Mark my words, there won't be a morning after

[lwcon]

All the people insisting "support the bill, we'll fix it later" will switch to slothful triumphalism the moment any sort of healthcare "reform" bill is passed (if it happens).

It's all about scoring points, not about solving our healthcare problems. If it were about the latter, single-payer wouldn't have been censored at every turn.

[Fire1]

1. Single payer was never going to be considered b/c it's

'socialism' at it's best.

[Captain Hilts]

6. If socialism is good enough for the military and the elderly, it's good enough for me!

[Fire1]

16. Not arguing it's merits. Just saying it was never an option. n/t

[lwcon]

17. That's funny...

I recall Obama, Daschle, and Baucus promising an open and transparent process that considered all options.

I didn't recall them promising a secret deal with Big Pharma or arresting people for trying to add single payer to the discussions, but I'm sure they must have and I just forgot.

[Fire1]

19. Leading authorities and legislators have said from the

beginning single payer was not an option. I don't recall them promising secret deals, either. No argument, there.

[lwcon]

39. Who are these people

And where are they leading us?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

49. Why am I in this handbasket? Does it feel warmer to you?

[Captain Hilts]

44. But it should have been at the table - Health insurance companies were - to balance the table. nt

[kenfrequed]

46. Which made a load of sense...

Since Beck and the repukes will call ANYTHING that is passed as healthcare reform socialism anyways. Not doing the right thing because your opposition might call you names has been the stupidest pattern of behavoir that I have seen from Democrats in years.

[MsLeopard]

51. Agreed. If socialism is good enough

for corporations to have no losses, only profits, then it's good enough for health care for everyone.

[ShamelessHussy]

32. The reason why Medicare for all won't - our corporate masters forbid it

As they have for decades.

All the rest, including the BS 'socialism' meme is kabuki theater at it's best.

[Edweird]

2. It'll be in line behind NAFTA.

[Mari333]

8. yep, that long line that policies like DOMA, and DADT are waiting in

so sad watching the ship sink.

[progressoid]

21. And the Patriot Act

[OnyxCollie]

24. And FISA.

[rhett o rick]

28. And the MCA. nt

[CoffeeCat]

33. and Habeas Corpus. (nt)

[rhett o rick]

35. I can play this game. Posse Comitatus. nm

[lwcon]

40. Discrimination by govt-funded faith-based groups.... n/t

[OnyxCollie]

42. Replacing US Attorneys.

Actually, I blame Congress for that. I suspect there are holds on them.

Obama also gets a pass on the failure to address the abuse of the filibuster.

[rhett o rick]

54. I would like to know more about this. I was under the impression that the

president could replace the US Attorneys w/o anyone's approval. So why hasnt the president replaced the Bush appointed US Attorneys?

[rhett o rick]

55. Do you think that the republicans are holding up the replacement of US Attys? nm

[treestar]

23. Why do posters think it has anything to do with NAFTA or that NAFTA

proves anything about it?

[harkadog]

25. Because the same arguments were used to pass NAFTA

By the same people. "Yes we know it's flawed but we will improve it later." And nothing has been fixed. It has been 17 years. It has only got worse. And now those same people laugh at the thought of changing NAFTA.

[closeupready]

27. They don't just laugh about fixing NAFTA, they want to EXPAND such agreements elsewhere

Like to parts of South America.

[treestar]

50. Still meaningless

Social Security was improved upon. Possibilities go both ways.

And this is a type of legislation more like social security than NAFTA.

[harkadog]

53. The age of retirement has been increased.

I don't call that an improvement. Were there improvements in SS since it started? Yes but they were not made recently, they were made when this country had much more wealth than it does now. Now there is a fight to keep the SS benefits that we have. It was programs like NAFTA that has caused us to lose our wealth and go into spiraling debt.

[Edweird]

31. Here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7554020

[katandmoon]

3. Funny how Obama used to call for inclusion of a not-for-profit public option to keep

health insurance companies "honest."

That was before Obama lied about calling for a public option during the presidential campaign.

What happened? Who got to him? He knew then and he knows now they are cut throat, profit-oriented companies whose only concern is their bottom line so their top executives can live like kings. They are playing a shell game with the American public.

Why is Obama no longer concerned at all about keeping them honest?

[ProSense]

9. Funny that people critcizing the bill don't realize that it include a not-for profit plan:

More Health Insurance Choices

• Multi-state option. Health insurance carriers will offer plans under the supervision of the Office of Personnel Management, the same entity that oversees health plans for Members of Congress. At least one plan must be non-profit, and the plans will be available nationwide. This will promote competition and choice.
  
  
• Free choice vouchers. Workers who qualify for an affordability exemption to the individual responsibility policy but do not qualify for tax credits can take their employer contribution and join an exchange plan.

PDF

[katandmoon]

11. Tell it to Nancy Pelosi.

[ProSense]

12. Why, do you think

she doesn't know?

Pelosi gave solace to supporters of the public option, saying that its intent will largely be fulfilled with other provisions in the bill.

"While it may not have a public option, we have a purpose of the public option served by the exchanges" and other reforms, she said.

link

[katandmoon]

14. If the exchange were considered to be a real threat to the way health insurance cos. do business, it

wouldn't be in the bill.

[rhett o rick]

36. So you like the Senate bill? nm

[jobwithout]

18. My present commercial plan is not for profit

It is run by Presbyterian Healthcare which is a not for profit so this plan would satisfy the requirements in my state would it not?

[cornermouse]

58. The link to nowhere.

:rofl:

[Goldstein1984]

4. It's about claiming a win before the 2010 elections

even if the "win" is for insurance companies who will be guaranteed customers under penalty of the law, and subsidized with the money of taxpayers, of whom 65% supported a public option.

I've already sent my elected officials notice of what healthcare reform without a public option will mean come election time.

There are two issues for me: War and healthcare reform. Everything else is trivial in comparison.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. I supposed you'd like to kill this bill.

If we won't have the opportunity to fix it, why would you think we could just start over?

[lwcon]

13. We could start over...

... if the Dems could be convinced that their base knows best.

But they won't. So, we're screwed.

[Donnachaidh]

22. opportunity to fix it? Like they begged for an opportunity to *fix* NAFTA?

:rofl:

naive people are funny....

[jody]

7. Good point, what's in whatever bill passes will remain relatively untouched for decades. n/t

[hfojvt]

10. nonsense

there's got to be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcLazPauA1c

[Politicalboi]

15. LOL!

Everytime I hear those words or song I think of this too. LOL! It was a great movie for it's time.

[patrice]

20. I don't know about ALL, but there's a distinct possibility that a significant minority will do as

you describe.

[Marr]

26. Yep-- you can bet your ass the new "adult" thing to do will be to move on.

You'll hear lots of things like, 'we gave it a fair shot for a year, but it's time to move forward now'.

[patrice]

29. There ARE other things that we CAN do that will affect HCR, even after a vote.

Trust busting for media conglomerates comes to mind.

Campaign finance reform.

Paper ballots.

EFCA

All will affect the climate in which social issues evolve.

Everything depends upon commitment and follow-up.

[Lorien]

41. Trust busting for media conglomerates won't help unless you reinstate the Fairness doctrine

Slews of banks to choose from didn't stop the recession, either. You'll just have a different rich bastard calling the shots.

Commitment and follow up is the key; unfortunately, most people think the only issues that exist are the ones with talking points on the MSM.

[patrice]

43. Yes. Commitment and follow up - forever. I do hear pros and cons on the Fairness Doctrine though.

Thom Hartmann does not support it. He's given his case several times, but it's late and I'm tired, so I can't re-construct it for you right now.

[Bluebear]

30. "We tried, the votes weren't there, now it's time for bipartisan 'healing'"...

[Juche]

34. Its about scoring points, not about solving our health care problems?

What do you base this on? Why don't you tell it to all the people who will see the medicare donut hole closed, or who will get on medicaid, or who will see mental health and primary care expanded in community centers, or who will see pre-existing conditions or rescissions more regulated, or who will see the debt decreased by a trillion over 20 years, or who will see what happens when health care becomes a 'right' and not a 'luxury' in the public consciousness. Every child who comes of age after this bill will think health care is something they are entitled to (the same way they feel entitled to police protection, an education, military protection, etc). That will make future reforms easier.

It is actually the Kucinich supporters who want to score political points and not solve our health care problems. They are the ones willing to sell millions of Americans down the river if they can't get their pet project. My life is going to be better with this health care bill, so are millions of other people. It is a flawed bill, but it is better than doing nothing.

People who support this bill do it because for tens of millions of people, it will be more secure, more stable and more reliable. It is the Kucinich supporters who want to score political points at the expense of those people. I really have no idea where the doublethink to say something like that (that people who support this bill just want to play politics and don't care about health care. In my experience it is the opposite where the bill supporters are trying to help people while the GOP and Kucinich types are playing politics with people's lives) comes from.

Either way, after this bill passes nobody is stopping progressives from supporting single payer in the state level, or of trying to get a medicare buy in.

In fact, you can easily use a left wing shock doctrine mechanism. Since single payer is cheaper than private insurance, maybe you can frame it that way when fighting for it in IL, PA, CA, VT. The money saved on lower health care costs can be reinvested, and productivity will go up due to lack of job lock. It will also encourage older workers who want to retire to retire, which will allow younger workers into the workforce. In an economic crisis single payer could be a boon. It could increase productivity, lower expenses and increase GDP.

A medicare buy in will keep medicare more solvent by adding healthy young people (who pay more in premiums than they take out).

[upi402]

37. "It is the Kucinich supporters who want to score political points at the expense of those people."

You really really don't know what Kucinich supporters are all about. We care absolutely ZERO about political points.

[lwcon]

38. Anything that isn't Beltway-approved right-centrism is suspect to

"the serious people."

[Echo In Light]

47. Easy to see how the 'Conspiracy Theories Are Non-Existent' meme gets the incredible mileage it does

ugh...

[laughingliberal]

57. "the serious people"

aka the Republicans who took over our party when theirs went batshit crazy. They had to have someplace to practice their corporate whoring.

[Juche]

52. I don't agree with that

Either give us single payer or we won't play. That is the argument, and it is playing political points. Tell it to the millions of us who need health insurance reform that Kucinich isn't playing political points because this bill doesn't meet his ideological litmus test. Kucinich doesn't need health insurance reform, people like me do. Millions of us will not get new reforms to protect us from insurance company abuses because the bill does not meet Kucinich's ideological purity litmus test. The fact that Kucinich doesn't need health insurance reform (he makes over 200k a year and has great insurance) doesn't help either when he opposes reform to help the weak and poor get subsidies and protection from abuse because those reforms (which he doesn't need) do not meet his ideological purity test.

This bill is an improvement for many people. It will help regulate some abuses, it will subsidize some people who need help, it will expand public plans like medicare medicaid and community centers, it will create a concept in public consciousness that health care is a right, not a luxury.

It is something of a plutocratic bill (it was passed by giving in to the demands of pharma & private insurance). However, the improvements we will see are worth putting up with that IMO.

I'm 100% behind single payer. What I am not behind is saying that unless we get single payer, lets do nothing. That is what Kucinich is doing.

We can pass this bill, then work on single payer on the state level and a medicare opt in on the federal level. It doesn't have to be either/or. We can have health insurance reform and expansions of public plans.

If this bill is passed, I am going to opt into the non-profit health insurance plans. Nobody has to buy into for profit health insurance companies. If we get a medicare buy in, I'm going in to that.

[GeorgeGist]

45. Check

mate.

[slipslidingaway]

48. Exactly! If it was about solving HC problems all sides would have been at the table. nt

[laughingliberal]

56. Big party in the Rose Garden and that'll be the end of it. nt

[Raine]

59. Yup all they care about is the "win"

even though the only one to really win is the insurance industry. :-(

[democracy1st]

60. true I'm not sure who Obama works for,but I can tell you it's not democratic voters!