Why are some of you so glad that meaningful Liberal Reform got beat down by Big Insurance?

[Armstead]

You remember Liberal Reform? The idea that government actually has a positive role to play in providing important public services and protections when the private sector either cannot or will, not provide it?

Healthcare provided a classic case of the need for liberal reform. The insurance industry has hijacked an essential public service sector, and made it unaffordable and really difficult on everyone.

The Reagan Conservative philosophy is that government is evil and ineffective. Instead we should trust the markets for everything, and market forces and "competition" will provide all that we need.

Democrats claimed they were going to reform healthcare. Those liberals thought the party leadership actually thought that meant using liberal solutions, like offering access to a public plan (Medicare or an equivalent). They actually thought it meant putting in place meaningful regulation of things like prices.

Silly liberals. The WH and Congressional leadership decided that the government should not have an active role in providing healthcare coverage. Not even in a tiny way. But they DID decide to force people to buy private insurance.

They forced healthcare reform to become Corporate Conservative Privatization on Steriods.

A lot of good Democrats fought hard for real liberal reform gto varying degrees -- but they were basically shot down, in favor of the ConservaDems who wanted to keepm thye government out, and protect the profits of insurance companies.

They didn't allow meaningful regulation. Just a few requests and minor obligations by insurerds that are far outweighed by the gift of millions of new enforced customers.

Thus liberals were forced to beg for crumbs, and go out in public and go through the humiliation of having to support a bill that they admit is a bad bill.

And so many of you are happy about this?

[Hannah Bell]

1. because they're going to make money on it? or know people who will?

or because their job is to support every policy coming out of this admin?

[Dinger]

88. Touché Hannah (nt)

[HughMoran]

2. Haven't yet met one person who is glad we didn't get all we were striving for

...many do see what we got as a big improvement though - I know it will help my small business tremendously - and community health clinics will help tens of thousands of poor people, so it's definitely progress - you can't argue with that.

[My Good Babushka]

4. That's exactly it

I would have loved to get single payer universal, but I can still be glad that millions of poor Americans are going to get a tremendous amount of help from the Medicaid and community health center expansion. It is still public option expansion. A lot of people want to dismiss it, but I think it is a very big step in the right direction.

[HughMoran]

9. I agree

It's OK to like this bill :hug:

[Armstead]

5. The gloating and bashing of liberal critics of this is palpable

As has been said before by myself and many others,

There are some good things hidden in the bill. But it was not necessary to give away the store to Big Private Insurance in the process, which is what this bill does.

It strengthens a bad system -- private and unaccountable and abusive big insurance companies -- by putting a slughtly "kinder and gentler" face on it.

But make no mistake. The defeat of even a mild public option or Medicare buy in plus NO real price regulation sends a signal that this bill is intended to prempt public healthcare coverage. It is not a step in the direction of further reform.

[HughMoran]

12. "Gloating and bashing"

hmmmm, I haven't seen this - perhaps people feel defensive about the constant bashing they get from those who want to silence those of us who see some good in this bill. I edited my post as you edited your subject line.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[Armstead]

20. Just read the board. You'll find plenty of examples.

As for "us vs. them" you must appreciate something.

We're told we don't want to help people. We've been called ideological purists. We were told we are foolishly seeking the "perfect as the enemy of the good." We've been called leftbaggers and more.


Many people who have been working and hoping for real reform started by being told that anyb form of single payer was taken off the table. Max baucus gets to run the show, and he refuses to even allow proponents of single payer universal cocverage to spoeakn before his panel.

We agreed to compromise by giving that up and settling for a "public option." But it continued to go steadily downhill from there.

An asshole like Ben Nelson is treated like a king and given everything he wanted, while liberals were told to sit down and shut up ans stop asking for anything.

Polls show majority of support for a public option, but it was taken out.

And when liberals tried harder to get their points in there, we were constantly told to sit down and shut up....And now that it is in the home stretch, the gloatfest among some peopel has cranked into high gear.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[Armstead]

25. "Are you fucking insane?" Listen to yourself.

I will admit that there have been excesses by people on both sides of this, including you and me.

That happens when people are passionate. It;s biz as usual on DU.

But set the emotional heat of the moment aside and look at the underlying context.

This bill is a defeat of liberal efforts to reform the healthcare system. Plain and simple. It has some concessi0ons to liberals but the underlying point is that it will further embed private insurance through mandates,

yes it helps a little. But it does more harm than good, if you believe in liberal government

You are free to disagree with that. But if so, tell me why that position is wrong on the merits, and why you are happy that it is passing in the larger picture,.

.

[HughMoran]

26. It really comes down to "glass half full versus half empty" thinking

I remember 1993.

It's been 16 years since.

That's all I'm going to say about this.

[pecwae]

30. Who has been threatening

"to kill those of us who see some good in this bill,"? No one. Speaking of hyperbole......

[HughMoran]

32. ...talk about taking an expression literally

I changed it to "silence" since using appropriately firm language upsets the delicate sensibilities of people like you.

[pecwae]

42. Then you realize it was OTT.

A step in the appropriate direction.

[Lerkfish]

17. well, I see a lot of gloating and bashing of liberals in regard to this bill

just like this post.

havent' seen as much of the other.

[HughMoran]

23. .

.

[AllentownJake]

3. Because the GOP members who weren't comfortable with Evangelicals running the show

Have done a hostile takeover of the DNC.

[Armstead]

7. Bingo

[ima_sinnic]

85. ++1 yes, it's all one big party now--the Corrupt Corporate Party (ngt)

[Laelth]

6. You pose a very good question.

I hope you get some good answers because I am curious too. I can only guess about their motivations--loyalty to the President, fear of facing the fact that (on this issue, at least, the Democratic Party sold out), or just "team player" mentality (it's just a game, and as long as my team wins, then "I" win).

But, honestly, I have no clue.

:shrug:

Kill the bill.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the answer to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth

[TreasonousBastard]

8. And why are some of you so incensed that we got any reform at all?

[Armstead]

11. I am not incensed we got some reform -- But it did not have to be done this way

This crap about "you oppose helping real people by criticizing this bill" is a strawman.

Everything that is good in this bill -- and more -- could have been done without the crap that was thrown in to strengthen the power of Big Insurance over us.

[TreasonousBastard]

37. You got a better way to get congress working? And "big insurance" is...

the real strawman here.

Maybe 200 milion with insurance they actually like, with Medicare and Medicaid facing bankruptcy and you think insurance is the problem...

[Armstead]

40. Thank you for making my point

Private insurance is so much better then government programs.

Nothing more need be said.

[TreasonousBastard]

41. Nice try-- but you haven't explained just how you got to be...

an authority on the subject. Nor have you cited anything to back up your opinions besides the common mantra of how insurance companies suck and are the cause of all our problems.

What health plan do you have? Do you have a work history or education in any field related to health care?

Or do you just like bandwagons?

[Armstead]

43. I was going to let this one slide, but sice you require an answer

You prefer private insurance to any goverment program.

Rather than improve Medicare and Medicaid, your answer is private insurance.

That is exactly the cornerstone of Conservative Ideology.If you are not a Republican you might as well be one because that is your true ideological home.

And, like all conservatives you claim that people who don't agree with you lack expertise...Well for your information, in my profession I have been covering and writing about health care for years...And not for some lefty journal but for business interests. And I know that most people in the healthcare industry believe the system is broken and they see insurance companies as a major part of the problem.

People are "happy" with insurance until they need it. I could tell you about my brother who used to think like you until wife had medical problems and they got stuck with $30,000 in debt even with insurance -- and he had to fight them just to get what benefits they did. Now he hates insurance companies and is an equally adamant supporter of universal health care.

[TreasonousBastard]

49. Who said I prefer private insurance? I'm well aware...

of the problems with insurance companies and have no bias toward either the public or private sector-- either one can do things very well, just some things better than others.

I spent half my working life insuring ships and cargoes, much of it as a manager, and know things about insurance companies that would stand your hair on end, but somehow all the complaining I hear misses the really bad stuff. That really bad stuff, btw, mostly involves the way they can disappear almost overnight. And then there's how how we constantly battled fraud. We estimated about 50% of the claims involved some fraud, but we rarely won, even with evidence of it, and we had to pay anyway.

My point is that we have hundreds of millions of people who are satisfied with their insurance and nothing has been proposed here to improve their lot. Just a lot of mewling about how they are probably screwed without anything but anecdotes to back it up. And a lot of misinformation about corporate profits and expenses, which you could have helped with if you know so much.

My anecdote is my brother who had a wife and son build up several hundred thousand in medical expenses "cheerfully" paid by his insurance company. And my mother and a few neighbors who are having lots of trouble with Medicare and the only way they survive is with their supplemental insurance that they pay dearly for. One neighbor may not survive because her doctor quit the practice and no other doctors will take Medicare.

My own healthcare is the VA, which is OK, but not great. In the past I've had great health insurance and lousy health insurance.

None these anecdotes is a true picture of either insurance or any government program.

And, yes, healthcare in this country is broken, but the blame, if there is any actual blame to be placed, is on everyone. Medicare will happily buy you a scooter but drives reimbursements down to below cost. And nobody wants to explain the high cost of dialysis or other such care.

I've seen a morning in the hospital for a test and a bill for $7,000. How's that the insurance company's fault? Or Medicare's, for that matter?

[Armstead]

56. I was going by what you said in your original post

This is my basic point.

Healthcare system is incredibly complicated, and there is much that is ripght and wrong with it.

because of that there are no simple answers or quick fixes.

But there does have to be a framwork. And one framework is to trust that insurance "markets" should be the sole gatekeeper. The other is that the government should take a strong and active role through strong regulation and/or providing coverage itself.

With all due respect to your industry, it is not set up to be the sole gatekeeper for something that is life and death. It may be useful for non-essentials, but it has a systemic bias against providing delivery of services. An insurance company would not be doing its job if it were not protecting the intetrests of its owners/shareholders.

Private insurance could continue, and may be preferable for many people in many situations. But it should not be in the position of holding the public hostage as the only source of unregulated coverage.

Public programs like Medicare are not perfect, obviously. But I would rather see us put effort into correcting their problems, and build that as a safety net for everyone.

Bottom line, IMO, is that the priority should be to ensure that the government has an active role in making sure that affordable baseline coverage is available to everyone.

This bill moves in the opposite direction from that goal.

[Kahuna]

44. No doubt they're the same people who unrec any positive financial news.

And they're calling *me* a troll. :wtf:

[Richardo]

10. They're the same people that are "happy" about the Afghan surge: i.e. NOBODY

Haven't read ONE post that asserts the Senate Bill is preferable to liberal reform. Not one. The argument is whether the Senate bill is preferable to nothing. That's it.


Try for a little bit less transparent attempt at a strawman next time.

[Armstead]

14. Go back and actually read some of the posts here

[Richardo]

15. Link me to one that says the Senate bill is better than single payor.

I've edited my post to be a little more clear.

[Armstead]

24. It would be easier to take if people were as blatant as that

Instead people celebrate a bill that goes in the wrong direction on a fundamental level.

This bill basically says "The private insurance system as it is needs some tinkering around the edges, but will continue to be the basis of our healthcare system forever.And we are going to enshrine that system with mandates that force people to buy private insurance. We are NOT going to offer any choice of a public option or increased access to Medicare. And we are going to rely on 'free market competition' to encourage insurance companies to please keep prices down, BUT we are not going to initiate real price controls."

By endorsing this bill so adamantly, it is the same as saying it is better than single payer.

[prolesunited]

31. Your premise is completely wrong.

Nobody is happy. It's determined resignation to move forward and continue to work toward goals. Show me who is "endorsing adamantly."

Destroying insurance companies was NEVER on the table.

And your last statement defies logical constructs.

[Armstead]

33. The tone is gleefully bashing those who oppose this bill

And make this clear -- Most critics of this bill accepted a huge compromise, and many of use were not out to destroy insurance companies.

But this bill goes in the wrong direction by strengthening the hold of private insurance. It is exactly the same as if they had started Social Security by forcing people to buy into private Wall investment funds. And without any reakl regulation or price controls.

Therefore if you want to push this bill through, you are endorsing a bill that explicitly KILLED the idea of a public option or expanded Medicare access.

In other words, this bill further entrenches privatization. That is not "compromise." It is utter capitulation to Ethe basic premise of Conservative Economics and Corporate Dominance over the public sector.

[HughMoran]

16. ding! ding! ding!

Don't stop calling a spade a spade.

Don't cave in to the constant bullying.

:hug:

[Armstead]

21. If it were simply a matter of saying that, I'd agree with you

But that is often mixed in with gleeful putdowns and insults.

For more please see my reply to Hugh below

[QC]

13. Because many people here aren't into issues so much as personalities and teams,

and they see it as a win for their team, a feather in the cap of a politician they have made into some sort of fantasy best friend.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. Bingo!

Their posts are all about Obama looking good, about not criticizing other Democrats.

It's like what happened in 1968 when some of the leftist critics of the Vietnam War refused to criticize the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia (which, unlike the Afghan incursion, was a real, uninvited invasion) because "I don't criticize fellow Marxists."

[QC]

54. I hav seen people here quoting (approvingly!) Reagan's 11th Commandment.

It's all about the team and the celebrities now.

[jonnyblitz]

67. they're fucking idiots and part of the problem. nt

[arcadian]

80. Wish I could rec this post.

[QC]

87. Thank you. n/t

[randr]

19. No one is glad about any of this fiasco

If there is desire for the the bill to fail on the part of some progressives it is due to the disgust we feel of the process and the more than obvious exposure of how well the corporate insurance demons have possessed our political body.
The real victory is in the hands of the few bluedog holdouts who have shown their corporate sponsors how high they are willing to jump.
The democratic party has just gained the favor of these assholes while we are thrown a few crumbs to fight over.
Anyone who does not understand how the insurance mob has compromised our health care system and how important it is to take their fangs out is not paying attention.

[flyarm]

27. maybe because they are on a payroll to spew shit here? eom

[Kahuna]

28. No one is "glad," as you put it. Most are disappointed as are our

liberal and progressive representatives. But we acknowledge certain political realities at play. Namely that, at this time it is IMPOSSIBLE to get through the "perfect" legislation that we would all want. And, that to go down in utter defeat, is more counter-productive than doing nothing at all. Capish.

[Armstead]

29. I capish that this is worse than nothing

The whole design of this bill is to undermine "the good" by further entrenching the power and wealth of private insurance.

Why the hell couldn't they do some modest good things without also advancing Corporate Conservatiuve Power?

It is not a matter of "the perfect vs. the good." It is a matter of "the good vs making it worse" which is what we are doing by increasing the power of Big Insurance over the system and out lives.

[Livluvgrow]

34. Beliefs

I think many people are handcuffed by their strong belief in the democrats. The Democrats are doing something so that must be a good thing. Doesn't matter that the mandates alone are going to seriously undermine many a Democratic candidate. They are cheerleading because of these beliefs and have lost the ability to think beyond their rigidity.

[stray cat]

35. Some of us don't believe peace and goodwill will suddenly appear in the house and senate

and bring prosperity to all. Dreams are great but not if they never accomplish anything practical

[Armstead]

36. How about using the mandate of 2008 and beginning to move ahead?

That would be preferable to failing by focusing on excuses for what we can't do rather than working on the basis of "Yes we can?"

[Lydia Leftcoast]

39. Yes, a smart tactician would have mobilized all the people who

voted for him so eagerly and hopefully.

If he had told all those people assembled in Grant Park on election night and watching those moments on TV, "One of the cornerstones of my campaign has been health care for all. I urge you to start working on this issue in your own states and putting pressure on your Congressional Representatives and Senators..." he would have had them fired up to go around doing citizen lobbying even before his inauguration.

[robo50]

45. Let's face it, NONE of us are "glad" with this, but we have not

figured out a way to eliminate a legally elected Senator from Connecticiut, and another one from the midwest someplace, and 40 others who are Republicans.

It's a shame and a bit of a sham, but it's all we have to work with, 40 Neanderthals and a couple of rather sleazy Democrats in the Senate, all driven by campaign finance costs, and the undue influence of those contributions.
It's a bitch, but it's reality. Sorry!

[WT Fuheck]

46. Is that a rhetorical question?

[Armstead]

48. Half rhetorical -- Half real curiousity

Maybe overstated, but not much.

The rah-rah, "if you don't cheer this bad bill you are not a good Democrat" tone of so many posts inspired it.

I cannot see why people who are supporters of the political party that is supposed to be the liberal half of the process are so enthused about a bill that ultimately contains some poison pills that do advance the conservative agenda of "privatized free market healthcare " and kills the possibility of government-run alternatives.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[QC]

51. The twin elephants in the living room. n/t

[gravity]

47. I am glad that we are going to pass meaningful reform

I wish Congress could do more, but the current healthcare bill is huge step in fixing our healthcare system.

[treestar]

52. When did you stop beating your wife?

Your question demands agreement with your conclusions.

Is putting some imaginary screws to insurance companies more important than people getting a way to pay for health care?

[ClarkUSA]

55. That's what I'd like to know, too.

:thumbsup:

[Armstead]

58. Why do hyou say they are mutually exclusive?

How about putting real screws to the insurance companies to make it possible for more people to get a way to buy affordable health care.

And, beyond that -- and my original point -- why are we buying into thye argument tghat shaped this bill, which is that "we can't have too much direct government involvement in healthcare" which is what I heard the driving Senators say too many times?

[ClarkUSA]

53. Above the constant anti-HCR din here at DU, Sen. Bernie Sanders and SEIU's Andy Stern speak for me.

Bernie Sander: "I have to deal with the reality, being a Congress member...":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=69439&mesg_id=69439

Bernie on Countdown: "We are working with the WH to make this bill better...":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=69408&mesg_id=69408

"SEIU's Andy Stern: Don't Kill the Bill. Fix It."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x71483

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Doing nothing or killing off any bill is an invitation to disaster.

It is difficult at best for me to see how most do not understand that nothing is in stone, there is still a Senate/House conference coming up, and if people act to ensure that their congresscritters know how they feel...by writing, calling e-mailing...just like the RW is doing, there will be better Bills forthcoming.

I have spent the last few weeks trying to get people to do this...instead, people decry everything on the pages of DU.

It takes action to get things done. If 1/4 of the energy expended on DU was spent hammering home the message to elected officials who can actually do something...we would not be seeing all of this going down."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=73794&mesg_id=78434

[Armstead]

59. Both of them were more nuanced than that

Neither of them gave a ringing endorsement and -- if you listened to Bernie before he decided there was no other alternative in tye last couple of days -- he said repeatedly when asked if he would support the bill "I don't know whether I'll be able to vote for it or not."

They are making the best of defeat of what they actually wanted.

Hardly a cause for celebration.

[ClarkUSA]

62. The fact that both of them are realistic about the need to pass HCR now should be instructive.

Hardly a cause to "Kill the Bill". BTW, Howard Dean walked back hard from that sentiment and echoed Andy Stern's and
Bernie Sander's realistic approach to HCR while praising Pres. Obama's hard work on the issue.

[Armstead]

68. If you were not so harsh against peopole who would like to see this done better....

you might recognize that some of us are not being as "unrealistic" as you like to claim.

"Realistic" does not have to mean utter defeat of what a majority of people actually wanted.

[ClarkUSA]

77. Pot, meet kettle.

Like I said, I'm on the side of a long list of distinguished legislators and public servants who are realistic enough want this
bill to pass and go into conference where much can be "fixed" and then signed into law, where it would be tweaked every
year just like Social Security and Medicare before it.

[Armstead]

83. But it can;t be "fixed" in conference -- Thatv was the "Nelson compromise"

If I am wrong about gthat and a public option or medicare buy in magically reappears I will happily eat crow.

But the steamroller trying to get a bill -- any bill -- passed by Christmas does not make that likely.

As for "pot meet kettle" ....Well we at least agree on something. :)

[ClarkUSA]

101. Much will be fixed in conference. I will put my trust in Sens. Boxer & Sanders, Rep. Weiner, etc.

I suspect you won't be satisfied with the final bill but I will because I understand that passing a perfect bill is not realistic.

"Doing nothing or killing off any bill is an invitation to disaster.

It is difficult at best for me to see how most do not understand that nothing is in stone, there is still a Senate/House conference coming up, and if people act to ensure that their congresscritters know how they feel...by writing, calling e-mailing...just like the RW is doing, there will be better Bills forthcoming.

I have spent the last few weeks trying to get people to do this...instead, people decry everything on the pages of DU.

It takes action to get things done. If 1/4 of the energy expended on DU was spent hammering home the message to elected officials who can actually do something...we would not be seeing all of this going down."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=73794&mesg_id=78434

[IndianaGreen]

57. They are DLCers, and they profit from the stocks they hold

To them, we are just little people that can easily be trifled with. We always vote for their candidates no matter what. Since they are never punished, why should they change their behaviour?

[Moochy]

60. GO OUR TEAM! DEMOCRATS, FUCK YEAH!

[Armstead]

61. Fooookin A!

[johnaries]

63. WTF? Can you show me a single post that says "I'm happy the PO

was killed"? Can you even show me a single post that says "I'm happy we aren't getting single-payer"?

Personally, I'm happy we are moving forward and getting some much-needed reform, even if only slightly. I am not happy that it has been watered down by Republicans and Conservative Dems.

[Armstead]

66. Maybe sklight overstatement -- but only slight

Read some of the nonsense from people who are agttacking "ideological purists" an d "b ill killers" and all the rest.

If you are not dancing on the grave of the Public Option or rubbing our noses in tghe great victory of discriminating medicare buy-in while mandating corporate insurance, then this does not apply to you.

[johnaries]

73. NO. It's a GROSS overstatement bordering on flamebait.

It is because of gross overstatements like this that generate comments like "ideological purists" etc.

No one is dancing on the grave of the Public Option or rubbing your noses in anything.

Please, let us have a civil discussion. Inflammatory statements that are simply untrue do not help.

I am very upset that many of the key positions I supportedhave been stripped out of the Senate bill. However, it still has a lot of good reform and cost containment measures. It doesn't go nearly far enough IMHO, but it is PROGRESS.

I sincerely wish the joint bill would reflect the House bill - but I'm not holding my breath. In the meantime, with the "Manager's Amendment" I can still support the Senate Bill over the current status quo.

Don't worry - I have plenty of animosity towards Lieberman, Nelson, and the other DINO's who have blocked better reform. But this is still a win, all things considered.

[Number23]

74. Beautifully said.

[Armstead]

76. I am all for civil diuscussion -- But I'm not going to be bullied into submission

I really don't have a quarrel with those who reasonably believe that this is a step ahead. I disagree, but I realizze that it is possible to disagree without b eing disagreeable.

But when I see the crap that is being flung against the "purists" who dare to criticize the content of this bill and the orocess in which it evolved, I get pissed off. Especially when the tone of much of it makes it seem like many here hate liberals and hate liberalism.

And yes, I post flamebait in response.

Or, as in this case, I really would like to know what some of these people are thinking.

If you have been civil and reasonable in your discussions, the OP does not apply to you.

[johnaries]

89. May I suggest that "crap" is being flung against the purists because they

are flinging crap, themselves? Let's face it, there is a lot of crap flying back and forth between both sides.

But, still, I have not seen anyone here "rejoice" that the PO was killed or that the bill in is current state is weaker than what we all wanted. So, therefore, the OP doesn't apply to anyone here on DU except the trolls.

Now, if you would like to discuss whether this bill has enough merit to be saved, or if it should be killed because it would do more harm than good - that is what we all should focus on. That and how and/or if it can be improved. But let's stick to the facts, please. And that goes for BOTH sides.

Peace! :hi:

[apocalypsehow]

64. Because we worship Satan. n/t.

[Armstead]

65. Best Answer Yet

Even though I know you're being sarcastic

[gardenista]

75. .

[Vidar]

69. K&R.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

70. A lot of people here have already said it

but just one more time for your edification: NOBODY is "glad" about the HCR bill as it currently stands...........HOWEVER some of us realize that passing watered-down legislation that does a lot of things that will help people is ultimately worth more than killing a bill and thus helping nobody. I expect Congress to keep working on HCR and I never expected it to be perfect at the starting gate. Once some reforms become implemented and people realize that grannies, grampas, and children with Downs Syndrome are NOT being sent to "death panels" and that the USA has not become transformed into their worst visions of a "Socialist Dystopia", people will ultimately demand (or at least become more comfortable with) more government intervention in regards to HCR. Plus, having more people purchasing private insurance might also provide more impetus for private insurers to clean up their act. Why you ask? Well, people having to spend their money on private insurance are going to demand results (i.e. reasonable rates, better coverage) and, in my experience, nothing gets people pissed off more than companies not giving them their money's worth. Think people are pissed off at health insurers now? Well, just wait until a bunch of new customers show up and the insurance companies start jacking them around. Just food for thought. :shrug:

[Armstead]

78. I disagree for legitimate reasons

My post was not aimed at those who have reasonably explained why they believe this is better than nothing.

It is the general "I hate liberals and liberalism" subtext of many of the defenders that I wrote this in response to. It does seem like many are dancing on the grave of what could have b een a great bill. I could give you many examples but I'm tired of it.

Plus your claim of "kill the bill" does not apply to everyone who is critical. We arec saying make it better, keep the beneficial things, but don;t rush to do bad things that take us in gthe wrong direction.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

84. Oh I see

I apologize if I unfairly lumped you (and others) in with the people advocating for simply killing the bill. There's just been so much of that in here the past few days but I can understand and appreciate that some people might have a different perspective. I agree that it can and should be made better and am favor of anything that we can all do to encourage our Congresscritters to do so before it get to President Obama's desk. I also don't like the "I hate liberals and liberalism" subtext of some postings and disassociate myself from that kind of hatred and vitriol.

Sorry, if I offended you in anyway.

[SpartanDem]

71. This is liberal reform

for the first time history this country will, through regulation of the private insurance industry, make health care a right. The role of the federal government in delivering health care is vastly expanded hardly the definition of conservative, free market ideology. This bill outlaws some of them worst practices of the industry, reforms that been sought after for many years. Now there are areas where it could better everybody agrees with that, but this is a significant step in the right direction.

[Armstead]

82. That is a fine answer. I disagree, but you are expreesing it reasonably

[dflprincess]

86. They are not making health care a right - they are making coverage mandatory

big difference. Coverage does not equal care or even access to it.

By 2019 there will still be 23 million uninsured http://www.startribune.com/business/79720077.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU

The number of under insured will continue to go up as will medical bankruptcies.

There is little regulation of the industry. They will be allowed to sell across state lines and, like the credit card companies before them, they will flock to the state with the least regulation giving them even more leeway to screw us.

[SpartanDem]

92. The bill goes beyond just mandating coverage

for the federal government will set benefit standards in addition other regulatory changes that help ensure people do get access and care.

You're wrong about selling wrong about selling across state lines, states must enter agreements with each other a company can't sell a policy from any state it wishes.

[dflprincess]

93. There is nothing in this bill to help the middle class get better access to care

they are confusing coverage with care.

Every report on the bill talks about the selling across state lines. The articles slanted to support this rip off tout the scam as "increasing competition" when all it will do is allow the for profits to cover fewer conditions and offer fewer services.

This bill will still leave 23 million uninsured and with even less access to care than the underinsured will have.

We have been screwed over by the people who promised they were on our side. They took our money, our time and our votes and they're stabbing us in the back.


Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org
URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/20-0




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/16/AR2009121603639.html

The Senate health-care bill could enable insurers to avoid some of the strongest consumer protections and benefit requirements adopted by state governments, Democratic lawmakers from Maine and California say.

The bill would allow insurers to sell policies across state lines, subject to the laws and regulations in a state of the insurers' choosing, 31 Democratic House members said in a letter Tuesday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).

"Practically speaking, insurers will domicile their plans in states with less stringent regulations and market to the population in more protective states like ours, just like nationally chartered banks have done," the House members led by Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) wrote on behalf of lawmakers from the two states.

The arrangement "will lead to a race to the bottom in insurance regulation and severely threaten the important and often lifesaving protections the residents of our states enjoy," the House members wrote.

Edited to add Post link.

[SpartanDem]

94. Nothing?

none the regulations, the caps will help people?

I didn't say they couldn't sell across line I said they couldn't sell anywhere they please. Does sound problematic to you?

Mailbag: Is this the end of state regulation?
A reader writes in:

One of Howard Dean's claims in arguing against the Senate bill on Morning Joe yesterday was that the bill enables insurance companies to operate across states lines -- is this true?


Sort of. The legislation allows states to form voluntary compacts with one another. California and Oregon, for instance, could decide that they want to allow insurers to offer products across both states, as that means a larger market for insurers to chase and thus more leverage for the California/Oregon exchange.

What it doesn't allow is for insurers to simply sell their wares in any state. Aetna could not, for instance, decide that Indiana's lax insurance regulation made it an appealing state to headquarter in, and then sell insurance that conformed to Indiana’s standards in New York. Thus, there's no race to the bottom unless states want to have a race to the bottom. But it's not clear why they'd want that.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/mailbag_is_this_the_end_of_sta.html

[dflprincess]

95. I would trust Howard Dean's reading of the bill over Kleins'

His opion and the fact that several House members have expressed concern about it and have said they don't think they could support the final bill if that provision is left as it.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-health-insure17-2009dec17,0,2204157.story

A key but lesser-known facet of the healthcare bills in the Senate would allow insurers to register in one state but sell policies in many other states as well.

That could allow insurers to ignore insurance laws in all but their home state and make it impossible for regulators in states with tough consumer protection laws to enforce them, a group of Democratic lawmakers says in a letter obtained by The Times....

..."This is a problem," she (Jackie Speir D-Hillsborough) said. "There's a reason all the credit card companies are domiciled in South Dakota. Their laws are weak on behalf of consumers. The laws are friendly to that particular industry. With this language we're going to allow for that same anti-consumer conduct to be replicated in the health insurance realm

No, this will not help the middle class. We'll still be paying way too much for both premiums and out of pockets. There is nothing that will protect us from winding up in bankruptcy court because of medical bills.

23 million will remain uninsured and the number of underinsured will grow and grow until we are all in that bucket. But the health insurance companies will be okay and keeping them healthy was the goal of this "reform" from day one.

[eridani]

97. LIke hell health care is a right. What utter tripe

All we have is the IRS after us for not buying shitty catastrophic insurance which does not cover any acrual ongoing CARE. If health care were a right, insurance company CEOs would be jailed.

[ProSense]

72. "Why are some of you so glad that meaningful Liberal Reform got beat down by Big Insurance?"

Why are you mischaracterizing the bill simply to whine?

[Armstead]

81. Whine -- another classic put down of legitimate disagreement

Yes I've become pissed off, and yes I am guolty of overstatement.

But there is a reason for it. I am tuired of those who are so eager to brand all opposition to gthis bill as "whining," odeological purity and all of gthe otehr cliches you trot out to stifle any real discussion.

[treestar]

91. It's not as if that stuff doesn't go both ways

See cheerleader, etc.

[dionysus]

103. armstead, you're throwing multiple tantrums every day now. it's whining.

:eyes:

[arcadian]

79. Because for many who blindly follow Obama, it's all style and no substance.

[zulchzulu]

90. When FDR signed into law the Social Security Act only covering widows, orphans and elderly veterans

Did the laws change over time?

By 1939, Social Security covered a lot more people due to added amendments.

Imagine voting against Social Security back then because it wasn't the final, perfect law to vote on?

I don't think most people are happy with the final bill, which has yet to be completed before being signed. But it is an incredible first step.

Read some history and don't be a follower of whiners and naysayers. They always are wrong.

[Hannah Bell]

96. Completely false. Second time I've seen it on DU, too, it must be a talking point.

1935 SS Act covered workers over 65 in most industries (biggest exemption was agricultural workers). Survivor's benefits (widows & ophans) were added in 1939.

Military personnel were added in 1957 (military had a pension system for some personnel predating SS, however).

I wish people would quit spreading bullshit, kind of funny to tell other people to "read some history" while you spread false history.

[eridani]

98. Geez, All of you are wrong

Social Security really started as a mandate for everyone to invest in a stock market retirement plan, with the IRS docking your pay if you didn't. Oh wait........

[zulchzulu]

100. Actually it was called OASDI in 1935 when signed...

...the point being that legislation gets passed and amendments are made...over decades in some cases.

Compare that to legislation that gets killed... which means it's dead.

[eridani]

104. So in 1935, you would be pushing for mandatory investment in the stock market?

Explain how we would have gotten social security as we know it out of that.

[Quantess]

99. It's as if we asked for a nice roast beef sandwich,

and after much deliberation, the insurance companies get the sandwich instead. They eat it, vomit it back onto the plate, and say "here's your roast beef sandwich!"

You still want it?

[dionysus]

102. weak strawman armstead. no one's jumping for joy over the content.

some people are thankful for what is in it, not what was left out.