Why you should never read/listen to Fire Dog Lake- THEY LIE

[NJmaverick]

Can't put it any clearer than that. For example.

FDL Lie-

MYTH- 10. The bill will require big companies like WalMart to provide insurance for their employees

TRUTH- The bill was written so that most WalMart employees will qualify for subsidies, and taxpayers will pick up a large portion of the cost of their coverage.

http://firedoglake.com/fdl-fact-sheet-the-truth-about-the-health-care-bill/


The TRUTH-

Employer Mandate:

Technically, there is no employer mandate. Employers with more than 50 employees must provide health insurance or pay a fine of $2000 per worker each year if any worker receives federal subsidies to purchase health insurance. Fines applied to entire number of employees minus some allowances.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html

What makes their lies even worse is that they were under a blog post ironically entitled- "FDL Fact Sheet: The Truth About the Health Care Bill"

[Arctic Dave]

1. So how do know walmart wont pay the fines if they are cheaper then the insurance?

Unless we have numbers your post doesn't mean jack.

[NJmaverick]

3. You defend FDL's lies by saying I don't have enough information to dispute them

if that is the case (and I am not saying it is) then how could they make their claims????????

[Arctic Dave]

7. Ask them, you seem to be the one who has a problem with it.

Once you find out then come back with the liar claim. Until then, your post is no more accurate.

[NJmaverick]

16. You didn't answer my question (which exposed the flaw in your reasoning)

telling me to go ask them is just a ploy to distract. First you explain how I don't have the facts to dispute their lie but they apparently have enough facts to honestly make the statement.

[Arctic Dave]

19. So you admit, you have no basis for your post either.

Pot meet kettle. Ask them were they got their numbers, then come back.

[NJmaverick]

22. Now you need to go back and read my replies. Then you need to answer my question

your nonsensical answers and statements will not distract from your failed attempts to protect the liars at fire dog lake.

[Arctic Dave]

34. You make the assertion then are too mental lazy to back them up with real numbers.

I find this all to much the rule and not the exception with you. Sad.

[laughingliberal]

46. Walmart was on record during the debate as favoring this approach

The fine is much more affordable, they said, than providing benefits.

[napi21]

2. Walmart, as a part of their employment hiring process, explain to the new hires how

to apply for medicaid & child HC from the State. I'll be interested to see if this new law changes that, or at least fines them for their practice.

[NJmaverick]

4. This bill is going to cut into Wal-Mart's profits

which is certainly a good thing.

[Citizen Kang]

42. No it's not

Workers will be paid less, prices will go up.

The consumer and the workers will pay. Wal-Mart isn't going to.

And it's going to be cheaper for Wal-Mart to pay the $2000 fine than insure it's workers so that is what it is going to do. Or maybe Wal-Mart will sign them up for some worthless insurance product that doesn't really provide any coverage and has premiums workers making $7/hour can't afford anyway.

Isn't reform great?

[Cha]

5. I stopped a long time ago. nt

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Enrique]

8. it's out of date

it refers to the Baucus plan from the fall, and it seems to have been improved greatly since then. I've emailed them and they should correct it.

[leftstreet]

9. Obligatory UnRec. Stop suppressing free speech n/t

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[NJmaverick]

13. Telling lies is not the exercise of free speech

[leftstreet]

14. UnRec is free speech

[Donnachaidh]

64. so then you shouldn't be posting so much about FDL -- because the majority of that is lies

Or do the rules differ for synchronized syncophants?

[Raineyb]

80. Then you should stop. n/t

[Frances]

11. I had already eliminated Firedoglake from my favorites list

[beardown]

12. So technically, there are no speed limits in the USA either.

Drivers can always choose to ignore the speed limit and pay the speeding ticket.

I don't understand this right wing like parroting of "there is no mandate" I keep reading over and over.

Like an earlier poster replied, if the $2,000 fine doesn't cover the subsidy then taxpayers will pick up a portion. Whether it's large or not depends on the exact numbers. Given Walmart's history, I could easily see them cutting what vaporous health benefits they provide now to ease to hit of the $2,000 fine. Hell, it's Walmart, I could see them fighting for the religious exemption too.

[Green_Lantern]

23. actually talk of this mandate is a conservative point...

It implies that not having insurance coverage is a choice.

Do you have insurance?

[Riftaxe]

60. Having insurance in no way means

having access to health care.

[Junkdrawer]

15. WHO is lying?

http://www.ufcw.org/docUploads/WalmartEmployerResponsibility%20-%20FINAL.pdf?CFID=9096217&CFTOKEN=77997717

[provis99]

17. your "Truth" section doesn't make any sense.

What Firedoglake is saying is that Walmart will have to provide insurance to their employees; they will provide crappy insurance that even their workers can't afford, so the government will have to subsidize the cost.

Employers who don't provide health insurance are ok, as long as their employee doesn't need subsidies. They are ONLY fined if the employee if forced to purchase outside insurance, and NEED SUBSIDIES.

Sorry, Firedoglake is right, and you are wrong.

:hi:

[NJmaverick]

18. You got that completely wrong, then again you think FDL tells the truth...

[provis99]

20. from your own post.

"Employers with more than 50 employees must provide health insurance or pay a fine of $2000 per worker each year if any worker receives federal subsidies to purchase health insurance"

they get fined if an employee has to buy their own health insurance and needs subsidies to buy it.

Companies whose employees don't need subsidies, will not be fined.

It is as plain as day.

[NJmaverick]

21. Yes that came from CBS, FDL was claiming nothing bad would happen to Walmart

[Donnachaidh]

65. you' listen to CBS for supposed TRUTH??

OMFG!!!!!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Prism]

24. If only this kind of energy could be expended attacking conservatives

What a world this could be.

I don't even read FDL, but the more vigorously the status quo-ists attack it, the more tempted I am to send it traffic.

Jane Hamsher seems to drive all the right people absolutely bonkers.

[NJmaverick]

26. FDL is just as bad as the conservatives they like to work with

[Prism]

28. "This bill has over 200 Republican amendments"

What was that about working with conservatives?

[walldude]

32. Shhh.. you'll just confuse him...

[NJmaverick]

37. Oh I don't fall for this sort of deception and distraction

I know your beloved FDL wanted to team up with the terrorists and racists teabaggers

[walldude]

43. First of all you know nothing about whether I like FDL or not

I just don't like you. And are you denying that there are republican amendments and that Obama tried to work with Republicans? Because you do know how easy it is to prove right? You have been paying attention right?

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[Ignis]

76. But you sure do seem to love association fallacies.

Why is that?

[NJmaverick]

36. FDL advocated teaming up with the racist terrorist tea baggers

or have you forgotten or hoped we had forgotten

[howaboutme]

69. I've suggested the same thing

What's wrong with piggy-backing on the Tea Party movement to promote your own beliefs and interests? I think that may be what FDL had in mind (and I rarely visit there). The Tea Party has many different viewpoints and many on DU would agree on some such as stripping the bonus money from Wall Street banksters, and auditing the Fed Reserve. When they have a rally make your own sign and make it say whatever you want it to say and stick it in front of the media. Say "I Want Single Payer and Eliminate Greedy Insurers". They and the coffee Party are more about getting attention from a Congress that never seems to actually listen. The real question is where were they in Bush's term? That would make another good sign..."Tea Party should have been here in 2001"

I don't think of the general movement as being as racist, as the media has attempted to portray it. They thrive on and report any outrage. The Parties see both the Tea and Coffee movement as a threat to the status quo. I sometimes think we need a change to the status quo of having 2 big Parties that often have more interest in their own power, and lobbyists, than doing what the USA needs. There are some racists obviously just as there are everywhere, but I don't see that as their core movement. Racism is defined in the eye of the beholder. Just ask those in the Middle East.

[berni_mccoy]

27. Um, Norquist? Teabaggers? FDL is as conservative as FreeRepublic.

[Prism]

33. Oh lord. Conservative.

First single-payer advocates, public education supporters, and other dissatisfied liberal groups were "anti-governmental" and now a mainstay liberal blog is as conservative as Free Republic.

I don't much care for who FDL allies themselves with and have said so. I find it counterproductive and I could never in good conscience find common cause with someone like Norquist. I understand their anger, but sometimes you do more harm than good when your means to an end are too odious, as I think FDL's are. Even though I think FDL's ends here are utterly justified. They're good policy liberals even if their politics are veering in an unsavory direction.

But you're really over-reaching in this endless quest to paint everyone who disagrees with the President as a frothing right-winger. Moderate criticisms would go much further and win you more friends than the muted hysteria accompanying these unrelenting enemies lists that seem solely directed towards the left part of the spectrum.

[NJmaverick]

40. They support bigots and racists and work against health care reform

[Prism]

48. 200 Republican amendments

And still not a single Republican vote.

It seems if you were genuinely worried about conservative influence and Republican ideology savaging health care reform, you'd have spent at least as much energy going after those amendments as you do a single blogger.

Let's see, which is more deserving of scorn - a bill affecting tens of millions of Americans or Jane Hamsher?

You picked Jane Hamsher.

Which is just . . . very special.

[NJmaverick]

50. Republicans, as a group, are not as bad as the teabagger terrorists

That your beloved FDL loves so much

[Prism]

57. Rabbits are also more vicious than whales

So when thinking about the balance of power and who wields it, you decided to believe a bunch of angry protesters are more powerful and deserving of more of your attention than Representatives, Senators, and Supreme Court justices when it comes to shaping government and policy?

That seems odd to me. It's as if, given the choice between a fair fight or going after a child's candy, the child somehow ended up being called the gravest threat as you staged a Hershey raid to neutralize them.

Like I said, odd.

[laughingliberal]

47. Of course! Don't you remember all the conservatives protesting cause we couldn't have single payer

or a public option? You don't remember that??? Me either.

[Prism]

51. Well, they are for single-payer, when you think about it

Every single American gets to pay a corporation.

Everybody wins!

[tonysam]

81. Amen to that.

There are many things Obama is doing wrong, but there are some who are so invested in him they refuse to see the truth. Education is a prime example of this myopia.

[inna]

25. Absolute BS of a post.

:thumbsdown:

[NJmaverick]

39. I offered facts and references. Where are yours?

[Junkdrawer]

45. Inna, allow me....

...

As written, this bill will:

• Incentivize the hiring of a largely part-time workforce, and encourage reducing workers’ hours as a way to reduce health care costs.

• Force low-income Walmart employees into high-deductible company-provided insurance.

• Make few, if any, Walmart employees eligible for tax credits to purchase better insurance through the health insurance exchange.

• Continue Walmart’s dependence on federal and state subsidies for Medicaid for its employees, and encourage Walmart to have even more employees dependent on Medicaid.

• Provide little or no incentive for Walmart to provide better care to their employees.

....

SUMMARY OF EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY PROVISION

The “employer responsibility” provisions of the Senate health care reform bill1 require that, if an employer with more than 50 employees has employees who receive a subsidy (i.e., tax credit) for insurance through an exchange, the employer has to pay a penalty equal to $3,000 times the number of full-time employees of the company.

This means that if an employer has only part-time employees receiving tax credits for insurance purchased through the exchange, the employer pays no penalty.

To qualify for the tax credit for insurance purchased through the exchange:

• If the employee’s family income is below 133 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL)4 , the employee qualifies for Medicaid

• If the employer offers health insurance that meets the minimum qualification of having an actuarial value of 60%, and the employee opts out of it and purchases insurance through the exchange instead, the employee is eligible for the tax credit only if the lowest-premium plan offered by the employer is unaffordable. Affordability is based on percentage of income required to be paid in premiums alone (not including other forms of cost-sharing such as deductibles and co-pays). The threshold percentage of income that must be paid in premiums for a plan to be deemed unaffordable is 9.8%

• If an employee can obtain coverage through a spouse or (for a young employee) a parent, or if the employee is over 65 and therefore qualifies for Medicare, or if the employee has more than one job and can obtain qualifying coverage (meeting the actuarial value floor and the premium share of income ceiling) through another job, the employee is ineligible for tax credits and therefore the employer pays no penalty.

...

http://www.ufcw.org/docUploads/WalmartEmployerResponsibility%20-%20FINAL.pdf?CFID=9096217&CFTOKEN=77997717

[quinnox]

29. I'll make my own decisions on what websites to visit

its a bad habit I know.

[berni_mccoy]

30. Or, even simpler: FDL has Norquist and the Teabaggers' support.

That's enough reason for me.

[NJmaverick]

38. Yes I have no forgotten their support for and their desire to work with the racists and terrorists

that are also known as the teabaggers.

[walldude]

31. So technically there is no employer mandate

except that they have to pay a $2000 fine if they don't provide free insurance to the employees who qualify for subsidies? Which in the case of Wal-Mart is all their low level employees.

The part you left out is people only qualify for subsidies if they choose to use an insurance exchange or buy outside the company. So in essence no company can ever be fined. It's nice double speak that means nothing. Nice try.

This bill is a fucking mess, the rules are so fucking convoluted that any sane person would have a hard time making actual sense of it.

[NJmaverick]

41. That's bull, the FACT is Walmart faces serious fines for not providing insurance

and no about of double speak or spin can HONESTLY change that.

[walldude]

44. LMFAO.. Dude.. this comes from the link YOU PROVIDED

as PROOF that FDL was lying:

Individuals and families who make between 100 percent - 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) and want to purchase their own health insurance on an exchange are eligible for subsidies. They cannot be eligible for Medicare, Medicaid and cannot be covered by an employer. Eligible buyers receive premium credits and there is a cap for how much they have to contribute to their premiums on a sliding scale.

You cannot be subsidized if you are covered by your employer. You provided the link, are you now denying it's true?

[NJmaverick]

52. You don't understand what is written

what the law says is either Walmart has to start insuring their employees or they face fines.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Junkdrawer]

58. See posts #46 & #47....n/t

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Feron]

53. In other words...

FDL expresses opinions and viewpoints that I don't agree with so I will bash it incessantly.

Marching in lockstep isn't healthy or intelligent. And disagreeing with the bill doesn't make a person a teabagger or freeper. There are many progressive reasons to oppose this new law.

[NJmaverick]

55. No FDL tells lies and ironically calls it the "truth"

oh and funny you mention teabagger. Don't forget FDL likes to work with those bigoted terrorists.

[berni_mccoy]

56. Like we all do with FreeRepublic?

[laughingliberal]

59. "The bill was written so that most Walmart employees will qualify for subsidies and the taxpayers

will pick up a large portion of the costs of their coverage."

That is absolutely accurate. Walmart will pay a fine and they are on record as supporting this approach as it is much less expensive than providing the benefits but the fine will not cover the bulk of the cost of the subsidies for their employees.

[Political Heretic]

61. Um... your rebuttal doesn't demonstrate a lie.

:shrug:

FDL's "truth" claim you posted is 100% true.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[librechik]

63. Yes , let's get in a circular firing squad and intolerate each other to death

very helpful. damn, my purity gun is empty. WHY WON"T THEY ALL DO AS I SAY!!!!

[KittyWampus]

74. Hamsher buddies up with Grover Norquist the Ratfucker whose prime objective is to CREATE circular

firing squads on the Left.

[amborin]

66. K&U FDL speaks the inconvenient truth

[Neecy]

67. Don't fucking tell me what to do

Or anyone else here.

[earth mom]

68. UNREC! This thread bites. nt

[Zenlitened]

70. Clumsy, hamfisted, bludgeoning, amateurish attempt at message discipline.

In other words, same old same old.

But feel free to reply by telling me I'm supportin' the terrists, an enemy of The Party, or whatever other techniques you failed to fully understand from your second-hand copy of "Rovian Rhetoric For Dummies."

[NYC_SKP]

71. Yes, describes Jane Hamsher to a tee. Gawd, she's insufferable.

[Zenlitened]

75. Well that explains a lot! :)

OP and Jane are the same person? Suddenly a lot of the M.C. Escher-like qualities of these threads can be explained!

[branders seine]

72. there you go again.

all mavericky

[KittyWampus]

73. Reason #2 to ignore Jane Hamsher- she threw in with Ratfuckers to divide the Left.

[Enrique]

77. Jane Hamsher responds

I emailed her and told her her info was out of date, which it looked like to me.

She emailed back:

That would be meaningful if point #10 had anything to do with the employer mandate. It doesn't. We went to trouble to put footnotes into the chart so people could find out more about that particular point.

Here's what you see when you follow the footnote for #10:

The MaxTax offers this one, giant, out for corporations.

A Medicaid-eligible individual can always choose to leave the employer’s coverage and enroll in Medicaid. In this circumstance, the employer is not required to pay a fee.

In other words, the one way–just about the only way–a large employer can dodge responsibility for paying something for its employees is if its employees happen to qualify for Medicaid. Under MaxTax, Medicaid eligibility will be determined by one thing: whether a person makes less than 133% of the poverty rate. And who has the most control over how much a particular person makes? Their employer!
So if Wal-Mart wanted to avoid paying anything for its employees under MaxTax, it could simply make sure that none of them made more than $14,403 a year (they’d have to do this by ensuring their employees worked fewer than 40 hours a week, since this works out to be slightly less than minimum wage). Or, a single mom with two kids could make $24,352–a whopping $11.71 an hour, working full time. That’s more than the average Wal-Mart employee made last year. So long as Wal-Mart made sure its employees applied for Medicaid (something it already does in states where its employees are eligible), it would pay nothing. Nada, zip. Nothing.

If WalMart keeps their employees at less than 133% of poverty, which they do, the employee can enroll in Medicaid and WalMart avoids the employer mandate. It's also in the "WalMart Employee Responsibility" pdf from the UFCW that someone linked in the DU thread. I understand that kind of fact-based reasoning is easy to overlook for people who who prefer screaming in all caps, but it is already there in the thread nonetheless.

I think she's right. Your link from CBS does not address the Medicaid "out" available to WalMart.

[Enrique]

78. kick

:kick:

[NJmaverick]

82. While her footnote produces a convoluted and unlikely scenerio

it doesn't support what she passed off as the facts or the truth. Instead of writing that it would be POSSIBLE for large employers to try and avoid the fines or tax, she opted for the less honest claim that all the Walmart employees will not be covered. So for me this is an admission of guilt on her part. What is more interesting is that she didn't even pretend to offer up any of many other defenses I have seen posted on this thread.

[Raineyb]

84. There is nothing convoluted nor unlikely about the scenario presented

You just don't want to admit that you're WRONG.

[NJmaverick]

85. See now you forced me to look up facts to back up my case and PROVE you wrong

In 2008, the average full time Associate (34 hours per week) earns $10.84 hourly for an annual income of $19,165.


http://wakeupwalmart.com/facts/

Now that was two years ago and that rate is much higher than the number Jane is working with.

PS I am being generous as that number doesn't include the higher paying jobs

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=Wal-Mart_Stores,_Inc/Salary

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=Wal-Mart_Stores,_Inc/Hourly_Rate

[Enrique]

86. 'she opted for the less honest claim that all the Walmart employees will not be covered'

can you correct that please? She never said that.

Since you are maintaining that she is "lying", please represent correctly what she is saying. You initially ignored her supporting documentation in your original attack on her, and now after she has taken the time to answer your challenge, you completely ignore that answer.

You haven't in this whole thread said anything about Walmart employees going onto Medicaid as a result of this bill.

[NJmaverick]

91. Please see post #85 where I show her numbers are not correct

[Enrique]

94. that post doesn't address your misrepresenting what she said

"she opted for the less honest claim that all the Walmart employees will not be covered".

She never said that. What does figures about Wal Mart's hourly wages have to do with that?

[NJmaverick]

96. Here is her original claim

"TRUTH- The bill was written so that most WalMart employees will qualify for subsidies, and taxpayers will pick up a large portion of the cost of their coverage." Now you poster her revised claim and I have posted the salaries that dispute the math she used to justify her original claims.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[NJmaverick]

83. I see your problem you are under the delusion that FDL is a factual website

[Major Hogwash]

87. Good job, Maverick. Caught 'em lying with their pants down.

Wonder if she will do a retraction now and claim the first one was just a typo?

Do you know if she has even read the bill?
Prolly not.

[Enrique]

88. Hamsher did answer the charges

and it's not a retraction.

So far, the OP has not substantively responded to her answer. Maybe you can?

That would be meaningful if point #10 had anything to do with the employer mandate. It doesn't. We went to trouble to put footnotes into the chart so people could find out more about that particular point.

Here's what you see when you follow the footnote for #10:

The MaxTax offers this one, giant, out for corporations.

A Medicaid-eligible individual can always choose to leave the employer’s coverage and enroll in Medicaid. In this circumstance, the employer is not required to pay a fee.

In other words, the one way–just about the only way–a large employer can dodge responsibility for paying something for its employees is if its employees happen to qualify for Medicaid. Under MaxTax, Medicaid eligibility will be determined by one thing: whether a person makes less than 133% of the poverty rate. And who has the most control over how much a particular person makes? Their employer!
So if Wal-Mart wanted to avoid paying anything for its employees under MaxTax, it could simply make sure that none of them made more than $14,403 a year (they’d have to do this by ensuring their employees worked fewer than 40 hours a week, since this works out to be slightly less than minimum wage). Or, a single mom with two kids could make $24,352–a whopping $11.71 an hour, working full time. That’s more than the average Wal-Mart employee made last year. So long as Wal-Mart made sure its employees applied for Medicaid (something it already does in states where its employees are eligible), it would pay nothing. Nada, zip. Nothing.

If WalMart keeps their employees at less than 133% of poverty, which they do, the employee can enroll in Medicaid and WalMart avoids the employer mandate. It's also in the "WalMart Employee Responsibility" pdf from the UFCW that someone linked in the DU thread. I understand that kind of fact-based reasoning is easy to overlook for people who who prefer screaming in all caps, but it is already there in the thread nonetheless.

[walldude]

90. Forget it.. I tried to explain the loophole and that the OP was wrong..

but he's got some kind of bug up his ass about FDL.. I mean there is no one more deserving of left wing scorn than Jane Hamsher.. :eyes:

on edit: And I see the OP has seen the loophole and now claims that it's Hamsher admitting she was wrong :rofl: :rofl: nothing new here.

[ipaint]

92. There are a few who think running around here namecalling like spoiled 5 year olds,

very similar to what the teabaggers do, is an effective way to argue a point they disagree on. The la la, la, la I can't hear you after their argument is refuted with facts is also a tactic the teabaggers use when they can't back up their claims.


I see it a lot online when debating/arguing with bootstrap conservatives. They like to give their opposition fact finding busy work and when the facts are presented to them the goal post changes and they demand more fact finding busy work. It's an endless loop which gets them off the hook and keeps the left constantly occupied.

The same flawed claim is made a day later in a new thread and the left once again has to present them with facts over and over. Wash, rinse, repeat.

[izzybeans]

89. FDL is more than one person, no?

Jane Hamsher may be good at stringing together a few unrelated facts to keep her narrative alive, but that doesn't condemn her entirely nor the rest of the bloggers there. Either way its one of those places I hardly read. It's just another blog.

[branders seine]

93. define "employee"

[LaPera]

95. Don't believe all the bullshit that you read....The finger pointing on BOTH sides is disgusting!!

"MYTH- 10. The bill will require big companies like WalMart to provide insurance for their employees."

Truth- The well off will be paying for a huge part of it with a 3.9% tax increase for anyone making over $250,000 only figured AFTER tax deductions-(they could actually be making as much as $500K - half million dollars a year).

Truth 2- Those same "subsidies" are now just going directly to the fucking insurance corporations (in the form of billions of dollars a year) insurance corporations who did NOT have to insure the workers.... they will now at least be going to the poor workers.

EVERYONE knows this bill is no single payer and has many flaws...but I know many will now be covered who had no chance to be before.

"MYTH" ?

The TRUTH- 35% of every workers insurance of small business will be picked up by the government with more tax revenues 3.9% from the well to do (Just as president Clinton increased on the rich and Bush immediately reverse with even larger tax cuts for the rich).

AND there will be more government tax revenue going to small businesses and away from the greedy insurance corporations who are receiving this same money now will not be, it will instead go to small business for employees insurance..

Certainly not perfect, but a much needed starting point!

If WE want single payer or even the Public Option - Then FDL & progressives better spent the time and money and vote out paid off fuckers in smaller states like Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, Blue dog democrats; Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, etc...Idie, Joe Lieberman and the 34 democratic assholes in the House who voted against this bill and will vote against any bill, the blue dog House members who always vote & side with the republican scum and insurance corporations money....Not to mention FDL & progressives like my self should also be spending our time and money also getting liberal Dems in existing republican seats.

It's very easy to point fingers....But let's see how hard FDL & progressives like myself really work to remove these many blue dog and republicans from their seats!!

I do NOT much care for this bill - This bill is certainly not what I wanted nor worked & donated against.

However, with hard work and money aimed at the voting booth - this bill can & will evolve slowly into a Public Options and finally single payer. - Or in other words, the ultimate goal -full & no restriction Medicare for every American citizen-