Does anyone here actually believe we'll get meaningful healthcare reform out of this Congress?

[cali]

I don't. I think if there is a public option it will be so watered down that it will be useless. The insurance companies are the only ones that will come out on top. When even supposedly liberal dems like Chris Dodd (well, he is from CT, the biggest insurance state) vote against allowing states to implement single payer, you know there aren't enough dems to actually pass something that reforms our failed and corrupt healthcare system.

Meaningful reform has been strangled in the cradle.

[depakid]

1. I think we will

Though not without some casualties- and some appropriate realignment.

[cali]

2. I appreciate your optimism. Wish I shared it, hope you're right.

[Fumesucker]

3. I never did..

It's been clear for a long time that big money controls Congress.

The insurance companies are among the biggest of big money.

[Fumesucker]

4. I see your fan club is busy this morning cali..

:)

Already have at least one unrec on this thread.

[cali]

5. lol

it makes me laugh that anyone would think that their unrecs would bother me- and i can't imagine another reason for unreccing this thread. Hell, I had unrecs on a post wishing DUers a great day.

so, to the unreccer(s): Sorry, it doesn't bother me. I'm just laughing at you.

[ThomWV]

6. This congress spits on us and calls it a kiss - hell no we won't see meaningful healthcare reform

But we would if there was any such thing as the Democratic Party.

[lib2DaBone]

73. LOL.. pees on our leg and tells us that it is raining...

..whatever bill we get is going to be 2000 pages of the worst gobbledygook legalese ever written by lobbyists.

Like our income tax laws.. it will require a host of attorneys just to read the thing.

We will get health care on the first Tuesday of only months that end in "R", if there is a full moon and it is 72 degrees and the wind is from the East... only if you pay double the deducible and you can prove before a review board of your peers that you didn't get fired from you last job and if you are foreclosed that amount must be declared as income on a 1099. (paragraph 1) :-)

[pokercat999]

7. If we don't get meaningful health care reform by 2010 my

prediction is Democrats will lose their majority in both houses by 2012 and Mr. Obama will be a one term President. The economy may well cost Mr. Obama the Presidency in 2012 anyway but health care could be the downfall of the Congressional Dems. Don't be surprised at a strong third party/candidate coming from the left. Millions of unemployed middle-class citizens will lose their insurance this year (who can afford Cobra on unemployment payments) and they will be ripe for the picking.

[Q3JR4]

11. See, I'm not so sure about that either.

I'm not really all that optimistic that Joe and Jane Everyone will get that their congress voted against their interest. Those Americans who care about what happens in this country are too bogged down trying to live from paycheck to paycheck to mount any kind of defense. Everyone else is too busy stuffing their faces with fast food while the corporate media rams petty nonsense down their gullets and calls it news.

Every time there's talk about meaningful health care reform, those on the right start screaming "socialist" and the insurance industry starts spending money like a drunken sailor on shore leave to defeat efforts to reign in it's profits.

Eventually we're going to have to face the fact that we, as Americans, have no say over what our government decides to do, because of a combination of American laziness, corporate greed, and money.

Q3JR4.
democrats or republicans, they're all the same.

Confirmed pessimist.

[ejpoeta]

18. the crazy thing is.... they are so afraid of losing their seats, that they will lose their seats.

instead of doing what's right, they do what they THINK will get them elected. It ticks me off that they aren't doing what they were elected for. Whatever you think of the republicans, they got in there and rammed through whatever they wanted with no regard for elections or anything else. they didn't worry about the dems.... they didn't worry about the voters. sometimes i wish the dems would be more like that.

[pokercat999]

20. Exactly. The "problem" for the Re-thugs and this is the same

problem for all American politicians is that the people that are most responsible for their elections, the Corporations, are also diametrically opposed to doing what is best for the people that cast the vote, mostly the middle-class. Our votes are bought by advertising of all types, paid for by Corporate "donors" but to continue to secure that advertising money to insure election and re-election the congressman or senator must vote in favor of the corporate sponsor. This is ALWAYS, ALWAYS to the determent of the actual vote caster.

What a perverse and masochistic system we have developed? It would be comic if not so sick.

[skipos]

29. "Don't be surprised at a strong third party/candidate coming from the left."

You mean "strong" like Nader, getting about 1-3% of the vote? Yawn.

[pokercat999]

33. I guess what I'm hoping for is that Americans take back

their democracy and vote for their own best interests. I know, as things are right now, it's looks more likely we will continue down the same road, maybe that will change as our economy continues to fail and the people become more and more dissatisfied with the Dems and realize the Re-thugs are even worse. I think the people may finally have exhausted their seeming unlimited supply of gullibility. Blaming the other party for our problems may just stop working when enough people realize it's the SYSTEM that is the problem. We must remove Corporations from our political process and take away their "person-hood" in our legal system.

[Tim01]

40. Ok, and how do you suggets we do that?

We buy stuff from the corporations. The corporations pay money to who they want to be elected. The people they get elected lie to us and use massive amounts of money to emotionally manipulate us into believing that which isn't true, or confusing people until they don't care anymore. Those elected to the govt manipulate the govt to favor and protect the corporations who got them elected. This is all done with the money we gave them in the first place.
And then the corporations tell the American people they need to spend more money on the new i-phone or faster weed killer or whatever, and the American people run to Walmart as fast as they can to buy it. And the corporations get more money.

[pokercat999]

83. Hmmm I didn't say it would be EASY! One way would be to

organize like minded people into a group, call it a party and you could vote for representatives that would actually repre........ oops, sorry, wrong country, wrong century.

You could get a bunch of like minded people that have nothing to lose and they all own big guns...........I think that worked in an Island nation just south of the US, it was ugh it was ugh....forget it.

[Tim01]

84. I agree, not easy.

I try to effect my immediate environment, my family, my friends. I vote. I try to educate just a few people. I pick just one or two causes and I write letters.
I honestly think that is about as good as it gets, for me anyway.

[Q3JR4]

8. Nope. Never did, in fact.

Q3JR4
Today only, for the low low price of $500 million you too can own your own U.S. congress.

[pecwae]

9. No.

I never expected it to happen and I don't expect it to be so in my lifetime. It's a useful campaign promise, though.

[sendero]

10. For once..

... I agree with you.

Our government is OWNED by special interests. They will throw us some crumbs but they will not jeopardize their money train.

[jannyk]

12. No!

[natrat]

13. no, it will be just another fake obama scam and boondoggle for corporations

hope you can get sick over

[Orsino]

14. "Meaningful" has many meanings.

If we get half-assed reform that paves the way for real reform later, it may be tough to decide where "meaningful" began.

[FormerDittoHead]

56. I can define "Meaningful" - INSURANCE COMPANY PROFITS GO DOWN.

Who is this bill going to benefit (putting the bullshit "win-win" meme aside)?

It will be easy to tell. The key to this whole thing is PROFITS.

[H2O Man]

15. No.

A simple rule of nature is that something can only produce its own type. A chiicken, as Malcolm X used to say, can never produce a duck egg. Only a chicken egg. And we have too many chickens in Congress.

[Vinca]

16. I sure hope so. We can't go on like this, that's for sure.

[KharmaTrain]

17. Any Option That Covers Those Uninsured...

There's not going to be "free" care...never was, never will. The hope is to create a competitive healthcare system that drives own the overhead and remove the insurance companies from playing god. As long as there's a system that offers coverage to the vast majority who can't afford it, that's definite progress. If it opens doors for others to get preventative care by letting them go to their doctor for regular check-ups rather than waiting until things get real bad...that's progress. If it detaches people from having to rely solely on employers as their way to get insurance (and then abused by those employers) that's progress.

Will it be perfect? Nope. Will it need to be revisited and modified? Most definitely. But the status quo can't and won't continue.

The term "meaningful" is very subjective...thus why a public option is included as for some that meaningful care will come from taking out an umbrella or supplemental policy or bypassing the system altogether. Will those people get better care? Probably, but then we're not talking about those who want or can afford top quality care, this is about making sure those who aren't insured can get some type of coverage and create a far more responsive and competitive medical system.

[ThomWV]

19. If I were arguing against your points here is where I'd start

I tend to agree with you even though from my perspective what we are seeing evolve in the Congress isn't what I'd hoped for in healtcare reform legislation. However what I would challenge in your statement is the implicit notion that it will be "revisited and modified". I think we get it now or we'll never see it in my lifetime, and I expect to live another couple of decades.

[KharmaTrain]

21. It's Already Slated To Be Revisited in 2013

A program of this size and scope is always going to be a political football. Our biggest job after passage will be to defend and protect it, just like other entitlements as the GOOP and their lobbyist allies are sure to attack a government-run system. That said, I've read that the plan being circulated include a revisit in 2013 to see how the program is working and to made modifications. It's going to be inevetitable as right now this concept is still an abstract...we won't know how many people will be covered or will either take full government care or opt out.

I look at my kids in their 20s and think how this will benefit them...all the years I went without any coverage or substandard policies. My hopes are they will never have to deal with this and be able to live a healthier life without the fear of dealing with insurance companies. In my case, I'm a decade plus from 65 and would stick with my current policy...and hope it will be reduced in cost due to the competition.

Cheers...

[ThomWV]

22. Now there's a mighty interesting point you've raised

I don't know how old you are but I'm in my 60's and my only son is 35. He has three children but just recently got dental insurance; he has no health insurance.

I didn't have health care until I was about 35 either but back in the 70's and early 80's I could still afford health care even though I didn't have insurance. Now to be sure if there had been some sort of catastrophe I couldn't have afforded it but I could afford to pay for the occasional doctor or emergency room visit. Now days if a person doesn't have insurance and has even a minor problem the bills can run into the thousands and thousands of dollars. It wasn't always like that.

I'm not saying it was his fault - but notice that the change, the beginning of the growth in cost, began with the time of Reagan.

[KharmaTrain]

24. You Might Not Blame Him, I Sure Do...

I look at the 80s as the worst decade for healtcare. My background was growing up in a medical household. My father was one of the last "GPs". As a little kid, I would go to his office and see his waiting room full of patients coming in for their check-ups...many of those patients remained with him for decades (ironically he still had patients older than he when he finally closed his practice in 2002 at age 84). In his last years, I handled a lot of the paperwork and constantly battled with insurance companies who were second guessing...refusing to pay for services or dictating what treatments could be given (in many cases leading to a lot more expense). It all began with "deregulation" of the insurance industry in the 80s that turned them into the gateway between the patient and the doctor. You know that in the 70's hospitals wouldn't turn away anyone...that changed in the 80s and forced many either into substandard health care plans or no plans at all.

No one...no one...in what we call the "greatest" country in the world should fear illness and should have some types of health insurance. IMO, it's not an expense but an investment, as a healthier country is a happier and more productive one...like the one we saw in the boom yeras of the 60's and early 70's.

Cheers....

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

46. I see the 80's and Reagan as the turning point for the entire ethos of the country for the worse. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

52. The house bill, in particular, is designed to evolve.

For the first time in decades, I am optimistic about the congress doing something good.

[pokercat999]

23. The worst problem for most Americans is not that they don't

have health insurance. It's that they have health insurance that is crap. We almost always have health insurance from a company whose main goal is to maximize profits. If they are a for profit corporation their legal obligation to their stockholders is to maximum profits by any (legal) means necessary. If that means as it always does to pay as little out in benefits as possible then that is what they RIGHTFULLY do.

Our problem is for profit health insurance. The sooner our politicians start speaking this truth the better off we will be.......don't hold your breath while waiting.

[KharmaTrain]

26. Profit Vs. Expenses

The bottom line is I see many here thinking that we should have a fully free healthcare system. No matter what you need, it should be subsidized. This is the recipe for abuse. It's one reason I wasn't excited by a single-payer system as it would replace insurance companies playing god with government beaurucrats...I prefer seeing the two compete against each other.

I agree on the quality of the insurance...and in many cases that is because people took policies with few options. It was offered by an employer and we're not stuck with a system where an individual has no choice...and, yes, to not only maximize profits for insurance companies but also to save the employer a few bucks as well. I want to detach people from having to rely on employers for medical care and make it up to the individual.

Bottom line is there will still be private insurance and insurance companies. In my case, I want to keep my existing policy and have the option to purchase supplemental or umbrella coverage. I'm fortunate, I can afford it...and I have no problem being taxed to help pay for others. But I see competition as being the key here...and with it choices and lower costs to all.

[lumberjack_jeff]

53. All the reform legislation being considered addresses all three problems

Everyone will have coverage that is in one of three categories
Not crap, good, and excellent, from an insurer who either is, or must compete with, a very large nationwide nonprofit.

[ipaint]

59. The public plan does the opposite

It is forced to compete for ptofite private insurance on their terms:

The more complete CBO analysis of the HELP bill concludes:
The new draft also includes provisions regarding a “public plan,” but those provisions did not have a substantial effect on the cost or enrollment projections, largely because the public plan would pay providers of health care at rates comparable to privately negotiated rates—and thus was not projected to have premiums lower than those charged by private insurance plans in the exchanges.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/07/15/why-the-houses-public-option-is-better-than-kennedys-public-option/

It's a private plan dressed up as a public option, there will be no competition and it will not force for profits to lower prices. It seems exactly the opposite is true, the "public" plan will be forced to compete at prices set by the for profit market.

[lumberjack_jeff]

62. You're conflating a bunch of different things here.

Yes, healthcare costs are largely a function of payments to providers. Reforming insurance doesn't, by itself, address this.
BUT, placing a public non-profit in the health insurer's marketspace will drive down their profit margins, which are a significant systemic cost and not a function of provider payments.

There are four main components to the huge cost of care in the US.
a) insurance company malpractice in the interest of profit
b) inefficiency because of billing hassles
c) high costs of treatment and drugs, often because of
d) 50 million uninsured

The bill takes care of a), improves b), and almost eliminates d)

Of course doctors are going to get paid. If the reimbursement rates were dramatically discounted relative to private insurance, even fewer doctors would take it.

[ipaint]

71. The inefficiency in the for profit billing system is the complexity.

That won't change. Insurance companies, as I am sure the hundreds of thousands of those dead as a result of access to health care can attest to, will spend any amount of money to find a myriad of ways to deny care. That won't change. The 50 million uninsured are that way because they can't afford to buy for profit care. That's not going to change because insurance companies lower rates or providers take a hit on their profit margin but because taxpayers will be paying for subsidies for those people so the insurers are paid in full.

As far as providers I'm not just referring to doctors. The whole for profit medical industry rakes in enormous profit, hospitals, labs, pharma etc.

Do you seriously think for profit insurance companies, hospitals, drug companies are going to sit back and watch their profit margins lowered???

Where are the regulations capping the amount insurance companies can can charge to support 31% overhead and profit. Why does every country who has done this type of public health insurance exchange require that the insurance industries participating be non profit?


If this is the best the majority of americans think we can do, fine. But don't sell it to me as if this is reform. It is not.

[lumberjack_jeff]

75. The bill takes measures to standardize paperwork...

... it takes measures to establish protocol and create a standardized minimum offering.

Insurers which deny procedures established as part of the nationwide standard will be kicked out of the exchange.

Yes, I seriously think that they'll "sit back and watch their profit margin's lowered". This law gives them no choice. It is the least bitter of the pills offered them.
a) public option
b) single payer

They will attempt to maximize profit within the constraints of their new market space.

If they are forced to compete with a public plan, regulations (as you describe them) aren't necessary.

[ipaint]

79. It can't standardize paperwork, there are too many providers.

Insurers have never let anything as trivial as a rule stop them from chasing profit. They just have to be a little sneakier.

They chose the public option because it has no regulatory teeth.

There new market place has a single restraint, the public option must have competitive rates which essentially match the existing for profits. Hence the need for taxpayer subsidies.

With premiums, co-pays and taxpayer subsidies we will still be paying top dollar per-capita for health care, well over what other countries pay.

Oh...I forgot, one other regulation. Citizens by law now must buy in.

[inna]

55. "Our problem is for profit health insurance." EXACTLY!

it's worth repeating over and over, that simple fact escapes many - if not most - people for some reason.

[RC]

81. Not exactly. The so called Non-Profit health insurance companies are just as bad.

[shimmergal]

78. Agreed.

I'd rather it go a lot farther, but a public option that's limited to the uninsured will be meaningful if it: 1) has a "grandfather" clause-- i.e. once you have it, you can keep it, and 2) has a "pay or play" option for employers: i.e. those not offering insurance can pay the tax/penalty suggested, something under $1000 per employee, for opting out.

Rationale: With Medicare, Medicaid, VA, and related programs, already approx. 1/3 of the population is covered by public plans. If it's a good plan, more people would opt to keep it, and emplyers who're on the edge of being able to afford any health insurance for their employees would just pay the fine, maybe using the difference to give employees a wage hike. In a very few years I can foresee half of Americans being covered by public, non-profit plans. We're only going to get to single-payer by stealth, but this would provide a significant leap forward toward it.

[Echo In Light]

25. No. Everything about the US is phony, so when a major issue like this is targeted....

...one automatically realizes that all of the major, data dispensing outlets via M$M will be planting disinfo seeds within the public mind in hopes of managing public opinion, so that when this 'reform' reaches its inevitable pro-corporate, profits over people conclusion, there will still be a sizable percentage of the citizenry who don't understand how they're still being fucked over despite all of the cheerleading and slogan chanting coming from corporate "news."

The corporate/state nexus could just pummel and rape and pillage the public, yet with just the right dose of consistently applied propaganda, could convince those they've just screwed that they're the ones coming out ahead, and fucking people will not only buy it, but fight bitterly against any who dare point out the facts of the situation, dismissing them as "negative," or "conspiracy theorists." The American public is a constant source of gallows humor folly and entertainment.

[marketcrazy1]

27. NO

what Echo said.... that pretty much nails it!

[Tim01]

35. Said it better than I can.

"but fight bitterly against any who dare point out the facts of the situation" my favorite quote.

[L0oniX]

28. When hell freezes over...

[foginthemorn]

30. A little MIGHT be on the way by 2013--a little.

[ipaint]

31. Absolutely not.

Shareholders come first which means we come last.

[bemildred]

32. No, they still think they can get re-elected without giving up the insurance money.

We're going to have to show them that not doing it has a cost.

[ConcernedCanuk]

34. Nope . . .

.
.
.

Cuz then they may have to admit that us Canuks really DO have some better ideas

Ask the US Air Force why Canada killed it's Avro Arrow program . .

USA FORCED OUR PM BACK THEN TO KILL IT - why???

BECAUSE OUR AVRO WAS SUPERIOR TO ANY AMERICAN AIRPLANE AT THE TIME

USA hasta be number one ya know . .

and our PM caved . . .

just like our PM's are doing lately with supporting the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, wherever - -

Damm, I miss our Chretien - He was a REAL Canadian

with balls . . .

It appears that our government and our voters are getting as stupid as USAmerican voters and government.

I'm almost glad that I'm almost 60

Maybe I won't be alive to see the ruination of Canada by the USAmerican influence

(sigh)

and NO

don't expect decent healthcare in the US in your lifetime

USAmerican government does NOT care about it's population

just their taxes to fuel their War-Machine

something to ponder...

[Recursion]

36. Define "meaningful"

I think we're playing a long game here. If the progressive caucus can stonewall the attempts to weaken the public option (the real issue here will be reconciliation with the Senate bill), then that will eventually be the death of private insurance as primary insurers. It just might take them 20 years to stop moving. But, if that's the only way to kill this dragon, that's how we have to kill it.

[mikekohr]

37. Yes

mike kohr

[mikekohr]

38. Yes

[Autumn]

39. No I don't think so

mandatory health insurance will work out well for the insurance companies, not so well for us.

[rockymountaindem]

41. No, at the moment I'd be happy if they just don't make it worse

Then it'll be another generation before we try anything again. However, I don't think it will cause the Democrats or Obama to be voted out of office. Any predictions about "strong third party candidates" just don't get serious consideration from me.

[natrat]

42. the audacity of er...hope..... er change ,oh just forget it

[dgibby]

43. No.

As soon as single payer advocates weren't even allowed to be heard in the Senate Finance Committee meetings, it was evident that no one in Washington is taking either the economic meltdown or health care seriously.

If, as Obama has stated on enumerable occasions, health care is the biggest drain on the economy, then it stands to reason that fixing health care should be issue #1, and that it should be constructed to afford the best bang for the buck.

Obviously, that isn't happening, so I have to believe that we're not being told the truth about either the economy or health care. No telling what else is being hidden.

I do hope I'm wrong, and I do want President Obama to succeed, and I do want to keep a Dem majority in Congress, but most of all, I want decent health care for everyone.

I'm a retired military nurse, so although I don't have to worry about my own coverage, I do worry about everyone who doesn't have coverage or whose coverage is inadequate. Seems to me that a single payer plan like medicare or military or VA is the best way to go, but as long as Washington is owned and operated by Wall Street and the Health Insurance Industry, it isn't going to happen. Sad, very sad. :cry:

[ipaint]

44. It certainly isn't meaningful healthcare reform for the 8+ million

this plan leaves out in the cold.

[lumberjack_jeff]

54. The 8 million left out in the cold are those who won't buy coverage...

... no matter how cheap it is.

[inna]

58. because they can't afford it, perhaps.

who in their right mind would refuse affordable coverage?

[lumberjack_jeff]

63. That what I hear.

I used to think that people didn't get coverage because they couldn't afford it. Now we have some math to prove that I was wrong.

In the house bill, a family of 4 with an income under $30,000 gets coverage for free. If they make between $30,000 and $88,000 premiums are capped on a sliding scale between 1 1/2% and 10 1/2% of income.

Our society can afford 17% of our GDP for healthcare, so people can afford (worst case scenario) 11% of their upper-middle class incomes. Yet a large percentage of DU'ers won't "buy" it unless it is literally free.

[ipaint]

77. That's not true.

"Our society can afford 17% of our GDP for healthcare, so people can afford (worst case scenario) 11% of their upper-middle class incomes. Yet a large percentage of DU'ers won't "buy" it unless it is literally free."

Yes 11% is doable for many in the upper range but the fact is we are all STILL spending an additional 6% -15.5% in tax dollars on subsidies to a middleman we don't need. That money goes solely to supporting a parasitic industry that prolongs suffering and kills people for increased profits. It goes to useless overpaid CEO's who pay beau coup bucks to underlings who's only job is to figure out how to game the system for more money.

Are we nuts?

This has nothing to do with free, it's about fair.

[ipaint]

60. That's not what is happening in Mass. the plan this is modeled on.

And of course there will be folks who can't afford insurance even at a subsidized rate. The public plan does nothing to force insurers to lower rates in fact just the opposite-

The more complete CBO analysis of the HELP bill concludes:
The new draft also includes provisions regarding a “public plan,” but those provisions did not have a substantial effect on the cost or enrollment projections, largely because the public plan would pay providers of health care at rates comparable to privately negotiated rates—and thus was not projected to have premiums lower than those charged by private insurance plans in the exchanges.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/07/15/why-the-houses-public-option-is-better-than-kennedys-public-option/

What we are all getting is a subsidy to buy overpriced private health care. That's not a public option.

[inna]

65. i agree; this is not a real "public option", it's a handout to the insurance and "health" corps. nt

[yy4me]

69. The MA plan is a disaster. It is already out of money and is

facing cuts in benefits. Having 50 states do the same thing is preposterous.

We need a total countrywide health care umbrella. No "different-in-every-state" baloney.

To model any reform after Massachusetts is asking for disaster.

[warren pease]

45. This is a first...

I agree wholeheartedly with cali.

Unfortunately, the 111th congress is making it even easier to detest people who hide behind that "d" after their names than did the "don't have the votes," "dry powder" 110th.

I really can't remember a situation in which it's been so easy to see the gobs of money that encase nearly all these miserable, self-absorbed, corrupt, bought-and-paid-for corporate tools like a golden sarcophagus.

So well said and we'll resume hostilities some other time.


:toast:



sf

[rhett o rick]

47. Hell no. The balance of power is so lopsided favoring the ruling class that I can not foresee any

meaningful changes in the near future. A large majority of Congress is OWNED lock, stock and barrel, by CorpAmerica. Unless that changes, I don't look for change.

Edit to include Rec #11

[LWolf]

48. No, I don't think we will.

But then, I didn't expect it.

Which will not keep me from continuing to push for single-payer.

[Bandit]

49. Just as soon as that "One Brigade a Month" thingy happens..

:shrug:

[lumberjack_jeff]

50. Yes, many of us do. n/t

[lame54]

51. over time - maybe...

I'm willing to support this step

[voteearlyvoteoften]

57. Cash for Clunkers?

Unless you have a car worth under 3000 and are planning to buy a new car the Cash for Clunkers won't do much.
If your trade is worth 5000 you lose money. And you have to buy only certain models.And from what I've seen the dealers are just going to raise the prices a bit on qualifying models so it will be hard to be a winner.
Point being that if they water down the health care bill it may end up not much better, or only good for a small percentage of people.
However, the 8000 cash for first time home buyers is a winner esp. if you are in a lower priced market.

[bridgit]

61. I think the risk is being run for surrendering every issue; health care the latest in a string...

of buggered and unattended 'vital' matters i.e. Stop The War In Iraq (few are even reporting events there any longer), Stop The War In Afghanistan (This stuff takes collective resolve oh well there goes that), jobs, trade, union representaion...health care, and not just health care but universal for everyone no questions asked we want it and that's the end of it...before too long if it isn't too late already; the so-called power elite will simply pose it in the form of a C Street aside:

"You see? Jacks Of All Trades The Lot Of Them - They never really cared for one thing enough to see anything through to completion."

[niyad]

64. nothing. our spineless, subservient servants of the people will, once again,

bow to the money and screw us over

[Blue_In_AK]

66. No, I don't believe it for a minute.

Nothing will change and things will get worse. I hope I'm wrong.

[noamnety]

67. Nope, but

I understand that we can't get gay rights until we're done with the urgent business of not getting universal health coverage.

[leftstreet]

70. And we can't go after war criminals until teh gayz and unhealthy people stfu

if I have that right

[Vidar]

68. Believe? No. Hope? Yes.

[spanone]

72. not with this spineless, ineffectual, shit-for-brains congress

[sarcasmo]

74. It's hard for anything good to come from Congress when two thirds are bout and paid for by

The big Pharmaceutical companies or the Insurance industry.

[defendandprotect]

76. Not with e-mails and telephone calls . . that's for sure -- !!!

Are unions or what's left of them calling for the public to come out to

demonstrations -- where are the women's groups . . . ?? They should all

be giving leadership to this issue and organizing --

I'm sure someone is --

With emphasis for "public option" moving to states, we should be pushing

Governors -- and getting organized for MEDICARE FOR ALL --!!!

[Aramchek]

80. if you will only be satisfied by single payer, then you might be disappointed

but, there will be a public option, and the currently uninsured will be covered

[varelse]

82. No

like you, I believe that any chance of getting meaningful health care reform from this Congress has been eliminated, but I'd love it if both of us were wrong.