For those who claim: 'The votes weren't there' & say it's a 'foot in the door'

1. What makes you think the votes are ever going to be there, since the Democrats have solid majorities now?

2. What makes you think by the time the House & Senate versions mesh, you will end up with anything you want or a foot still attached, even though you've already conceded so much?
Do you think the concessions are over, and it's not possible to end up with insurance mandates with NO public option at all?

3. Were we promised a very weak public option with laws forcing Americans to buy overpriced worthless health insurance from the Insurance Industry, which is a Republican's wet dream and was written by the Insurance Industry?

4. If this is really that good, then why are they pushing implementation back so far, and why wouldn't they want the voters to know how well their reform really is by implementing it as soon as possible? How long did Medicare take to implement?

5.. Somebody please tell me why the the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress cannot come back next year, and start over with the most optimistic position possible, so by the time all the concessions are over with, we at least end up with a Strong Public Option, without any Giveaways to the Insurance Industry?
Please tell me why this is not possible, who says so, and why this year delay to get it right will supposedly cost more years (plural) to get to this alleged reform.

If they pushed it through hard in the beginning of the year, by the time the Election rolled around, it would already be a done deal and 2/3 of the American People would be happy to be receiving real reform shortly, with a Strong Public Option, without any giveaways to the Insurance Industry, and with a serious crackdown on the Insurance Industry.
If the Democratic Party chose this route, they would be looking at picking up seats in Congress. If the Democrats continue to push this Insurance Industry Republican Lite Bill, they will lose seats in the 2010 Election and it will hit them even harder in 2012.

Just a few questions for you to answer, before you convince me. So by all means, put your best spin on the questions to convince me why you think this is so right. I think this bill is pathetic excuse for reform, so convince me otherwise.

with pre-existing conditions and no ability to buy insurance on the open market. But if my death is what it takes to get a better bill, that's fine with you, I guess.

I've got over 27 years of pre-existing conditions, to know why this Insurance Industry Giveaway is a joke and slap in the face. By the way, Congress can write laws regulating the Insurance Industry at any time it wants. This bill is not about helping people, it's about the Insurance Industry Bailout.

Please answer the questions. Go on, I'm giving you the opportunity to prove why this is so great.

Please, go ahead and answer the questions in the OP.

I agree that eliminating pre-existing conditions as a basis to deny coverage is one of the major plusses in this bill. But, is there nothing we will not concede in order to get it?

How would it be if, encouraged by the Stupak "success", those who initiated it simply dropped the pretense and proposed that abortion be outlawed again? Would we still just be thankful that pre-existing conditions were eliminated?

This is way too complicated for any single-issue "dubya-esque" analysis.

I am pointing to a very *real* provision on an existing bill and you are saying it should be killed because it *might* lead to some outcome.

I'll take real benefits over imagined scenarios.

Are Democrats not entitled to be upset about that bit of whoring?
Are we not entitled to respectfully disagree?

"proposed that abortion be outlawed again"

which, is, since no one seems to be pointing it out, the year after Obama gets reelected. Seems a bit cynical, doesn't it?

The mandate doesn't stipulate that they buy private insurance, does it?

For people who work with employers who already provide insurance through a private vendor, they will NOT be allowed to get into the Public Option. If, on the other hand, you work for an employer who provides no health insurance, then you are allowed access into the Public Option.

So, if you work for a large company that provides health insurance, even if it is a shitty plan at best, you can't drop it in favor of the Public Option. You will be forced to sit in shit.

Can buy into a Government run Public Option that doesn't have the Insurance Industry's hand in it, without strict qualifying regulations?

Could you point out where this is said in the House Bill?

Hmm... Isn't that suppose to be a Strong Public Option?

If a person has no insurance and the mandate forces that person to buy it, please let me know where it says that they have to purhcase private insurance.

If you can do that then my claim has no merit.

YOU present where it says any American is allowed to purchase a Strong Public Option over private insurance (voluntarily or involuntarily) in this bill.

The OP stated that I wish for YOU to 'convince me,' and you have not done that.
I never asked you about 'your claim.' So would you like to start over and convince me why this bill is so great again?

See, I want you to tell me why this is so great for Americans, who already have insurance. What does it do for those Americans, because they were promised cheaper premium costs.

You assert that through the mandate, they will be forced to purchase private insurance. I believe that we first need to clarify what the facts are before we can proceed.

So I ask again, if a person doesn't have insurance are they forced by the mandate to purchase it privately?

I'm not trying to be confrontational, but get some information.

Thanks.

They being Congress Members. The last I heard about it was Corporate Media saying mandates to have insurance coverage were in the House bill, and I have not heard anyone say otherwise.

I would presume that is why thousands of pages are needed for the bill, along with a lot of regulations to get through to actually get to a Public Option plan.

I have not heard a Congress Member say that, with the House bill, any American would be able to buy insurance from a Strong Public Option, that isn't run by the Insurance Industry. Which was one reason for my OP... If someone has some information about the House bill that would change my mind about it, then present it. After all, it's possible that a Strong Public Option is in there that would allow any American to buy insurance from it, but I doubt it, since nobody has made that claim.

Hey, I've got a bunch of work to finish here. I can't respond to the rest of your OP right now.

Take it easy.

1. I don't.

2. I don't. And no, I don't. I think when the Senate gets through with this, this version will look like a dream come true in comparison.

3. If this is so, why is the insurance industry fighting it so hard?

4. If this is bad, why is the insurance industry fighting it so hard?

5. Because they don't stand a chance in you-know-where of getting anything better next year.

This bill is better than nothing because it does away with pre-existing conditions. That right there is enough to keep the insurance companies fighting against it, and enough of a reason to get it through. If that's ALL they get accomplished, it will be something.

pre existing conditions will still be regulated once the senate gets through with it?

I said, "If that's ALL they get accomplished…"

I also said, "when the Senate gets through with this, this version will look like a dream come true in comparison."

So why not just pass the laws regulating pre-existing conditions, and then come back with REAL reform next year?

People are being played with a shell game, and think they have their eye on the pea.

Why is the Insurance Industry fighting so hard? Because they are not done with their cut. Unlike Democratic (alleged) Leadership, they started out with what they were against and will never let up, until they not only block everything they do not want, but also get everything they do want. Insurance Industry Bailout is their goal.

Then pass each piece on its own. It would more likely mean you could get more through Congress than you could if you stuck them all together and just ran into battle with it. Sure, it would take longer this way, but the political risks would be lower, as one would not be forced to place all those reforms into a single basket that could be sunk in one blow.

I don't know. Ask them.

However, what makes you think that flipping the calendar from 2009 to 2010 is going to make a difference? It won't. The fight will be just as fierce, and get fiercer all the time as the mid-term elections draw near.

It has already has been proven to be a failure, with regards to actually getting meaningful reform.

I'm saying come back and start all over again, and try to get everything you could possibly wish for and want. Let the opponents bargain you down from there, and make them earn every concession dearly. That is how you end up with the best possible outcome you could have ever gotten. Not conceding from the start, then working uphill all the way, and ending up with a lot less than what you thought you were going to end up with, when you started.

Being an election year, turns the heat up them even more to work for and represent the people. 65% - 70% of the American People want at least a Strong Public Option, with NO giveaways to the Insurance Industry. That election drawing nearer would be their moment of truth about who they really worked for and represented, and if they were being called out and had the spotlight on them, the American People would be pissed if they pulled the same shit they did this year. A lot of people just witnessed what they are trying to do, and successfully got done.

The Insurance Industry and the Republicans have been dug in and have fought hard the whole way, while the Democrats conceded their mandate from the start and wandered into the Insurance Industry's & Republican's land mines the whole way. The Democrats could easily deliver a hell of a lot better bill for President Obama to sign if they wanted to, but are they willing to stop playing the 'Washington Generals' role in this exhibition.

Here we are, 15 years later, and trying a different approach, since the approach you suggest failed miserably in 1994.

You wanna wait another 15 years before we get another shot? That's what would happen. We got the "Contract With America" from Newt Gingrich that year and no chance at all then.

Obama has learned from past mistakes. The idea is to get something, and then improve on it. Clinton took the heavy-handed approach, and look where it got him (and us).

passed - I'd rather have a Health Care Bill that if it were threatened to be taken away, people would scream bloody murder - what has come out of the house isn't worth the scream.

It is the same Congress with the same members and the same problems.

Which is what every other side of this debate did. And then you compromise over that, rather than starting out with the very best you think you might be able to end up with at the end.

When you fold right off the bat, then you don't have any leverage to play with.

What makes you think Democrats can come back next year and be successful where they weren't this year?

You have the majorities and 2/3 of the American People who want at least a Strong Public Option, and NO Insurance Industry Giveaways. Shine the spotlight on those who want to hold it up and/or weaken it. Everyone goes on notice that the American People voted for real reform, and if anyone stood in the way, then there would be hell to pay for them. For those not up for re-election, you could still threaten to find someone in their district or state to challenge them in the next Primary and then have President Obama campaign for that candidate. The Democrats would actually gain seats in the next election if they did that, because people would take notice that they are working for them, instead of against them with shell games.

This is NOT hard at all. It's the fact that Democratic politicians have become too comfortable with their positions and Washington with the current way things go, because nobody will stand up to them and say enough. Too bad 'Enough!' was a paper tiger roar.

If the Democratic Party wanted to produce meaningful Health Care Reform, it could do it, but not by playing with the 'good buddy' rules and lets analyze formula to squeeze by on.

The fact that HCR legislation has advanced as far as it has is historic. To throw it all away and start over means the death of reform, all the momentum will be exhausted.

90% of Americans couldn't tell you the difference between what Washington calls a "strong" or "weak" public option. They aren't concerned with Medicare reimbursement rates or mandates, they are concerned about jobs. We need a victory on HCR, and we need to move on and further address the jobs crisis, that is what the 2010 elections will hinge on.

Who failed to come out with a strategy from the start to get meaningful health care reform?
All the momentum was exhausted when we conceded our leverage from the start. That is why we ended up with a watered down crap bill.

As far as bragging about how far it has gotten...
George W. Bush finally gave prescription coverage to America's Seniors for the first time in history. Which curiously, is a lot like how this alleged health care bill was crafted. To take care of Corporate America, rather than the American People.

The difference is to start out with what you could ever wish for and want, and let those opposed to reform bargain you down from there. The only exhaustion we are talking about is putting a boot in flabby politician asses, and telling them what the hell the American People voted for and demand. Corporate America, we'll call you in the room if we need answers, so until then, get the hell out! Do not think for one minute that President Obama could not get more than enough momentum, if he chose to do it right.

1. The truth is, the votes are not ever going to be there for single payer (at least within the next decade or two). When people say that at some point the votes will be there for single payer but just not now, that is really just to placate people like you who (for their own well being) need to believe that a single payer system is somehow passable in Congress.

2. You talk as if this is a "negotiation" with "concessions" involved. In reality, the median legislator (218th vote in the House and the 60th vote in the Senate) can write the entire bill, with no negotiation required. The "negotiation" is a dog and pony show.

3. It doesn't matter what we were promised if we don't have the votes in Congress.

4. They are pushing back implementation to make the budget balance over 10 years. (6 years of spending and 10 years of taxes costs less than 10 years of spending and 10 years of taxes).

5. Um, historically, the average losses for a president's party in the House is 26 seats. In 2011, the best bill open to passage will be much more conservative than the best bill we can pass now.

1. I never said that we were ever going to get Single Payer. I did say that you do not start out with only the best possible outcome you think you might be able to end up with. You start out with the best possible outcome you could ever want. After all, that is exactly what the opponents to Health Care Reform did, and they are still dug in and fighting to squeeze every benefit they can possibly get out of it, since our side conceded so much from the start. Just think how much of a better bill we would have if so many concessions were not given up before it started.

2. The House and Senate are nowhere close, and somebody is going to decide what does and does not come out of it. For all we know, we could end up with mandates to buy overpriced worthless ever increasing insurance from the Insurance Industry and only a very modest increase in Medicaid in place of the weak Public Option that got shaved down.

3. It matters if 65% - 70% of the American People want a Strong Public Option, and NO giveaways to the Insurance Industry. With the reasoning you are giving, any meaningful health care reform is and never will be possible, because a few people cannot be placed in the spotlight.

4. It has nothing to do with upcoming elections, with politicians saying, 'trust us, we did our best for you, so re-elect us' at all? Call me a cynic, but I still think screwing the people and saving face was a bigger reason it was designed that way.

5. 2/3 of Americans want a Strong Public Option, with NO Insurance Industry Giveaways. Coming back and starting with the best position you could want, while placing a spotlight on those who were preventing it, would get a better bill passed and increase popularity with the Party in power. Those who got in the way, will have bad outcomes. This is what happens when politicians try to analyze votes and elections too hard, and forget about doing their jobs for the American People.

Period.