Great list. Thank you, team! Jane, I am assuming the Motion Picture Health plan, the best thing about the Writers Guild, is a Cadillac plan which will be eroded by this. True?

I don’t know what the Writer’s guild plan is, I heard from a friend they changed recently and it’s not a good as it used to be, but I’m not sure.

Jane thanks for all of your work. Watching the 1 a.m. get together this morning.

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN.aspx

Harkin “we accepted 161 of their (Republicans) amendments.

He keeps repeating we have a “super majority”

They are trying so hard to put this empty holiday package under the American publics Christmas tree. As former Insurance Industry executive Wendell Potter (and I sure trust this guy) has called this alleged reform the “Insurance Industry Profit Protection Act”

McCain sure pounded on the Pharmaceutical give away.

The Dems keep pushing that “this is one of the most significant moments in the history of the Senate”

This is what we are going to hear Obama repeat on Christmas eve.

You know they are going to call it Kennedy Care instead of Lieber Scare. (who is now allegedly so concerned about the national debt)

It doesn’t bother you that #2 (“if you refuse…”) directly contradicts #1 (“Forces…want to or not”)?

Jane, the most important reason to me to kill this bill is not on the list above. The reason is that we likely can get a better bill in the Senate through reconciliation, even if it’s a smaller bill that doesn’t address private sector regulation. I don’t agree that this bill is literally worse than nothing, so if push really came to shove I’d accept it, but the reality is that we can probably do better. I hope you’ll note this reason in the future. (You could link to letsitgetitdone’s recent post.)

Obama and The Dem Majorities are toast.
Who do they think worked AGAINST Corzine and Wall Street thievery in New Jersey?

The Republicans didn’t have the votes on their own and Dagget wasn’t a factor. We unapologetically kneecapped Corzine from the Left. In one of the Bluest states in the country.

Like the old saying goes: You can get ANYONE to Sell you out.
No delivery – no vote.

I’m happy there are still progressive voices that people can count on when the democratic party decides to bed down with industry. Thanks for all you do. The work done here is a boon to people tired of the party line crap coming out these days.

Jane, keep fighting for us. You and others like you who speak the truth are the only hope for our nation!!

I agree with Feingold on the bill. The bill sucks and Obama is responsible for the loss of the public option. But it is better than the status quo. How can you disregard the fact that insurances will no longer be able to deny insurance for pre-existing conditions? That is a big deal. I think from your points, #4 is the most legitimate and important. The efforts of progressives should be focused to reverse that instead of totally killing the bill.

I wonder what the odds are of getting Blue Dogs in the House to vote against the bill? They like to vote with Republicans anyway, so it would stand to reason that it shouldn’t take too much pressure to get them to do it again.

But they also love crappy legislation. So it’s hard to say which way they’ll go.

Jane have you read this schmear. Bull shit

Jane Hamsher’s staff Hotlist
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/21/817469/-Jane-Hamshers-staff

This person saying you are working with teabaggers to “kill the bill”

Who is this?

Is there a list of things they can actually get through reconciliation? Can they take this turkey to conference, hammer out a more progressive bill, House pass that and then reconcile the rest?

My gut is that the Senate bill will be the bill with next to no changes. How far was the end senate result from the finance committee bill? This is what Obama wanted all along, and he spent zero political capital to try and get a better bill, most of his capital was spent attacking the base. Expect him and other dems to cuddle up with us again after this is over by doing something that’s not related to the economy (DADT comes to mind first, though DOMA will never happen).

Top 10 Reasons to Kill Senate Health Care Bill

1. Forces you to pay up to 8% of your income to private insurance corporations — whether you want to or not
2. If you refuse to buy the insurance, you’ll have to pay penalties of up to 2% of your annual income to the IRS.
3. Many will be forced to buy poor-quality insurance they can’t afford to use, with $11,900 in annual out-of-pocket expenses over and above their annual premiums
4. Massive restriction on a woman’s right to choose, designed to trigger a challenge to Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court
5. Paid for by taxes on the middle class insurance plan you have right now through your employer, causing them to cut back benefits and increase co-pays
6. Many of the taxes to pay for the bill start now, but most Americans won’t see any benefits — like an end to discrimination against those with preexisting conditions — until 2014 when the program begins.
7. Allows insurance companies to charge people who are older 300% more than others
8. Grants monopolies to drug companies that will keep generic versions of expensive biotech drugs from ever coming to market.
9. No re-importation of prescription drugs, which would save consumers $100 billion over 10 years
10. The cost of medical care will continue to rise, and insurance premiums for a family of four will rise an average of $1,000 a year — meaning in 10 years, your family’s insurance premium will be $10,000 more annually than it is right now.

Yea, this bill needs to be killed…I refuse to support this trash of a bill. The nerve to force people to buy into insurance, especially when most people can’t afford insurance. Instead of the Gov’t creating Public Option maybe individual states should create a Single Payer system like Massachusetts. It seems the Senate is for ever hopeless in creating a Public Option.

Am I wrong that while there will be a prohibition against denials for pre-existing conditions, the associated rate increases (and co-pays) for such will put it out of reach for many, and the net result will be the same as denial?

I guess irony is the only way to describe this.

Sen. Whitehouse (D-RI): foes of health care bill are birthers, right-wing militias, aryan groups

I would support the pre-existing condition part as a stand-alone piece of legislation, but as a part of the larger whole, I really feel this bill does more harm than good.

It seems to me that for every one person who might see even a small benefit from this legislation, there will be many more people who will see their situation get worse. Premiums will still rise, but now we’ll be forced by law to pay them. There’s really nothing to reign in copays and deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses that will probably rise for those of us who are lucky enough to already have insurance. And I suspect coverage will continue to get worse.

So the bottom line is that our health outcomes are not likely to improve either. People will still put off getting care, even if they have insurance because the copays and deductibles will be prohibitive. So people will still get treatment too late.

Maybe costs will go down from the standpoint of a government accountant, but the people will actually pay more.

I said in the comment section of the petition that what scares me the most is this government/corporate collusion regarding the mandate. Up next, debtor’s prisons? The line between Transnational Corp. Inc. and U.S. Senate is blurred to vanishing.

When prisons go “private” warm bodies become profit. When wars go “contractor” driven they have no end. When health insurance is corporate-profit driven the gov’t has surrendered its most basic responsibilty to life and liberty of the citizens.

Thank you so much for all that FDL has done by way of informing the public and taking action to stop this bill. I’m also grateful for the position you’ve taken. We have to kill this thing. It will only impede future efforts to provide care for Americans.

No, Cha. #3 is the penalty you pay if you don’t do #2. But of course you knew that.

When I look at Democrats and progs who are backing the butchered Senate bill, the only way their actons make any sense is if they’re convinced of one or more of the following:
1) This is our one chance for reform, and thus we must:
a) pass even a crappy bill as it’s better than no bill
b) pass something now with the idea we can make it better later
2) If we don’t pass a bill, that will slaughter the Dems this coming November “just like it did in 1994″.
I suspect that #2 is the most basic anxiety here. Guess what? Rahm’s demoralizing the Democratic base by ramming NAFTA down our throats had a lot more to do with Dems staying home in 1994 than did not having a health care bill.

If we can just get people like Nate Silver and Paul Krugman to stop internalizing #2 (and to stop confusing killing the Senate bill with killing all hope of HCR — reconciliation would, as Jon Walker showed earlier, preserve the best and key parts of the bill, including the public option), we’d be getting somewhere.

While I agree with your sentement, this statement isn’t really true:

especially when most people can’t afford insurance

“most people” already have insurance.

THIS IS A CLASSIC ROPE A DOPE!

Jane? What real progressive would vote for a Bill like this? NONE!

This bill is also a way for enemies of the Progressive movement to attack the Progressive movement, and turn the masses against progressives.

The points you make here must be given to the masses, and we MUST STOP CALLING BARACK OBAMA and OTHER DEMS PROGRESSIVES!

The true danger of this BILL, is so call weak Dems telling their followers this BILL represents the agenda of PROGRESSIVES.

This is by all accounts a REPUBLICAN BILL!

Thanks Jane

It’s stunning to see the politicians so willfully ignore the American people. Everyone that knows what’s in this bill starts having second thoughts. Everyone that’s paid attention to the horribly corrupt and disingenuous process by which this bill has been passed starts questioning this bill. Why bother having committee hearings and floor debate when the real bill is drafted through secret backroom deals with lobbyists, interest groups, and a handful of chiseling Senators?

I can see the attack ads on this bill even now: taxing health care benefits for the first time, using the IRS as Aetna’s private collection agency, sweetheart deals for Big Pharma, no competition or regulation to tamp down out of control health care costs. All this bill amounts to is a bandaid on a gaping wound – buying the insurance industry just a little more time before the whole system comes crashing down around them. And by then, America is bound to look like something less than the first world country we all grew up in.

Keep up the great work Jane! The American people deserve better than this bill – and if the Democrats can’t do better, then this bunch doesn’t deserve to govern.

I agree this thing needs to be killed. However all the dems, after being bribed, arms twisted, are going to vote for it. Even Feingold.

So how do you think it can be killed? I’m sure Pelosi has even caved.

I just think it is a done deal, no matter how much we bitch.

The problem is that they aren’t interested in reconciliation — that’s why they’re trying to pretend that it’s not possible, as it would kill Obama’s deal with PhRMA (the one that kept the “Harry and Louise” ads off the air this year).

Thank you Jane. I just wish we had a spin machine that parallels the Repugs so that we could get EVERYBODY on board. Its better to “KILL BILL” than to enable the Dems that are falling in line just for passage of any garbage bill. Which is what Rahm wanted.

The Senate bill isn’t a “starter home,” it’s a sink hole

excelllant tag right there jane, I hope the progressives use that one, namely I expect to see that on on ko or maddow

I would also like to see our talking headds start calling this a “con job our democratic representatives are either falling for or a party to the con”

nice stuff

When prisons go “private” warm bodies become profit. When wars go “contractor” driven they have no end. When health insurance is corporate-profit driven the gov’t has surrendered its most basic responsibilty to life and liberty of the citizens.

that is great stuff right there, a person could run a complete campaign with that as their platform

Saying that this is better than the status quo means that one must believe the that an unfunded tax mandate on the healthy working middle class and dropping the bar on insurance offerings by business is worth the benefit. Suggesting that because the government pays part of the premium that the money will be well spent and fair to those forced to purchase means that you believe that when the insurance companies wrote this bill they were too stupid to see a cash cow.

Businesses will be able to drop or seriously reduce their current spending with this bill as the stick. “Yeah, well if you don’t like it, drop ours and take it up with the IRS.” There is no reason to assume the business will do anything better than the lowest common denominator. They’ve dramatically lowered the bar.

I am coming to see that all of the newer taxes, including the new the tax on plastic surgery, are simply ways to tax relatively defenseless parts of the population. Plastic surgery is not something I am interested in (but then there is little chance that my looks are worth improving) but I don’t believe that women who want to change their appearance should be treated as lepers. Botox, for instance, does have medical applications including reducing the effect of migraines but even if there were no medical application I don’t think that the many should target women with self-esteem issues as a cash cow. Equally I find suggestions of an obesity tax contemptible for any number of reasons but most specifically because it harms the poor the most.

Tax the rich, put taxes on corporations in that were removed in the past. Get the $38 billion dollars back that the IRS gave Citigroup. Taxes, such as the mandate for the young lower middle class to purchase what they cannot afford, that target people just trying to get by because they can’t defend themselves are morally wrong.

This is like buying a rusted out 71 Dodge Valiant because you think you can fix it up. But thousands of dollars later at the end of the day it’s still a Valiant. Sometimes you have to get the best car you can afford at the time and keep up on the maintenance.

The sliming begins. It’s time for the “adults” to scold the hippies and take what we can get and like it, or quit expecting so much. You get mad about it, well its time to dig up dirt against people that push for a better healthcare deal. Here’s what bothers me about this nonsense, there’s no logic to it. If Jane drank the blood of goats, it would not mean that every point made on healthcare is wrong. If she suggests that both the left and right can agree that this is a bad bill, it does not mean that she agrees with them about birtherism etc, just that well the bill sucks (and it might be for different reasons).

You have the ad hominem attacks listed in this article and the other dkos reclist diary. You have guilt by association listed in that linked diary. There is a question of insufficient authority because Jane was a Hollywood producer, so what should she know? It’s fucking stupid childishness and ultimately the most hypocritical thing I’ve seen in awhile. Barack Obama probably was the victim of each and every one of these attacks in the election and even now, and they get all in a hizzy, then turn around and do the same to someone else.

You know how you change minds on the left, fucking argue the points. You want to gain respect, come face to face with the people to disagree with and start the debate. But you can always be a coward by going to your own blog; surround yourself with sycophants and lob bombs from the safety of your castle.

This pushback against Jane is clearly orchestrated.
Kos “owns” the site, no?
What does that tell ya?

I’m in complete agreement. In a lobbyist controlled government the one with the deepest pockets wins. Democracy and bribes don’t function well together.

Agreed. That is why I still challenge Chris Matthews to have people from the Netroots on his program after he grossly misrepresented the netroots.

Invite Marcy, Jane, Eve (from Seminal ) on his program. Come broadcast live at next years Netroots gathering. Chris Matthews is choking on his own words if he does not take this challenge on

I dont think this is Kos, I just think that it’s a really large community and there are paid and unpaid operatives. Thing is, its tough to get too paranoid about this since you never know if someone is a connected person or just some dude blowing off some steam. What it does show is that it’s moderates v liberals and pragmatists v idealists. I hate though that it goes to mud slinging once one side can’t prove their points (as seen with the moderate-pragmatists).

signed the petition and passed it on to everyone I could think of .

We cannot let this bill pass in its present form ,the Senate bill must die

man, that is one steaming supersize load of veal pen nattering signifying nothing. too many people at Kos these days with nothing to do but bleat and preen. place creeps me out anymore.

You know it’s not like Chris isn’t part of the problem himself. He has an hour every night, every night, to talk about the important issues of the day. Instead he has segments like the “sideshow” and invites about the same handful of guests to say the same thing they said last time. Invite different voices and actually talk about some issues. I think this goes for most cable news too, its no wonder that Rachel Maddow pretty much sustained her ratings post election.

There is absolutely *NO* way I would sign this completely counterproductive petition. The subsidies in the Senate bill make health care MUCH more affordable for people vs. the status quo, and the expansion of Medicaid will significantly aid the poor in obtaining care. It stipulates that 85% of health care premiums go directly to advance the care of the patient, sets up an exchange, and will partner with two national providers that must be NOT-FOR-PROFIT.

Yes, is is not perfect. But these can be changed. Those of you who want to kill the bill are among the many reasons why we have had to wait THIS LONG until reform has come back on to the agenda.

I am not going to stand idly by and let you all KILL reform. Good grief, with liberals like some of you, who the hell needs Republicans?

Stick together, pass the bill, demand further reform later. It is not difficult to comprehend.

Here’s my health insurance bill:

2010… lower Medicare eligibility to 60
2011… lower to 55
2112… to 50

Until we hit conception!

NOT-FOR-PROFIT, sort of like Blue Cross, Blue Shield perhaps. Details, details.

I think Progressive need to distance themselves from this bill as far as possible. By starting a petition that shows support for killing the bill will prove that we are not part of this garbage legislation and are distinguishing ourselves even further from the Democratic party which repugs, birthers, teabaggers and the like, prefer to lum us in with.

Perhaps spreading the “corporate communism” meme would be helpful…

the question is, why would congress reform the very same bill that they want passed? the bottom line is that there will be no passage of any kind of reform for a long time until the damage has wrecked a gaping hole in our economy and health care system.

yes there are good things about this bill but it does more harm than good.

Well both sides at this point are talking past each other. That is not to say, both sides are in the wrong, so what do you do? (like we do with republicans v democrats in the media)

Thing is there is a point to be made about passing this bill. If this process fails it will critically harm the democrats up until 2010, potentially harming other measures. Okay that’s fine, but is there some history of that? There is history of demoralizing your base when the other side is in lockstep (see 1994). Also, what about passing a fundamentally flawed bill? Does that not harm future campaigns and governance. The thing that I want we people talk about both policy and political strategy is to actually discuss it. I have an open mind about things and it would be great to see someone argue the points without having to go to fallacies to score points.

It’s about time we hold politicians to this too. You here this meme that this is a “starter home” for a future better plan. Okay, I’ll bite, what parts of this build actually help to get a better future bill? — what is the goal of this, what is the 5 year plan or something to make this work, what’s the end game? As far as I can see it sets up a method of government to help pay for some of a forced policy, are the later reforms making those entry level policies better? why wasnt that done to begin with? how does this help to make drugs cheaper and care cheaper?

Yeah, I’m sure the tooth fairy will come along and improve it later.

THIS CURRENT BATCH OF DUMB DEMS ARE GOING TO SELL US ALL OUT!
WHY?
They think it is the year 1994 (the period before the internet)

Insurance companies have promise to help these Dumb Dems get re-elected.
How? They are going to help them buy News Paper Ads and TV Time.

THERE IS HOWEVER ONE BIG PROBLEM!!!
No one reads newspapers any more!

A candidate running against one of these Dumb Dems who vote for this bill just needs to produce ONE Commercial, listing what JANE has shown above and tell everyone watching their commercial to go to their web site to learn more about how DUMB DEM is going to take your MONEY and GIVE TO RICH INSURANCE EXECUTIVES! and DUMB DEM will LOSE his or her seat. PERIOD! CASE CLOSE!!!

This Bill could help PROGRESSIVES put a lot of REAL PROGRESSIVES IN CONGRESS!

Are you kidding? Demand further reform later? The only thing that is gonna happen to this bill is the threads from an already threadbare piece of legislation will continue to get pulled. Just like the glass-steagal, and any other piece of comprehensive meaningful legislation.

THIS IS A CLASSIC ROPE HOPE A DOPE!

Fixed it.

For the record, Markos opposes the passage of this bill. He was on Meet the Press tearing it down yesterday. I have a lot of respect for him. He doesn’t dictate what the community thinks.

Well thats part of the reason why this shitstorm wont hit until 2014. It does one of two things, keeps people in line (remember how hard we fought for this?!one1!) and is something to run on again because they don’t want to lose the issue of healthcare “reform.” I think most democratic half measures are not about getting the best deal possible but by making the bare minimum to say they did something, to preserve the issue for future elections.

Yeah Markos and I’m thinking most of the frontpagers are against the Senate bill. But yeah I guess the fallacy filled dairies are more of a testament to his commitment to free speech then they are a comment on the opinions of the site itself.

Not to disagree but perhaps the question might be: Since bills generally require lobbyist cash in order to motivate sponsors who is going to be paying enough money to defeat the potential profits as currently agreed to in the bill? Who will have the deeper pockets?

I think Robert Kutner has a very prescient point on Moyers:

One way or another, there is going to be a social movement. Because so many people are hurting, and so many people are feeling correctly that Wall Street is getting too much and Main Street is getting too little. And if it’s not a progressive social movement that articulates the frustration and the reform program, you know that the right wing is going to do it. And that, I think, is what ought to be scaring us silly.

There is a LOT of anger out there and if the Democrats keep ignoring the people in favor of corporate interests, that’s leaving this energy to be harnessed by the corporate Tea Party groups. At the same time FDR was harnessing that energy here in America, the Right was harnessing it in Germany.

The concept of insurance was supposed to be justly *shared* risk. That is, risk must be shared in distributive justice. Each must shoulder his/her share of the burden according to their ability to pay. This bill allows corporations to charge those with pre-existing conditions more than those who are fortunate enough to enjoy good health. It allows corporations to charge older people more than younger people. Those who need health care will pay more for it while corporations will continue to deny care and extract huge profits from each and everyone of us by law.

The Senate bill is res ipsa loquitur, the absolutely clear evidence, of bribery and corruption in our Senate. Those responsible should be charged and prosecuted.

There is no regulation on the price of premiums so accepting people with preexisting conditions, but making the premiums unaffordable is the likely way to get around it. Even for those with subsidies, the deductible will probably be too high for many to even use the insurance. Plus, there’s nothing to say that the insurance company can’t (and won’t) deny certain treatments, etc. There are high risk pools in most states. In my state, for my husband and myself, the yearly premiums equal $32,000 with a $3,000 deductible and after $35,000 – we would get 80% paid of “reasonable” costs. That’s prohibitive. Yet someone could say – but you can buy insurance even with a pre-existing condition. It’s just spin – not reality. And without real regulation on pricing, saying an insurance company must take people with pre-existing conditions is an empty promise.

It is too soon to pith the frog.
Yea, I know I am a perfect victim for Lucy.

But we are calling neighbors around CA to ask them to call their representatives and to tell those members of Congress to see that the HOUSE stands up for its health care bill.

If we are going to give up the public option, we should get some turkey for it.
 what turkey?

Yes, the exchanges and the subsidies should start in 2013. This is a Depression. Forget the impact on the CBO score, or make the hike of the medicare tax on 200k earners 1.2% or 1.5%.

what else?
Americans can still insist on improvements to the Senate bill and that has to come from House conferees who point out that they gave up the public option to give a healthy stroke job to Lieberman and Nelson.
If we can’t have a public option, we should require insurance companies to spend 90 percent of premium on medical care, pre-existing condition ban for everyone not just kids starting in 2010, the House 2x rating for older insured and, we must have a permanent COBRA extension for workers who lose their jobs.


Particularly important is for the HOUSE to stand up for COBRA extension for the unemployed, which is in the House bill, Section 113. 
We need to help the unemployed keep their insurance until the exchanges start, without forcing them into expensive high-risk pools.
Section 113 of the House bill permits the unemployed, many of whom can’t get individual coverage because of pre-existing conditions, to buy into their old group insurance until the insurance exchanges start in 2013.
And one other thing. These are the insurance companies we are fighting, not folks who make cars or milk.
These are folks who call the service they provide — that is the medical care of their clients — they call it a loss; specifically the medical loss ratio.
These are folks who profit if you die. Who make more money if you dont get care. They are carrying on the concept of unsafe at any speed into the 21at century and America is the only country on Earth where they get away with it.
These people are the personification of greed. They dont do medical care. They dont change bed pans. They dont type blood or implant a heart valve. They dont make a product or really provide a service. They are the purveyors and beneficiaries of an elaborate marketing, public relations scheme backed by actuarial competence and manipulative brilliance.

Where is the outrage in Congress. Where is the rhetoric to shame these people from the White House

Case in point is minimum wage. Why does Congress have to go in every twenty years or so to make it somewhat more relevant? Why not just tie increases to inflation/cost of living and have it adjust every 5 years (so that businesses have advanced notice and can prepare for the new increase). Then if Congress wanted to halt the increase for a 5 year interval they could vote to do so, otherwise the problem is “solved.” But then again you would lose the issue, which i think is the ultimate point. Republicans do the same thing with abortion.

absolutely agree. Bans on pre-existing conditions that done ALSO have guaranee issue with price/rating control are just spin.

passing this bill will essentially put the final nail in the coffin for democrats in 2010 and that there will be no majority to even pass any kind of meaningful reform. have you read the polls lately? it’s practically a consensus that the voter base will not come out vote. the dems will own it if they do pass this p.o.s (piece of sh1t)

this bill pisses too many people off and is a huge insurance give away. it’s a lose lose situation whether you vote for it or not.

My wife and I were actually discussing the possibility of voting Republican for the first time in our live this morning. So far that is a non-starter.

I’m frankly getting dammed tired of the folks who support the bill deriding and belittling those of us that don’t. Over the past week I’ve read that we’re “childish” “immature” “losers” and now we’re “among the many reasons why we have had to wait THIS LONG” and with “liberals like some of [us], who need Republicans.

I’ve posted I don’t know how many comments voicing why I believe in killing the bill, and have not yet ONCE called out the others for anything. Yet every single person that posts here in support of the bill ALWAYS resorts to come kind of ad hominem attack.

JUST STOP IT.

You want to debate why the bill should be supported, DO SO. But just stop with the attacks, or please just post somewhere else.

Paid for by taxes on the middle class insurance plan you have right now through your employer, causing them to cut back benefits and increase co-pays.

I am still trying to wrap my mind around this part.
Could some one explain it?

It is paying for the bill through a tax, but also using that same tax as the main cost control mechanism*. It is a classic catch-22. If it works they have no funding, if it doesn’t work they have no cost control.

Pretending that getting a continuing degrading product, as long as it doesn’t cost more, is cost control.

Very persuasive.

it’s a lose lose situation whether you vote for it or not.

Not to go into this whole 11 demensional chess thing, but I think that was the intent of the White House all along. Secure monies from the industry for this gift, shrink or lose majorities and then create the “other” to run against. Can you imagine how much easier it will be to run in 2012 if the Republicans control Congress than if they don’t? As it stand now Obama will have to run on his accomplishments, which arent many, but under that scenario there is an enemy. Plus it relies on the good assumption that Republicans will be nitwits once they take control.

If you are having such a discussion, you obviously have no idea where you stand and do not understand the current situation. The republican party of today is a religious neo-fascist party. Just thinking of voting for them shows total ignorance.

The democrats are weak and have been failing to pass meaningful reform because they are controlled by special interests. But they are not fascists like the republicans are.

How could anyone who wants to call themselves progressive would even consider voting for the republicans? One of the worst problems that we have in this country is political illiteracy.

And again.

Same old shit, differnt poster.

Getting really fucking old.

EDIT: Sorry, I thought this was a response to a post, but now I don’t see it. Please disregard, not at all am I commenting on the posts near tot his one.

I find it particularly troubling that if your intention is to kill and maim people, the sky’s the limit, but if you want to provide health care, it needs to be “deficit neutral.”

And most of these people call themselves “pro-life.” I don’t see how they can do that with a straight face.

And in regards to #59 above — and they want to call “us” childish?

I think the mantra has to be: Kill the Bill, Start Again

The second part is important – we cannot allow them to think that they are off the hook if this thing fails altogether – that we will continue to agitate to hold them too account unless they get right back to work on version 2.0.

***Progress** is purely subjective. What you may consider progress, another may consider counter-progressive. Increasing taxes on the poor does not seem like progess.

I get tired of them at no point addressing the substantive issues, rather they just blast away with personal attacks. Look at Dr. Dean who was so reserved for so long and swallowed each and every weakening change until it was too much, and even then he specifically stated what things made the bill unacceptable. He then gets attacks for being irrational. Why not address the problems he has with the bill? Is he wrong? I don’t think he is, but he certainly is not wrong because he’s irrational.

There were, in the past Republicans that were not completely evil and I suppose there are still a few around.

This is not religion, this is politics. And in politics one makes feints when it time to clean the roster. The Republicans, for all the wrong reasons, won more by not voting for this than most Democrats won by not keeping their eye on the ball.

Over the past week I’ve read that we’re “childish” “immature” “losers”

And now Dem Senators are calling foes of health care bill are birthers, right-wing militias, aryan groups.

http://washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2009/dec/20/sen-whitehouse-foes-health-care-bill-are-birthers-/

Don’t fall for the Hope A Dope?

First you assume that Barack Obama is a Democrat

Second you assume that Blue-Dogs help real Progressives forward true Democrat issues.

Third you assume that the Party in Power always loses seat in the Midterm,

What if Barack Obama done what the base wanted, would he lose seats in the Midterm? Probably Not

The game is not about Quanity it is about Quality!

Imagine if the one hold out was a PROGRESSIVE, and not a Blue Dog, Imagine how the Bill would look.

Janes is not making OBAMA FAIL, OBAMA is doing that all by himself!

I advise all of you to join the year 2009! or you are going to be in for a very, very, rude awakening!!!

Thanks Jane

How could anyone who wants to call themselves progressive would even consider voting for the republicans? One of the worst problems that we have in this country is political illiteracy.

I considered it, but talked myself out of it pretty fast. My stance was purely nihilistic. If America does not want reform, wants more wars, wants a smaller and smaller middle class, then far be it for me to get in their way. Basically make things so bad that people just wake up. Its sort of like how if you catch a kid smoking you have them smoke the entire pack all at once, get sick, and never smoke again. Ultimately it does not work on a political/national level and would cause not just harm to me but everyone in the future.

I think the program is to run in 2010 saying we were one or two votes away from powerful health care reform. Elect a few more Dems and you can have it.
the reality is that electing merkley, webb, and a few others meant the difference here.
The big mistake was the Dem leadership not recognizing Lieberman for what he is. With two more votes, we would have the public option and tougher stuff out of the Senate.

If any more Supremes are planning to retire I sure hope they do it before BO’s 4 years are up.

With two more votes, we would have the public option and tougher stuff out of the Senate.

With two more votes we would have two more ConservaDem senators stepping up to get in the way.

You should probably watch the video. I think he called those groups opponents of President Obama, not the health bill specifically. Don’t expect the Washington Times to give it any more of an accurate heading than Fox Noise would.

At least that’s how his words sounded to me. He was calling those groups opponents of the President, not of the health bill specifically.

Donated.

Each day that goes by, I am increasingly vindicated in my decision to start the ball rolling on the emigration process to Canada.

O/T

Anybody ever had a monitor suddenly have lines run through different points of it, emitting a “bleep” with each line?

I’ve been working with some kind of computer over 30 years and I’ve never seen this, and mine just did it twice.

Oh boy, guess it’s time for a new monitor, in addition to having to buy health insurance that won’t help me.

Signed and commented with pleasure, Jane.

Sounds like a video card problem.

Perhaps the newly SCOTUS affirmed rules for legally disappearing those the President disapproves of, whether American or nor might apply here. Probably a bit too of the top right now. Besides that might be fairly big number.

lieberman is certainly replaceable with a real Dem. Maine has possibilities as does NH–Judd Gregg.
I could go on, including Florida, Iowa, etc.

What about Biden’s threats/history lesson?

1) That if this fails, there will not be another attempt to fix it for 40 years;
2) That if this passes, better a bad bill that can be improved (as happened with Social Security) than no bill at all.

And overall, just as happened with Hillarycare: WHAT DO YOU THINK WILL COME TO PASS WITHOUT THE BILL? All the negative things the Repubs threatened would be consequences of Hillarycare, came true anyway. Reduction of choice, reduction of benefits, people being locked out, etc.

Do you really really think the Progressives, your precious 40 House members and a few Senators, will really put through a bill with public option or single-payer? Or will nothing happen, and the insurance and pharma companies will continue business as usual?

If I am repeating something someone else said, I apologize. Has anyone looked at the market today? Aetna, United Health, Wellpoint, etc– across the board up about 4 percent on average. That, on top of an average of about 10% in gains last week.

Almost certainly not the monitor. Video card or driver are more likely. I had some fairly iffy stuff in the past do that. Reboot and if it happens again consider some inexpensive card.

Oh, ok. Yeah, I’d already burned up one video card and had to purchase a new one about a year ago. Darn, seems they should last longer than that.

First, I think I’ll open it up, take it out a minute, and re-seat it. Seems like I heard that sometimes helps with gremlins in the system.

Thanks SD. It’s at least worth a try, and if I need a new one, well, they can be had rather cheap these days.

One source of trouble here is that, if we are comparing this bill to doing absolutely nothing, Jane’s reasons above in my view really don’t make any sense. You can get a slightly more detailed explanation here. That is why I urge Jane to list:

11. We can probably get a better bill using Senate reconciliation. Obama and Reid have been negotiating on health care for six months and given that passing nothing would probably be seen as a disastrous loss, they can and will bend and accommodate the reconciliation process if we force them.

Background info:

Let’s Expose Them to Reality by letsgetitdone (or numerous others)

Oh, before I go.

Signed, Jane, proudly.

And I just want to say to those that disagree with us who would like to see the bill killed WHY I feel the way I do. Perhaps someone can respond without personal attacks and convince me otherwise.

But, in short, the Senate Bill does NOT do what health care reform should do. The problem with health care is that too many don’t have access to it, and too many are bankrupted by using it. The Senate bill, IMO, addresses neither of those issues. Too many folks will still be unable to afford it (even those with subsidized insurance plans, because the co-pays and deductibles will be too high), and just as many (possibly more as employers begin to erode their plans) will still face financial ruin as a result of a health problem. Again, even folks with “insurance” face this now, and they will still with the Senate bill.

IT DOESN’T DO WHAT IT’S SUPPOSED TO DO. THAT’S WHY I OPPOSE IT.

The Fundy Wingnuts oppose this version Health Care because it is not corporatist enough. We “Kill Billers” oppose it because it is too corporatist. The fact that our elected Democrats sell us out routinely is not new. Of course I can understand how many people sell their souls to join the corporate collective.

Jane Hamsher is either a Hillary supporter who secretly wants Obama to fail so Hillary can run again, or, she is a neo-con in sheeps clothing, because there is no other reason for her to see this reform bill in such a negative light. It is clearly a step in the right direction and nobody on earth can be so naive as to think that the party who holds the White House isn’t going to lose some seats in the mid-terms. Knowing that the president’s party ALWAYS loses seats in the first mid-term after taking office, it is impossible for any thinking person to assume that we could pass a better bill next year…That is truly a sick joke for people to use that as a plan for improving on this bill. Many of the ‘Blue-Dogs’ won in districts that had never gone Democratic. We can’t hold all those seats and

I’m not saying we shouldn’t work hard to replace ConservaDems with real People’s Party Democrats. But I think we need to understand the situation.

The corporatists are like a hydra, you can get rid of one and two more will spring up in it’s place. If we had Lamont instead of Lieberman, I’m sure Evan Bayh would happily fill that role in undermining health care reform.

In the context of health care, I don’t think you can pass this dog turd of a bill and plan to improve it after 2010. Personally I think we’re going to have a more conservative congress after the 2010 elections so it will be even harder to pass anything good – but even if the people who think passing this bill will somehow help Democrats, we still won’t get good legislation because there are plenty of other people just waiting for the corporate establishment to call them up for duty.

I heard the insurance stocks are at 52 year highs

Hooray! /s

Has Marcos posted any diaries on “his” site opposing the bill’s passage?

I too have seen him on the teevee and noted his opposition. But couldn’t some words from him have some effect, or is that place over there just too batshit crazy?

Posted this on another thread – adding here also:
Below is an exact quote from Ron Wyden on the ‘Ed Schultz Show’ on msnbc:

“But we shouldn’t hand a win to the far right, and if they win on this Ed, make no mistake about it, they are going to bring hyper-partisan ship to every issue. They will do this on climate change, they will do it on energy, they will do it on taxes. ”

Imo, this is a fundamental misreading of the politics and the Republicans. I believe that regardless of this bill, Republicans will STILL bring hyper-partisanship to every issue. What ends up happening, is Dems appear weak – and rightfully so. Independents see this and don’t want the country in the hands of people who will cave without courage of conviction; then they vote Republican and we’re back where we started…

It is clearly a step in the right direction

Can you back up that statement with any facts? I know it’s easier to just hurl insults and personal attacks, but I’d like to be convinced that this does more harm than good, because I currently just don’t see it.

I wasn’t a Hillary supporter and I’m definitely not a neo-con but as of right now I’m in the Kill Bill camp. But if anyone can show me any evidence that this bill will bend the curve of medical bankruptcies or people getting care too late due to fear of expenses, I’ll be happy to reconsider.

So far I haven’t seen it. People say that it covers 30 million more people, but that’s ignoring the fine print. I need some details on exactly how those people will be actually have coverage that improves their access to care.

I believe that regardless of this bill, Republicans will STILL bring hyper-partisanship to every issue.

Exactly!

When will Democrats learn?

You have a ‘clown’s eye view’ of this debate.

1. Lieberman campaigned with McCain! They wanted to be on the same ticket, but Republican big-wigs wouldn’t let them. Lieberman represents the LIKUD party and you think the Dem’s could have gotten him to vote for a more progressive bill? Crazy talk.

2. Ben Nelson is from an anti-choice state, he has always been anti-choice and this is the best bill he would have voted for.

3. The party of an incomeing president loses seats in the first mid-term 100% of the time.

Take a victory pill and call me in the morning.

Jane,
Thanks so much for helping us to focus our response to the Senate trash bill. It is important to be on the side of the people who are really going to be hurt by this bill, and not on the side of the apologists and cowards. I had trouble loading my email mailing list and ended up mailing the petition link and copying your ten items. Just feedback, not a criticism. Keep on keeping on.

The corporatists do so well with Republics in charge

In nearly 200 years of recorded stock-market history, no calendar decade has seen such a dismal performance as the 2000s

Someone should ask John Bush and Sarah Palin why Republics are so bad for business.

Sorry Jane but, I don’t think there’s a chance in hell that this bill won’t pass. Perhaps we should turn our attention to fighting for improvements to the bill and changing the filibuster rule. I like Harkin’s idea. Perhaps we can petition him to indroduce the amendment again. That said, this bill will not be killed. I think we need to focus on the changes needed. The Republicans broke their own record on December 18th with their 98th filibuster. The Senator is a non-functioning body with the minority rule. I didn’t vote for this! I want it changed. Perhaps that’s the petition we should start!

Not trying to argue for or against the bill – I’m just trying to desperately understand.

An AP story said yesterday – “In a bow to Senate moderates, the measure lacks a government-run insurance option of the type that House Democrats placed in their bill. Instead, the estimated 26 million Americans purchasing coverage through new insurance exchanges would have the option of signing up for privately owned, nonprofit nationwide plans overseen by the same federal agency office that supervises the system used by federal employees and members of Congress.

it also states that “At its core, the legislation would create a new insurance exchange where consumers could shop for affordable coverage that complies with new federal guidelines. Most Americans would be required to purchase insurance, with subsidies available to help families making up to $88,000 in income afford the cost.”

Now, not trying to be argumentative in the least, but how is this a bad thing? I’m a freelancer who makes around 20 grand a year – I have zero health insurance now. When I read the above, it sounds like I’ll be eligible for a subsidy to purchase a non-profit plan (thereby providing me with insurance and not making health a “for-profit” matter)

This sounds like a good thing.

Am I wrong? Please educate the naive.

I’m sorry, Jane, I can’t cosign this.

At least half your list are right wing talking points and you could just as easily make a list of 10 things that progressives would cheer for.

Meanwhile, 45,000 people are dying every year under the current system which the petition proposes to keep. This bill will cover many of them and stop the insurance companies from raping everyone as badly as they do. Is it a disappointment? Yes. It just means we have to keep fighting. And we have much, much more to fight for than just this bill.

You’re a great fighter, Jane. Let’s keep fighting the Republicans. And with a bill this bad it’s going to be a fight, but can you imagine what they would do the Dems in 2010 if the Health Care Reform utterly fails? That is what the Republicans are willing to go down fighting for. Please, don’t go with them.

While I can understand if people are upset with an imperfect bill, its hard to see exactly why it should be ‘killed’ when its a lot better than the status quo. A quick read of the 10 ‘reasons’ above reveals that point 2 invalidates points 1 and 3!

Also regarding point 9: Right now there is no re-importation. Point 7: right now companies can charge even more – or decide they just dont want to cover you!

So why are these reasons to kill this bill!!!?

This bill substantially lowers the cost of insurance for lower income families. Yes, it still ‘requires’ people to pay too much – but its less than they had to before!

I think a lot of people are rightly upset that the supporters of the bill have been forced to comprise with people who are not negotiating in good faith. Does that mean we should all quit and just go home crying?

Jane et al here seem to think that since the insurance industry will profit a lot, this must be a bad bill. This is very simplistic thinking and dangerous- especially for the thousands who die every year due to lack of health insurance.

My question for Jane: why is it not better pass this and then improve it later on? Because, unless you are happy with the status quo, there are two options: kill this and start all over … when? 2015? Or pass this and slowly improve it (with a lot of hard work.) Does she really think that affordable health care will come quicker to americans if this bill is killed now? I have not seen anyone argue this but it seems rather important question. Anyways, I realize the bill isnt perfect, but what exactly is the strategy for getting americans affordable health care if this fails? Wait along until someone more popular than Barack Obama (and more liberal) is in the white house with more than 60 more liberal democrats in the senate??

How hard is it to break that record when Hapless Harry Reid is too scared to make them actually perform a filibuster? Saying “I call filibuster.” takes no effort.

This BILL gives Republicans the BEST OF BOTH WORLDS!

First this is a Republicans Bill.

Second Republicans get to talk about how they hate the Bill.

This is a Classic Hope A Dope,
by Rahm and the ConservDems against real Progressives.

Simply put we make people think the BILL is a true Democratic Bill, when we know it is a Republican Bill, and let Dems take the heat for it in the Mid-Term Elections

What Progressives must do is SHOUT FROM EVERY HILL SIDE that this is not a Progressive Bill.

If not Republicans will get the Best of Both Worlds!

A Bill that Insurance CEO’s Love! (how many CEOs vote progressive? NONE!)
And Dems Pissed at Obama and other phony Dems! (the idea is Republicans will take seats away from phony DEMS in the Mid Terms)

PROGRESSIVE MUST ORGANIZED!

Again, to me only politically illiterate people would even consider voting republican because they think it would be better than what we got now. And that is exactly the problem in this country. The majority of American voters are politically illiterate. That is why people like Bush or Reagan were ever elected anyway. Sorry, I dont mind to offend you, but you started this by mentioning you are now considering voting republican for the 1st time in your life.

Point 7: right now companies can charge even more – or decide they just dont want to cover you!

Right now I’m young and healthy, and can pay nothing if I want to. Paying for my expenses out-of-pocket.

With this bill I’ll be forced to pay for terrible insurance, wherein I’m still going to be effectively paying out-of-pocket, but I’ll have less money, because I’ll be paying for premiums along the way.

I don’t know what your life situation is, but for me this bill is a complete travesty. Literally a state-coerced tax to for-profit private industry without any mandate that I receive service on that tax from said industry.

There are Jane’s 10 reasons, but if that’s not enough there is reason no 11, and it has nothing to do with Health care and everything to do with a system of government responsive to Corporate bottom lines rather than to the needs of the people.

It is Incumbent on all of us to realize that attached to this camel’s nose is an attempt to privatize all parts of the commons. Healthcare, delivery of water, electricity, energy, the military etc, are so inexorably essential to our well being that privatization becomes no more than the sanctioning of a regressive feudal relationship resulting in a direct loss of autonomy for we the people.

We are being driven to the edge of a Constitutional crisis, as the ideas of a Third Way which enshrines the power of untouchable Corporations (indemnifying them and their CEO’s from prosecution) over the freedoms of the individual are being written into law.

One of the favored phrases to promote this bill is the chance to be a customer for a not-for-profit. Having been covered as a state employee in the past I can say that not-for-profit is not necessarily what it is cracked up to be. Organizations like Blue Cross, Blue Shield are not amazingly better than their for-profit counter parts. Their costs are not dramatically better nor their copays. Better but not knock-your-socks-off better. Not-for-profit is a legal definition for tax purposes and not a statement of altruistic tendencies.

Being a customer of Blue Cross, as are many state and federal employees, simply means that it is a popular plan that costs a bit less than some others. Within the context of the mandate where the rate is effectively flat due to subsidies the advantages are probably slim and if the copay is higher there would be no advantage. Also note that no federal or state employee pays for their insurance out of pocket, as opposed to people who would be forced into the system. The relevance of not-for-profit may be lost when total out-of-pocket costs are brought into the calculations.

Most of the other issues have been covered nearly to death.

……M Y…F E L L O W…P R O G R E S S I V E S…

1. The party of a newly elected president loses seats in the first mid-term 100% of the time.

2. If this bill disappoints you then please turn on AM radio right now and listen to Rush Limbaugh losing his mind. I will be shocked if you think he is faking it. He’s practically calling for violent revolution.

Not offended. I said talked about. I’ve also talked about listening to Rush Limbaugh but I’m afraid I don’t want to buy a new radio.

On the other side though, if we just vote the party line and ask for nothing in return then there is no point to voting

Totally want to rec this comment, I hope whoever in the govt receives FDL’s petition reads it, gets it.

Here’s what I wrote when I signed the petition:

Because it’s a sinkhole and a quagmire and I want this president to start off better than that and I don’t want to get any more mired than I am. I’d rather take my chances with nothing–God!–than with “corporate persons” like Aetna and Wellpoint. Please, get some sense here. You need to quit with the corporate personhood think/thing. Corporations shouldn’t be buying candidates and writing bills. It’s a fraud on this country and constitution. It’s a disease. Get human. Get humane. Get a conscience. Get real.

I’ve got two big bugaboos* about where I think America went wrong, and one of them is corporate personhood (faulty claim to equal protection as a person under the 14th Amendment) and the other is that juries are for the most part precluded from knowing about–hence using, hence believing in–their rightful power of jury nullification. Both totally backwards from what the Constitution intended and was true at the time the Constitution was written. So now corporations are buying candidates and excluding others and writing bills and making law, with the total goal of profit, while juries are no longer reviewing the sense and justice of the cases they are faced with–they no longer question authority, no longer bring their conscience and empathy, no longer check and balance. Why should corporations care about peace and health? There’s no profit in them. And without the power or knowledge of jury nullification, We the People is largely disabled and no longer understood.

I’m writing a longer comment than I intended here, but if Jane reads this, I know she’s been a guest on Thom Hartmann’s program and he wrote Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights and he’d be a great person to jam with on this. I recently left a comment at Daily Kos about this, and if you scroll down through it you get to a box with French campaign law that does distinguish between contributions by natural persons (that would be us) and artificial persons (corps-es), and then below that a table from Thom Hartmann’s old website where he compares differences in America pre and post the 1886 Supreme Court headnote fraud that corporate personhood is based on. Note too my point #3, which is that I don’t believe corporate personhood was ever legislated, it takes its legitimacy from the Supreme Court headnote–not a Supreme Court decision, it’s not in the decision– so therefore I believe Congress could simply undo that by writing clarifying legislation. People talk about a Constitutional Amendment to undo it, but I don’t believe that’s necessary. Congress could just speak. And Obama–if he really wanted to channel Lincoln–could go back to the 14th Amendment and ungunk it, free us all from corporate masters.

Sorry for the length of this, I can’t think of one part without seeing the whole.

Plus, for Jane, one other thought about this– ? You just took a lot of heat for suggesting that we have things in common with the teabaggers and should work together. The group that I’m aware of that’s taken up jury nullification is FIJA, the Fully Informed Jury Association, which per their website is in Montana and when last I checked was posting tea party info (hmm, don’t see that now, website has changed). Also about that heat you took from Deoliver’s Daily Kos diary yesterday, I hope you saw her sig line — “If you’re in a coalition and you’re comfortable, you know it’s not a broad enough coalition” Bernice Johnson Reagon — too.

Thanks for all you (all) do.

—————————-

(*Actually three bugaboos, corporate personhood, juries, and transparency.)

Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property. Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person.

To call the Big Insurance/Pharma Emergency Recovery and Rehabilitation Act of 2010, real health care reform, is the most cynical betrayal of the American public in fifty years.

As a further poison pill, it will force the issue of reproductive rights and control over women’s choice into a SCOTUS eager for the chance to eliminate Roe v. Wade.

This legislation must be killed now.

The fact that Limbaugh might be bothered that Republicans are not the lead recipients on the lobbyist gravy train this time is truly shocking. The idea that the only way to get back on the gravy train is by attacking the people who currently are in order to replace them is surprising indeed. He will never have to fake wanting Republicans back in power. If the Democrats did everything he wanted he would still not be satisfied. As far as he is concerned this is tribal fight and only one tribe can win.

I am kind of surprised that the biggest reason not to vote for this bill after the mandate to buy crap insurance is the massive cuts proposed for Medicare. The last I saw these amounted to some $400 billion over 10 years.

Obama is implementing the wettest of Rush’s wet dreams and that gas bag cannot help himself but to act the scorpion to Obama’s frog.

“But it is better than the status quo”

On average. A large number of people are going to end up bankrupted, and a larger number making mandated payments on insurance they can’t afford to use. A larger number probably will end up better off in the short term, though in the long term they may find that steadily rising insurance charges eat away their savings.

It’s not a solution. We’re just kicking the can down the road, and it will all be to do again in a decade or so, after we’ve given the insurance companies huge amounts of money that could be better spent elsewhere.

Bullcrap!

The sole argument that this bill should pass because it does ‘good’ for 31 million is pure bullshit. It’s an easy one to make when you’re not one of the 31 million and don’t know what this means to them.

The poor and sick can get free care right now. They can keep what little money they have -TO LIVE. No sticks, no threats, no collection agencies.

To add to the reasons to kill this bill:
1. CNN just uncovered one new boon to the drug mfgrs: new limits on the use of cheaper generics.
The poor are now forced to buy higher priced drugs from them.

2. New gifts to United Healthcare and Wellpoint:
Harry new mgrs amendment delays their tax by one year and gave them more delays in the next year.
Why?? What Democratic Senator had to have that concession?

Obama and Rahm just threw health care to the Senate Dems like a kitten thrown to a pack of starving hogs. And not one Senator refused to eat.

And just how many of those 45,000 do you think will be saved by this bill and when?

Thanks for posting this Jane. This bill is nothing but a huge corporate welfare scheme for the insurance industry, and has little to offer to those of us who support real reform.

Honestly Jane, what do you think is really going to take this bill’s place? There’s a chance this bill gets stronger in conference and there’s a lot of good things in it, although I agree there’s some major concerns as well. It’s not great but either was social security when it was first passed under FDR. This is a step forward and it’s almost as good as it gets at this time in Congress because honestly, the public option never had a chance to pass Congress and what are you pretending could pass right now that’s better than this bill? How are you going to get Landrieu, Nelson, Lieberman, Lincoln, Conrad etc on board?

You said:

My question for Jane: why is it not better pass this and then improve it later on? Because, unless you are happy with the status quo, there are two options: kill this and start all over … when? 2015? Or pass this and slowly improve it (with a lot of hard work.) Does she really think that affordable health care will come quicker to americans if this bill is killed now? I have not seen anyone argue this but it seems rather important question. Anyways, I realize the bill isnt perfect, but what exactly is the strategy for getting americans affordable health care if this fails?

Why don’t you read some more of the blogs here. They’ve discussed this at length. Here are a few:

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/20008

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/19725

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/19537

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/19465

There are many others that make the case, but I’m limited in the number of links I can use. I’ll briefly note the following. If this bill is killed, the Administration and the Leadership have no choice but to come back again with a bill that will get progressive support, because if they do not they know that they’re going down in 2010 and probably in 2012 too. That’s why, if we kill it we won’t have to wait for 2015, but will see another and better bill in 2010.

Creator of the “public option” still backs current health care bill even though it was eliminated… http://pwire.us/BIx

Re NAFTA and 1994, I remember this exchange last month between Jane and Leo Gerard, President of the Steelworkers:

Leo W. Gerard November 10th, 2009 at 10:20 am 52
In response to Jane Hamsher @ 38 (hide text)

I was actually just speaking with a reporter from CBS. People seem to have forgotten that the unions were (understandably) upset about the passage of NAFTA in 1993 and it affected their willingness to turn out the vote in 1994.

What are your memories of that election year WRT to union participation?

Union members have a very deep sense of betrayal and we’re very angry, and many not only refused to work for Democratic candiates who helped pass NAFTA, but hundreds-of-thousands stayed home, and it took almost 10 years to re-elect a Democratic majority in the Congress. I fear the same thing if we get a lousy health care bill, a lousy Free Choice Act and no meaningful job creation as we continue to bleed jobs through rotten trade deals and weak trade policies and no industrial strategy.

We don’t have to get them on board. All we have to do is to get Harry Reid on board with reconciliation, then 10 blue dog votes can just go to hell. Kapish?

There so many reasons to hate this bill, but I am concerned about siding with conservatives to kill the bill. I have no idea what are the benefits and pitfalls of reconciliation. All I know, is that the best idea was to expand Medicare to cover every American. We need to eliminate the Insurance Industry altogether. The best selling point for Comprehensive Coverage is the freedom it comports. No more of working in a job you hate because the health care plan. It would be such a huge relief to not worry about getting quality, integrated health care and focus on what you are drawn to, something that you might love not simply tolerate.

If this Bill get’s through, the uproar will be such as to push the political creatures in the Administration to bomb Yemen (oops, that’s yesterday’s news) – to bomb Iran, in order to deflect from this fiasco. And Presto! all your fucking ‘evil McCain/Palin’ bullshit arguments will quickly be laid to rest.

The villagers are saying we all ought to have their head examined for opposing this bill. But I think they need to have their head examined if they think the progressive movement is going to stand still for this POS. It’s going to be blue dog slaughter next fall, because after the way they’ve behaved we really don’t care whether they lose to Republicans along the way, and we’re going to primary the hell out of them. They’re not Democrats. They’re Whigs. Let them get their own Party. We want our Party back.

Hey Big Tex…

You wouldn’t be a conservative spin meister would you?…A conservative in sheeps clothing?

Oh no, not with a name like ‘Big Tex’.

Please, after the eight years of evil hell we had to endure under your pal W, no self respecting liberal on earth would use ‘Tex’ as his online moniker.

…..T H E…B I G…Q U E S T I O N…F O R…L I B E R A L S…

Do you accept this basic fact of political nature…? The party of a newly elected president loses seats in the first mid-term 100% of the time.

If not, then that explains your misguided opposition to this bill.

I want to highlight this thing you said:

Why bother having committee hearings and floor debate when the real bill is drafted through secret backroom deals with lobbyists, interest groups, and a handful of chiseling Senators?

That’s one of the Republican criticisms I agree with, where the hell is the C-Span coverage candidate Obama promised would be at the negotiating table? This is one of the reasons I gave Obama an F on a Daily Kos poll yesterday. My disappointment is huge. Yes we can– watch afterwards and sigh.

If 40 Million Americans are uninsured, how can most Americans have insurance? 40 Mill, that’s population Canada!

Rolling Around in Bad Faith Gutter on the Street of Broken Dreams

Obama’s sound bite defending this sellout was just on NPR. He’s vigorously attacking the obstructionists’ contention that this bill will bust the budget. The political delusion crafted by these lobbyists is tone deafening.

Rahm: Karl, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

It is funny how all the pre-packaged narratives come out to explain how this disastrous bill is reformable. I have already seen one allusion to NAFTA in the comments. You know that was supposed to be reformed later too. Indeed Obama ran on revisiting NAFTA. His Administration quietly shelved any plans to do so back in April. So much for reforming it later.

The comparisons with Social Security are weak as well. First, that was more than 70 years ago. Second, people didn’t live as long. Third, the structure of the family and communities and the degree to which the country was urbanized were all different, as was the state of the economy.

I note that the Medicare comparison is not used as much, probably because Medicare was instituted in a single year long before the digital age. Yet Obama and the Democrats need until 2014 to put this monstrosity in place.

Nor do I see much about how both Medicare and Social Security have been targeted not just by Republicans but by Democrats. Obama held a conference just 2 weeks before his March roll out of the healthcare debate in which he and Orszag waxed poetic about Social Security, deficits, and the need to make cuts in benefits. Now we see, or should see, that they are planning $400 billion in cuts to Medicare in this bill. So this idea that Social Security and Medicare can only get better over time ignores the attempts by both parties to substantially weaken both programs.

no, no, no. that’s not how it works. reconciliation would have likely stripped out a lot of the consumer protection regulations and key provisions like outlawing the denial of coverage for a preexisting condition (see Byrd rule).

The Senate Bill Saves Families Money http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Columns/2009/December/122109Cohn.aspx

C-Span decides what they cover, not the president.

Please go rec up Slinkerwink’s diary over at Orange.

Read my blogs. Reconciliation would work. Read Jon Walker on how it would work also.

That 8% “mandate tax” is astonishing, not only because it doesn’t include out of pocket costs but because its a horribly regressive tax. Since the cost of coverage is broken down by policyholder, no matter how wealthy the individual (or employer)– their maximum total dollar amount owed is merely the cost of the the insurance policy.

Medicare taxes in contrast are 2.9% (half paid by employer and employee) with no cap. As a consequence, each percentage point raises nearly $80 billion from earned (wage) income. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, extending Medicare taxes to unearned (investment) income would raise an additional $26 billion per percentage point. Rounding down to $100 billion a point— just instituting a proportional tax (progressive tax rates being crazy talk) on earned and unearned income could raise $800 billion a year for publicly funded health coverage.

If an 8% Medicare for All tax is too stiff a tax hike, well, that brings us back to the question of why anyone thinks imposing a 8% mandate tax (with up to another $11,600 above that in out of pocket costs) on only lower income families is a good idea?

Over Niagara Falls … on the American Side

Agreed.

Long over due fiscal responsibility is the new battle cry as corporate lobbyists wrest the barrel away from the People while the entire tangled mess plummets through the mist.

Of course, teh Party will lose seats in the mid-term, however, it’s a question of how many seats it will lose. If it passes this bill it will get slaughtered. We will see a Republican House. The Democrats will still hold the Senate and then if theyw ant to pass anything, they’re gloing to have to use reconciliation and perhaps “the nuclear option” anyway. So, they may as well use it now. get a better bill and save the House majority.

The blue dogs insisting on a lousy are monumentally stupid, unless they’ve all got jobs lined up with the insurance companies, because that’s where the slaught will really be concentrated. After it’s over, they’ll be lucky if they have 10 blue dogs left in the House and 4 in the Senate.

You think these people have a “comprehension” issue?

You think there will be “mo’ bettah, mo’ latah?”

Have you ever watched your children suffer horrifibly and other loved ones die because all they could afford, (and barely), was an HMO, or modern day junk insurance? You think forcing people into substandard, overpriced care is a foundation for future improvement?

Here is the deal. The mandates and tweaks provide the illusion of universality and affodability. This will be used to justify forestalling real reform FOREVER. IT’S A SCAM. This bill is the end of reform, NOT the beginning.

Jeezus, I hate to sound this way, but “wake the fuck up,’ please.

Nice summary and useful as a source of information as you say. But the question remains as to what to do with this info in mind.

The logical response when one is left with an untenable set of options is avoid making them to the extent possible. No one would dispute that and yet little thought is given to how to avoid these options. Armed with this information what should we do.

First thing to do, I think, is to draw conclusions based on this info and then to act accordingly.

The first and overriding conclusion to draw is obvious which is that all these measures have been taken to preserve the profitability of private insurers and Phrma at the expense of the public. The second is that that Congress and Obama are complicit in promoting the interests of private gain at the expense of the public.

So the proper response is to not abide by these measures to the extent possible. And secondly to seek measures that circumvent Government in furthering our goals.

We should therefore not provide the funds to private insurers which allow them to operate. If we continue to fund private insurers they will not change and their influence on government will continue.

In like manner and much easier to accomplish, drug makers must be brought heel by de-funding them as well. Here importing drugs from Canada en masse may be feasible.

Lastly regarding the circumvention of government, we should enact laws by way of popular plebiscite to expedite the recall elected officials. We should hold the threat of dismissal over their heads constantly. We must have that power and use it as a remedy quickly and effectively.

The guiding principle here is a great irony. Private firms and government act to enrich themselves at our expense with our own money. This irony is quickly defanged by simply ceasing to feed this predator class with our funds. We need to see that we hold the solution to our predicament in our hands.

I think not contributing to the same politicians that the insurance, megapharm, war profiteer and energy transnationals contribute to, is one way of “withholding support.”

Recalls, like Public Campaign Financing referendums at the State level, are expensive and difficult to achieve. It’s usually only Corporate interests that can pull it off.

We can’t enact laws if we don’t have any legislators on our team.

I like your thinking though and that’s why the response. Have you thought about Jane’s idea of coalition building with diverse folks across the political spectrum, on shared issues? Is there a hybrid politician that could woo voters across the board? I haven’t seen one yet, except Obama… and we can see how that’s going.

While I agree the Senate bill has some weaknesses I think it has some very good things. So, I’m with Howard Dean — Congress should keep working to make it better until the very last moment.

But, to spend all this time and kill it would be a sinful waste of political time & effort. I can’t see the benefit of that.

BTW, Jane, in the Uma Thurman role from Kill_Bill would be a very cool image. Swoosh goes the blade and down goes Bill. But, I think she’s facing a large army of politicians (for Matrix fans think of Neo going up against 100 Agent Smiths) and it won’t be so easy for her to land more than a glancing blow on this legislation.

So?

LOL ROFLMAO

I am not an expert on all this and I do not post regularly. But I haven’t had health insurance for 8 years and am turning 50. I don’t like this bill at all. I think it’s a giveaway to the insurance industry and the drug companies. I think Joe Lieberman should be drummed out of Congress and all those blue dog Dems are a total waste of political space. But after a year of Congressional fighting and power plays, I don’t believe any “new” or better bill will happen. Instead, as we get closer to 2010 all those “vulnerable” Dems and so-called centrist Republicans are just going to get more restless and less inclined to sign any bill at all. Do I wish this country was more progressive and that the progressives had more clout with Congress? Yes. But this is the first tiny chance in hell that I might get some health insurance before my two chronic illnesses get beyond me. And that’s not counting the overwhelming odds that sooner or later after 20 years of good luck, I might get hit by a car or just fall and break a bone (osteoporosis in the family) or get some cancer. Every day I wake up wondering if my luck will run out today. As it is, IF the House and Senate actually manage to pull through and get a bill passed at all, I still have 3 plus years before I’ll be able to get any kind of insurance. It’s more than possible I won’t be able to afford a decent insurance and it’s more than possible the insurance companies are now developing all kinds of loopholes and strategies to get around the new regulations on denial of coverage. So I doubt I’ll be pleased in 3 plus years even if the bill passes. But the alternative of waiting for another favorable Congress and for the iffy possibility of another season of Democratic control (god knows this Dem Congress is almost as powerless as they were in Republican years) is just crazy. After the Clinton’s attempt how many years did we wait? No major reform is perfect or happens instantly with everyone in place.

Killing this bill because it’s not progressive enough throws all of us out here who are uninsured straight under the bus. Next time you blithely call for killing the bill, remember we may get hit by a bus tomorrow or diagnosed with breast cancer in two years. Is ideological purity worth all those lives? Not to me. Bad insurance is still better than no insurance at all. Weak insurance regulation is better than none. If wishing for bad insurance rather than none is capitulation, so be it. I’d like to be able to sleep at night without another bus nightmare.

same old same old …sign

“9: Right now there is no re-importation. Point 7: right now companies can charge even more – or decide they just dont want to cover you!”

A: The Megapharm, backroom deal with the White House, killed re-importation and negotiation as part of the Bill, extra-legislatively. They offer chump change to “fill the donut hole,” which was actually created by the absence of the power to negotiate prices. There is one obvious fix. Forcing the elderly and disabled to continue paying full retail when they are part of a collective, (Medicare-Medicaid) is a swindle. It kills old people and helps the money lenders steal their homes.

“This bill substantially lowers the cost of insurance for lower income families. Yes, it still ‘requires’ people to pay too much – but its less than they had to before!”

A: Lower income families that are insured, are insured through Medicaid or Medicare, and are not covered in this bill. Those without insurance are without because they can’t afford it. The insurance they can, under this Bill, “afford,” is crap insurance. One kid on insulin, one disabled child, one parent with any pre-existing condition, and they can price them out of the market again, a back door exclusion. So they price them out at three times the rate instead of eleven times the rate. Ever buy a car for 20K more than it’s worth for a 5K “rebate?” The working poor don’t need the Senate to be stupid on their behalf.

“Does she really think that affordable health care will come quicker to americans if this bill is killed now? I have not seen anyone argue this but it seems rather important question.”

A proper bill, albeit trimmed down to budgetary elements, can be passed now, through reconciliation, and not bargained away at all. Then we can bargain over the non-budgetary regulations. Yes, the Bill in it’s current state will forestall actual reform forever. They will say “But you have “universal coverage.” They will say, “But you have more affordable insurance now.” They will say “But we included a non-profit, privately run, poorly regulated option at the State Levels.” This bill will kill reform.

Now you have heard someone argue these points. No need to thank me.

Currently all taxpayers, including union members with cadillac plans, pay taxes which pay for ER care for the uninsured.

In the reform plan more people will pay some of their own money for their insurance (as the mandate requires).

The net effect should be that less taxes would need to be raised to pay for ER care.

So, taxing cadillac plans, but reducing taxes to pay ERs produces what net effect?

Hopefully, nationwide it will be a savings for individuals with costs being spread around more fairly.

300M total
- 40M uninsured
——————
360M insured — a vast majority

simple

Killing this bill because it’s not progressive enough throws all of us out here who are uninsured straight under the bus.

The truth is that Obama and the Democrats already have thrown you under the bus. This is what is so odd in this debate. They could have come out with a solid bill and used the levers of power to see it into law. They didn’t. In fact, they did the reverse. Yet now somehow it is or will be the fault of progressives if healthcare, which Obama and the Democrats have betrayed, fails.

Jane, I want to thank you for pushing me over the edge with this post. Like others here, I’ve been torn on the question of whether broader coverage and the few modest reforms that remain in the Senate bill was enough to overcome the defects you and others have documented. In particular, the argument that so many progressives in favor of passage have made – that passing the bill will save lives – is a powerful argument.

But lives will also be destroyed, if not lost, if the bill passes, as it stands. Tens of millions of Americans will be burdened financially – some even destroyed financially – because that’s the price that big insurance has put on broader coverage. And without effective controls on cost, middle class taxpayer money would be funneled into big Insurance coffers with no real limit, repeating the pattern we’ve seen with big Pharma, big Oil, and big “Defense”.

What pushed me over the edge was the realization that (a) there are so many flaws in the Senate bill that the benefits many ascribe to it have a low probability of occurring; and (b) we *really* need to draw a line in the sand and break the cycle of corporate giveaways masquerading as populist bills.

Big corporations and their lobbyists will continue to exploit those of us with consciences to agree to more and more corporate welfare, in exchange for the tiniest of benefits that will save some lives or improve the lot of a small number of taxpayers, until we decide to stop it.

It’s blackmail, not compromise, and I refuse to play any longer.

Hugh,
Thanks for responding to an individual’s concerns with a partisan attack. I don’t believe I EVER said it would be progressives “fault” if healthcare fails. I said killing the bill is a silly response to an imperfect bill. Personally, I don’t believe anything better is possible at this late date. I don’t believe any of us can know one way or another if Obama’s “levers of power” would have produced anything different. I was disappointed in a lot of Obama’s statements, but I give him the benefit of the doubt. I am more inclined to blame Congressional crap for the crappiness of this bill.

Meanwhile, we uninsured have our lives at stake, not just political power or ideologies. That was my point which you apparently missed. I admire Jane Hamsher for all she has done to try to force Congress to produce more progressive legislation, but I think calling for killing the bill is counterproductive at this point.

linked.

Thanks Jane. FDL is a refuge.

Dear Jane:
You say that we should kill the bill, I absolutely agree but what you don’t say is how you intend to do that. Is the petition the entire game plan? If not tell us how you think we should go about killing this bill.
President obama and Rahm Emanuel knew what was at stake when they got in bed with the insurance industry to start with

Thanks for responding:

I begin with the premise that once equipped with sufficient evidence one needs to draw the proper conclusions and then act. It’s not enough to be equipped with knowledge and do nothing or the wrong thing.

For instance we know that Congress and Obama are equally wedded to the idea that public money should be directed for private gain. So based on this we look for alternatives to both when looking for solutions. Why beat your head pleading?

We also know that private firms’ gains derive from our funds, so why continue to fund them? In doing that we only make our task of remedying our lot all that much harder. Withholding of funds kills two birds with one stone. This goes for insurance firms, Phrma and large Banks. You need to find alternatives.

You also need to see that the government and laws deriving from that are not the last word. You can simply refuse to comply. And this is the short term path. Other options like changing the cast of characters we send to the same form of government is futile. It is that very government that is complicit. It too indirectly depends on our funds. We simply need to bypass the government in looking for short term solutions.

The idea of coalescing the interests of the left and the right is great and many interests are common. But the solutions must be the same and here the task becomes tricky.If they want to defund private companies and Banks and make it easier to remove elected officials, all the better.

Dear Jane,

Please Read This!!!!!

Who Needs Sarah Palin when you have Anti-Choice Democrats Sucking-Up to Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel?

The Democrats have sold out pro-choice women whom value their privacy and all Feminists who struggled for women’s rights in so many areas, once again!!! The latest sellout of women’s rights is Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley of Massachusetts.

Martha Coakley naturally ran to the left in the primary but now is busy going over to the center-right in this general election and not trying to piss off the Obama-Emanuel-Pelosi-Biden-Reid Team. Coakley has now flipped-flopped on her stand over “abortion rights.” Coakley is just yet another Democrat who spouts whatever it takes to win before repudiating all her so-called “liberal-progressive” positions. Coakley who was for preserving a woman’s choice in the primary is now working hard to please Obama whose poll numbers keep on declining. Some polls now have Obama at a 58% unfavorable rating.

Check this out—-From the Boston Globe

Coakley accepts curb on abortion coverage
By Lisa Wangsness, Globe Staff | December 21, 2009

WASHINGTON – “State Attorney General Martha Coakley, the Democratic nominee for US Senate, reluctantly threw her support yesterday behind the Senate health care bill, even though it contains restrictions on abortion coverage that abortion rights groups are calling unacceptable. During the primary campaign, Coakley said she would not have supported the House health care bill because of provisions designed to prevent federal funding of abortions that abortion rights advocates said went too far. Her stand was a major point of debate during the campaign; several of her opponents criticized her for being willing to sink the health care bill over a single issue, but she insisted that there were some things on which she would not compromise.“Let’s be clear on what’s principled here,’’ she said at the time of her opponent, US Representative Michael Capuano. “If it comes down to this in the Senate, and it’s the health care bill or violating women’s rights, where does he stand?’’….”

“…In a statement to the Globe yesterday, Coakley said that although she was disappointed that the Senate bill “gives states additional options regarding the funding mechanisms for women’s reproductive health services,’’ she would reluctantly support it because it would provide coverage for millions of uninsured people and reduce costs….“It is a reminder that the battle for a public option and choice goes on,’’ she said….[] it would be extremely difficult for Coakley to be willing to be the only Democratic senator standing in the way of the party’s most important priority this year…..”

Full Article can be read @:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/12/21/coakley_accepts_abortion_restriction?mode=PF

I think Jane’s Reason #10 should be put to the public more along the lines of:

Your health insurance will rise $80 a month for the next ten years, though it will just be a once a year notice of a $1000 increase.

I think that makes the point more readily to middle class folk to whom $80/month is quite tangible and, shall we say, off-putting?

“But they are not fascists like the republicans are.”

Well, yes they are, they are corporate facists. And, I’d argue the corporate facists are the biggest threat we ALL face WRT jobs, housing, healthcare, food, transportation, and more.

So, regardless of one’s position on gender, race, religion or abortion for instance, yer still being fucked over on jobs, wages, housing, healthcare, food, etc.

Corporate facism knows no boundaries. Dem’s are proven corporate facist supporters.

Any other differences between Dems and Repugs at THIS stage of the game is almost irrelevant.

Because with either Dems or Rethugs, Roe v. Wade, civil rights, women’s rights, jobs and wages are all fully under attack.

Stand and Deliver vs. Make a Speech & Run Away

What an ingenious way of assuring the bipartisanship you keep touting as the noblest solution to America’s challenges — by dooming democratic congressional majorities in next year’s mid-terms.

“Like most Americans I talk to, when I see the president on television, I now change the channel the same way I did with Bush. With Bush, I couldn’t stand his speeches because I knew he meant what he said. I knew he was going to follow through with one ignorant, dangerous, or misguided policy after another. With Obama, I can’t stand them because I realize he doesn’t mean what he says — or if he does, he just doesn’t have the fire in his belly to follow through. He can’t seem to muster the passion to fight for any of what he believes in, whatever that is.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/leadership-obama-style-an_b_398813.html

Don’t understand why we cannot even look at curtailing all these medical malpractice lawsuits. Who pays for these X million dollar awards? You, me, we all do! It is not a left-right issue. Is it possible to have tort reform while still actively protecting the consumer-patients? Well, probably! So, my input to FDL’s 10 points here is: why cannot we explore this cost-cutting avenue? Howard Dean admitted this much, that our problem is the trial lawyers, who donate part of their winnings to keep politicians off their backs. Well, what about the rest of us? And so disappointed that FDL did not address this that I had to register and login and comment ;-)

…

You make $20K annual.

Take out 8% of that for the premiums and consider the premiums will rise between NOW and 2014 when you CAN enroll. SO that 8% grows as your $20K does not.

Then, take out another oh, 3-8% for co-pays on regular care or sickness visits to primary, and other specialists you may need to visit.

Then, prepare to pay HIGHER costs for any REAL treatment you receive for a multitude of services because you are buying, essentially, what’s called a junk insurance policy, with a govt. subsidy that won’t increase as premiums and costs for services, do.

Then, be prepared to be DENIED services and care for any number of reasons, or be priced beyond your ability to pay.

That’s how it works. Others have done a MUCH better and detailed job of explaining this, but I think I’m CLOSE with the general view . . .

“This bill will cover many of them and stop the insurance companies from raping everyone as badly as they do.”

Fallacy. It’s been detailed by many here at FDL how this is a fallacy. The rest of your comment fails on the back of this singular fallacy. Sorry you are being duped.

I’ve dedicated a lot of thought (translates to not much compared to some of ya’all) to the coalition idea, and the “quit feeding the beast,” idea you propose.

I have reams in my hard drive on shared issues across the board for regular folks. From the Patriot Act to the Military Commissions Act… utilizing our Defense and Intelligence infrastructure to further the interests of what are, increasingly, transnational corporations… Public Campaign Financing and Media Reform… the list really does go on and on, where we agree. I was home ill during the 04 election season and even thought up this doozy, “Americans for the Restoration of Representative Government.” AARG, like Charlie Brown, cute eh?

I’m a little left of Saul Alinsky in some ways, but actually have libertarian sympathies… if you can believe that. My belief is that if the system is in failure, and has proven unresponsive to replacing parts, and peripheral tweaks… you need to build a new machine, either by the original pattern, or a completely new one.

So, I just don’t know why we can’t form Health Care Cooperatives independent of ALL this crap. I don’t know why we can’t rehabitate the Urban Wasteland with experimental Green communities, proffering meaningful, profitable work and empowerment. I don’t know why. The Panthers had Food Banks, Child Care Cooperatives, Educational and Business programs… they had a very good idea.

While every business should not be a person, they are. We can compete by asserting that every person is a business, and empowering ourselves by acting with unity, in the same way PHARMA does.

Oh well… take that with a grain of salt. If I knew something, I’d get paid better. Still, I do believe that we don’t need anybody but each other, to survive and fulfill ourselves… take care of our elderly and children. If we wait in line for permission to live, they’ll let us die.

If you are uninsured now due to lack of money for coverage, I believe you will find yourself in the same position under the present Senate bill as it stands, in 2014.

Only you will be bound by LAW to pay for insurance you can’t afford, and will be fined for it by IRS. And then, upon failure to pay the fine, you will have wages attached and personal property attatched to the IRS lein on your failed debt.

I sure hope you understand these points. Good luck.

Such a distraction. Proven that trial lawyering and suits are less or about 2% of all expenditures/costs of delivering healthcare.

Whereas, 30% of private insurance goes to overhead and bonusing. You could ELIMINATE 30% of the cost of healthcare by eliminating private insurance.

Simple.

End of story.

NEXT!

I am uninsured due to two pre-existing conditions. I expect I’ll soon be priced out of insurance, which is why I’d have a lot more respect for you “progressives” if you were fighting for subsidies now instead of “kill the bill.” But there’s no point if discussing with people who are simply ideologues and unwilling to negotiate down the line.

Let the poor, huddled masses rot! Who are they to say we should have to pay for their health care. If they can’t afford to pay the premiums the insurance companies dictate, then let them go without. After all, this is capitalism working at its best. If they can’t pay their hospital bills let them forfeit their houses, cars, and savings! That commie, Jesus Christ started this whole “socialized medicine” thing when he healed the sick for free! Damn Commie! “Greed is good”!!! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
And good women and men did nothing, and greed did triumphed. Merry Christmas!!! ,,,,,, Bahhhhhhhh Humbug!!!! Show me the money!!!
Regards,
Ebenezer Scrooge

WAY TO GO
Aetna

Alliance Health and Life Insurance Company

Altius Health Plans

Altius One

American Family Life Assurance Company (Aflac)

American Medical Security Life Insurance Company

AmeriHealth – New Jersey

Ameritas

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of VA

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of CT

Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Missouri

Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Wisconsin

Anthem Blue Cross of California

Anthem BlueCross BlueShield

Arise Health Plan

Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield

Asuris Northwest Health

Atlantis Health Plan

Avera Health Plans

Bay Dental

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oklahoma

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of South Carolina

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Delaware

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico

Blue Cross of Idaho

Blue Shield of California

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois

BlueCross BlueShield of Kansas City

BlueCross BlueShield of Louisiana

BlueCross BlueShield of Montana

BlueCross BlueShield of Nebraska

BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee

CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield

Celtic Ins. Co.

CIGNA

Clear Choice Health Plans

Companion Life Insurance Company

ConnectiCare Inc.

Coventry Health and Life Insurance Company

Coventry Health Care of Delaware, Inc

Coventry Health Care of Georgia, Inc.

Coventry Health Care of Iowa, Inc.

Coventry Health Care of Kansas Inc.

Coventry Health Care of Louisiana, Inc.

Coventry Health Care of Nebraska, Inc.

Coventry Health Care of Oklahoma Inc.

CoventryOne

Dean Health Plan, Inc.

Delta Dental

Empire

First Priority Life, administered by Blue Cross of NEPA

FirstCare

Fallon Community Health Plan

Geisinger Quality Options

Group Health

Group Health Incorporated

Group Health Plan

Health Net

Health Plan of Nevada

HealthAmerica

HealthPartners

Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey

Humana

Independence Blue Cross

Kaiser Mid-Atlantic

Kaiser Permanente

KPS Health Plans

LifeWise Health Plan of Oregon

LifeWise Health Plan of Washington

Lovelace Health Plans

My Health Alliance

Medica

Medica of Minnesota

Medical Mutual of Ohio

Mercy Health Plans of Missouri

Mountain State BlueCross BlueShield

Nationwide Life Insurance Company

ODS Health Plan, Inc.

Optima Health Insurance Company

Oxford Health Plans, Inc.

PacifiCare

PacificSource Health Plans

PacificSource Health Plans of Idaho

Personal Care Insurance of Illinois

Physicians Health Plan of Northern Indiana, Inc.

PreferredOne Insurance Company

Premera Blue Cross

Premera Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alaska

Presbyterian

Providence Health Plan

QCA Health Plan Inc

Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon

Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Utah

Regence BlueShield of Washington

Regence BlueShield of Idaho

Rocky Mountain Health Plans

SAS Insurance Development

Scott & White Health Plan

Security Life Insurance Company of America

SelectHealth

Standard Security Life Insurance Company

SummaCare Inc of Ohio

Total Dental Administrators Health Plan, Inc.

UniCare

Unity Health Insurance of Wisconsin

UnitedHealthcare

VSP

Vista Healthplan of South Florida

WellPath Select, Inc.

WINhealth Partners

WPS Health Insurance of Wisconsin

I have watched this process from across the border with hope but mounting disappointment and anger. I had hoped that the American people would be able to enjoy the same system we have up here in Canada.Although flawed, it gives Canadians a tremendous sense of personal security. We have an ulterior motive. It would take the privatization pressure off our government-managed system. We only have to look across the line to see how much suffering privatized health care can cause. I think , apart from the urgent need for campaign finance reform, that Americans must let go of this irrational phobia about ‘Big Government’. You have been propagandized for generations to believe this, when in fact you need the government, which you control, to stand between you and corporate greed. It is the corporations and the rich who don’t want ‘Big Government’, and their control of the media, education, the church and other institutions allows them to inculcate this phobia at a very early age. I am very sorry that Obama and the Democrats let you down, but there was really never going to be any other outcome. But you must still keep fighting. Vote it down, regroup and start again. Good luck from BC, Canada

Firedoglake forgot one of the most important reasons to oppose this bill:

It has any number of loopholes that will allow millions–MILLIONS–of illegal aliens, perhaps 40 million, to get health insurance paid for by you and me.

Dear Jane:
I saw you on the ed show, I agree with everything you said,so I ask again how do you think we can kill this bill? So far I’m seeing a petition, is that the entire plan, if not what is the rest of the plan. ed ask you that question on the show and while you answered many things you never answered that question so I’m asking it. Last spring obama shoved 330 million people under the bus so a signing petition by itself is not going to be near enough, I’m guessing that you already know that so with all due respect I ask how do you intend to kill the bill.

The “kill the bill” campaign is both irrational and immature….It’s irrational because the far-left (like the far-right) has an unrealistically skewed view of the world. Does FDL have a candidate for Senate in Arkansas?…Nebraska?…How about Louisiana?..The answer to each state inquiry is “20″. That’s the vote total percentage limit for ANY candidate who is “supported by FDL” in any of those states general elections! The argument is “immature” because this “top 10 reasons..” list has at least 7 “reasons” which can also be applied to the House HCR bill. Did I miss the “kill” request for that list?..Part of “maturity” is the ability to recognize one’s limits. Oh well. I’ll watch for those “walk back” posts in the future from the “experts” at FDL.

“Don’t understand why we cannot even look at curtailing all these medical malpractice lawsuits. Who pays for these X million dollar awards? You, me, we all do!

Malpractice awards are chump change in macroeconomic terms, less than 1% of total health care spending. However you do have a point that its a good bargaining chip to get doctors on board for real reform. Unless most small businessman, doctors can’t shield their legal liability by setting up a corporate shell. Physicians are always 100% personally liable for any mistakes they make in the practice of medicine. Its not their insurance plan or, at worst, their business on the line, its their house and personal savings as well. As a consequence, there is no other group of law abiding Americans more freaked out by our judicial system than doctors and that’s why they’re willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars a year in malpractice insurance.

This is a source for leverage for any future single-payer reform. Currently, there is one group of doctors who don’t sweat medmal suits– physicians employed by the federal government (VA, DoD, Public Health Service, etc). The federal government has exempted its owns doctors from state medical malpractice laws. If a VA patient sues for malpractice, the suit is against the US government, defended by federal attorneys and any payout comes out of the US Treasury, not the doctor’s pocket. Congressman Tim Murphy (R-PA) offerd an amendment to the House Rules Committee that would treat doctors who accepted Medicare, Medicaid or a public option plan the same as federal docs (if they’re bad doctors, Uncle Sam can always cut them from their provider list or petition the state medical board to yank their license).
http://docs.house.gov/rules/3962/Murphy3962_105.pdf

The Rules Committee rejected the amendment to the House bill, which is just as well, why give something for nothing? Even more than higher Medicare reimbursements (though that would certainly help), nothing would move doctors over to supporting a single payer system faster than by including the Murphy Amendment in the plan.

-

So let me see if I’ve got this right. Under the Senate plan, I could cancel my current $6,000-per-year insurance and pay just $750 per year in penalties. When I contract some terrible illness, I can then sign up for insurance (no pre-existing conditions exclusion) and start using my benefits? Sounds good to me.