You health care purists are REALLLY starting to piss me off.

[PretzelWarrior]

you don't know the goddamn FIRST THING about getting legislation through congress. And yet...here you sit able to whine your asses off about whatever product might come out and make it to Obama's desk.

You've preemptively declared failure instead of waiting for the process to continue. Instead of crying like little school girls, why don't you blog about what you're doing as you wait in your senator's office to talk with him or her? Why don't you vlog your questions of your local representative or otherwise encourage us that you're doing something other than being conveniently bored with the current output but not doing anything substantive about it.

The ones who REALLLY tee me off are the ones who act as though they have read through the extent of what these bills cover in the way of reforming the entire industry of managed health care insurance and then tell me DOING NOTHING would be better than even these efforts.

Your stupid teenage disaffection with "the man" is duly noted. Go to your room and listen to your EMO music and tell us how you're too goddam good for this earth you've been put on.

[Captain Hilts]

1. Because we permitted health ins. companies a seat at the negotiating table and not Single payer.

We gave up too much BEFORE negotiations began.

[PretzelWarrior]

2. Who's this "we" white man?

[Captain Hilts]

7. Ted Kennedy, Max Baucus. The decision was made a while ago. nt

[ProleNoMore]

4. So Anything Is Better Than Nothing While The Insurance Companies Become The New Banksters

eom

[leveymg]

3. We alkl defer to your obviously superior wisdom in these things. eom

[bobbolink]

32. Because denigrating those on your own team works so damned well,

and gets you what you want every damned time.

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

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

[tekisui]

5. jeebus.

[Warpy]

6. People who think nothing is better than a less than perfect system

should have to live with nothing as long as I have.

[Flying Dream Blues]

101. Amen! nt

[PHIMG]

152. Yes yes, that worked out so well with Medicare Part D

Such that Seniors now hate government becuase Medicare Part D is so incomprehensible and annoying.

Medicare is now associated with "the donut hole".

A bad bill CAN BE WORSE than no bill.

This line of attack from the OP seems a lot like the lines of attack levied against "ANTI-WAR PURISTS" who didn't want us to go into IRAQ.

I'm sick of waiting 8 years to get power and then have it used to pay off corporate interests.

When are the people going to win?

Are we going to let Obama replace Clinton as the best Republican President ever?

Sure seems like it.

[bornskeptic]

175. Nobody is forced to purchase Part D coverage.

If they hate it so much, they should drop it and enter the permanent donut hole. While I agree that Part D was a poor attempt to handle prescription drug coverage, there would not be so many people enrolled if it wasn't better than nothing.

[HughMoran]

8. lol

I agree with your sentiments, though this may not be the most effective method of expressing yourself. I see the miserable ass holes are unreccing your thread - hah!

[Cant trust em]

12. I'm 75% happy with the reform bill and certainly not one of the complainophiles...

but I definitely unrec'd this thread. I don't like the screeds.

[PretzelWarrior]

28. i respect your right do dislike my screed.

p.s. I never go for "recs" when I write.

[Neecy]

220. I dislike profanity-ridden screeds

This was just a juvenile rant, not meant to change minds but simply to insult and offend.

[PretzelWarrior]

25. sometimes you just gotta let loose and damn the consequences

because their point of view is seemingly counterproductive.

[mike_c]

9. feel the power of unrec....

[Gman]

10. LOL! The purists will unrec this one to the bottom of the barrel

because they can't handle the truth. They're not capable of being pragmatic because they've never done the work. They should just STFU and do some work for once.

[MajorChode]

46. unrec is becoming the new rec

[PHIMG]

154. "The Work"

Cementing the view that the Democratic Party is the party of forcing THE LITTLE GUY to buy a defective product from the very same people who will let you die so they make thier quarterly numbers.

Yes....I've never done that work. Thanks. I work for a real healthcare solution... one for the people. While you work to excuse sold out whores in Congress who care more about keeping the campaign donation spigot open.

This healthcare bill is what it might take to get me to dump the Democratic Party once and for all. That an assholes uber-partisans like the OP who shit on people who see the money dominated system for what it is.

[Starry Messenger]

11. Too bad you posted this in the wrong forum.

If it was GDP you'd be on the Greatest by now. Tant pis!


IBTL

[tekisui]

13. The difference in the forums is amazing.

It really does help maintain the peace, though. During the campaign, I couldn't foresee why GDP would still be needed. I get it, now.

[Cant trust em]

23. I just go to the latest threads.

I think it's kinda strange to filter one's ideas based on if they feel like reading something positive or negative.

"Today I'm feeling like reading something nice about the president. I'll go check out GD ."

[tekisui]

34. I use Latest, too.

But, I usually only post in GDP if I have found something positive about Obama.

[Cant trust em]

39. So if you've found something negative, you want everyone to read it.

But if it's positive, then only talk to the positive people?

[tekisui]

45. I didn't think of it that way.

I worked from the opposite. I don't post the negatives in GDP, because it is impossible to get through the din to have honest criticism there. Also, I know that a positive article in GDP is more likely to get the recs to the front page.

I haven't considered that I may be limiting views because of not posting in GD. Thanks for presenting that angle. I wonder if more eyes see GD, as a rule?

[Cant trust em]

50. The mods probably have a hit count. PM one of them and see if you can find out.

I'd be curious to know.

[Ms. Toad]

193. Just look at the number of views. n/t

[hfojvt]

196. GDP existed before the campaign

and it seemed to me to be a different group even then. It was left over from the 2004 campaign.

Are you saying that GD is primarily the Obama-bashing forum and GDP the Obama-cheering forum?

[tekisui]

205. Only the last part.

I do think that GDP is largely for Obama-cheering. GD is for everything else: world events, politics in general, general subjects and GD is more receptive to honest criticisms of Obama, as well as honest support.

[PretzelWarrior]

27. I may post it over there. it remains to be seen.

[Cleita]

14. What right wing blog did this "health purist" phrase come from?

We want the corporate health care profiteers to get out of the way and stop framing health care in terms of business. There is no consumer and merchant in health care. There is a patient and a doctor and when our corporate toady congress finally realizes that, then maybe we will get some place in solving this life and death problem and it's literally about life and death not profit and loss.

[Tansy_Gold]

48. Well, there's center LEFT and then there's

CENTER left.

Know what I mean?

[JohnnyLib2]

15. Do I smell implosion?

[tekisui]

18. A 'Goodbye DU' feels imminent.

[QC]

20. Another one, you mean.

He makes more dramatic exits than Mary Pickford.

[PretzelWarrior]

36. you mean she never made any? I've left this place once

and 380 or so replies later helped bring me back after a couple of weeks break.

[PretzelWarrior]

31. nope. just getting something off my chest as I deal with garbage threads

bashing the whole entire process as failed.

[Egnever]

114. keep pushing

Ignorance is hard to overcome but you are doing a yeomans work.

[sendero]

177. Until a bill is signed..

... we don't know pass/fail. The fact that Dean has spoken in favor of it gives me some hope.

But "purist" is a bullshit straw man. A "purist" would settle for nothing less than single payer, which is where we will have to go eventually, even in the face of generalized American stupidity.

I'll settle for a bill that actually helps people as a win. As I said, that question won't be answered at all until a bill is signed into law, and won't really be answered until it has been in place a few years.

So, anyone declaring victory or defeat at this point is equally full of shit.

[bemildred]

16. I don't care if you are pissed off.

Being immature is not an argument.

[Divine Discontent]

144. it's quite sad.

they left DU after blowin their top a few months back and cursing at people, name-calling, etc. They're doing it again. That's unfortunate. This IS a discussion board, and people's opinions about policy and frustrations have a right to be heard. The OP is going over the line when they ask for people to stop with what they call, "whining like little girls". (nice sexist statement, btw)

[sabrina 1]

17. We know this, that we have been told that if only we could

get a majority in all three branches of government, we could 'get things done'. Like Healthcare, eg. Not a Republican version of Healthcare where big Corps are the main consideration.

And now we know this, that we were lied to. Having a Dem majority means 'reaching across the aisle' to the party the people kicked out of office and giving them a 'seat at the table' while the base of the party is told to 'stfu'. It means allowing the Insurance Industry to write the bills. It means secret meetings with the Pharmaceutical lobbyists, and taking a good Democratic amendment out of the bill.

We know a lot more than you wish we knew and we'll see how much the Dem Party knows about how to get elected if you dump your base except at election time.

[tekisui]

22. The Democrats are corrupted.

We all see the gig is up. They don't even have to reach across the aisle, they just pat each other on the back on this side of the aisle.

[sabrina 1]

44. True, but I guess I'm still shocked at how blatant they are.

I remember thinking eg, that when Joe Lieberman went back to the Senate after he betrayed the party, he would at least not have been offered seats on Dem. Committees. But when I saw him get a standing ovation from the leadership of the Dem. Party, I was in shock.

I know better now and expect little from the Dems except when they need our support, then we get promises. Empty promises.

At least it releases people to vote their consciences in the next election.

[Egnever]

115. please can you do me a huge favor?

please list just one provision you are unhappy with in the house bill.

[sabrina 1]

134. Mandated Insurance.

I did not support Hillary in the primaries because she took that rightwing position. I supported Obama who said about mandated insurance 'we cannot force people to pay for something they cannot afford to pay for'.

Obama got many votes based on his correct position in the primaries. Now, he says, his 'thinking has evolved'. I don't think you call it 'evolved' when you go from a right position to a wrong position. I call it betrayal of those who believed him because he was either lying in the primaries.

Explain what is right about forcing people to buy something they cannot afford and then fining them if they cannot afford it. And if they cannot afford the fines, what happens next? Jail ~ as if we do not have enough of the poor in jail already.

[Egnever]

139. OK so explain to me how single payer would be different

Everyone would still have to pay except they would call it taxes instead of premiums and you would be stuck with whatever the government chose to supply. You would still be fined if you didnt pay your taxes/premiums.
At least with an exchange you can make a choice between different plans with a core set of basic services.

And now you are saying that barack was the only one who oposed mandates when in an earlier post tonight you claimed all the candidates were against mandates.At least you got it right this time.

I will give you credit for a broken campaign promise of no mandates from obama.

What makes you think poor people wont be able to afford it? I think the subsidies start at 60k anual income and below. Thats not exactly a low bar.

[sabrina 1]

148. You are confusing me with someone else. I did not say

all the candidates were against mandated insurance. I am well aware of Hillary's position and have been since the primaries. I never considered Edwards as I did not believe he had a chance of winning.

As for the difference between a single payer program, we already have one which is called Medicare. People who work pay a SS tax and an unemployment tax. I am not aware of anyone being fined for not paying those taxes as they are generally deducted from their pay check. If they are self employed, they pay it themselves. A medical care tax would work the same way as it does in every other country that views health care as a right, not a commodity. And the same way it works for SS and Unemployment. For those who want to buy private insurance, they can choose to do so as well.

Also, for the rightwing Constitutionalists, a tax is more acceptable than a forced purchase of a shoddy commodity. In case you are not aware, ironically the right, normally in favor of big business, are planning on challenging mandated purchase of private insurance in court.

They agree that the government has the right to levy taxes, but not to force people to buy a commodity. I think they are probably right about that. And again, ironically, it may be the pro-big-business party that saves us from placing the country's health care in the hands of big business, even if for the wrong reasons.

[Ms. Toad]

194. He did not take the "correct" position in the primaries

He merely limited his support for mandatory insurance to children.

Not a big philosophical difference, in my book.

[sabrina 1]

203. His position in the primaries regarding mandated insurance

was 'you cannot force people to pay for something they cannot afford'. I consider that to be a logical, compassionate and correct position.

He has since changed that position, stating that his 'thinking has evolved'.

[Ms. Toad]

208. That is a misstatement of his position in the primaries

and the general election.

He supported mandatory insurance for children. (OBAMA: John, I've got mandatory insurance for children for exactly that reason. http://www.speculativebubble.com/politics/barack-obama-... ; The main distinction: Clinton calls for a mandate that would require all individuals to have health insurance; Obama requires only that children have coverage and that dependents be covered under their parents' insurance up to age 25. http://www.factcheck.org/clinton_vs_obama.html )

His sole difference with HRC was that she supported mandatory insurance for everyone, not just children. In my book that is not a significant philosophical difference - forcing parents to pay for insurance they cannot afford for their children may be quantitatively different than forcing them to pay for insurance for themselves, but it is not inherently different or more compassionate.

[sabrina 1]

211. No, it was not a mis-statement of his position in the primaries.

It was a paraphrasing of his own words.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/clinton...

Obama has argued people should not be forced to buy health care if they can’t afford it.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton shot back at Clinton over today's remarks.

“What’s political is the misleading attack Hillary Clinton continues to make on Barack Obama’s health care plan, even though she knows full well that every single American who wants health care could get it under Sen. Obama’s plan," he said. "The real difference here is that Barack Obama doesn't start by having the government force people to buy health insurance if they can't afford it, and that’s why his plan does more to bring down the cost of health care than any other plan in this race. As Bill Clinton’s former labor secretary has said, Barack Obama’s plan would actually cover more Americans faster than Hillary Clinton’s would."

Now looking back, with the perspective of what he apparently actually does believe, which is a direct contradiction of his own statements in the primaries, it seems he was either lying or he has been persuaded that he needs to get on board with those who are really running this country.

I know he said he supported mandated coverage for children. He wasn't clear airc if that meant forcing poor parents or the government to cover them. If the former, some felt his statements were contradictory. Otoh, the way I understood it, it would not be forced on poor parents, but children of poor working class parents who themselves were not eligible for Medicaid, would be.

As his spokesman pointed out in that statement, this was the difference between Hillary and Obama that won many over to Obama's side in the primaries. Otherwise on most other issues there wasn't enough difference between them to really matter.

Edited to add:

In a direct contradiction to his primary statements on forcing people to buy insurance they cannot afford, Obama recently did a complete about face and, practically quoting the rightwing 'blame the victim' talking point, stated that 'mandated insurance was necessary' as 'we cannot have everyone else burdened with supporting those without coverage'.

[Ms. Toad]

227. We'll have to disagree.

I never had any rose colored glasses about Obama. There are some promises he made which he has not kept (transparency in some respects and GLBT issues are two).

As to this matter, however, I had absolutely no question during the primaries that there was virtually no difference between his position and Hillary Clinton's positions on health insurance during the primary - both mandated the purchase of insurance, the sole difference was whether it was mandatory for everyone or just children. He said it repeatedly throughout the primaries, and again through the general election. You can choose not to believe it, but that was his stated position and I have provided you with direct quotes, and fact checking references to support it. Your comment above that he doesn't believe people should be forced to purchase insurance they cannot afford is consistent with providing subsidies for the purchase of the insurance to people below a certain income level - that makes it "affordable," and is what I always understood both his and HRC's proposals to include.

It is one of the reasons I was slow to support him, since I don't believe mandatory insurance is the best option for providing universal health care. By the time the Ohio primary rolled around there wasn't a whole heck of a lot of choice since there were only two remaining in the race - but that clear wrong-headed starting position (from my perspective) is one of the reasons I was not an early supporter.

(By now, I feel it may be a necessary evil to make significant progress despite a very imperfect bill - my concern with his position during the primaries was that it was a starting position, from which he can only retreat - which he did to expanding the mandate to everyone, not just children.)

[sabrina 1]

234. Thank you for your explanation and it seems we both heard

him differently. I was difficult to interpret all of their positions on Healthcare, but in the end, having heard Obama make statements such as the one I linked to above, I and many others felt that he had a more compassionate view and understanding of the real life problems of the working poor, than Hillary who as I saw it, was pushing Romneycare, a Republican plan which gave more consideration to Big Business than to ordinary Americans. It wasn't the only deciding factor for me, but it was an important one. Hillary's war vote and her refusal to admit it was wrong, was another.

I would probably be more willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on having to compromise, were it not for the fact that from the beginning, those in support of a Single Payer system were banned from participation in the process. And furthermore, Rahm Emanuel's directive to liberal groups to stop criticizing Blue Dogs and to basically be quiet, was another indication that we never had a chance, not only of a Single Payer program, but even a choice from being forced to further enrich the predatory Health Insurance Industry. Obama has not explained his close association with these people, or his refusal to allow those who elected him to have a place at the table. We were completely shut out of the process.

As a result, he is losing support from his base. His poll numbers on Healtcare reform are down to 42%. Whoever is advising him probably thinks the base will vote Democratic no matter how badly they are treated because they have 'nowhere else to go'. I think they better rethink that strategy now, we've already seen what a Dem. majority means, and Bush is no longer around. Those two factors played a big role in an often disappointed base, sticking with the party up to now.

I guess we disagree on your last point. I do not believe that the Dems had to compromise from the beginning. I now believe that this was the plan all along, due mainly to the fact that this government is far more beholden to the Corporate world, than they are to the people who elect them. To change that there would have to be strong Campaign Finance legislation and a big change in who gets elected calling themselves Democrats.

In the end, bailing out the Insurance Industry appears to be the real goal of this legislation and once accomplished, I suppose they hope we'll 'move on' to other issues, in time to attract the base back for the next election. With the choices we have, that may well happen, but this was an issue that would have made this presidency one that would be remembered in the history books, as FDR is remembered. A President of the people. Now, it's just another president, who for whatever reason, bought into the Status Quo position that Corporate control of government is the best thing for the people. Even if the people don't agree. We'll have to wait for someone in the future, far more willing and able to take on those corporations I suppose. Meantime people will be punished once again, for being poor.

[PretzelWarrior]

41. no. with a GOP majority and/or GOP president. Health care reform was never even

seriously mentioned. Now we KNOW it won't just die in committee like happened under Clinton. For the first time since Medicare in Johnson administration, major health care overhaul is going to take place. Deal with it.

[sabrina 1]

59. The Private Insurance Industry was in trouble

just like Wall St. I disagree that it would not have been an issue if Republicans had won. This is not about healthcare reform, it's about Health Insurance Reform and that's what we're getting, with the corrupt Private Insurance Industry being the big winners and the poor being criminalized if they cannot hand over their food money to them.

The Republicans might have made the fines bigger, although Dem Senator Baucus with his Insurance lobbyist sitting behind him, made them big enough, but Republicans would have been dealing with this also. It was necessary, not for the reasons we were told, but to bail out Private Insurance.

It's amazing how before the election Democrats in general, including Obama, for all the right reasons, were against Mandated Health Care. Mandated Health care was definitely a rightwing issue, introduced in Mass. by Republican Governor Romney and condemned generally by most progressives at the time.

Since we're talking about being pissed, nothing pisses me off more than people changing their minds on important principles, AFTER they, if they are politicians, get people to vote for them, and if they are partisans of either party, after their party tells them what to think.

Some things are simple. This country can afford a National Health Care system. With tens of thousands dying each year because we don't have one, it was an emergency, a long time ago.

Forcing the poor to pay Private Insurance Corps and fining them when they cannot, resulting in more Americans going to jail, is draconian.

[PretzelWarrior]

62. if you think that....then you clearly haven't read the bill

most extremely impoverished Americans will already qualify for Medicaid. the ones who are working poor and for whom monthly premiums even for a public option would be difficult will have an opportunity to have a sliding scale subsidy so they aren't paying full rate.

The fact of the matter is we NEED to have risk spread to a wider pool including the many millions of young adults who don't have insurance because they are healthy and think they don't need it. That, will in turn, make it easier to see rates lowered.

On top of that, this will create a domino effect of getting the large footprint of FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND INSURANCE COMPANIES going after pharma and doctors to get more reasonable costs in place.

[sabrina 1]

75. Do you have any concept of what the 'working poor'

are struggling with? Do you really think that these people who are not paying for even basic insurance right now, will suddenly be able to find the money when they are forced to do so? What will they give up that they haven't already? Milk, eggs, clothes for their children? Many don't buy enough already.

Mandated Insurance, treating it as a 'commodity', is simply wrong. And I'd like to know when Democrats changed their minds about this. I wish they would have revealed this BEFORE the election.

You're not nearly as pissed as those who now realized how they were fooled.

[Tansy_Gold]

105. +1

Some people really don't have any concept of how the rest of the world lives, or even their own neighbors.

They don't understand that there's a huge "grey" area between the "poor" who qualify for all the "freebies" and those who have insurance or can easily afford it. That huge grey area contains those who make just enough not to qualify but not enough to pay for insurance on our own. They don't understand that not every facet of the daily struggle fits neatly onto the application form.

Income-wise, I qualify for my state's medicaid. But I own my home, and that disqualifies me. As a person who worked for 40 years, who raised a family, who paid on the mortgage every month, and was then widowed at 57 and left without the spouse's employer-provided insurance, I had nowhere to turn. I can become one of those qualifying poor, or I can just do without insurance and hope I last until Medicare -- at which point *I* will still give a fuck.

Oh well.

[sabrina 1]

126. Thank you, a post from someone living in the real world.

I love how these people talk about millions of Americans as if they were just a statistic. They are to those whose only interest is the bottom line.

You are so right about falling in the grey area of people who do not and will not qualify for programs that are there only for the indigent. The working poor. The people who make this country run. And who, under this bill will be forced to pay these predatory Insurance Companies money they do not have or else face fines they do not have.

What drew me to Obama during the primaries was he appeared to understand this. He said, and I'm almost quoting him here regarding Mandates 'we cannot force people to pay for something they cannot afford'. That was in the primaries.

Now, he has done a complete turn around. He now says, in defense of mandates, adapting the rightwing 'pull up your bootstraps' ideology, about those same people 'we cannot have everyone else burdened with the cost of paying for them'. Like his Republican friends, appealing to the lowest instincts of society.

I have zero respect for someone who could do such a complete about turn on an issue as important as this, about people he claimed to care about and now calls a 'burden' on the 'rest of us'. And all he has to say about his change of heart is 'I have evolved in my thinking'. Well, so have I and many others I'm sure.

[bobbolink]

236. I have a news flash for you... those of us who DO "qualify" for the "freebies", as you put it,

aren't really making it either.

Why do you think so many of us are homeless?

Because we're too stooooooopid to find a place to live with all the "freebies" we get?

I don't intend for this to sound like a rant, but really.... it hurts to be dismissed like that.

[Egnever]

117. Come on you dont even know whats in the bill

Its freaking pathetic. There are subsidies for the working poor to help them pay for it and caps on percentages of income that one must pay.

WTF do you think would have happened with a single payer system it wouldnt have been called premiums it would have been called taxes instead but it would have still been a mandate.

stop tripping on words and pay attention to whats actually in the bill please. You are buying into bullshit being fed to you by the very people you are attempting to demonize.




OH and BTW both Edwards and Hillary were for mandates in the primaries. Where in the world do you get your info from? Do you ever go to the source yourself or do you just buy into the crap posted here?

[emmadoggy]

230. They key you are missing is that

with single payer, yes, you would be paying a tax out of your income. But you would pay NOTHING beyond that. With mandated INSURANCE, you are paying an insurance premium, subsidized or not, for an insurance plan that is extremely likely to also include deductibles and copays - in many cases very high ones. Not to mention, you are at the mercy of an insurance company deciding what's covered or not. Whereas with single payer, everyone would have exactly the same coverage. Another key is that single payer dramatically lowers costs since we aren't paying huge portions of our healthcare dollars for all the administration costs and profit that the insurance industry bleeds from us.

Before you call someone else pathetic, perhaps you should bone up on your knowledge as well? Someone is buying into bullshit, alright, and all you need to do is look in the mirror to see who.

[bobbolink]

235. "You're not nearly as pissed as those who now realized how they were fooled."

I know some of those people. People who had never voted before, and never expected to vote. They were so scared of and disgusted with W that they made the big step of voting.

AND NOW THEY FEEL LIKE THEY WERE FOOLED.

Yes, we have now lost them when we could have, as a party, gained HUGE support.

It is a tragedy.

What a frickin' waste, and I won't be one bit surprised if this signals the end of the Dem Party.

They've done it to themsselves, every last one of those corporate officeholders who are playing games with peoples' lives.

[Atticus]

66. And now, health care reform has, in fact, been "mentioned", but not "seriously".

Corporate America has just about completed fending off yet another nasty insurrection by the "great unwashed". We "kept our powder dry" for eight years. I, for one, will not voluntarily go back to that "tactic". Let's pool our powder and make a loud noise. (Federal officials monitoring this board should note: that was a "metaphor". Look it up)

[PretzelWarrior]

69. well, by all means do that. get with your neighbors and resolve

that if "x" minimum standard isn't met by your congressperson, you will vote them out. Nothing like reinforcing behaviors through positive and negative consequences.

If you don't do that. If you don't go all out in your white rage against the status quo TO THE RIGHT PEOPLE...well, it's just so many words on a monitor.

I will call my senators and congressperson again. and again before this goes to a vote. I will let them know what is on the line. And I will keep reminding people here to quit being impotent and victims in your rage. Do something constructive.

[Atticus]

91. I Do "do that". Why do you think being dissatisfied with what is now called a "public option"

necessarily means we are "impotent" and "victims"? I am not in a "white rage". I am in a "blue funk"---dissappointed---again---in supposed liberals or even moderates who have apparently decided to "call the bluff" of the liberal faction of our party. ("Where you gonna go, right?")

I'm not bluffing.

[frylock]

42. fuckin-a

[Atticus]

55. Beautifully said.

People contributed the rent money and risked their jobs to elect Democrats who talked the talk. All some of us expect is that those we elected walk the walk.

We have invested too much sweat, blood and tears to be told that we "just don't understand" why keeping campaign promises isn't "feasible". That's not change. That's what we thought we voted OUT. The OP may be simply stating "conventional wisdom", but isn't that what got us into this mess?

[dysfunctional press]

19. i've already got medicare, so i've stopped giving a fuck.

que sera sera.

[Cleita]

24. You'd better start giving a fuck because that's the next thing they will

be going after to privatize and more taxpayer's money for the health insurance industry.

[dysfunctional press]

98. doubtful. extremely doubtful.

old folks vote.

as do the disabled like me- it's not like we have a helluva lot else to do.

[Flying Dream Blues]

102. Nice. How Democratic of you; better hope they don't come for you and

your Medicare next.

[dysfunctional press]

231. i just mean that i'm not goig to ride the roller coaster anymore, worrying about the outcome...

i still support a single-payer system, and will head to dc at the drop of a hat to join a unified and HUGH march to demand it- which i feel will ultimately be required to get any real and significant change on the issue.

and my medicare isn't all that sweet a deal, anyway- i pay a little over $100/month, on a disability income of $1200/month for 80% coverage. because i'm disabled and 48, i can't get 'supplemental coverage' for the other 20% until i turn 65 and there's an open enrollment- until then, NOBODY will sell it to me, and they aren't required to.

so- i'm not going to worry about it, and just expect the worst. that way- i can't get too disappointed in the ultimate outcome.

[treestar]

213. If it's OK for you then it doesn't matter?

Interesting, because I run across that a lot from certain people on the other end of the spectrum.

[Laelth]

21. Yep. Without the Kucinich Amendment, doing nothing would be better.

If you're so "studied" on this bill, then tell me what the enforcement mechanism is. If an insurance company actually does deny an applicant for a pre-existing condition, what's that applicant's remedy? What's that person supposed to do?

I am, actually, quite curious about this. A law is only as powerful as its enforcement mechanism.



-Laelth

[sabrina 1]

26. And I'm rec'ing your post

even though I couldn't disagree more, but so the pro Corporatists have one less thing to whine about.

[notesdev]

29. The process is demonstrably corrupt to the core

so excuse me if I don't care to be silenced about it

as long as they're determined to keep stealing from us, lying to us, paying off their friends with our money, they're going to get an earful and then some.

[undeterred]

30. I am sick of you people who make fun of "little school girls"...

You're really starting to piss me off!

[truedelphi]

33. Sigh and Sigh again.

Some of us are old enough to remember politicians like LBJ. Who started off with a very strong position such that by the time the legislation eneded up wending its way through Congress, it was still a moderately strong bill.

Obama started out from a position of weakness. After all, it was more important to him to be all concillatory. When Jon Stewart parsed some of Obama's talking points while out on the trail, I was sick to my stomach. "Well, public option is only one of many tools, and we don't even know if it will be in the finalized bill."

And this will be a bill with his name on it FOREVER, just as the Civil Rights Act of 1965 remains LBJ's legacy.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

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

[sabrina 1]

70. Baby Boomers? Isn't that a rightwing talking point?

I'm not a baby boomer btw, and many Republicans are. So, what is your point? You're OP didn't go over too well with people who can think for themselves, but I gave you some lea-way as a person I just had a difference of opinion with.

But your rightwing talking points are losing you any credibility whatsoever. And btw, I am fully aware that some on the DLC side of the Dem Party adapted those talking points also. Neither has any credibility with the majority of Americans who state clearly in every poll, that they want Health Care Reform. That, in case you don't know, doesn't mean Private Insurance Reform that delivers a windfall to the people who have denied people care and continue to raise their premiums as they take over one third of those same premiums in profit.

Since you're so smart and well read and everything, and presumably have memorized all 2000 pages of the bill, maybe you can explain how they are going to force the working poor to hand over their food money to these crooked corporations who have bought Congress? Because if they cannot afford the forced pusrchase of premiums, how will they afford the fines?

Do you support throwing even more poor people in jail? Funny, that was one of the reasons Obama gave for NOT supporting mandates, during the primaries. Guess he changed his mind, as he delivered that old Republican talking point himself recently 'they are costing all of us money'. Quite a change in his thinking since he said 'we cannot force people who cannot afford it to pay for it'.

[PretzelWarrior]

72. Baby Boomers was a jab at "oh look at my Johnson"

as in....LBJ did such an awesome job! Our protests were better! Our music was better! Our idealism was more sincere!

enough with baby boomer self stroking is all I'm saying.

[sabrina 1]

83. Well, if it's true. LBJ did know how to get things done.

And however I may despise them, when Republicans had a majority they got thing done also. They got two wars going against the initial wishes of the majority of Americans. They got the Patriot Act done, and without much challenge, laws put in place to make torture legal. They spied on the American people, and sent jobs overseas just as they wanted.

They took from the poor and gave to the wealthy, and didn't care what anyone thought of them. Now, if they could do all this 'bad for America' stuff, why can't Democrats get something done that is good for America? Like a cheaper and more efficient healthcare system as all other industrialized nations have managed to do?

I think the answer is simple. Dems didn't want to get a decent healthcare system in place. Like their Republican friends, they were always planning to do the bidding of the Insurance Industry and if some crumbs fall off the table for the average American, we are supposed to fall on our knees in gratitude. Well, I'll leave that to you to do. I do not buy their excuses. They are so blatantly lying is is insulting to those who put them in power.

[PretzelWarrior]

84. they had 9/11, a surplus, and reconciliation to work with

The Democrats could still shoehorn in something with reconciliation. We shall see.

[sabrina 1]

146. They did not have 9/11 when they pushed through their

Contract with America, and they didn't care one bit about the left's objections. They demonized them using their 'mandate' and bully pulpit to do so. And they did it in spite of not having the WH.

This is how the legislative process is supposed to work. Candidates run for office. They state their positions on important issues. The people choose them based on those stated positions. When, on a rare occasion one party takes control of all three branches of Government, the people, NOT the corporations, are their bosses and they expect them to do what they promised to do.

You are worried about the Corporations screaming. Why are you NOT worried about the PEOPLE screaming? Nowhere in the Constitution does it give power to Corporations over the will of the people. You are the one who does not understand the legislative process. What you are condoning is what we though we were voting out, business as usual in DC.

Why are Democrats catering to Corporations and not to the people? You say in another post, that with the economy the way it is, the right would scream over a National Healthcare system, and use their dreaded word 'taxes'. So? Let them scream. The job of the Party in power is to show the people how a National healthcare system would SAVE money and a tax to cover such a program would cost them LESS than what they are paying Private Insurance right now. It would also take the financial burden off businesses whose share of that tax would be infinitely lower than paying Private Insurance for all of their employees. A policy which will put many people out of business if it passes.

But Democrats didn't even try to do this. They started out with compromises, refused to even allow anyone in favor of a Public Option have a seat at the table, while they allowed Private Insurance lobbyists to write the bill. The question is 'why' and the answer is because they are more beholden to the Corps that fund them than they are to the people who elect them, and never intended to even make an effort to end the Corporate control of this government.

It is BS to say they did not have the ability to get a far better bill. If the Insurance Industry had been put on notice that their profiteering-from-people's-health days were over, unless THEY compromised, this would have been a whole different debate.

Face it, I have, we will never get anything better than this because this government is more afraid of Corporate Power, than they are of the people.

It is up to the people to change that and that won't happen if the people allow themselves to be manipulated with talking points sent out by their corporate bosses.

[PretzelWarrior]

155. most of their contract for America didn't even make it into law

what DID make it in was usually after much horse trading with Clinton to get what he wanted as well.

They got nowhere with their Contract for America compared to Dems pushing through hate crimes legislation, right to sue for equal pay legislation, expansion of S-CHIP and now the gigantic health care reform.

I think you've lost perspective.

[sabrina 1]

163. They brought the government to a standstill

and managed to take the country in a more conservative direction. They pushed for de-regulation and got it, not only did they get it, they got all but eight Democrats to vote for it. And when they did not get their way, they pushed for the impeachment of Clinton. They did not care what the 'left' thought of them. They had an agenda and they fought hard to put it in place. All without holding the WH.

It is you have lost perspective. You have no faith in the electoral process, but rather in the business as usual politics of DC. You tell me I need to understand how DC works. I fully understand how it works and that' why I supported Obama who promised he would change how things are done in DC. Something that badly needs changing.


It's ironic that you fight for the status quo politics of DC exactly what Obama claimed he was going to change. You argue for the failed politics that brought this country to where it is today. I am tired of people who make the same kind of excuses no matter how big a majority we have.

I heard it all during the past eight years. 'We can't NOT vote for Bush's nominees, that's NOT how it's done if we want to win in the next election. We have to show we are capable of being bi-partisan'. And when 12 Democrats voted against Habeas Corpus right before the 2006 election, the same political operatives announced that we should not worry about it, as 'it will be fixed once we get a majority'.

The 'majority' was all that was needed said people just like you when we wanted to take action right then. Well, we did what you all suggested and closed our eyes to the egregious votes cast by Democrats for bills like the odious MCI. And we finally got that magical majority. And now, here you all are, moving the goal posts once again.

No one is going to be held accountable for the crimes of the previous administration. The MCI is still in place and there is not even any discussion about 'fixing it'. And the Health Care Reform promised in the campaign, has 'changed' because, Obama says, his thinking has evolved.

Sorry, no sale this time. You've got your majority thanks to us and you attack those who got it for you. Not very good strategy as will probably be more obvious in the next election.

[truedelphi]

188. Like you say, the Dems did NOT WANT to give us decent Health CR

In fact, the reform that they have helped sponsor is so onerous that the Repugs on Baucus' Committee now speak of having great enthusiasm to do some MediCare "reform."

Reform has come to mean "re-structuring until the Golden Corporate Interests have the total advantage." With just a crumb or two here or there to appease us.

[truedelphi]

89. Show me one person in your generation that has the moral caliber of an Ellsberg.

Just one.

Show me one piece of legislation that promoted an entire subset of ideals, like the Civil Rights Act, just one.

And for that matter, if you can name five bands as influential as the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the Who, Pink Floyd or the Moody Blues, I will shut up.

I saw no reason in my first post to make this about generations. I am sorry if our generation sucked up all the fun. But that fun being sucked up had more to do with exploding costs for everything from housing and education, while job salaries were stagnant or downward. And those measures were not because of what we as a generation tried to have happen, but because our increased numbers allowed the Powers to be to lower the Boom.

[Tansy_Gold]

137. +20

10/13/1948

[SammyWinstonJack]

197. +1000 nt

[JVS]

97. And because this legislation sucks, it's going to be a millstone around our necks.

When the republicans are pointing out to people that it was the democrats who forced them to buy shitty insurance at inflated prices (a product of our being "reasonable" according to the centrists), I hope the centrists own up to the fact that this is their handiwork.

[laughingliberal]

35. I might be persuaded to see what comes of the process except for the fact that

we lost ground in every step of the process. Would like to believe something stronger could come out of conference but the House weakening the PO before conference does not sound good to me.

[PretzelWarrior]

49. no. we lost ground. then gained ground. some feel losing ground again

but with your STUDIED and CONSISTENT efforts posed in the right direction --like to your congress--you might get something.

Sitting here all cynical saying nothing can be done is bullshit.

[laughingliberal]

158. I write the White House and my Senator, Harry Reid, so often I'm probably on a stalker watch list

I haven't said nothing can be done. I do something every day and I still keep hoping but I am not encouraged since we lost the robust option, for now, in the House.

[Kansas Wyatt]

37. 'don't know the goddamn FIRST THING about getting legislation through congress'

BushCo & Republicans, Inc. got EVERYTHING they wanted.

So what is the fucking problem again?


I've waited over 25 years for Health Care Reform, since it DOES effect me. I'm not going to accept fucking Chump Change Token Efforts as the "best we can do," because it's pure bullshit!

[PretzelWarrior]

52. what is the problem? They were backed by business. Obama and health care are not.

He is backed by a loose and fragile coalition of neurotic Americans. Get on your goddamm phone and do something about it. Reid heard us. Baucus heard us. They can sense when the gigantic lazy American public is getting roused out of their slumber. and will act accordingly.

$1million doesn't come close to swaying a politician if he sees voter revolt and being out of his position of power.

[Tansy_Gold]

60. Obama and health care are not backed by "business"?

You're kidding, right?

[Kansas Wyatt]

78. If Reid & Baucus heard...

It certainly didn't change their minds, because they only changed enough to schmooze it along.

In case you didn't know, Corporate America picked which Party in the last election, because Corporate America started switching which Party they donated more contributions to before the election. Corporate America knows what side of the bread is buttered.

I live in a Red State (one of those that some in big Blue States were willing to sacrifice in the opt out) and I vote a straight Democratic ballot. President Obama and Congressman Moore won. I have two Republican Senators, WingNut Brownback and Guard the Bush Roberts. I have called Congressman Moore's office and told them that either we get a Strong Public Option or he loses my vote. I am not wealthy enough to threaten moving to another state, just to vote against a Blue Dog.

So far, the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress had better brace themselves for a lot head scratching in bewilderment after the 2010 & 2012 Elections, trying to figure out why people would vote against their 'best interests.' They were given a MANDATE by the American People, and they are FAILING the American People, by presenting the Republican version of Health Care Reform... See Medicare Part D.

[EFerrari]

109. "A loose and fragile coalition of neurotic Americans" and Wall Street.

[bvar22]

215. Nailed It.

[noiretextatique]

54. +2

if only they were like republicons...

[slipslidingaway]

64. + 3 "BushCo & Republicans, Inc. got EVERYTHING they wanted." nt

[CTLawGuy]

180. Remember the Bush Tax Cuts of 2001 and 2003?

The centerpiece legislation of the first Bush administration? Yeah, they are going to expire next year I believe--they could not make the tax cuts permanent. So even the Republicans couldn't get EVERYTHING they wanted.

[Richardo]

38. +1

[cry baby]

40. k&r

[NYC_SKP]

43. I Rec you Rant...

Cuz I've felt the same way before...

PS: LOL @ "go to your room" and "EMO music"...

[rucky]

47. Are any of them voting members of Congress?

Are you?

Then quit taking opposing opinions so damn personally - and quit being personal. Nothing expressed here will affect what happens on the Hill.

[PretzelWarrior]

53. yes it will. you're a political nihilist. I get that. but rousing people to NOT give up

is precisely my mission here. Go read my journal and you'll see I'm consistently focused on people trying to redirect negative energy and whining into DOING SOMETHING. DON'T YOU GET IT?!

If it's not something you can feel is really up to change by us, then for you this is all just mental masturbation.

[rucky]

153. Plenty of folks - including myself - put in plenty of effort.

and we come here to vent - just like you are with this post. This is a good place to do that - and as far as action, you can't possibly know what people are doing and not doing outside of DU, and I don't know how positive you're being by delivering insults as a motivational tactic - directed at people who may already be busting their asses.

If you're venting - go for it. If you're trying to inspire action, you may want to change your approach.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

51. Your stupid teenage disaffection with "the man" is duly noted. Great line.

[KG]

56. anything less than single payer is failure.