Skip to main content

It's official.  The precept that the foundation of the American economy and it's health care system should be controlled by gambling interests for profit has been passed into law.  Those who refuse to purchase their health care lottery tickets will be fined or jailed.  But hey, let's celebrate the political victory of the democrats over the republicans!  Let's not admit that both parties are controlled by insurance companies/gambling interests who are the only winners in this extortion scheme that's now been legalized.  

Originally posted to ottergirl on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:15 AM PDT.

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

    •  And Yet, So Incredibly True... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Indiana today suspended new registrations in HIP, a REAL PUBLIC OPTION PLAN, because this bill destroys it.

      When you wake up, you'll begin to figure out what this nightmare is going to cost you.

      But it's all good, since you "Beat" the Republicans, right?

      •  No, IndianaDemocrat, WE beat them (0+ / 0-)

        because, as we all know, you are also a Democrat, too.

        Perception is temporary, reality awaits.

        by hhex65 on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:34:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Let's try and be honest here (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elmo, millwood, citicenx, zbbrox, DreamyAJ

        This is not why the Governor suspended this plan and you know it. He did it out of spite pure and simple. And let's also be clear HIP while commendable was not being pushed. 120,000 slots and only 45,000 were filled and the program has been in place for two years?  

        In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

        by jsfox on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:37:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There Are Registration Drives EVERYWHERE (0+ / 0-)

          There is ONE PER WEEK at my wife's inner city school.

          The problem? PEOPLE ACTUALLY HAVE TO PAY FOR IT, which is going to be the downfall of any "Public Option".

          When beating "them" became more important than what was actually in the damn bill, we lost this debate to the DC lobbyists.

          And now, the unintended consequences begin.

          •  I agree somewhat (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            with your point about "unintended consequences" and losing to the lobbyists.
            I don't think that the public option was ever veiled as a free option, it was always billed as a program you could buy into.
            OTOH, as I posted well below, this could be a platform from which Medicare buy-in or, heaven forbid, single-payer could be launched from.  And that would be an unreserved victory of good policy over evil whiners.  My trust that the Senate will ever be able to agree to pass a single payer bill is very low, but it remains possible, and when people discover that they like the non-compulsory insurance purchase aspects of this (soon-to-be law) such as closing the donut, banning pre-existing condition clauses and etc., I think the public will be much more eager to support single-payer systems.

            •  I agree (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Maybe the most important aspect of this bill is that it, for the first time, enshrines universal access to health care as an American value. Medicare is so popular in this country that Republicans flip-flopped on forty years of anti-Medicare tirades so that they could use supposed Medicare cuts as a line of attack on Democrats. Does it really seem unreasonable to anyone that we might be able to get Medicare expansions through? We could almost certainly have done that this time if we weren't more concerned with first and foremost making insurance universal. But in the future, a Medicare expansion all on its own would probably be quite popular. So would a public option. The problem is, you can't simply offer those things independently until you lay the much more difficult groundwork--which is what we've just done.

      •  Wow. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        citicenx, DreamyAJ, sullivanst

        We destroyed HIP--which was there to cover uninsured adults--by drastically reducing the number of uninsured adults. Fuck! What were we thinking?!

  •  Well (5+ / 0-)

    this is not going to go well at all.

    In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

    by jsfox on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:20:26 AM PDT

  •  . (10+ / 0-)


    "The American people are on the march once more, and they will not stop until quality, affordable health care is the birthright of every American" - Teddy, 7/19

    by distraught on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:21:03 AM PDT

  •  Ummm ... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sheddhead, DreamyAJ, jsfox

    My dogs think triciawyse is smart and pretty. They think I'm a strange, frumpy woman wth limitless snacks.

    by martydd on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:21:35 AM PDT

  •  Wow, nice GOP talking points!!! (9+ / 0-)

    You only watch Fox News, apparently.

    "The joy of activity is the activity itself, not some arbitrary goal which, if not achieved, steals the joy." ~John "the Penguin" Bingham

    by sheddhead on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:21:39 AM PDT

  •  Nancy Kallitechnis, is that you? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sheddhead, jsfox
  •  fact free diary. (7+ / 0-)

    Did you miss the redstate cut-off?

    I believed, but I'm damn glad it is now reality.

    by alasmoses on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:23:07 AM PDT

  •  Your concern has been noted. (9+ / 0-)

    Please take a number.


    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White

    by zenbassoon on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:23:36 AM PDT

  •  Whom do you expect to pay (0+ / 0-)

    when you unexpectedly come down with leukemia?  Just curious...

    Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set... -- Gandalf

    by dnta on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:23:45 AM PDT

  •  That's the spirit! (7+ / 0-)

    Don't get fooled by all this incremental change!  Wait for the real deal!  If we all just wait really hard, it'll come!

  •  It is almost baseball season (3+ / 0-)

    Swing and a miss.

    Please help the people of Haiti

    by DWG on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:26:01 AM PDT

  •  In a casino they don't give you money (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ganymeade, rweba, DreamyAJ, jsfox, sullivanst

    if you can't afford to buy the chips.

    Plus, oversimplification is not a liberal trait.

    "If Mr. Obama gets the nomination [health care reform] just won't happen." -- Paul Krugman, Feb. 4, 2008

    by samantha in oregon on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:28:37 AM PDT

  •  Can't disagree (1+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:

    I cannot comprehend the cheers for this bill. Not only is there not a word in the US Constitution (yes, though ignored we still have one) that allows the federal politicians to do this, but for the working masses to be happy that we are being divvied up like serfs, parceled out to a newly energized govt backed cartel, strikes me as lunacy.

    The fact that you will be FORCED into this program - and 17,000 IRS agents are slated to be hired to keep you in line, should tell you everything you need to know.

    C.J. Maloney's first book (on Arthurdale, West Virginia during the New Deal) is to be released by John Wiley and Sons in February 2011.

    by CJ Maloney on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:29:08 AM PDT

    •  So that constitutionality issue (6+ / 0-)

      By your thinking Medicare should be unconstitutional.  And it always helps to provide links to claims like 17,000 agents are being hired to keep you line. Oh and please make something other than a Republican talking point from

      In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

      by jsfox on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:41:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You know that there is a difference between (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        being required to contribute to a government-run public program and being required to purchase a product for-profit, private corporation.

        Mind you I'm not convinced of the unconstitutionality of the mandate.  But your argument for it isn't a good one.

        •  It does not (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rweba, citicenx, sullivanst

          make a difference if is for profit private or not-for-profit public. Truth, even if there was a PO it was not going to be open to everyone and there was still going to be a mandate. Some would still be required to by for profit insurance.

          Finally a mandate is a mandate whether it is a government run program or not. It is splitting hairs to say forcing people to buy government insurance is not the same as forcing people to by for profit insurance. Especially when the end product  for the consumer is going to be basically the same.

          In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

          by jsfox on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:07:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Precisely! (0+ / 0-)

            Being "forced" to hand money to the government is not any different than being "forced" to hand money to a company if its the same thing and the same product.

            •  Except that it IS very different (0+ / 0-)

              "Being forced to hand money to the government" is what we call a tax.  The power to tax is explicitly granted to the federal government in the Constitution.

              This other thing is NOT a tax.  It is a private economic transaction between two non-governmental entities.

              What if the government, in order to save failing banks, required every individual to purchase a certain amount of, say, Goldman Sachs stock.  Constitutional?  Yet, nobody at all questions the ability of the federal government to tax individuals, and then hand that money over to Goldman Sachs in the form of TARP money, right?

              So yes, it is a huge difference.

        •  If anything, founding fathers would have been (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ManhattanMan, jsfox

          far more suspicious about forced enrollment into a government program.

          But of course, there's no forced enrollment into Medicare. You simply have to pay your taxes while working, and can choose whether to enroll in Medicare.

          Similarly, there's no forced sign-up for private insurance. You can choose to accept the penalty. It's not a criminal penalty, and you will not be subject to criminal proceedings for failure to pay, as per the explicit language of HR.3590.

          The constitutional question is not even close.

          In America, 60% of bankruptcies are because of medical bills, and 80% of those people had health insurance

          by sullivanst on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:18:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Maybe this will help... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            ...our Confused Constitutionalists.

            Consider the bill as a flat tax on everybody. This is, of course, Constitutional.

            In addition to this tax, there is a tax exemption if you have sensible health insurance. This is just like the exemptions you get if you have a child, if you pay mortgage interest, or if you buy a hybrid car.

            Constitutionally, there is nothing new about this bill.

            •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

              Except the flat tax is not quite like other taxes, because you can be thrown in jail for not paying your income tax, but you cannot be thrown in jail for not paying the penalty for no creditable coverage and no exemption. In other words, it's a softer tax. But no less constitutional for it.

              In America, 60% of bankruptcies are because of medical bills, and 80% of those people had health insurance

              by sullivanst on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:04:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Nobody goes to jail for not paying taxes (0+ / 0-)

                So you're wrong there.  People go to jail for cheating on their taxes, or not reporting income, or not filing returns, etc.  That's tax EVASION.  But simple inability to pay does not land one in jail.  Levy and lien on your property and future wages?  Yes.  Jail?  No.

                •  Levy and lien also prohibited (0+ / 0-)

                  in the case of non-payment of the penalty for not carrying creditable health insurance.

                  So it's still a tax-lite.

                  In America, 60% of bankruptcies are because of medical bills, and 80% of those people had health insurance

                  by sullivanst on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 09:59:32 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Except that it isn't a flat tax (0+ / 0-)

              That you can think of a hypothetical analogy to the situation does not make it so.

              The federal government has the explicit power, granted to it by the Constitution, to tax.  That is all.  It does not have the explicit power to do "stuff that we think are kinda, sorta LIKE taxes."  

              Never before has the federal government ever mandated that individuals be required to engage in an economic transaction with another private entity.  It simply has no analogy.  To proclaim its obvious constitutionality or unconstitutionality is brash and uninformed.  It's not clear cut in either direction.

              Even the car insurance analogy fails because driving has always been recognized as a privilege, not a right.  The state can refuse to give you a driver's license if you fail to meet a whole host of criteria: poor driving record, failure to pass a test, failure to pay child support, etc.  Car insurance is simply one of those requirements.  This is a different animal, however.  This requirement goes into effect upon one's mere existence.

              •  It's NOT an analogy. (0+ / 0-)

                It is a description of the bill.

                (When I said flat tax I should have said "capitation", which is the word the Founders used.)

                Imagine if the bill were reworded:

                1. A $350 capitation is hereby levied on all Americans.
                1. All Americans who purchase Health Insurance get a $350 Tax Rebate.

                This is the exact same effect as the bill, but reworded in a way so that you can see that it is Constitutional.

    •  More right wing talking points. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ganymeade, greycat, DreamyAJ, Apost8

      "Yes we cannibis!"

      by marigold on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:41:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Lets All Sing Hosanna's For A BAD BILL (0+ / 0-)

      This was just so damned predictable....

      And we wonder WHY the Democratic Party is it's own worst enemy???

      Wont Matter Whats In It-It Will be Called VICTORY (8+ / 0-)

      I've seen this so many times in the last 30+ years, that it writes it's own script.

      We'll have crowds of folks on KOS telling us how it was 'REALLY" what they wanted, and expected to get, all along!!! And if you dare to remind the folks singing Praises and Hosanna's of it, you'll get buried in a blizzard of HR's, and called a "TROLL!!!!"

      by IndianaDemocrat on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 11:13:50 AM EDT

    •  Look at some civilised countries (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ManhattanMan, sullivanst

      that have universal single payer systems - like most European countries - and you will find that health care is financed either from taxes or social security payments. Neither of these is optional.

      If you insist on maintaining your fucked up private free enterprise capitalist bull shit private insurance industry, then the only way to go is a mandate.

      Get real - everybody uses about 50% of their lifetime health expenditure in the last 12 months of their life (whenever that happens), and you need to pay for it when you don't need it so that it is there when you do.

      My bags are packed, I'm ready to go. I'm standing here outside the door.

      by senilebiker on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:46:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Say what? (0+ / 0-)

        Older people will be covered by Medicare.  

        But here is the real bullshit about Obama's manadates.

        People in the middle income levels will pay around $5K a year for a policy with a high deductible. They get sick and then before their lousy policies kick up have to pony up proably over $10K to get coverage.  You think a couple with no insurance at work can cover that type of money, without eventually using credit cards, etc. to pay for the medicial costs.  Guess what bankrupcy.

        And then thank you VP Biden who was driving force in the horrible bankrupcy bill (you do know that the VP while a Senator voted against home protection for elderly people in bankrupcy??  That is Biden voted to allow bankrupcy to make elderly people homeless.

        •  Read my post. (0+ / 0-)

          Move into the 20th century -  get single payer, paid through a payroll tax or social security deductions, and then nobody has to worry. Second step 21 st century.

          You want a private insurance system, fine - eat the consequences.

          By the way, have you read the bill? From what I am picking up, deductibles are limited, and you don't buy insurance after the event - that is not what insurance is about.

          My bags are packed, I'm ready to go. I'm standing here outside the door.

          by senilebiker on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:57:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  HR'd for the 17000 IRS agents line... (0+ / 0-)

      Now if you'd said 16000, which is the number I heard another right wing tool spout this morning, I might have let you slide.

      It's bad luck to be superstitious.

      by DreamyAJ on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:42:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This comment is not HRable. n/t (0+ / 0-)

      I refuse to accept "no can do" as a proper slogan for progressives.

      by Meteor Blades on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 07:41:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  yes we can! (5+ / 0-)

    write ineffective diaries, that is.

    what goes around comes around, buckwheat. -- AndyS in Colorado

    by bubbanomics on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:29:31 AM PDT

  •  Access to or similar (0+ / 0-)
    seems to be the suggested phrase they are pushing. If COBRA take up is any indication, the take up for unsubidized group coverage might be around 17% and for individual coverage far less than that without subsidies. Subsidies, and many other barriers to free trade may have legal problems with our existing free trade agreements, we'll see.

    In general the US seems to be a strong supporter of free trade overseas.

    As long as insurance companies disclose their practices in contracts, they will probably be able to get around restrictions by having them struck down in WTO court.

    Subsidies don't block legitimate companies from making money but means tested subsidies seem to still be prohibited. The reason isn't so clear to me yet.

    The NAFTA-like GATS and its ratchet effect is an potential minefield for public health care! It is SO important that EVERY Democrat needs to read up on it, NOW!

    by Andiamo on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:31:11 AM PDT

  •  Probably should be a comment, (0+ / 0-)

    not a diary. That said, it does contain an element of inconvenient truth.

    •  truth (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Yes, I agree.  After writing the intro, I lost heart, feeling that to put more effort in the form of analogies, illustrations, and statistics to make it a diary entry would be folly, as it would fall on deaf ears anyway. I'm for health care for all--but cutting out the middle man--insurance companies, who are largely responsible for driving up costs.  I'd gladly pay a bit more in taxes if society actually recieved this benefit from them, like they do in civilized countries.  

  •  Who do you think the death panels are for? (1+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:

    They are for trolls like you.

    So go away before we find out who you are.

    And your teenage girls are going to be forced to have sex with black men.

    And the terrorists will take credit for destroying America but it was really the progressives that did it.

    We shall overcome, someday. Yes we can.

    by Sam Wise Gingy on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:38:59 AM PDT

    •  this is not a troll (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JillR, DreamyAJ, I C Mainer

      I'm sorry, but this diary is not a troll.  Trolling is an art form.  This diary is to trolling as paint-by-numbers is to an Art Gallery.  Pasting one side's talking points onto the other side's discussion site is like scribbling on the walls with crayon - sure, your heart's in the right place and you're using the right tools, but you're a long way from the Sistine Chapel.

    •  Aw (0+ / 0-)

      Every group needs it's own pit bull to defend them from ideas that affect their popularity/bottom lines.  Good for you for finding the role that resulted in social acceptance at last.

      •  When you have a principled argument to make for (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        your position against HCR bring it on.

        This is the mandate

        According to The Monitor, the mandate will be enforced by tax penalties. The uninsured would have to pay, beginning in 2014, $695 for each uninsured family member, up to a maximum of $2,085, or 2.5 percent of household income, whichever is greater.

        The measure would also usher in a significant expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state health care program for the poor. Coverage would be required for incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, $29,327 a year for a family of four. Childless adults would be covered for the first time, starting in 2014.

        The insurance industry, which spent millions on advertising trying to block the bill, would come under new federal regulation. They would be forbidden from placing lifetime dollar limits on policies, from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions and from canceling policies when a policyholder becomes ill.

        Parents would be able to keep children up to age 26 on their family insurance plans, three years longer than is now the case.

        A new high-risk pool would offer coverage to uninsured people with medical problems until 2014, when the coverage expansion would go into high gear.

        So for $700 a year per person you reserve the right to buy into health care insurance, if you develop a need, and you get full coverage of you preexisting condition.

        Who do you think that is unjust to?

        We shall overcome, someday. Yes we can.

        by Sam Wise Gingy on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:48:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Penalties (0+ / 0-)

          How will the penalties be collected?  How much will the penalties be?  If someone making minimum wage cannot pay the mandated 700 per year, how will they pay a fine?  Will the 700 come directly out of their paychecks with government acting as collection agency  for the insurance companies? Will those making minimum wage then get sick more often, since their food and shelter budgets have been reduced?  Please, enlighten me with your knowledge of the details located in the find print that I missed.  

        •  So in particular (0+ / 0-)

          How will insurance companies be regulated to ensure effective policies at affordable prices.  Or can insurance companies offer any policy for any price?  For example, can they offer a policy at $800/month but with a $15K deductible as their low end policy?

          •  Those are all good questions. (0+ / 0-)

            Most of them are answered on the link.

            In general cost are contained by keeping everybody in the risk pool.

            The current trend is for younger healthier people to opt out. HCR should reverse that trend in two ways. One, subsidies based on income. Two, a mandate to encourage participation.

            I have been told that there is also a provision to require 85% of health care premiums to be spent on health care. I am working on finding a link right now.

            This whole discussion proves that as a society were have more opinions than facts.

            We shall overcome, someday. Yes we can.

            by Sam Wise Gingy on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 02:34:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  85% of premiums must be spent on health care. (0+ / 0-)

            For large group-insurance plans, at least 85 percent of premiums must go for care or quality improvement; otherwise, money will get rebated to policyholders, according to Families USA.

            Great summary found here.

            We shall overcome, someday. Yes we can.

            by Sam Wise Gingy on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 03:01:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think threats (0+ / 0-)

      are appropriate.  Or threatening to out someone.

      •  Only wing nut think there are death panels (0+ / 0-)

        and the diarist has proven to everyone that they are uniformed and felt no obligation to be informed before making an inflammatory diary post.

        If you could not recognize the snark in my comment then you have my sympathy.

        We shall overcome, someday. Yes we can.

        by Sam Wise Gingy on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 03:12:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Health car for profit isn't new. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Our health care system, and our political parties have been controlled by profit seeking corporations for a long time now. The stock market is a big casino. Your complaints are about business as usual. We will soon see how much this bill helps the situation, but if you are predicting it will make it worse I think you will be disappointed. Oh, and also, this isn't a diary.

    "the human animal is well adapted to a great many different diets. The Western diet however, is not one of them." Michael Pollan

    by greycat on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:01:41 AM PDT

  •  "its" has no apostrophe for possessiveness (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    citicenx, DreamyAJ, I C Mainer

    American economy and it's health care system

    The word "it's" has an apostrophe to indicate a contraction of the words IT and IS.

    When used to show possession, the word "its" has no apostrophe.

    (Your "diary" probably addressed something else, too, but whatever.)

  •  Unless Dems reform mandates, Waterloo for certain (0+ / 0-)

    Dems better now reform mandates or a year after they go into place, they will lose politically big time.  The mood now is giddy, but Obama also signed a political Waterloo time bomb (along with some good things).  

    I will be writing my reps and staying on their asses about reforming it.  Or come 2013, Obama may be in office, but the following years may see veto proof repub Congresses.

    I just hope the Obama suck-ups don't derail any reform movement on the left.  

  •  I too (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    have been rather disheartened by the media saying that this bill will "provide coverage to 30million Americans currently without it".  Hell no, it will FORCE millions of people to buy a product that they currently can't afford or hate.  Many of those millions still won't be able to really afford the product that still won't be worth what they pay for it.
    I celebrate the passage of the bill simply because it represents that Democrats can actually defeat a mobilized mega-minority, rather than cave in constantly to "teh fears", which is constantly pushed by Repubs and reinforced by the media.
    A minor nugget of hope is that this bill (after if becomes law) could be used as a platform to ACTUALLY provide health care to everyone, aka, single-payer.  Or short of that a Medicare buy-in.  I don't trust that the Senate will be able to get its act together for that.
    The minorest nugget of hope is that Sen. Bennet is successful in putting the Public Option back into the Senate version as an ammendment.

  •  Alas, you're going to get hammered (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Some helpeful tips for DKos:

    1. If an evil bastard dies, don't point out he was an evil bastard and you'll piss on his grave, you'll get zeroed.
    1. If a tragedy happens, don't say anything other than how terrible you feel for the victims, even though you think it's an appropriate time to explore the root causes of said tragedy, you'll get zeroed.
    1. If a terrible bill is passed by democrats, and is lauded as a fantastic bill by the leadership, you damn well better fall in line, or you'll get zeroed.

    Groupthink isn't reserved only for Freepers.

    Game Over. The corporations win. And they will take us all down with their greed.

    by The Dead Man on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:04:55 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site