I've decided we should let the Republicans kill off the damn thing

[SmileyRose]

Flame away if you must but

If the public option survives at all it won't do a damn thing to reduce the number who have little to no access to decent medical care. This thing isn't going to reduce the administrative headaches for providers. It isn't going to increase access to medical care by those who actually have insurance. It isn't going to cut down on the number of people being forced into bankruptcy by illness or injury. It doesn't reduce any of the costs forcing small businesses to either not pay for benefits or simply fold all together. All that's left is forcing everyone to buy private insurance from for profit insurance companies.

It isn't going to solve anything. They have already watered it down so bad the only one's to win is - sure enough - the insurance companies, Hospital corps and big Pharm. I am convinced it MAY make things worse.

Kucinich, our biggest advocate on public options, stopped just short of calling this a pile of shit. What this has morphed into bears no resemblance at all to how it was sold to us. It seems to me we are about to end up with the "Patriot Act" of medical care. Huge money thrown around that doesn't solve one damn thing.

Kill it.

[robinlynne]

1. how about we fight for single-payer instead.

[SmileyRose]

2. Exactly

[slay]

45. My thoughts as well

We all know it's the best solution and Dennis Kucinich gave us the blueprint of how to do it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x350754

[slipslidingaway]

50. Agreed ! n/t

[Kaleva]

60. Anything less then single payer is a waste of time and effort

[Lorien]

62. That's what I'm doing. Write . Call. Hound them until there's a vote. nt

[Edweird]

68. +1

[jocapo]

3. You beat me to it. I was about to post the following:

Let the republicons have their Health Care "victory" and hang it around their necks like rotting entrails going into the 2010 election cycle. I don't want the watered down Health Care reform that's on the table now anyway. If we let it die and start again with Single Payer like we should have we'd have a better chance at getting real reform.

[The Doctor.]

21. Put the insurance industry through a 'slow bleed'.

If everytime a bill the insurance companies have blown a wad on mutating to their will is killed, they'll just have to go through the process again.

And again.

And again.

Passing it would just be a tremendous victory for them, because their congresspuppets can just say; "Health care? We just DID that!"

[RagAss]

4. I think thats the plan all along. The blame will follow and 2010 will mark the end of the GOP.

[RandomThoughts]

5. Well a massive failure of a bill being called health care. and being passed as legislation

Some are thinking, will return the government back to gridlock where loses of democratic seats will allow for government not able to pass regulation on any private sector. Heh

Only the nihilist part of me wants them to pass a crap bill. It is a bad part of anyone, tempting thoughts. We have an opportunity to make a real change on health care, I really hope they get it done not for the insurance companies, but for the people.


I agree that a crap bill should not be passed. Then those that stood for insurance companies, and not wanting a tax on millionaires, can defend that in upcoming elections.

[BlooInBloo]

6. And the all or nothing crowd senses victory.

[timeforpeace]

10. The "let's pass anything" crowd senses the big rush didn't work, actually backfired.

[SmileyRose]

12. I'm all for baby steps in the right direction.

I just don't see it here. I expected some compromise but I have yet to see what this thing actually solves and it looks to me like it creates a few problems.

Tell me where I'm wrong, but telling me I'm all or nothing is simply not accurate.

[Hello_Kitty]

36. Without the public option, there should be no mandate.

They can pass something now that puts limits on the insurance cos. and makes insurance more attractive to purchase but making people support a greedy parasitic industry is unacceptable.

[RandomThoughts]

14. All or nothing, it may mean more then passing a bill that does not address key issues.

There are many thoughts on all or nothing. And it has a place in many situations.

Lets say you wanted to wear a tie. then suddenly work made it not allowed, then government said it was illegal, or something like that, and you still wore your tie. And even when thrown in prison you refused, because you did not see anything wrong with the tie, and nobody had told you what is wrong with a tie.

If you stuck to that point as some value, if wearing a tie was important to you. You would have an all or nothing approach to that issue. How could you compromise? And I see no problem with that view unless you go around telling other people they can't or have to have ties also.(the ties is abstract it could be any value you hold important).

So that comment is of particular interest to me, on what I accept there is many times no compromise. Those are my personal feelings on things. If someone explained why I was wrong, it could change. It is just a simple question, why accept something that is wrong, either learn that it is not wrong or do not accept it. And all or nothing fits with my concepts on that.

There is a particular dynamic required for that situation. It requires a situation where there really are two sides. If someone is hanging from a balcony you either help them or you don't. Where is the middle ground? Many times in many situations there is no middle ground.

Also many times what looks like no compromise only looks that way because the other side thinks the compromise is total defeat. If you argue for a dollar raise, and the boss fearfully projects forward a future where that leads to the complete destruction of his business and all other businesses from that dollar raise, then a compromise of a dollar raise has become an all or nothing situation.

As an example I comment often on no compromise on justice. In other words there can not be two tier justice. In reality I know everyone has biases, so I actually do compromise, knowing some people will get better lawyers, some people may have easier prison time, and some people may be viewed by juries with bias. But what I see as a compromise is seen by others as all or nothing, because it means some people would not be above the law, and there would be a system of justice in place, even though not perfect. So it looks like all or nothing because how it looks from one side, and how it looks from the other is so far apart.



It might be easier to explain it with a graph.

Each group thinks a compromise beyond their own max is really bad because of how they view the issue.

Position of some group.............<-Max compermise...........Max compermise->.......Position of other group

In that graph each group will compromise, but if each group thinks anything past their max compromise is some terrible thing, they have no compromise, because both sides see it as all or nothing. So all or nothing is not always lack of compromise, but an inability to perceive the results in the same way by two different groups.

The above compromise also leads to the classic car chicken collision. If each side has a max compromise not acceptable to the other, things just get worse and worse till one side gives in. Now since I see a 'point' at which the discussion leads to both cars gone anyway, anything less then that 'point' does not matter. Since the end outcome is the same, so in my view moving beyond that point is irrelevant. Either way if the point is not established, we will watch the head on crash. In that it looks like all or nothing when it is past some point or nothing, and that point is already a compromise.

And you miss something real important in your statement,

A bad bill is nothing.



In health care, the two sides without a compromise are. Do Insurance companies get monopoly control, or do they have to deal with significant competition.

[kristopher]

22. I'd like to direct this question to you also...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6260092&mesg_id=6260288

[RandomThoughts]

47. The bill is not finished, and I am not that worried about day to day news stories for that reason.

And since the bill has a ways to go still. I am guessing some of the news stories are to set a perspective, or to keep people occupied, or for hope despair cycles.

That's why so many statements say 'if' when discussing possible bills.


Here is the almost 1000 page House bill.
http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

Senate Bill is still in Finance Committee behind closed doors.

[paulk]

66. no public option IS nothing

[followthemoney]

85. All or Nothing worked for the elimination of slavery.

A house divided against itself cannot stand, and all that.

It was a big fight. A lot of lies were told to protect the parasitic privilege of the slaveholders.

You can see how the corrupt bastards used threats of violence and outright lies to silence the abolitionists in those days in the way they carry on now.

This nation talks a big talk about freedom, but the government will do anything to preserve the privileges of a few to live easy on the backs of the vulnerable.

Don't be weak in this country because there are a lot of fat hungry cannibals ready to eat you up if they think they can get away with it.

[tj2001]

7. They'll blame Democrats for "the Democrats' failed plan"

[hfojvt]

8. that did not work so well for us in 1993

but the Romneycare aspect of it certainly does not appeal to me.

If anybody should have a mandate, it should be Obama, and not the uninsured. Didn't he have a plan that we essentially supported? And isn't that plan much different than what's on the table?

[DJ13]

9. I agree

Theres no possibility for real reform until theres more people suffering from lost employer provided health insurance.

Too many (idiots) people see they still have coverage and think reform is a bad idea.

After the ever greedy insurance companies pass more increases on employers that force them to drop employee health insurance THEN the public will be so vocal that not even the Republicans and their brother Blue Dogs could stop the reform we really need.

[ima_sinnic]

11. if it's going to FORCE me to buy "health" insurance, I too want it to die

I'm single and make enough money that I'm not considered "low income," though I'm hardly rich. I'm simply FINALLY (at the age of 63) making a little more than I need to cover my bills. I'll be damned if I'm going to now waste that surplus by handing it over to some rich insurance company CEO and getting virtually nothing in return. Since I'm self-employed, I pay 100% "payroll tax" (i.e., Medicare & SS, at 15% of my income) as well as income tax. My federal taxes already take a HUGE bite out of my income (last year, payroll + income taxes = 20% of my gross, after all credits and so on were figured). I'd rather pay the fine for no insurance and continue to rely on occasional acupuncture, a healthy diet and exercise, and knocking on wood till I can get Medicare.

[theoldman]

20. I disagree with you on not having some kind of insurance.

Knocking on wood is not a safe option. I was self employed and always carried some insurance. What if you have an accident or a big medical problem? Your diet and exercise will not prevent these things from happening. Just my two cents worth.

[Hello_Kitty]

31. I don't know how long ago you were self employed

But do know the kind of insurance that's typically available to people in ima sinnic's situation? It's the crappy catastrophic type where you'll be paying thousands out of pocket before the coverage kicks in. At ima sinnic's age s/he would be paying very high monthly premiums too. And there's still no predicting that the insurance co. won't refuse to cover her illness or injury for some trumped-up reason. One of the common tactics they use is to send you stuff in the mail requiring you to "prove" you had the procedure done. If you don't respond in a certain amount of time, they won't cover it.

[Lorien]

63. Yep. I'm self employed and have insurance, but it's complete crap

the deductible is so high that the only way I'll ever get any real benefits from it is if I have a very serious condition, and my co-pays will still be so high that it will ruin me. The system MUST change!

[Hello_Kitty]

25. Oh yeah, the single people with no dependents will be screwed by this

The lion's share of the subsidies to pay for this mandatory private insurance will go to families.

[nolabels]

86. Governments main function is to take substance and control from people and hand it to others

Granted they have been giving it to wrong people for quite some time but that aside i do think it will turn out much different than people are anticipating. Screwing over single people in favor families has been going on forever. They are after a much bigger piece of pie, or actually it's probably the WHOLE pie.


The model of mandatory auto insurance with no regulation is what they are after and with millions to lobby for it they will probably get what they came for eventually :-(

[Warren Stupidity]

13. Sure, let's hand the teabaggers victory and enourage them even more.

Great idea.

[Greyhound]

18. This issue is not about political gamesmanship, it is about health care.

In typical Democratic style, they have painted themselves into a corner. If the bill fails, they're losers. If a horrible bill that helps no one but hands billions of our dollars to the insurance and health care denial industries passes, they get that hung on them as well.

Obama & Co. have let the debate be redefined from health care reform to health insurance reform, and as a result, will get neither. Brilliant strategy on the part of the nominal Democrats running the party (into the ground).

[Warren Stupidity]

27. it is about both

and we ignore the 'political game' side of it at our peril.

[Greyhound]

30. You may not have noticed it, but the peril is realized and we lost. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

39. no we haven't lost anything yet.

[Greyhound]

41. Another future, "told you so" post.

:rofl:

That's OK, keep the faith, and maybe I'll be wrong.

[Greyhound]

70. So, just how sick are you? Tell us all how wonderfully your insurance company has

treated you and how quickly they approved all of your tests, got you into to see the best specialists available for your particular ailment, etc...

[Warren Stupidity]

80. what?

I am not thrilled with the legislation being compromised in washington. I vastly prefer single payer medicare for all. But I refuse to agree with the OP that we should align ourselves with proto-nazi teabag goons and help defeat any reform, help derail the Obama administration, and help put those fuckwads back in power so we can wait another 16 years to try again. Actually, I'll be long on medicare by then anyway, so have a nice day. Great plan. Surrender because it aint good enough.

[Greyhound]

88. Her point, and I think it is valid, is that this clusterfuck of a compromised compromise

is worse than passing nothing at all. Neither of the incarnations of this mess address the problems in our so-called health care system, but both end up pouring billions of our dollars into the insurance company coffers and delivering a captive customer base into the hands of the very people that profit most from denying care and allowing the sick to suffer and die. Then they expect that we are all so stupid that we believe that this is the best they could do.

This is a no-win, thanks to the DLCNewBlue3rdWayDogs and Obama went right along with it. If/when the republiks pick up seats in the mid-term, Obama & Co. have no one to blame but themselves. He had the mandate and a crisis to make it happen, and on every issue, he chose to side with corporations over people.

[SmileyRose]

23. In all honesty

I don't give a flying fig about the teabaggers. those nutjobs are of 2 varieties, clowns and killers. the clowns are seen for what they are and soon enough the killers will start blowing up town hall meetings. The rest of the teabag movement will go away. Their corporate masters will move on.

No, what I care about are myself and my family and my neighbors. Yes, even the teabaggers. Because regardless of the idiocy they are spouting, I do want what is best for them too - and their kids and their kids after them. The burden of the corporation is breaking us. Maybe I am tilting at windmills but just once in my life before I die I want to successfully take some power back from the corporations on something really important - like medical care.

[Warren Stupidity]

38. Right, having been handed victory, the right will be satisfied and stop

there. Their corporate masters intend to repeat 94 and to regain the near total control of the federal government they lost in 2006. They intend to destroy the Obama administration, bringing it to heel as they did the Clinton administration, and then pushing it out of power. We should help them with this?

I don't like the bill coming out the senate, I am not too fond of the one coming out of the house either, but I will accept any reform victory here as a good start and more importantly a defeat of the right. Should we extend medicare to everyone? Yes of course. But please remember that after the defeat of the Clinton effort in 93, an effort that never even came to a vote, there was no further legislative movement until this year, 16 years later. I can't wait that long to try again.

[man4allcats]

15. Take robinlynne's advice upthread

and help us fight for single payer. You can sign Dennis's petition here: HR 676, the Medicare for All Act.

[Maru Kitteh]

29. 676 is a dead stick and at this point, worse than a waste of time.

[man4allcats]

48. That's okay. I don't mind wasting a little time

if it helps me to teach others that taking the moral high road is never a waste of time.

[Maru Kitteh]

56. My children have no access to healthcare and I have not the luxury of wasting their time.

[man4allcats]

65. I'm sure you don't,

and of course I respect your decision to choose not to support the single payer option at this time just as I would hope you respect my decision to continue to speak out on behalf of it.

[Maru Kitteh]

75. I hope to see single-peyer yet in my lifetime, but I feel it is crucial at this time to point out

that 676 is not only nonviable, but expenditure of energy on it by mainstream Democrats at this point would be deadly to the long term goal of actually achieving it by ensuring total failure of any reform and a return of Republican rule.

I'll stand with Teddy Kennedy on this one.

[man4allcats]

77. While single payer is at present certainly unlikely

I do not think it nonviable. Any lack of viability results only from what Dennis Kucinich has referred to as the "insurance industry's stranglehold on our economy." These people are no different than any other robber barron, and they will keep it up until a legislative gun is held to their heads forcing them to stop. It could happen now if America would demand it, but the good people on this site are not by themselves sufficient to pull it off; at least not without the engaged hearts and minds of the rest of America. The same astroturf hooligans who manipulated the Florida vote in 2000 are at it again at health care reform town hall meetings today, and the mainstream media give them plenty of coverage so that they do indeed appear to be ordinary concerned citizens rather than the insurance company corporate shills they actually are. Make no mistake. These people are the enemy, and I believe that to beat this enemy we must bulldoze over their lies. There is no compromising with a rattlesnake. Get rid of him or he will get rid of you. Single payer will happen - if not now then eventually, but I wonder how many people will suffer and die needlessly before it does. The epitaph of all those who fall prey to this sad fate might well read:

This didn't have to happen.
It could have been stopped.
We lie here now in final rest
because people wouldn't fight.
Ashes to ashes.
Dust to dust.

[Maru Kitteh]

82. All hard evidence (not wishful thinking) shows us that 676 IS nonviable.

If anyone has credible evidence that 676 (not some other act or bill or resolution; 676) has an ice cube's chance in hell of passing, then they are sitting on the hottest news story since OJ went for a ride in a Bronco.

If the public option doesn't pass, then I see little to no hope of seeing single payer in this country anytime soon at all. If current reform does not include a public option, Mr. Maru and I have decided to consider making plans to leave this country after I finish my medical education. I don't want to practice here, grow old here, or die here under the current system. Where we go will be decided by the ease of bringing over our adult children if they desire and the ability to treat all patients equally with as little interference as possible.

edit ti3-poe.

[man4allcats]

87. At present, the viability of single payer lies not in its likelihood

of passage but rather in the leverage it affords us in getting at least some kind of significant health care reform such as, for example, a public option. Leverage isn't wishful thinking; it's the hard currency of effective politics. David Swanson put it well in a recent post:

"The U.S. House of Representatives has committed to bringing single-payer healthcare to a vote following summer recess. Stranger things have happened, greater obstacles have been overcome, than what would be involved in winning that vote, winning in the Senate, and compelling the president to sign the bill. We have a moral responsibility to put everything we have into trying; and even a near-victory will advance the cause.

- snip -

So, here's the truth. Congress is not voting on single-payer healthcare purely because we forced it to, or because the bill is (prior to our shaking the country up this summer) even remotely likely to pass. Our advocacy for single-payer has had an impact. We're a big reason why some congress members are fighting for a public option. Whether or not you consider any of the current versions of public option worth the paper they're written on, the fact is they'd be weaker without the public demand for single-payer, and were that demand stronger so would the public option be. Our work has also led to passage in the House Education and Labor Committee of an amendment that would make it easier for states to create single-payer systems. And our advocacy led to the promise of a floor vote on single payer in the fall.

- snip -

From the point of view of people who really want to get our population better healthcare and who have not been purchased by insurance, drug, and hospital companies, lobbying for Yes votes on single-payer AND lobbying to leave the states language in the non-single-payer bill (or at least allow a vote on it) seems to make a lot of sense. We're saying that we want single-payer nationally, but that if they won't give it to us right away, we at least want states to be left free to lead the way. Canada arrived at its system after a province led the way, and the first state likely to create single-payer, California, is about the same size as Canada. If Canada's system does so much good, why would we deny the same to California?

For those lobbying directly for a public option, it also makes perfect sense to demand freedom for states to do better faster. If the goal is providing more people with better healthcare, if the goal is not to avoid making the federal government look second best, if the goal is not to achieve a perverse hyper-simplicity of "messaging," then including the state single-payer language in August demands is the way to go."

Emphasis mine.

Of course I am under no illusions with regard to single payer at this time. I do nevertheless believe that it is in fact the moral high ground and is worth supporting on that basis alone even without its leverage value. The fact that it is almost certainly doomed to fail in this political climate is no reason not to sign the petition! I am in sympathy with anyone who might consider leaving the country if the health care system does not improve. Nevertheless, for various reasons, such a move is impractical for many, and for them and those who simply choose to stay whether or not they have the means to leave, I support using whatever political leverage, including single payer discussions, that might further the realization of a significantly better health care system. As a biomedical researcher, I would truly like to see everyone in this country have the kind of realistic access to decent health care with all its current advances that most of the rest of the developed world (and even those in some places not so developed) already enjoy.

[slipslidingaway]

34. Exactly, thanks for posting the link. n/t

[Kansas Wyatt]

16. Obama should give the Republicans what they want, and start over.

Since his party controls Congress, he should demand that Congress examine all the other industrialized nations health care plans and use that as a blueprint for health care reform.

Rewarding the industries, who bankrupted us into the mess we are in, will NEVER solve the problem.

[kristopher]

17. Could you help me understand the legislation?

You see, I haven't been able to track down a copy of the bill that was hammered out between the House and Senate conference committee, so I really don't have any idea of what the final legislation might contain.

In fact, I'm extremely surprised and pleased that you were able to get a copy; perhaps you could post the full content on here on this thread. Since all legislation is in the public domain it wouldn't violate any copyright laws.


I'd really love to follow your advice, but before I take such a drastic step I think it is prudent to check it out for myself. I know that you know disruptors are everywhere nowadays and that it pays to be careful, so I'm sure you understand my reluctance to just accept the conclusions you've drawn from your reading of the final bill. I admit that having that access puts you head and shoulders above the rest of us, but I still would like to read it myself.

Thanks in advance.

[FatDave]

55. Who has time to look for the bill when the sky is clearly falling??!?!

[Ratty]

19. Kill it and try again after 2010

What they've got now is worse than nothing.

[slipslidingaway]

24. These are must read articles ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6258429&mesg_id=6258429

snip from the second article...

"...Until about 2007, when the Herndon Alliance first began publishing its “research,” there was only one variant of the “political feasibility” argument, the one that said the insurance industry is too powerful to beat. The Herndon Alliance variant claimed single-payer is not feasible because Americans don’t want it. According to this variant, American “values,” not the insurance industry, are actually the greatest impediment to single-payer. According to the Herndon Alliance, Americans “value choice of insurance company” and “they like the insurance they have and want to keep it.” HCAN and Hacker picked up these refrains and promoted them vigorously to the public and to members of Congress. This inexcusable attack on single-payer no doubt helped key committee chairs in Congress (Kennedy, Baucus, Waxman, Rangel and Miller) feel more comfortable taking single-payer off the table and concentrating on the “public option.”

By early 2009, it was clear the Hacker-HCAN-Herndon Alliance propaganda for the “public option” and against single-payer had worked with the Democratic leadership, and that the Democratic leadership would fall once again for a market-based alternative and remove single-payer from the table. The removal of single-payer legislation took place without the firing of a single shot in public by the insurance industry and the right wing. It took place at the request of the “yes but” wing...


It is not inevitable that a scrawny “public option” will be strengthened

It is not written in stone that creation of the “public option” must go hand in hand with a huge bailout for the insurance industry. After all, one could imagine a scenario in which enrollees in the “public option” are the only ones who get subsidies. That was Hacker’s original plan. But Democrats decided early in their bill-writing process that subsidies had to go to both the “public option” and the insurance industry, and Hacker and company did not complain. That decision, plus the Democrats’ desire to achieve near-universal coverage, plus the Democrats’ decision to create only a tiny “public option,” means that if a “public option” is enacted it will be enacted only in conjunction with an enormous insurance industry bailout.

A well-fed insurance industry is bad news for both single-payer and “public option” advocates. An insurance industry strengthened by a trillion dollars per decade of new tax dollars will not only be in a better position to oppose single-payer legislation, it will also be in a stronger position to lobby Congress and the regulators to ensure the “public option” remains stunted..."

[OHdem10]

26. No bill better than bad bill.

[NightWatcher]

33. +1

[slipslidingaway]

37. +2 nt

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

69. -1!

[elocs]

28. It's a good thing you are not The Decider. n/t

[Maru Kitteh]

32. +1

[ThoughtCriminal]

35. Flash back to 1993, and then to 1994

[Peacetrain]

40. Damn it .. here we go again...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. How does one kill a corpse?

[fascisthunter]

43. yeah... what great idea...WTF?!

[slipslidingaway]

44. Kucinich - "We have to be ready with the only solution that exists - and that is 676"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=350754&mesg_id=350754

"...Because we have to anticipate the insurance companies, which are fighting for, not just their lives, they're 'fighting for OUR lives,' that they are not going to relent until they have a total victory, creating a mandate and forcing people to buy more private insurance. What a deal! Hello??

- snip -

The third step ... we need to redouble our efforts toward the single-payer movement nationally. Everywhere, as a national construct. No matter what happens with this bill. This bill could eventually fall of its own weight. There are so many compromises being made, people are compromising their compromises which were already being compromised - this is so compromised a bill, and after a while people meet their shadow coming around the corner. There's confusion, but there's the possibility that the thing could go down. We have to be ready with the only solution that exists - and that is 676, the bill that John Conyers and I worked on together, that is the single-payer solution. And that's part of a national movement."

[Are_grits_groceries]

46. We can't!

This isn't about health care anymore. It really never was. It's now turned into an issue about how this country will be governed. The MSM would love nothing better than to point out ad infinitum that the town hall protests worked. The Dems just didn't have the stomach for a fight, etc.

The GOP has been unable to stop Obama on anything so far. Now they are getting more desperate by the day, and their tactics show that.

If this were a normal discussion about a policy, I would say let it go. There is no normal anymore as I know it. They are trying to replace normal discourse with mobs. If that becomes the norm, more than the health care bill will sink.

It's kind of like a running battle. Suddenly you find yourself fighting from a shitty position that is not where you want to plant your flag at all. You can do 1 of 3 things. You can change strategy and forces and push to a better position. You can hold the ground where you are if number one is out of the question. Or you can give up and turn tail until you are back in your base camp. The problem with number 3 is that you cede too much ground and give the enemy hope that they can rout you completely from anywhere.

I would much prefer for the grass root Dems to get really mad and start fighting back. I'm over watching retreat. We got scared and retreated on civil liberties after 9/11.

[slipslidingaway]

49. The Democrats should move to option number 1 - change strategy

and move to a better position, a single-payer, NOT for profit system.

[RandomThoughts]

52. Right now it is about weather Senators will retreat.

Not if voters will retreat, they know what people want 70%+. It is very clear to them, if they were to choose against that, especially for reasons of insurance company profits, that would be equally clear also.

[SmileyRose]

53. You and Warren have given me something to think about.

I really appreciate that.

[Are_grits_groceries]

54. You're welcome.

I think I have used up my quota of thinking for the day. :hi:

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

74. Amen. Something is better then nothing and victory is better then defeat.

If more people get coverage, if health care inflation is brought down even a little and if the insurance companies have more regulations on them, I'll take it. I want more. We all want more, but it ain't in the cards right now.

I'd like a Ferrari, but I'll settle for a Civic, even if does have a stain or two on the seat.

[ecstatic]

51. That's very selfish of you. I can think of many ways that the

bill will help people (particularly the pre-existing conditions clause).

[orwell]

57. An alternative to killing it...

...would be to retain the provisions on not allowing insurance companies to cancel policies by rescission, to refuse for preexisting conditions, or to raise rates due to an existing health claim.

You could also extend Medicare to those 55 or older (a provision backed by even some ReCons) and allow health insurance portability.

I think all of these measures would pass with bipartisan support.

Extending Medicare would offer a back door to a single payer system that most, even on the right, do not see as a single payer system.

Of course none of this addresses the 40 million people who are uninsured or exploding health care premiums, but this may have to be tackled at a later date when some on the right see that the sky isn't falling due to these reforms.

To pass nothing is unacceptable. It would greatly harm the Democrats in power as they would be blamed, not the Republicans.

This also would not deliver 40 million more "customers" to a corrupt Wealth Insurance industry.

[tritsofme]

58. Republicans simply lack the numbers to kill health reform.

Making the substance of your post moot.

This is all on the shoulders of Leadership and the White House. The overwhelming majority Democrats possess in both houses of Congress mean that they own the results, for better or worse.

[donco6]

59. It's just a giant moneybag handed to already flush insurance corps.

All I can say is, Why?

[Cleita]

61. I almost have to agree with you, but if I'm right, there might be a

small glimmer of hope we can use to turn this over. If in fact the public option is cooperatives and if in fact they are willing to furnish seed money for cooperatives, I beg any and all Democrats who know how to do this to get it off the ground before the insurance companies sponge up that money too. If there is non-profit insurance that people can get instead of their regular plans, then maybe we can tell the insurers to go to Hell after all. We can cancel Blue Cross, Cigna Aetna et al and starve them out of the business. Then there might be a chance for true health care reform.

[roamer65]

64. The health insurance cartel will now push it through.

They are now on the verge of getting what they wanted all along, a mandatory private insurance extortion scheme that makes you a criminal for not participating. They have modeled it exactly after no-fault auto insurance extortion scheme.

[Skittles]

67. is everyone finally starting to get it?

we were NEVER.GOING.TO.GET.WHAT.WE.WANTED

We could, and should, have done so much better than this

[ima_sinnic]

71. I hope Obama is making alternate plans starting in 2012

cause he sure ain't going to be re-elected on the basis of this mess.
He has needed to be like LBJ, pressuring legislators to pass what he wants, the way Johnson did for Medicare. Instead, he's letting that traitor Rahm Emanuel cause him to fail.

[scheming daemons]

72. If you rec this OP, you're a fucking idiot......

This kind of thought will make 2010 a reprise of 1994.


Then what kind of health care are you going to get when Boehner is Speaker of the House and McConnell is majority leader of the Senate.


Don't be a douche.

[shadowknows69]

73. I'm becoming inclined to agree.

Too mahy compromises already. Universal single payer or a public option is ground we shouldn't give.

[Hippo_Tron]

76. Sorry, but ending denial based on pre-existing conditions...

And community rating directly impacts me and a lot of other people I know. I support a robust public option and ideally would like a system like the French have. But I will support any bill that makes it illegal for the insurance company to discriminate based on a preexisting condition.

Health care doesn't have to be completely reformed in one shot. I would like to do as much as possible right now but there's no reason we can't get another shot at this in a few years.

[amandabeech]

79. Do you mean that you would accept a bill that forced insurance companies to issue policies

to those of us with pre-existing conditions, but with no features that would make those policies affordable, like community rating?

[Hippo_Tron]

81. It would have to have both of those conditions

No denial based on pre-existing conditions and community rating. By all indicators we are going to get both of those.

[amandabeech]

83. Yes, but the community rating will be based on age.

I thought that "community rating" meant that everyone paid the same amount, regardless of condition OR age, like in a group policy.

[DCKit]

78. If we can't have single payer, they need to end Medicare and SS too.

See how THAT flies at the Republic town halls.

[FrenchieCat]

84. Thank Gawd you are not in charge!

And thank goodness this ain't just about you!

I'm grateful.

[SpartanDem]

89. Let's take a look at your claims

"It isn't going to increase access to medical care by those who actually have insurance."

The bill will set miniums that every plan must cover that include.

Minimum Services To Be Covered- The items and services described in this subsection are the following:

(1) Hospitalization.

(2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic services, including emergency department services.

(3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals.

(4) Such services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physician's or a health professional's delivery of care in institutional settings, physician offices, patients' homes or place of residence, or other settings, as appropriate.

(5) Prescription drugs.

(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services.

(7) Mental health and substance use disorder services.

(8) Preventive services, including those services recommended with a grade of A or B by the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services and those vaccines recommended for use by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

(9) Maternity care.

(10) Well baby and well child care and oral health, vision, and hearing services, equipment, and supplies at least for children under 21 years of age.

"It isn't going to cut down on the number of people being forced into bankruptcy by illness or injury."

The bill will limit annual out of pocket cost expense and outlaw caps on lifetime benefits


"It doesn't reduce any of the costs forcing small businesses to either not pay for benefits or simply fold all together."

http://blog.aflcio.org/2009/07/30/health-care-reform-will-benefit-small-business-produce-big-savings/

Two studies by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) find that the House health care reform bill (H.R. 3200) would pay dividends for small businesses and other groups, and costs incurred by the federal government would help reduce total health spending over time.

“Health Care Reform—Big Benefits for Small Business” explains the many ways in which small businesses will benefit from health care reforms. Only 35 percent of businesses employing fewer than 10 workers offer health insurance, and those that do usually pass on a higher share of the cost to workers than do larger businesses, the report says

[notesdev]

90. That's what I said

the moment Linda Douglass was hired for the job (fresh off the pharma lobbying team) I knew anything that came out would be a windfall for big corps and a total piece of shit for everyone else.

[progressoid]

91. Kill it?

It's already dead.