public program.
If they are not going to do something as straightforward -- and popular -- as expanding access to Medicare, then don't force people to buy private insurance. That is politically destructive, both for Democrats and for any future real reforms.

Just a few thoughts

[Politicub]

36. An argument based on facts will never win against unending arguments based on opinion or straw men

So bill killers, it's incumbent upon you to prove your assertions - prove it will harm more than it will help. Go ahead. I'll read the arguments. My mind has been changed by evidence-based arguments on DU before.

Put up the evidence, please. I'm tired of arguing with facts against people who post opinion over and over again.

And the more I think about it, that's how Fox News operates. They present opinion and call it a fact.

[Armstead]

Why do you keep doing what you claim to object to?

You keep yelling about "facts" versus opinion -- and equating people who dare to disagree with you as similar to Fox News.

I'm willing to have gicve and take on the issue. But your personal attacks and rants are exactly what you are complaining about.

[Sebastian Doyle]

85. The "foundation" sucks

A well known Jewish carpenter once said that "a foolish man builds his house upon sand" and that's what this "foundation" is. And the high tides of corporate greed would ensure that you could never build on it. (i.e actually REFORM the system, and get the insurance bastards out of the equation, which is what is needed)

[kstewart33]

13. Well said. Thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts. nt

[JamesA1102]

20. Thank you.

You're post is the voice of reason. We need more of that around here.

[suzie]

62. Ditto.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[Kahuna]

27. For all the good it did, I rec'd your post. nt

[RBInMaine]

32. Thanks so much. We need more voices like yours. Those on either the right or LEFT fringe can't be

the loudest voices.

[Kahuna]

40. That's the only reason why I hang in there because lately....

this place is making me sick. It's like I'm in an alternate universe where DU is the mirror image of that other place on the right. (don't want to get banned, so it shall remain nameless)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

49. "...there must be reasonable limitations on choice"

There is no such thing, no matter how many condo-board dust-ups you're a veteran of.

[Bluenorthwest]

50. Those grounded in reality do not speak to their peers in

smirking terms about serious issues. Kucinich running for President has nothing to do with the issue at hand, nor do these 'magic wands' I hear about dozens of times a day from 'realists' who seem to think reality allows them to snark in the face of people who are discussing life, death, family and financial survival issues. Rather than make a case for your position, you spend many words in self praise and many more in lashing out at those who do not agree with you. This tells us what you have to offer. The level of discussion you enjoy is not discussion at all.
You are looking for a fight, and that is all you seek here. I have zero respect for that objective, and even less for your chosen style and lexicon. Have a great mid term! Go door knocking and lecture people about how they believe in magic wands but you are can see reality as it is. I freaking dare you to say any of this to even one actual person who does not agree with you. You can post a clip on You Tube of how that works out.

[HughMoran]

51. It is often not popular to support history as it's being made

persevere.

[IndianaGreen]

54. Like when the Wehrmacht marched into Sudetenland, or when we invaded Iraq

That's some history!

[treestar]

69. You are really getting desperate now

[HughMoran]

56. Those that dwell on negativity

...are doomed to live a dark existence.

[Armstead]

58. Those who ignore bad things that are being pushed are doomed....

to experience a continuing repeat of the mistakes that have brought us to this point.

There are good things in this bill. There are also some really bad things.

Why not pass the popular things, take out the bad and work on the hard things without an artificial deadline.

It is not a matter of "killing" the bill. It;s a matter of making it better.

[HughMoran]

64. I have no issue with what you suggest

I can assure you that I'm neither ignorant of nor ignoring the not-so-good in this bill. I am also not ignorant of the historical nature of this bill & how often HCR has been attempted & has failed. If leadership has decided that this is our best opportunity to get this done (before ever more Dems start acting the kingmaker), then I have to consider that as well. Not only do these people know what people are saying behind the scenes, they are aware of the political risks associated with putting off the vote (election year, more Dems "feeling their oats, more Republican trouble making, etc...). It's not an ideal process by any means, but it's all we have at this time. Idealists generally don't see results within their lifetimes, pragmatists do.

[Armstead]

65. I'll agree to disagree

in the interests of civility :)

[HughMoran]

67. I agree that my arguments are incontrovertible

You cannot tell me that the practical considerations in my post are wrong.

[Armstead]

68. Okay then....Here goes

Maybe there can't be a public option or Medicare expansion or otehr goodies at this point. So an ideal bill could not be passed.

However, this can be a much better bill with a few simple things, like taking out poison pills such as the mandates (which will preclude any future movements to increase access through public programs).

Passing the things that most people agree with now would be both more useful to people now, and help the larger effort to eventually bring future reforms that would make a real difference by expanding public alternatives to private rip-off insurers.

That would also be mofre politically feasible and beneficial to Democrats. Obama would get his "win" and Congress woudk be ablemto go home and campaign on giood things -- without having to apologize for a bad bill.

[HughMoran]

70. thanks...

1) I support mandates and you would too if you saw the Emergency Room across the street from where I grew up. That's expensive care and these people should be able to get care before it's an emergency. These people will NOT voluntarily buy coverage. The current system is NOT, I repeat NOT sustainable.

2) I think they are passing what will lead to more useful reforms in the future. Harkin just called this a starter home that we're going to "build onto" - I have to take him at his word.

I still think you need to see that putting this off will not make the bill better - that's my opinion and it's not subject to change without significant arguments that I'm wrong.

[Armstead]

71. A coupla points

As I said above, the good things could have been done without the poison pills.

I woukd support mandates IF they were part of a bill that was based on a system that also offered an affordable public option (medicare buy in for example) or very strict regulation of insurance. That is the basis of mandates in civilized nations.

Most people prefer to have coverage than not. Yes there are some who don't. But for the vast majority, it is simply a matter of hard dollars and cents. It is just too damn expensive and many do not have the additional income for it after the basics. Forcing them to buy into expensive insurance they cannot afford is not helpful to that. Itv will continue to be very expensive with this bill -- and the subsidies will not negate that fact. We need insurance with rates based on income (like taxes and SS are).

As I have said before, in my opinion this is a deliberate pre-emption of real reform that might change the current syatem in any way. Its purpose is to solidify the complete dominance of health care by the private insurance industry. That is why even a mild public option or slight Medicare buy in was killed.

I am a long-time admirer of Sen. Harkin and will continue to be. But I respectfullty disagree with him and other liberals who are allowing themselves to get rolled in this. It is a "starter home" biult on mud -- not on a solid foundation.

[HughMoran]

74. I agree to some extent

I'm not at all convinced that, even though I support mandates, coverage will be affordable for everybody who needs it. There is supposed to be some decent regulation of insurance companies, though I'm not smart enough to know if there is a way out for the ins. companies. I do think that the funding can be changed after the fact - getting the mandate in place is an important first start.

I am not convinced that this reform was done in bad faith. Discounting the effect of radically changing an industry that is nearly 20% of our GDP is not something that can be taken lightly - especially during a Great Recession. I really don't believe that this reform in any way is either designed to nor in actuality will "solidify the dominance of private insurance". Yeah, they aren't being put out of business - which is a real shame as I hate their fucking guts with a passion - but I think they have been put on notice that their shenanigans will NOT be tolerated in the future. I'm sure you disagree on this, but they spent millions to kill this bill - and it wasn't spent just to kill the public option. The Chamber of Commerce on the other hand - they need to be fucking destroyed for all time.

Dems are coalescing around this legislation because they know this is the best shot we have had to get this done. It's been 60 years in the making and this is the foundation that we need. Remember, you get this done in your 1st year of office of a new Presidency or not at all. Just ask Hillary how her "second chance" at reform went.

[Armstead]

76. The fact that Medicare expansion and public option (as well as real universal coverage) ...

were taken off the table right away -- or died slow deaths at the hands of the insurance stooges like Nelson -- is ample evidence that this was driven by those who want perpetuate the system.

Many -- probably most -- Democrats worked on this in good faith. However, they were pushed aside by the Corporatists in the Congress and White House who did want to increase the hold of the status quo.

Even a tame public option would have been an opening for real public healthcare. That's why it was killed.

[HughMoran]

77. Sadly, you play the hand you are dealt. Yes, we had stooges on our side

This is why I think it's kind of a miracle that we got anything done at all. Coordinating Dems is, as we say here all the time, "like herding sheep". DU can't agree on anything and neither can our elected officials - this is not a surprise to me. I was on the "Public Option or nothing" bandwagon not very long ago, but I will begrudgingly settle for a start at reform and expanding public plans later when it is proven beyond any doubt that the insurance companies can't ever do the right thing.

[Thickasabrick]

55. I'm pretty realistic. When the republican congress gets ahold of

this thing in 2011 - they will vote out the mandates and then strip the bill of anything good to reduce the cost. They will then become the heroes for removing the nasty mandates and lock themselves in power for years to come. Newt Gingrich will start saying this was their strategy all along.

We have really screwed the pooch.

[Armstead]

59. The basic meessage here seems to be "debate is only reasonable if you agree with us 100 percent."

[jefferson_dem]

60. Great post.

Thanks.

I wonder how many progressives are going to look back in time and be more than just a tad embarassed about their nutty temper tantrums.

[Armstead]

61. Not me! Same kind of nutty temper tantrums that...

were thrown when the centrists deregulated banking, pushed through NAFTA and corporate free trade and selling us out to China, going into Iraq, etc.

How have those things worked out for you guys?

10 years from now, when the insurance industry is even more powerful, people are complaining about ever skyriocketing rates, mandates etc. I'll be proud that some of us had the nerve to throw temper tantrums now to to try to prevent yet another centrist conservative mistake.

[TreasonousBastard]

63. I mostly agree-- depending on Congress to...

come up with a bill pretty much guarantees that the best we'll get is a compromise that satisfies few and outrages many.

But, that's the way it is, and it's a step in improving our extremely inefficient healthcare system.

From what I've seen, few who do the most screaming seem to know much about medicine, economics, or government. Apparently, very few, if any, have tried to find a doctor who takes Medicare or Medicaid recently, while none have an answer to getting more kidneys for transplant or how to reduce the cost of dialysis while waiting.

And fewer still seem to understand the concept of how SOMEONE has to pay for our excessively expensive healthcare, whether it's through taxes or insurance premiums. Taxing the rich or cutting CEO pay won't cover the current bills no matter how much we would like to imagine they will.

While I'm at it, I might as well mention that copays and deductibles are deliberately in Medicare and private insurance to remind people that they have some responsibility for their own health. That part seems to be forgotten in all of this.

[Parker CA]

72. Fantastic post!!

[Forkboy]

73. Lost me with your arrogant headline.

Anyone who assumes they have a lock on reality rarely seems to actually do so..

[bread_and_roses]

75. Just how the hell did the Ds get themselves in the position where they'll be forcing people to BUY

for profit insurance under the threat of fines, etc. for people who will NOT, under the calculations I've seen been able to afford it. The Rs, meanwhile, have maneuvered themselves into a perfect political position - they will be screaming from now till '12 about how the "big gubm't" Ds are FORCING voters to buy insurance and THEY are the champions of the people who fought it (all the while chuckling behind closed doors with their corporate masters at the sacks of money flowing from taxpayers into the coffers of Big Ins and Pharma). Because don't for a moment think that our Corporate Masters, no matter how much money they give the Dems when they have to, and more pertinently, no matter how the Ds bow and scrape and transfer wealth to them, they'd FAR rather have the Rs in - the Rs, after all, don't even give the serfs scraps and bones.

This bill - besides being an unconscionable sell-out to Big Ins, its only beneficiary, is poison for the Dems.

[freddie mertz]

79. Defeatist wing is more like it. Sorry, but this bill will kill all hope

Of any real reform for a half century at least.

It is poison.

[CTLawGuy]

80. keep in mind

the senate bill isn't the final bill that's going to be signed into law anyway. It has to go to conference committee and then they produce a report (i.e., a bill that reconciles the passed house bill with the passed senate bill). THAT'S When the real fun begins! That's when the bill can be improved.

So the bellyaching about the senate bill is all for naught anyway.

[harmonicon]

81. "I take my dreams for reality, because I believe in the reality of my dreams."

That is a statement I can agree with. What you have posted, I cannot agree with. For one, your example of the emancipation of slaves is just off-whack. After emancipation, there was quite a bit of political equality, and because of it, Jim Crow laws were passed, which then made passing the voting rights act necessary.

You suggest that I should always be disappointed, and I disagree. I'll take all or nothing, thank you. What if I lived my personal life by the same standards you suggest I live my political life? What if I didn't have a woman who I loved completely, but thought it was ok, because she was sorta funny and had nice eyes? I think that would be a pretty fucking empty life, and I think what you suggest is just another road to how to live an empty life.

[NashVegas]

84. I Think Your Definition of "Support" Is Different From My Definition of "Support"