TYT: Liberal Blogosphere Pissed at TYT?

[The Northerner]

Run time: 08:37 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKvGRrjXP0   Posted on YouTube: March 25, 2010 By YouTube Member: TheYoungTurks Views on YouTube: 6593   Posted on DU: March 25, 2010 By DU Member: The Northerner Views on DU: 4992

 

[Bullet1987]

1. I don't like the overhyping of this bill either

And the attacks on those with a differing opinion have gone up since it passed the House. Everyone agrees and is glad something was done and needed to be. The question now is...was it done right?

[SolidGold]

2. How many times have you, your friends, or family been deneid care?

I'm guessing you haven't - otherwise this would be something major for you. Most people know people in that situation. I happen to know at least 5 people stuck in a perpetual state of coverage denial for treatment based on pre-existing conditions.

The fact that you aren't as affected doesn't make it any less of a break through. For those of you that are too young to understand, the laws passed in this bill are things that have been fought over for 40+ years. This isn't something we just came up with after BO was elected. This was the end of a struggle that will build upon a legacy.

Did this bill go far enough? Hell no - but is it a strong step in the right direction? Absolutely.

Up until Sunday I still considered it an impossibility. It's been shotdown and shutdown at every turn every other single time it was attempted. This time it passed. That's major.

To quote the VP: This bill is "a big fucking deal!"

[ihavenobias]

3. I'm uninsured with a pre-existing condition.

So is my GF. With that out of the way, I'll point out that no, it's not a big deal that SOMETHING passed. Of course SOMETHING was going to pass considering the majorities in the House and Senate. The issue is WHAT was passed.

Yes, there are some good things in this bill. Not nearly enough good, and we could and should have had much better. This is good short term politics, but the long term policy (and politics) are very much in question, so say many people with and without insurance alike.

If this ends up being a bridge to something that can actually contain premiums without bloated subsidies (subsidies mask costs, they don't control them), I'll be very happy. But I'm not especially optimistic on that front. At any rate, calling people secret republicans and right wingers because they disagree on how good the HC bill is (without looking at why they think what they do) doesn't make any sense. I'm not referring to you, I'm referring to the issue explained in the video.

[sulphurdunn]

11. There's this too.

I have had major health issues in the last two years that have cost my insurance company hundreds of thousand of dollars. I have a Cadillac policy that precludes my being turned down or out by my insurer. I received excellent care, and as a result I am still alive. However, had I not had that policy I would probably be dead or bankrupt or both. Should I lose that policy for some reason my options would be stark: I could seek new coverage that I would never get for any price I could afford, if at all. I could liquidate my estate to pay for coverage until I go bankrupt and then go die under a bridge somewhere rather than suffer the indignities and receive the substandard care the indigent receive, or I could just die quickly and leave the estate to my family. I would choose the latter. This was true before the HCR bill and remains true. There are no cost controls and no competition in this bill. It's like offering big subsidies and price discounts on a lousy insurance policy to people who can't afford it but have to buy it anyway. Pointless. Sorry, no pom-poms for Obama today.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

34. +1

[unapatriciated]

72. Well I agree with Cenk and I have been on that merry-go-round of denials and reviews.

Spent over ten years fighting for coverage and care for my son (1990-2005). In a state that had strong regulations regarding pre-existing conditions and claims denials (California). They just settled a long lawsuit against Atena and Blue Cross. The Insurance Companies paid a fine and offered to re insure those they had dropped illegally (at very high rates as long as they agreed not to sue). The settlement only went back to 2007, leaving those that had been denied or delayed (like myself) illegally for twelve years out in the cold, giving them twelve years of illegal profits. Regulations are good but without strong penalties, very large fines and an alternative like the PO the Insurance Companies will continue with business as usual and pay the fine. They are already trying to weasel out of providing coverage for pre-existing conditions for some children until 2014.

[ooglymoogly]

82. A good politician or a good flim flam artist can pass off

shit as caviar to the uneducated if the smell can be masked; With enough hype and propaganda, that is what has just happened. Winning a pile of shit is not very impressive. To know what really happened, follow the money....I.E. the stock market. Health care stocks on the rise.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aL4ytMjFNPoo&pos=1

[pundaint]

25. I am not at all glad that "something" was done, the problem has been exacerbated.

[FiveGoodMen]

4. "We got this bill passed; let's get the hell out of Dodge"

Yup. That's what I think the prevailing attitude will be.

[denimgirly]

8. +10,000

[Mithreal]

16. +1

[whatchamacallit]

5. So the zombies are throwing Cenk under the bus now???

It's like what freepers do when one of their own is not batshit enough. Rock on Cenk!

[sabrina 1]

7. Is there a list anywhere of all those who are

under that bus? Yesterday Noam Chomsky found himself there also. At least Cenk is in good company so he shouldn't worry about it too much.

Next up ~ Social Security 'Reform'. Reform seems to mean 'privatize public funds'. I like to know the meaning of the words they use before getting behind them. Especially after so mis-understanding what the 'change' meant and 'yes, we can'. Slogans should be viewed with great suspicion from now on.

[RoccoR5955]

58. I saw Chomsky Sunday in NYC, and he wasn't under a bus.

As a matter of fact, the people at the Left Forum at Pace University were cheering him!

[szatmar666]

22. they should throw him under the bus a few years from now

when it will be obvious that this bill DID ACTUALLY control costs. Until such time I am a little more optimistic, with all due respect to Cenk there is a reason republicans are fighting this bill so madly. and it has little to do with how many millions are covered and when. It has to do with the fact that it taxes investments and it contains billions of subsidies to disruptive technologies which will destroy the republican constituency, big pharma, in a decade or so.

ps. can Cenk or anyone name 1(ONE!!!) country where you have a so called "public option"?! There is either single payer, or a well regulated low profit/non profit multipayer system. There is no such thing as a "public option", it was a just a brilliant political ploy by Obama from the get go, so please don't get your panties in a wad over it.

[pundaint]

26. Your argument is our point. Can you name one country where a for-profit insurance oligopoly

can operate with more than a 95% loss ratio? Nobody wanted public option, but that is the Least we would accept as a fair effort by the president. Public option could morph into single payer, expanded Medicare could morph into single payer. What we got is a dead end.

[szatmar666]

30. no, what we got is a good start

a dead end is only if we never ever get a democrat in power again and Obama leaves office tomorrow. Instead of a public option it would make a lot more sense to regulate insurance companies more like they do it in Switzerland. There is already cap on what they can charge: a fixed % of your income.

Remember this still has to survive legal challenges in the most free market fundamentalist court system in the world. So no, you guys are just dead wrong along with Cenk, I trust Obama knows what he's doing: both libs and cons wrote this man off so many times I don't have enough fingers to count from the primaries to today and he keeps punching them in the nose after doing the good old Muhammad Ali rope-a-dope: it's obvious he's playing chess while the rest of us are trying to figure out checkers.

[proReality]

33. What we got is crumbs. Or appeasement, if you will. N/T

[szatmar666]

44. you guys argue like republicans

no depth of thought here. I raised a couple points at least pretend you have answers & stop insulting us with talking points.

[Mithreal]

48. -1 Obvious, oh my. In this one, the farce strong is.

[axollot]

56. OH but +1 to you ;) n/t

[szatmar666]

63. LOL! a picture is a perfect argument...if you can't read!

or if you are 6 ;)

I had specifics:

1) The legislative process is not over. To say this bill is a dead end is to say in 1935 that social security was a dead end because it didn't contain medicare/medicaid. The 1935 bill was AMENDED in 1965! It's still far from "dead".
2) Last I checked the bill passed by 3 votes in the house as is & the alternative would have been no bill at all and a republican victory for obstruction. How do you defend that?!
3) This legislation still has to survive a vigorous court battle including probably the ultra conservative Supreme Court. given the fact that Obama is a Constitutional Scholar, I trust him more on this than bloggers on DU, with all due respect.
4) The public option is not an effective or proven way to keep down costs in a private multipayer system. Putting caps on premiums and insurance market regulations are, as proven in Switzerland or the Netherlands, none of which have a "public option". Such caps already exist in this bill, you can argue they are not stringent enough but that can be changed in the future.
5) Most people arguing for the public option have no realistic examples of how that would actually keep costs down except for citing conservative economic principles like "competition". Bullshit! Regulation is proven to work in this area world wide, "competition" is not! this is all a bunch of unsubstantiated conjectures anyway, until we know real numbers at which point the bill can be amended!

take your pick, I dare you to answer just 1 of these in a civilized mature way!

[Mithreal]

66. Already have, many times, and so have many others who post on DU.

It's almost as if some people here ignore every argument that disagrees with them and re-argue their position until others begin chanting along with them. As the chimp said, you need to "catapult the propaganda" again and again.

I'll argue every damn one of your points, but let's see how you respond to this, more of the same excuses to follow, I am sure. oops, was I uncivil. Does that count as being uncivilized and immature? See, anyone who disagrees must be characterized as barbaric and childish, am I right? You are the one who argued that "you folks" or something like that, argue like rightwingers. Seems you are infected as well.

1) The legislative process is not over. To say this bill is a dead end is to say in 1935 that social security was a dead end because it didn't contain medicare/medicaid. The 1935 bill was AMENDED in 1965! It's still far from "dead".

NO ONE is arguing we are at a dead end. People are arguing it is a step in the wrong direction in that it cements the government's relationship with the for profit wealth care. So your very first argument is some sort of straw man in that I have not seen it argued, first, and you mischaracterize the position of the loyal opposition, second.

I will do my best to eviscerate your remaining argument if you will acknowledge that your first argument was weak and a straw man. That social security was used to defend a false argument is hardly persuasive. This bill can only be loosely compared to anything like social security. Weak arguments don't cut it.

You should have just left it at the cartoon.

[szatmar666]

71. perhaps they did, but I am confined to the conversation in this thread

I can't possibly respond to all posts on this website. What I responded to SPECIFICALLY was a statement above: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x447576#447822">"What we got is a dead end."

There is no proof that the current legislation cannot morph into a Swiss like multipayer system that actually works much better than the German single payer system because it pays doctors comparable salary to US doctors while keeping costs comparable to Germany.

I am not a lawyer but it seems to me that no bill or law is set in stone or "cement" or any other masonry material. Laws can be changed, amended or stricken by courts or Congress at any time in the future. So this part of your argument is just fallacious. But even if I accept your premise about "cementing" relationships in law, which again is not based in legal theory of any sort that I know, you still have to admit that you have no proof that this bill is not going to keep costs down as Cenk stated and if it doesn't it will not be possible to simply tighten the caps on premiums already in the bill or the punitive fees on insurance companies by simply changing 1 or 2 lines in a 5 minute session of Congress. Insurance companies btw. know that.

[Mithreal]

75. I find Cenk's arguments persuasive, especially about revisiting this legislation in the near term

Admittedly, I sometimes miss a point or two people make. I agree it is not really a dead end in that legislation can always be changed. I really had to go back and read it to notice that comment, sorry about that.

Our choices were never Swiss or German but uniquely American approaches. Of course, there is no proof that something will not morph, how could there be? You'd have to claim some sort of precognition.

Yes, cement was probably not the best choice. I concede that legislation can be changed, did you really think anyone wouldn't? What proof do you have that it is going to keep costs down wrt Cenk's argument? And to say it could be done in a 5 minute session is ludicrous. Insurance companies know a lot, they paid to play and sure are running scared too.

What do you have to say about comparing this to social security?

[szatmar666]

83. Cenk is not "persuasive". he is FACTUALLY wrong!

since Lynn Woolsey is about to http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/88371-liberal-caucus-leader-will-introduce-new-public-option-bill">introduce a public option bill.

No one has a crystal ball but http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3126">I read experts far more involved and knowledgeable than Cenk who say it will slow down the growth and that's why I think it's a good start a good stop gap measure that had just enough support to squeak through Congress by a hair. If it turns out to be ineffective as Cenk and other say we can always come up with a new piece of legislation amending it as I am sure there will be countless revisions anyway.

Social Security is a very apt a fitting comparison. In 1935 FDR's proposal did not cover most women and minorities and left out more than 1/2 of the workforce. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_%28United_States%29#Controversy">the NAACP revoke its support because of that. But during the decades after its adoption it got expanded simply because once a change like that is on the books it's very difficult for opponents to demonize it. I repeat: IT's A GOOD START! Nothing more, nothing less.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Social_Security_legislation_%28United_States%29">List of Social Security legislation (United States)

* 1935 - Social Security Act, Pub.L. 74-271
* 1939 - Social Security Amendments of 1939, Pub.L. 76-379
* 1942 - Revenue Act of 1942, Pub.L. 77-753
* 1943 - Pub.L. 78-211
* 1943 - Revenue Act of 1943, Pub.L. 78-235
* 1945 - Federal Insurance Contributions Act, Pub.L. 78-495
* 1945 - Revenue Act of 1945, Pub.L. 79-214
* 1946 - Social Security Amendments of 1946, Pub.L. 79-719
* 1947 - Social Security Amendments of 1947, Pub.L. 80-379
* 1948 - Provision for Exclusion of Certain Newspaper and Magazine Vendors from Social Security Coverage, Pub.L. 80-492
* 1948 - Provision to Maintain Status Quo Concept of Employee, Pub.L. 80-642
* 1950 - Social Security Amendments of 1950, Pub.L. 81-734
* 1952 - Social Security Amendments of 1952, Pub.L. 82-590
* 1954 - Social Security Amendments of 1954, Pub.L. 83-761
* 1956 - Social Security Amendments of 1956, Pub.L. 84-880
* 1958 - Social Security Amendments of 1958, Pub.L. 85-840
* 1960 - Social Security Amendments of 1960, Pub.L. 86-778
* 1961 - Social Security Amendments of 1961, Pub.L. 87-64
* 1965 - Social Security Amendments of 1965, Pub.L. 89-97
* 1966 - Tax Adjustment Act of 1966, Pub.L. 89-368
* 1967 - Social Security Act Amendments, Pub.L. 90-248
* 1969 - Tax Reform Act of 1969, Pub.L. 91-172
* 1971 - Social Security Amendments, Pub.L. 92-5
* 1972 - Social Security Amendments, Pub.L. 92-336
* 1972 - Social Security Amendments of 1972 (Supplemental Security Income), Pub.L. 92-603
* 1973 - Social Security Benefits Increase, Pub.L. 93-233
* 1977 - Social Security Amendments of 1977, Pub.L. 95-216
* 1980 - Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980, Pub.L. 96-265
* 1980 - Reallocation of Social Security Taxes Between OASI and DI Trust Funds, Pub.L. 96-403
* 1980 - Retirement Test Amendments, Pub.L. 96-473
* 1981 - Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, Pub.L. 97-35
* 1981 - Social Security Amendments of 1981, Pub.L. 97-123
* 1983 - Pub.L. 97-455
* 1983 - Social Security Amendments of 1983, Pub.L. 98-21
* 1984 - Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984, Pub.L. 98-460
* 1985 - Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, Pub.L. 99-177
* 1986 - Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, Pub.L. 99-509
* 1987 - Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, Pub.L. 100-203
* 1988 - Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988, Pub.L. 100-647
* 1989 - Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, Pub.L. 101-239
* 1990 - Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Pub.L. 101-508
* 1993 - Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub.L. 103-66
* 1994 - Social Security Administrative Reform Act, Pub.L. 103-296
* 1994 - Social Security Domestic Reform Act, Pub.L. 103-387
* 1996 - Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act of 1996, Pub.L. 104-121
* 1999 - Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act, Pub.L. 106-170
* 2000 - Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act of 2000, Pub.L. 106-182

[ihavenobias]

84. The SS and Medicare comparisons are deeply flawed.

Anyone pointing to Social Security and Medicare as a case for incrementalism ignores the enormous difference in the political climate, media and http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/story/eight-healthcare-lobbyists-every-member-congress/2010-02-25|level of special interest influence then Vs. today>.

[szatmar666]

86. ok, we "ignore a lot"

so what's your point?! that there will be no revisions and followup laws to this?! http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/88371-liberal-caucus-leader-will-introduce-new-public-option-bill">that's CRAZY!. If you want a different climate the way to go is to put progressives in Congress and support your president so he increases the democratic margin, not by setting up a blind circular firing squad like the tea party on the other side. you guys supposed to be the smart ones.

[ihavenobias]

87. Pressure and criticism from the left = "blind circular firing squads"?

Right, because if the ONLY pressure comes from the right and corporations, things will improve. Interesting plan...

[szatmar666]

88. I embrace pressure, as you can see in this thread if you are fair

what I can't stand is dogmatic simple minded, self defeating rigidity.

[ihavenobias]

89. Apparently we're using different dictionaries then.

And we believe in different strategies.

PS---Nice insulting adjectives!

[szatmar666]

90. BTW, let me make a bold prediction here

This very piece of legislation you guys love to dump on will be part of a set of legislative changes the next couple of years that will usher in a new progressive era and the "atmosphere" you speak of as Social Security and other progressive laws did in the 30s EXACTLY because of the incremental process: year after your the public had a chance to see the incremental results of liberal policies. That's more important than grand standing on a hill and making speeches about how pure and progressive we are compared to all of those "corrupt politicians in DC". Last I checked it's their lives and their families' safety that's on the line here, not ours.

[ihavenobias]

91. I've explained in detail why I think the exact opposite is true.

As you can http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7933996|see here>. But I sincerely hope that you're proven right.

[Mithreal]

92. +1

Cenk said much the same in the video unless I misremember.

[theFrankFactor]

93. I Stand With the Push for Real Principled Progressive Policy....

We are supposed to trust that after watching the way this was handled by DEMOCRATS with solid majorities and a Democrat President that the bill will blossom into what it should have been from the start just cuz people will be so thrilled with it?

Wow! Yeah, I'd like to believe that but my intellectual honesty and social awareness won't let me.

In defense of Cenk, I don't think he is anywhere NEAR engaging in the behavior described by some.

I can't rest on the "everything's gonna be okay" attitude. I hope so, I really do but...

[ooglymoogly]

73. +1 clever stuff.

I am behind Cenk on this one.

[Plucketeer]

60. You raised points

Erroneous, but points nonetheless. Heh - it's all about the "Win", not about how the score was achieved. Other than our subsidizing the insurance providers, I don't see any wow factor to what's been done.

[szatmar666]

65. erroneous, HOW PRECISELY?!

just answer 1 of them in my post right above this 1!

[provis99]

61. and you are a paid DLC troll. so why should we listen to you?

[szatmar666]

64. that's mature, just proving my point

you guys are no different than the other side when it comes to thinking.

[rhett o rick]

79. Please go back to whereever you belong. nm

[rhett o rick]

78. You cant have a decent dialog with someone that calls us republicans.

Your continual insults negates everything you have to say.

[sabrina 1]

6. Cenk is correct, but we have our 'with us or against us'

fringes just like the right does.

The truth is as he said, they included dozens of Republican 'ideas' as Obama himself said, and eliminated progressive ideas that would have provided a choice and some badly needed competition for the private insurance industry. Had they done that, it would have kept costs down. Like Cenk, I agree that as premiums rise, the public will turn against this bill. And Democrats will pay the price for that. So who really is the 'secret Republican'? Short wins don't matter much in the long run.

And their exclusion of competition makes no sense, unless you admit that deals were made behind closed doors, exactly what democrats claimed to be going to end, and there never was a chance of a PO. We were just kept hoping for it. I would have preferred more openness and honesty so we didn't waste time on something that was never going to happen.

[denimgirly]

9. Well said.

Now prepare to be flamed for it.

[sabrina 1]

12. Lol, I've never worried too much about

nonsensical baseless talking points. I spent far too much time in the early Bush years dealing with rightwingers who invented these tactics on political boards. I just wish DLCers had invented their own tactics rather than imitate the right.

I have no problem with people who disagree with me and have even changed my mind when someone presents a logical reason for their position that I might not have thought about.

But knee-jerk, non-thinking, talking points and attacks don't phase me much. And they definitely don't change any minds, they are informative though in separting real progressives from partisan cheer-leaders on both sides. It tends to show, just as it did when rightwingers did it, that I am probably right, as Cenk is, and they cannot win in a real discussion.

[pleah]

10. K&R! I'll call them naive. OVER 200 rethuglican consessions in the bill!!!!!!!!!

Pelosi herself said it on the senate floor before the vote! It is at least something, but they watered it down big time. They intentionally let it drag out so people would take what was left to pass.

[hulka38]

13. It reminds me of the Republican behavior wrt the run up to the Iraq War

to an extent. The path they had chosen (no PO) was already determined but they acted like they were doing everything in their power to get the PO in. And then, you're either with us or against us, fall in line, how dare you criticize the President. And now it's mission accomplished and champaign.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

50. Yep

it is the same exact mentality, it is funny (or pathetic) that for 8 years we collectively railed against the Bushies who did the very thing many progressives are doing currently. It is really pathetic.

[Mithreal]

51. And don't forget Cheney's secret Energy meetings

but Obama is the most transparent evah, award winning transparency too, yippee ki eh?

[Red Knight]

14. Right on Cenk!!!

That's exactly how I feel.

The right is constanly criticized for its "team" mentality. Well, guess what?

Surprise, surprise, surprise! It also exists on the left.

And that's wrong too.

All that matter ultimately is policy. It's what you DO, not what you SAY!

And yes----we will find out one way or the other how serious this was, because if the fixes are not done, that will tell you all you need to know.

What does it matter if the team whose pom-poms you hold gets a victory if that victory ultimately hurts you? The cheerleaders are very shortsighted IMO. If the Dems were serious about good quality health care we would have seen signs of it--actual attempts.

Well, like Cenk, I hope I'm wrong too. I hope this does turn out to be a first step to real reform. I won't mind being wrong at all. But we'd better hold their feet to the fire, not kiss their feet. Because if we're happy with this, we're in trouble.

Oh--and politically, it isn't just cheerleaders who vote. Poltically it will hurt.

Thank God that people like Cenk and Jane Hamsher have the courage to speak truth to power.

Too many people simply roll over for a belly scratch.

[theFrankFactor]

15. A-FUCKING-MEN Cenk!

One of the few things that excites me about the current state of affairs is that people might begin to see what Cenk is saying here. We're talking about REAL policies that are built upon a much more solid foundation. The power is with US-out here. Congress needs to be infiltrated by US!

We have a system that rewards collusion and coercion. The next step is to define our PLAN. To focus on a program-a way to make it happen!

I've posted this many time but I really believe these are some of the seed to grow this movement if we grow the people on board.

SEE ALSO: http://TheFullCourtPress.org

Objectives

1. Make elected representatives answer to the electorate.
2. Remove corporate influence from all levels of public governance


Suggested Goals to Accomplish These Objectives

1. Publicly fund elections
2. Eliminate corporate person-hood
3. Initiate instant runoff voting
4. Eliminate electoral college
5. Ban exiting public officials from accepting lobbyist positions
6. Oversight of the Federal Reserve
7. Tax reformation
8. Budget reformation


Citizen Actions to Accomplish These Objectives

1. Strengthen and expand alternate media
2. Infiltrate existing party systems to affect changes
3. Exploit current means to pressure representatives
4. Prepare, support, and run Liberal/Progressive candidates


Read more: http://thefrankfactorspace.ning.com/notes/The_Plan#ixzz0jENB3bKC
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

[Mithreal]

17. +1

[pundaint]

27. You drove me to full court press - thanks

[socialist_n_TN]

59. I like and agree with this...............

The problem comes because the Congress (and particularly the Senate) is ALWAYS behind the people. Make no mistake, IF we elect more libs, progressives, even socialists (real ones, not the strawman socialists of the Republican Party) then we will get more of what we want and need as a country. But that WILL take time. Only one-third of the Senate is up for reelection every two years and probably only a third of THAT number (more or less) will be in a state where a progressive will have a chance, in the next few years, to win. And the Senate will be where all good legislation goes to die. IOW, you CANNOT become discourages/pissed off with INCREMENTAL gains.

IMO, a good start would be running progressives in EVERY Democratic Senatorial campaign anywhere. If a member of the SWP wants to run for the Senate seat open in Alabama during an election cycle, let him/her. And SUPPORT him/her. Would s/he win? Not for a LOOOOOOOONG time, but at least it would give these right wing states a look at what a real progressive looks like. And THAT might mean it will incrementally become easier for a MORE progressive candidate to win in those hard right state. As the Senate becomes more left, progressive legislation becomes easier to implement.

[Mithreal]

67. You can't start this at the national level. It needs to be EVERY elected position.

The lowest most local level all the way up. There are TOO many reasons for NOT ignoring the lower levels of the party and ensuring we have good Progressives in place.

[theFrankFactor]

69. Great Point And Admittedly One That I Have to Be Conscious of Too.

[theFrankFactor]

68. The Concentration Should Shift to Planning Now...

You know you can tangle with the Right all day any day and get nowhere. Unfortunately, we have dead wood within our own ranks along with procedure and policy that isn't working for ANYONE but corporations.

I hope more and more of us hear Cenk's message. This must replace the useless jousting with morons we all get caught in... I know, I'm an addict.

[20score]

18. A big K&R!

[Wetzelbill]

19. K and R

[laughingliberal]

20. K & R !!!! nt

[grahamhgreen]

21. People - please listen to this man. Keep pushing reform!

[szatmar666]

23. they are

there is a public option to be introduced as a separate legislation in the House. Not sure but in my opinion if it comes down between that or financial regulation, I would go with the latter given the fact that no political party has infinite political capital at any given time

[Mithreal]

40. Dem Leadersip would like nothing better than for Grayson's bill to DIE quickly

As to financial regulation, we'd be lucky if it wasn't another total bailout and Mother, May I to our betters.

"Political capital" should come with a phrase like, last excuse of political cowards and scoundrels to flee from what we sent them to DC to do.

[grahamhgreen]

46. I think we need to keep pressing for real health care: strike while the iron is hot!

[Mrdie]

24. Cenk a Republican?

Republicans: "This is clearly the second coming of Hitler and Stalin, this bill will signal the doom of America and its capitalist system. They're going to ruin free enterprise! This was Lenin's wet dream the night before he took control of Russia!"

Progressives: "This bill's a corporate sellout. We need to go much, much further than this."

Even for someone in a fit of hysteria, calling Cenk a Republican for not being enthusiastic about the bill is ridiculous and almost unbelievable.

[Mithreal]

41. +1 indeed it is, cowards see Republicans in all their shadows.

[Raoul]

28. Liberals can be as closeminded as any right winger

If anyone watched this guy eviscerate the pro Israel neocon on MSNBC the other day and still thinks he's a repukican, that person is
suffering from complete denial! This guy merely says the truth and it does no one good to march in lockstep with any party if the
party is wrong about something.

[Mithreal]

42. +1

[theFrankFactor]

70. I Saw That! A Thing of Beauty!

[democracy1st]

29. K & R for Cenk

[ProgressOnTheMove]

31. I don't think Cenk is a Republican but this is all history file now all about midterms now really...

The Democratic party haven't always given us everything at once but they work on it over time. I go with their historical record of coming through for the people. More productive to view where we go from here than where we've just been. Sure no-one has to support Pres. Obama, but considering no big move has been made on health care since 1965, yes we can celebrate this moment.

[Mithreal]

43. As long as people are as honest about what the bill is as much as what it represents to them.

Celebrating the moment really isn't moving on. A lot of folks feel betrayed and that this was a sellout. Please tell me how the party corrects for this enthusiasm gap.

[pattmarty]

32. This is something I have been "complaining" about here whenever.........

.............it comes up. It's the old "hero to zero" syndrome. So called liberals are jumping up and down one day for (let's use Kucinich for this example) Dennis Kucinich because he is for ALL things "progressive". Then one day he reverses his stand on the PO for political reasons to help the President. All of a sudden, the next day here at DU we are hearing from a lot of people how bad and what a "traitor" Kucinich is to "the cause". Now it's Cenk who is about as liberal as you can get and he gets jumped on by so called liberals. It's bullshit. Almost everybody here was for either Medicare buy in or a PO when this shit began 14 months ago. And now where did all those people go? All I hear is the enemy of the good bullshit that makes no sense at all. I did not like this bill when the Senate passed THEIR version and didn't even like the original House version. I am not naive enough to believe we could have gotten Medicare for all, but the least we could have done is TRIED. We could have had a "decent" bill, instead we got shit. Oh and another IMPORTANT thing about all those that are saying whoo hoo I finally got insurance, Nobody mentions the other 13 million hapless souls that don't get shit. Exactly who are they and why aren't they covered?

[veganlush]

35. They barely got this thing passed as it is...

Wouldn't it have been almost impossible to get more out of the blue dogs?...won't the cap on insurance companies overhead help in controlling costs? What about the exchanges, isn't that likely to produce more competition, at least some? Coupled with the increase in the pool of relatively healthy people, potentially millions of them, shouldn't these things help bring down costs?

I think this bill is a good start, light years better than the status quo, and I good foundation for building on. We do need to stay diligent of course.

[Mithreal]

53. Who voted for this bill who would have voted against one with a PO?!

Unless my memory fails me, we had enough votes in the House and Senate.

My Senator's Chief of Staff said ONE MAN stood in the way? She is a member of Senate leadership. Care to take a guess who rejected so many of the provisions the left championed?

Stop trying to rewrite history, it's enough that the centrists won. Of course, they need to tell us now how it couldn't have happened any other way.

I won't be mind slave for any party. The truth will set you free.

[freddie mertz]

36. K & R. sounds like Cenk has some of the "friends" I have met on the internets.

It's a kind of disease, and has been since 2007.

[srf Rantz]

37. Cenk's best ever!

really. he calls it like he is. the accusations he's gone "republican" are just absurd, as are the "he's gone far left."

he not being a naysayer, and just because he refuses to be a cheerleader, he gets all this flak from both sides? this is the crap I can't stand about the current political climate in this country.

he clearly lauds the great things we got out of this bill

and clearly explains how it was compromised both at the behest of corporate interests (which many folks here did constantly in the run up to the vote) and so the Dems could get it thru the congress, and get Obamas full backing finally at the goal line.

and clearly explains what we are up against if and when we try to get anything better.

btw, I was denied coverage for open heart surgery and they also attempted to rescind my policy when the condition was diagnosed, after I fought that and won, they called it a pre-existing and refused to pay for the $10,000 in bills for the tests which diagnosed the condition, and bascially cut off my coverage for an entire year, so I couldn't afford further tests to keep an eye on it, let alone get the necessary surgery. the condition was such that I could live 20 years with it with no problem or drop dead any minute. when the year finished up my premium went up by 50%. the first years premium was basically thrown away. once I finally had the surgery, after meeting the high deductible and high out-of-pocket, they only covered up to the $100,000 annual limit, leaving me with another $100,000 in bills. I'm self-employed and bought the least expensive policy I could afford. even tho I consider myself intelligent, I'm a college grad, and work as a freelance web developer, I was baffled by the array of different plans I had to choose from. I actually thought I bought the one with no annual limit, but a lifetime cap. and this was just from one company, dozens of plans from dozens of companies in an exchange? sounds good on paper to have that kind of competition and choice, but the run of the mill wal-mart shoppers of the country don't seem capable of shopping wisely for basic consumer goods. (sorry to sound so elitist!)

ok so in 4 years they can't do this to me again or to anyone else. whoo-hoo!
they can't do it to kids right now WHOO-HOO!

in the meantime they can double my premium until I can't afford it. then I get to try and get someone else to insure me at a rate I can afford? yeah that will be easy.

so yes this is a good bill. and no its not a great bill. adjectives, schmadjectives, who cares which?

its not all that we need, and like Cenk says at the end, altho its a start, I agree its probably unlikely that the next step will be coming up any time soon, giving the enormous effort it took and the outrageous out of bound opposition it had to face.

so they threw us a bone, and now they're using it against us to fire up the brown shirts to strike out in violence. maybe that will fade away, maybe it won't.

still I'm not going to be intimidated, and I don't want my reps to be either. we need to keep fighting.
twisting our arms patting the Dems on the back for this success and group think that this was the greatest victory in 100 years, when in fact it represents massive compromise and deals with the corporations who still can screw us is not the best way to keep that spirit up IMHO.
yes it has given us new spirit and energy, but we can't be lulled into resting on our laurels either.
(jeesh, that sounds banal on re-read, sorry, I'm just going for commonsense here)

aside: shoutout to my neighbor Allentown Jake, I'm up in Moore Township. gonna work hard for John Callahan to unseat Charlie Dent this year!

[ejbr]

38. k & r

"debbie downer"

[Mithreal]

39. Liberal-In-Name-Only Blogosphere

[Progressive Cancer]

45. A view from Switzerland...

(Hey all, first comment here. Been a reader for almost a year. <3 you guys)

The bill is too corporate-friendly for sure. Just look at how Wall Street reacted to the bill.

I'm from Switzerland we have a system that is quite similar to the one the US adopted. I don't like it as I don't see the added value of having competing private companies having to offer exactly the same service (basic coverage). The only way we can profit from the current system is by changing insurance company every year. The companies are not allowed to make any profit from the basic coverage, so they encourage their clients to take complementary insurances. Switzerland is the country with the highest health care costs after... you guessed it... the US.

We currently have a debate here to lower the costs by not allowing the insured person to go freely to any specialist but by first being obliged to see his/her regular family doctor (There is simply too much abuse by people, easily scared about their health, who take appointments with lung specialists (for example) as soon as they cough a little (not kidding)). Our main problem though are the very powerfull pharmaceutical companies (Novartis & Roche) who are in bed with health professionals so that they only prescribe the most profitable drugs in their store.

[Mithreal]

57. Welcome to DU, even if you have been a lurker quite a while.

:hi:

[pattmarty]

62. Aren't ALL the drug companies in the whole world US companies??

:sarcasm: That and a lot of other things we have been told by our media for years AND MOST here in the US believe all the propaganda, witness by our "latest" political drama.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

47. I am a proud Firebagger too Cenk you are in good company n/t

[spiritual_gunfighter]

49. Here is hoping some of the people lauding this bill as the greatest

thing ever, watch this clip. Cenk nails it once again.

[CADeminVA]

52. This is a beginning, not an end

I'm not going to criticize Cenk or Jane Hamsher or any of the other progressives who have cogent critiques of the new law. I did think they should have put their shoulders to the wheel to help get it passed, however.

What has happened is truly historic. The first suggestions of a national health insurance system were made in 1911, for heaven's sake.

What Obama and Pelosi did do, as Maureen Dowd said, was to "turn off Jimmy Carter Highway and get on FDR Drive." Watch the numbers start turning around. The Republican "tsunami" a lot of the meat puppets are touting in November could be more like a ripple.

This bill is far from being perfect. It is 95-97% of what the Heritage Foundation unveiled in 1993 and what Bob Dole (and Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch) boosted as an alternative to the Clinton Plan in 1994. This bill had over 200 Republican amendments adopted. It is by all measures bi-partisan legislation.

The Republicans are not upset with what was passed, they are upset with who passed it. The "Repeal and Replace" cry is just a fund-raising ploy. Neither the insurance cartel nor the Chamber of Commerce are going to put any skin in that game. The state AGs who are pushing their court cases, even if successful, and I don't rule that out with the radical Roberts Court, will affect only a small part of the bill and the mandate will change only in small ways.

Let the other side get with the sour grapes and grousing. We should start pushing now for a public option on the way to a true single-payer system. It will take years. We need to keep electing Democrats.

Anyway, if you think there's a cogent left critique of Health Insurance Reform, wait until you see the Finance Reform. That will really give people a lot to howl about!

[Mithreal]

55. "start pushing now" - who is only starting now?

Obama stood in the way. We have a lot of things to do including electing Progressive Dems and getting rid of elected conservative Dems within our party.

There is no reason for them to repeal the bill, yes, its a funding thing for R's, many Republicans admit that.

If our side was honest, both in discussing what this bill is as much as what it represents there would be less "grousing" as you say.

Couldn't help yourself from calling it bipartisan, could ya?

Much good stuff in what you posted but also a lot of things to disagree with as well. Subtle and well said even though I disagree with a lot of it.

[axollot]

54. Cenk gives everyone a fair shake. Sorry I can only come up with Aussie

slang for how he does his show. *shrug* Thom Hartmann is similar but with a less gossipy side. Which, I love about Cenk.

Cheers
Sandy

[fubarsnafu]

74. Not pissed here....

OT
Trying to get this going VIRAL:

Boycott the Discovery Networks
To remove Sarah Palin from host of Discovery's Sarah Palin's Alaska
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/21/boycott-the-discovery-channel-networks

This petition is to inform the Discovery Networks of our intentions to boycott the following channels in response to their decision to have Sarah Palin as the host of Sarah Palin's Alaska, to air on TLC. It's reported she will recieve 1.2 million per episode.

Palin's policies, such as her lack of belief in evolution, are harmful to the scientific theory. She also has an ugly record of animal rights abuses. Her encouragement of aerial wolf hunting using a $150 bounty per wolf, was luckily overturned by the AK supreme court.

Here's Discovery's comment forum. Let them know what you think. So far, all comments are NEGATIVE.
http://blogs.discovery.com/discovery-insider/2010/03/hot-off-the-press.html#comments

[Mithreal]

77. Might get a good response if you posted this in Palin related ops.

Just do a search, off topic can be a little irritating and look like spam, know what I mean? Doesn't do your cause justice.

[ihavenobias]

80. It's ok, it helps keep the thread kicked. And the subject line was relatively on topic. n/t

[Mithreal]

81. Kicks are good, true. That is why I tried to be gentle.

:)

[ooglymoogly]

76. Not liking headline, nor the take on this.

So far I have found nothing in Cenks video's that I disagree with. This bill is a farce on tractor tires and Cenk lays it out very well. Having said that; Good on those that will benefit from this bill though I fear the hype will be short lived when the bill is parsed.

[swag]

85. Somebody's got a little case of Acquired Situational Narcissism

As usual, it's all about Cenk.

[Mithreal]

94. -1 for outright silliness

Acquired Situational Narcissism (ASN) is a form of narcissism which develops in adolescence or adulthood, brought on by wealth, fame and the other trappings of celebrity. It was coined by Robert B. Millman, professor of psychiatry at the Weill Medical College of Cornell University.

ASN differs from conventional narcissism in that it develops after childhood and is supported by the celebrity-obsessed society: fans, assistants and tabloid media all play into the idea that the person really is vastly more important than other people.

The person with ASN may suffer from unstable relationships, substance abuse and erratic behaviour.

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Acquired_situational_narcissism

[ooglymoogly]

96. Sounds like the disease of the pug party, even though their celebrity

is just a loud tantrum "as seen on TV".

[Lahure]

95. CENK da MAN!!

One of the Honest voice in Blogosphere...Team him up with Rachel Maddow we'll have Killer Combo!!