Skip to main content

Health care reform, as currently formulated in the Senate bill and the planned reconciliation, is much better for the insurance industry than it is for the public.  While I am sympathetic to my fellow progressives who support the current bill, I believe base political pragmatism and not the public good  is the real reason it will (probably) pass.

Here's why . . .

It's surely a bad sign that insurance companies support the Democratic health care reform bill.  Why shouldn't they?  Federal law will compel millions of new customers to buy their product, with the federal government subsidizing the policies of those who cannot afford it.  Without the public option to foster genuine competition, the mandate is "a gift" to the insurance industry, in the words of frequent MSNBC guest and former Cigna executive Wendell Potter.

(And just wait until the Republicans run endless October commercials reminding voters that the new law requires them to buy insurance.  Oh, the "Harry and Louise" ad that will make!)

President Obama made a backroom deal with the insurance companies last year to keep the public option out of the final bill, in exchange for them not advertising against it.  Obama and Nancy Pelosi have been lying to us about that deal and feigning support for the public option ever since.  That this head-exploding revelation has not garnered more attention is a wonder.  I would dearly like to ask the President why this deal is in the interest of the average American and why, if it is, he kept the deal secret.

Much is made of the ban on denying coverage based on a preexisting condition.  However, there is nothing in the current bill to stop the common practice of raising rates on unwanted customers until they are forced to drop their coverage.  Until this heinous practice is curbed, the ban on preexisting-condition denial is flashy but not meaningful.

Many progressives assert hopefully that the current bill will be the initial framework upon which more solid health care reform may be erected in the future.  But what will change next year?  The insurance companies will still be against the public option, along with anything else that will better for us than them.  Republicans will still froth at the mouth at the most modest proposals and call Dems mean names.  What will make Dem pols any braver next time?

The only reason to support this weak-cheese bill at this point is to give Democrats a political win.  To what end?  With profound incompetence, they have completely whiffed on the signature Progressive proposal.  What the hell good are they?

Originally posted to dwicks on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 05:40 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

  •  A Phyrric victory (8+ / 0-)

    If this Baucus bill passes, it will be a victory Democrats will come to regret.  Both substantively and politically.

    Force people to buy crappy policies from AHIP, and tax quality health plans to pay for it. This is what we fought for?

    by Paleo on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 05:42:59 PM PDT

  •  Why has the health insurance lobby ... (17+ / 0-)

    ... been spending $1 million per day trying to defeat this bill?

    If, as you say, the bill is such a great deal for them, that behavior is hard to understand. Fact is, the Senate bill is less bad for the insurance cartel than a more progressive bill.

    But they'd be much better off with no bill at all.

    •  according to the diarist, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      demnomore

      It's surely a bad sign that insurance companies support the Democratic health care reform bill.  

      He or she apparently hasn't noticed any of the negative advertising choking the airwaves like cat litter fumes.  

      Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it. --Mark Twain

      by SottoVoce on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 06:39:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ok another FAIL Diary (13+ / 0-)

    Much is made of the ban on denying coverage based on a preexisting condition.  However, there is nothing in the current bill to stop the common practice of raising rates on unwanted customers until they are forced to drop their coverage.  

    To the millions of people who have been denied coverage because of such conditions, this is a big deal.

    Secondly in this bill it is illegal to raise rates on individuals simply because they are sick.  FAIL false narrative,

    Right man, right job and right time

    by Ianb007 on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 05:54:53 PM PDT

  •  Hopefully, if this bill passes (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tonedevil, Ianb007, rachelmap, foufou, Jane Lew

    it will cut down on diaries like this one.

    Faced with the prospect of insuring more people at a profit to insurance companies vs. not supporting this bill and letting people rot, it's hard to believe that anyone would choose the latter.

    •  It's wonderful when you can frame the question, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pawtucketpat, efraker

      isn't it?  Nice and loaded.  

      I prefer the question in my sig line.

      Force people to buy crappy policies from AHIP, and tax quality health plans to pay for it. This is what we fought for?

      by Paleo on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 06:08:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Man these arguments weak as hell (5+ / 0-)

        The fact of the matter  is the insurance you are going to have to buy are a hell of a lot better with way more protections than the status quo junk insurance that is sold now.

        Regardless, the debate for this bill is over. It's time to vote.   Almost every sane person on the left realizes this bill is a major step in the right direction and must be passed.   NEXT.  

        Right man, right job and right time

        by Ianb007 on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 06:18:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, so now I and others on the left who (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          costello7, pawtucketpat, efraker

          oppose the Baucus bill are now insane?  Teabaggers have nothing on you.

          Force people to buy crappy policies from AHIP, and tax quality health plans to pay for it. This is what we fought for?

          by Paleo on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 06:20:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No just on the loosing end of (0+ / 0-)

            an argument that has gone on for months and has ended.

            Time to move on and vote for this historic legislation.  

            Then perhaps continue on to the debate for a public option of maybe even a state option.  There is a already a community option in the bill.  Our work is not done if as you claim you are on the left.

            Diaries such as these are a waste of time at this late hour, IMHO.

            Right man, right job and right time

            by Ianb007 on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 06:39:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ths is not "historic legislation" (7+ / 0-)

              It's a fraud and a sellout.  Just because you happen to think the argument has ended, doesn't mean it has ended.  But I can understand why you would want it to.

              Force people to buy crappy policies from AHIP, and tax quality health plans to pay for it. This is what we fought for?

              by Paleo on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 06:43:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  So you agree with the Repub's... (0+ / 0-)

                ...that we should start over?  Is the new bottom line the Public Option?  Single Payer?  Do you really think you sufficiently know everybody who doesn't support your position that you can say with certainty that you "understand" why they want this argument to end?

                "In a nation ruled by swine, all pigs are upward mobile..." - Dr. Hunter S. Thompson

                by Jack K on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 07:30:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I agree with the Republicans that 2+2=4 (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Paleo

                  So you agree with the Repub's

                  True is true, false is false - its a silly argument to claim that because a reprehensible person says something, its necessarily wrong.

                  that we should start over?

                  No - I hate this bill but I think it'd be electoral suicide not to pass it. Pass it and immediately get to work fixing it, before the bureaucracy can entrench itself.

                  Is the new bottom line the Public Option?  Single Payer?

                  Absolutely - it is immoral and unprecedented to compel the overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens to buy the product of a private corporation, and economically disastrous to not employ a mechanism known to be vastly more efficient. We spend 17% of our GDP on health care. Single payer nations spend ~9%. That money is lost to be used for more worthwhile things.

                  "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                  by efraker on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 07:40:56 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  community option nowhere comparable to PO (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dvogel001

              There is a already a community option in the bill.

              (2) QUALIFIED ENTITY.—To be qualified to be
              15 selected by the Secretary to offer a community
              16 health insurance option, an entity shall—
              17 (A) meet the criteria established under sec18
              tion 1874A(a)(2) of the Social Security Act;
              19 (B) be a nonprofit entity for purposes of
              20 offering such option;
              21 (C) meet the solvency standards applicable
              22 under subsection (b)(7);
              23 (D) be eligible to offer health insurance or
              24 health benefits coverage;
              1 (E) meet quality standards specified by the
              2 Secretary;
              3 (F) have in place effective procedures to
              4 control fraud, abuse, and waste; and
              5 (G) meet such other requirements as the
              6 Secretary may impose.

              (pg 194 and 195 of the bill)

              The CHIO is simply a requirement that there be a non-profit private corporation in the health insurance exchange. If you think that being 'non-profit' will moderate the If you think non-profit is enough to fix health insurance, then ask a customer of Kaiser-Permanente or Asuris. They're both non-profit.

              Their rates are strongly correlated with the rates of for-profit health insurance companies in the same areas. Even non-profit health insurance co-ops already exist, and treat their customers pretty much the same way as the for-profit ones.

              The reason to push for a public option is because it can be more competitive than any private insurance company could be. A robustly competitive public option isn't an end, but its a mean to bankrupt private insurance, ensuring single payer, which is almost twice as economically efficient as multiple-provider health care systems.

              "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

              by efraker on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 07:28:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And who said it was comparable?? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                efraker

                Not me.

                Right man, right job and right time

                by Ianb007 on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 07:34:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I apologize if I offended you - no harm intended (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Ianb007

                  I apologize if I offended you. I know this has been a really tense discussion. I read:

                  Then perhaps continue on to the debate for a public option of maybe even a state option.  There is a already a community option in the bill.

                  ...and wanted to make sure that everyone knew that the community option was not in any way related to the public option. Its a pretty obscure provision.

                  "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                  by efraker on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 07:44:03 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It's an obscure provision in that (0+ / 0-)

                    it hasn't been talked about.

                    i think of it more like a hidden gem.  In a state like CA where there is a huge market  it could have a major impact on competition.  In the exchanges the need for marketing is greatly reduced and some non profit can have an impact with out playing the for profit game as it exists now.  Also in large States a State option would be also workable.  The city of San Francisco has a psuedo  single payer option already.

                    It takes a whole lot more to offend me than that.

                    Right man, right job and right time

                    by Ianb007 on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 08:17:19 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  why do you think its a good thing? (0+ / 0-)

                      Why do you think it will be any better than what people can already get through Kaiser-Permanente, Asuris, or the number of other non-profit health insurance companies that almost everyone already has access to?

                      "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                      by efraker on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 08:40:14 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  what argument did your side win? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              costello7

              the loosing end of an argument that has gone on for months and has ended.

              What argument did your side win?

              If you mean the argument over 'what will the Democratic party do?', then yes, you won that one. I'm fine with not be on the winning side of that one - just like I was on the losing side of the argument as to whether or not the Democratic party should vote in favor of the PATRIOT Act, authorizing the invasion of Iraq, and to retroactively legalize many of Bush's abuses.

              Sometimes my party is wrong.

              "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

              by efraker on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 07:32:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The argument on whether this bill (0+ / 0-)

                is worth passing.  Answer yes.

                Unlike the war where progressive were firmly against it, the HCR bill progressives are overwhelmingly for it.  Please don't pretend that it is the same.  I was against the war too.

                Right man, right job and right time

                by Ianb007 on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 07:38:54 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  that isn't a fact, its an opinion (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  costello7

                  You can't win an argument about opinions.

                  "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                  by efraker on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 07:45:46 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  OK. A majority of opinions of yes have (0+ / 0-)

                    prevailed if you prefer that language.  Whatever floats your boat.

                    Fact is, that debate is for all intents and purposes over.  At least it will be tomorrow.  From progressive pundits to unions to far left senators as Bernie Sanders and congressmen like Kucinich to Krugman to many here on Kos.  This bill, while imperfect, is a step in the right direction and should be passed.

                    It's that simple.

                    Right man, right job and right time

                    by Ianb007 on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 08:24:52 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'll agree with that (0+ / 0-)

                      A majority of people on DailyKos have certainly decided they want to pass this bill.

                      You mention Kucinich; to be clear, you know that while he will vote yes on this bill, he has said explicitly that its only for electoral reasons, and that this bill isn't a step forward on anything he believes in?

                      "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                      by efraker on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 08:27:30 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  He also said that everywhere he went (0+ / 0-)

                        his constituents were all telling him the same thing.  This bill is something.

                        Right man, right job and right time

                        by Ianb007 on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 10:30:55 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Popularity isn't proof that something is true (0+ / 0-)

                          As I said, Kucinich is voting for this bill for electoral reasons. When you say the bill is 'something', what exactly are you saying?

                          "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                          by efraker on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 10:40:19 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  He explained in his presser that his (0+ / 0-)

                            constituents believe that this bill is a start.  Not his exact words but his sentiment.

                            I don't see how you can argue that all the provisions in the bill is not a good thing in improving healthcare AND the health insurance industry.  What logical argument can you make that is not an improvement in the status quo???

                            Right man, right job and right time

                            by Ianb007 on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 11:47:45 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  because its nuanced, not yes/no (0+ / 0-)

                            Its an improvement over the status quo for millions of people, especially in the short run.

                            For millions of other people, they'll be compelled to buy health insurance that is an economic loss for them - a waste of money. Apparently any economist will tell you that you can't require insurance corporations to take on people with pre-existing conditions without always mandating that many healthy people buy health insurance that they will rarely use.

                            Its an economic fact: if your system is predicated upon private providers, and you force the system to accept people with pre-existing conditions who almost certainly pay less into the system than they get out in benefits then the system will eventually run out of money unless you force many people who are healthy to join. These people's economic best interests is literally and undeniably sacrificed to the private system in order to do the very good thing of getting health care for the people with pre-existing conditions.

                            Some might read this and say, 'oh well, that's business' - and therein precisely is my objection. Our health care system is unsustainably bloated, 17% of our GDP, as compared to the ~9% of our GDP attained by the single payer systems almost every OECD nation uses. In a multiple payer system, the amount paid to get one into the system must be in some way tied to the cost to insure - even the most progressive cost-finding measure, the community rating, is still based fundamentally on health. In a single payer system, the amount paid is intrinsically and inalienably progressive - its based upon what you can afford to pay.

                            One may say, 'in this system, subsidies and regulations make it so that you won't pay more than you can afford!' - which is true in a trivial sense - you don't pay more than you can afford, but the unaffordable and economically conservative system of pricing still exists. The real cost is simply shifted onto the state - to the benefit of the implicitly wasteful health insurance middlemen.

                            If the bill had some way of getting us on the road to a non-profit system, then I could interpret the way it empowers and entrenches the immoral private health care system as a necessary stepping stone to a rationally efficient system, but ultimately I agree with what Dennis Kucinich said in his announcement that he would vote for the bill:

                            My criticisms of the legislation have been well reported. I do not retract them. I incorporate them in this statement. They still stand as legitimate and cautionary. I still have doubts about the bill. I do not think it is a first step toward anything I have supported in the past.

                            There is no national exchange, ERISA is intact, it isn't universal, there is no public option, the antitrust exemption is still intact, the MLR requirements won't affect the majority of insurers (if they can even be enforced), and ultimately its structured as a responsibility citizens must fulfill, not a right they are accorded.

                            If our party wanted my support, they'd throw me a bone. Give me one or two of those six steps towards an economically rational health care system. In truth, I increasingly suspect they don't care what I think; liberals always fold to conservatives - and a big part of the reason why is because when they stand up for what they believe in, even the other liberals knock them down.

                            "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                            by efraker on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 12:28:13 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  There is nothing nuanced about an end to (0+ / 0-)

                            recision.  There is nothing nuanced about an end to preexisting conditions.  There is nothing nuanced about eliminating discriminatory premium increases on high risk people or sick people.  There is nothing nuanced about eliminating yearly and lifetime benefits,  there is nothing nuanced about limiting premium ratios to 3 to 1 instead of the existing difference of sometimes 10 to 1.  There is nothing nuanced about standardizing payment and billing procedures so as to cut admin costs across the system.  There is nothing nuanced about limiting deductibles  to $2000.00.  There is nothing nuanced to mandating insurers provide preventative care free of any cost sharing to all it's insured.  I could go on and on.

                            Either this stuff makes our system better or it doesn't. yes or no.  There is nothing nuanced about these provisions at all.

                            A single payer system is the least expensive way to provide Universal healthcare to a nation.  No one is arguing that isn't true.  However you couldn't pass a single payer system today even if you had Dennis Kucinich as President , Bernie Sanders as vice president and Ed Shultz as Senate Majority leader.  Heck a watered down Public option barely passed the house by 3 votes.  

                            All systems whether single payer like Canada or socialized medicine like The UK, or for profit universal like in The netherlands, Germany and Switzerland mandate everyone participate.  It is actuarially impossible to sustain system without vast amounts of healthy people participating.

                            Germany has a for profit private insurer mandatory system  (not unlike what this bill does)and their healthcare costs as a percentage of GDP  are about 11% about the same as France which has a single payer Govt run system. So even with a less than ideal private insurer system which the HCR bill maintains,  we can still dramatically cut costs as  it relates to GDP

                            The argument that somehow this bill isn't a step in the right direction because it doesn't have_____________ (fill in the blank) in it,  is just preposterous.  Kucinich would have been a bonehead not to vote for it and if I was in his district I would have voted for his primary opponent.

                            Please don't take this the wrong way but, anytime i hear this baloney Naderite loser mentality argument whining about the democratic party I just shake my head in disgust.  Liberals didn't fold when they passed civil rights legislation or Medicare or social security as imperfect as those bills were.   They don't fold when we hold their feets to the fire.

                            Conservatives don't stand for what they believe!  Don't buy into that crap narrative.  If that was true they wouldn't have busted the budgets expanded govt and gone into the Iraq on a nation building adventure.  The only they stand up for is their corporate masters and stand for winning elections at any cost.

                            Right man, right job and right time

                            by Ianb007 on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:58:35 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  if only those things were separate! (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Ianb007

                            There is nothing nuanced about an end to recision ... Either this stuff makes our system better or it doesn't. yes or no.  There is nothing nuanced about these provisions at all.

                            Yes, I agree - the nuance is implicit in providing these moral ends through the immoral means I talked about in my previous comment. Maybe you misunderstood me and thought I didn't think there was anything good in the bill? I absolutely do believe that. I want all those things. I want to get out of Iraq too - yet if you told me the only way to get out of Iraq was to pay Blackwater/Xe $40B/yr in perpetuity, I wouldn't condone it either. I'd insist on finding a better way there, too.

                            A single payer system is the least expensive way to provide Universal healthcare to a nation.  No one is arguing that isn't true.  However you couldn't pass a single payer system today...

                            Many single payer systems are done abruptly.

                            In 1995, 40% of Taiwan's citizens had no health care. So, they created a single payer system. By the end of the year, everyone had access to health care.

                            On 12/12/73, Australia's parliament killed their Medicare-for-all bill. Then they killed it again on 4/2/74, then again on 7/18/74. It passed on 8/7/74 (after less time than we've been working on the Senate HCR bill), and granted universal health care, paid for with a progressive, graduated income tax. In Australia's case, 'kill the bill' was a painful and contentious process - but it rapidly led to an effective single payer system.

                            On 10/5/88, Brazil had a constitutional convention to make sure that the antidemocratic forces that had held the country in military junta for 21 years couldn't come back. One of the things they wrote in their new constitution was that health care was a "right of all and an obligation of the State". It took less than two years to implement this constitutional mandate - all Brazilians had access to government health care by early 1990. This is in a country that was in the grips of poverty, and had just come out of a dictatorship.

                            Germany has a for profit private insurer mandatory system  (not unlike what this bill does)and their healthcare costs as a percentage of GDP  are about 11% about the same as France which has a single payer Govt run system. So even with a less than ideal private insurer system which the HCR bill maintains,  we can still dramatically cut costs as  it relates to GDP

                            Germans also have 1/5th the personal water consumption, 400% the savings rate, and 1/3rd the personal fuel consumption of Americans. The best comparison is the UK or Australia, based upon American standards of living. Further, the CBO estimates that this bill will at most lead to a one time reduction in health care's share of GDP to 15.58%, and does nothing to preclude it from rising faster than CPI.

                            The argument that somehow this bill isn't a step in the right direction because it doesn't have_____________ (fill in the blank) in it,  is just preposterous.

                            Maybe we're talking about different directions we're stepping towards? I'm interested in arriving at an economically sane system - in that case, this bill isn't even one step, as Kucinich said. You may be walking towards universal health insurance, in which case this bill is nearly perfect. If one doesn't care about whether or not its provided ethically and affordably, and are ok with a system that Elizabeth Warren says increases wealth inequality, then this bill is pretty much all of the steps.

                            Conservatives don't stand for what they believe! ... The only they stand up for is their corporate masters and stand for winning elections at any cost.

                            No, that's exactly what I mean. Conservatives - in both the Republican and Democratic party - are pro-corporate-entities-and-wealthy-people. Liberals are pro-working-people. This bill enriches and empowers the former while helping the latter - it changes the balance of power in the favor of corporate entities and the wealthy.

                            Conservative moral issues are just a smokescreen.

                            "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                            by efraker on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 09:50:40 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I am to happy (0+ / 0-)

                            tonight to respond to all of this.

                            However yes some countries have changed systems abruptly.  Some haven't.  I doubt that an abrupt change is going to happen in the US barring some catastrophic occurrence.

                            There is a fundamental misplaced and unhealthy belief in capitalism that permeates almost every facet of American culture.  Until we evolve pass this, any change from handing over our democracy to big corporations is going to be difficult and laborious.

                            Right man, right job and right time

                            by Ianb007 on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:19:16 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

  •  I think you are letting good... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jane Lew

    be the enemy of better.  The bill as it is may not be all that good, but it is better than what we have now.  When this comes about and the sky doesn't fall and the flag doesn't suddenly feature a hammer and sickle we may find there is political will to improve even further.  

    This makes about as much sense as Mike Huckabee on mescaline. - Prodigal 2-6-2008

    by Tonedevil on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 06:13:58 PM PDT

  •  I assume you mean Non-Group (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tonedevil

    insureds? In other words, Individual insurance?

    However, there is nothing in the current bill to stop the common practice of raising rates on unwanted customers until they are forced to drop their coverage

    .

    What about the 2014 "Exchanges" and the "subsidies" provided to low income people? Are these things worth nothing as far as the afford-ability issue is concerned?

    If you are older than 55, never take a sleeping pill and a laxative at the same time!

    by fredlonsdale on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 06:21:51 PM PDT

  •  This bill will pass by the skin of its teeth (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ianb007

    So why pray tell would a more substantive bill have fared better? Political reality necessitates this bill as a first step. Once the foot is in the door its the responsibility of progressives to open it ever wider.

    Let the pastors, rabbis and mullahs mutter their mumbo-jumbo in private and leave the rest of us alone.

    by detler on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 06:36:54 PM PDT

    •  Political realities is lost on (0+ / 0-)

      this crowd.  

      According to them you just draw up the perfect bill in their minds and you get 60 senators and 217 house members to just waltz down to the capitol and vote yes because they all think alike and have the same ideas and concerns and don't have a mind of their own. Not to mention political and fund raising pressure.

      Right man, right job and right time

      by Ianb007 on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 06:54:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  60 votes? Um, reconciliation only needs 51. (0+ / 0-)

        And that's the process we're using now.

        Visit http://theuptake.org/ for Minnesota news as it happens.

        by Phoenix Woman on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 07:27:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The vast majority of what's in the bill (0+ / 0-)

          could not be passed using reconciliation.  That's why only the amendments that relate to the budget is being used to fix the senate bill that required 60 votes to pass.

          The senate bill as it was passed, could not be passed thru reconciliation.

          Right man, right job and right time

          by Ianb007 on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 07:42:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  There is no reason... (1+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    pawtucketpat
    Hidden by:
    Jane Lew

    ...to support this disaster in order to give traitors a "political win".
    At least when the Republicans clean house in the next mid-terms and take back the White House in 2012, the pwogs can go back to pretending they're against the war.

    Illegal Alien: Term used by the descendents of foreign colonizers to refer to the descendents of indigenous people

    by mojada on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 06:38:30 PM PDT

  •  House GOP offers 5 anti-mandate amendments (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Corwin Weber, dwicks, pawtucketpat

    In case you're wondering what the Republican strategy for the 2010 midterms is, it's to set themselves up as the brave, brave lads and lasses who tried to stop the evil and unpopular mandates by putting up five anti-mandate amendments they know will be voted down.

    Of course, if the Dems were smart, they'd include a robust public option in the bill, as mandates become a good deal less objectionable when a public option is bundled along with them.  But that won't happen because that would tick off AHIP and PhRMA.

    Visit http://theuptake.org/ for Minnesota news as it happens.

    by Phoenix Woman on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 07:25:49 PM PDT

  •  The problem with those... (0+ / 0-)

    commercials is that people will know it is not true (at least until 2014)...the general population deals with the hear and now...and that is all good...

    Obama - Change I still believe in

    by dvogel001 on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 07:31:46 PM PDT

  •  Reply to comments (0+ / 0-)

    As an infrequent poster, I appreciate all the comments of those who took the time to read my diary.  I respect the opinions of those who disagree with me.

    To address some of your points:

    No, I don't want people to rot while waiting for a perfect bill.  I agree with your point, but disagree the current bill will help anyone.  I'd love to be wrong.

    Yes, there have been ads against the current bill, but they are hardly "choking the airwaves".  Just recall the "Harry and Louise" blitz of '93-'94, where the ads were effective and incessant.  No, the insurance industry has definitely pulled their punches this time around.

    No, I don't want Republicans to retake Congress, and I support Kos's dream of better Democrats, so as to avoid such debacles as this issue has been for us the last year.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site