Why the rush to pass the bill? Because Americans die every day that we don't.

No hyperbole - that is the truth.

I hope the next time any Dem is asked that question, that the above will be their response.

That is the question that I would like them to answer. It seems they want everyone who isn't rich enough to afford to purchase health insurance to just die.

So if we pass a rushed half ass one in the next 9 seconds or a better one later in the year they will go into effect at the exact same time.

Edit: oops the planned starting date if 2013 so make that more like 3.5 years.

Are you saying that no part of the bill will go into effect for 2 years?

even then employees with existing coverage won't be eligible until 2015.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/06/19/tri-committee-bill/

So rushing the bill a couple months when the meat of it (public option & healthcare exchange) won't go into effect until 2013 and won't benefit most Americans until 2015 to "save lives" is silly.

There's no reason that sort of regulation could not go into effect immediately and that would have a huge effect right away.

Says insurance companies can't cancel policies in 2011 but waits until 2013 to ban prior condition exclusions.

We have to lobby for a better bill in the details right now! Thanks for the info.

Starting from scratch today won't yield any kind of reform before 2013.

I wanna keep *this* pony.

So regardless if Obama signs a bill in the next 8 seconds or it gets ironed out this fall no benefits will start overnight.

2010:
The government sets up a Health Benefits Advisory Committee led by the surgeon general to recommend a basic benefits package. Community health centers serving low-income people get a fund boost. Insurance companies are barred from engaging in "rescissions" - cancellations of existing policies. A campaign is launched to cut paperwork. Doctors serving Medicare patients are spared a 20 percent cut in fees.

2011:
The benefits panel offers a package for adoption by the Health and Human Services Department. The HHS sets rules requiring insurance companies to spend a minimum percentage of premiums on medical costs. Medicare recipients get relief from the "doughnut hole" coverage gap in their prescription benefits. Tax increases on upper-income earners take effect.

2012:
In the presidential-election year, low-income seniors get additional financial assistance with their Medicare prescription plans.

2013:
A year of major changes in coverage. Insurance companies are barred from discriminating against people with health problems. The government opens the health insurance exchange - a new purchasing pool - to individuals and businesses with fewer than 10 workers. A government-sponsored plan is among the options available through the exchange, with its premiums estimated at 10 percent lower than the cost of private coverage. All plans in the exchange offer at least the basic benefits package. Individuals and families making up to four times the federal poverty level get subsidies to help pay for insurance. Individuals are required to get coverage - and employers to offer it - or face penalties. Businesses with payrolls under $250,000 are exempt from the mandate. Medicaid eligibility is expanded.

2014:
The health insurance exchange is expanded to include companies with up to 20 employees and people who cannot afford premiums under their employer's plan.

2015:
The government decides whether to open the insurance exchange - and the government-sponsored plan - to all employers.

2018:
Employers who still provide coverage outside the exchange must offer at least the basic benefits available through the government-regulated purchasing pool.

is the enemy. This is such a complex issue that more time simply leaves more opportunity to pick the plan apart from any number of angles. Because there are so many moving parts, it is likely that nobody will be completely satisfied with the result. Obviously, we can see from recent polling that the multilateral attacks from those opposed--and the coordinated campaigns of republicans, blue dogs and the insurance barons--are taking their toll. The longer this goes on, the harder it becomes to get anything passed.

The American people have been trying to get this done for years and years. The special interests want to keep taking unconscionable amounts of blood money.

She did a great retrospective making that point.

over 60 years old, the question is why is anyone using the word rush.
What rush?

Wonder if she can?

It was a "Health Care Reform Ambulance" riding on the back of a snail through a long and twisty road with markers that said 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, etc. up to 2009 where it reaches the top of a hill to find standing in front of it an elephant in a suit blocking it's path. The elephant has its hands thrown up and says " "Whoa, pal! Slow down!"

That about sums it up. It has always been urgent to reform our health care system and every year that has slipped by has made it MORE urgent. Although it has always been a moral imperative, it is finally a fiscal one as well that actually imperils the entire economy of the country. As always, the catalyst for the crisis is the GREED of the insurers just as it was the GREED of the financiers that caused the collapse of our banking systems.

I do think that Americans die every day, as I said that's not hyperbole. I guess people will just have to be inconveniently dying in the streets or immolating themselves in town squares before some people think we might need to put a rush order on the legislation.

I do see that bad legislation is not the goal, but here is my question -

Does it really take any longer to write good legislation than bad legislation? Is time the determining factor? I don't really think that it is. I think the determining factor is the underlying motivations of the people writing the laws.

I think the time line posted above is disappointing in the extreme and will now be my major point of contention. I cannot see why health insurers should not be forced to stop prior condition exclusions and rescission policies immediately and will now turn my attention to those 2 facts. If that does not happen, we can expect to see MORE rescissions in the immediate future while the companies attempt to take that last plate to the all you can eat profit buffet so they can suck out just a few more million dollars to line their pockets with.

your OP could be read as an apologetic for "bad" legislation which is what I was curious about. Yes, of course, time of itself is not the determining factor.