Why I'm Supporting Passage of The HCR Bill

[stopbush]

I've been on the fence about this, but I've come around to supporting it. A little background:

We are currently without health insurance because I'm unemployed and our coverage ended when my job ended on 10/1. I couldn't afford the $1,200+-a-month COBRA payments, so I passed on it. Next month, we will be going on "part time employee" benefits that are offered through my wife's company. The benefits suck, but it will only cost us around $400 a month for the four of us (not that we can afford that with me out of work).

I'm 55 years old, and looking for work in this economy when you're not a 30-something with a full head of hair is challenging. Between being over-qualified for most positions available and the job contraction in my industry, things do not look promising. I have had three different jobs in the past 5 years and lost all of them when budgets got tight and staff cuts became necessary (doesn't help to be the newest hire). We have been on four different, shitty health plans in that time. Because I have been working for non-profits with small staffs, our health insurance has been incredibly expensive, because the non-profits have no bargaining power. My last job paid my premium, which was $600 a month. Adding my wife to that policy cost $600 a month. Adding two kids cost $300 more. Run the numbers: the total cost for my family's health insurance was $18,000 per year, of which I had to pay $10,800. To go on the COBRA would have cost me $14,400 out of pocket for the year at a time I don't have a job. My wife is a 5-year cancer survivor, and we have to have insurance for her, even if the rest of us roll the dice, forgo insurance and hope for the best.

On the face of it, there's not much in this bill that would really benefit me. Single-payer would be the best for me, especially as I change jobs a lot and portability would be nice. Lowering Medicare eligibility to 55 would have maybe helped both me and my wife, maybe not.

So why support it?

Simple: because as Tom Harkin said today, this is a START. This is the first battle in a war that will take decades to win, and it is a battle that has been won by the Democrats and by Obama. This is the initial salvo that puts the insurance companies on notice that their days are numbered. Is it even close to being a great bill? Of course not. Maybe it's not even a good bill, but it is a start, and it is a victory over the do-nothing Rs. It is doing something as opposed to doing nothing for the past century.

You may call me naive, and that's fine. But let me say that the people who are really naive are the ones who fail to accept the reality that this is just the way legislation gets done in DC ALL THE FUCKING TIME. The only difference this time around was, 1) the high profile of the debate, and, 2) the fact that health care legislation - ANY health care legislation whatsoever - might actually have a chance of getting through the fucking Senate of the USA.

Look, I don't necessarily believe all the platitudes that Reid and his boys trotted out at their presser today. But the reason I don't believe them is that I haven't had a chance to read what is actually in the bill. I'm taking their word on it, just like I've taken the word of progressive Ds like Tom Harkin and Rep Wiener in the past, and I don't see any reason to doubt their sincerity on this one. They're on the inside looking out, and if two liberal stalwarts like them say that they'll vote for this bill, then I trust them. I am one DUer who refuses to throw out the baby AND the bathwater AND the soap when it comes to cleaning up the health care system. I refuse to believe that every single liberal D whose voice I trust has suddenly up and sold out to the insurance industry. You may call me naive to believe that. I call myself a staunch Democrat who has learned that I don't know everything and that once in a while those guys in the hallowed halls not only know better than me, they know what the hell they're doing.

To win a war, you must first win a few battles. This battle isn't Waterloo, but it is Gettysburg for the Rs and the health insurance industry, and they are the South in this battle, not the North. The war is not over, but the end of the war has begun.

I'll take this as a victory, and not a Pyrrhic victory in any sense of the word. Will this bill help my situation immediately? Probably not. Finding a job with benefits is much more realistic short-term help than anything in this bill. But I'm thinking of my kids and what this START means to them and their future. For the first time in American history, the Feds are stepping in and putting the health insurance industry on notice. If that's not a huge thing, then why are the Rs all out there bitching like crazy?

Politically, this bill is a HUGE win for Obama and the Ds. I can't stress just how huge it is. DUers will be the last ones to realize this, but believe me, the Rs realize it right now. All of their carping and delaying and teabagging and townhalls and bitching have amounted to absolutely nothing. NOTHING! They get nothing out of this except a huge DEFEAT in a battle whose coming they have delayed for decade after decade. And they will for the first time in history have to deal with the same obstructionism they put up against Medicare and SS in the past, only THIS time, they've made the mistake of doing it in the era of You Tube and the 24/7 news cycle. The country will be reminded over and over again that the Rs opposed everything and anything to reform health care, and the public WILL remember that fact when they enter the voting booths in 2010 and 2012.

There are more battles to be fought and won, but this is the big one. This is the one that changes the direction of the fight and the grounds upon which the battle will be waged.

That's my feeling. Flame away if you must.

[BeyondGeography]

1. "But I'm thinking of my kids and what this START means to them and their future."

Yes.

K&R

[rucky]

2. That's been about my reasoning, as well.

I had to overcome alot of anger and disappointment to get there.

[MadHound]

3. Let me ask you this,

Is your last reason that you gave, that this is a huge victory for the Dems, the biggest reason why you're supporting this bill? It seems like that is the case.

[stopbush]

6. I can't say it's the biggest reason, but it certain figures prominently in the mix.

How it impacts my kids' future is a much bigger deal for me.

Would you expect anything else from a life-long D?

[MadHound]

18. Not trying to be rude then,

But frankly I find putting political party victories over what is good for this country is rather disgusting.

This bill is going to impact your kid's future, not to mention ours, in a huge, negative manner. I don't know if you have a daughter, but consider this, under the legislation that is coming out of both the Senate and the House, every woman in this country is going to have their rights narrowed drastically thanks to Nelson, Stupak and the Dems.

Not to mention the fact that with a mandated monopoly handed to the insurance companies, with ineffective cost controls and no public option, we're going to see another huge transfer of wealth up the ladder. Within a few years of this bill taking effect the average American family could be spending 27% of their income, or more, on health insurance premiums. Can you afford that, I know that it's going to be major problem for me. This will be nothing less than another assault on the middle, working and poor class in this country, sucking away our money so that the rich get richer while the rest of us become debt serfs.

This bill is not progress, it isn't the first step forward, but rather a huge step backward. Not to mention that the Constitutionality of mandating that a person has to purchase a product just because they're a citizen of this country is in doubt.

Supporting this abomination of a bill simply because it is some sort of "victory" for the Dems is indeed reprehensible. You're essentially throwing most Americans under the bus just so that a political party can claim victory.

Well, enjoy your victory while you can. The passage of the bill in this current form is going to spell the demise of the Democratic party in 2010, 2012 and beyond. As a lifelong Dem myself I can tell you that I'm done with this party, as are many millions of others.

[stopbush]

24. Let me address your abortion concern.

I would prefer that language be stripped from the bill. But to say that "every woman in this country" is going to have her rights narrowed is itself a very narrow take on reality.

Look - the cost of an abortion is anywhere from $400-1200. There are many, many medical conditions outside of abortion that are NOT covered by many insurances that cost a helluva lot more than does an abortion. People must pay these expenses out of pocket. So, abortion MAY be added to that list in some instances. I'm sure that there are myriad other procedures that will have their coverage restricted in the next couple of years, and no one will lift an eyebrow.

And what if you're one of the 47-million Americans (like me, my wife and kids) who currently have no insurance? In that case, NOTHING is covered. Not abortions, not injuries sustained in an accident, not even a regular check-up at the doctor. I hate to put it this way, but is it really worth continuing NOT insuring the 30-million Americans this bill will cover for everything from the common cold to heart surgery because we're going to go to the mat over who pays for a relatively inexpensive medical procedure that effects by definition a very limited pool of people?

Women still have the right to an abortion in this country. They may lose the expectation that their insurance will pay some percentage of the bill for an abortion IF they get their insurance through a company that is receiving subsidies from the Feds to write their insurance policies. There will still be many, many plans that will cover abortion because they will not take the Fed subsidies. And if the law truly serves to reduce a person's monthly premiums, I'd think that having to pay $400 out of one's pocket would be mitigated by the same.

In practice, any abortion ban will end up hurting those who it always hurts - the poor, and poor women exclusively. That said, there is every hope and chance that such a ban could be ruled unconstitutional and be stripped out of this bill once it becomes law. There's every chance that future legislation will be enacted to restore what may be taken away.

The fact is that it was the knuckle-dragging, religious fucks that made abortion an issue in this bill, and they have FAILED in making abortion the shoals upon which this legislation failed. I count it as progress that Ds didn't take the bait and shoot themselves in the foot over this red herring of an issue this time around. I have every reason to believe that liberals are already gearing up to fight this battle all the way to the SCOTUS if needs must. This abortion funding ban could turn out to be an unintended Trojan Horse that comes back to bite the religious assholes in the balls, maybe even leading to an overturning of the Hyde Amendment.

[MadHound]

28. So you add your own personal need and greed to your reasoning

In addition to that of a political "victory". You know what they say, when you find yourself in a hole, first rule is to stop digging.

Your reply to my post is essentially stating that you are willing to accept increased restrictions of women's rights just so that you and your family can have insurance. How goddamn cold and cruel is that. I'm sorry that you don't have insurance, I truly am, been there, done that, it is no fun at all. But I am not willing to restrict the rights of others in this country just for my own personal gain, and neither should you.

So, you currently don't have any insurance, and you will, maybe, get a subsidy to help you buy insurance under this bill. If you do get that subsidy, or buy from an insurance company that is federally subsidized, what are you going to do if your daughter becomes pregnant and for whatever reason needs to terminate that pregnancy. Will the light finally dawn on you that you were played for a sucker in a game of three card monte?

And again, let me address the fact that this bill is actually going to drive up the costs of health insurance premiums for the average family to unreasonable heights. Are you willing to pay out 27% of your income for insurance premiums? I'm certainly not, nor am I willing for the middle, working and poor classes of this nation to be driven into debt serfdom, which is what will happen.

We can do better, much better than this bill, and we should kill it, start over again and do it right. If not, it will be all wrong, for you, me and the rest of this country. But hey, the Dems can claim "victory":eyes:

[stopbush]

33. My sense of personal greed and need are nothing I have to apologize for.

On the abortion front, my wife had an abortion when we lived in NYC. We were uninsured at the time (neither of us worked a job that offered insurance), and we paid for the entire thing out of pocket.

After our son was born, my wife got pregnant again and the pregnancy went very wrong because they botched the amnio test and she developed an infection that compromised the pregnancy. Her water broke at 26 weeks and she was rushed to the hospital to have labor induced - basically an induced abortion - and delivered an underdeveloped baby that lived for about an hour. We did get to hold her and say our goodbyes. Because she was 26 weeks old, she was considered to be a live birth baby - not a fetus - and we had to pay for a funeral and cremation under NY State law. We had health insurance at the time, so it paid most of the $4,000 hospital bill. The funeral we paid out of pocket. Of course, it was crappy insurance to begin with, which was why we had to use an in-plan amnio center that fucked up the test, rather than the one we had used before under a previous plan that did the same test just fine for my son.

So, I've been through the abortion ordeal, my friend. You ask what I will do if my daughter becomes pregnant and has to terminate her abortion for any reason. If the past is any indicator, I will pay for it out of pocket if I have no insurance, just as I did in the past. If I have insurance that covers it, I'll avail myself of that, just as I did in the past.

What I happen to know from personal experience is that the expense of paying for an abortion is nothing compared to the emotional cost of going through it. What I know from experience is that there are a helluva lot more medical procedures that cost a helluva lot more than a abortion - like my wife's cancer treatments which ran about $20,000 - that I would like to see people get covered for, procedures that people can't even consider having today because they have no coverage whatsoever.

Does that answer your fucking question?

BTW, Madhound - how many abortions have you been through on a personal level? You seem like such an expert. From whence cometh such expertise?

Your linear thinking on this issue is quite appalling.

[MadHound]

39. Ah yes, when all else fails, ask for credentials.

All right, here they are. I worked for a women's shelter for many years, volunteering my services as a translator for the deaf because in my town (a small one at the time) there were no women who would volunteer to translate. I came to that job because of my work in an emergency counseling center and homeless shelter.

In all of these places I saw women who agonized over the decision about abortion. You and your wife at least had the support of each other, so many women do not have that support structure in their life. And yes, the emotional cost of an abortion is much greater than the monetary cost. Yet adding the burden of monetary costs to that of emotional costs is a burden that is too great for many to bear. How many women have you held in your arms as their life leaked out of them, taken by their own hand due to the despair that they felt over their burdens surrounding their pregnancies?

This isn't linear thinking that I'm engaged in, it is global thinking. Unlike you, who by your own admission are putting the well being of you and yours ahead of all else, except for perhaps a meaningless political party victory, I also take into consideration how such actions will effect women and people in general. The good of the whole rather than just the good of me and mine. That is where we differ, that is obvious since you have also failed to address the points I brought up about how this goddamn bill will ruin the middle, working and poor classes.

So is that sufficient experience for you, are my credentials up to your standards. You know what, I really don't give a damn if they are or aren't because I know with a certainty that my heart, my morals are far more extensive than simply looking out for only me and mine.

[stopbush]

44. Except that your "morals" seem to extend no further than the single issue of abortion.

You should take your own advice about digging a hole.

I salute you for your experience and your work to help others. Your credentials in this area certainly impressive. They also show that, no, you haven't had to make a personal decision about abortion. I hope you never have to do so.

That said, it is you who are "admitting" that I'm putting my personal well being ahead of others. You chose to see it that way, fine. By the same token, you are putting the personal well being of women contemplating abortion ahead of the well being of any American without insurance - male and female, adult and child - who is afflicted with anything outside of abortion. Aren't they also part of "the whole" that you are so set on helping? I trust your telling those 47 million that they'll just need to wait for any kind of insurance (ie: the price they need to pay to meet your abortion-uber-alles standards) is also something you've wrestled with and decided in your heart to be the right thing to do.

BTW - the difference between you and me is that I actually do give a damn about what you think.

[MadHound]

48. Your own words, your own posts contradict you,

You have said, perhaps in not so many words, that yes, you are putting your own interests ahead of all others. Sorry if you don't like that hard truth, but there it is: "I hate to put it this way, but is it really worth continuing NOT insuring the 30-million Americans this bill will cover for everything from the common cold to heart surgery because we're going to go to the mat over who pays for a relatively inexpensive medical procedure that effects by definition a very limited pool of people?"

The answer to your question is yes, it is worth going to the mat on this issue.

But you know what the funny thing is, this does not have to be an either/or proposition. We can have good insurance coverage for all, including those who are poor and uninsured AND protect women's right to choose. These aren't irreconcilable goals. But if we're going to do that, it means rejecting this travesty of a health care "reform" bill and starting again. That, and injecting the Congressional Democrats with a spine. We do not have to trade one for the other.

But still, you refuse to address my other central point, how this bill is actually going to raise insurance premiums for the middle, working and poor class. Why are you OK with that? Why are you willing to trade the destruction of the middle class for your own short term gain?

Oh, and vis-a-vis my own personal experience with abortion: Sorry, but I'm not going to name names or emote on this issue anymore on an anonymous internet chat board, but rest assured, yes, it was personal, it was a tragedy, and I bear the scars to this day. If you can't accept that, fine, but don't even think about denigrating, or being insulting or flippant about it just to score some fictitious political point because quite frankly you don't know me IRL and haven't walked in my shoes.

[stopbush]

49. Yes, my interests and those of 47-million others.

Sorry if I'm being too restrictive for your take on things.

I don't agree with you about going to the mat on this, at least not in the way you would. Besides, William Pitt's post seems to indicate that the Nelson Compromise will in no way limit access to insurance paying for abortions. I suggest you read it. If you still object, then you're objecting to the liberals employing a slight-of-hand book-keeping trick to absolutely mitigate the situation.

[MadHound]

51. Again, and again,

What about the fact that we're going to see our premiums rise under this bill, up to an average of twenty seven percent of the average family's income? Are you down with that? You're stating that forty seven million people will get coverage, that's right, but only due to the fact that they will be mandated by law to buy insurance, and that mandate will bankrupt millions and millions, leading to the destruction of the middle, working and poor classes in this country.

Oh, and as I said in my OP in this thread, do you think that it is even constitutional to force a person to purchase a product just because they are a citizen of this country?

[stopbush]

58. Funny how you berate me for holding an opinion on this matter based on my

personal family experience, while you believe you have higher morals based on your personal experience. Is that simply because your concern was extended towards non-family members, while mine hits closer to home?

[stopbush]

46. BTW, what do you think of William Pitt's report about the Nelson Compromise?

Here: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/WilliamPitt/801

Like I said, hard to agree with those that say kill the bill when we don't even know what's in it. Now, we're beginning to learn what's in it. The compromise worked out looks perfectly fine to me, and it definitely gets around the no-funding-for-abortion proviso quite nicely.

[MadHound]

50. The devil's in the details, or rather how the legislation will be interpreted.

Have you read the actual bill? I have, and frankly the wording can be interpreted a number of ways, most of them are rather horrible. Will is preferring to interpret it otherwise, that is his perogotive.

But again, I keep asking you, what do you think about the fact that the middle, working and poor are actually going to be paying more for insurance premiums with this bill. Again, are you willing to part with twenty seven percent of your income to pay for insurance? Are you willing to sit by and watch the destruction of the middle, working and poor classes?

You keep stating that I'm focused on abortion, but in virtually every post I've had with you I ask this same question about higher premiums and such, and you simply ignore it. Who, exactly, is single-mindedly fixated?

[stopbush]

57. I haven't read the bill. You have. So perhaps you can provide a few answers:

1. You write, "the middle, working and poor are actually going to be paying more for insurance premiums with this bill." How much more on average?

2. Referring to #1, will upper class people also pay more, or are they exempt from increases?

3. As far 27% of one's income, that figure impacts different people at different income strata. What income level in dollars would have to pay that rate? How many people would that cover? An individual, or a family? You say you know the details, so please provide some substance to make your argument.

4. Wouldn't you say that not having insurance presently contributes to "the destruction of the middle, working and poor classes?"

BTW - when I've had insurance, it has cost me close to 20% of my gross income in a given year. I would be more than happy to pay 27% if it meant pre-existing conditions were a thing of the past and that I wouldn't lose my insurance if I lost my job or be required to pay ridiculous COBRA-level premiums.

[bigwillq]

8. My question as well.

The biggest victory should be for the American people. I will wait and see what happens, but this bill doesn't seem like the American people will get the victory they deserve.

[stopbush]

14. Call me a partisan, but I believe that when Ds win, America wins.

As far as "Americans getting the victory they deserve" - they are getting EXACTLY the victory they deserve, because "Americans" continue to elect fucking Rs and Ben Nelsons and Joe Liebermans to the Senate. Until that changes, all Americans will need to accept the fact that total victory is impossible when there is no consensus in the country to reach an absolute victory.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. You have said it more lucidly than anyone else here.

And I agree!

K&R

Well done!

:toast:

[mzmolly]

5. No flames here

thanks for sharing.

[Myrina]

7. ... is it really a win if you enslave the villagers you were there to 'liberate'?

:shrug:

[stopbush]

15. Are we not slaves now?

[BeFree]

9. yeah, sure

took ya long enough. but now you see what is the reality, finally.

tell ya what, its a good thing a lot of people have paid a lot of attention. it made those guys notice that they weren't working on HCIR and nobody cared - like with most legislation.

[bigwillq]

10. K and R.

Thanks for sharing your viewpoint.

[glen123098]

11. I'd support the bill if

They got rid of the individual mandate to buy private insurance.

[sharesunited]

27. There it is. The mandates make this very unprogressive and a net loser for the Democrats.

[David Zephyr]

12. My brother worked until he was 70 with Parkinsons 'til his wife turned 63.5 to pull the COBRA trick

for the last 18 months.

That's how he spent the last 5 years.

Now, he's had to move into assisted living.

[EVDebs]

13. If you get arrested in CA....

Feds Take Over California's Ailing Prison Healthcare System
http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/0001182/40/

somehow the entire idea of healthcare becomes forgotten and it's all about 'insurance' and profits.

[stopbush]

17. I live in CA, and as the saying goes, I can't get arrested...

at least when it comes to finding a job.

[EVDebs]

53. I'm just wondering what the fine will be ? As soon as you lose your job you get hit with a bill ?

Or what ?

[johnnie]

16. It *is* a start

I agree with you. It may seem like shit now, but it is further along than we ever got. And as you said, this is how shit gets done in Washington. As I have posted on here before, it seems that many people are new to politics here because what's going on has always gone on. It's bullshit, but it is the way it is and has always been.

[Cleita]

19. I understand why you have hope for this legislation but

unless the loopholes are plugged that are in this document written by the insurance companies, you won't be any closer to having access to health care even though you may get insurance of some sort. The devil is in the details and you need to make sure your senators know that you know this and that they do something about it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. Simply put

It's a start DOWN THE WRONG ROAD. When one is lost in the wilderness the only thing worse than passively sitting in your camp hoping to be rescued is heading away from your camp in a direction that makes a rescue less likely and intrinsically more difficult

[reformist]

21. It is health care for the poor and the sick, paid for by the young.

It's not fair. It's probably even unconstitutional. But hey, if it's "a step in the right direction", then who can be against it!

[subterranean]

30. Yes, it's unfair. Health care should only be for the healthy.

And young people never get sick.

[reformist]

32. It's essentially a tax on a class of persons. So much for equal protection.

[Hekate]

62. You fundamentally misunderstand it. Have you wandered here from someplace else? nt

[dana_b]

22. I completely respect you pov

and would not flame you. There's no need - we've had enough of that here.

I do not agree, however, because I do believe that his will hurt more people in the long run. People who still cannot buy into this bill because they don't have the money but are above the cutoff for the subsidies. So what do they do? They pay the fine and go without health care. I know many people who are intending to do just this and they see this bill as a punishment for not being rich enough.
Yes, it may help the poorest amongst us and for that I will admit that may be good. I just don't know where they'll get the $$ for the copayments, unless that too is subsidized.

BTW - as a "win" for Obama and the Dems, I coudn't care less about that. I'm sick of the political b.s. and I only care how it will affect the people.

[stopbush]

41. Thanks. I'd get flamed a lot more were I not put on IGNORE by so many DUers

as I'm one of the main anti-JFK CTists/pro Warren Commission people who posts here. Taking the pro-evidence position in the JFK killing is a sure way of having your voice ignored at DU.

I can't imagine the flames if the CT crowd were reading this!

[WinterParkDonkey]

23. I am with you.....

When my husband and I had to pay COBRA it cost us almost $1,000 a month!

Good luck to you and your family.

[Hello_Kitty]

25. CA has passed single payer twice. Ahnuld has vetoed it both times.

As soon as they get a Dem governor, they'll have single payer.

Except...oh wait...they won't. Because the bill before Congress specifically disallows single payer plans by states.

That's why it had to be done this year. It's not a start. It's a finish.

[stopbush]

38. And Ah-nold has said he would sign such a bill now,

but it will never happen because CA requires a 2/3 majority to get anything passed, and the minority Rs in the CA Legislature will never allow a single-payer plan to get to the Gov's desk, R or D.

The HCR bill doesn't even need to be invoked to stop single-payer from happening at the state level in CA.

[Hello_Kitty]

55. Somehow they got it to him twice. eom

[Political Heretic]

26. All this can be reduced to simply "Because it will be a huge win for OBama and the Ds"

The rest is just flowery horse shit.

And that reasoning, my friends, is why this society sucks as bad as it does. Because every time the people get angry about a government that does not represent them, you've got armies of people like this to beat everyone back down into following along and going with the status quo.

Thus two things are certain:

1. nothing in the realm of economic justice ever changes for the better
2. things slowly incrementally get worse until social collapse

That's the basic trajectory we're on.

[MadHound]

31. Well that and the OP's own personal need and greed being put before all else

See our ongoing exchange above.

[Hekate]

42. "Personal need and greed"? Well, aren't you special, MadHound, to be judging that?

Christ on a trailer hitch.

Hekate

[MadHound]

43. No, not special, just observant

After all, it isn't like the OP didn't admit to those motivations himself:shrug: What, I should pass on the obvious?

Or is it that you simply don't like hearing the hard truths?

[Hekate]

47. Sounds to me like the OP has had a rather hard time of it and is thinking of his family's needs...

... which not coincidentally are the needs of millions of others in this country.

What I "simply don't like" is seeing people kick others when they're down and then blame them for the bruises.

Hekate

[MadHound]

52. We've all got needs,

What I hate seeing is those needs of the few overwhelming the needs, or the rights, of the many. Especially when we can provide for both if we would kill this bill and actually stand up and fight for what is right, Instead, the Congressional Dems and Obama are going to roll over and allow the insurance industry to turn us all into debt serfs. Are you willing to fork over twenty seven percent of your income to insurance companies? I'm certainly not, but that's what's coming down the road for us once this bill becomes law.

[stopbush]

60. "What I hate seeing is those needs of the few overwhelming the needs, or the rights, of the many."

Yet, you're fine with the right to have an abortion paid for by insurance overwhelming the needs and rights of the 47-million Americans who presently have no insurance at all.

Hypocrite much?

As far as "providing for both," the Nelson Compromise DOES provide for both. Are you seriously averring that making a woman write a separate check each month to her insurer to cover the part of her premium that the insurer determines goes towards their being able to cover abortions is an infringement on her rights? Is THAT what you're willing to go to the mat on, denying 47-million Americans insurance because the Nelson Compromise makes a woman write a separate check each month to get around the "no funding for abortions" proviso? That is what it comes down to at this point.

[stopbush]

35. How do you get out of bed in the morning with that take on reality?

Seriously.

[Political Heretic]

69. Because I'm not afraid of reality - and this social system is not the end of life.

There's more to the world than a corrupt and failing American political economic system. Much more.

[NJmaverick]

29. Good for you! No flames here

[Hekate]

34. KnR. Thanks for the OP and best of luck to your family.

:hug:

Hekate

[stopbush]

36. Thanks. With all the bad news, passage of this bill gives me a little hope that

things are moving in the right direction, even if only slightly.

[NYC_SKP]

37. Thank you. rec'd. nt

[Armstead]

40. I beg to Differ. This give the inurabnce companies the upper hand.

They already had the upper hand, but this strengthens their grip by delivering the Americans as a captive market for their crappy product.

This will not help the cause of bulding a better systenm eventually. It entrenches the status quo and magnifies it long into the future.

This changes the direction of the fight by associating the Democratic Party with Big Insurance.

I wish it were otherwise, but that's the sad reality of this monstrosity they are passing.

[stopbush]

45. Not only that, but there's no $ in the bill to mandate use of the spell checker at DU.

:evilgrin:

[Wardoc]

54. A start? Oh sure, but not how you imagine...

The mandate for purchasing insurance will stay. But just as you think you can modify the bill later, so do they. Imagine that the bill stays, but in 2010 and 2012 the parts you like are stripped out and the mandate and some token insurance requirements are all that remain. The bill will be entrenched, and you won't be able to muster a new one. You've now conceeded a negative starting point and negotiation has no promise of moving in the direction that you want.

"The country will be reminded over and over again that the Rs opposed everything and anything to reform health care, and the public WILL remember that fact when they enter the voting booths in 2010 and 2012."

I agree, but not to our benefit. 2010 is going to be brutal. This bill is going to be a millstone.

[stopbush]

66. We all have our crystal balls and our imaginations.

Time will tell.

[Raineyb]

56. What big moral win are you talking about?

The right to be enslaved to the insurance companies? The right to never be able to move up because every spare penny and even pennies you can't spare will be mandated by law to go to the insurance company who may or may not bother to pay the claim when the bill comes? Or the right to empty your pockets for coverage that you can't afford to actually use? How is it moral to allow insurance companies to charge 3 times what they charge other people because someone has a "preexisting" condition?

That's not even going into the immorality of getting in between women and their doctors because some sanctimonious misogynist prick decides they don't like a particular procedure. How exactly is this transfer of wealth up the ladder from the people who can least afford it to those who don't need it at all a moral win for anyone but the amoral?

[TCJ70]

59. Health insurance for you an your family would be great, but...

...treating politics like some kind of sports game and supporting something because it would be a win for your team is NOT good reasoning.

[stopbush]

65. ??????????

If our team didn't currently control DC, health care wouldn't even be a discussion.

If you believe Tom Harkin who calls this legislation "a START," then you realize that the Ds MUST gain political capital from this legislation so that Ds can retain control and the majorities needed to move real health care past this initial step. There s nothing wrong in hoping that there will be political benefits from doing the right thing.

I suggest you read Jonathan Chait's column today at TNR.

[TCJ70]

67. We have "our team" in majority right now...

...and they can't even stand up and support real reform that would be great for everyone? Why in the world would I believe that they can come in and clean up this mess later? Every time a concession has been made it has been to take something out of the bill in order to appease people who aren't going to vote for the bill anyway.

You and I just have different views on how Democrats will act with this bill after it's passed. I'm underemployed and uninsured and I don't want this bill passed. I don't believe this is a starting point that will be built upon. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for reform, just not this reform.

[stopbush]

68. First off, it's not just the Ben Nelsons who are voting FOR this Senate biil,

it's the Russ Feingolds and the Al Frankens and the Tom Harkins of the Senate as well. Are you saying that these liberals aren't standing up and being counted? Because if you are, you're saying that there isn't a single Democrat in the Senate worth re-electing, not to mention that Obama should be tossed out as well.

You're underemployed and uninsured, I'm unemployed and uninsured. I happen to have a wife and two kids that need supporting, and I want this bill to pass, because it IS a START.

[coti]

61. Your reasoning is flawed at its root- it's not even a start. It's a step backward.

This only further entrenches the for-profit insurance companies and shuts out the possibility of a government-run insurance program available widely enough to begin controlling costs.

"A start" was the original compromise- that we would allow the insurance company giveaway if even a meager government-run insurance option was put in place to compete with them. That was something to build on.

Throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at the insurance industry without imposing extremely tight regulations on them is a huge mistake. It only makes them stronger, and they will simply find a way to continue gouging us.

[FrenchieCat]

63. I agree.

And so does a lot more people than the naysayers here at DU.

Most responding in the negative in this thread,
didn't want this to pass when it had a public option,
because then they wanted single payer.
They keep moving the goalpost, so they will always be unsatisfied.

The door's is being opened; finally!

[salguine]

64. Happy to oblige: