If your one of those people who thinks the Reid bill must be passed now or we're looking at doom, you should really watch this video. It's not one-sided. Moyers lets the political cynic make his case that the bill must be passed despite it being a bad bill. But, you guys should really watch this video, just so you can see what you sound like. The video is a little down on the page. There's a little article describing the video, then the video appears below that: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/18/taibi-kuttner-debate-heal_n_397757.html">Click

"Half a loaf will not feed the crowd."

Kill the bill.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the answer to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth

to pass anything, even a bad bill so obama doesn't look bad to right wingers

But what I did hear is that the politics going forward, if this bill fails, will be just that more difficult for the Dems.

Direct quote.

So then the question is: is that good enough reason to pass it?

if anything, what could arguably make this a "bad" bill is that those provisions don't go far enough.

but if history is any guide, and we are loathe to ignore it, every time this issue comes up it has died and every time it comes back, we are offered a universal plan that is weaker than what was offered 10-15-30 years ago.

so yeah, in a way it is now or never, if history is any guide.

oh and if it isn't, exactly who among those in charge is going to do things differently to produce a different result?

so yeah, call me cynical, but as Lily Tomlin has said, "No matter how cynical you get, you can't keep up".

:D

the for profit companies?

http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/08/08/reply-to-critics-of-%e2%80%9cbait-and-switch-how-the-%e2%80%98public-option%e2%80%99-was-sold%e2%80%9d/

"...There have been three cycles of health care reform in the last half century – 1970-73, 1992-1994, and 2007 to date. At the dawn of each cycle, single-payer legislation had already been introduced. But early in the cycle, single-payer legislation was “taken off the table” (to quote a statement Sen. Max Baucus now wishes he had never made). Each time the Democratic leadership chose instead market-based proposals that had no track record and no evidence to support them. Each time they favored reform deemed more “politically feasible” than single-payer because it left the insurance industry in place. In all three cycles, the alternative, market-based proposal was promoted by one or two policy entrepreneurs (that is to say, it wasn’t an idea that bubbled up from the grassroots).

Single-payer legislation was the first out of the chute during the 1970-1973 cycle. In January 1970, Sen. Ted Kennedy introduced what we would today call a single-payer bill. But Kennedy and other leading Democrats quickly abandoned single-payer in favor of a theory about cost containment called the “health maintenance strategy.” This strategy revolved around a new-fangled type of insurance company proposed by a Minnesota physician named Paul Ellwood that Ellwood called the “health maintenance organization.”

Ellwood would become rich and famous selling his HMO idea. He single-handedly convinced President Richard Nixon to endorse legislation to subsidize the formation of HMOs all over the country. While Ellwood worked the Republicans, the AFL-CIO worked the Democrats. Within a year, Kennedy and many other Democrats had been persuaded to abandon the single-payer approach in favor of legislation that would subsidize HMOs. The 1970-1973 cycle ended with the enactment of the HMO Act of 1973. Thus was the world’s first HMO industry born. As we all know now, the HMO experiment failed..."

All the Senators who are having to be bought off, they're being bought off by excluding their state from the unfunded mandate of Medicaid expansion. The vast majority of the states, whose Senators didn't flog Washington for every morsel it could, they're still having to deal with it.

And, they're slashing Medicare. That used to be a scare tactic used by the Democrats against the Republicans. But now, the Democrats are the ones forcing it down our throats.

And, if we're going to slash Medicare anyway, why do we have to spend that money as soon as we get it? It doesn't have to be spent so quickly.



What I don't understand is why they took the approach they did to begin with. The Healthy Americans Act was right there with universal coverage and better fiscal ratings. And, we know Obama is desperate to get something passed. So yeah, I could definitely see if this bill fails, plan B in '10 or '11 becoming the way we should have gone the whole time, the Healthy Americans Act.

But even if it's not, this bill gets its positive fiscal scoring via trickery. 10 years of revenue, 6 years of benefits. You've heard Obama say the 2nd decade of this bill is paid for too? Look at the repots, it's because health insurance costs go up so much, more people are paying penalties for not having insurance and they people who do have insurance are paying so much more taxes on that insurance, that that's how the 2nd decade is paid for.

Fiscally responsible? pfffffffffft

These days, everyone is running around saying health reform in inevitable, even the insurance companies. They weren't saying that in '93 when Clinton tried it. Health reform is now inevitable. Even McCain, the Republican, ran on a platform of health care reform. It was a shitty plan and a big reason why he lost. But, it shows how much health care reform has gained momentum. George H W Bush did not run on a campaign of health reform in '92.

But, if they fix a few of the smaller problems, and create bigger fiscal ones with this bill, it just kicks the can down the street. That's what sounds to me like delaying the problem, not the killing of this bill.

:thumbsup:

I'm kind of new to DU. What does K&R mean? That's not an insult is it?

Also, I think I figured out what n/t means the other day. It means "no text", right?

Wait til you get a chance to see the rec vs. unrec pissing matches!