Skip to main content

Cross-posted at Eclectablog.com.

Battle lines are being drawn. Republicans have a bill ready to go called Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act (pdf) that will be introduced next week. They aren't talking about fixing things. They are talking about dismantling things. And fuck the deficit. They have even exempted the repeal of health insurance reform from their own requirements that any new laws are paid for.
 
Which side of the battle will YOU be on?

The heavy-hitters on both sides of the issue are getting their battle plans ready.
 
IN THIII-IIIS CORNER! we have Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks. These astroturfed, corporate-backed groups will continue their intensive and well-funded efforts to completely repeal (replace, my ass) what the derisively call "Obamacare" and "the Big Government takeover of health care".
 
AND IN THIII-IIIS CORNER! we have Organizing for America (OFA), Families USA and Healthcare of America NOW! (HCAN), truly grassroots groups that fought long and hard for the legislation that got passed. While many of their members are not entirely happy with the final law that was enacted, they know full well that repealing it would set back the cause for universal healthcare as a right and not a privilege for years and years to come. OFA, in particular, will be fighting this tooth and nail until we are victorious.
 
While we should be in a fight to improve the law, we're now in a fight to just to keep it breathing.
 
Which side will YOU be on?
 
I'm just askin'...

Originally posted to Eclectablog - eclectic blogging for a better tomorrow on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 09:10 AM PST.

Poll

Which side will you be on?

72%235 votes
11%37 votes
15%50 votes

| 322 votes | Vote | Results

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

  •  I'm afraid there is not much support for (6+ / 0-)

    the President or his policies on Daily Kos.  Perhaps if you had written an OMG look what nefarious scheme Obama has initiated against our best interests this morning there would be more interest.

    I support the President.

    by Blogvirgin on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 09:19:46 AM PST

  •  If Obama and the democrats cannot (17+ / 0-)

    deal with this without our help, then we are in really big trouble. I wonder why anyone would think the repeal of health care is viable. I'll put my energy fighting on budget issues and jobs.

    Practice tolerance, kindness and charity.

    by LWelsch on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 09:21:15 AM PST

  •  I'm not sure that it needs fighting. (9+ / 0-)

    It'll sail through the House, but won't even make it to the floor of the Senate, and if by some ungodly chance it passes the Senate, it'll get vetoed - and there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that they'll find 67 Senators to override it.

    What have you done for DC statehood today? Call your Rep and Senators and demand action.

    by mistersite on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 09:21:51 AM PST

  •  It's crazy that we have to (10+ / 0-)

    fight and defend such a basic, centrist bill, something Republicans once even supported.  It's not like this is something grand like single-payer, or even a robust public option.  We have to fight for scraps and bones here.

    Gil Troy's words in Morning In America ring true...progress can be defined as what conservatives aren't successful in dismantling.

    Sorry I haven't posted in a while, I've been busy destroying the sanctity of marriage and eroding the moral fabric of society.

    by Chrislove on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 09:21:54 AM PST

    •  that's why we ought to let it get repealed... (0+ / 0-)

      ... unfortunately it may be better in the long run to throw this POS health care "reform" bill out. More pain, in this case, as horrendous as that sounds, may = more gain in the long run if we can get real health care reform, when (if ever) we can finally slay the corporate interests and get nationalized health insurance for all.

      With this bill kept alive, I'm afraid, we will find that true health care reform will be delayed by decades. And we will find that the insurance companies will be very creative in keeping the money flowing out of our pockets and into theirs.

      •  Are you a member of the Democratic Party? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eclectablog

        Just asking, because your statement kind of dovetails with what Republicans say.

        I've no idea about people on the web.

        "Don't fall or we both go." Derek Hersey 1957-1993

        by ban nock on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 10:53:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't buy that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eclectablog

        Yes, the bill is imperfect, but just because we passed a bill doesn't mean health care reform is over.  This is probably going to be a process that will last for years.  There's plenty of opportunity to add a public option later (although I completely reject the notion that a public option is necessary for meaningful health care reform), along with other provisions the current bill lacks.  If the bill is repealed, we're back to square one.  How long do you think it will be before a Congress works up the political will to try it again?  Do you really think future Congresses will think we didn't do enough in this bill?  They'll probably interpret the repeal as a reason to go for even more limited reform.

        We have a good starting point in the current bill...unless your position is that the only way we can have meaningful health care reform is through single-payer, in which case we'll just have to disagree.

        Sorry I haven't posted in a while, I've been busy destroying the sanctity of marriage and eroding the moral fabric of society.

        by Chrislove on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 02:41:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The only way to have meaningful reform . . . (0+ / 0-)

          is to do away with for-profit health insurance, something that every other industrialized democracy figured out decades ago, but which somehow seems not to register with folks in this country.

          There are many ways health care can be provided, any of which would be far superior to the for-profit model that this legislation enshrines.  But hey, I'm just one of those silly "purists" who can't see the logic in using supposedly scarce taxpayer dollars to subsidize insurance company profits and overhead, when those expenses do absolutely nothing to provide actual care.

          Maladie d'Amour, Où l'on meurt d'Aimer, Seul et sans Amour, Sid'abandonné

          by FogCityJohn on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 10:41:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Of course you are right (0+ / 0-)

            And of course such a system will NEVER get through this Congress, the last Congress or any Congress vaguely resembling either of them. So all of that is a lot of very wishful thinking. I dream about the very same thing myself but it ain't gonna happen, not for awhile.

            To be clear, it's "EClectablog", not "Electablog".
            Visit me at Eclectablog.

            by Eclectablog on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 03:43:00 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sigh (0+ / 0-)

              If I had a dime for every time one of the "pragmatists" on this site called some kind of progressive policy idea "wishful thinking" or "unserious," I could probably buy this country universal health care out of my own pocket.  The problem with this kind of dismissive talk is that it helps push the center of gravity in this debate firmly to the right.  When even self-proclaimed "progressives" deride liberal policy solutions as unrealistic, they help define the leftward boundary of the policy debate.  

              The battle over HIR was a perfect example.  Single payer was taken off the table at the outset, because it was considered too radical.  That permitted the Republicans and the Blue Dogs to attack the public option as a Trojan Horse for single payer.  And since President Obama himself had validated their framing by conceding that single payer was too radical, the right wing argument had added weight.

              In contrast, you'll notice that conservatives never make this mistake.  Almost no one in the "mainstream" Republican Party ever attacks a kooky right wing idea as impractical or too radical.  That's because they understand something most Democrats and progressives do not -- that discussing those kooky right wing ideas will push the center of the debate ever further to the right, so what were once considered extremely conservative ideas will begin to look more centrist and moderate by comparison.  Trust me, when I was young, no one had ever heard of anything called the "death tax," and no one seriously thought estate taxes would ever be repealed.  Eisenhower considered Republicans who wanted to do away with Social Security nuts, yet here we are in 2011 with a Democratic president looking at serious cuts to the country's most prominent social insurance program.

              So please think twice before you call those of us on the left "purists," "unrealistic," or whatever other insults you've got up your sleeve.  Whether you realize it or not, you're doing the right wing's work for it.

              Maladie d'Amour, Où l'on meurt d'Aimer, Seul et sans Amour, Sid'abandonné

              by FogCityJohn on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 09:50:34 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I didn't insult you OR call you a name (0+ / 0-)
                The fact that there are so many of saying things along this line that you could buy everyone health care isn't necessarily because we're wrong, you know.

                It would give a lot more credence to your argument if the public option hadn't been shot down out of the sky so effectively by Republicans and Blue Dogs in the Senate. I fully understand the Overton Window and I'm so stupid as to misunderstand the need to drag the mainstream leftward.

                But here's the thing: when we don't succeed because of the "conditions on the ground in the Senate", I'm not going to abandon my party or its leadership. That's not only unpragmatic, it's self-defeating. Always looking for new and better leadership but also giving existing leadership the help it needs to accomplish our mutual goals -- that's my MO.

                I'll never apologize for being pragmatic either. At the end of the day pragmatism accomplishes far more than wishful thinking from my experience.

                To be clear, it's "EClectablog", not "Electablog".
                Visit me at Eclectablog.

                by Eclectablog on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 12:45:56 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I didn't accuse you of insult . . . (0+ / 0-)

                  although you seem pretty attached to calling liberal policy ideas "wishful thinking."  Which, of course, only serves to illustrate my original point.  Your characterization can be used by the right in much the same fashion that they have used quotations from The New Republic.  Conservatives have often prefaced their attacks on a liberal idea with stuff like, "Even the liberal New Republic agrees . . ."  Indeed, Michael Kinsley once jokingly suggested that the magazine be renamed "Even The Liberal New Republic," so often was the phrase used.

                  My point is not to say that you are wrong about political realities given the corporatist orientation of both the administration and Congress.  My point is to get you to recognize the part that your characterizations (and those of other pragmatists) play in creating and perpetuating that reality.  So long as people who claim to favor progressive ideas constantly dismiss them as simply unrealistic or "wishful thinking," conservatives will be given tailor-made arguments.  They can assert that, say, single-payer is so far out of the mainstream that even this, that, or the other Democrat or progressive agrees it's unrealistic.  That's not helpful if you are sincere about favoring single-payer (or any other liberal policy) as an ultimate goal.

                  Maladie d'Amour, Où l'on meurt d'Aimer, Seul et sans Amour, Sid'abandonné

                  by FogCityJohn on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 01:04:04 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  I'd personally like to see an end (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Eclectablog

            to for-profit health insurance.  I said above that I don't think single-payer is the only route to true health care reform, but I actually prefer single-payer.  It makes the most sense.  Hopefully someday a Congress will find the political will to do it.  Where radv005 and I part ways is on repealing the current bill.  I don't think letting the bill be repealed (even though that's almost impossible, and this entire discussion is hypothetical) would be a means to anything but a broken health care system for generations to come.  The current bill doesn't fix the system, but I personally believe (others disagree) that this bill is a pretty good foundation for future reform.  I don't think the public option is dead, either...I think it has the potential to be a liberal campaign promise for years to come.  And I think, if implemented, a public option has more potential to lead to the goal of single-payer than just repealing the current bill and starting from scratch.

            But I could be completely wrong...I'm just speculating.

            Sorry I haven't posted in a while, I've been busy destroying the sanctity of marriage and eroding the moral fabric of society.

            by Chrislove on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 04:47:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Fair enough (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Chrislove

              But where I disagree with you is on the idea that this legislation will be "a means to anything but a broken health care system for generations to come."  The legislation doesn't create truly universal health insurance, and it requires a massive waste of taxpayer dollars by subsidizing middlemen who add no value at all in the provision of health care.  (I have a number of other specific problems with the legislation, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion.)

              And I'm not sure how the public option can be a liberal campaign promise for years to come.  Since the electorate has just been shown exactly how worthless is a campaign promise to implement a public option, I rather doubt voters will take such rhetoric seriously for a very long time.

              Maladie d'Amour, Où l'on meurt d'Aimer, Seul et sans Amour, Sid'abandonné

              by FogCityJohn on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 09:57:03 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  And you're right (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eclectablog

        More pain, in this case, as horrendous as that sounds, may = more gain in the long run

        That idea does sound horrendous.  This health care bill is so important to a lot of people.  We can't let it get repealed in the hopes that we'll get a perfect bill (if you want a perfect bill, I'd look at reforming our government first, and that means scrapping the Madisonian model - this government wasn't built for perfect bills, it was built for sausage-making, and that's what we got).

        Sorry I haven't posted in a while, I've been busy destroying the sanctity of marriage and eroding the moral fabric of society.

        by Chrislove on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 02:55:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Sebelius: Don't repeal health care law (8+ / 0-)

    I might take a little issue with you about what is a grassroots organization or not, and certainly I will be pusing for BETTER than the Baucus-care that we got.  

    However, part of the fight for more/better is to not undue the good that is in PPACA.

    Meanwhile, I guess we can take this as the administration's official PR line, coming today, as Republican congress is sworn in, from HHS Secretary Sebelius:

    Don't repeal health care law
    January 5, 2011

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/...

    As a new Congress takes office today in Washington, Republican leaders have made it clear that their first priority is to repeal the new health care law. I can't think of a worse idea for American families.
    The law is giving Americans more freedom in their health care choices. It's freeing families from the worry that they'll lose their benefits when insurers unfairly cancel or cap their coverage. It's freeing children with disabilities and pregnant women from being discriminated against by insurers because of their health status. It's freeing seniors to get the care they need, whether it's a prescription medication or a preventive screening like a mammogram. It frees all of us to look for a new job or start our own business without worrying about losing health coverage.

    Repeal would slam the brakes on this progress, taking control away from families and their doctors and putting it back in the hands of insurance companies. Before any member of Congress considers taking such a reckless step backward, he or she should think through exactly what repeal would mean.

    The new law is finally allowing many Americans with health conditions like cancer and diabetes to get the care they need. Parents of sick children can no longer be refused coverage because of their child's pre-existing condition. Thousands of Americans who had been turned away by insurers because of their health history are now getting critical treatments and medicines thanks to new, temporary plans in every state. In 2014, the days of insurers discriminating based on pre-existing conditions will be gone for good.

    If repeal succeeds, insurers would be free to shut out these families once again. And thousands of parents would lose the option of keeping their children on their health plans up to age 26, one of the key early benefits in the new law.

    Repeal would also rip up the new Patient's Bill of Rights, which outlaws the worst abuses of health insurers. Thanks to the new law, insurance companies can no longer cancel your coverage without cause when you get sick. They may no longer put lifetime dollar limits on your benefits — limits that often meant your coverage was gone when you needed it most. And by 2014, most annual dollar limits on benefits will be a thing of the past.
    If the new Congress repeals the law, these kinds of harmful practices will be made legal once again.
    Repeal would also mean higher health insurance costs for millions of families and small businesses. After years of dropping coverage, the number of small businesses offering health coverage to their workers is actually going up thanks to a tax credit provided by the law. In addition, there are new limits on how much of your premium insurers can spend on profits, marketing and CEO bonuses, and new resources to help states review and reject unreasonable premium increases. And in 2014, small business owners and individuals will have a new health insurance marketplace where they can shop for affordable coverage.
    These common-sense reforms to lower health care costs and ensure that families and small businesses get more value for their premium dollars would be erased by repeal.
    Repeal would force seniors to continue to pay money out of their own pockets for cancer screenings and other recommended preventive care, which will be offered at no additional cost under the new law. And seniors who take the most medicine would continue to pay thousands of dollars when they hit the "doughnut hole," the coverage gap in Medicare coverage for prescription drugs. The new law begins to eliminate that gap with a 50 percent discount on brand-name drugs in 2011, and fully phases it out over the next several years — but only if the repealers fail.

    For years, Americans have demanded that we do something about skyrocketing health costs, crumbling coverage and out-of-control insurance companies. And now that we are finally addressing these problems, insurance companies and their allies want us to go back to the days when insurers were free to cancel your coverage or hike your premiums or deny your claims just to protect their corporate profits.
    Over the past nine months, I've traveled around the country and seen the benefits of this law firsthand. Unless we want to take coverage away from cancer patients, reduce oversight for insurance companies, raise prescription drug costs for seniors, weaken Medicare, add $1 trillion to the deficit and undo dozens of other reforms that are improving health around the country, we can't afford repeal.
    Let's not turn back the clock.

    Kathleen Sebelius is the secretary of Health and Human Services.

    •  You insult me. (7+ / 0-)

      I am working at the grassroots.  Just did a meeting on New Years Eve.  Included lots of folks who are ready to stop waiting for orders and start GIVING THEM.

      Our elected officials work for us, not the other way around.

      You can't whine about the lack of "messaging" from Dems (top down) and then complain that we're not truly grassroots.

      I've been working on health reform a lot longer than I've been working as an OFA volunteer organizer.

      See my diary for a discussion about a meeting with my friend Lenda and President Obama, where he very clearly stated that the we need more creativity and freedom at the grassroots, and that the Vote 2010 effort didn't do well enough at empowering people to be creative self-starters.

      Stop clapping. Stop screaming. Open your mind. Listen.

      by Benintn on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 09:25:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Training this weekend in Nashville (7+ / 0-)

    We're on it.

    Tennessee Health Care Campaign is coordinating efforts on voter education.  Working groups on implementation, insurance, prevention, etc.

    Health Care Reformers for Obama organizing now to get out the facts on the health reform law and to challenge the well-funded fearmongers.

    Howard Dean, for what it's worth, wants to kill the mandate and says it's really just good for insurance companies, not for consumers.  Saw him on Morning Joe this a.m. with Claire McCaskill ... of course Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan bloviated about how no one likes the law and blah blah blah... but Dean was on message.

    Stop clapping. Stop screaming. Open your mind. Listen.

    by Benintn on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 09:22:43 AM PST

  •  Finally something that 'progressives' (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IL JimP, SouthernBelleNC49

    can be bipartisan about!

    I'm sure the prolific diarists that fought against the Obama health care plan for months will be working with Speaker Boehner to make sure it never gets fully implemented.

    Tell me what you eat, and I'll tell you what you are.

    by Musket Man on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 09:24:04 AM PST

  •  The Administration just folded. Again. (7+ / 0-)

    U.S. Alters Rule on Paying for End-of-Life Planning

    New York Times
    WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, reversing course, will revise a Medicare regulation to delete references to end-of-life planning as part of the annual physical examinations covered under the new health care law, administration officials said Tuesday.
    Related

       *
         Obama Returns to End-of-Life Plan That Caused Stir (December 26, 2010)

    The move is an abrupt shift, coming just days after the new policy took effect on Jan. 1.

    Many doctors and providers of hospice care had praised the regulation, which listed "advance care planning" as one of the services that could be offered in the "annual wellness visit" for Medicare beneficiaries.

    While administration officials cited procedural reasons for changing the rule, it was clear that political concerns were also a factor. The renewed debate over advance care planning threatened to become a distraction to administration officials who were gearing up to defend the health law against attack by the new Republican majority in the House.

    This is a new one on me. I've read about the administration caving before going into negotiations. I've read of them caving during negotiations. But this is the first I've read of them compromising AFTER they won what little they did.

    I mean, just wow. This part of the so-called health care reform was in the bag. Done deal. W ... T ... F  ?

    Someone stick a fork in this administration.

    •  End-of-life planning... (9+ / 0-)
      ...was not part of the health insurance reform bill that passed. From the article you linked:

      ...the health care bill signed into law in March did not mention end-of-life planning...

      To be clear, it's "EClectablog", not "Electablog".
      Visit me at Eclectablog.

      by Eclectablog on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 09:27:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama caved on Medicare regulation (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        radv005

        I read the article just fine. In anticipation of not-going-anywhere threats by the Republicans to challenge the HIR, Obama just decided to delete references to end-of-life planning in Medicare, which as the article points out, are covered under HIR.

        Your diary asks if people will fight the repeal of HIR. According to this particular tactic, the administration feels the best way to do that is to capitulate in advance.

        But I don't have skin in this game. I'm uninsured and won't benefit by HIR. If the mandate survives, HIR will hurt me. In my own selfish interest, I'm not going to defend this stinking pile. But I have to wonder why any of its supporters would (who are not among the minority who benefit from it).

        The administration isn't defending it. Why should they?

    •  way to skip the actual statement by the Obama adm (6+ / 0-)

      An administration official, authorized by the White House to explain the mix-up, said Tuesday, "We realize that this should have been included in the proposed rule, so more people could have commented on it specifically."

      "We will amend the regulation to take out voluntary advance care planning," the official said. "This should not affect beneficiaries’ ability to have these voluntary conversations with their doctors."

      It's a technicality.  Get over it.

      Stop clapping. Stop screaming. Open your mind. Listen.

      by Benintn on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 09:29:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sure... anybody can "have that conversation" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FogCityJohn, laker

        it just won't be paid for. Unless you have the cash out of pocket or your doctor is willing to trade a couple chickens for it.

        You are missing the point.

        "An exact science is one that admits loss" -- Genesis P-Orridge

        by jethrock on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 09:33:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  bull. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wishingwell, SouthernBelleNC49

          I know what's going on.  This is a question of providers getting paid for it, not whether or not the conversation can be had.

          Stop clapping. Stop screaming. Open your mind. Listen.

          by Benintn on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 09:37:26 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What do you mean "Bull"???? (0+ / 0-)

            It is not paid for with any Federal dollars.

            You can lie to yourself... but don't lie to me.

            "An exact science is one that admits loss" -- Genesis P-Orridge

            by jethrock on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 09:39:18 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  As I said... (7+ / 0-)

              this is not a question of whether or not the conversation can be had.  Any physician worth his/her salt will take on the responsibility of making sure people know about a living will.  This is ultimately a form of prevention.

              The only question is whether or not the conversation will be paid for, or if the conversation will not be paid for.

              I'm a provider.  I work in collaboration with organizations like Alive Hospice and Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center here in Nashville to make sure that patients have options and know what's available.

              These nonprofit organizations are dedicated to helping families prepare for end of life care.

              The fact that federal money isn't being given to help move this along troubles me, but as the NYT article states, the question is not whether these conversations can be had or not, but rather whether providers will be economically incentivized for doing advanced care directive planning.

              Stop clapping. Stop screaming. Open your mind. Listen.

              by Benintn on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 09:46:18 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  PS - just attended a CE event on this topic (5+ / 0-)

                where I learned all the latest on it.  Again, this is about responsible ethical medical practice ... something all practitioners should be proud to offer, regardless of patient's ability to pay for it.

                Isn't that what the right to treatment is all about?

                Stop clapping. Stop screaming. Open your mind. Listen.

                by Benintn on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 09:50:49 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yeah The free market should take care of it right (6+ / 0-)

                  We know all Doctors work only with their patients best interests at heart.

                  They never try to push a particular drug for a pharmaceutical company for profit reasons do they?

                  p.s. My mother died as result of a misdiagnosis. She died from the treatment and complications for something she didn't have.

                  Don't preach to me that our healthcare system benefits patients over the industry insiders and Doctors themselves. It doesn't.

                  "An exact science is one that admits loss" -- Genesis P-Orridge

                  by jethrock on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 10:10:35 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Stories like this (0+ / 0-)

                    are abundant and will only become more abundant unless there is ever actual health care reform. There's a reason our outcome statistics are below Latvia's, and it's not insurance/access.

                    We heard a lot during the HIR debate that ~40,000 Americans die every year because they have no access to the health care system, or can't pay for what they need. What we didn't hear is that the health care system itself - in-hospital - kills ~200,000. God only knows how many die outside of hospitals from medical and prescription errors, malpractice and plain old neglect.

                    Now, more than ever, we need the Jedi.

                    by Joieau on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 02:30:21 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm sorry for your loss. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Eclectablog

                    That's very sad.

                    And yes, medical malpractice is real and sometimes life-altering or life-ending mistakes are made by all-too-human providers and payers.

                    It's very humbling.  

                    Stop clapping. Stop screaming. Open your mind. Listen.

                    by Benintn on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 07:56:30 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  You work for a non profit. That's great. (0+ / 0-)

                Unfortunately the vast majority of our healthcare system is "for profit".

                Maybe you often give free medical advice. That is rare... typically you have to pay to even speak to a doctor.

                And the simple fact is that the law that was passed did make sure those services would NOT be paid for.

                Now the Administration is backing away from and effort to make sure it is through regulation.

                I don't know why your arguing with me on that point.

                It's not paid for. Period.

                "An exact science is one that admits loss" -- Genesis P-Orridge

                by jethrock on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 10:02:29 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Nope not true. (0+ / 0-)
                  "Maybe you often give free medical advice. That is rare... typically you have to pay to even speak to a doctor."

                  Bullshit!

                  End of life counseling should not have to be paid for.  My husband's mother had a massive stroke last year.  The decision was made by the family to discontinue medications, nutrition (no feeding tube), etc. and allow her to expire rather than what could have been long-term nursing home care with no recovery whatsoever.  She was 92 years old and had lived a wonderful life.  

                  •  Huh? I think you misread my comment. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    orestes1963

                    I'm with you on that.

                    As it is though... you typically have to pay for those services.

                    And congress stripped the funding for it.

                    So everybody is still on their own. If you can afford it you can get it on your own... if you're poor or have government assistance... you still have to pay for it.

                    It is simply not covered.

                    I'm not saying it shouldn't be. I'm stating the opposite.

                    "An exact science is one that admits loss" -- Genesis P-Orridge

                    by jethrock on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 10:38:22 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  That's odd. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Benintn, SoCalSal

                      When our mothers were hospitalized toward the last of their lives, the hospitals required advanced directives be on file before they'd admit. If you didn't have one on file already with your doctor or with the hospital, the social services staff would come around and give the whole low-down to the patient and/or family, paperwork in hand.

                      I do not recall any charges specific to that service, provided by the hospital to all incoming Medicare patients (don't know if the same is provided to other patients). All part of the 'informed consent' process.

                      Now, more than ever, we need the Jedi.

                      by Joieau on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 02:36:44 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

      •  It's capitulation after the fact. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jethrock, Wom Bat, laker, radv005

        Get over it.

        As the article correctly notes, "While administration officials cited procedural reasons for changing the rule, it was clear that political concerns were also a factor."

        •  It's a technicality. (3+ / 0-)

          This is a rules issue, not a patient care issue.

          Stop clapping. Stop screaming. Open your mind. Listen.

          by Benintn on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 09:39:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Really? (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jethrock, Wom Bat, laker, radv005

            The decision to drop the reference to end-of-life care upset some officials at the Department of Health and Human Services, who said the administration ought to promote discussions of such care. Such discussions help ensure that patients get the care they want, the officials said.

            You know, a "rules issue" does not mean it's not also a "patient care issue." It can be both. If you have a rule that prevents patient care, then it is both a rules and patient care issue.

            But hey, believe what you want.

            •  The rule does NOTHING to prevent care. (4+ / 0-)

              I think the Berwick rule issued Jan 1 was a good one.  Having said that, I acknowledge what was said in the article - namely, that political pressure was there and that ultimately, this does not prohibit nor prevent the discussion from taking place voluntarily.

              The rule was a payer question, not a care question.  It was a question of rules and economic incentives, not a question of prohibition or preventing people from getting care.

              The reason the hospice industry is upset (rightly so) is that people who work in palliative care know firsthand that there is a ton of wasteful healthcare spending and a ton of needless heartache, because the average advanced care directive is signed 48 hours before a patient dies.  Most people don't take the time to do it.  That is sad.  Physicians, providers, family, friends, clergy, should all work together to make sure that you have 'the talk'.  But economically incentivizing 'the talk' is something that created moral objections from (fearmongering) people who want to pretend that 'the talk' will be used to tell people to "die quickly".

              Stop clapping. Stop screaming. Open your mind. Listen.

              by Benintn on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 09:54:20 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Are you going to fight for real affordable (17+ / 0-)

    healthcare reform with a public option, and protecting Social Security and Medicare even if it means fighting this Administration?

    Will the OFA?

    "An exact science is one that admits loss" -- Genesis P-Orridge

    by jethrock on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 09:25:05 AM PST

  •  Don't get what all the fuss is about. (7+ / 0-)

    Why don't prominent Dems remind people that Obama would veto it and it couldn't be overrided? If they aren't because they think this will get the base fighting, they are wrong. They need to give the base an accomplishment like a JOBS bill that will really help middle america. Clueless.

    •  Because there's another game being played. (6+ / 0-)

      The administration is going to compromise on a fight it can win.

      Watch. They're already doing it.

      I can't believe there's anyone left still willing to kick the football Lucy's holding.

    •  But neither party (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bluicebank

      They need to give the base an accomplishment like a JOBS bill that will really help middle america.

      would support a legit jobs bill. Unemployment is the unemployed people's problem. Unemployment is not the leaders' problem. The leaders are fellas like Barack Obama. And John Boehner. Obama and Boehner are employed, and other employed people are paying their salaries. So what would B & O want with passing some jobs bill?

      History will witness that Barack Obama was America's first self-rolling president.

      by Wom Bat on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 10:12:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is not snark honest (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lzachary, bluicebank, Joieau

    but the Administration is already caving re the end of life provisions and I just have this bad feeling that our work will be cut out keeping our own team on track before we even get to worrying about the GOP idiots.

  •  It's a great opportunity (10+ / 0-)

    To steal their thunder.

    To show up at district offices and make calls and demonstrate that the midterms were not about rolling back health reform.

    Sure, we could just sit back and let the Senate block it, but where is the fun in that?  Much better to use this as a chance to message positively about the good stuff in the new law and to make the GOP look like the extremists they are for attacking it.

    •  I understand what you are saying. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Femlaw, Benintn, Wom Bat, Joieau

      One issue is where to allocate resources.  As public employee unions and all unions are under attack (right to work for less laws), some might think that is a higher priority than street theater or house office member theatre.  Others might not.  

      Certainly if Democratic officeholders start showing that health care refrom had benefits and start talking them up, it would help.  This also is key for Obama's re-election becasue it is his signature accomplishment and if people don't like it, it might affect their votes in 2012. So there are many reasons for your position also.

      People have to pick and choose where to focus efforts.    

      Trumka: "Absolutely Insane" to Extend Tax Cuts for Millionaires

      by TomP on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 09:52:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're talking about Jedis v. Padawans. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Femlaw, TomP, Eclectablog

        For someone who's been involved in union organizing for years, obviously it's important to fight to protect what we worked so hard to win.

        For someone who has been catching up with the Kardashians, they are first going to need to realize that there's a disconnect between Congress and regular people.  Then, they're going to need to realize they have a voice and can actually call their MOCs.  Then, they're going to have to find out that their MOCs are either responsive or they're douchenozzles.  Then, they're going to have to find local organizing resources.

        The thing that OFA is going to do best is that it will be a clearinghouse for organizers across the spectrum - from business owners to students to organized labor.

        It is worth getting a union organizer to every single OFA event - just so people who are experienced Jedi-level organizers can show the newbies how it's done.

        Attraction works best.

        As far as picking and choosing, I refuse to choose between deficit reduction and pro-labor policies.  My mantra is "Cut Waste, Not Corners".  I believe in pursuing excellence and rewarding collaboration.

        Stop clapping. Stop screaming. Open your mind. Listen.

        by Benintn on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 10:08:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Been fighting for seven years now and ain't going (7+ / 0-)

    give up now.  See what is deemed, defended and supported in Tennessee and Virginia as quality health care http://www.wisecountyissues.com/...  Clearly in America Profit Care is more important than Patient Care !

    There will only be change when those unaffected are as outraged as those who are.

    by quidam56 on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 09:40:35 AM PST

  •  I have contacted both of my republican Senators, (9+ / 0-)

    Cornyn and Hutchinson as well as my republican rep.  I have two college aged daughters who will be able to stay on our insurance until the age of 26 because the chances of their liberal arts degrees helping them find a job in this economy are slim. They will probably continue their educations while they wait on the economy to catch up.  I was for a public option, which we did not get, but I want to keep that which we did.

    Never kick a fresh turd on a hot day. Harry Truman

    by temptxan on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 09:42:47 AM PST

  •  no opportunity (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sylv, Eclectablog, SoCalSal, kareylou

    for Democrats to finally stand up and defend the good parts of the bill, and there are good parts, should be ignored.

    Eventually, if we want to move forward with expanding affordable health care, getting to single payer or a medicare or mandated government based insurance program of some sort, we have to make the case for health care being a right not the privilege of the wealthy.

    We need to point out that employer based health insurance is a chimera in economic hard times as the number of uninsured continue to grow.  We need to argue for more price controls, the great central fault of the current law.  

    We may not need to fight for Obama, though it make good short term political sense to do so, but we need to fight for ourselves and working Americans who continue to lose out in today's economy.  

  •  Nope. If They Can't Do That Without Me (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bluicebank, cybrestrike

    they can't do it with me either.

    I'm going to stick to other progressive issues.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 09:47:01 AM PST

  •  Here's the thing, it isn't a fight at all (8+ / 0-)

    it's Kabuki, with the Refuglycans wearing the face paint this time. But thanks for showing Americans what they got for their votes. I'm sure they want this issue to preoccupy Congress while unemployment burns out of control just as much as they did the last time.

    It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness - Eleanor Roosevelt

    by Fish in Illinois on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 09:50:01 AM PST

  •  I'd be talking about jobs. (13+ / 0-)

    Relitigating healthcare should be of no concern to Democrats in Congress, the White House, or rank and file Democrats.

    Anytime a Republican brings up any issue, i'd start talking about jobs as if they had said nothing.

  •  It's all theater. (4+ / 0-)

    The Pachyderms do this all the time.  Come up with some random foe (this time, HIR), rile up their base of useful idiots, and when their hairbrained scheme gets rightfully shot the fuck down (which it would've been in the first place), claim that the Democrats aren't willing to obey the will of the people.

    Of course, the 'people' in this case are the usual suspects--the xenophobes, racists, sexists, homophobes, free market fetishists, breeders, firearm masturbationists, economic masochists, misogynists, neoconservatives, etc that form the tried and true abhorrent base of the Republican Party aka the Tea Party.

    So, no, I won't fight.  Because this is kabuki directed at the Pachyderm base.  And quite frankly we've got bigger fights to prep for.  Debt ceiling/Social Safety Net battle royale, anyone...?

    "Deals come after we fight for ideals -- let's do that first." -Rep. Anthony Weiner

    by cybrestrike on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 09:57:27 AM PST

  •  Until Americans change their (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cybrestrike, Eclectablog

    cultural beliefs regarding heathcare there isn't much we can do. They don't try or understand. Most are made we didn't get universal care even though some parts of the bill are good.

    However, the fight is the WH and Dems to take on, not me. The republicans are already framing it as a job killing bill. How is getting rid of pre-existing conditions and paying for preventive job killing?

    Every difference of opinion, is not a difference of principle. Thomas Jefferson

    by coffejoe on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 09:58:06 AM PST

    •  In DC, up is down, and vice versa. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eclectablog

      We live in an era where DC claims that returning tax rates to where they were when the economy was booming is a 'tax increase', where End of Life Care is a 'Death Panel', and where bipartisanship is doing whatever the Pachyderms want.  Oh, and where the deficit takes precedence over creating jobs.

      "Deals come after we fight for ideals -- let's do that first." -Rep. Anthony Weiner

      by cybrestrike on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 10:01:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Talk more about this. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eclectablog

      What is it that needs to change, culturally?

      I think you're on to something ... but how do we respect cultural diversity while still finding common ground?

      (e.g., for someone who says "If you don't work you shouldn't eat" and says "I'm a Christian and it says that in the Bible," what needs to change?  And how would that change happen?)

      Stop clapping. Stop screaming. Open your mind. Listen.

      by Benintn on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 10:13:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good question (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eclectablog, kareylou, laker

        Some things culturally IMO
        We don't understand why it is expensive to administer care. For example, we don't understand the skills and training it takes for each person working on you at a hospital. You can't reduce cost by reducing the training or skills.

        Cost is high but why?  Is it over supply? Is it demand? It it really the chronic? Do we need four Cancer hospitals in one city?

        We have to pay for it somehow. We don't mind paying $100 a month for our cell phone bill but if asked to pay a $100 a month for healtcare, most would scream.

        We want Doctors to play god. If a person has prenatel they still want the OB/GYN to fix any problems upon delivery.

        I am not sure how to change it culturally. Maybe, applying the individual rights thing. Maybe, trying harder to sell universal healthcare by a flat tax an all? However, it takes a leader that can sell healthcare, it takes a media willing to research and report, it takes pushback and an informed people.  

        Every difference of opinion, is not a difference of principle. Thomas Jefferson

        by coffejoe on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 10:34:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  us vs. them (me vs. you) needs to change (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kareylou

        being a heterogenous society it is so easy to stake out territory / create divisions rather than to see our own needs as analogous to the needs of society and thus the benefit for individuals flows from the benefits provided to society as a whole. For the moment we continue to see this in things like policing, firefighting and infrastructure like highways etc., because those things are immediate and in your face and obvious and benefits can be perceived for the individual as well as the group (as in "I don't need 24-7-365 fire protection because that would be really costly, but I do want them to show up really fast when my house catches fire... so, yeah, I understand that is good for everyone as well as myself"). Healthcare, however, being long-term, complex, and focused on the individual in private is more likely something that a competitive me-me-me society stumbles over, especially if you look at your neighbor and think "they're not like me".

  •  Is this ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cybrestrike

    Will YOU fight the repeal of health insurance reform?

    ... a trick question?

    History will witness that Barack Obama was America's first self-rolling president.

    by Wom Bat on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 10:04:05 AM PST

  •  I figure if the admnistration... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bluicebank, cybrestrike

    wants to single-handedly repeal parts of the bill on its own (check the stories about end-of-life proposals), I'll not bother fighting to try and stop repeal either.

    They can do it on their own.

    More and Better Democrats

    by SJerseyIndy on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 10:06:46 AM PST

    •  Just to repeat what should be obvious... (5+ / 0-)
      ...(if you read the NYT article on this), end-of-life care was never part of the health insurance reform law. You're in the wrong diary.

      To be clear, it's "EClectablog", not "Electablog".
      Visit me at Eclectablog.

      by Eclectablog on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 10:16:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Just to repeat: (5+ / 0-)

        Capitulating on health care issues, whether part of the HIR bill or not, is still capitulation.

        As the article notes:

        The provision for advance care planning was not included in the final health care overhaul signed into law by President Obama. Health policy experts assumed that the proposal had been set aside — until a similar idea showed up in the final Medicare regulation in November.

        So what the administration did was discovered that something the Republicans successfully fought to exclude in HIR was included in Medicare regulation. So they went and changed the regulation. Why? Why not simply let the regulation remain? It already went into effect.

      •  Of course it wasn't. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        laker, orestes1963, radv005

        Because, once again, a spineless administration led by a spineless President refused to fight for it and instead pulled that part of the bill.

        Then, they subsequently tried to get what they wanted anyway... by way of a regulation including the verbage later.

        And then, the retreated once again.

        Because spinelessness is like that...

        More and Better Democrats

        by SJerseyIndy on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 10:28:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wow, you really need a civics lesson (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ThisIsMyTime
          Presidents do not write or pass bills. Congress does.

          To be clear, it's "EClectablog", not "Electablog".
          Visit me at Eclectablog.

          by Eclectablog on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 10:43:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ah, the famed... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            laker, Joieau

            "blame Congress!" meme.

            Which usually is contradicted later by POTUS supporters by failure to give Congress credit and instead afford it all to POTUS.

            The double-standards stink to high heaven.

            That said: you'll note it was a POTUS who forced verbage in congressional bills regarding the removal of funds for F-22s.

            But it was, I suppose, worth a shot at once again trying to somehow insinuate the POTUS has no bearing on legislation...

            failed as the attempt was.

            More and Better Democrats

            by SJerseyIndy on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 10:55:54 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's a fair criticism (0+ / 0-)
              I was referring specifically to your comment that the President "pulled that part of the bill". He did not.

              For the record, I have given both Congress (particularly Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid) their props as well as President and his administration.

              To be clear, it's "EClectablog", not "Electablog".
              Visit me at Eclectablog.

              by Eclectablog on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 11:25:58 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Your are "technically" correct. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                laker

                "He" didn't pull the language.

                But it seems ridiculous to hide behind the shield of technicalities when anyone and everyone who was paying attention knows exactly how it went down:

                1. The language was in the House-passed bill
                1. Palin and wingnuts had a hissy
                1. POTUS tried to push back
                1. He got owned in the debate by allowing "death panels" to take root
                1. He pushed for, if you'll remember, waiting for Grassley and the committee
                1. Grassley piled on with pull the plug on grandmom
                1. The language got pulled in the committee with Grassley

                The POTUS legitimized it by complacency, inaction, and failure. And then legitimized the guy on the committee who was, if we're to be completely technical, the big push to remove it from Baucus' precious piece of legislation we all had to wait for while Teabaggers screamed.

                It's not like that debacle is tough history to remember.

                It was just last year when they caved, before now caving again.

                More and Better Democrats

                by SJerseyIndy on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 01:11:17 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  but the Obama admin (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            laker

            took it out, in a rather pathetic (really pathetic and lame) way

  •  I'll fight for liberal policy and for repeal. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    radv005

    All day yesterday I heard on NPR about how Obama has declared his health care reform the END OF THE PROGRESSIVE PROJECT and that now both parties should aim to make the wealthy wealthier.

    Well, I'll take his word for it. This policy designed to FIRST concentrate wealth and THIRD (maybe) improve some well-to-do folk's health care (maybe) is truly the wrong direction for the Democratic party.

    We progressives should fight against this outrageous policy that forces Americans to buy worthless pet-rock "insurance" policies to BAIL OUT insurance corps. And that's all this policy does. It's a bail out of insurance companies so that they don't have to pay out on the products they sold to insure hospitals against non-payment and at the same time give them new customers.

    It's outrageous, it is far from progressive and I will be fighting for repeal. This may be the one good thing we get from the Republican House.

    Even if they only make it worse, that will create incentive for a REAL fix later on.

    Down with HCR!!!

    •  Oh my...here is a true Republican with (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      IL JimP, SoCalSal

      republican talking point. It is shameful that you are allowed in this community. Your comment should be HR'ed not to embarrass this site.

      ...We have many more issues that bind us together than separate us!

      by ThisIsMyTime on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 11:45:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  nope, his comment is both accurate ... (0+ / 0-)

        ... most certainly not the Republican talking point.

        It seems DKos is only interested in one point of view these days (terribly boring and mono-tone), anyone posing a different point of view is stomped on and called a Republican - that is truly embarrassing.

        •  Hah! This type of comment proves to me... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sylv, ThisIsMyTime, IL JimP
          ...that, over the long term, Daily Kos is safe from becoming a one-voice pony. When people on both sides of any particular issue are hollering "This place is just becoming a haven for people I disagree with!" then I think we're in good shape.

          The only times I will ever be part of stifling commentary is if someone is making inflammatory or alarmist claims about something important that is not backed up by any facts whatsoever, only upon speculation. I am very rarely part of such an attempt to dial back someone expressing their opinions but there are some instances when it's worth calling folks on their bullshit. Deep Harm's Rec Listed diary about the massive bird and fish die-offs in Arkansas the other day is an example of that. It was full of inuendo suggesting there was some sort of nefarious cover up and that it was obvious that people were being lied to. I objected to that claim because there simply weren't facts to prove it.

          And, at the end of the day, I'm not even sure you could say that calling someone on their bullshit even constitutes stifling commentary.

          To be clear, it's "EClectablog", not "Electablog".
          Visit me at Eclectablog.

          by Eclectablog on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 12:00:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  It was noted somewhere (0+ / 0-)

      above that if the 'Pukes can't repeal on a straight up or down (which won't even get to the Senate floor, so can ONLY be Kabuki), they'll go after specific provisions one by one. If they do, I'd love to see the mandate go down.

      I'm guessing not many kossacks are close enough to real poverty to grok that forcing people who ARE close to poverty to spend even $100 a month on junk insurance that doesn't cover anything, that's $100 those people won't have to get even the most rudimentary basic health care when they need it. Think about that - the cost for walking in to an urgent care clinic to get a prescription for antibiotic when you need it is $300 even here in grossly underserved and poverty stricken rural southern Appalachia. Where public health clinics serve only children and pregnant women at or below poverty level, and only if they're not on Medicaid (which has a 2-3 year waiting list). That's three months' worth of premiums for a worthless junk insurance policy that wouldn't cover a dime. So MORE people struggling hard to get by will die from lack of access to health care than do now. But Obama can (and will) claim in his 2012 campaign that he "fixed" health care in this country because more people are (forced to be) insured. And people who have had no problems accessing health care when they need it will believe him.

      That's a catch-22 of fatal proportions and needs to go away.

      Now, more than ever, we need the Jedi.

      by Joieau on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 03:14:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yep, unfortunately... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joieau
        I'm betting that, for all their gnashing of teeth, the mandate is the one thing they WON'T repeal. Still, if they break it, in a few years there might be the political will to push for single-payer or at least a public option. Hell, I'd even be willing to the let the Repukes take the credit for the debt savings a single-payer system would get us.
  •  Those who sat out the election (5+ / 0-)

    because they felt like not enough was being done have themselves to thank for this push by Republicans to repeal.

    Progress is made by pushing the bar forward.  Nature abhors a vacuum and so does politics.  Volunteering to be irrelevant causes the opposition to eagerly step in.

    Notice that none of the Republican speeches and TV comments say anything about being polite in letting the other side have a shot.  

    They have been pushing and pushing for at least 50 years.  When they couldn't get progress, they kept at it anyway.

    You never hear conservatives proclaim that a great strategy would be sitting out the vote in order to make a point.  

    That lesson, unfortunately, will have to be learned again and again.  That is mostly the reason Republicans win and when they do, they tell the story their way and that is how people understand it.  Those who lose elections don't write the story.  

    hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

    by Stuart Heady on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 11:11:18 AM PST

  •  itskevin (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sylv, ThisIsMyTime, Eclectablog

    is reporting for duty!

    PS. I don't usually refer to myself in the third person. ;-)

  •  I am in the side of the people. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sylv, Eclectablog

    It is amazing that this is what this party is set up to do first. These people are willing to destroy this country in order to make this President look bad. They disgust me and anyone that aligns with them. Just pitiful.

    ...We have many more issues that bind us together than separate us!

    by ThisIsMyTime on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 11:40:57 AM PST

  •  Animal trainers say: ignore negative behaviors. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    laker

    Take a deep breath.

    It doesn't matter what the House does. HCR reform won't pass the Senate, and it sure as hell won't get the 2/3 of both houses needed to override a certain Obama veto.

    The House GOP knows this. Their "repeal" effort is about grandstanding to their idiot base, not about real policy.

    The Dems need to be the grownups on this. If we give the GOP even negative attention, we reinforce their behavior, and we give our base the idea that we're easily panicked idiots.

    So we need to ignore it. Let'em have their vote. Then...nothing happens. End of story.

    "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

    by HeyMikey on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 12:05:03 PM PST

    •  I have to say... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kareylou
      ...that idea frightens me. I think the Republicans are going to use this to get the big monied astroturfers back in the game and to rile their base up, all to be used for some future conservative initiatives.

      I don't agree that we always have to protest teabaggers and whatnot but I have to disagree with you on this. I think we need to fight back to make sure that the gains we've made stay made and not repealed.

      To be clear, it's "EClectablog", not "Electablog".
      Visit me at Eclectablog.

      by Eclectablog on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 12:16:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Pick your battles. (0+ / 0-)

        I think we need to fight back to make sure that the gains we've made stay made and not repealed.

        I agree 100%. But put your energies into fighting battles we might actually otherwise lose. And there are plenty of those. This one we're gonna win without lifting a finger. Every hour or dollar spent on a cakewalk is an hour or dollar that can't be spent on a real fight.

        I think the Republicans are going to use this to get the big monied astroturfers back in the game and to rile their base up, all to be used for some future conservative initiatives.

        Oh, certainly. And there's not a damn thing we can do about it. In fact, us overreacting probably helps their fundraising.

        Notice how the GOP lost significant evangelical support in 2008? It's because a lot of evangelicals started to realize they'd been played for fools for 3 decades. The GOP gets them all riled up with talk about gays and abortions and porn, but delivers nothing on those fronts. Gay rights continue to expand, and zillions of abortions continue to happen every year, and the courts at most nibble around the edges of the right to abortion, and don't even do much of that. And porn is freely available to every preteen with an internet connection.

        We don't want to make a similar mistake. Let's rile up our base for things that are real threats--and like I said, there are plenty of those. Otherwise we risk our credibility.

        "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

        by HeyMikey on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 01:53:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Yes, ignore negative behaviors. (0+ / 0-)

    That's why I hate the capitulation. I just know that some political "genius" in the WH is saying that they can beat them at their own game by pre-conceding on certain points.  But they just enable the other side to ratchet it up because they know that the Dems will pre-concede again and think they're being smart. It's very very stupid and very very bad for the party. Push back on bullies, it's the only thing that works.

  •  Always call their bill "Chickens for Checkups" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eclectablog


    Thank you, Sue Lowden.

    ....the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. FDR 1933

    by Tailspinterry on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 01:20:33 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site