Gibbs: By next Sunday, healthcare reform will be 'law of the land'

[kpete]

Source: The Hill


Gibbs: By next Sunday, healthcare reform will be 'law of the land'
By Walter Alarkon - 03/14/10 09:59 AM ET

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the healthcare bill will pass by next weekend.

"We'll have the votes when the House votes, I think, within the next week," Gibbs said on "Fox News Sunday."

Gibbs added that those on next week's Sunday talk shows "will be talking about healthcare not as a presidential proposal but I think as the law of the land."

President Barack Obama will look to campaign on the new healthcare law in midterm elections, Gibbs said.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/86623-gibbs-by-next-sunday-healthcare-will-be-law-of-the-land

[wisteria]

1. I honestly can not wait for all this to be over and the bill to pass.

I really hope he is correct. The entire process has gone on for way too long. We did not frame it correctly, we allowed the Republicans to sell it to the American people as a dangerous step into mediocre medicine and tax increases, and we permitted the media to run a-muck with misinformation and untruths. Going forward, I hope this administration has learned a lesson on how to really deal with the Republican/media machine for the sake of future legislation.

[Faygo Kid]

2. Me too. Get this passed, then improve it.

I know how controversial it is here at DU, but it does have good provisions. Also a stick in the eye to the Republican naysayers, which is a good thing. I totally agree with your last sentence, too.

[gorfle]

21. There will be no chance to improve it.

I predict that this health care bill will be the Democratic Party's albatross in the next election.

It will provide no meaningful alternative to private insurance, which means most people will continue being slaves to corporate profits while simultaneously expanding a huge welfare program for the uninsured.

It will completely demoralize progressives and completely motivate conservatives. It will be the 2012 follow up to the anti-firearm backlash of 1994.

[ShortnFiery]

24. Yes, many wanted to hurry up and invade Iraq in order to get it OVER.

Guess what, the DAMAGE we do is not ever "over."

This is a bad bill and should NOT be passed. :grr:

[New Dawn]

31. Exactly, once "health insurance" is mandated, expect premiums to skyrocket.

And coverage will be massively slashed. If passed, this bill will absolutely doom the Democratic Party in future elections.

[dflprincess]

40. Actually, many, if not most of the uninsured won't qualify for welfare (as you put it)

The income cap for Medicaid will go to 150% of the poverty level, which is really low. Other people who are currently uninsured may qualify for subsidies of their insurance premiums, but they will still be on the hook for their out of pocket expenses. The income limits for premium subsidies are also out of touch with reality.

If you want to talk about this bill increasing welfare it's the corporate welfare program it creates by handing tax money over to the for profit vultures who make their money by denying us access to health care.

[AlinPA]

3. Agree. IMO, the real reason the HCR bills have received the negative reactions has been the

detailed 24/7 coverage of nearly every step of the legislative process.

This is a good thing and we can see the problems and react.

But, in my lifetime I have never seen this much coverage of any legislation.

People are "watching the sausage being made" and see the ugly process and the people fighting while making the "sausage". The bills do include some bad legislation, but again, the "sausage making process" covered in great detail by the media is a big reason for the negative reactions.

[liberation]

15. Who is this "we" you are referring to?

[Dulcinea]

17. We can only hope. eom

[SandWalker1984]

4. Go read laughingliberal's DU post about the bill, then see if you're still celebrating

What the House is about to pass is the Senate version, which is not really about health care reform but rather about INSURANCE PROFIT PROTECTION. It's TARP reshaped as a health care bill.

The best the Senate could come up with in the name of health care reform is a bill that gives little to Americans while greatly benefiting the health care industry -- the very corporations that created the health care crisis leading to the demand for health care reform. It rewards the perpetrators and fines the victims if they cannot afford the mandated insurance servitude! How insane and broke is our system.

The Senate will not go against their corporate masters by passing a reconciliation bill. That's reality.

Mandated corporate profits with lots of loopholes (read the Ensign amendment if you don't believe me) so the insurance corporations can increase your deductibles, deny treatment and increase your premiums. It's all about THEM.


If you're smart enough to see thru what the Senate is attempting to do, then call your House Rep to tell them to vote NO.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bc3000]

5. I thought it didn't even start for like 4 years?

[JTFrog]

7. Link here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x221805

[bc3000]

10. thank you.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

6. Won't this just make the insurance companies more powerful?

isn't mandating the purchase of insurance just another way to give these
companies even more power?

Isn't that just what they want?

[Donnachaidh]

16. It's Campaign Contribution Security for the DLC.

Who cares if it hands more power to the insurance cartels -- the party has CASH boys and girls! And Scotus just welded the last chain in place on Mr. and Mrs. Middle Class.

CHAINS we can believe in!

[SlingBlade]

8. Fox News Sunday ! What an appropriate venue to proclaim

the death of the Democratic Party than on FoxNews.

[SandWalker1984]

9. Economic FASCISM: corporate-directed health care instead of physician-directed

Economic fascism: corporate-directed health care instead of physician-directed public option at cost

March 13
Carl Herman

We hold these Truths to be self-evident...Three out of five Americans want universal health care, as do three out of five US physicians. If corporate media were to communicate the cost-benefit analyses accurately, those numbers would increase because these studies assert that Americans would save between $100 billion and $300 billion every year.

These savings would cover everyone in the US while saving each of the ~100 million US households $1,000 to $3,000 every year.

The savings come from eliminating excessive and repetitive bureaucratic costs of multiple “health” insurance companies, their advertising, and profits that combined account for nearly one of every three dollars paid for health care. These added costs result in the US paying twice as much per person as every other developed nation while US average health declines relative to developed nations with universal health programs.

Universal health care would eliminate the conflict of interest we currently suffer from, as “health” companies maximize their profit by denying physician-directed health care. In typical Orwellian propaganda, the argument against universal health care is that government will take-over your health care when it’s just the opposite: under our current system corporate agents approve or deny services while under universal health care physicians would make their best calls in consultation with you. Government would have the role of insurance and regulation, just as they currently regulate health and safety industries.

Quality would remain unaffected as physicians could choose to accept or reject government sponsored insurance as they do today. Americans would have greater freedom of choice by choosing any physician who accepts the only insurance plan. From the savings of eliminating the “middle man” of insurance companies, part could be directed to health care professionals so they could receive a raise while consumers lower their costs.

A related problem is the cartel of pharmaceutical companies colluding with our government “leaders” for padded industry profits. Dr. Marcia Angell, former Editor in Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine and currently a Senior Lecturer at Harvard Medical School documents:

The combined profits for the ten drug companies in the Fortune 500 ($35.9 billion) were more than the profits for all the other 490 businesses put together ($33.7 billion).

Dr. Angell concludes that US government will never provide universal health care because both political parties’ “leadership” obeys health insurance companies’ lobbyists rather than legislate for the public good.

We know that government colludes in “health” insurance and pharmaceutical profit-gouging because the level of profits is prima facie evidence of non-competition that, like Wall Street banksters receiving transfers from US taxpayers of literally TRILLIONS of our dollars, occurs with permission of government.

When corporate cartels collude with government, this is economic fascism.

As I wrote in making the case that the US is fascist rather than a constitutional republic:

The definition of “fascism” has some academic variance, but is essentially collusion among corporatocracy, authoritarian government, and controlled media and education....

American corporatocracy is dominated by Enron-like cartels, headed by banks receiving the transfer of TRILLIONS of our tax dollars to pay-off their gambling debts in exotic derivative markets the federal government regulates only in empty rhetoric. This socialization of corporate-insiders’ losses is fascist, and fundamentally in opposition of the American ideal of cooperative competition on a level playing field. Obvious financial solutions for the public good are ignored in their corporate and not public policy commitment.

The health care policy for the public good is explained in the 5-minute speech of Congressperson Alan Grayson proposing Medicare for all Americans and in the 8-minute discussion of Congressperson Dennis Kucinich on “Countdown.”

Webster Tarpley also makes the case:
I urge you to reject the Obama health care bill. This is not reform; it is a bailout of bankrupt insurance companies at the expense of average working people, obtained through coercion and extortion. Forcing Americans to buy insurance from private, for-profit, deregulated companies is clearly unconstitutional. The idea of a mandate to purchase insurance is a reactionary Republican invention, and we want no part of it. Furthermore, this bill’s $500 billion in Medicare cuts are a direct attack on the economic rights of Americans implemented under the New Deal and the Great Society, and will cause incalculable suffering and human tragedy. These colossal Medicare cuts will inevitably result in rationing, delay, and the denial of care, causing patients to die needlessly. The spirit of this bill is that of OMB Director Peter Orszag, the sinister Malthusian bureaucrat who is behind recent attempts to deny Americans Pap smears, mammograms, and PSA tests – as cost-cutting measures.

Choose well; our collective future, and your future, depend upon it.


http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-18425-LA-County-Nonpartisan-Examiner~y2010m3d13-Economic-fascism-corporatedirected-health-care-instead-of-physiciandirected-public-option-at-cost

[nightrain]

11. thank you for posting this article. Excellent summary of these exceedingly

important ramifications and implications!!

In the future some will be asking "How the hell did we get into this worse mess?" Here we go, into the mire...

[liberation]

18. And a lot of people never learn....

Look at NAFTA, look at the patriot act, look at the bank de-regulation legislation, look at FISA, look at...

Bills which a lot of people complained and warned about, and were told to "not worry, the details will be worked out later." And yet a lot of people in DU want this passed ASAP so that their pretty minds don't have to be bothered with something as "trivial" as the health care of 300+ million people. Because, the pols in DC have such an "stellar" track record of passing bad legislation and amend it to make it better.

Oh, well. Good luck, at least I have a great health plan and I can always go to the old country if things get really bad. Maybe people here do really need to hit rock bottom before they wake up? Have expectations sunk so low that people are really advocating going from "hope/change/yes we can" to "it is what it is/nothing we can do about it?"

[defendandprotect]

23. Agree -- great article -- !!! Sen. Bernie Sanders says we can have MEDICARE FOR ALL for same $$ ...

we're spending now!!

And I'd venture to say, we'd probably begin to save money as we turned from

corporate/for profit care to preventive care --

[nightrain]

36. it sure looks like we'd have more than enough money for care

if there wasn't the 30% lopped off the top!!

[defendandprotect]

48. And, we're now paying $635 MILLION a year to protect our US Embassy in Iraq????

I keep repeating this because it just keeps echoing thru my mind --

This is the new Taj Mahal of an Embassy -- unbelievable!!!

An how much of the public is even aware of all this?

Especially, those who are going broke paying for this garbage!!

[nvme]

13. I dont have anything new to add

I just feel sick in the pit of my stomach over the "public option" is not included. I watched, chimed in to :the whitehouse, my senators, pelosi and it was never to be. The tea-baggers are correct in their outrage over not being represented. America's experiment is changing and I fear its not for the better. the disconnect between john Q Citizen and their legislative representative is boldly demonstrated by the actions of the senate. Funding for future campaigns takes precedence over making good law. With mandates on purchasing insurance and no vehicle to compete with the insurance cartels, this law is in essence a bailout.
We lost this battle.
Perhaps, a way around this is public financing and/or term limits.

[No Elephants]

32. Both public financing and term limits will require a Constitutional amendment.

What are the odds of that?

And even if both are amended, that does nont guarantee an improved health care bill.

If we go the Constitutional amendment route, though, I'd go for public financing, with strict limits on both soft money and corporate contributions, plus an amendment directly dealing with single payer. Then, voters just may have to take care of term limits themselves. AFter all, being a citizen of a democracy does come with some responsiblities. (Congress is never going to pass a resolution to amend the Constitution for term limits anyway.)

ETA: Belated welcome to DU. As you can tell, "I feel your pain."

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[jonathon]

19. In one week, mandated private insurance will be forced onto the American citizens

And, declared as health care reform.

This is the beginning of the fight, not the end.

[nightrain]

38. I look forward to the constitutional challenges to the mandate.

[AlinPA]

20. "We'll have the votes when the House votes, I think, within the next week," How many times

have we heard that same statement? This HCR/Insurance reform is in serious trouble if they don't have the votes already. Or last week. It is a mess and every day it looks more and more like DeMint will get his mission accomplished.

[defendandprotect]

22. What he means is Health Care DEFORM . . . Horray for corporatism!!!

[Raine]

25. What a victory for insurance

and big pharma. Money well spent buying the leaders of this country off, they got what they paid for. x(

[Unvanguard]

26. Here's hoping. n/t

[humbled_opinion]

27. Yes I just can't wait

To be forced under penalty of law to buy health Insurance from the corrupt health insurance industry.

The best thing that can happen to this bill after Obama signs it, is for it to go to the Supreme Court where it will be determined that it does not meet a constitutional muster and from there it should be filed in the waste basket of History.

If our elected officials had started with a Public Option or a Medicare buy in there would be no further discussion on this and it would already be law.

[emsimon33]

28. Without a public option

By next Sunday, our party will be on hospice.

[Dinger]

34. Yup (nt)

[emsimon33]

47. Certainly looks that way

[Skink]

29. So in a week we start lobbying to open medicare as a competing plan for all.

but insurance companies can't drop anybody.

[No Elephants]

30. If you know a lobbyist who will lobby for that, good luck. Otherwise, I think you'll be wasting

your time. I'm done wasting mine.

I've been calling and emailing Democrats in the House, Senate and WHfor over a year, at least once weekly, for single payer or a robust public option. I've also been signing every internet petition that came my way. Democrats don't seem to feel a need to listen to voters/consumers on either of those issues. They passed a bill whose parameters I believe were agreed on between the WH and Big Health. And now, they want to pass it again, with a few tweaks.

If history teaches us anything, the odds of changing this bill for the better are slim. IMO, the only hope at this point is a successful constitutional challenge by someone who falls under the mandate. On the bright side, I think that is coming.

[Skink]

33. We can open up Medicare in a seperate bit of legislation.

that will then usher in competition.

[No Elephants]

35. I just addressed that point in Reply 30. See also, Liberation's Reply 18.

As far as Medicare for all, that would be HR 676, which has been floating around Congress since 2005 and still has never made it as far as the CBO. And they just rejected a proposal to make Medicare available to those over 55, whose premiums may triple under this bill. They also just rejected re-importation of drugs from Canada. They also just rejected even a delayed, very lame public option.

If you want to keep hope alive in your own heart anyway, as I said, good luck. As for me, I don't see a realistic possiblity for what you propose. I'm done.

[tclambert]

37. Didn't Grayson already introduce a bill to do just that?

Last I heard he had 50 co-sponsors.

[No Elephants]

39. Introducing a bill and getting one enacted into law are 2 VERY different things. Again, please

see my Reply # 30 as to HR 676 and the more recent history of this bill and Liberation's Reply #18 as to improving bills after Democrats pass them as "a first step."

But, no, that's not what Grayson's bill proposes. HR 676, which technically is still pending, I believe (though in reality probably a dead duck) proposes medicare for all, aka single payer. Grayson's bill proposes medicare as an option.

And, if you still want to believe that Grayson's bill has a realistic chance of becoming law, again, I wish that hope the best of luck. I don't think it is realistic, but I wish it luck. I'd like nothing more. However, after over a year of working as hard as I could, I won't be writing any more emails or making any more calls.

eta: Hr 676 btw, had about 100 co-sponsors, none of whom bothered to get it as far as the CBO or fight for it once Obama got into office. And a doctor got arrested and then questioned by the Secret Service for trying to recommend it to Obama a few months ago.

They're in Washington three days a week. They may as well file something they think will impress the folks back home, whether it has a realistic chance of ever becoming law or not.

[dflprincess]

41. Not just a lobbyist, but someone who will write large campaign

"contribution" checks.

[No Elephants]

43. Goes without saying. Otherwise, I'd be a lobbyist. Of course, I did write

checks to the DNC and the Obama campaign. But, they don't count because they weren't large enough.

[Ignis]

49. Wow, that's a really dark, cynical view, NE.

Pity it's also spot on. :(

[customerserviceguy]

42. Did Gibbs have any idea

when he thought the reconciliation bill will pass? That's the one I'm waiting to see.

If we get the Senate bill without any "fix" of any kind, you can kiss the Democratic Party goodbye in this country for a decade.

[No Elephants]

44. He says "it" will be the law of the land, but he does not say whether "it"

will be the Senate bill or the reconciliation bill.

When the Civil Rights Act passed, Lyndon Johnson supposedly said something like, "We will lose the South for a generation (or two decades). That was in 1964.

I'd be surprised if Johnson actually said that because he should have known better. In reality, the Solid Democratic South became the Solid Republic South more gradually--and over 46 years have past sine 1964 and we still have not regained the "Solid South." Once your family, friends and neighbors change, it affects succeeding generations.

I'd cut off my right arm before I lit it mark a ballot for a Republican. And I'll never not vote unless I die or lose my faculties.

But, if I can't get a Democrat I like on a ballot, I might write in another Democrat. And the DNC is going to have to go through a lot of changes it probably won't make before it sees another check from me.

I am never, ever, again going to make the mistakes I made 2007-2008.

[FunMe]

45. Enjoy your "victory" (short-term)

No Public Option = NO reelection for those DC clowns.

Ignore your voting base ... your voting base will ignore you!

[Triana]

46. Well they locked it but it's relevant nonetheless

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7917598

"President Barack Obama will look to campaign on the new healthcare law in midterm elections, Gibbs said."

What a REVEALING statement . . .

[ShortnFiery]

50. I predict that due to this DRAMA, the midterms will be a political blood-bath for democrats. eom