The Defenders of the Senate HC Bill are starting to remind me of Defenders of the IWR

[Bullet1987]

It seems like history is repeating itself once again. The Party in power is going to force a resolution onto the American people. A resolution that is wrong at its core and by all accounts only make matters worse for some. When the Bush administration did this in 2003, it was for the invasion of Iraq. False information was used to support the war (WMDs, Yellow Cake, Niger uranium), but the MSM and other Republicans steadily supported it...the only people that didn't were Liberals and Libertarians. Then the war went to shit and it became a political hindrance to openly support it. So a number of politicians, columnists, and the MSM flip-flopped.

Well, it's happening again...but with the Democratic Party...and that resolution is a "HCR" bill from the Senate that strips out the Public Option and instead provides table crum "positives" that won't even effect ALL Americans that need healthcare. It's become a fight over 30 million people who will be forced to take a plan without objection or face a stiff penalty. This is NOT reform. And this is NOT just. It's an insurance industry giveaway. When pre-existing conditions become the be-all, end-all of why you defend HCR...you know you're defending a lost cause right? HCR has been watered-down to ONLY mean pre-existing conditions. LOLOLOLOLOLOL

[HuckleB]

1. Baloney.

That's really all that needs to be said in reply to this fictional crap.

I'm tired of this type of trite attack.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[gaysonf]

2. dems

will regret this like iw

[HuckleB]

4. If it fails, the uninsured with regret this.

We'll all regret it, just like Senator Kennedy regretted not taking the deal with Nixon.

We've been fooled twice into not moving forward, and we are ignoring the history of some of the greatest social support programs in the nation's history. They didn't start out anywhere near as strong as they became.

Defeating this bill makes no sense.

[bvar22]

44. If this bill "moved forward", I would agree with you.

It doesn't.

[dflprincess]

45. Senator Kennedy felt a public option was essential to any bill

I find it hard to believe he would believed selling us to the insurance companies was any kind of reform.

[karynnj]

53. His wife said he would have voted for this

So did his 2 closest allies and friends, Dodd and Kerry. Did you know him better?

[bvar22]

42. If Hillary had voted AGAINST the IWR...

...she would be President Clinton today.

We ARE watching and taking names.

Thanks to the Internet and Youtube,
it is MUCH harder to get away with the usual sell out.

[mzmolly]

30. +1!

Backatcha my friend. :hi:

[IndianaGreen]

3. In some cases, they are one and the same!

The sales pitch is the same, together to the rush to get done before some artificial deadline.

[flyarm]

36. +1+1+1+1!! they are not even good discussing..they all sound like the same IQ..bushbots anyone?? n/

[tridim]

5. At least I'm not supporting the status quo..

Which is EXACTLY what the insurance industry and their GOP whores want.

[Laelth]

6. The insurance industry wants this bill badly, and big pharma likes it too.

Here's why:

California will probably pass single payer on its own in 2011. All they need is a Democratic Governor. The legislature has already passed the bill. Schwarzenegger vetoed it. Once California has single-payer, most (if not all) states will follow suit.

It's likely that if we pass a new law now, the new law will preempt single-payer, i.e. the Federal law will preempt state law and prevent states from enacting a single-payer system.

THIS is what the health insurance companies fear. THIS is what brought them to the bargaining table. THIS is why they are not fighting Obama's tepid reforms, and THIS is why it is extremely important that we do not pass any health insurance reform bill this year.

Let's not settle for a bail-out of the health insurance industry. Let's insist on the eradication of it. In all likelihood, California will lead the way in 2011 ... if we can just give them time.

Canada got its single-payer system one province at a time, and it looks like that's the only way it can happen in the United States.

Kill the bill.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the answer to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Bullet1987]

25. WOW!

I did not know that. Something else the MSM isn't telling us. That would be a major factor in rushing this bill along. More proof that REFORM was never part of the plan to begin with.

[Armstead]

7. You ARE supporting the status quo if you support this bill

This bill further entrenches and greatly expands the power and role of pribvate "free market" insurance.

In its final form it is DESIGNED to eliminate even the tamest of forms of government public healthcare (o.e. public option or Medicare buy in option).

IT IS STATING IN STONE THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE NO ROLE IN PROVIDING HEALTH COVERAGE.

IT IS FORCING PEOPLE TO BECOME CUSTOMERS OF PRIVATE INSURANCE.

There are a few fig leaves in there. But the overall purtpose of this bill is to inctrease the stranglehold of abusive private insurance has over healthcare.

[Laelth]

8. Exactly. This bill is designed to PROTECT the status quo.

Kill the bill.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the answer to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth

[tridim]

11. "Kill the Bill" is the status quo by dictionary definition.

Keep on figting for the insurance industry. They love you for it.

[Armstead]

13. FIX THE BILL is not the same as kill the bill

No one here is saying walk away from reforming the system.

But what you fail to admit to yourself is that this bill in its present form is based on perpetuating the status quo and eliminating the future possibility of actual reform.

[tridim]

16. The poster wants to "Kill The Bill" in large bold-blue font, not "Fix The Bill"

I want it fixed too. Every Democrat I know outside of DU wants it to evolve and get better after passage.

[Laelth]

18. I don't think the Federal Government is capable of reforming the system right now.

If this bill is the best the Federal Government can do, then the Federal Government should do nothing.

Let the states try, as I suggested in my post above.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Armstead]

27. This is not designed to evolve

Ignore the crumbs it contains and look at the basic underlying structure.

It further embeds and expands the role of private insurance companies by forcing people to become customers, and by eliminating the prospects for government alternatives.It also does not really contain any control over prices.

This is not something that can be built on if you really do want the system to be improved in the future. It increases the power of the insurance industry, which is what caused the problems we have now.

[Laelth]

17. Killing the bill allows further change. Passing the bill locks us into the current system.

You know this, and I think you are being very disingenuous.

:dem:

-Laelth

[tridim]

20. Killing the bill, kills the bill.

Fixing the bill (that will pass btw), fixes the bill.

Your 180 degree out of whack-ness makes me :crazy:

[Laelth]

24. I don't think the Federal Government is capable of reforming the system right now.

If this bill is the best the Federal Government can do, then the Federal Government should do nothing.

Let the states try, as I suggested in my post above.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Sebastian Doyle]

21. And giving the insurance criminals 40 million more customers, under penalty of law for non payment

is somehow NOT fighting for the criminal insurance industry? :shrug:

[tridim]

9. That isn't the definition of status quo.

"Kill the Bill" is status quo, at which point the insurance companies can continue to fuck us year after year with 200% premium increases with zero regulation.

How anyone can be for that, especially respected DU'ers, is mind blowing to me.

[Armstead]

14. see my response below

[flyarm]

39. that poster won't read it..I have posted the same to the poster all day..

the person refuses to educate themselves and just repeats the same crap over and over and ignores the facts and truth.

[slipslidingaway]

19. Hardly anyone on DU is supportive of the status quo, some just do not ...

want to mandate customers to the for profit companies.

Between the high premiums, unemployment and the boomers moving to Medicare in the next couple of years they NEED customers.

[tridim]

23. And the 30 million uninsured need health care.

What's your point?

[Hello_Kitty]

33. 1/2 to 2/3 of those 30 million will be covered through an expansion of Medicaid.

Which is a good thing, albeit an expensive burden on many states who are already struggling (unless Ben Nelson gets his way and states are allowed to opt out), but it really shows that supporters of this travesty of a bill are full of crap when they claim that it's necessary to force people to buy private insurance in order to cover "the poor".

[slipslidingaway]

40. Tired of hearing this lame excuse. n/t

[GreenArrow]

29. heh. this bill IS the status quo.

.

[flyarm]

37. It is way worse than the status quo..how many people have to tell you that ? how many times? How

many times have you posted the exact same words today alone? Is that the only talking point you were given....or your "words for the day"..because damn I have posted the proof of that fallacy over and over again, today alone!

[AllentownJake]

10. They use the same tactics nt.

[Schema Thing]

12. Onion worthy headline there

[slipslidingaway]

15. knr - and the Dems controlled the Senate during the IWR vote. n/t

[HughMoran]

22. War is healthcare

Glad you've avoided the trap of using ludicrous comparisons to support inflammatory crap.

:crazy:

[Bullet1987]

26. Getting healthcare reform is going to require a war it looks like

[HughMoran]

28. I'm a Ford guy too

Do you race your Bullet or am I completely misinterpreting your ID?

[mzmolly]

32. LOL

:toast:

[Jamastiene]

46. Well, they could cough up $30 billion dollars for war easily.

There is that difference.

[HughMoran]

47. nearly $1 trillion for healthcare reform

What are you talking about?

[mzmolly]

31. I second the bologna sentiment. "Defenders" are more like those who defended medicare and social

security.

I protested the war, I applaud progress.

[NJmaverick]

34. The history that is repeating itself is when Ted Kennedy shot down Nixon's health care plan

which in hindsight was superior to anything that could be passed today. Kennedy regretted that mistake for the rest of his life.

[flyarm]

35. starting???..never mind..eom

[gravity]

38. And people who want to kill the bill remind me of Nader supporters

In standing next to your principles, you are just keeping something worst in power.

[IndianaGreen]

41. Here is the crook Obama put in the WH as his health czar

Nancy-Ann DeParle, President Barack Obama’s health policy czar, served as a director of corporations that faced scores of federal investigations, whistleblower lawsuits and other regulatory actions, according to government records reviewed by the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University.

Several of the companies were investigated for alleged kickbacks or engaging in other illegal billing schemes, while others were accused of serious violations of federal quality standards, including one company that failed to warn patients of deadly problems with an implanted heart defibrillator. Several of the cases ended with substantial fines paid to the federal government, even though the companies admitted no wrongdoing.

Since leaving her government job running Medicare for the Clinton administration, DeParle built a lucrative private-sector career. Records show she earned more than $6.6 million since early 2001, according to a tally by the Investigative Reporting Workshop.

Much of that corporate career was built at companies that have frequently had to defend themselves against federal investigations. After leaving government, DeParle accepted director positions at half a dozen companies suspected of violating the very laws and regulations she had enforced for Medicare. Those companies got into further trouble on her watch as a director.

Now she’s back in government as a leading voice in deciding the shape of health care reform. Named by Obama in March as director of the White House Office of Health Reform, making $158,000 a year, DeParle is the point person in pushing for the administration's plans for changing health care and the ways Americans pay for it — changes in which her former companies have a great deal at stake.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31566399/ns/health-health_care/

This crook is now blogging from the WH website defending Reid's Managers bill.

[maryinthemorn]

50. yes, I recall reading that article. It is worth repeating and passing around. Thanks.

[treestar]

52. Mere personal attacks and she was not convicted of anything

Oh those evil people who ever worked for a bank or ins. co. and were successful!

You're fitting the freeper stereotype well.

[hayu_lol]

43. Many say that this is the best we can get at this time...

and that the obvious flaws can be fixed later.

Flawed bills that were to be fixed later:

Bankruptcy Bill: thanks Joe Biden

Medicare Part D: Thanks Repugnants

When will these be fixed?

This bill? Kill it.

[Aramchek]

48. funny, you're starting to remind me of a teabagger in your vehemence

[ShortnFiery]

49. True. It's the same old song and dance. We're being PUNKED again. eom

[Unvanguard]

51. Yes, because the IWR was supported by EVERY DEMOCRAT against EVERY REPUBLICAN

and certainly wasn't supported by pretty much all Republicans and conservative Democrats, with progressive Democrats (ALL of whom support health care reform) voting no.

Just the same. :eyes:

[cliffordu]

54. I find it very interesting how many times the

'disagree with me == some agreement with bush, (or, 'you're a freeper')'

What a chickenshit posit.

[Carolina]

55. There are some similarities

but also some notable differences. IWR was passed in October 2002 before the midterm elections and had the support (!!!!!) of many Democrats including Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John Kerry, Joe Biden and of course, Joe Liebermann, later presidential hopefuls. These and many other Dems threw political and moral courage under the bus and gave Bush the authority and bipartisan political cover he sought. We knew it was wrong then and this coming March, the US will mark the 6th anniversary of this capital (human and treasury) draining Iraqi invasion and occupation. But our Dems went along to get along... with their careers. And we forgave them with our votes in subsequent primaries and elections. Fool us... again

On the other hand, say what you will about repukes, but they know how to stick together and stick it to the opposition. The did so with Bill Clinton's Omnibus Budget Bill in 1993, the did so with Theft 2000 and they've done it again with HCR. They never support a Democratic president or they twist the agaenda so that even under a Democratic POTUS we get repeal of Glass Steagall or an awful Telecommunications Act, or NAFTA, or Welfare deform... and now some crap alleged to be HCR.

What is truly dishearteneing is that despite having the White House and bi-cameral Congressional majorities and despite knowing how big Pharma and the Insurance companines are destroying people, families and yes, ultimately the nation, many Dems have once again demonstrated their COWARDICE, their lack of moral courage... including that disappointing, smooth talking con artist POTUS. They all took August off and now as a Trojan Horse Christmas present, they ram a fatally flawed bill through. They did what was politically expedient for them, not what was just, fair and best for the people and the nation. They laud its good, promise to fix the bad (How? And didn't we hear that about NAFTA) and they sucked up to repukes and DINOs in the process. Fool us... some more

I'm done.