To make anything possible, it ain't about what you want that counts, its about what you can achieve!

If this "not so perfect" bill was this hard to pass out of the house, in which we have a wide majority, why would anyone think we could have gotten anything more progressive through? :shrug:

I ask this question because I've heard so many believe that somehow,
if you just ask for what you want and pound your fist on the table,
Presto, you get it!

Well for those who still think that, I've got news for you;
this nation has got more than just liberals in it,
and since we have a right leaning corporate media, always there,
willing and able to assist the GOP in any way they can.....
adding to that, all of the money that was spent attempting to defeat this bill
from the rich ass corporate outside interest.....the fact that we have gotten this far is a wonder.

Principle is fine,
but reality is what tells the tale.

We don't need no stinkin' imaginary utopian health care,
We need the real thing, and we need it ASAP.......
Cause it's only what is real that counts.

Also I always like the way you write. It always looks like poetry.

:blush:



:headbang:

If anybody wants to wait for the rib-eye steak, they can wait alone.

Some people don't understand what it takes to get a law passed. The constitution doesn't make it easy.

I'm sure some of the "yes we can" rhetoric from the Obama campaign is about just that.

Look like we did what we had to do.

There is a difference you know.

You speak the truth, Frenchie.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: anybody can sit in an ivory tower. They just need to get out of the fucking road.

I'm leaving DU and going to bed on that note. :applause:

so yes, get your rest. :hi:

WHEN and HOW would this bill be improved if it was so close with a Dem in the WH and Dem majorities in both houses?

Surely we couldn't lose ONE of those branches and expect that legislation would become MORE progressive? How do the people who think this bill should have been defeated think that was going to happen?

and don't put it getting passed together with what this country has become;
full of uninformed folks relying on the corporate GOP serving media,
and eating up negative ads like they were part of the air.

Regular Folks (which are the majority) are always scared of what is considered "radical" change,
and so we've got to take what we can get and build on that.

Look how long it took to get a 40 hour work week and overtime!
And in those days, the media was much better than it is now.
It all sounded logical, and yet......

Frenchie is brave to start this thread and she makes so much sense.

we would have single payer:sarcasm:

People need to deal with the Congress that we have and not the one that we dream about. That is what our President is doing. Unfortunately, he can not wave a magic wand and make everything the way we want. Like Frenchie said, if it took us this long to put out HRC like this, why would anyone think something more progressive could have been passed.

I'm in NC and we had three democrats to vote no. kissell, myintyre, and shuler can go to hell. That's the price we have to pay when we send democrats from the south to Washington.

We know that pulpit is all it takes to get everything we want now! :sarcasm:

:popcorn:

Ya know, it's funny... the older I get, the more of a realist I become. ;)

Now, we have something to work with, and that's a definite step in the correct (almost said 'right' ;) ) direction.

I get it that it's not perfect. I'd like for it to be better, and in time, I firmly believe it will be. But this is what's possible NOW.

It's better to HAVE what's possible right now than to continue to dream about the impossible. And if this had failed, that's exactly where we'd be. Still. Again. Just dreamin'.

The only thing that sticks in my crawl is that we had to practically beg for this bill. At least that is the perception I come away with. I can understand having to beg for single payer because for some reason single payers seems to be too far of a stretch for a good number of people. However, as you said this bill is not perfect. It should of been voted on and passed months ago. With that said I am grateful that we have come this far. Let us hope that the bill can be tweaked and modified to make it better. History was made today.

But in the end, politics is a blood sport, not for the lighthearted, and certainly
not for the idealists!

So yes, history was made today; not perfect history, but history just the same.

Not the art of the "I want what I want, goshdarnabbit!".......

you are just a sore loser.

cause it is you who aren't for anything that is achievable.
means you are going nowhere, just squatting while whining!

Insurance companies could no longer deny coverage to people because they've had health problems in the past, nor could they charge hugely different rates for different groups of people (premiums could only vary by age, geography, tobacco use and family size).
The House bill bans recissions -- the insurance industry's habitual practice of collecting premiums until someone gets sick, and then digging through their histories for an excuse to cancel coverage.
Insurers wouldn't be allowed to cancel an individual's coverage for reasons other than failing to pay the premium.
Insurers would no longer be permitted to impose annual or lifetime caps on benefits.
Insurers that sell insufficient, cheapo plans that leave people vulnerable to medical crises would be required to disclose that fact to their customers.
All insurers would be required to disclose how much of their spending is on health care and how much goes to costs like overhead, advertising, etc.
The legislation (especially the Senate HELP bill) creates new tools for fighting insurance fraud and abuse.
3. Medical Bankruptcies Would Plummet

One of the most significant of these regulations is in the House bill: a cap on out-of-pocket expenses. If the measure passes, individuals would face a maximum of $5,000 in out-of-pocket expenses a year, and families no more than $10,000. For poorer families, the limits would be much lower: $500 per year, for example, for a family making less than 1.33 times the poverty rate.

In 2007, Harvard researchers studied thousands of bankruptcy filings and found that medical causes played a role in more than 6 in 10.

4. People Who Could Never Get Decent Coverage Will Finally Be Able To

So far, one of the great victories for the anti-reform movement has been convincing many small-business owners that health reform will put them under.

The reality is that small-business people, their employees, independent contractors, freelancers, entrepreneurs, part-timers and the "marginally employed" would be the biggest winners from the legislation if it passed as currently drafted. Small business owners and their employees -- as well as those other groups -- would, for the first time, be able to get decent coverage at a fair price, and if eligible, both employer and worker would be able to get extra help paying for it.

Under the current system, most of the largest employers in the country self-insure -- they pay their employees' claims directly and cut out the middleman.

Big firms that don't self-insure buy insurance on the large-group market, where risk is spread out over a large pool. Large-group plans tend to be more or less comprehensive and, relatively speaking, affordable.

But those forced to purchase coverage on the individual or small-group markets have little buying power and are routinely forced to pay budget-busting premiums for the worst possible coverage -- plans with high deductibles, caps on benefits and strict limits on what is and isn't covered.

This gets to the heart of the "public insurance option" -- the most contentious point of debate in the reform battle. It would work like this: The government would establish regional exchanges, or "gateways," that would be open to those who would otherwise be forced into the individual and small-group markets. These gateways would have relatively large insurance pools just like large employers -- and public programs like Medicare -- have now.

Within these large purchasing pools, people would be able to choose from among different insurance plans -- one a government-run "public option" and the rest offered by private insurers.

In order for private insurers to sell plans through the exchanges, they would be required to offer a standard set of benefits (which the public option would have to offer as well). They'd also be permitted to offer plans with more bells and whistles at a premium price.

For those enrolled in the public exchanges, the process would be quite similar to what employees in many large companies experience -- they would simply choose from among a variety of plans, with slightly different levels of coverage and costs.

Compared to the plans now available in the individual and small-group markets, they would pay a lot less for significantly better insurance (which, in reality, is what those "teabaggers" are protesting).

Because of pressure from Republicans and conservative Blue Dog Democrats, the public exchanges will phase in slowly, over a period of four to six years.

5. (Almost) Everyone Gets Covered
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/141916/10_awesom... /

..........Because of pressure from Republicans and conservative Blue Dog Democrats, the public exchanges will phase in slowly, over a period of four to six years..............

because if you haven't noticed we are still having to deal with Bush's pee, i.e., financial fucked up situation.

Why do you think that ordering things to happen is how they happen?

You've been fighting this bill, and have never liked any of what has been offered
since day one. So who expects to listen to you whine now, and actually believe
that you are sincere in what you care about?

You want to be right?

Well, you aren't.
Sorry.

the WH and congress kicked it under the table. What a bunch of weasels!!

You must have had your head turned, when it was done.....cause they did it in plain sight. The only one who didn't was Kucinich, and we see how far that got him.

If they could only get a few extra votes with the bill in this manner,
I'm not sure what it is that you are smoking that makes you think
something more liberal would have gotten this far.
Do you think about these things, or do you keep them all in separate rooms,
so that reality and your wishes simply never meet for reconciliation in your head?

And I'm not sore loser.

:rofl:

the Insurance Industry and Big Pharma and will not curtail donations to the caucus.

The House bill would address this affordability problem by providing premium subsidies for health insurance purchased through the new health insurance exchange by individuals who have incomes that are below 400 percent of the poverty line but too high to qualify for Medicaid. The subsidies would cover the remaining premium cost after applying the individual’s required contribution to the cost of the health coverage, which would be set on a sliding scale based on income. Individuals just above 150 percent of the poverty line (the level at which the Medicaid income limit would be set) would be required to contribute 3 percent of their income for premiums, with the required contribution rising to 12 percent of income for people just below 400 percent of the poverty line. Subsidy-eligible individuals would also qualify for significant help with the deductibles and cost-sharing charges under their insurance plans, which would reduce the out-of-pocket costs that individuals who purchase coverage through the exchange would incur.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2905

and it is a disaster.

It is going to be interesting watching you guys spin the Senate Bill after Evan Bayh, Lieberman, Landrieu, Carper, Lincoln, Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), Conrad, Baucus, Pryor, Feinstien, and Pryor get together....

and we already know that nothing will do,
if it doesn't fit what you had in mind totally.

This is a fight, but you are not fighting,
you are only complaining. you may not see that in yourself,
but believe me, your laments are getting tiresome.

While your spin on the shit sandwhich people are getting handed appears to be diminishing in popularity.

Doesn't make them right....
and doesn't make you right, either.

But thanks for putting me with a click of others.
Guess the stereotyping helps you keeping things "straight",
I reckon! :shrug:

When people approach politics from a Marxist/leftist theoretical point of view, they believe that capitalist forces are behind pretty much every outcome that occurs and that Congress and the President are just pawns in that scheme. I don't mean that as a smear to people who look at politics that way, but it's simply a fundamentally different way of looking the situation than you or I do.

People who see things from the Marxist/leftist point of view are simply never going to agree with those of us who believe that the President is a rational center-left politician who is genuinely trying to move things to the center-left to the extent that he is able to while still holding together a very weak coalition. And quite frankly we are not going to agree with them, either.

and my thought is that they treasure their ideals more than real lives.....
In otherwords, the lives of others are as expandable to them
as they are to others whom they argue with...which makes them no better
than the ones with which they argue with.

And if the bills don't cover it, that still doesn't prohibit abortion.

you knew that.

Not only are you a long way from getting that, but if you got it, you'd have destroyed health care.

And they ever expected Obama to call for that amount of distress in this country in order to obtain the unobtainable perfection?

Excellent

...you certainly will not achieve it.

First rule of negotiating: begin negotiating by demanding everything you want -- i.e. the "ideal". Then negotiate down from there as necessary.

Our Democrats broke that rule from the get-go. Well, maybe not. Maybe everything *they* want is somewhat different from everything *we* want. That's what I think. They want the big insurance companies to be healthy, as a first priority. I'm not saying they don't want the rest of us to be healthy, they'd like that too -- they really would. It's just a matter of priorities, and the health of the insurance companies comes first.

So sure, there are some very good things in the bill. Unfortunately, there are a lot of very bad things too: things that are in the bill, and things that are not.

There are no provisions that will help to cut health care costs. The public option has the so-called "level playing field" provision -- in other words, it is designed so that it cannot compete based on cost by tying its rates to Medicare. And the pool of people who can take advantage of it will be a higher-risk pool, so its costs are projected to be slightly more than existing private insurance.

The House bill as it stands specifically prohibits states from creating their own single payer plans. So we are moving towards even more centralization, rather than allowing states to try other systems out. If a state had a single payer plan and it worked, others might want to follow suit. Instead, it will not be allowed under this bill. Swell. Or should I say, swill.

The abortion coverage prohibitions are more restrictive. Our lawmakers are only too happy to let 18-year-old young men go to war and make choices every day about who to kill; but they draw the line at allowing a 40-year-old woman to decide she does not want to bear a child. Shame on them for including the Stupak amendment in the bill.

And then there are the mandates. Believe it or not: many people will not be able to afford the mandated health insurance. Billing them on their tax forms for draconian penalties is extremely coercive, and I predict a huge backlash. You heard it here -- not first, others have been saying it too. Just don't be surprised when it happens.

Finally, when you have a bill that comes in at just under 2,000 pages long, you know you have a monstrosity on your hands. I don't care how good the intentions are. It means there are lots and lots of loopholes for the corporate lawyers to take full advantage of, which they will do.

So bottom line for me: I am ambivalent. There are a lot of good things in it, most notably the provisions about no lifetime caps and no denial for pre-existing conditions. And coverage that is less tied to employment, sort of. These are important and will help real people. But without cost controls, and with all of the major flaws noted above, we are still in a heap of trouble. Doesn't it gall anyone else that we just had the better part of a year where health care policy was debated, and yet never was there any discussion of the realities of the systems in other countries? We could have done a comparative analysis of how various systems work in other countries, and talk about alternatives: the UK has real socialized medicine; Canada has single payer; France has a mix of public and private, with a highly regulated private insurance sector; Switzerland has all private but very highly regulated. All of their systems cover 100% of their citizens. But as usual, that part of the so-called "debate" was controlled by the rabid right wing, who screamed that Canadians over 50 are dropping like flies, and the British have to wait years for urgent surgery, and... etc., etc., ad nauseum. Our side was reduced to saying that we need to create a system that is "uniquely American". Pa.the.tic.

This was a major achievement for the Democrats,major!
If my name was Bob and I could pull strings on "Lil Howdy Doody and make him follow MY direction ~ yea I would do this and do that and Sunday morning quarter back the Health Care Bill.

But Frenchie,I'm with you all the way.

Some think that because we don't like this or that, they are going to take their cookies and go home.

Where is HOME ~ with Sarah? With 'Lil Joey Lieman? with the Baggers? With "Lil Mike Steele? With Rush? With all those in the M$M like Mica and Boring Joe and Pat Puke ~ there is no way I want to spend one second on the same side with those criminals.

I'll stick with Nancy and be supportive of those Democrats who did their best to start us on the right road.

Ms. goclark
Cheerleader for the Democrats!

I bet Sen. Kennedy, who knew first hand how tough this battle would be, is clapping his hands in Heaven right now!

`

and hopefully, we will be happier still, soon. :hi:

If this bill was so bad they wouldn't be opposing it so fiercely. The insurance industry is seeing the writing on the wall. The republicans also know that if this passes and reform works, which it will, then they will be exposed once again. When have they ever stood on the correct side of history?