So Two-Thirds Of Americans Are For A Public Option

[MannyGoldstein]

and about two-thirds are against mandates without a public option.

Obama ran on the former, shoved the latter through instead, and mooned anyone who tried to hold him at his word. Called us "fucking retarded" via Rahm.

Add a side order of bailing out the bankers with our tax cash and giving the middle class the back of his hand.

And now people are surprised his popularity has dropped further? Why? What was anyone expecting?

Blows my mind.

[IndianaGreen]

1. Big Brother knows what is best for all of us

I've heard they just increased the chocolate rations.

[Jim Sagle]

3. They lied.

;)

[Junkdrawer]

2. And now, the media's job is to convince us that the anger is because.....

get this, the reforms were too liberal.

Trac III - because you'll believe just about anything.

[IndianaGreen]

4. And the Ministry of Love will make sure we all fall in line!

We are not worthy!

[Aramchek]

5. someone pick up the needle, this record is skipping

[HughMoran]

6. lol

[IndianaGreen]

7. 'We The People' sounds like a broken record to the political elites

The message from the Beltway is "Let them eat cake!"

[Aramchek]

8. how does it feel to have such little effect on the course of history?

[IndianaGreen]

9. Let's see how smug you are in the Fall

Anger has been unleashed in this country that no one, and no political party, can control.

[Aramchek]

22. yeah, yeah, we all know you want the Repukes to win to teach Obama a lesson

your spitefulness is in full blossom

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[treestar]

28. You seem to want the Democrats to lose- with that comment

it's apparent where you really stand.

[polichick]

10. No kidding - "we the people" my ass! nt

[denimgirly]

11. CLEARLY - Obama is desparate to Appear Moderate -- He will NEVER Go True Left...

He needs to feel liked by both sides and so for him, via Rahm, he is best served to appearse ANYTHING the Right wants even if it alienates the left since the left have no where else to go. Sure once in a wihle he will throw a watered-down bone our way but for the most part it will always be to hopefully get 1 republican vote, and if not then still leave in the watered down dribble.

Personally, i think Hilary Clinton is a strong fighter but the problem is she LOVES the corporate world too much and so i feel she would have pretty much made decisions as Obama would have but with less hush-hush, bowing-the-head in shame of going against the people that Obama has been doing. Hilary would NOT have done health care at all in her first term..no chance..and in the 2nd she would have probably gone for a watered down PO...but mandated.

I thnk at Obama's core he is a Liberal but he is so desparate to be liked by everyone he is willing to sacrifice is core beliefs to win...which is not a true leader. I respect Bush for his fight even if what he did was disastrous because he knows what he wants and does it and didnt back down....Obama, caves to easily...i mean come on...negotiating away Climate control before even fighting for it? WEAK! Now you know what is going to happen next...the republicans will now be asking for more ocncessions because they are not enough....This same story played out during Heatlh Reform...why would you not demand Single Payer/Medicare for All and negotiate down to a PO? Duh!

[vaberella]

14. If people were paying attention they'd realize he has a fairly shitty Congress.

But people choose to ignore that and push meme's that make the President sound like a failing King. We do not have a Monarchy...but we've been gifted with one crap fest Congress.

[cornermouse]

34. Baloney.

He has a democratic majority in the Senate. He has a democratic majority in the House. That's been more than a lot of democratic presidents have had.

If he was inclined to pass more liberal policies he would stop attempting to appeal to the republicans by passing their bills for them and he would start leading the democratic party in the right direction.

[Imajika]

12. Many of that 2/3rds don't even know what a PO is...

..don't fool yourself. If the PO had really been the centerpiece of the health care bill, it would have been polled all over the place as the "government option" or "government run public option". Once the word "government" is added it doesn't poll near as well.

Don't underestimate how little the American people actually know about this stuff. A very large number of them don't know that a public option is a government backed insurance plan. The opposition never really had to fight this since Obama dropped the idea so quickly in the face of Senate Conservadems arguing against it behind the scenes.

Short of single payer, the PO does seem like the next best thing, but people really need to be a bit fairer to the President here. Obama knows full well that once people know the public option is a government backed insurance plan it simply won't poll showing 2/3rds support it.

[vaberella]

13. Yeah, the nation is. But Congress isn't....get that through your head.

Congress wouldn't give Obama the votes. Obama said that at rallies. He tried. The BlueDog's wouldn't budge on that and because of that they'd side with Repubs.

[MannyGoldstein]

15. We Had 59 Votes For Allowing Medicare Buy In - Remember?

Only Lieberman was against it.

But then the whole "we need 60 votes" thing was admitted to be a lie, so all of the sudden we didn't have those 59 votes anymore. All of the sudden, we didn't have even 50 votes for it.

Don't you know when we're being played suckers?

[CTLawGuy]

33. umm the filibuster is actually not a lie

it's real.

[Jakes Progress]

81. Gee, you missed the vote?

The bill passed without 60. But I guess any meme in a storm.

[CTLawGuy]

83. that was a reconciliation bill

matters in the reconciliation bill must be related to the budget and finances or they can summarily be stricken from the bill by the senate parliamentarian. It's just not an option to pass an entire health reform through reconciliation.

the underlying bill had already passed the senate while we had 60 votes, before Scott Brown was elected. Guess you missed THAT vote.

but I guess anything to piss and moan about.

[Jakes Progress]

84. Gee.

I guess cause I didn't go to Harvard and only play two dimensional chess, I'm like you and can't figure out how in the world to get decent legislation passed. Of course a simple mind like mine couldn't understand why the "underlying bill" passed. Or how to play on that. And we mortals without super human powers of higher level thought processes just can't figure out how deals made with hospitals and pharma that we wouldn't push for a PO actually was a good thing, how it helped the people. Golly. Wish I was smart enough to play three dimensional chess. Then, I could figure out how to help my clients pay for their insurance so that they can beg the companies to actually give them some health care.

[CTLawGuy]

85. its hard

when you have to get senators as diverse as Bernie Sanders, Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman to support your bill. If you have an easy silver bullet answer, please let us know. The PO didn't pass because it didn't have 60 votes. If you have a problem with that, throw out the "Democrats" who refuse to vote for it, i.e. Lieberman, Landrieu, Nelson.

[Jakes Progress]

88. Been workin' on that.

Been workin' on throwing out republicans and "Democrats" who act like republicans for over forty years.

As for silver bullets, there aren't any. It takes a president who is smart, savvy, and knows how to make things work. In this particular case, we got our asses handed to us. Sure we eked out a little insurance reform. Don't get me wrong. We needed insurance reform. For many of us though, this "reform" is more for show. The biggest beneficiaries are the insurance corporations and big pharma. They got tax guaranteed profits from a government mandated increase in their customer base, a base whose payments are enforced and subsidized by public taxes. Pharma got a guarantee that they can keep on doing exactly what they have been without fear of having competition or accountability. What we all got was the "opportunity" to buy more insurance at whatever rate the insurance companies manipulate the system to charge.

You may, of course, see it differently. But if, like all us dumb old non-Harvard voters, you just see piddling little changes and a huge windfall for corporate interests, it is really hard to have a big party over this. When we started out talking about health care reform and bandied about terms like single payer and were promised a PO, then ended up with insurance tinkering, the end result, for us non 3-d chess players, is that we lost.

[CTLawGuy]

89. all you see in this is "more customers" for isurance companies

as if there were thousands upon thousands of brave holdouts who were sticking it to the evil insurance companies by intentionally not getting insurance before big bad Barack sold them out. It's just not the case.

The insurance companies don't want the "customers" they are going to get--the sick, the risky. The insurance companies already know how to get the people they want; the problem is they are too good at keeping out the people they don't want. That has changed now.

There are two liberal priorities I see in this debate: (1) getting people access to needed health care, (2) punishing insurance companies. Obviously, I prefer the former and you prefer the latter. I couldn't care less how much insurance companies make as long as people get access to the health care they need and we don't leave millions uninsured.

[Jakes Progress]

90. Where do you get your impressions?

They seem to be fully formed without recourse to the actual words used.

Your first para is whole cloth. It cannot come from any logical or honest reflection of the post I made. Golly.

Second paragraph is just silly. The insurance companies didn't want "those" customers when they had to try to get the payments from them. Now the government will do that for them. Further, the insurance companies love having customers that will allow them to raise their rates. You can't possibly think the insurance companies will charge these customers the same rates as healthy people. They will use actuarial manipulation to justify whatever rates they want, and since there is no independent overseer of this process, the rates will be paid by tax monies. How naive to think that just because we think they should do the right thing, that they will. They will make more money from the "new" customers than they did with the old. That is what has changed now.

You last paragraph makes the same tired old mistake that the "any bill is a good bill" group has been making from the start. Insurance is not care. You nobly declare that the liberal priority you seek is people getting access to needed health care. Then all you can say is that we won't leave millions uninsured. You may have a really nice insurance company that bends over to make sure that they pay for all the care you need. That is not the experience with most people. Prying money for care from their corporate hands is a mind-numbingly difficult task. Insurance corporations are in the business of maximizing profits. Any money the spend to pay for care is a cut in their profit.

The little dig about how small I am because I don't love the poor uninsured people and only live to punish insurance companies was just nasty. I can believe that you want to improve the level of health care for citizens even if I think the method you support won't do that well. But something in your nature makes it necessary for you to belittle my motives. How very small of you. An apology would be nice.

[Dinger]

16. Kick & Rec #5 (nt)

[bhikkhu]

17. Two thirds of Americans don't think for themselves

...and receive their opinions second or third hand via various media sources. Whining and complaining and predicting disaster get good press, so whatever DC is doing is wrong, and whatever can't be done is right.

In other words, if the public option were pushed through, you'd wind up with the same 2/3rds polling in support of a mandate, and the same proportion of heads exploding over what got passed. In any case, I think Obama did what was possible, and signed a responsible bill that will help out a lot of people. To reverse a 30+ year slide away from affordable health care in this country is no small accomplishment.

[MannyGoldstein]

18. It Did Essentially Nothing To Make Health Care More Affordable

Other than the so-called "Cadillac Tax" which hits many in the middle class.

It is basically a scheme to subsidize fees to insurance companies.

[bhikkhu]

19. That's a "talking point", not a fact

read the bill, or any good summary of it, before you repeat Rush and Hannity again.

[MannyGoldstein]

20. No, That's A Fact - Show Me A Single Estimate

Demonstrating that this will cut America's health care costs.

I won't hold my breath, and I really don't appreciate the Rush/Hannity crack.

[ClarkUSA]

24. Contact the CBO. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

25. CBO Never Said That

Show me where.

[ClarkUSA]

26. They showed HC would be more affordable for the gov't. than it would be if HCR hadn't passed.

Google countless news reports quoting the CBO's numbers on how much it would save the federal government in 10 and 20 years (after all, HC costs do make up 1/6 of the federal budget) or contact Harry Reid's office after April 12.

BTW, where's the link to the poll that shows two-thirds of Americans wanting the PO, etc. as stated in your polemic-filled OP?

[Exilednight]

35. That makes it cheaper for the government, not individuals, and it doesn't really make it ...........

less expensive for the government, it just reduces the deficit by increasing taxes on "cadillac plans". Basically, all that happens is the government takes in more money to offset the cost of rising health-care costs.

[ClarkUSA]

37. Wrong. For families making $40K/yr., subsidies will take healthcare worth more than 11K down to ~ 2K

That's an example that I heard from Linda Douglass, a WH spokesperson, during a MSNBC interview last week. And it will cost less for government because it will cut out $500 million in fraud and waste from Medicaid (which the GOP has spun into "cutting your Medicaid benefits!") as well as other measures outlined in countless news articles on the CBO report's findings and the HCR law.

[Exilednight]

39. I bet you still believe that there's an enforcable mandate in the bill, too. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

43. Wrong again. n/t

[Exilednight]

53. Let's try this, Don't give me a bunch of could, should, would scenarios. Show me ......

in the bill where it says the rates the rate insurance companies can charge for premiums is capped. Show me the wording in the bill that says a family who has a child with a pre-existing condition will not be charged more than your average person without pre-existing conditions.

All I hear is that health care will be available to all people, which is only half the problem. The other half is just as important, and that is making it more affordable.

Trust me, the health insurance industry has lawyers working overtime looking for the loopholes, and they already found a big one when it comes to pre-existing conditions. The pre-existing conditions clause will be the first to be tested in a court battle, and if insurance companies win it will mean those needing care will have to wait another four years before the mandate for insurance companies to provide coverage for those with pre-existing conditions kicks in.

This bill is shit without the public option. He had the votes, but bent over backwards trying to gain repuke support and now we have a bill that is full of loopholes with no caps on insurance companies and no affordable public option.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[Exilednight]

59. It had 59 votes with Liebermann being the only holdout when it first went up for debate .....

it was then watered down, and then watered down again, and then watered down some more until we ended up with a shit bill. In an attempt to gain bipartisan support, it gave the time for Democratic Senators in red states to find other reasons why they shouldn't support it.

[ClarkUSA]

60. Do you have proof to support this claim that dates back to ancient history? n/t

[Exilednight]

61. Here you go .....

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/1109/Lieberman_holds_fast_on_public_option.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/23/joe-liebermans-anti-publi_n_368151.html
http://cbs4denver.com/national/health.care.senate.2.1372349.html
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=10665
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/12/liberals_urge_s.html
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_12/021438.php
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/joe-lieberman-filibusters_b_355870.html
http://themoderatevoice.com/50988/lieberman-intends-to-filibuster-hcr-with-public-option/
http://openleft.com/diary/16492/joe-liebermans-healthcare-bill-is-worse-than-nothing-kill-it
http://www.slate.com/id/2234497/
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/lieberman-the-fallout/
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-healthcare14-2009dec14,0,1632753.story
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28788.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/12/14/2009-12-14_sen_joe_lieberman_resists_medicare_buyin_plan.html
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/01/liberman-nothing-public-option/
http://www.cnbc.com/id/33505361/Roginsky_The_Lieberman_Opt_Out
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/12/15/lieberman-ready-to-back-health-care-bill-without-medicare-expansion/?fbid=nV4aMK41Aam
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/14/politics/main5977243.shtml
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/16/joe-lieberman-barack-obama-us-healthcare
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CIQA100
http://communities.canada.com/shareit/blogs/theelephant/archive/2009/12/14/lieberman-s-revenge-is-the-connecticut-senator-fighting-health-care-bill-to-get-back-at-liberals.aspx
http://yesbuthowever.com/socialized-medicine-joe-lieberman-8136227/
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/calling-out-joe-lieberman
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/72443-dems-threats-to-hold-health-reform-hostage-dominate-the-debate
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/12/liberals_urge_s.html

I am surprised you don't remember this. Harry was confident he could gather 60 votes with a public option until Lieberman came out against it and began the filibuster. At that very point, Democrats should have taken a stand and gone the route of reconciliation - the public option was in and so was medicaid beginning at the age of 55.

[ClarkUSA]

62. Not proof for the Lieberman part, which I am aware of, but of the "59 votes" bit.

Sorry; I should have made myself clearer.

[Exilednight]

63. Seriously, do you not understand reading comprehension? If Lieberman was the 60th vote .....

but decided to hold out over the public option, then that means there were 59 other votes. And several of those articles reference Harry and his totality of having 59 votes at the time Lieberman decided to make his stand.

There are 25 articles there, and every article may not mention it, but several do.

I know, the truth hurts, but so not having a public option hurts more.

[ClarkUSA]

65. I repeat, show me the proof that there were 59 pro-PO votes in the Senate last year.

Lieberman's refusal to sign onto the PO brought any effort to pass HCR with PO to a halt but that doesn't mean he was the 60th vote. Olympia Snowe's refusal to vote for PO, along with Mary Landrieu's/Evan Bayh's/ Blanche Lincoln's/Ben Nelson's opposition to a PO means there was never a path for the Democratic caucus to reach 60, much less 59.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[ClarkUSA]

71. You said there were 59 pro-PO votes in the Senate last year. I asked for proof. You have none. n/t

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[ClarkUSA]

75. I didn't find any such statements from "Harry". Why don't you quote from one of them?

To reiterate a prior point:

Lieberman's refusal to sign onto the PO brought any effort to pass HCR with PO to a halt but that doesn't mean he was the 60th vote. Olympia Snowe's refusal to vote for PO, along with Mary Landrieu's/Evan Bayh's/ Blanche Lincoln's/Ben Nelson's opposition to a PO means there was never a path for the Democratic caucus to reach 60, much less 59.

[freddie mertz]

80. Speaking of reading comprehension....

THIS is what the subthread looks like to me with my new settings:


Ignored Apr-04-10 02:32 PM #65

Deleted message Name removed Apr-04-10 02:45 PM #69

Ignored Ignored Apr-04-10 02:47 PM #71

Deleted message Name removed Apr-04-10 02:54 PM #73

Ignored Apr-04-10 02:57 PM #75

Can't make head nor tail of it!

[ClarkUSA]

78. Legislative Reality Check: The PO didn't have the votes, period. Just ask Dennis Kucinich. n/t

[yurbud]

87. if true, that is an indictment of how profoundly corrupt our Congress is, and how drastic action has

to be to fix it.

[MannyGoldstein]

45. Exactly. It's Our Tax Money Being Handed To Insurance Companies.

It will be less costly for some individuals, but only because our tax dollars will be handed to private insurance companies so their CEOs can "ear" $12 million a year.

The CBO report is cooked, in any case. They must use all assumptions that Congress gives them, whether those assumptions are reasonable or nonsense.

[ClarkUSA]

48. I am still waiting for the poll on which you are basing the numbers in your polemic-filled OP.

<<The CBO report is cooked, in any case. They must use all assumptions that Congress gives them, whether those assumptions are reasonable or nonsense.>>

I've seen plenty of Republicans desperately trying to make this point after HCR was passed, but this is the first time I've seen an allegedly liberal Democrat at DU try to push it. You've jumped the shark. :puke:

[MannyGoldstein]

54. From The Allegedly-Liberal DFA...

From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/18/poll-health-care-reform-w_n_396990.html

Conducted by Research 2000 for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) and Democracy for America (DFA), the survey finds only 33 percent of likely voters favor a health care bill that does not include a public health insurance option and does not expand Medicare, but does require all Americans to get health insurance. Slightly more Democrats -- 37 percent -- favor the idea, while only 30 percent of Republicans and 31 percent of independents do.

Meanwhile, if the public option and Medicare buy-in are added, 58 percent of people support the idea. The number of Republican supporters drops to 22 percent, but independent support rises to 57 percent and Democratic support to a whopping 88 percent.

"This poll shows voters in full-blown revolt against the Senate bill," said PCCC co-founder Stephanie Taylor. "Only one-third of voters support mandates without a public option, while nearly two-thirds want the public option and Medicare expansion. This will be a disaster of epic proportions for Democrats in 2010 if it's not fixed -- fast."

As to my being proven wrong because the Republicans say the same thing: you can do better, no? How about some evidence, say, something showing that the CBO does not have to use whatever assumptions its given?

[ClarkUSA]

56. At least the DFA doesn't use GOP talking points. And the poll you cite is from LAST YEAR. Oy vay!

:rofl:

[Exilednight]

64. Until the CEO of a major insurance provider gets a 51% pay increase and raises rates by 39%, don't

think it will happen? Think again.

WellPoint Inc. revealed Friday that it boosted its chief executive's compensation 51% last year, even as the health insurance giant prepared massive rate increases in California that embroiled it in a national controversy over skyrocketing health insurance costs.

The proposed rate increases of up to 39% in individual policies turned the insurer into a flash point in the healthcare overhaul battle, breathing new life into President Obama's effort at a crucial time in the debate.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/02/business/la-fi-wellpoint3-2010apr03

[ClarkUSA]

66. Moving the goalposts now? That's old news. n/t

[Exilednight]

68. Old news? Did you read the date of the article? And I am not moving the goal posts .....

this is exactly what i was arguing about up thread.

[ClarkUSA]

70. The events you mentioned happened before HCR was passed. And one of them helped pass HCR.

So what?

[Exilednight]

72. Alright, you do have a reading comprehension problem, I understand now . Allow me to show you

WellPoint Inc. revealed Friday (friday being April 2nd. when was HCR passed? Oh yeah, March 23rd, or 10 days before this happened) that it boosted its chief executive's compensation 51% last year, even as the health insurance giant prepared massive rate increases in California that embroiled it in a national controversy over skyrocketing health insurance costs.

Now, explain to me how giving someone a raise and hiking premiums is controlling costs and helps pass HCR after it was signed into law?

[ClarkUSA]

74. Not I. ---------> Wellpoint's CEO raise took place LAST YEAR.

The news of their rate hike also took place before HCR was passed and the resultant negative PR helped pass galvanize efforts to pass HCR, as the quote you proffered says quite plainly:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=258919&mesg_id=259844

[Exilednight]

76. April 02, 2010|By Duke Helfand and Walter Hamilton WellPoint Inc. revealed Friday that it boosted

that looks like 2010 next to April 2nd.

[ClarkUSA]

77. The April 2, 2010 news article is reporting on a CEO raise that happened LAST YEAR. n/t

[bhikkhu]

29. No - its an f'n Repug/Rush/Hannity-style straight out lie

and your "show me, I won't hold my breath" response to a suggestion that you read the bill or any summary yourself is also straight from the RW hate radio bag of tricks.

Now I don't expect you to lift a finger to educate yourself, but for anyone else so inclined there is a good summary here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/22/health-reform-bill-summary_n_508315.html

...though 30 seconds and google will get you many more.

Example #1 would be that if you are a kid or individual with a pre-existing or chronic condition, you can't be cancelled or turned down from your parent's insurance. There are plenty of real-life examples of people stuck in miserable jobs to keep a kid insured, people losing insurance and winding up in bankruptcy, etc, which should end now. That makes health insurance more available for kids and people who really need it.

Example #2 is that small businesses, who have been shedding insurance benefits for years because of high costs, will get a tax credit covering up to 50% of the premiums for its empoyee's insurance. This should make it more affordable for small businesses to offer insurance as a benefit, and hopefully will reverse the long decline in business-provided health insurance.

Example #3 is that seniors with Medicare drug coverage will no longer be on their own or penalized for prescription expenses over $2700 - closing the "donut hole" in current plans. This should make things more affordable for a lot of seniors who need expensive prescriptions.

Example #4 is that kids can continue on their parents insurance until they are 27, which should make things much easier and more affordable for kids who are better off worrying about college and starting careers than having to find new health insurance.

Example #5 is that lifetime caps will be done with, meaning that an insurance company can't set a limit anymore to coverage, at which point you're on you own. Many existing policies allow you to be cancelled and turned out in the cold if you actually have to use your insurance beyond a certain point.

Example #6 would be that preventative medicine must be covered by policies, which should both reduce long-term costs and make regular check-ups and good sense more affordable.

.....and so on. There are plent more, as the entire health care bill is about reforming and improving the system so that availability is better and costs are more affordable. What did you think it was? What kind of brain dead idiot posts made up trash on a Democratic site about a Democratic bill signed by our own president, and then expects not to be called on it? Again, I'd suggest you do a little research before you spout off the same lies I heard last week on Hannity and Rush.

[Exilednight]

36. I will take this on by each of their own merits, the question is: how honest are you?

Example #1 would be that if you are a kid or individual with a pre-existing or chronic condition, you can't be cancelled or turned down from your parent's insurance. There are plenty of real-life examples of people stuck in miserable jobs to keep a kid insured, people losing insurance and winding up in bankruptcy, etc, which should end now. That makes health insurance more available for kids and people who really need it.

This does help those with pre-existing conditions, but it doesn't lower health-care costs. It's true that insurance companies will not be able to deny coverage, but there is nothing in the bill to prevent them from jacking the price of coverage up so high that a person or family can not afford it.

Example #2 is that small businesses, who have been shedding insurance benefits for years because of high costs, will get a tax credit covering up to 50% of the premiums for its empoyee's insurance. This should make it more affordable for small businesses to offer insurance as a benefit, and hopefully will reverse the long decline in business-provided health insurance.

Doesn't lower costs of insurance, it just gives corporations a tax break.

Example #3 is that seniors with Medicare drug coverage will no longer be on their own or penalized for prescription expenses over $2700 - closing the "donut hole" in current plans. This should make things more affordable for a lot of seniors who need expensive prescriptions.

This is quite helpful to seniors, but again it does nothing to reduce costs.

Example #4 is that kids can continue on their parents insurance until they are 27, which should make things much easier and more affordable for kids who are better off worrying about college and starting careers than having to find new health insurance.

This just means kids can stay on their parents insurance plans longer, which is a good thing but also sets up a whole new set of obstacles for kids to college. According to the bill the child has to be a dependent of the parents, but this means that kids who claim independence to qualify for student aid will now have to make a choice: a college education or health insurance until your 27?

Example #5 is that lifetime caps will be done with, meaning that an insurance company can't set a limit anymore to coverage, at which point you're on you own. Many existing policies allow you to be cancelled and turned out in the cold if you actually have to use your insurance beyond a certain point.

But there is nothing to prevent an insurance company from raising their premiums beyond the ability of a person to pay.

Example #6 would be that preventative medicine must be covered by policies, which should both reduce long-term costs and make regular check-ups and good sense more affordable.

There are several studies that show preventive medicine may not be all that it's cracked up to be. Look at the controversy surrounding mammograms. And again, this does nothing to reduce costs of preventive medicine.

If you really look at this bill, you quickly notice that nothing was put in the bill to actually cap costs. This bill relies on the ability of the free market to lower costs, and if there is one thing a greedy capitalist likes more than anything else, it's a mandate that requires everyone to buy their product without caps on how much they can charge.

[bhikkhu]

67. You have some good points

The bill doesn't change the fundamental weakness of the US system of healthcare - that it is profit-driven. Without changing that (which would really make some RW heads explode, if you think they aren't exploding now) it does essentially make healthcare available to everyone. Availability is one of those things you have to have before cost even becomes relevant...and once healthcare is available to everyone, then affordability is improved by full participation. It does make some reforms that specifically improve affordability for certain segments - such as the expansion of medicare drug coverage - but the fundamental change is that it lays the groundwork for full participation, which is a basic prerequisite for affordable insurance whether you're talking auto, home, or health coverage.

[indepat]

21. Except for a few that could be counted on one hand, who in Washington gives a shit

what two-thirds of the people think or want: it's the two or three percent owning 90+% of the wealth the Congress is beholden to. :-)

[treestar]

27. Easy. They are crammed into the Blue States

The red ones have equal numbers of Senators and therefore drag us all to the right.

[Lord Helmet]

30. The law was written so there is no penalty and no enforcement.

That essentially eliminates the individual mandate.

LINK

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[Jakes Progress]

32. It's that 3D chess thing.

We give the republicans and corporations everything they want. Then they love us and become progressive. That seems to be the program.

We're just too dumb to understand. Didn't go to Harvard and all, you know.

[ClarkUSA]

38. Yes,the GOP/corporations luv HCR & are totally supporting his finance reform & climate change bills!

Everyone knows the Chamber of Commerce is a top ally of the White House! Just ask SEIU's Andy Stern who was appointed onto the President's Bipartisan Debt Commission!

:sarcasm:

[cornermouse]

40. The corporations DO love the HCR

The only reason the GOP doesn't love HCR, in spite of the fact that it was originally their plan, is the fact that the democratic party expects to be raking in the campaign bucks from the insurance companies instead of them. I'm sorry you refuse to accept that basic fact.

[ClarkUSA]

41. That's your opinion, not a "basic fact". FACT: Corporations spent billion$ trying to defeat HCR.

In addition, the Chamber of Commerce was ferociously against HCR, although they were smart enough not to try to "repeal and replace" it, as Republicans are.

---------------

Show me proof that the HCR law that was rejected by every single Congressional Republican in the end "was originally their plan".

[cornermouse]

44. You're wrong and you know it.

It has been widely reported on DU that HCR was originally the plan set forth by the Heritage Foundation. Again, here on DU it has also been compared to and is nearly identical to the Romney plan which is also based on the plan set forth by the far right republican Heritage Foundation. A search for key words of HCR and Heritage Foundation will unearth that very quickly.

I repeat. The only real objection the republicans have to it and the reason that they voted against it is because they wanted the campaign donation money for themselves.

[ClarkUSA]

46. Not at all. And I have yet to see proof of your polemic.

FACT: Corporations spent billion$ trying to defeat HCR.

I repeat: show me proof that the HCR law that was rejected by every single Congressional Republican in the end "was originally their plan".

BTW, HillaryCare was RomneyCare to a T. Guess Hillary got all her HCR ideas from the "far right republican Heritage Foundation" eh?

:shrug:

[cornermouse]

47. But I didn't vote for Hillary.

A mistake on your part. Another mistake? Thinking that I'm going to jump through any more fake hoops you set up. I've already pointed out to anyone with an open mind where the information is. That's really all I wanted to do.

O8)

Oh yeah. Happy Easter.

[ClarkUSA]

49. I never said you did. I was responding to your false polemic & using HillaryCare to make my point.

You are jumping to false conclusions, which is your "mistake".

Another "mistake" is not offering proof to back up your opinions.

[cornermouse]

50. You think you're doing an Abbott and Costello "Who's on first base" routine.

I see... You recognize how weak your argument is.

[ClarkUSA]

51. No, I am refuting your false polemic since you offered no proof, snark notwithstanding. n/t

[cornermouse]

79. Since you opened this door.

The only snark around here today has been on your side not mine. I have been honest. You can't say the same. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

86. Still no proof? Guess not. n/t

[Jakes Progress]

82. I see you didn't go to Harvard either.

It's that complexity thing. What has the CofC got to do with the discussion. Oh, yeah. I forgot that changing the subject and harping on something not even mentioned is some people's idea of argument.

[yurbud]

42. VIDEO: Listen to a DLCer tell what corporate Dems think of us in a pitch to Dem Party:

It's in the first 30 seconds or so of this video:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=449949&mesg_id=449949

We have got to figure out a way to weed this moral filth out of the Democratic Party or our democracy will become a joke.

[GinaMaria]

52. lock down the base!

:wtf: We need to lock down the DLC!

[yurbud]

57. they want to lock us down in a cage, slip a ballot under the door so we can vote for them

then ignore us until the next election.

[ClarkUSA]

58. Then it's a good thing that President Obama rejected membership in the DLC starting in 2003. n/t