Kill the bill and other noise.

[ProSense]

It's noise. Anyone who thinks the bill isn't progressive (and there is room to make it more so) is not paying attention. Look who has been opposing the bill in the Senate: Nelson, Nelson, Landrieu, Lieberman, Bayh, Conrad, and other conservative Democrats.

In the blogosphere, most of the debate has been noise. The objections went from kill the bill if it doesn't have a public option... to kill the bill because of the public option... to kill the the bill because the medicare buy-in was too expensive... to kill the bill if the Senate doesn't put the public option back in.

Almost full circle, and still the biggest obstacles in the Senate are the conservative Democrats.

To understand why they're still opposed to it despite the efforts to compromise, one has to do is go back to Dean's op-ed:

To be clear, I'm not giving up on health-care reform. The legislation does have some good points, such as expanding Medicaid and permanently increasing the federal government's contribution to it. It invests critical dollars in public health, wellness and prevention programs; extends the life of the Medicare trust fund; and allows young Americans to stay on their parents' health-care plans until they turn 27. Small businesses struggling with rising health-care costs will receive a tax credit, and primary-care physicians will see increases in their Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates.

Improvements can still be made in the Senate, and I hope that Senate Democrats will work on this bill as it moves to conference. If lawmakers are interested in ensuring that government affordability credits are spent on health-care benefits rather than insurers' salaries, they need to require state-based exchanges, which act as prudent purchasers and select only the most efficient insurers. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) offered this amendment during the Finance Committee markup, and Democrats should include it in the final legislation. A stripped-down version of the current bill that included these provisions would be worth passing.

[BeatleBoot]

1. Al Franken in 2012.

[ProSense]

3. Is he planning on voting against the bill? n/t

[BeatleBoot]

6. Don't know, but I prefer those with vertebrae

I'm voting spine in 2012.

[PBS Poll-435]

2. K&R

[wtbymark]

4. you gots a lota hope

but the way the senate looks nowadays - i bet the final version looks even worse (if thats possible)

[grantcart]

5. Its not progressive

having a public option is not particularly progressive

single payer is considered normative and not radical in ALL THE REST OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD


This graph makes the point (courtesy Endless October)



This single graph makes the point that it is not noise it is facts. Facts well established in 40 other countries.


This small little modified bill takes away only the most aggregious parts of a system that the developed world consideres "barbaric".


We will still be paying 30% too much and getting less.


We will have expanded government function and then handed it out to private companies to carry out. Nothing progressive about it.


It simply isn't quite as bad as the barbaric system that we now have.

[ProSense]

8. Ah, compared to other countries.

We live in the U.S., and the debate is among members of the U.S. Congress.

"It simply isn't quite as bad as the barbaric system that we now have."

You could say that about Baucus' bill, and the current bill is far more progressive than that.

It's time to stop engaging in silly debates.

[grantcart]

10. Not compared to other countries

Compared to all developed countries 50 years ago.


Canada has had single payer for 45 years. Their conservative party considers it their "national treasure"

I checked on all political parties in all democracies and out of 61 political parties only two the Democratic and Republican party of the US do not accept single payer.

You can argue that is an acceptable bill. You can argue that is part of a process.

However if you call it progressive and use a patronizing term like "noise" you stand outside of 90% of the civilized developed world.

You approach the world of the climate change deniers.

Yes by any modern human standard this bill is not progressive. It may approach comparitvely better but not progressive. Assertions to the contrary are painfully ignorant.

[ProSense]

11. That's still compared to other countries.

We have never had universal health care. We need to start somewhere. It's that simple.

[grantcart]

13. No you don't get it

At the same time that we were doing civil rights all of the rest of the developed world came to the conclusion that universal health care is a basic human right.

Now you can argue for the bill but your obstinant insistence that is somehow considered progressive is, again, painfully ignorant.


It has the same amount of progressive force as passing a law during slavery that you could only whip a slave with 10 strokes instead of 20. Better, yes - Progressive no.

The patronizing tone and your ignorance of the civilized world's opinion on the basic moral standing of the question will not help you persuade anyone that this is a good bill.

Stick with a line that is "comparable improvement" on the status quo - anything beyond that is pure "noise".

[ProSense]

14. I do get it.

"At the same time that we were doing civil rights all of the rest of the developed world came to the conclusion that universal health care is a basic human right."

It was the time shortly after Truman's plan failed and around the time LBJ did Medicare.

Neither were able to pass universal health care.

The bill is progressive.

[MNDemNY]

15. This bill is shit.

Your just trying to pick up this turd by the clean end.

[cliffordu]

23. Well...

BWAHA AHAhaHAhAh AHAhah ahAhaahahaha

:rofl:

Not bad...

[ProSense]

24. Your comments are as relevant as when you insisted the bill would include Nelson's amendment

You have nothing to add but nonsense.

[MNDemNY]

40. It still may!

But you will still back it, right???:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[grantcart]

16. only to a very small person living in a very insular world unaware of the moral evolution

of the developing democracies could this bill, that not one Senator even calls a good bill, could be considered "Progressive".

However taking such a position and then condemning all who question it as making nothing but "noise" is a level of arrogance that

reaches Cheney.


You not only argue that it is progressive, which all the readers of this thread must now be shaking their collective heads at,

but you use the most tiresome, trite, dismissive tone;

Anyone who thinks the bill isn't progressive (and there is room to make it more so) is not paying attention

Others reluctantly agree with the bill (including a list of some progressive leaders) but you alone use American Triumphalism to

proclaim that it not only is a great progressive move but that anyone who does not agree with this position is simply

not paying attention.

What unbridled egoism.

[ProSense]

21. It's called an opinion. I happen not to agree with you.

"Others reluctantly agree with the bill (including a list of some progressive leaders) but you alone use American Triumphalism..."

Reluctancy isn't a policy. The bill is progressive because it includes measures that go farther than any other to reform the system.

Reluctancy because of one issue are another doesn't mean the bill isn't progressive. From the community health centers to the measures to improve Medicare, the bill is progressive. Simply arguing that becuase there are points for concern or measures that are included isn't a strong enough argument against the bill.

That's my opinion. You are welcomed to disagree, but claiming that my opinion is "unbridled egoism" is irony onto itself.

[grantcart]

39. egoism is when you say that " Anyone who thinks the bill isn't progressive isn't paying attention"

I am fine with differing opinion its you who dismisses others by claiming that they are not paying attention.


Let's see how well you have been paying attention:


Does the current bill have a medical loss ratio?

What is the ratio?

Does the current bill have a sunset clause?



Are you really paying attention or just cutting and pasting?

[BeatleBoot]

19. To compare this to what LBJ did

Makes me fucking puke.


Please.


I've had enough.

[ProSense]

22. LBJ enacted universal health care?

Are you saying Obama is supposed to be like the great LBJ who didn't attempt universal health care or is he exactly like the great LBJ who expanded the Vietnam war? Does that make you puke?

[BeatleBoot]

26. No, I'm saying that Obama

had a chance at Universal Health Care and looked Joe Lieberman in the eyes and... saw his soul.

LBJ would have kicked that mother fuckers head in politically.

But, Obama does remind me of LBJ and Viet Nam in that he escalated the war in Afghanistan - 30,000 plus more troops.


Change!

[ProSense]

28. "LBJ would have kicked that mother fuckers head in politically." So

why didn't he pass universal health care? Why did he stop at Medicare? He could have picked up Truman's bill.

Oh, and he sure kicked ass on Vietnam.

[BeatleBoot]

32. He lost the South on Principle

he was too busy putting his neck on the line and the Democratic Party's neck on the line passing the Civil Rights Act.

When he signed the Bill, he said to his fellow Democrats (paraphrase), "...you do know we just lost the South.."

I want our current leaders to have guts like that.

and do the right thing.

We need someone to look the ignorant mf'ers in the face and say, "this is right, fuck you"

I don't like Joe Liberman appeasement bullshit.

But, that's just me.

[Phx_Dem]

36. A chance at Universal Health Care? What planet are you living on?

If by "universal health care" you mean single-payer, Lieberman didn't have anything to do with that option NEVER BEING ON THE TABLE. It wasn't on the table, because it didn't have anywhere near enough votes. Kinda like that Sanders amendment that had so much support for other Dems.

[IndianaGreen]

7. unrec

Kill the bill! Go to reconciliation.

Viva Chavez!

[Windy]

9. Grow up. Realize the obstacles in the Senate. Get it out and into conference committee! nt

[MNDemNY]

17. It will never get there. The Senate Bill will be crammed through the house.

That is the plan, no conference committee.

[NYC_SKP]

12. Thanks, ProSense. I've never witnessed such a scene.

During the primaries, it was understandable; everyone had their favorites.

I appreciate all, on any side of this issue, who have been trying to get to the facts.

:toast:

[MNDemNY]

18. Pay closer attention.

This bill sucks wind, it will die.

[whirlygigspin]

20. depends

it could survive if they took out the mandate, let's see if logic overcomes pride and vanity.

[Fire1]

29. And for those without health insurance, I wish them the best. n/t

[MNDemNY]

41. I do to. This bill is not it.

But keep tryin' to pick up that turd by the clean end.

[jenmito]

25. Rachel Maddow just showed the "Kill Bill Caucus" with all of the liberals and conservatives

with the same goal-to kill the bill. I hope everyone who's part of this caucus are proud of themselves-they'll be handing the RWers a huge victory.

[Clio the Leo]

31. She needs to take Bernie off of her list...

.... I dont think he was EVER on the Kill the Bill train but he is CLEARLY not on it now.

[jenmito]

33. I know-I saw him interviewed tonight...

her info. is out-dated. Howard Dean has kind of backed off from being a "kill the bill-er," too, because he doesn't want to be in the same group as the RWers. When Chris Matthews pointed out that the RWers are happy to have him working to achieve the same goal as them, he said he doesn't want to kill it since there are some good things in it, but he wants it to be made better. He had a terrible interview yesterday. He was all over the map.

[Clio the Leo]

38. the one with Tweety?

Is that the terrible interview?

I am going to save that one and cite it the next time anyone accuses Chris of disliking the President ..... he's hard on him, but he thinks that his job ..... but yesterday's interview is right up there with Chris calling the President "the fifth Kennedy brother" as proof of where his heart is. ;)

That was some GOOD tv.

"See, that's your problem governor, that's why you lost, you dont know how to count numbers..." :rofl:

[Clio the Leo]

27. And dont foreget the Republicans....

.... who, last I checked, are still opposed to the bill.

(because, if it was so bad, wouldn't they want it passed?)

[TheKentuckian]

30. This is the Baucus bill

Same funding mechanisms, same lack of competition not only with big insurance but even within it, same mandates, same lack of price controls.

[angee_is_mad]

34. Prosense you are wasting your time

there are some on here who has been waiting for this moment since last year.

Hell some of them have found or are looking for candidates to run against Obama in 2012.

Fuck em!

[AllentownJake]

37. DEAN 2012

:evilgrin:

[mcablue]

35. Doesn't Lieberman support the bill now?

You said he "has been opposing it," but didn't he stop opposing it this week?