What about the reform bills do you dislike enough to call a dog?

I’ve heard opponents of reform for a few weeks now (at least) and they have yet to come up with even one real criticism which held up under close scrutiny. And, even one (the so-called “death panel”) was fine, but the Dems took it out anyway. Irony is it was created by a Republican. Same with the home nursing aid for new parents (came from Republican Senator Kit Bond [R-MO]).

So, either put up some valid arguments or shut up.

If we passed just that right now and made it effective immediately, we’d stop a lot of the bleeding going on due to the private insurance system; and next year (in an election year) we could come back and push for Medicare for All, which we’d either get, or alternatively be able to negotiate a Jacob Hacker type of PO system in return for mandating health insurance coverage.

Notice this sequence of doing things would be much harder for “Blue Dogs” to oppose. That is, how could any Democrat object to the above 4 requirements without explicitly aligning themselves with the insurance companies? Enacting these four requirements wouldn’t even cost very much; other than enforcement. CBO would score it very well.

Further, if such a bill passed, it would immediately impose heavy costs on the insurance companies and begin to wipe out their profits; putting them in a much more favorable frame of mind for negotiating either a worthwhile public plan in 2010, or even Medicare for All.

That means no Blue Dogs, no Max Baucus, no Kent Conrad, but people like Chris Dodd (close to Teddy), Chuck Schumer, Jay Rockefeller, Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold and so on.

In the House, Pelosi needs to appoint people like John Conyers, Anthony Weiner, Chellie Pingree, Dennis Kucinich, Donna Edwards, Jackie Speier, Raul Grijalva, Robert Wexler, and Yvette Clark, and avoid people like Mike Ross, Jim Cooper, Heath Shuler, Gabrielle Giffords, and Jane Harman.

Whether the White House pressures Reid and Pelosi to do this will depend on whether the progressives in the House hold firm on a public option. Today, Anthony Weiner says that Obama could lose 100 votes in the House if there’s no public option. If he’s right and the town meetings from now until Congress comes back begin to reflect progressive sentiment about Medicare for All, the White House might pressure in this way. If the right wing continues to dominate the public stage for the next three weeks, I think Obama will sit back and pass a compromise bill that’s a total giveaway to the insurance industry.

Just a few of the initial accomplishments:
– The largest infusion of cash for green energy ever;
– support for fighting climate change through comprehensive legislation now (as well as rejoining the world community on this one);
– progressive appointments at EPA and Interior, and undoing a series of disastrous Bush env. policies;
– removing restrictions on birth control and family planning in US international policy;
– removing limits on womens’ ability to sue for workplace discrimination;
– clearly banning torture and promising to close Guantanamo;
– approaching the world as a partner rather than a threat;
– implementing his commitment to removing US combat troops from Iraq;
– signing a big expansion of childrens’ health care;
– providing help to folks with troubled mortgages;
– passing a large stimulus to create jobs (through progressive actions to help schools, state employees, green energy (again), mass transit, etc). Etc, etc, etc

Regarding expanded access to health care, Obama is pursuing strong limits on what insurance companies can do and a series of steps to reduce costs and subsidize families that need help.

With all the disappointments, Obama has already enacted more progressive changes than any Pres. in 40 years, and has gotten as close to universal coverage as we’ve ever been.With

Would you please list the “more progressive changes” you are referring to, I seemed to have missed them, unless you are referring to the billions of dollars he has handed big corporations to pay off their credit default swaps gambling debts.

AS for getting us “close to universal coverage”, what I see emerging is a universal mandate requiring all Americans, whether they can afford it or not, to give the private insurers even more of their money. Unless there is a robust public option, our health insurance costs will continue to sky rocket, but now we will be forced by law to pay them.

No reform at all is preferable to being forced to pay for exorbitant private insurance. The cooperatives will not solve the problem because they will not create a national system with powerful negotiating power, but will have to compete for service providers with private insurers and thus pay high rates even to get doctors and nurses to work for them. There would also be enormous start-up costs to create totally new, untried systems.

Medicare is already set up and works great. The simplest reform to make — and one that would be acceptable to the vast majority of voters — would be to extend Medicare to everyone, providing low overhead and complete choice of family doctors and hospitals.

Our slogan should be “Anything less than Medicare for all is unacceptable”.