You wanted CHANGE? You got it.

[BeFree]

We are on a new path after this vote.
We are headed toward equality for all in health care.

The republicans have been beaten back into their holes from where their last whimpers are sounding exactly like their first sad cries of hate and division.

This country is changing. For some it might not be fast enough or far enough, but you gotta admit it is changing.

[janedum]

1. Next! Reverse 1996 Telecommunications Act! Get RW MONOPOLY scum off the airwaves!

Fair and Balanced?
I don't think so!!!

[glowing]

2. Mandated private health insurance from the company's that have caused us

to cry foul and embrace the idea of reform and regulation (tougher than is in the bill), making the rich pay for it (not the cadillac shit that hurts union members and will cause most employers to drop the good benefits), and discarding the Public Option or a Medicare Buy-in (something to keep the costs and competition fair).

I suppose its a start, but calling this bill equality or social justice is disgusting and ludicrous.

[BeFree]

6. We are headed toward equality for all in health care.

The keyword? Headed

It's cool to be all negative and stuff. Doing so is a motivation for change.
But lets not ignore the truth that change is happening.

Besides, not in the mood for arguing about health care today.
Today, we've won. I like to celebrate on days we beat the republicans.

[glowing]

7. But that's where I differ on the Politics win/ lose shit... Politics is the science.

People is the area it most effects. AND honestly, this bill will help some, but it will hurt others. There is 4 yrs to fix the bill or at least provide a Public Option.

Now, if the ass hats in congress would actually embrace a realistic idea of what poverty level really is depending on region of the country, then this bill would really help a lot of people.

[cilla4progress]

13. Who, who does it hurt?

The only way I can understand this, is you may be referring to those individuals presently without coverage who, when ill or injured, in need of medical attention, typically use ERs, foisting those expenses upon the rest of society. I don't have the stats, but my understanding is, this is a significant component our current health care system money flow.

Yes, as members of society, we do give up some personal freedoms (I can't run naked to the grocery store, to pick up a gallon of milk!however, we are organized to have this staple in a central location where I can trade currency to obtain it), and certainly, some of us always seem to be asked to be the ones to give up for the others (top 5% which owns 95% of our wealth), which is inequitable - but that's the thing; this legislation, IN SUM, does represent - and create - a re-balancing, in some measure. And some of that is symbolic, I'll grant you.

[glowing]

19. It is going to hurt the people who are mandated to buy insurance, but still cannot

afford to use it.. AND if someone does get sick, the ER is the most typical place people will head unless they are in a larger populated region. If its the weekend, the ER is the only place open. If you call the Dr., some offices cannot schedule you in for an immediate appt. Thankfully, we have walk-in clinics, and honestly, but for the fear of a biggy like cancer, I could drop my coverage and use that.. It would be cheaper seeking the Doc at a walk in for $100.00, than to pay $600.00 every mo and still having co-pays. One of my hubby's docs doesn't even take insurance anymore... Its out of pocket, however his scrips are covered.

And many people don't realize how shitty their policy is. I thought I had a good one. I was out of college and on my own and at my first "real" job ever. I got sick and I was ordered an MRI. When a bill for $700.00 showed up, I couldn't pay it. I went to my HR manager and asked if this bill was actually right. (this was in 2002). She said I was responsible for the fine print and that I had to meet a certain deductible before coveage would kick in to cover that certain test.. ($5000.00 before the ins co would step in and cover the 100%.. before that it was only 20% of the cost of the test). I didn't pay it.. I couldn't afford it. 3 yrs later I got a letter stating that it had been dropped off of my credit score because it was a medical thing-- some kind of FL rule). But that was it, I couldn't afford a test that a Dr needed me to take in case I would have to have my appendix removed. This is where many will find themselves when they think that ins will cover their health care needs. AND example after example can be found all across America. People will still go bankrupt trying not to die or trying to prevent their child from dying. Oh BTW, the annual cap was not removed, life time, yes, annual, no. Serious illness like cancer will still bankrupt a family.

[cilla4progress]

27. That 's such a ripoff @

the annual cap! You share some very valuable personal experiences. I have to admit, to some degree it's an act of faith on my part, that the subsidies and other regs and protections that still are in the bill will serve to help more people - and do no harm. My "faith" comes from a real honest belief in Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the others who are supporting and promoting this bill. I don't believe they are, or would, lie to us.

[glowing]

35. I do. Politicians lie. However, perhaps it can be fixed as people who are forced to buy

it realize its not the protection that they need. Insurance co's make money only by denying to pay out the money. Look at all of the hurricane messes with home ins. In FL, most people are resigned to Citizens (the state ins) because regular companies refuse to cover and do everything they can to not pay out. Its the beast of capitalism. The country really would love Medicare for All... or at least the option. It works if you make it to 65. Why not make sure everyone can remain as healthy on the way to that number?

I hope this is just a start and we can get some more progressive dems into congress and the Senate. Otherwise, the cadidates will continue to be bought and paid for by the coporations of America.

[kenny blankenship]

11. Yes, we're so equal we made everyone win a medal: Gold, Silver, or Bronze

We're all winners! Some of us just more equally winners than others.

[NightWatcher]

3. you forgot something

:sarcasm:

some people dont get it without it

[Fire1]

8. This is hardly sarcasm. n/t

[dkf]

4. It is ironic someone with the handle befree advocates perpetual indenture to insurance cos.

Those parasites will never let us go now.

[BeFree]

10. Those parasites will never let us go now. WTF?

Get up out of that hole. "...never let us go now."?
Just quit with the slave thinking. Be free of all that. Be strong.

[TransitJohn]

14. Be strong enough to come up with the monthly living fee, you mean.

Thanks.

[ixion]

5. Oh please

It's no such thing. Take the blinders off.

[uppityperson]

9. "it might not be fast enough or far enough, but you gotta admit it is changing."

Indeed.

[Marr]

12. I really don't see why you think we're headed toward equality in health care.

This bill is about rescuing the status quo from the crisis it's created. Rather than seize the moment and use the crisis to push through legislation that would provide health care to everyone, the Democrats once again stepped in and bailed out the very industry that is the problem.

You see a step toward universal health care, I see a sequel to the bank bailouts.

[The_Commonist]

15. Exactly...

This bill isn't change.
It's more of the same old-school thinking.

[tigereye]

18. did anyone really think they were going to get rid of insurers? really?

It's another industry, for lack of a better term, that's entrenched, and for good or ill, employs thousands of people. Granted many of those folks could well be redundant, performing the same function for many entities. I'm guessing that employment issues, as well as lobbying by the industry, was part of the decision process.

[Marr]

21. I never expected it, no.

Obama went out of his way (after the election) to make it clear that he was a "new Democrat", surrounding himself with DLC stooges. So no, I wasn't surprised at all as we saw one liberal idea after another maneuvered into the airlock and unceremoniously ejected into space.

I'm not sure that employment was much of a concern, as something like universal health care would make us much more competitive globally and take some big burdens off small business. Universal Healthcare was the right thing to do, for a host of reasons-- but never expected our government to put the "right thing" ahead of protecting big business.

[tigereye]

22. did they have the public support for UHC, though? My guess would be no

I know that folks expected O to make health care changes, but I think a lot of the population is stuck on their crazy visions of what they deem to be "socialism," meanwhile having no idea about what that is, how we have so many aspects of a social democracy anyway, or if socialism even exists in the way that they envision it in their limited imaginations.

Sad that taking care of people's health in a reasonable way, like many other countries seem able to do fiscally, is something of which so many seem to be terrified.


Sorry to be asking at the eleventh hour, this all has been a bit much to take in. I have called all my Reps and Senators and said we need to get rid of PEC denials, we need more people to be covered, and I still think we need UHC.


oh well. Wish Kennedy were still around.

[Marr]

24. I think he could've rustled up for the votes for it, personally.

The politicians always said they didn't have the votes for even the nebulous "public option", but Single Payer was completely excluded from the debate on Day One.

Obama could've put tremendous pressure on the Congress to support Universal Healthcare if he'd chosen to. That whole "bully pulpit" thing. UHC is a very popular idea, and personally, I do think that a president who was as popular as Obama was upon entering office could've rounded up support for passing it, had he fought for it. He didn't want it.

[tigereye]

31. was it really him, or his advisors telling him that it wouldn't be viable?

I should really ask some relatives who have some close ties to the White House... it would have been interesting to be a "fly on the wall."


I just don't know why they didn't try to pass a more palatable bill when they had 60 votes in the Senate.

[girl gone mad]

28. Poll after poll showed 70% approval for the Public Option..

about an equal amount are against mandates to buy private insurance.

[tigereye]

29. well, I called my Reps and Senators and said I thought it was a good idea

initially, I didn't but I turned around the more i thought about it. It's really too bad, because I think it's abominable to have so many people without any health care. :(


The mandate thing didn't work in Mass, right. Not sure why it would work here, other than the thinking that the "well" paying in balance out the costs of the "unwell."

[demwing]

26. Yes. I did. Not all at once, but incrementally.

I don't expect radical change on a radical time scale, but we were all told a story about "change we can believe in."

The only real thing that has been accomplished is that more people will have insurance, and the government will help pay the premiums. This will supposedly drive down costs.

But while costs are normally passed on to the consumer, revenue is not, and lower costs means higher revenue. Revenue is pocketed, or spent on R&D (and for Health Insurance companies, R&D means researching and developing new ways to take you money and not pay your hospital bills - in other words, creating more revenue).

I still firmly believe that this bill should pass - but mostly from a political standpoint. If the Republicans defeat the Democrats, it will add fuel to their fire, make us look weak and ineffectual, and plant the seed fore future Republican (not to mention Tea Party) growth. Those are obviously bad things for this country - so give me that "old timey" change - the kind of change I'm used to! I'll take it, in this case, but I'm not happy, and I am not fooled.

Because for all the political capital that's been expended on this issue, for all the time it took, for all the time it WILL take before results are seen, for all the incredible change that could have happened (fundamental change - not cosmetic change) but didn't, and for all the important and far reaching change that was never once seriously considered, and finally - for the the changes yet to come, the constitutional challenges that will attempt to whittle away at-and corrupt-what good is left in this bill, can any of us say that we still think of this bill as a shining example of that elusive "change we can believe in"?

If so, in the name of all things sane, why?

[tigereye]

32. that's a very good analysis - a thoughtful one - thanks!

I know it's not what people wanted. It's so difficult with so much complexity in this area, to find the folks to band together in Congress to make some improvements compared to the current situation. I don't know what the answer.

[asdjrocky]

16. Yes, but in what direction?

Change can mean many things.

[BeFree]

17. Heh

I am not interested in arguing about health care today.

Today I just want to celebrate kicking republican butts and celebrating the change (all be it small) that my country is doing.

[Karmadillo]

20. Yes! Henceforth, the sun will appear to rise in the east and set in the west.

nt

[Donnachaidh]

23. equality for all with an insurance protection bill?

Weeeeeeee -- I'm getting a contact high!

:rofl: :rofl:

[LWolf]

25. No. I wanted POSITIVE change. And I did not get it. nt

[Arkana]

30. Oh the times, they are a'changin'...

[Tailormyst]

33. Enjoy your day.

[Individualist]

34. Chump change.

[eridani]

36. We have just made health care INEQUALITY the law of the land

Different "coverage" levels for the affluent and the not poor enough for Medicaid crowd. Age discrimination carved in stone.

[inna]

37. Certainly not the kind of CHANGE I wanted.