If a true liberal is against the health care bill, does that equate her/him with the teabag crowd?

I'm just checking to see if those of us who are wary of a bill that seems to put so much money into the pockets of insurance companies might be lumped in with crazy racists who think there are going to be death panels.

the question is - what is the reform supposed to be.

does ANYBODY think the system is perfect as is? i guess somebody does, but i've never seen em

this actually pans out before getting angry? :shrug:

If there is SOME sort of Public Option in the original bill, it can be expanded as the demand increases.

I'll take a Saturday and read through it.

A not so robust public option and mandatory insurance are an absolutely windfall for insurance companies. This form of 'reform" absolutely will fail. The sooner it does, the sooner we get true single payer.

I'm against what has transpired so far.

Because they aren't really against the health care bill, that's just a ruse. They don't even know what's in it. They're too stupid. They just hate Obama. They're nothing more than hateful racist (I'd say pigs but wouldn't insult the pigs) assholes.

I think many if not most of them are not really that motivated AGAINST health care reform, as much as they are by their bigotry, hatred, anger, ignorance and just plain negativity.

It doesn't matter how "we" equate people- a "true liberal" is going to hold onto their beliefs and positions regardless of what others may call them, or 'class them as'.imo

:hi:

opposition to health care. He also made a point that many of the most vocal haters on the right are of the age to receive medicare, so their protestations seem even more out of place and less based on disagreement with the actual bills being proposed.

tell them to be.

and so deep that the spectrum has come together. It is the same with the banksters and our nation's monetary policies and currency control, it is so bad that everybody recognizes it, so we have people from polar opposite ends of the spectrum agreeing.

That doesn't make them equivalent, merely observant.

We have to be ready to counter that with simple logic, and not look frothing and angry like they want us to.

But why would a "true" liberal really give a rats ass?

Far as I'm concerned you are entirely within your rights (and you are correct) to be wary of such a bill.

Don't worry about what anybody else thinks.

and from what I have been reading (and hearing), this ain't it. I find myself a huge fan of Anthony Weiner:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rk88oK_v2c

The insurance company criminals ARE the problem. They should not be rewarded with 50 million new reluctant customers when they're the ones who fucked up the system in the first place.

It's time for those inside the beltway to accept the reality that what is best for the American people takes precedence over what is best for the corporate criminals and the 1% rich vultures. The US of fucking A has the 37th best healthcare system on the planet, but spends more than anybody else, and its all going into some fucking billonaires' pockets. How can ANYBODY defend that shit?

Teabag birther racists don't like it because it will help someone else.

they are largely correct about what would be a great health care plan.

The Tea Baggers are simply hateful and clueless people who don't care about facts and operate almost exclusively on fear ginned up by corporations and their puppets. Their gullibility is something I just cannot respect.

I tend to think Obama's plan is realistically the best we can get and I admire that Obama is a pragmatist and a winner and successful as a result. Going for the gold ring this time around is a sure formula for failure, something we cannot afford. But I have no problem with idealism. I just have a problem when people call other people who tend toward being pragmatic "kool-aide drinkers".

I love idealism as long as the idealist is able to refrain from striking out at those of us who are more pragmatic in nature. Trust me, I used to be the biggest idealistic around and then realize I had to work with other people who aren't.

But if the insurance companies have to provide the coverage, that's what the money is for. If it covers people, does it have to be bad that the insurance companies are paid for covering people? Should people stay uncovered just so insurance companies get no money? They do provide a service, so I don't see why hating them outright and just opposing their existence is entirely logical.

Has it been passed? Has it been modified?

We don't have a bill to get pissed off about yet!

That will be too late.

Only on DU would you be called a right winger because you suggest that the president is not pushing a progressive enough agenda.

Have you say now. Write you congressperson. Write the White House. Once they get a bill, it will come to an up and down vote between slim pickings and nothing at all.

would enact the needed changes. So, no, being critical of what is being proposed so far does not equate a "true liberal" with the teabagger crowd. We are fighting for a better way of doing health care financing and provision of services. It's important to critique rather than not think and accept, as I experience it.

I am worried that we are going to end up with a bill that mandates insurance but doesn't do anything to reduce costs, especially the cost of paperwork. The only cost cutting measures I heard in the President's speech were coming from the "pooling" of insurances, which might lead to price fixing and not competition without a strong public option; and the possibility of decreasing malpractice settlements, which does NOT help the consumer who has been hurt by malpractice. Neither of these cost-cutting measures gives me any real hope.

I agree with Anthony Weiner that the best way to cut costs is get rid of private insurance entirely and go to Medicare for all, but I know that that is not a possibility this time around. (IF anything, the Wall Street theft of American middle class wealth (aka "the bailout") virtually guarantees that a public option is not feasible. This leaves us with the idea of price controls on insurance as the only way to really cut costs for the consumer as well as regulatory laws to prevent insurance companies from profiting by denying coverage. Yet, I seem to remember a Senate bill that was around this summer asking the government to allow an enlarging of the profit margin for insurance companies. I wish I had a link to that.

that is a gimme to the insurance companies or makes things worse. I don't see being against a lump of shit bill that enriches vultures and ghouls while screwing everybody over worse than they already are the same as "Not with MY tax dollars"....
I guess the short answer is a qualified 'no'.

They don't want any health care reform. We want health care reform, but we might oppose some aspects of the bill because we don't think it goes far enough. Those are two different things.

If they REGULATE the damn industry (as opposed to what they did with Wall Street), I can see the merits of passing "reform". Then my HR676-NOW side jumps into the fray and wants to go all Naderite on the issue.

Its been fun being me lately. :freak:

I think I will wait to see what comes out of committee. One of my Senators is on the HELP committee and is a STRONG supporter of the 2007 HELP bill and a Public Option. I can always call his staff for reassurance that he will continue that fight. They are good at that. :D