If we do not get HCR through now.. you can kiss it goodbye for another 20 years

[Peacetrain]

It may not be what we want or how exactly how we want it.. but if we do not get our foot in the door, then we are screwed for another 20 years.

We can make changes and improvements once we get a bill in place.. we did it with Soc. Sec... and nearly every other thing that gets passed.

I hope to GOD Coakley gets the nod.. Because there is more than HCR on our plates also..and we need Democrats in there.

[jpak]

1. Yup!

K&R

[nightrain]

2. certainly not true unless Dems cave and decide not to try again with something better.

[elocs]

4. What? Try again with when there are bigger majorities in Congress?

I doubt it and it has nothing to do with caving, but with reality. I don't see healthcare reform coming up again until our present system collapses.

[nightrain]

6. all that's needed is the courage to work toward a better bill with

the general populace's interests in mind rather than protecting corporations. Are you okay with a huge transfer of the peoples' money to corporations? If Republicans were promoting such a bill, there would be huge outrage from Dems.

[liberalpragmatist]

10. "Courage" alone won't get you a majority in Congress - nt

[nightrain]

11. a better bill could get passed.

[elocs]

17. Exactly how might that be done? You must live in somewhere over the rainbow to believe that. n/t

[nightrain]

31. No. I live in the US. I repeat--

Are you okay with a huge transfer of the peoples' money to corporations? If Republicans were promoting such a bill, there would be huge outrage from Dems.

[elocs]

34. Are you ok if I don't accept your point of view about the bill?

There are a few people who might disagree with you, President Obama being one of them.

[damonm]

59. OK I'll agree with you IF...

...you can tell me ONE time in all US History that a bill made it this far, got pulled back by its proponents, and then reemerged as a stronger version of itself.
If you can do that, I'll join you on killing the current HCR bill.
I shan't hold my breath, though, as no such case exists.
And it will not happen now, either. Kill this bill, and I will be astonished if we see another effort anytime in the next 25-50 years.

[CTyankee]

12. I don't see how our present system could collapse further...but I guess

it's possible. Scary thought, but then perhaps we'd HAVE to get to single payer. Is there NO way to getting rid of these monstrous insurance companies?

[Better Today]

5. Exactly, it will only be abandoned for decades if Dems let be.

Regardless of their majority/minority status.

[HughMoran]

8. The fact that it will fail if tried again is not salient?

I'm confused...

[elocs]

16. Clue: you need votes to pass a bill. That's how it works. Talk is cheap. n/t

[HughMoran]

7. Didn't happen last time and it won't happen this time

Please consider that the chance that you are wrong is nearly 100%. Oh, and if they did it again it wouldn't be much different and would likely be even more cautious.

[nightrain]

15. not necessarily so. If the trouble in MA is any indicator, the corporate-sponsored

representatives could begin to work for the peoples' interests rather than the corporations.

If they don't, I suspect we'll see many more of these Dem seats be challenged.

It's not a good strategy to crap on your supporters in your legislating.

[HughMoran]

18. I disagree completely - assuming that the trouble in Mass is based on YOUR assumptions is silly

As if the Republicans aren't 'corporate-sponsored'!!!!!!

Please, your argument makes no sense on it's face other than to bolster your position. That's not an argument, it's an "argument by selective observation". Your argument carries no weight with me at all.

[nightrain]

22. Hugh, you're name-calling. Again. I don't engage with folks who do that.

[HughMoran]

24. You lost the argument, so you say I'm name-calling - which, of course, I didn't do at all

So, you lose the argument by default :shrug:

[nightrain]

28. I note your editing. CYA

[HughMoran]

29. So you can't support your assumptions and are offended how I spelled the word?

Wow. :shrug:

[goclark]

3. You are exactly right ~ all Democrats

should be working hard to get a Democrat elected.

[CTyankee]

13. what good does it do to elect more Dems who are in the pocket of the insurance industry?

We need to replace the blue dogs..

[goclark]

19. By not electing a Democrat that is running against a Republican?

Huum

[CTyankee]

33. No, but we can primary the bad Dems. Otherwise we get the Ben Nelson's

and Blanche Lincoln's. Here in CT we tossed Joe out and even tho he won in the general we at least made sure he was no longer wasting Dems time...

[babylonsister]

9. Agreed. Rec'd. nt

[Captain Hilts]

14. Yes. That's why I support this lousy bill. I try to keep my eye on the prize. nt

[leveymg]

20. The Senate Bill IS NOT HCR. If it passes, nobody will be happy. Lose-Lose.

The GOP will be saying the Democrats spent a trillion dollars to bail-out another Fat Cat industry, and the American people got mandatory buy-in for their trouble. No thanks - that's not going to save us come November.

[IndianaGreen]

21. The Senate bill is nothing but a rip-off of the working class by the health industry

Coakley has nothing to do with the corporatist whores in Congress!

[pretzel4gore]

23. face it; we're living in a conquered country

n/t

[firedupdem]

25. So true. n/t

[Sebastian Doyle]

26. If corporate mandates pass, you can kiss ACTUAL reform goodbye forever.

If everyone is "covered" by corporate insurance, the DLC will claim the problem is "solved" and REAL reform will never be spoken of again.

[nightrain]

30. yep. Obama said he wanted to be the last President to deal with

healthcare. It could work out that way if we're not careful....

I don't want to become beholden to a corporation.

As in abusive adult relationships, appeasement yields nothing but demands for more. More privatization of the military, education, retirement, social services, etc.

[jgraz]

36. Along with the Democratic majority

Not sure why so many people on this board are intent on committing political suicide. Maybe it was just easier for them when the Repukes were in charge...

[Sebastian Doyle]

44. Standard DLC procedure

The main goal is to undermine the Democratic party. It's just easier for them to do that with a Repuke majority, because when a "Democratic" majority does nothing, their treachery is too obvious.

[rug]

27. Why? Are Democrats incapable of drafting a focused, coherent bill?

[dflprincess]

55. Apparently they are

look at the insurance scam they're currently trying to pass off as "health care reform".

[treestar]

32. It's just not good enough for them

It should have no deductible and be paid for by others or it's just not good enough.

There is nothing that will satisfy these people. If it's not a complete version of what they want, others who would benefit can go to hell.

Makes them have more and more in common with freepers every day. At least freepers claim they'll earn their own way. They may have no sympathy for those who can't. But these people have the luxury of looking a gift horse in the mouth. Basically you and I pay for health insurance for them, but it's not good enough, dammit!

[jgraz]

35. Yes, nothing will satisfy "these people"

You know...

That one


And that one


And these people




You know, the ones who will still have to rely on free clinics after this tongue-kiss to the insurance industry passes.

[nightrain]

39. I'm glad to be one of "these people"--As in abusive adult relationships, appeasement yields nothing

but demands for more. More privatization in education, military, social programs, health care, and elections.

Interesting how no one discusses how if these Congressional proposals were done by Republicans that Dems would be raising holy hell. But, put a (D) after someone's name, and the deeds become sacrosanct.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

60. If Bush had proposed exactly this bill, everyone would be against it

I can guarantee it.

But because a bunch of people with (D) after their names proposed it, it's the greatest thing since ice cream.

[nightrain]

61. yep. hence the sense of betrayal of Dem principles, huh?

[CTLawGuy]

72. if Bush proposed single payer, would you be against it?

what a bogus argument!

He had 8 years to do something about health care and he did NOTHING. if you want that again, then by all means be disillusioned.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

74. No, of course he wouldn't have

But I bet that if he had, by some weird miracle, decided to propose single payer, he would have pushed it through.

That seems to be what Republicans do. Even if you don't agree with their agenda, you have to give them points for not letting objections from Democrats stop them.

Democrats compromise themselves to death and end up with a bill that Bush could have supported--all private sector, all the time, with tax money flowing to the corporations in a never-ending stream.

[CTLawGuy]

80. Well Bush has an

ideologically narrower party than Obama does, and an opposition party much less blatantly partisan and shameless (less willing to filibuster everything), so it was easier for him. It always has been that way.

And it helped Bush that 9/11 put a damper on opposition to him.

Don't compare Bush's situation to Obama's.

[girl gone mad]

71. Your Republican talking points are tiresome.

[GeorgeGist]

37. Who annoited you ...

to deny Healthcare reform for 20 years? Mr. Sunstein perhaps?

[LWolf]

38. Then kiss it goodbye, because

the bill currently under discussion bears no resemblance to "health care reform."

Whether or not this bill passes, we will not "get HCR through now." There's no HCR left on the table.

[tsuki]

40. And if it goes through, your foot is going to be stuck there for 20 years in the same position.

I don't look for anything from the Senate and House. They are too busy protecting themselves and their corporate masters.

The real health care reform will occur in individual states, like MI & VT. That is, if BubbleTown doesn't try to shut them down.

[donco6]

41. The repubs can just rebrand this bill as their own.

What's the problem?

[JVS]

42. That's not true. If we pass nothing, the insurance companies will die within a few years given ...

the demographic crunch they are facing. The system in place is collapsing and if we don't prop it up we can build a new one.

[depakid]

43. That's probably the dumbest talking point of all

Your system is unsustainable even for the near term (and unfortunately it will remain so even with if the current travesty passes- and the Dems lose the majority because of it).

America will get actual reform one way or another- and the way it looks, it'll be harsh economic consequences that drives the parasites out of their central role in the system- not morality or responsible public policy choices.

[Fire1]

45. Who will administer those "harsh economic

consequences?"

[depakid]

57. Who?

Economic consequences- like environmental consequences, they just "are." They happen irrespective of people's wishes or wants.

They have no partisan bent- but are instead properties and qualities of systems.

[Hekate]

46. But think how pure and righteous the DU naysayers would feel; they'd have another 20 years to...

... feel righteously outraged. :sarcasm:

Hekate

[johnaries]

47. At least 20, if history is any indication. But if we can get this bill

through now, not only will it do a lot of good now but it can be expanded to do even more in the future.

[JimWis]

48. K&R

[Lydia Leftcoast]

49. Oh, that DLC talking point again!

An administration that can't tame the insurance companies when it has complete control of the government is suddenly going to reform these same companies when they have consolidated their control of health care in this country and have even more money than they do now?

On what planet?

A guaranteed customer recruitment program for the private insurance companies that still leaves millions uninsured and lays few requirements on the insurance companies is supposed to lead to real reform?

More likely it will tarnish the name of health care reform for a generation.

Your average uninformed American will hear "health care reform" and recall that he's paying a government-mandated hundreds of dollars a month for a policy that has a four-figure deductible, i.e. a policy that he has to pay for but can't afford to use.

Saying that these HCR bills are the "only" way to real reform is like saying that building buses is the only way to get high speed rail.

[Peacetrain]

50. DLC? sorry..not so..

Kantorei?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

54. So why are you using a DLC talking point?

Far from

1) Helping Obama

2) Helping the Democratic Party

or

3) Ensuring universal coverage

this bill will

1) Lay a huge financial burden on people on the "borderline" between subsidized and non-subsidized coverage

2) Necessitate a huge bureaucracy to administer the subsidies for lower-income people

3) Force people to buy insurance that does not necessarily provide real coverage

4) Still allow the insurance companies to get away with price gouging and provide loopholes for denial of coverage

5) Tax policies that provide the kind of coverage that people in other countries take for granted (or even the kinds of policies that were easy to get in the early 1990s in this country)

6) Explicitly allow companies to charge older customers more, regardless of income (and you can be sure that they will do so to the limit)

7) Leave millions uninsured

And this is the bill we must pass because...?

We could pass the GOOD parts of the bill, such as the expansion of public health clinics, the ban on denials for pre-existing conditions (AND charging more for pre-existing conditions), the ban on rescisssions, and the end of anti-trust immunity separately and have them go into effect immediately.

Sure, the insurance companies would hate that.

So what?

I hate it that I have to sign when I buy Tylenol Sinus with Pseudoephedrin, but do I get to veto the law because of it?

Of course not.

Why should the insurance companies or any company get veto power over the laws that might affect them?

The defenders of this bill have such low expectations.

They are giving in to the endemic corruption in this system.

[dflprincess]

56. +10000

[nightrain]

58. you know it!!

[Odin2005]

51. This bill isn't reform. It's economic Fascism.

[elana i am]

52. i don't know about 20 years

but i am of the belief that if we were going to get more HCR than what is on the table now, then we would have. i wouldn't look for scrapping it and starting over to solve any problems. six dem and one independent senator poopooed the public option. those are just the ones we know about. (there were also a lot of undecided dem reps in the house, BTW.) maybe if the public option with no mandate was something that hadn't been considered previously and that could be introduced now or in the immediate future, i might see the potential for a different outcome upon being redone. but we've been there and done that already. they had to remove the public option to even get close to squeaking by. they didn't make it over the threshold until the mandate was added to appease balking dems (nevermind the repugs!). i'm not sure how this could go differently by starting over.

i still think if they could have, they would have, and this is the best we are going to get for the time being, like it or lump it.

nothing changes for a few more years until the offending parties can be primaried out.

[totodeinhere]

53. The current bill making it's way through Congress now is not bona fide HCR.

So therefore, your point is moot.

[M155Y_A1CH]

62. It'll be "drats, foiled again"

Rinse, lather , repeat...

[ShortnFiery]

63. Threats don't work because the current MESS of a bill is just one big give away to the Insurance ...

Cartel and Big Pharma. :thumbsdown:

[wisteria]

64. You can kiss our entire agenda good-by if we don't have 60 senators. n/t

[Skittles]

65. getting our foot in the door would have been one thing

THIS travesty is another

[stevenleser]

66. It would be longer than that.

Look what it took to try again after 1993-1994.

[yourout]

67. Sorry to say....real healtcare reform is going to have to happen state by state.

As soon as a state passes single payer and businesses start flocking in other states will be forced to follow.

I wish Medicare for all could be done but there are to many Congresscritters that are owned by the Health Care Companies.

[eridani]

68. Bullshit. If it goes down, Dems could immediately introduce at least some expansion--

--of Medicare adn Medicaid. If all we can get right now is gradualism, that would probably be the best way to go.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

75. Right, move towards single payer by expanding PUBLIC programs

Bernie Sanders' expansion of the public health clinics is the ONLY step that's actually moving in that direction.

[ibegurpard]

69. It's too bad this travesty

has pretty much cemented political cynicism in an entire generation.
Even IF it dies (which it should but I doubt it will), no one is ever going to believe ANY politician who talks about reforming ANYTHING.

[golfguru]

70. Why insist on calling rewards to private insurance HCR?

Mandates, no upper limit on what the for profit private insurers can charge
for premiums, no PO to compete with them, etc etc.

Yes it prevents cancellations and rejections, but with no limits on
premiums, it will cost heckuva lot more for majority of people who
do not have pre-conditions. The for private insurers are not going to
lose money by having to pay for high risk patients whom they can't
cancel. They will raise rates for everybody until their profits are
juicy enough.

[goclark]

73. After seeing the Rally on cable yesterday, she can win it!

I'm making calls again today.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

76. Many a politician has made the mistake of assuming that large rallies

translate into large numbers of votes.

[goclark]

79. We'll see

It was not just the size, it was the message

I'm for the Democrat in the race.

[maryf]

77. I don't think so...

I think it might force folks to start from scratch...

[Enrique]

78. I'm afraid this bill will make reform more difficult

give more power to the insurance companies, make it too hard to phase them out.