The ‘pro-choice’ groups in DeeCee should file for bankruptcy tomorrow, they have shamed themselves.

Stupak must have been promised something for that speech.
I wonder what?

Please tell me we have a plan so that the so called “building on the bill” isn’t dropped.

Starting tomorrow they should be working on it…fuck immigration reform. Don’t even let them come close to dropping health care.

I agree. They should stop accepting donations and be charged with FRAUD.

Yep. Pro-choice groups will need to remind me why I should give them any money at all. It’s beyond me how Kucinich was obstructionist, but Stupak needed to be treated with kid gloves. MINOs (moderates in name only)

I’m frightened that we are going to see violence now. The wingnuts have whipped their followers into a fury over this issue.

Ah, our hero Dennis Kucinich wasn’t needed.

He’s been very clever.

1. He’s the anti-abortion hero, for fighting the fight and getting Obama to surrender on an EO

2. He gets to vote for health reform bill. With 1 and 2, that’s his version of the best outcome.

3. And on top of that, he gets credit for saving the reconciliation by speaking against the Republican motion to commit.

Cake, eat it too, plus too scoops of ice cream. He looks like everyone’s hero.

And the Dems were clever to use him to slam the Republicans.

What was the Senate final score?

And give up their six-figure salaries?

Planned.

They had to know a motion to recommit was happening after they abandoned the Slaughter Rules

Everyone’s ‘hero’ is also no one’s.

Not sure the forced-birth purists will ever speak to him again. One organization is already stripping him of his “Defender of Life” award.

The Senate is not happening today. No score.

It’s how he defines “hero” that matters to him.

the wingnut violence will be sooner or later. cute how Obama thinks he can actually finesse these assholes.

Please don’t get distracted by this person’s constant need for attention.

as for Stupak, i still want Rachel to hound his ass until he’s in jail.

Teddy, I’ve been quite restrained today, and let me just say, pointing out that the person wanting attention doesn’t know the process is the minimum of rebuttals I wish to do.

[been gritting teeth all day]

Two questions pls:

1) Will we have to go through this nailbiter vote every year since bills that pass via reconciliation have to be re-affirmed every year?

2) I’ve heard that these two features a) denying existing coverage due to pre-existing illnesses and b) rescinding coverage will take place in 2010 and I’ve also heard 2014…. which is correct?

Anyone know…? I imagine Jon knows if anyone knows.

1) yes

2) it goes into effect for children now, everyone else can sit there dying.

It is almost sad that the pro-life groups can’t even take joy in their own huge victory.

It is sad that pro-choice groups will probably use the anger of those who oppose Stupak’s anti-woman maneuvering to raise funds for themselves, and not much else.

If I was ony interested in schaudenfeude, I would look forward to watching them push to repeal the Hyde Amendment, in the face of Obama’s newly issued pro-life Executive Order. I’ll even donate and promote to make it happen, but given the process we are just seeing reach completion, where can we target our efforts?

I wonder if Olbermann is going to live up to his word about the mandate and no PO?

I really hope so, but I can’t bring myself to have faith in anyone associated with MSNBC

No, DK’s decision was critical in building momentum.

Please tell me we have a plan so that the so called “building on the bill” isn’t dropped.

I think the next talking point from Democrats will be that we shouldn’t rush in and start changing things until we see how it destroys the middle class, enriches the corporations who pay for election campaigns, emboldens the same corporate interests who want to dismantle Social Security and Medicare works.

Oh I don’t know if Stupak has been too clever.

I live in his district. He’s revealed he consults with the Ultra Pro-Life groups and the Catholic Bishops. He doesn’t like nuns. My aunt was a nun, in michigan.

I was extremely happy to find out I moved to a Democratic District.

For all his grandstanding, Bart has lost my vote.

As much as I dont like this bill I have to admit those tea baggers make me happy it passed. The bill has passed, it is a start, lets see what we can do to make it better. I have to admit this past month Obama looked like a man who could get something done, now if we can just get him on our side. Congratulations Mr President you got er done.

And vote #2 is a go.

anyway good night and thank you FDL friends whom i follow and always rely upon even from a distance

dunno what to say in light of such a creepy “victory for our side” which we all know is anything but

anyway – onward

The ‘pro-choice’ groups in DeeCee should file for bankruptcy tomorrow, they have shamed themselves.

Or fold up their tents and go home, which they should do because they sold out and no longer have any credibility.

It’s an opening, nothing more. If the work stops now it’ll be a disaster both materially and politically.

ABC News reports that the threshold for receiving gubmint insurance subsidies for families is for those with income under $88,000.00 per year. My family will qualify. Surely my premiums will rise commensurate with the amount of the subsidy.

Sweet dreams, Sharkbabe.

Once this Crappage is fully passed the current date will be deemed Year Zero and all that has gone before will vanish. Looking Forward.

I’d love to be wrong but I doubt KO will be immune.

Ambassador to the Vatican?

(ahem)

Guess we better get busy repealing the HI antitrust exemption then, huh?

Yeah, I thought you knew that, I’m just running out of patience faster than you!

1. No. The health and education budget features in this reconciliation bill extend beyond the current year.

2. End of preexisting conditions for children within 6 months; for adults by 2014.

Great stuff.

Solidarity!

Premiums will no doubt rise faster than subsidies.

Yes. IIRC, Health Insurers are still exempt from anti-trust regulations under this bill.

Where can I see the roll call votes for the two bills they’ve finished and this one that’s almost done?

All hail Barack Obama, corporatist.

How come I have lost the ability to edit my posts?

Subsidies will get scaled back in a first effort at “fixing” the bill.

Hasn’t the House already passed the Senate bill? Can’t the Senate now just ignore this “Reconciliation Fix” that will come from the House?

That was the purpose of the teabaggers, imho.

And we won’t need Medicare anymore, since the exchanges are so wooonderful.

BTW, Twitter is exploding with “HCR” noise and OMGs! Of course the top trending topic is still #ListenBitch, although #baby killer is a fast-rising #3.

Much more likely that mandates will be attacked first, as there’s a Consitutional argument there.

Slightly O/T…

It seems most sites are cheering up the bill passing.

Kinda sad, even places I wouldn’t have expected it from.

Guess less time spent on the computer.

No doubt. Gotta reduce the deficit, ya know. The mandate will not change, however…

After 5 minutes, your time is up.

Btw, I read your whining in previous threads. You should be more polite when speaking with people who will still talk to you after you expressed your view on the need to protect women’s reproductive rights the other night.

218 for reconciliation bill.

Let’s see if the Senate keeps its word.

heh.

I’ve been asking that all day.

@Scarecrow

“2. End of preexisting conditions for children within 6 months; for adults by 2014″

But they can still claim fraud and deny care until the kids are dead.

zakly

It is a good thing that the bills are passing, even though they’re crap, but only in the sense that it opens the door for fixes to start. If effort stop here, we’re toast.

I think Stupak will be getting flowers from the pro-choice people. He will be their poster child for pro-abortion.
Wait, that didn’t come out right. His face will be used to whip up contributions for the pro-choice groups.

No. That’s why the Motion To Recommit needed to be defeated, as well as the sidecar reconciliation passed to SEND to the Senate.

There can be another motion to Recommit. Let’s see if they do.

lol, thanks..

Wow, I just thought of a great way to make a great big pile of money:

Since so many people won’t be able to afford their “insurance” policies (which only insure the profits of the industry), a great business would be “do-nothing IRS insurance” – it offers trivial coverage, but costs less than the expensive policy which you can’t afford to use anyway.

The IRS fine is $95 or 2% of income, whichever is greater – so if I only charge $50 a year for a bottle of aspirin and a box of bandages I’ll be rich.

Hey, look at me – I’m thinking like an owner of Congress!

This vote brought to you by Wellpoint…

Ain’t over ’til it’s over, as the saying goes.

Yes a more powerful insurance lobby with the profits from thirty million more customers will certainly allow fixes and reform to their business model. For sure.

Pretty much, but that would hurt House Dems’ feelings, and then they’d be all sad.

Edit: Kelly disagrees.

Which is what they do in every case now.

“Connie Saltonstall, who has a page on ActBlue.”

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/03/21/liveblogging-bishop-stupaks-presser/#comment-25960

http://snipurl.com/uzs7i

appreciations to allan

They better have all the fixes signed into law by Nov 2nd as the Dummycrats are about to spend 40 years searching for the promised land.

Did Nancy use her Majik Gavel?

I think there is a kind of auto “insurance” in Florida that is just such a placeholder.

But once you buy you seat in Congress you’ll still need 58 more to get anything worthwhile done. So I hear.

But then EVERYONE will have ‘Health Care’! This is why it’s so great (unless you’re a woman)! Obama is the greatest president since Henry Kissinger! I love dailkos!

Wooo!

Now is the time to get people rallying in the streets. I don’t know why nobody has tried that up ’til now, but the craptastic nature of the bill should be a big fresh motivator. The challenge is directing and managing it.

What are you blathering about? NOW President Terry ONeill made a scathing statement and has always been against throwing the women under the bus for this mess of a health *insurance* reform.

She has been the one stalwart voice of principle in this entire mess, even though the television media won’t include her.

I’m sure the insurance co’s are shaking in their boots about the “fixes” these clowns will impose … not.

okay – as long as he’s the last ambassador to a religion.

As I understand it, the Senate will now have to vote up-or-down on the House’s “Reconciliation Fix.” They’d only need 51 to pass it. But there still is a chance that House Dems can get screwed over and have their feelings hurt (as Sixth Estate put it @ 66).

It was the Medicare gavel, I heard.

You would be sued by the existing insurance companies for unfair business practices. They can’t be expected to compete with you when a bottle of asprin and some bandanges cost 8% of the average income.

Sadly, I think we are toast now. When word gets out what this bill does not provide, people will be up in arms.

I don’t see anything getting fixed and I see many efforts made to defund it as much as possible.

I think the bill was a step backwards, not forwards.

Just my 2 cents.

No, they just voted on the Senate Bill – not the Recon fix. That’s coming up.

That was the purpose of the teabaggers, imho.

Absofreakinglutely. I’ve thought all along it was agit-prop.

That’s the usual practice for NOW, et al.
They never actually do anything when it would help.

Can the Speaker plug her majikGavel in her computer and make free phone calls?

Major danger of that, no question. We’ll see.

The good news here is that the Republicans lost, big time. Just one word for them, Waterloo.

Anyone know who or how the regulatory function of the legislation will be restored?

Or who/when the anti trust removal will be voted on in the Senate?

After what happened I really think people are tired and pissed. And as long as progressives/liberals/place name here are divided and insulting each other, there will be nothing going forward.

People fought to get Obama and Dems elected to enact the very thing they now have to fight for again to get fixed? How is that going to sound…

Magicjack! lol!

Yeah. It was my failed attempt at humor. My bad.

You know they’re expecting to collect way more than $56 billion from those failure-to-comply fines…

What was created by this legislation that you think provides a foundation on which to build, or “fix” as you put it? In addition to other crap, they did nothing more than require Americans to buy crappy products from private insurers, who are the very bad actors who created much of this mess in the first place.

I think the insurance companies can be counted on to self-regulate.

Interestingly, so do the insurance companies.

I don’t understand the thinking behind “it’s a first step, we’ll fix it later.” Would you build a house with known inferior and dangerous materials? Hire a teacher to do the electrical? Refuse to check titles, liens, etc.? Get your local librarian to do the plumbing? No, you wouldn’t do any of those things because you know the house would be doomed to failure from the beginning. You would not then go build it anyway and “fix it later.” That argument is disingenuous and disgusting, as far as I’m concerned.

Why do the bill’s defenders have to do so much defending of every aspect? Something smells and it ain’t me.

IMHO, the states efforts at reversing the mandate is kabuki theatre. Republicans will be playing it heavy til November. Fat chance of repealing it. The purchase of Auto, property owners, workers’ comp insurance have been mandated for years.

The IRS penalty will be used as a cudgel on the heads of Democrats. They will suffer a humiliating defeat in November.

Yeah. Kinda like We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia.

Almost seems like it’s by design.

That’s cool.

No teabaggers started right before the bailouts as a protest of that, they hated it and they were/are principled people with much different political views than us. It didn’t start like it is now. I respect the OG Teabaggers, they went batshit about the bailouts while Pelosi and Obama did everything they could to hand a 700 billion dollar rotating slush fund to the bankers.

Now the fight for single payer begins. You guys ready to fight?

I’ll bet the water pressure in Connecticut dropped a few minutes after the vote.

Hey, maybe if we can just all get a ride on Air Force 1, it will all make sense!

Here’s what’s different: It’s now a bundle of live and major issues that actually have to be dealt with. They can each be resolved in a more positive or less positive manner, and that’s where the opportunity comes in. Before now, by contrast, it was all hypothetical and any disagreement resulted only in the status quo.

Now, THAT’S funny!

We’ll have to wait and see now……

It ain’t as pretty as they claim……

Iraq would be a “cakewalk.”

Then Minority Leader and Democrat Richard Gephardt supported the war on Iraq. Gephardt urged Democrats to vote for the war resolution. In fact, Gephardt so supported the war on Iraq that he was Bush’s favorite Democrat in the House at the time.

Then Majority Leader and Democrat Tom Daschle supported the war on Iraq and let it come to a floor vote. 27 Democrats in the Senate voted for Bush’s war resolution on October 10, 2002.
When Barack Obama was in the Senate, he voted in FAVOR of EVERY IRAQ WAR SUPPLEMENTAL BILL!!!! Obama even voted to confirm the war criminal Condoleezza Rice for the job of Secretary of State–a woman who lied through her teeth about Iraq having WMD’s and Obama voted to confirm her!!!!

Nancy Pelosi—-”Impeachment is off the Table” regarding Bush. Pelosi is also a war criminal for failing to go after the criminals in the Bush administration and every other Democrat who have failed to go after the war criminals in the Bush administration are accomplices in America’s war crimes!!!

Barack Obama — “Not going to prosecute Torture Lawyers—John Yoo and Jay Bybee.”

That is today’s Democratic Party….

I’ve helped organize protests in the past. It’s a thankless task. And if, after a half dozen protests, the powers-that-be don’t suddenly realize the err of their ways and cave (even Democrats don’t cave to DFH’s), everybody gets bored and quits showing up.

Also, whoever is responsible for bringing the bullhorn will forget it / it won’t work / the batteries will be dead / they thought their roommate had one but turns out they didn’t.

I’m not trying to be rude, but what you’ve written is far too vague to support your earlier assertion.

Mostly because the defenders didn’t write the damned thing; it was done by the lobbyists with the help of someone in the WH.

So, who voted against HCR but for the fixes?

But the household (not mention national) budget is on the line this time, that changes all that.

It’s what we’ve got to work with.

So NO ONE is talking about that fact? That such was the only way to hold down premimum costs? egads, do people really have such short memories?

No, they just voted on the Senate Bill – not the Recon fix. That’s coming up.

Then what was this last vote about:

11:35 pm – Reconciliation bill passes 220 to 211. Now Senate it is your turn.

As I understand it, the House voted for a “Reconciliation Fix” after passing the Senate bill. Now, won’t the Senate have to vote up-or-down on the House’s “Reconciliation Fix”? They’d only need 51 to pass it. But there still is a chance that House Dems can get screwed over, no?

does anyone know where i can see the roll call votes?

It’s obvious the Dems could screw up a wet dream.

“The purchase of Auto, property owners, workers’ comp insurance have been mandated for years. “; yes, BUT such is contingent upon making a choice of owning an auto or property or employing others. This is a mandate to buy a product from a private company.

don’t think SCOTUS will let that stand.

Why is that? Why is the POS all we have to work with? Who made that so by standing in the way of achieving far more than this POS?

That’s right. It was Obama and Senate Democrats. It was House Democrats, too. Even the ones who appear to be “good guys” turned out to be weak and decided to enable the sellouts rather than fight for a better bill.

The Democrats stood in the way of even achieving a minimum of real reform.

By their own admission, what the Democrats are now cheering is not much different from the shit that Republicans were proposing in the 1990s.

willf,

Give your money to NOW. NOW alone has been speaking out on this, even though you may not have heard president Terry ONeill due to a media blackout of her strenuous objections. She’s all over this. She points out that the Henry Hyde amendment, contrary to fraudbama’s nonstop sops thrown out to the prolifers, was NOT settled law at all. It was a tack-on that had to be revoted on every year and she’d hoped against hope that Mr. This is What a FeMANist Looks Like would work with NOW to kill it once and for all, only to realize we have more work cut out for us than if upfront antichoicers were in charge.

don’t think SCOTUS will let that stand.

They let stand the use of eminent domain to serve real estate developers…

I hope the Hague indicts both Barack Obama and George W. Bush for their war crimes!!!! They both should be indicted for committing crimes against the peace……

What are you blathering about? NOW President Terry ONeill made a scathing statement and has always been against throwing the women under the bus for this mess of a health *insurance* reform.

She has been the one stalwart voice of principle in this entire mess, even though the television media won’t include her.

Come on, now. She’s just posturing and covering for herself. She remained silent too long when her voice was needed.

No way I can respect her for that BS.

Doing it in CA already.

Huffington Post is in love with this bill, vommit projectile Robert Kutner for example:

But in the springtime of March 2010, we have seen a president who evidently has learned how to lead, who relishes winning, and who is primed to become a more effective progressive. For that we should be grateful. It should whet his appetite as a fighter — and ours.

Exactly. They filled the house with asbestos, built it with rotten wood, and covered it all with toxic drywall from China – and they think it’s a good foundation to build on.

This is a tear-down.

Oh, I didn’t mean the writers of the bill. We know their motives. I meant the average citizen cheerleaders that are all over the blogs. Do they ever wonder why they have had to be so defensive? I mostly know the answer…they don’t care what’s in the bill and they don’t have much at stake right away, anyway. It’s just go team go, which used to be known as USA! USA! or We’re #1! just a few years ago. There really isn’t much difference between them and Georgie’s cheerleaders. Just different teams if you know what I mean.

Obama is the greatest president since Henry Kissinger!

Kissinger’s not still President?

How can you tell?

Sorry – have company and was a vote behind.

Shit!

Jon, thank you for all your hard work and your important posts through this long, long process. You and David have had the most well-informed and intelligent analysis by far, IMHO.

The rest of the story has yet to be written, but thank you for all you do.

Ah, but that was supporting governmental action and State/municipalities worked around that with new legislation. And that had to do with ‘property rights’, an entirely different issue.

house roll call votes:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/index.asp

and just for fun, senate roll call votes:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_111_2.htm

Hamsher/Warren 2012.

“It’s about time for a Change”

You raise another interesting point. The 5/4 Right Wing SCOTUS will do almost anything to shit on Democrats and to install Permanent Fascist Privatized Republican Rule.

If it got to the Supremes they would overturn it.

Yup. And far less than Nixon proposed. It’s about credit I suppose.

Amen. Thank you to Jane, Jon, David and all the rest at FDL.

But, this is not going to end well.

That doesn’t change the fact that this is where we are now. You are certainly free to choose to stop fighting and spend your energy on blaming if you want. Me, I choose to contribute mine to making the most of this opportunity, despite its huge gaping glaring flaws, because this is the best chance there’s ever been.

Now the fight for single payer begins. You guys ready to fight?

hell yes. the modern movement for single payer (as the best way forward for the goal of comprehensive universal healthcare) began in the late ’80s. ’bout time we join up. major human rights causes are not the stuff of single legislative cycles — they are decades long efforts at mass mobilization. it’s social movement politics because electoral politics without it will fail.

They sold you out. All of them!

Fight who? The Democratic Party?

Pelosi: Single-Payer Amendment Breaks Obama’s Health Care Promise

An amendment to allow states to pursue single-payer health care without incurring insurance-industry lawsuits was stripped from the House bill, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday, adding that it would break President Obama’s commitment to people keeping their current insurance plan if they like it.

I think the Senate bill also prohibits states from pursuing single payer until 2017, and then only if they get a waiver from HHS. And it looks like each waiver only lasts for 5 years, then they need to re-apply.

Single payer is dead. It died tonight on the House floor.

Yep. All we need is a Democratic Senate, House and President and we can … Oh, wait. Never mind.

Fighting with kos to drain the mighty Presidential Member of the last few drops of jism.

(But my money’s on the little orange prick.)

Rep. Alan Grayson has a Medicare you can buy into proposal with close to 80 co-sponsors.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/3/21/848909/-A-Near-Death-Experience,-and-On-From-Here

Moneybomb!

Yes, I know that. That’s no reason to give up. I never trusted any of them in the first place so I’m not disillusioned. What, did you trust them? Do you think sulking is going to improve anything? When things are shitty the only rational thing to do is get busy.

That’s really pretty blatantly wrong, in the Holy Crap! sense.

Owners Own.

good one. a great reminder of another bit of bullshit:

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.” (applause) “I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”

Obama speaking to the Illinois AFL-CIO, June 30, 2003.

here’s the youtube:

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/june/barack_obama_on_sing.php

Great! Another 136 members of the House sign on and were in!

You speak my language, selise. Improvement is hard and slow, and far far bigger than our personal disappointments.

Me, I choose to contribute mine to making the most of this opportunity, despite its huge gaping glaring flaws, because this is the best chance there’s ever been.

This is the best chance there’s ever been? Are you an executive officer of a private insurance company? Do you mean this is the best chance you’ve ever had as a private insurer to profit off of sickness and death? Fortunately for you, executive officer of a private insurance company, the Democrats stupidly didn’t create a public option or expand access to existing programs to get in your way by creating real competition.

You’re going to contribute your energy to improving this piece of shit in what way exactly?

That doesn’t change the fact that this is where we are now. You are certainly free to choose to stop fighting and spend your energy on blaming if you want.

This isn’t about standing around blaming the assholes or stopping efforts or not fighting anymore.

This is about accepting the reality of what happened and about fighting on far more effectively than we have been in the last year, a fight in which a lot of energy of good people was wasted because they fought by supporting losers who folded when it was time to fight.

Nice job, now mandate this.

thanks, selise

well, that’s ok then. we wouldn’t want obama to break any of his campaign promises what with his perfect track record the past year. /s

(great link. thanks.)

I agree. Something smells. Rotten propaganda.
I am so dismayed. The only plan I can come up with is to work for single-payer through the state.
I really don’t like Grayson’s money bomb add. It’s creepy.
And Kucinich looks worn down.

This is about accepting the reality of what happened and about fighting on far more effectively than we have been in the last year…

On that much we have full agreement. What do you suggest?

Seriously guys. Relax. It might not be what you want, but the Republicans have just screwed themselves.

http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo

Wtf is Clyburn talking about with this “civil rights of the 21st century”?

Bullshit.

to all you commenting above:

you ever need an abortion?

oh, and especially you guys who are waxing so eloquent,

you ever need an abortion?

really? you didn’t? amazing.

and amazing that you could speak so loudly and so confidently now about this abortive health care bill.

jane has will mandate mania be the gay marriage of 2010 upstairs

I don’t understand the thinking behind “it’s a first step, we’ll fix it later.”

It’s like telling that naive and insecure person who just wanted to go out for dinner and a movie they have to start with anal gang rape – “I know you think it’s not perfect, but it’s a first step, and it gives us something to build on.”

It doesn’t make any sense, but if they buy it…that’s their fault, isn’t it?

“Say, does this universal health insurance cover lube? No?”

they are the business supremes. i think if they can install bush and do citizens united, we can’t count on them to deliver any kind of justice.

It’s been a hundred years and the first letter I ever sent to my rep was on this amazing new contraption called an IBM Selectric. How much longer should we wait? And, will it take; rioting in the streets?

I’m giving up on counting on ANY of these cringing little weasels in congress/WH to get anything done. I’m giving up on ANY of the cringing little SUCKERS that supported this bill. At this point that leaves me with little more than jack and shit, and I’m sure as hell not going con myself into believing anything is going to change. I’ll fight, but I’ll be fighting against, not for.

The good news here is that the Republicans lost, big time. Just one word for them, Waterloo.

From my position on the far left, the backlash against the Democrats at the polls this fall and in 2012 because of this POS anti-choice bill guarantees the death of the Democratic Party, which might as well change its name to the Republican Party because it has replaced we the people with we the corporations.

I will no longer vote for democratic candidates because they do not represent me.

I’m so disgusted that I’m starting a new third party, the Rose Party.

I suggest you stop acting like Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the Democrats are acting in the best interests of the people or can be trusted going forward as you work to go from where we now are toward a far better health care system.

When you write that there is a foundation to build on in this pos – when in fact there is not – you are suggesting that the Democrats moved things in the right direction. They didn’t.

Many of those we thought were our allies have turned out to be weaklings or simply betrayed us.

Jane started talking about seeking out new alliances the other day. I’m not sure what will happen going forward, but I don’t want to waste my energy trying to give carrots to charlatans thinking that they’ll fight for real reform. They won’t.

Fucking right.

It’s like telling that naive and insecure person who just wanted to go out for dinner and a movie they have to start with anal gang rape

Yeah, but do I still get dinner?

I’m starting The Spoiler Party.

Only if we go dutch!

No flowers for you! And you’ll like it.

Clyburn + civil rights + insurance mandate = Amerika.
We’re makin’ “his story”, uh, history now, baby!!!
I’m thinking of asking my daughter to have a tubal ligation at 21, while we still have insurance, to alleviate her pre-existing condition known as being born Female. /s/

I just thought of something: How does one “reconcile” shit?

There it is.

Make a sandwich?

lol.

Oh sure, I get the anal rape but I still have to pay half? I must be really, really insecure.

Sounds good. BRB

It’s a cruel fucking world, man.

OK, enough with the sexual assault stuff.

I need to get ready for an early start to work like 12 demons and amass the metric crapload of cash needed to assure the toddlers and elderly in the family can dare to get sick. Or maybe I’ll just move to Europe.

It’s been therapeutic, thanks!

It’s beyond me how Kucinich was obstructionist, but Stupak needed to be treated with kid gloves.

Obama bargained away Dennis’s demanded Public Option last July. Jane has been claiming this since August and the New York Times finally broke the story last week, but the other news outlets are supressing it and NYT hasn’t followed up. So, giving in to Dennis would make Obama a dishonest politician, in the Chicago sense of the term, i.e., a politician who, once bought, doesn’t stay bought. But Obama made no such deal with the pro-choice folks, who will have to be happy with whatever falls of the table, since Stupak has “testicular fortitude,” whatever that quaint term means.

how did you pick the name Rose Party?

I’m so disgusted that I’m starting a new third party, the Rose Party.

Or, as Alice Cooper suggested, “the wild party.”

And the most perfectly insightful thing about that song is that at the very end, after he’s elected, he tells the people who voted for him to go f*ck themselves, because, he says, “Everybody has problems, and personally – I don’t care.”

Ah, but that was supporting governmental action and State/municipalities worked around that with new legislation. And that had to do with ‘property rights’, an entirely different issue.

I’m sure you’re right; I’m not a lawyer. But then, I get the impression that several members of the Roberts court aren’t, either.

OK, enough with the sexual assault stuff.

You talking to us or to Congress?

onward,
through the fog!

But, they play one on TV!

Oh,man!! Now I’m going to have to read all these comments to find the sexual assault stuff.
Can’t you hit Reply?
Nevermind. I’ve been watching too much “Oz”.
~~~EDITED IN MODERATION~~~Smiles, fundraisers, the good fucking silverware laid out.

Sad and tired. Can anyone point me to a nice graphic that has pro-choice women going under the bus with DADT folks? I’m sure I can find one if I look, but I’d like to continue my quiet weeping in the corner.

OK! Drop and give me 20 Hail Marys!

It’s hard to stir up a visual of this, let alone fist pump and go “Yes!” over it, with Obama high-fiving Rahm in my mental foreground…as described by whoever that was on C-Span who said after the vote, “The president has just shared a big high five with his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel.” That latter was a great moment to be on the treadmill, though. Republican Waterloo…nah, not near as much. Not today, thanks!

Agree, not necessary. The language can bring back memories people have that they don’t need to be reminded of now. I’m not scolding anyone, just saying it’s good to be mindful of it.

: )

What happened to my comment? It was there a moment ago.

hi, gw!

i did not take it.

Maybe the Sopranos.

Fat Tony (Scalia): “yea, we got this thing going in Connecticut”

Babyface Johnny: “you mean the old submarine base thing?”

Fat Tony: “yeah, that’s it. Good money in that these days.”

Clarabelle: “I had a friend down there once.”

Fat Tony: “you make her watch dirty pictures, too?”

The gang laughs, Clarabelle hangs his head.

Fat Tony: “Yeah, so they make it happen if we make it happen, see?”

If that happens, we must respond in kind.

hi guy, how are you?

Oh, you’re good!! :>

I can’t wait to listen to Cenk tomorrow. He’ll be back from London.

finer than frog’s hair.
you?

A rose symbolizes rebirth and resurrection in some of the ancient mystery schools.

Red rose symbolizes social justice.

White rose symbolizes nonviolent German opposition to the Nazis.

Blue rose symbolizes love and prosperity in art and literature.

Also, using a flower as our symbol is a very powerful connection with the yin or feminine, which KarenM urges us to do, and even though “the yang is strong in this one,” as Darth Vader might have said of me in a galaxy far far away a long time ago, I am a peaceful warrior now dedicated to practicing the Golden Rule with love, peace, acceptance, respect, and non-violence.

Note: R,W,B definitions provided by Duncan. Idea for the name provided by me. Idea for RW&B colors provided by Macaquerman.

Check out 50 plank platform here & comments.

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/36413

Exactly. They filled the house with asbestos, built it with rotten wood, and covered it all with toxic drywall from China – and they think it’s a good foundation to build on.

Don’t forget that they built the foundation of this “starter home” on quicksand.

funny, i’m finer than frog’s hair too!

This whole 2014 shit pisses me off… and obviously there’s a lot about the bill that pisses me off.

But “they” (read one of the congressmen who flipped to yes) keep touting the end of PEI… in fact one of the guys on MSNBC just said that….

aand we’ve got to wait 4 freakin yrs…

in fact Schulz just announced “an end to PEI..” and Van Hollen kind of correcte dhim by saying it would apply to children and “to others soon after that…”

Wow, you vastly underestimate me.

BTW, I’m not a rock star trying to hold on to fame by writing a cynical song.

I think ‘testicular fortitude’ means that his balls don’t get flattened when they get caught in a vise. Or something like that.

kewl!

“Rosebud.”

(Not everyone follows Rosicrucian symbolism. ;-) )

On top of the San Andreas fault.

Wow, you vastly underestimate me.

Your humility most of all, apparently.

What do you suggest?

1. no pre-compromises for stupid and undefined policy.
2. social movement politics that is not focused on deecee. something like this (from chap. 1 of Doing Democracy) (my typos):

SOCIAL MOVEMENT STRATEGY

Social movements involve a long-term struggle between the movement and the powerholders for the hearts, minds, and support of the majority of the population. Before social movements begin, most people are either unaware that a porblem exists or don’t believe that they can do anything about it. The believe the powerholders’ societal myths and support the high-sounding offical policies and practices, all of which seem to be consistent with the culture’s deeply held values and beliefs. This was the situation before all of the social movements of the past 40 years. For example, before 1963, most Americans thought everyone could votel before 1967, most thought the war in Vietnam was to preserve democracy for the people there; before 1976, most Americans thought that nuclear power was totally safe, necessary, and too cheap to meter; and before teh anti-World Trade Organization (WTO) demonstrations in Seattle in 1999, most thought that corporate globalization was inevitable, provided good jobs for people in the Third World, and was sustainable.

The strategy of social movements, therefore, is to alert, educate, adn win over an ever-increasing majority of the public. First, the public needs to be convinced that a critical social problem exists. Then it must be convinced that polifcies need to be changed. And then a majority of people must be mobilized into a force that eventually brings about an acceptable solution.

To carry out this strategy, social movements need to be firmly grounded in the values, symbols, beliefs, sensibilities, and traditions that are important to the general population. Only by proving to the public that the movement, not the powerholders, upholds these values and principles can the movement win over the citizenry and create a level of motivation that inspires people to challenge the powerholders and their policies. By the same token, movement activities and attitudes that violate society’s values and sensibilities, such as acts of violence and rebellious machismo posturing, have the opposite effect — they turn off the mass population, including those people who are already involved, or would like to be involved, in the movement.

To achieve the goal of winning over and involving the citizenry, social movements need to reframe the issue by exposing and providing to the public that the powerholders’ actual policies and programs violate the societal myths. The best way to inspire the public to be actively involved in creating social change is to show continueously, over time, the gap between the powerholders’ actual policies and programs and the culture’s values and beliefs. Highlighting this gap is the most critical consciousness raising owrk and lies at the center of social movement strategy.

GRAND STRATEGY

The grand strategy is the broad framework that describes the overall process of movement success. It provides movement activists with a model they can use to create goals, strategies, tactics, and programs that are consistent with the movement’s long-term goals. A shared understanding of the grand strategy proides activists in various organizations and sub-movements with a basic understanding of how each of their efforts can contribute to attaining the larger movement’s ultimate goal.

Without a grand strategy, the disparate activists and groups involved in a movement do not have a common, consistent basis for planning, organizing, and evaluating their efforts and supporting each other. This leads to inefficiencies and unneccessary dissidence [sound familiar? -- s] as groups go off in contradictory directions. Moreover, without a grand strategy there is no basis for challenging people and groups including agents provocateurs, who either inadvertently or intentionally undercut the effectiveness of social movements.

… grand strategy is based on the people power model of nonviolent social movements. This process includes four strategic steps.

1. First, social movements must focus directly on the powerholders’ policies and institutions to expose their societal secrets and challenge their actual polices and programs. This involves developing critical analyses, presentations, and publications and using all of the normal channels available to the public, including demonstrations, rallies, and marches that, when necessary, include civil disobedience….

2. Second, the purpose of these activities is to put the public spotlight on the problem and on the powerholders’ actual policies and practices in order t o alert, educate, win over, involve, and inspire the general public to become involved in the movement. These activities are not intended to get the powerholders to change their policies and practices at this point.

3. Third, social movements then mobilize the general public to put tremendous pressure on the powerholders and social institutions to change their policies and, at the same time, create a new peaceful culture and democratic political conditions….

4. Fourth, these activities attract additional members of the general public to become social activists and either join existing movement organizations and activities or create their own.

ASSUMPTIONS

… based on the belief that nonviolent social movements area powerful means for mobilizing people to become involved in a dynamic political process to address and resolve critical social problems.

… four underlying assumptions:

1. A chief cause of social problems is the concentration of political and economic power in a few elite individuals and institutions that act in their own self-interest….

2. Participatory democracy is a key means for resolving today’s awesome societal problems and for establishing a just and sustainable world for everyone. The resolution of today’s problems, therefore, requires an informed, empowered, and politicized population that assertively participates in the political and economic process to demand democracy, justice, ….

3. Political and economic power ultimately rest with the majority population; the powerholders in any society can only rule as long as they have consent or acquiescence of the people….

4. The most important issue today is the struggle between the majority of citizens and the individual and institutional powerholders to determine whether society will be based on the power elite or people power model.

This passage is a disaster. I think we’ve just witnessed the largest overt transfer-of-wealth-bill EVER voted for in Congress. IT TRANSFERS WEALTH *TO* THE WEALTHY from the working and middle classes. That’s what a lot of people don’t get. We got a revolutionary mandate to inflate the insurance industry and big Pharma when we should have had an incremental extension of Medicare benefits

Yeah, I left out the Rosicrucian reference because some folks freak out at anything with religious or spiritual connections. For example, several people object to referring to Gaia as too new agey.

I’ve never belonged to a church except for one year when I was a teenager. A couple friends asked me to play on their basketball team. I said sure and later found out it was a church team, so I became a Presbyterian for the season. That’s it and no, I don’t attend any church. Have no desire to do so.

Am deeply into spirituality, consciousness, and the ancient mystery schools, however.

Fundies are beyond weird.

Rosicrucians were a pretty decent spiritual org, imo. Only one I actually like in fact. Gotta square that circle. Or circle that square.

: )

Count me among those whose neck hairs raise when Religious symbols blend into State business.

Ain’t touching that, son.

Snark and snipe till your heart is content and, if you feel better, good for you.

Thanks, selise. I’ll go read that.

I don’t know this crowd, but have been reading comments here for a few days. I followed a link here to find a vote count and ended up staying to read (for hours). I am your antithesis. But I must say, the more I read, the more I wanted to say “I agree with that” “that is exactly how I feel”.
I know how most regulars on any board feel about outsiders, but may I share something I am feeling?
You and I are all disappointed about this bill passing. It seems like the reasons would be different, but this conservative mom of 5 read your outline of the bill chart and I want to point out that the reasons I hate this legislation are exactly the same as yours.
But one insight that keeps coming back to me is this — if anyone would care to comment to a visitor, I’d love to hear your take —
It seems to me that perhaps Obama is actually *trying* to enrage you, the progressives (forgive me if I have the label wrong) so that you WILL be a louder voice.
Anyone?

btw — hello, nice to meet you & this is a sincere, troll-free post

you might like the book. even cynical me thinks it’s very upbeat (although not in a cheerleading kind of way – definitely no pom poms *g*) with lots of concrete suggestions and real life examples.

welcome visitor. hope you will stay awhile. i don’t know president obama’s motivations — all i have area his actions to go on.

Thanks for your comments. And welcome. You are seeing the often pretty raw feelings of a great group of sincere and passionately caring people who have been profoundly disappointed in their expectations of the man and the party they worked and gave so much to in the past election.

I hope you will stay around and get to know us better as we regain optimism and shore up courage to continue to work for our ideals.

I can only speak for myself but I think what sets most of us off from many traditional political junkies is that we are mostly activists and our principals are idea based not person as in Obama or party as in Democrat derived. Again speaking only for myself, I don’t give a rat’s ass whether Obama is lately playing nicey nicey to us. The important thing is is he promoting my liberal values and how can I get him to.

It seems to me that perhaps Obama is actually *trying* to enrage you, the progressives (forgive me if I have the label wrong) so that you WILL be a louder voice.

That would be one hell of an act of tough love. One thing’s for sure watching this lot (the Democrats) carry on since their big congressional win in 2006: it would take more than an economic collapse and a charismatic young president to get them to do the right thing. They used to at least be the gentler buttock of crony capitalism; now they seem worse than the Republicans.

But to get back to your hopeful theory. I think the answer is “no.” He wants to be a two-termer and couldn’t give a hoot whether progressives succeed. Look at how personally involved he was in strangling the last bits of life out of the public option, for instance. This guy is out for himself and his cronies.

I’ve been pondering this for some time now. MSM painted him as a “centrist” in the campaign cycle, but he actually campaigned to groups like NOW and gay rights groups and groups advocating for single payer health care as an ally to them.
What frustrates me most is that he speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Even if I disagree with someone, I can respectfully disagree a person who says what he means. Case in point — Bart Stupak — Just when you think a person has a spine, you learn it’s for sale.

But what do you make of the rarely talked about comments, like “this is just a first step.” Surely, forcing insurance companies to cover everyone will drive up their costs, won’t it be as CA congresswoman said – “that’s the point” (driving them out of business) At that point, we will be on the way to single payer, bypassing public option. There will be no private insurance left.

At any rate: I find it absolutely ironic that this now passed legislation please NO ONE – except the 5 or 6 in charge who are completely out of touch.

What frustrates me most is that he speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Even if I disagree with someone, I can respectfully disagree a person who says what he means.

i agree. in fact, i’d prefer honest disagreement to dishonest agreement.

…. gotta go try to catch some sleep, please forgive me early departure, but i’m on the east coast and not by nature awake at this hour unless with insomnia.

nice “meeting” you. i very much hope to meet up with you again on these threads…..

thanks for the welcome

If you don’t mind my asking, is there something about private insurance that makes you prefer it?

The bill gives the insurance companies the ability to charge up to 3X as much for the older and sicker amongst us. It also feeds them millions of young, profitable new customers. Let’s see what happens to their stock prices in the years ahead — even in the days and weeks ahead. I’m sure they wouldn’t have signed on for any scheme that didn’t make them money. And let’s make no mistake: they signed on for this. By all accounts they had a big hand in writing the damned thing.

Nonetheless it will be a step toward either the bankrupting of the system or single payer. One potential silver lining is that four years hence every young adult starting out in life, and every young-ish contract worker full stop, will be rapt with attention on this issue. These groups include many who have become terminally apathetic to politics, so long as they remain physically and fiscally healthy. No more; they won’t have that luxury.

So, in a way, Obama has helped create new sets of passionate health care-focused voting blocks. Problem is, they won’t all be progressives. Right wing “free marketeers” could win the argument.

But once they’re broke, they will will qualify for higher subsidies.
Win!

Wonder if CBO will have a D-oh! moment about that in the years to come. “Gee, we should have upped the numbers on subsidies considering how little people would be saving given the outrageous new insurance premiums they’d be forced to pay once the bill went into effect.”

oh, I don’t mind at all
Right now, I insure myself and 5 children for $212/month with a High deductible plan (by choice). It covers well-child til age 8 and basically nothing else until $10,000. (My husband has a separate HD plan) We save about $7,000/year in premiums – against his employer plan. Obama continues to spout that we can keep our health insurance if we like it, but that is a lie. We must now purchase “government approved” health insurance that covers a minimum of “government mandated” services. We will have to, by law, now go back to $6-800/month for insurance we don’t want. We have saved our premiums to pay our deductible and rarely use traditional medicine – I doubt my home-births would have been approved by the Pelosi plan.
If the “ALL NEW MUCH BETTER” plan wasn’t going to fine me for not spending a lot more money for something I don’t want to buy, maybe I wouldn’t be so negative about it.

I was half-kidding when I started to type that, and when I was done, I realized…

I know how that feels.

I might be what you consider a “right wing free marketeer” but here is my reality. Right now, I pay for my premium and for my family’s care. The insurance company will pay after a certain amount (and yes, I know about pre-existing conditions – my son had a platelet disorder that required a fight with BC/BS; and I realize that if I use “too much” insurance, my premiums will go up)
BUT – under Obama care, our cost will jump dramatically & since we are not “wealthy” we will probably receive a subsidy to help pay it. The cost WILL go up. CBO, BHO, Plo, and everyone else agrees to that. Then I will either be a drain on the system because I can’t afford it (which wouldn’t happen without Obamacare) or we will be one of the families who just pays the fine and then gets the insurance if we have a health tragedy/ high cost need. How is that better? I say it’s not.
For all the money they’re spending, they could just buy cadillac plans now for the uninsurable – it would probably cost less. And the receiver would appreciate it. Who is going to appreciate the current plan of being place on the Medicaid rolls? Do you know how hard it is to make an appointment after they ask “what insurance do you have?” and you say “medicaid?”

First, if Obama is indeed attempting to enrage progressives (and very successfully, though an alarming number still seem to be entranced), it’s not to energize them but to make him appear more mainstream than his Republican opposition wants him to. In other words, purely self-serving (as most of his behavior is).

Second, insurers aren’t being forced to cover everyone: everyone’s being forced to purchase their product. And they’re being allowed to charge whatever they want to, so don’t shed a tear over their ‘costs’. The CBO estimates that premium prices will be a bit HIGHER with this abominable bill than without it, so insurers will at worst maintain their current level of profit on each policy even though those policies do provide slightly better coverage. And they’ll be selling a lot more policies than they do today, so their OVERALL profits will rise noticeably.

Thanks for explaining why you don’t like how you expect your coverage to change under the bill that passed tonight. I guess what I was asking was a little different. Let me ask it this way instead: if there were an insurance plan available to you that covered exactly what you have now, and it cost the same, and it was run by the government instead of by a private company, would that be a problem for you? I was only asking because of what you said in comment 220, especially the first paragraph.

I feel your pain (bites lower lip). I’ve had disaster insurance in the past, and been glad for it. Better than nothing. During times when I could afford the (then, late 20s) $150 per month and could, in a dire emergency, come up with the $10-20K I would need to make up the deductibles and whatnot, such insurance was OK, do-able.

Versus having to buy insurance under penalty of law and, worse, having to buy certain types of insurance. Yes, Obamacare is the big suck on these levels.

I’ve also had lifesaving surgery as an uninsured. Nothing quite beats the experience of having severe abdominal pain but riding a motorcycle to the hospital to save the $650 the ambulance would charge you. Then the anxiety of not knowing whether you would get in. Then trying to pay off a $20,000 bill. USA! USA! USA!

We all know that Canadian-style single payer would fix all of this nonsense. Obama knows it, the Republicreeps know it, the insurance jackals know it…

Yes, I agree with you that Obama is very needy, in that he wants everyone to like him so much, that he seems to pick “a group a day” to appease. He’s like the kid in school no one really wants to hang out with because he is so annoying — buys you a pop every day at lunch so you’ll sit by him, and buys the same music as you even though he doesn’t like it, etc.
Yes, we will close Guantanamo immediately, we will allow gays in the military, we will fight for unions, we will . . .blah, blah, blah, until the news gets wind of it. Then it’s , “Now, Bret, that’s not what I said (but I’m not going to repeat what I did say)…”
On your second point, believe me I am not crying for the insurance companies — it’s for all the people whose cost just went through the roof. Does Obama really believe that insurance companies are going to cover everyone and their pre-existing conditions for the same price they charge now?” “Is he an idiot” (better not answer that :)

oh, in 220 I was trying to be devil’s advocate for Obama — I just was asking if you (all) thought that in order to be more palatable to more people, this is just a starting point — actually. Get your foot in the door, they have to know that costs are going to sky-rocket, and then people will be begging for a public option.

I guess it’s possible. But spending every last drop of your political capital, only to have an “Oops” moment, seems like a strange method.

Oh. You sure seemed to base that on a supposition that there was something important about the insurance being provided by a private company and not the government. That’s the main part I’m curious about.

I wouldn’t characterize Obama as needy: he seems entirely self-sufficient. I’d characterize him as a con artist: he deliberate set out to appeal to Democratic activists during his campaign in order to get their extremely energetic support in electing him, then dropped them like hot potatoes once they had given him what he wanted.

Now he’s trying to appeal to centrists, and apparently perfectly willing to throw the rest of his elected national party officials (most of whom have to stand for election next November) to the wolves by turning off the party activists. Because by the time 2012 rolls around he’ll need center and center-right support for his own reelection (since many Democratic activists won’t be fooled again). Meanwhile, he got Republicans to do his dirty work on health care reform so that he wouldn’t have to take heat personally for the deals he struck with the industry last year (“Gee, I really wanted this to be better, but those nasty Republicans got in the way even after I tried so hard to get them on board by scrapping everything useful in the bill…”).

The guy can talk a dog off a steak and has the ethics of a weasel – a very dangerous combination.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

From David Frum’s mouth to our ears. Yeah, this is just great.

Duncan – I hope your lip is ok :)
Where I’m coming from: I KNOW there are people in dire straits & I am a compassionate person.
But I simply disagree that the government has any business mandating my health coverage. This bill really has nothing to do with health CARE. just insurance. Try as I might, even though I could come up with a better way for the government to do this, I just can’t wrap my mind around the idea of the government doing it at all.
“The government” is really just a partisan group of people, which is in constant flux, making decisions based on the makeup of the group on that day. What is to keep the next group of people from changing the plan?
Bush/Boehner yesterday, Obama/Pelosi today, ?/? tomorrow

This is probably where our discussion would go quickly to irreconcilable. Isn’t it issues like this – personal liberty and self-determination that originally caused our founding fathers to fight for freedom from England in the 1700s?

Thank you for the conversations – I appreciate your kind responses.
I agree with you billtodd – dog off a steak. If I were a progressive, I’d be ticked off, too.
As a learner, I’d like to know more about the progressive ideals. Can one of you recommend a book or site for me?
You’ve been most welcoming, thank you,
Jennifer

The idea that the only entity capable of providing for some aspects of the well-being of the people is the country itself — as managed by the government — was also in the mix.

Oh. You sure seemed to base that on a supposition that there was something important about the insurance being provided by a private company and not the government. That’s the main part I’m curious about.

I’ve thought about a response to this. I don’t have a canned answer, but I do believe that. When I think of how to phrase it though, it is hard to do because my intention is not to argue a point. Maybe the best way is to say that I have a strong conviction of independence. I don’t know anything really about progressivism that I’ve learned from a progressive, (of course we all hear things from the media) but my impression is that it is a more “dependent” philosophy. That sounds very negative to me, though, so please know that I don’t mean it in a negative way. That’s why I’m here, really – to learn a bit more about you (all).

I’m going to go to bed now, because I’m afraid I’m being annoying :)
What aspects do you mean? Common defense, of course. But originally, our federal government didn’t even mention things like education and definitely not retirement benefits and healthcare.

Thanks. Dulcet tones, most economical use I’ve ever seen of the small space provided by a nutshell. Keeper.

There have been several somewhat distinct stages of progressivism over the past century-plus. As I understand it, early-on it was strongly based on practical application of optimality theory – which led to over-regulation in some cases, e.g., Prohibition. It’s kind of hard to imagine a modern progressive opting for Prohibition, though – a noticeable if mild libertarian streak has worked its way in.

To put it another way, ’60s Liberals were not entirely incorrectly characterized as ‘tax and spend’ types, but today’s progressives often have a more fiscally conservative streak (while still being socially liberal and willing to spend when necessary – e.g., to boost the economy out of recession). They still have a strong practical streak in the sense of being happy to embrace either private or public solutions depending upon which solve specific problems well.

That’s just my own impression: it would not surprise me at all if other self-described progressives differed.

The securest prison is the one which affords the illusion of liberty. I think a Frenchman once said something like that.

The nice thing about Canadian-style single payer is that it is relatively simple to understand, and incredibly popular. Like our Medicare. We can bitch up a storm about Medicare but it isn’t called the third rail of politics for nothing. Huff and puff all they liked, Reagan, Bush and now Obama won’t fundamentally change Medicare. Try doing something similar to Canada’s universal Medicare and there would be scalps taken in Ottawa. If we had universal Medicare it would be still the third rail, only with ten times the voltage running through.

Keeping people tied to jobs in order so to keep their health coverage is not freedom, it is serfdom. Putting them in line for $10,000 medical bills when covered by disaster insurance isn’t freedom, either. You might be tempted to see it as such, and I respect that, but it isn’t freedom. What the French and Canadians and British experience is freedom. Cradle to grave healthcare security.

All systems ration healthcare, but a “free market” system does so in a cruel and capricious manner. With health care costs as high as they are these days no one can save or plan for their health care future, really. Well, a billionaire can. But the average person can’t — not when a major medical intervention can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

But, whatever our differing views may be, it’s nice to debate and discuss these things in pleasant company.

As for our 18th century forebears…I think they had all sorts of reasons — grand, petty and profane — for fighting. Or not fighting. I had ancestors on both sides of that fight. The ones who fought for king and country got chucked out of the US and landed in…Canada. I’m sure they loved liberty and free market opportunity at least as much as the ones shooting at them. But everyone’s got different ideas about things. Go figure.

All systems ration healthcare, but a “free market” system does so in a cruel and capricious manner.

No. A free market system allocates scarce resources via price. In a price system, you have options. You can get more by paying more. And you have some say in what you can afford, since you can manage your own finances over the course of your life. And if you still can’t afford something needed, you can in some cases borrow and pay later. You have options. More importantly, it’s fair, because the provider of the service (that is, the doctor who learned his skill, or the manufacturer who created the dialysis machine, etc.) gets to decide how *their* labor will be disposed of.

Rationing only happens when prices are artificially fixed. Under rationing, some bureaucratic entity will decide whether you’re in the receiving group or not, and once that decision is final, you must live with it. Your efforts to provide for yourself or your family are nullified. As are the interests of the provider, without whom there would be nothing to “allocate”. *That* is cruel and capricious.

We would all like to be independent but the fact is none of us are. That is the way the world works. The notion of independence becomes a memory when there is no job, or when illness makes it impossible to work. According to right wing Calvinism and Libertarianism, natural law, you just die. But you see even that makes for a sanitary problem that some one has to clean up.

Humans prevail because enough of us have learned to collaborate as a group.Some of us have emotional systems that nourish that. We call it love, altruism, tolerance, respect and the wisdom to understand self-sacrifice as something one does in pre-payment for when there is no work, there is no money, and there is failing health.

Conservative ideology is not only primitive it directs its followers to empty meaningless lives.

As to the health of the nation any idiot should be able to see what we can’t afford is a system of corporate skim off of some 30%. It isn’t the cost of care. It is the cost the extortionists in the corporate world impose.

Any rational person at some level understands single payer is the only solution and we will come to it.

Obama taking it off the table from the beginning was when I felt most betrayed. The rest has been trying to force him and the Congress to nibble around the edges of a disastrous situation building.

You are describing an economic system that is obsolete, provably failed.

Then you try to apply that system which at best is based on theories of allocation of commodities to a human right which is not a commodity.

Medical care is not something to be available in various sized parcels according to affordability..

Health care is either good enough or not good enough. We all regardless of station deserve good enough. That simply won’t come close to flying in the system you describe..

My father passed away in 1991 after being dumped from health insurance because he had cancer. He was refused further medical treatment because he did not have insurance. It broke his heart and it broke our hearts.

Yesterday an insurance exec (in his 28 room house) was saying it broke his heart that Congress will pass health care reform.

Now…at least he knows how so many of us feel (well, just a little)

Let em eat Cake ! Bless Congress!!

Respectfully, TalkingStick, I disagree with you. Health care, health insurance, health, whatever the nom du jour for this monstrosisty is, it is not a right. It is now, however, an entitlement.
Rights can not be taken away — health insurance can.
How can it be a right, if it is fluid? This new “right” – this new entitlement program – is NOT guaranteed. When the federal government goes bankrupt – a la the USSR – no more right.
And, health _____ reform proponents would get a more positive response if they quit pontificating on the plight of people who die of “no health insurance”.
“No health insurance” is not an illness or disease. It may well be unfortunate, but every human will die. And people have been dying of illnesses, chronic and acute, since the beginning of time. Even in the last century or so since health insurance was invented.
Saying that does not make me uncompassionate. I lost my mom last year after she battled cancer for 4 years. She had every treatment imaginable and she still died prematurely. Of course, it is sad, but it is not because she didn’t have the best care available; she did. Insured people die, too.
I am definitely not saying that I don’t care about people in a dire situation, but I certainly don’t believe that 3,000 pages of government regulations will help anything. It will be cost prohibitive and is simply a means of wealth redistribution.

If there is a group of people who want to be collectivists, well, go hard. But as someone who grows my own food, educates my own children, drives a 20 year old car, saves, fixes and maintains our home and health responsibly, I don’t agree that I should be penalized by giving my money (to the government or to a private entity) so Suzy Sofa- Sitter can go to the doctor “for free” every time she sneezes.

Please do not flame me – I know certainly that there are people unlike Suzy who will benefit — in 4 years — by this plan. But how many, really? Shouldn’t we just try to actually help people who are disabled? Oh yeah, we already do. Or whose children are uninsurable – absolutely. Or who need a hand up? Oh yeah, we already do, it’s called Medicaid.
How about creating a subsidized pool that people can buy into so that they can have affordable health insurance. They could call it a public option or something.

Now do you see why I stayed here as a visitor, I am perhaps what you would call a right-wing, free-marketer, Calvinist. So imagine my shock when I learned that I had a lot of the same feeling as “radical, liberal, progressives.”

I love this country.

You speak as though you are imprisoned by Red Terror. Selfishness has become a virtue the very term social has become contaminated by the authoritarians on what we call the right. Get over that and a whole happier vista opens up.Collaboration for a cause and caring for each other is hardly Stalinist collectivism. We have no compunction about spending millions to rescue a bunch of rich college kids who try to climb a mountain but somehow virtuous independence comes up when a black teenage girl makes a bad decision and needs pre-natal care.

Please do some reading and media outside Fox and especially please hang around. There is more to learn.:-)

I am trying not to be offended by your characterization of me. I didn’t make personal jabs at you. What Fox has to do with this conversation is one thing – it is no different than the race card.

For the record, I am totally against provisions to “rescue rich college kids, too.” Why on earth, as is in this new act, does a healthy 26-year old need to be on mama’s insurance? On the other hand, black or white or native or what, I am absolutely on the side of the teenage girl who needs care.
Once again, does it have to be a race issue?
As a single mom, I used Medicaid for “insurance” while I finished college. It was definitely the hand-up I needed at the time. But I can tell you, being “allowed” to choose from a list of 3 doctors who “accept” Medicaid patients and treat you like a second-class citizen, that should not be the ideal we strive for in reform. Yet this new plan takes 16 million of the estimated 22 million people to now have health insurance through this legislation and places them on the welfare rolls. That is NOT a step up for the working poor.

Though care of the health of th e people is a responsibility assumed long before documented in the Hammurabic codes I suggest beginning your study sometime in the 19th centurt.

If it offends you to think someone is getting some of your money undeserved you might study the beginnings of the child welfare movement in the UK. It was out of pure practicality because of fears similar to your Red Terror. The Brits were afraid they were running out of people to do fill the military ranks and empty their chamber pots.

I love this country.

It might surprise you to know that I love this country also. In fact I have a whole cluster of ancestors who fought in the first big war. It ended up being called the Revolutionary war.

I assume you love your children also. Does this deter you from telling them when they are wrong and attempting to suade them to do right?

It doesn’t surprise me that you love your country. And my ancestors came over one the mayflower. Does that give me some better position in the debate over who controls your life?
And no, I don’t love my children. And I’m ignorant. And a racist. And a sheep. And . . .
Don’t you see how your Alinsky-style conversation turns people off to your point-of-view?

Have a nice day!

And no, you don’t need to come up with a rebuttal for that. I actually meant it.

I posted a second time before seeing your reply to 253. I apologize for offending you but when you say you are for free markets, and consider yourself right wing I made the other assumptions because that is what the conservatives have been promoting politically.

Your problem with Medicaid was not that it is a government program but that it is largely a state program and extremely underfunded. It is also the first state expense to be cut. It would, not work at all but for the willingness of many providers to treat those patients at a loss. It has been the liberals’ hope for a single payer which would spread (collectivize) a substantial portion of the liability to all taxpayers.

We didn’t get close to that and I agree with most of your criticisms of the current legislation. But it does, and with some courage of the Democrats say the health of all of us is a responsibility of each of us.

I mentioned my ancestors because so many on the right make a bid deal of it. I don’t.

I am into family history big time. What was the name of your Mayflower ancestor?

My metaphor was poorly drawn. Just trying to say we owe especially those we love honest criticism. — including country and family.

It was Richard Warren. I don’t think he was too famous, but did sign the Mayflower Compact. I guess I don’t really make a big deal about it, but do think it’s important to teach our children – whatever it is – our family history. Another side of my family immigrated in late 1890 – Germans from Russia. Another interesting story.

Interesting conversation.

What constitutes a ‘right’ is in the eye of the beholder, nothing more (unless perhaps you’re religious, in which case it’s in the eye of the specific religion or sect thereof). So that’s not particularly worth debating.

Some of us consider health care to be a right that’s conferred when a society becomes sufficiently wealthy to support it fairly easily, as ours is. Of course, that too is a personal judgment call (in at least two different ways).

Perhaps a more effective approach is to debate the value of guaranteed health care on practical grounds. One point worth considering is that the current system is considerably more expensive while covering considerably fewer people and health problems (or at least covering them far less efficiently and effectively, if you postulate that eventually even our current system covers some of them in the emergency room) than a single-payer solution would be. Another is that there is some overall value to society in having a healthy population that need not live in fear of lack of health care.

So many of us are indeed willing to give up the ‘freedom’ (if one has the wherewithal) to purchase insurance for the societal value conferred (in our opinion) by a guaranteed universal health-care system – especially if that can be achieved without ‘nationalizing’ the health-care providers themselves but only the means of payment to them. Even many of those providers (e.g., a majority of American doctors and nurses, according to polling data) favor this, despite the fact that it places their remuneration in the hands of government bureaucrats – which I think says something.

So rather than casting the debate in the form of moral imperatives which we’re not likely to agree upon and in fact really don’t mean all that much in any absolute sense, let’s try a more pragmatic approach (which, as I said elsewhere, is more traditional for ‘progressives’ anyway). The fact that we seem to agree on why several specific provisions in the current bill are horrible should be a good start.

Edit: As this is something of a catch-all post I had meant to include a couple of other observations.

1. Yes, some ‘rights’ are nominally conferred by our Constitution. But that too is merely an agreed-upon document that in fact can be altered (though with some difficulty) at will, so it’s nothing ‘absolute’ either.

2. I think you questioned the Constitutionality of guaranteeing health care at some point. The ‘general welfare clause’ (Article 1, Section 8) provides for use of taxation for such purposes, according to a vast majority of Constitutional scholars and the 1936 Supreme Court Butler decision (not to say that libertarians don’t feel free to assert otherwise).

Oh, dear – when I edited the above all paragraph breaks disappeared, and when I tried to correct that immediately I was informed that my time for editing had expired (despite the fact that the newly-edited material had only just been submitted).

Incompetent software design strikes again. Sorry about the result.

If you do a page refresh, it should clear everything up and restore all the proper formatting.

OT for Visitor:

I have been doing some reading on the Mayflower recently. Was he one who died early? Those were determined folk who did intend to create a better way of living.

I have a hunch we have some Mayflower connections but the earliest I can place a direct ancestor is 1630 in the Ma. Bay Colony, if my source is accurate. I am too old any more to do the travel to confirm some of the data I have from LDS.

I was struck to discover my most confirmed first ancestor with my surname left a widow with seven sons who lived in 17th century Boston and was required to pay no taxes because of poverty.

The greatest treasures are that some of th early history books are now free on Google and are simply fascinating.

To stay on topic :-) We do have a history of taking care of each other. I am deeply hurt by these recent years of so much selfishness in business and polarization.

1. Yes, some ‘rights’ are nominally conferred by our Constitution. But that too is merely an agreed-upon document that in fact can be altered (though with some difficulty) at will, so it’s nothing ‘absolute’ either.

Permit me a correction please. The rights in the DOI and enumerated in the Bill of Rights are NOT conferred. They are recognized as inherent in all humankind. And they cannot be abrogated by any man except through due process of law to be developed as described in the Constitution.

That is one of the radical aspects of our democracy. There are certain rights that are not conferred by any human. They are just there.

The history of some kind of central government provision for the health of the people goes back at least to Hammurabi.

As to pragmatism. It is more than coincidence that these recognized organic imperatives some may call “moral.” happen to endow survival advantage on those species where they exist.

In my view it is dangerous and soul numbing to frame everything in a for profit life view. That’s what leads to the libertine relativism the Randians so love. Or to the choice to apply torture when it suits the profit needs of the state.

your edit looks fine from here :)

I have a few questions for you – some related, some not.

****What do you think would be much better – your dream plan, if you will, for health care reform? Including how to pay for it.

For me I wonder why do we need to have Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans, CHIP, etc, each with their own administrative and bureaucratic costs, if the goal is “universal” care (Which I assume applies that it is the same for everyone)?

****Regarding your comments about religion, how do you respond to the idea that Socialistic Humanism is a religion?

****What is your goal overall for poor people/communities, not just in relation to healthcare. My understanding is that the progressive “movement” is very concerned with social equality. If I am wrong, I know someone will let me know. How would you say that adding 16 million people, including able-bodied, single, adults, to Medicaid promotes this goal? Or do you?

You seem to be confused. The Constitution is just a document which enough people agreed upon to get made the law of our land. And in fact those ‘rights’ that you mention weren’t even in the Constitution until it was amended to include them (and it could of course equally be amended again to exclude them, further demonstrating that they’re nothing in any way ‘absolute’).

You may prefer the term ‘recognized’ to the term ‘conferred’, but there’s no substantial difference. And you may prefer to consider these rights as being in some way inherent, but that’s just your opinion (and, of course, that which any others who share it may hold). The fact that some people hold different opinions is the clearest evidence that that’s all they are.

A lot of the founders would likely agree, by the way. They chose to incorporate their own personal ideals into the document as a clear indication of the direction that they believed the country should take, but even in stating them they used the phrase “WE HOLD these truths to be self-evident” rather than “These truths ARE self-evident” (being the good rationalists that they were).

This recognition is one of the many reasons why I hold them in such high esteem.

Please see my previous comment for my reply to this post of yours: JavaScript somehow became disabled and it doesn’t show up as that (which might have been why my earlier reply to visitor got garbled before a page-refresh was applied).

PMJI; I am not aware of anything called Socialistic Humanism. Socialism has had its meaning so perverted by misapplication on the right that it is a useless term. You can Google the classic description but it goes something like this. A central government, which may or may not be democratically elected, owns or controls the means of production and the income thereof.

Humanism is a philosophy. A particular understanding of how the world works. A core element is that There are certain qualities and rights inherent in all mankind. They are not conferred by any human and cannot be rescinded by any man. . They are just there.

A lot of the miscommunication among us now in this country is how we describe these rights and not whether they exist or not.

Health care: Single Payer..Tell the rich they have to throw in some of their loot as the price of citizenship..

It isn’t the cost of care. It is trying to provide it with insufficient citizen participation funding and a 30% rake off to support an unnecessary industry, the health insurance industry.

not to just nit-pick

the rights in questions here are the ones mentioned in the phrase “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, …”
Which is found in the Declaration of Independence.

You may prefer the term ‘recognized’ to the term ‘conferred’, but there’s no substantial difference

There is a huge difference. The struggle with this concept goes back in English law to the Magna Carta. It is the essence of the most beloved sound bite the right loves to use. . Independence. Not beholden to any man,

Bingo

I would add, not as an argument necessarily, that another undue cost burden is the endless bureaucracy of 5,000 federal, state and local agencies administrating anything that happens with those tax dollars.

It took a while but actually Medicare runs pretty smoothly and efficiently now.

They seem to pay quickly, have a good system of deciding and describing coverage, rapid processing and payment of claims and an appeals process that works well. Cost of administering Medicare is about 3% of funding. Private insurers is about 30%. A problem with Medicare is that the payments are to low for many services to be sustainable.and would have to be raised. I believe a salaried system for physicians and some liability reform might make up for the low fees.

Of course everything can be considered “opinion” except the facts of the laws of nature. And yes one can admire the humility of the founders in so stating. Where I was intending to disagree with you is your saying the Constitution of the government conferred these rights. I believe the now rejected Thomas Jefferson would take a spin in his grave to hear that..

The principles of Libertarianism are also just opinions. Unfortunately sucking them in has pretty much destroyed what makes this culture civilized. A set of opinions that Greenspan acknowledged to be disastrously wrong..

My ‘dream plan’ is simple: Medicare for All, paid for from progressively-indexed tax revenues (without getting any more specific about how taxes should be raised, which is a major conversation in itself). My own view is that we’re wealthy enough to treat health care as a right, so we should do so for the good of our society (I consider part of that ‘good’ to be the idea that we’re sufficiently wealthy to be collectively responsible for our members who cannot take care of themselves adequately, but am comfortable setting that personal conviction aside and just basing the argument on the idea that when they’re not left to suffer we all benefit from the result).

Medicare needs fixing in terms of what it currently fails to cover (save for purely elective actions that don’t address actual deformity or other serious issues in which society should properly take an interest). And there are procedures which need to be proven to some reasonable degree effective before they’re covered (this should also help decide when extremely expensive heroic measures aren’t appropriate – I’d have no problem with the existence of private insurance that would cover such for those who disagree with the public consensus, nor would I have any problem with insurance to cover the desires of those who simply didn’t trust the public system, though they’d still have to support it via taxation).

This should indeed eliminate any need for the additional programs you mentioned, at least where they overlap. I consider that a bonus (both in simplicity and in savings).

I’m not religious myself, so I’m not a good person to ask what qualifies as a religion and what does not. I just think people should be free to believe what they want to (though not to foist belief, or non-belief, on others without their agreement).

All the above clearly involves some redistribution of wealth, which seems to be what your last more general question relates to. In the case of health care, there’s a pretty good argument that the increased efficiency in payment and care delivery and the improvements for society as a whole makes it a win across the board even after this redistribution occurs (i.e., the overall impact on even the most wealthy would be positive).

On that more general level, I think most progressives support the idea of a ‘safety net’ to care for other basic needs (such as food and shelter), again at a level consistent with our overall wealth (i.e., possibly somewhat above the absolute bare subsistence level if that’s too inconsistent with the rest of our society). I DON’T think that progressives advocate more radical redistribution of wealth of the nature which Communism nominally proposes, and I don’t think that very many are proponents of Socialism (i.e., I think most believe in capitalism as long as its excesses are moderated by government supervision).

I’ve heard about Medicare what you are saying. I’ve also heard one bad report from my MIL. She said that in order for her to continue to have her costs covered, she must have a periodic “well-checks.” Now, I’m not against well-checks, but that seems like an area that could be looked at. She drives 60 miles to the nearest MD for a 3 or 6 month check up to prove that she is “maintaining” her health. So there is a $100 office visit for no reason. No wonder Medicare can only pay docs a small portion of their charge.
Now, at risk of being accused of shedding a tear for insurance companies again, let me share this. The 30% profit level for insurance companies in a lie. It was information perpetuated during this debate by those who insisted that “insurance profits increased by 30% last year.” They said this in a deliberate attempt to make insurance companies the devil (right before they made a huge deal with them, ironically). While each company has different numbers, obviously, I believe that the 30% figure may have been an industry average. The income may have gone up 30%, but it was from 3% profit versus income to 4% profit versus income. Here is a link to an article – no it is not from FOX – explaining it and showing some actual numbers.
So much wrong information was given out during this debate. If the insurance companies were making a 30% profit versus premium income AND the president and friends made this deal with them, he should really be impeached, no?

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/how-much-money-do-insurance-companies-make-a-primer/?src=tptw

I’ve certainly been happy with the coverage that Medicare has provided for my mother, who’s now 96: it seems to work well. The fact that I suspect we pretty much agree on how health-insurance reform should happen and in fact on more basic tenets as well makes it a bit awkward to keep disagreeing on details, but:

The overall overhead of Medicare is about 5.2% when all is said and done (including some related overhead in other agencies) – still quite good. The overall overhead of private insurers is on average at most about 24% (back in 2008 it was more like 20%, but the Senate mentioned 24% more recently, though less specifically) – definitely not as good. The difference between that 20+% – 24% and the 30+% you often see quoted by single-payer advocates is the 10+% overhead that providers incur by having to deal with so many different payers, each with its own quirks and hurdles, which makes the bottom line potential cost-reduction if we moved to single-payer around 25% – save for the observation in the next paragraph.

Medicare has a horrendous fraud rate that isn’t reflected in the above numbers – around $60 billion annually (according to a “60 Minutes” investigation a while ago, which even single-payer advocates appear to think was valid), which constitutes around 13% of its total payments.

I’m pretty sure (though haven’t yet been able to verify conclusively) that the only reason that the current sham reform package can claim to ‘reduce the deficit’ is because it includes significantly better Medicare fraud oversight, thus saving many tens of billions of dollars a year (but only compared with doing nothing: reducing Medicare fraud should have happened long ago, and has nothing to do with the rest of the package save to make it look better).

just for clarification on my last post, my 3% to 4% example was my own made up number – last I read was 5.2% or something. Just was making it easy for myself

It IS interesting to me how much we do have in common. Why? after 60-100 years can our congress come to NO common ground? Here I am, come over from a conservative, pro-Israel website to check some numbers on a “radical, liberal, progressive” site, and I find out that even though we have been “told” each other’s side is “crazy,” we all agree that an idea we could collaborate on is exponentially better than what the majority party just crammed through – WITHOUT READING. Seems to me the Democratic party leadership is just in this for themselves – not the people (as they love to put forward).

Now, I have 72 tomato seedlings to transplant. I’ll check in later. It was nice to meet you all.

No one would deny inefficiencies and abuses in any system.

It is not a lie but I used a short cut term. It varies and is the percentage of premium dollars that get skimmed off and in includes under various terms, marketing executive salaries profits to stockholders etc. They have all kinds of ways of hiding this as cost in order to keep what they report as profit lower. Even so the profits are mind boggling.

For Medicare all but about 3% of premium dollars go to providers. In fact as long ago as the seventies they started doing these studies and that 30% has remained pretty stable.

But worse than the cost is how pretty much unregulated your insurance company decides your treatment without recourse.. With Medicare you can at least call your Congressman or get up an activist group.

Beyond that for profit involves competition and differing levels of care which is completely inappropriate for a need. As I have said it is either good enough or not good enough. The market simply won’t work.

Yes I love the market for cell phones and basketball players. For needs I prefer a public utilities model. I would accept the latter for medical care except I really think for a more uniform level of quality single payer is superior

Finally with our vaunted for profit approach to care the quality has stagnated and even degraded. You have seen the rankings.

sorry – upon a second look, I want to correct myself — it looks like administrative costs are closer to 10%. And as far as the profit goes, comparing government to private, there is really no comparison for profit. So, without taking fraud into consideration, the private would be twice as much in cost compared to Medicaid. Using “real” numbers – probably quite equal, maybe even less. ?
I don’t know, maybe you should go ahead and try to impeach him. (said in friendly jest, of course)

I really don’t think there is that much real fraud within the system . If you don’t think there is as much gaming the Private insurance system you are a dreamer. The 60 Minutes was really a story on identity theft that Medicare found itself unprepared for.

Yes I have been using round up numbers but the point is Multiple for profit insurers and drug companies have put this country in the position of paying magnitudes more than the rest of the world for medical care which is often shoddy..

What you or I ‘think’ isn’t really very important. I’ve tried to present numbers that I have actual sources for (though it might take a minute to dig them up), and would appreciate actual numbers in return (and even better their sources) so that I can learn from them.

The exact numbers are distracting from the bottom line fact, Which is we are getting shoddy care for fewer people at the greatest cost than most of the developed world . Medicare is cheaper than any other insurance program.

Even more important, trying to equate health care with a commodity is disastrous. It is and must be considered as a human right. Only the disgraced Wall Street masters of the universe would come up with a scarcity price model for a civil right such as to habeas corpus, privacy of religious belief etc,

I am sorry if you don’t like that. Besides it is not cost effective for me to put energy and time into looking up figures that have been spun for a dying blog thread :-)

Thanks for staying engaged in this. When the DOI says “… among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…”, two things jump out.

First, “among” means that there may be other rights than just “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” ; lawyers call that an ‘illustrative but not limitative’ list.

Second, it’s hard to argue that “Life” and “the pursuit of Happiness” are available in any meaningful way without good health. And while you’re right that there may be some people who consume more than their share of health care services, that doesn’t change the reality that when you look across the whole society, good health is promoted by good health care services that people can use when they need, including for preventative health care.

this info is especially for billtodd, and only since you asked :)

Increase in Medicare spending per enrollee, 2000 to 2008: 83.7%

Increase in private health insurance spending per enrollee, 2000 to 2008: 73.8%

Medicare spending per enrollee in 2008: $10,614

Private health insurance spending per enrollee in 2008: $4,007

Source: HHS, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Link: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/02_NationalHealthAccountsHistorical.asp#TopOfPage

When you get to this page, go to “historical” on the left hand side menu. Then go to NHE Web tables PDF and look at chart 13 (2 pages) for their summary – very easy to read format. Sorry for the convoluted directions :) the direct link takes you to an error page ??

Another one – profits of insurance companies. Sorry, I can’t help quoting Nancy Pelosi here: “I’m very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
Surprise, another politician speaking out of both sides of her mouth. This bill will do more to increase HIC profits than Bush could have dreamed of. Until they go bankrupt administering this health bill. Or just force most Americans out of the market with the exhorbitant prices required to cover every single pre-condition with no benefit maximum. Oh, wait, the government has a plan for that – more subsidies. (sorry, that’s just my inner conservative coming out)

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/performers/industries/profits/

Since you asked. Smiles, everyone.

Your figures make the point clearly.

The private insurers are steadily decreasing payment, and therefore services, for their enrollees. Profits in the mean time have soared.

These are very optimistic figurers for the Insurance company share holders and executives under the current system..

If they can’t compete with the new rules and regs they should fail. It’s the good old market system.

The obvious fact as I have stated is that either the owners of the 90% of the country’s wealth come up with more tax money to subsidize the insurance companies or medical care must be delivered without profit.

Under these numbers Medicaid for all would cost $3 trillion per year.
300 million Americans x $10,000 (realizing that the $10,000/person is an average). A $300,000 open-heart surgery for instance would take up 30 people’s benefit for the year.
If 50 M are not paying anything (based on adding the 16M proposed who can’t afford to pay and those already not paying, and how many are receiving Medicare now? I don’t know.)
That’s a price tag of $12,000 for every person paying in. Of course, you want the “rich people” to pay this. How many “rich people” do you think there are? That’s an $48,000 bill for a family of 4.

Of course, the benefits paid will have to go down.

First billtodd’s and your framing the whole thing as a profit motivated self interest scarcity priced commodity is creating a fantasy that has no relevance to humane aim which is to care for each other.

Do you mean Medicaid or Medicare for all? Medicaid is a complex plan that varies immensely from state to state and is a program which would be folded into Medicare for all should that route be taken.

Second the per person on Medicare.is for the high risk age group whose costs are of course higher than 25 yr olds. That is the point of increasing the pool, most of whose payout would be remarkably lower, probably at the cherry picked population for profit insurance selects.

In addition Medicare is at, in most cases, fully paid ahead and supplemented by considerable out of pocket payments medigap and insurance for medication.

Actions must be taken to push back the exorbitant price of medications and appliances. That will free billions if not trillions. And dona’t give me the song and dance about drug company research. I was there. Most basic research has been taxpayer funded and most new drugs are nothing more than minor manipulations of the active molecule to keep a patent. Beyond that there has actually been little new in pharmacology in the past 40 years. Just the marketing. Development of the gen-biologics, (priced $50,000 -$100,000 per year currently) has been expanded since the 70s but the jury is still out on their ultimate value.

Then there is the gains in all areas of the economy, the arts, defense industry etc. that comes by having a population whose health quality at leas approaches the rest of the developed world.

All said, yes it will require some higher taxes. Some could come from the relief from private insurance premiums for business and individuals. But recall well over a trillion dollars in revenue was lost by just one tax cut for the wealthy by Bush.

I do agree the Insurance industry when faced with lower profits will likely get out the business. I say good riddance. .

But the point is not Can we afford it? First it doesn’t have to cost this much. and Second if the rest of the civilized world affords it on a considerably smaller wealth base this country can. The question is will the small percentage of those who own 90% of the wealth permit it or can we wrest it from them?

This is not a flame but: You are simply dead wrong in your assumptions and interpretations.

I have taken you at your word of being interested in liberal and progressive philosophy. I hope I have at least given you reason to pause and reflect on my perspective.

I had many years as a Republican reflecting on Conservative perspectives and became sickened and fearful of becoming corrupted by them. So forgive me if I do have trouble looking once more at the money model for life.

If you would like for me to pass on any info I find on your Mayflower ancestor you may email me here. Take out the spaces ,x’s. and _s (trying to keep the address safe from spammers) talkingstick xxxx__ @ xxx__wind___stream . ne___t

yes, you are right – I meant Medicare for all, which is what we had been previously discussing. I mis-typed

But the point is not Can we afford it? First it doesn’t have to cost this much. and Second if the rest of the civilized world affords it on a considerably smaller wealth base this country can. The question is will the small percentage of those who own 90% of the wealth permit it or can we wrest it from them?

I have taken you at your word of being interested in liberal and progressive philosophy but it seems you came here with an agenda not friendly to my values..

I assure you I did not come here with an agenda. I posted actual numbers from the government.
You are certainly set in your position, as am I. But the facts do not change based on opinions.
Currently the Medicare system is NOT paid for, in advance or any other way. It is currently in the hole for $38 trillion dollars to pay for the benefits of the seniors currently living and the seniors coming up.

Many European countries have a general tax rate of over 50% – for everyone.

50 percent of Americans pay 0% federal income tax.
These are the people who will benefit from every tax increase on the “rich”.

Even if I was off by 100%, it would be $6,000 per person paying in – $24,000/year for a family of 4.

and it kind of was a flame, because you don’t know how much it will cost. Medicaid, which is for (primarily) young adults and children (the healthy demographic) is currently bankrupting states already.

I have no idea what your first sentence means, sorry, but I do know that how much an idea costs does have relevance to how or how long it will work.

The point of my first comment is protecting and providing equally for a human right is not something to buy and sell. It is essential to sustain an organic imperative for the flourishing and ultimately the survival of the species. It should have the highest demand on the resources of the community..

I live amidst these figures and I do see you are missing what I am pointing out. I apologize for being insufficiently articulate.. I am fatigued with this discussion. Please let’s just wish each other well and move on.

That is probably a good idea. Let me just say in goodbye, that I so appreciate your (all) very civil discussion with me, an outsider.
Jennifer