Skip to main content

The House "tri-committee" health care bill, introduced earlier today, is already set for markup in the committees beginning on Thursday.

Take note here: The "tradition," at least on most committees, is to give two days' notice between introduction of a bill and a markup on it. But committee rules, typically, require only one day. It's interesting to note, then, that they've chosen to go with the rules rather than tradition. That'll engender some Republican resentment, to be sure.

But here's the thing: I think it's realistically the case that there's nowhere for Republican votes to move as a result of this resentment. In other words, the Republicans have pretty much redlined their opposition meters, so in some respects, it's no longer worth giving deference to their feelings in this, since the deference is never returned in kind.

It's hard to disagree with that thinking. Might even be useful in the Senate, though it certainly runs counter to the way things have normally worked there.

Then again, so did the record-breaking pace of cloture voting in the last Congress. Doesn't feel a great deal like that's changing in this Congress, either.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:46 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Hopefully something will pass. (4+ / 0-)

    But I wonder which bill is the better bet; The house or the senate?

    You are entitled to express your opinion. But you are NOT entitled to agreement.

    by DawnG on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:51:23 PM PDT

    •  The House... (12+ / 0-)

      It is very rare that the Senate passes a better version of a bill then the House.

      •  Ouch. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TalkieToaster, Notus

        Nyceve and Jane will have their work cut out for them.  

        I hope they have gotten this message.  

        This is the most important legislation of my lifetime and I'll be goddamed if some corporate shills will stick their blood soaked knives into it. - nyceve

        by blueocean on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:00:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Senate has always been... (0+ / 0-)

          a more conservative/elite body.  Some people describe it as the American House of Lords.  Now anyone can find individual instances were the Senate passed a more "Progressive" strong piece of legislation, but it has traditionally been the House that is the better body.

          Look at how the Public Option, which has between 75-80% support of the people, has been received as "controversial" in the Senate as opposed to the House.  The Senate is not democratic, it is not proportional, and it is more malleable to the interests of the rich, the connected, and the conservative status quo.  The House, imperfect as it is, is usually the opposite, although one can find plenty of instances in history where the House has been hijacked by the interests of the rich and powerful.

          With the House we have to whip the Democrats to have the will to stand up to the Senate, but with the Senate we have a hell of a lot of work cut out for us.

          •  House of Numchuks (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Truedelphi

            House of Lords?  Feh.  Numchucks the lot of them.

            And yes, I know the spelling of the weapon is "nunchucks".  But for the fools in the Senate, only "numchuck" is good enough.

            "If another country builds a better car, we buy it. If they make a better wine, we drink it. If they have better healthcare . . . what's our problem? "

            by mbayrob on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:32:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  LOTS OF LOOPHOLES....I suspect.. (0+ / 0-)

              PROTECTING CONSUMERS
              The bill includes strong reforms to the insurance market so that consumers will be more secure in their health coverage. (but still a lot of loopholes-)
               Insurers will be prohibited from excluding coverage based on pre‐existing conditions. (but they CAN charge individuals more, and only the poorest individuals will be able to apply their vouchers to the public option, whenever it happens- at least that is how I read this)
               Insurers will be prevented from selectively refusing to renew coverage. (but no word on if they can charge people more, so assume they can) They will no longer be able to charge people different premiums based on their gender, health status, or occupation; and the percent difference insurers can charge based on age is limited to a rate band of 2:1 (Good but what about the crucial individual market and pre-existing conditions and PRICES)
               Requires a standardized annual out‐of‐pocket spending limit so that no family faces bankruptcy due to medical expenses. (Good but if its comprehensive, it will basically remove the risk from private insurers, so the government assumes the risk? If so, great, but.. will it last? Forgive me for being skeptical, but I have seen how terrible it is for high risk pools..)
              Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in private plans will no longer be charged cost sharing above traditional Medicare. (whats the point of this?)
              New requirements on plans will ensure that they keep costs down and pass on savings to consumers.
              (by raising prices?)

              Unemployed people can't afford COBRA, so how will people be able to afford the COBRA-like premiums of public option? And what about the underinsured?

              by Andiamo on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 05:59:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  It's as much as admitted in the structure that (0+ / 0-)

            the framers chose.  The bicameral legislature is designed to have a democracy in The House counterbalanced against a republic in The Senate because a democracy, by definition, oppresses minorities (majority always wins, so the minority is always screwed) while a republic (2 per geographic area rather than a number of representatives based on population) is a good way to temper that oppressive effect, the draw back is that a republic tends to be slow to react to the will of the people thereby putting a moderating effect on any progress.  

            It's an uphill battle when we need major change and we need it fast, but the design usually does a good job of tempering the "tyranny of the majority" as Franklin called it with the moderation of a senate to keep us from hastily doing something dumb on a whim.

            Picture a bright blue ball just spinnin' spinnin' free. It's dizzy with possibility.

            by lockewasright on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:09:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The Senate does not stand up for the downtrodden, (0+ / 0-)

              or for any minority groups.  Gay civil rights measures have more support in the House then in the Senate.  EFCA and other labor measures have more support in the House then in the Senate.

              The Senate is an old conservative institution that needs to be abolished.  It has no place in any modern, democratic, and fair country.

              •  How did they appoint the Senators before they wer (0+ / 0-)

                How did they appoint the Senators before they were elected?

                That change (to electing Senators) was fairly recent, historically, wasn't it?

                Unemployed people can't afford COBRA, so how will people be able to afford the COBRA-like premiums of public option? And what about the underinsured?

                by Andiamo on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 06:01:41 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  That's the "slow to react to the will of the (0+ / 0-)

                people" part that I was talking about.  It makes for an obstacle to progressive action, but it is still better than having a pure democracy.  They are an obstacle to movement in the other direction too.  That's what got the GOP talking nuclear option.  Without it, the majority would always get its way.  That is bad news for anyone who is in the minority.  

                I understand and share your frustration with the the moderating influence that they have on bills and the obstacle that they are to the advancement of our agenda now that our side has the reigns, but I think that you would find their absence to be horrific if given the unfortunate opportunity to live under a different structure for any real length of time.

                I also think that we would have a far less liberal set of laws in this country right now if the slow to react to the will of the people nature of the senate hadn't been around during the last 30 years as the talibangelicals gained influence over the party that was in charge most of the time.

                Picture a bright blue ball just spinnin' spinnin' free. It's dizzy with possibility.

                by lockewasright on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 07:18:06 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  It's not about a senate which stands up for the (0+ / 0-)

                down trodden.  It's about a chamber where the members are present as 2 per state rather than as a ratio based on population.  

                Suppose it was not so.  Only legislation that helped areas of high population density would ever get addressed.  The people in the low population areas would get fucked every time.  If you lived in New York or in California or Florida, you could get your huge number of members in the house to make it the law that people who live within 100 miles of the cost are exempt from taxes while everyone else paid extra to make up the difference.  There would be no way for an Oklahoman to get any sort of a voice on the issue.    

                It's called the tyranny of the majority and it is oppressive of minorities.  It is a historically recorded characteristic of pure democracy and those exact words: "tyranny of the majority" can be found in the writings of both Jefferson and Franklin describing exactly what I am talking about here.  

                Both men were far greater students of the history of governmental philosophy than I'll ever be.  

                Picture a bright blue ball just spinnin' spinnin' free. It's dizzy with possibility.

                by lockewasright on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 07:32:34 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Regionalism is not the same as being a real... (0+ / 0-)

                  minority.  A Representative from Dallas has no interest in getting money for the whole state, only for his constituents.  It is not quite the same as being a real minority.  You can't tell me that if we had a unicameral legislature that Rhode Island would be any worse off, or that California would be any better.  The Senate is a body for the richest Americans, it does not evenly distribute the resources of the Fed to the States.

                  Any positives to the Senate are far outweighed by the negatives.

                  •  Study the history of human governmental (0+ / 0-)

                    philosophy as the framers did and you obviously have not and then get back to me.

                    Your argument essentially amounts to pure democracy is not oppressive to minorities.  It an argument entirely without merit in the field of study.

                    Picture a bright blue ball just spinnin' spinnin' free. It's dizzy with possibility.

                    by lockewasright on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 07:59:39 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I never said that... (0+ / 0-)

                      You're putting words in my mouth.  But the Senate does not protect any minorities.

                      And I do believe in a strong democracy, as well as some direct democracy (referendum) to complement our representative democracy.  But I also believe in strong constitutional protections for minorities.

                      But if you look at the history of the Senate, it has been an ultra-conservative body that has not respected human dignity of minorities.  The House is not perfect, but it has a much better track record then the Senate.

                      •  It protects THE minority. They didn't say it was (0+ / 0-)

                        designed to kill off slavery or grant civil rights to any specific groups.  It is the balance against minority oppression.  That's what it does.  You are as wrong as if you insisted that 2+2= 8.  

                        It also was designed to have a moderating effect.  It's a pain in the ass when we have the majority and it's a savior when we are in THE minority.  That's why the filibuster resides in the senate procedure... to provide a too to keep the MINORITY from being steamrolled.  Instead considerations must be made in order to keep a 40 seat MINORITY from bringing things to a halt.

                        I really want to see a public option of health care.  That's the line in the sand for me, so right now that facet of our government is a pain in my ass but guess what... it is protecting the minority party from being without a voice just as it was intended to do.

                        Picture a bright blue ball just spinnin' spinnin' free. It's dizzy with possibility.

                        by lockewasright on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 08:22:48 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  The Senate isn't a moderating body though (0+ / 0-)

                          They pull legislation to the right.  The Senate is consistently to the right of the House.

                          •  It has been lately because the public put a shit (0+ / 0-)

                            ton of republicans into the senate over the last 30 years.  People are waking up and moving away from the GOP now, so they are starting to replace senators.  They only get a shot at each senator every 6 years by design and a 40 seat minority can impose a filibuster.  So, the senate is lagging the public on this because republics are slow to react to the will of the people as I have said.

                            Given that republics are slow to react to the will of the people and are a moderating influence, what we have seen through history is that we have always used our laws to grant more rights were civil liberties are concerned (on the federal level anyway... fucking prop h8 sucks).  The public has been ready to do it and so has the democracy that is House before the republic in the Senate was ready (you perceive that as being oppressive, but it's more the slow to react characteristic of a republic).  On the other hand, the senate has never once removed people's civil liberties (you could argue alcohol prohibition, but is that a civil liberty?  and besides it was overturned). So, while it is a body that has been persuaded to expand civil liberties even if sluggishly, it has not ever taken them away.  That's a body that has liberated minorities and is designed to give minorities the power to keep from losing short of 60 cloture votes... 30 states, not just the 50% +1 votes that could take away liberty.

                            moderation

                            Picture a bright blue ball just spinnin' spinnin' free. It's dizzy with possibility.

                            by lockewasright on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 08:38:38 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

    •  This is how they'll pay for it (10+ / 0-)

      Financing would come from a federal surtax on the upper income—up to 5.4 percent on the income of taxpayers making more than $1 million a year—as well as hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts in projected Medicare and Medicaid spending.

      The legislation calls for an additional tax of 1 percent levied on those couples earning more than $350,000. Those with $500,000 in income would pay an extra 1.5 percent, according to the legislative documents.

      The new income tax on the wealthy is estimated to raise more than $500 billion over the next decade, and reductions in Medicaid and Medicare would account for nearly as much

      http://www.cnbc.com/...

  •  70% of the US,including me want singlepayer (9+ / 0-)

    or medicare for all.  

  •  Let's get this done! (9+ / 0-)

    As a recently unemployed member of society for the first time in my adult life, I've been searching insurance plans to cover myself.  They are very expensive even though I am healthy.

    I hope this fast pace to markup gives us a better shot at a real public option.

  •  Why bother trying to sway (5+ / 0-)

    the party of NO.
    No point in wasting in time

  •  Let's give them a mistress each so they won't cry (5+ / 0-)
  •  As written this bill may be a scam (5+ / 0-)

    The bill will ensure that 97 percent of Americans will be covered by a health care plan that is both affordable and offers quality, standard benefits by 2019.

    Get that, the full bill does not kick in for 9 years, worse than the 7 year triggers

    "crush in it's birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government" -Thomas Jefferson

    by Phil In Denver on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:53:47 PM PDT

    •  It's not that the full bill doesn't kick in (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joe B, cybrestrike, Nailbanger, JesseCW

      It's that they think it'll take time for the public to learn about health care reform.

      •  I think I heard a statistic once... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        surfbird007, Nailbanger

        ...years ago, that over half of Americans don't know who the vice president is.

        I can believe it would take that long.

        You are entitled to express your opinion. But you are NOT entitled to agreement.

        by DawnG on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:06:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  INDIVIDUALS DON'T seem to have a way to 'buy in' (0+ / 0-)

          INDIVIDUALS and their families
          who don't have vouchers from employers or from being very poor, dont seem to have a way to buy public option - and we already know that they can't buy private insurance- There wont be a prohibition on charging THEM more, just businesses more, for a sick employee.. (only after five years, I think-)

          Many chronically ill people are self employed by necessity- They probably do make more than 3or 4 x fpl though, almost everybody who works does- so they wont -they don't have "affordability credits" WHERE AND HOW CAN THEY GET INSURANCE?

          I DON'T SEE HOW OR WHERE THEY COULD GET HEALTHCARE ANYWHERE- IN THIS BILL!!

          Unemployed people can't afford COBRA, so how will people be able to afford the COBRA-like premiums of public option? And what about the underinsured?

          by Andiamo on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 06:14:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  It's not a scam. It took time (9+ / 0-)

      for the Social Security Administration to cover people and get its system set up. We'll have the national insurance exchange and the public plan available by 2013.

      I'm on Twitter so if you'd like to follow my tweets, please do!

      by slinkerwink on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:01:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's not a scam (5+ / 0-)

      It'll take time to bring in 97% of the people.

      "Only I AM the president of The United States" - Barack Obama.

      by blackwaterdog on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:12:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And we need to remember, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joe B, Nailbanger

        part of that 3% includes the approx. 1% of Americans who self-insure. The uber wealthy know health insurance is a waste of money, and typically pay for specialty care at home for general practice out of pocket, and many fly to Germany for surgical care.

        That's right, Germany.

        These are the same economic colonialists who are funding campaigns calling a health care system they rarely use the "best in the world."

        So we've got the more, I'm ready for the better...

        by surfbird007 on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:27:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  WHERE is the way for INDIVIDUALS to buy in? (0+ / 0-)

          Thats a hell of a lot of people to leave out!

          Unemployed people can't afford COBRA, so how will people be able to afford the COBRA-like premiums of public option? And what about the underinsured?

          by Andiamo on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 06:16:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I believe it was nyceve who said (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueocean

      a robust public option had to include being available to all immediately?

      •  Public option would take time to establish (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        itskevin, JesseCW

        That much makes sense.  They'll be building a national organization from ground up.  I'd like to see it before 2013, but I don't think they could do this before well into 2011.  Just wouldn't be possible to do the planning, hiring, acquiring office space, etc. faster than that.

        "If another country builds a better car, we buy it. If they make a better wine, we drink it. If they have better healthcare . . . what's our problem? "

        by mbayrob on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:29:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's all about CBO scoring (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mbayrob

          They could probably do it by mid-2011, but the sooner they start subsidies for the insurance exchange, the more they have to pay over the ten years the CBO score counts for, and the worse this bill looks to the public.  Which is all silly political stuff (good reform is worth a LOT more than a trillion dollars over ten years if that's what it costs), but well worth it to make reform into something that is good and lasting instead of fast-acting.

          •  Hey, it worked for the Bush Tax Cuts (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            snaxattack

            I guess that's how the game is played.

            Still, that's a long time to hold off on this just to shore up a debating point.

            "If another country builds a better car, we buy it. If they make a better wine, we drink it. If they have better healthcare . . . what's our problem? "

            by mbayrob on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:57:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The longer you wait, the more money you have (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mbayrob

              It's sad, but for some reason the price of any bill that passes through Congress has already been arbitrarily predetermined at $1 trillion over the ten-year period from 2010 to 2019 for political reasons, and going far above that will probably have consequences on the appeal of the bill to so-called "moderates" in Congress and thus make it impossible to reconcile with the Senate.  And given that, considering what we're getting in 2020 depends on what we spend in 2019, I'd rather spend $165 billion a year from 2014 through 2019 than $100 billion a year from 2010 through 2019.  Or whatever the exact numbers are.  I don't feel like doing the math.  That extra $65 billion a year could make an enormous difference in the minimum benefit, which could make an enormous dent in the incidence of underinsurance and medical bankruptcies in the United States.  Basically, creating a little pain in the short run to prevent a lot of sustained pain in the long run.

    •  Not much of anything before 2013 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      irmaly

      Certainly, regulation of private insurance could (and really should) start earlier than that.

      "If another country builds a better car, we buy it. If they make a better wine, we drink it. If they have better healthcare . . . what's our problem? "

      by mbayrob on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:26:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The House bill is a good bill (5+ / 0-)

    While it is far from perfect, it addresses the biggest problems (and expenses) with the current system well.

    •  It's a good bill but... (1+ / 0-)

      ...it directly addresses only a few of the biggest problems and expenses with the current system.  It's not a cure-all by any means.  Keep in mind that even Medicare is fiscally unsustainable.  We need some very serious reforms in how we pay for health care that have very little to do with how people get insurance.

      But definitely a huge step forward in health COVERAGE reform.  I would consider this bill to be basically universal health care, and it uses a sane and politically savvy method for getting there without compromising the overall goals.

  •  OMG, Didn't they keep any powder dry? (4+ / 0-)

    Not prudent!

    {/HW-channel}

  •  The real question is (0+ / 0-)

    will the White House use reconciliation to ensure that a good bill gets through the Senate?

    •  They can't (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ferg, askew, kyeo

      All the good stuff would be stripped out.  With reconciliation, any part of the bill that doesn't change the deficit or surplus directly could be stripped out by Republicans and "moderate" Democrats unless that single provision got 60 votes.  Measures that could COMPLETELY overhaul the health care system like Medicare-for-all would not be able to get 50 votes.  And measures like the public option or certain regulations on insurance companies would not be able to get 60 votes without comprehensive reform.  So you would likely end up with an even more broken system than if you tried to go for 60 votes on a SINGLE comprehensive bill in the first place.

      I think the best bet now is to try to favor the House bill as much as possible in the conference committee.  I read in some article (I think on politico) that Obama has already stated he will get involved in the conference committee negotiations.  At this point, if Reid sends the right people and Obama applies enough pressure, the final bill could end up looking more like the House version than the Senate version, and after the conference committee, any Democratic senator who votes against it would appear individually responsible for defeating health care reform and would face a tough primary, so we JUST MIGHT be able to pass through something good with 60 votes!

  •  Self fufilling prophecy, Repubs will say they're (0+ / 0-)

    ... for increasing coverage while some of them are going to try to sabotage this, so they can say, see, we told you government can't do anything right.

    We are looking at something having the same potential for significance as LBJ's getting aging seniors out of assured dire poverty by doing Medicare in the '60's. The poor at least have state programs or Medicaid to fall back on, we expanded SCHIP for kids, the middle class, once past age 35, has been picked over by the insurance vultures so by age 50, with any bad run of luck, one trades any property ownership back to the banks (BAILOUT, ANYBODY?) to ward off death.

    40% of working adults in some states have no health insurance. WTF ?  How the hell can we say "work for a living" if we don't set up a society where it at least isn't "until we watch you die.?"

    Some of the Republicans are coming around and will vote for this. A few. Most of them won't admit it might be a good thing. A few are being deceitful, like the one in my district, saying their for some sort of thing that turns out to be the usual piece of utter crap business as usual.  It doesn't matter, it has to go through as a viable, workable program with a strong public option.  The Republicans can be marginalized on this. Worry instead about the bastard members of the Democratic party who are trying to sabotage it.

    "Toads of Glory, slugs of joy... as he trotted down the path before a dragon ate him"-Alex Hall/ Stop McClintock

    by AmericanRiverCanyon on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:04:31 PM PDT

  •  Obama is clearly stepping up his game (6+ / 0-)

    According to Politico, tomorrow he's going to do interviews with all the television networks, AND give public remarks.

    "Only I AM the president of The United States" - Barack Obama.

    by blackwaterdog on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:07:28 PM PDT

  •  Redlining? (0+ / 0-)

    I know you redline a tachometer when you rev the engine high enough that that tac shows you're entering the danger (red) zone.  When you top the meter out (just before your engine blows up), it's called "pinning" the meter because the needle hits the pin and can go no higher.

    So I believe the word you were reaching for was "pinning" instead of "redlining."

    This aggression will not stand, man.

    by kaleidescope on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:07:32 PM PDT

  •  GOP is Straying (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blackwaterdog

    It's odd how the GOP once stood as a party for the people.  They've strayed so far from this initial purpose.  Though a more socialized healthcare system has it's drawbacks, the sheer amount of money being charged by private carriers is astronomical.  Obama is making the right choice by advocating this bill and has been making right choices since he took office.

  •  The Republicans (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pullbackthecurtain, exMnLiberal

    do not have the interest of the consumer only the insurance companies. The Democrats are showing WAY too much respect to these bottom feeding obstructionists. Any deal with them will just weaken a healthcare plan. This also goes for the Blue Dog shitheads.

  •  my congresscritter, (0+ / 0-)

    timothy v. johnson, R, IL-15, is normally not a wingnut. he is one of the increasingly rare "moderates".

    however, in a recent (very recent) exchange with a constituent who wanted to talk about health care reform, he (johnson) challenged the guy to "find 2 people in the district who've been denied health care".

    wha???

    only 2?

    johnson seems to think the system is just fine.

    i'm appalled. and looking for anyone else in IL-15/kosland who has a thing or two to tell the representative.

    A bird doesn't sing because it has an answer, it sings because it has a song. -- Maya Angelou

    by birdbrain64 on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:21:56 PM PDT

    •  Everyone has adequate health care and (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      birdbrain64

      you can't find anyone willing to pick lettuce for $50 per hour.  

      Where do these fools live?

      This is the most important legislation of my lifetime and I'll be goddamed if some corporate shills will stick their blood soaked knives into it. - nyceve

      by blueocean on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:21:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Campaign for Better Health Care working in 15th (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      birdbrain64

      cbhconline.org

      Full disclosure:  I am the Communications organizer for CBHC.  But our organizer there is REALLY good and has been going after Johnson for his weakness on this issue.  Talk with her - Josephine Kalipeni, 217.352.5600

      If organizers don't renew their efforts every day of their lives, then only the grasping and greedy people remain active. - Fred Ross Sr.

      by deliciae on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 04:01:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  i was alerted to it through (0+ / 0-)

        champaign county health care consumers, and a co-worker noticed it on the news-gazette website.

        this guy needs to be humiliated.

        the fact that the largest population center in his district is dominated by Health Alliance and 2 major "providers" plays a role, i'm sure.

        thanks for the info on CBHC - i'll look into it.

        A bird doesn't sing because it has an answer, it sings because it has a song. -- Maya Angelou

        by birdbrain64 on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 06:59:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  If 97% of Americans are covered, 3% are not (0+ / 0-)

    Anybody know why 17 million people still fall between the cracks?

    CBO summary is here.  It's fairly vague on this.  A few million appear to be the chronic homeless or similar, the problem seeming to be that they are eligible for Medicaid, but won't sign up for it.  And there's an element of undocumented people in that total (perhaps half).  But deducting them, there's still a few million missing.  Why is that?

    "If another country builds a better car, we buy it. If they make a better wine, we drink it. If they have better healthcare . . . what's our problem? "

    by mbayrob on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:25:08 PM PDT

    •  Even countries with Single Payer system (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mbayrob

      Don't have everyone insured. It's just the way it is. 97% is awful good.

      "Only I AM the president of The United States" - Barack Obama.

      by blackwaterdog on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:42:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bunch of reasons (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joe B, mbayrob

      Exemption for religions such as Christian science, people who are opposed to insurance on principle, people who decide to absorb the individual mandate penalty instead of buying insurance even though it's affordable, homeless, people who don't pay taxes and don't know they're supposed to be insured and there's no way to ensure they are, those who qualify for Medicaid but don't sign up and aren't subject to fines because they don't make enough money, weird corner cases where the only insurance available to someone is unaffordable at their income, etc.  Any time the system depends on mandating people do things, there will occasionally be people who don't, and we have to live with that as an artifact of our system and even keep in mind that even single payer countries have trouble giving certain segments access to health care.  It seems that most studies estimate the individual mandate will result in an upper limit of 97% insured; this is consistent with estimates for Healthy Americans Act, the Senate HELP bill + Medicaid expansion, the Massachusetts reforms, etc.  I happen to think this is a pretty acceptable range for the the major sweeping health care reform, and the remaining 3% have to be targeted by smaller scale reforms and outreach programs that might have little to do with health care.

    •  here are some possibilities... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueocean
      1. Those members of the Alaska Independence Party who aren't just grifters looking to feed at the public trough;
      1. Followers of other secessionist groups, who may refuse anything of value from the central government -- like the South Carolina and Texas state GOP's (perhaps these really belong in the "probable to participate when the cameras aren't on" category).
      1. Resident alien mercenaries receiving training at Blackwater, er, "Xe", in NC.

      I'm sure others can identify further candidates.

    •  Many of them are rich people who buy their (0+ / 0-)

      own health care directly.

      Conservatism = greed, hate, fear and ignorance

      by Joe B on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 01:45:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  But, but, but what about the bipartisanship? (0+ / 0-)

    "Only I AM the president of The United States" - Barack Obama.

    by blackwaterdog on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:36:12 PM PDT

  •  "Reform" More Uninsured By Obama's Reelection (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ctsteve, wsexson, plembo

    The slow roll out could be a huge political disaster and hurt the Democratic Party bad.

    http://jwalkerreport.blogspot.com/...

    The House Democrats just released their health care reform billand its preliminary CBO scoring. While it has many very good proposals, it uses the worst and most cowardly way to make reform appear cheaper. The bill technically cost around $1 trillion over ten years, but that is basically a lie. It will really cost a trillion over seven years, because there is no reduction in the number of uninsured until 2013.

    I consider the very slow roll out to be both a big moral and political disaster. This is not change you can believe in. This is change you will need to wait half a decade for.

    Morally it completely undercuts the Democrats argument that our health care system is in crisis. It is salt in the wounds for all the Americans' who's stories of high costs and medical bankruptcies were used to push for reform. For the next four years they will see no relief and thousands of more will suffer their same fate.

    Politically it is also incredibly stupid. The silly accounting trick might help get a "cheaper" bill passed, but it will but it could be equally (or more) damaging than failing to pass any reform at all. Voters will not expect the system to be fixed right away, but they will expect there to be some serious improvement before 2013. When there are more uninsured by the 2010 and 2012 elections it will be terrible for the party. I can already picture the Republican attack ads.

    The American people are demanding health care reform now. Not health care reform that we will only start going into effect some time in Obama's second term. Democrats better have a plan to spend up its implementation or else they will pay a huge price for failing to deliver.

  •  I can not stand my Senator. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    seastar

    I called Senator Feinstein's local office today.  I asked if she supports a strong public option.  The staff person, Rose, said that Sen Feinstein supports something like that or a coop or strong regulation.  Then I asked if Sen feinstein would commit not to join the republicans in filibuster a bill with strong public option. Rose responded like an auto reply email by repeating what she said at first and said that is all the info she has.  She said she would pass the message on.

  •  re.Republican resentment over rules: Fuck 'em (0+ / 0-)

    This is just to say Forgive us victory tastes delicious so sweet and so cold

    by Dave the Wave on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:39:51 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site