How did Obama effectively make Health Care worse in the US?

[RadioRaheem84]

It seems like whenever Democrats get in there to fix stuff, they make things much worse. They tend to take the worst of government and the worst of business and put them together.

Obama's bill started off with universal health care OFF the table.

Obama's bill now has eliminated the public option which was the concession to universal health care.

Obama's bill at first supported the admittance of people under 65 but older than 55 to buy into Medicare. That's now gone too.

Obama's bill also denied insurers to deny others because of pre-existing conditions. THAT'S GONE TOO.

All of these "socialist" provisions are now gone! The bill has been watered down to the point of utter uselessness.

So essentially all we have left is a bill that mandates everyone (unless you can prove you're too poor) to buy PRIVATE health insurance. That's right. This bill makes health care worse than before! Now I will be forced to buy health care I cannot afford unless I prove to the Feds, on a waiver, that I am too poor.

Ridiculous. And right wingers continue to insist that this is a "socialist" bill.

[RadioRaheem84]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1209/Insurance_industry_insider_We_win.html


Insurance industry insider: 'We win' (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1209/Insurance_industry_insider_We_win.html#)

With the Senate shifting (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30255.html) sharply away from a "pure public option," an insurance industry insider who has been deeply involved in the health care fight emails to declare victory.

"We WIN," the insider writes. "Administered by private insurance companies. No government funding. No government insurance competitor.

[pastradamus]

Im glad someone finally cleared this up for me. Typical of mister B+'s Nobel prize, Junky capitalist and croniest and careerist nature.

[Number 16 Bus Shelter]

Two words Obama -Epic Fail. Sigh.. And his election was supposed to be 'revolutionary'. Its not even freaking reformist.

Hooray! Another conservative president. We're worse of than before because the left-leaning population thinks they won!:thumbup1:

[mykittyhasaboner]

This is what happens when people put faith in bourgeois politicians. Same old shit.

[Red Saxon]

...This is the greatest example of political bullshit ever

Bribing the Nebraska Senator by making it so Nebraska won't have to pay any taxes on this new healthcare made me literally laugh until I cried.

[Buffalo Souljah]

Thank God for the Republican Party.:thumbup1:

[Red Saxon]

Thank God for the Republican Party.:thumbup1:For doing what exactly? Btw, sarcasm gets you nowhere.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Before i became a socialist i had my greatest hope in Obama for 3 things:

1: Universal Health Care

2: Out of Iraq and Afghanistan

3: Nuclear Disarmament and weapons reduction

so far 2 out of 3 have failed. i now reject the Democratic party and seek to possibly join a revolutionary party or to join the IWW :thumbup1:

[RadioRaheem84]

Well to be fair, Obama had put universal health care off the table before he stepped into office.

Secondly, most of the stuff that's listed is off the Senate version of the bill, not the House version. But we all know where this is going. The final bill, which is supposed to be a combination of the two, will most likely be largely influenced by the latter not the former.

The American public has no hope in the two party system.

[swirling_vortex]

Good job Democrats, you've just managed to turn the entire health care sector into a quasi-federal agency! Capitalize the profits and stick us with the bill.

[RadioRaheem84]

Thank God for Bernie Sanders from Vermont who was able to steal away this much from the watered down Senate health care bill:

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2009/12/want-universal-health-care-mov.html

"In exchange for his vote on the diluted Senate health care bill, Sanders asked for and received just what the doctor ordered — $10 billion to increase the number of community health care centers nationwide, including at least two more for Vermont. It means health care for 25 million Americans nationwide, if the bill passes."

That increases the previous four billion to 14 billion to go to Community Health Clinics. Vermont already has eight.

[KurtFF8]

How can left Liberals still support Obama? The whole idea of "well we have to work with what we can get" seems to only gotten us more war, an awful Health Care overhaul, and little progress on all other fronts.

[RadioRaheem84]

It's because of the strategy of Rham Emanuel, the DLC and the New Democrats. They are very pro-business. They shun the real progressive/left base in favor of making deals with private business and masking this off as liberal/progressive reforms.

Clinton was a master at this and the right wing fed into it by making it out like his ideas were that of liberal socialists. Democrats like Clinton and Obama love to usurp all of the qualities that made the left great while discarding them in favor of clinking champagne glasses with the owners of industry.

This was the norm in the 90s for many "left" politicians in both the US and Europe.

[KurtFF8]

Indeed, it's just odd to me that left Liberals are so quick to capitulate to the "New Democrats." There's no resistance from them and I don't get it (well at least little resistance)

[RadioRaheem84]

Indeed, it's just odd to me that left Liberals are so quick to capitulate to the "New Democrats." There's no resistance from them and I don't get it (well at least little resistance)

There is but the opposition is marginalized. Nader was called every name in the book for costing Gore the election. New Democrat stooges like Eric Alterman and Joe Klein of Time Magazine wanted to kill the man. Christopher Hitchens back in the 90s said that the left in this nation has totally capitulated to Clintonism. Anything to the left of Clinton is considered "far-left".

[IllicitPopsicle]

There is but the opposition is marginalized. Nader was called every name in the book for costing Gore the election. New Democrat stooges like Eric Alterman and Joe Klein of Time Magazine wanted to kill the man. Christopher Hitchens back in the 90s said that the left in this nation has totally capitulated to Clintonism. Anything to the left of Clinton is considered "far-left".

sigh... wonderful

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Well I don't think you can say it made health care in this country worse, but it certainly was little more than a hollow victory, even for the democrats. The Democrats knew they had to get something done, and were absolutely willing to cut the balls off of this bill in order to get it through.

The bill does make some improvement but is a massive let down, even by Democrat standards.

Oh, and you can't say Left liberals weren't up in arms about this, to pretend the far left is the only group extremely disappointed is a distortion of the facts. Ralph Nader has called Obama an Uncle Tom for corporations, Howard Dean wrote an editorial for Washington Post (I believe) saying this bill should be thrown out and simply begun over again, if you meander over to the Huffington Post, who were among the largest Obama groupies in the election you can see them begining to turn on the democrats-- shit even Frank Rich and Paul Krugman of the NY Times are becoming obviously disillusioned.

The only liberals who are out and out supporters of this bill are those with something to lose, aka politicians. So it should be becoming painfully obvious that "We told them so," as painful as that is to the millions who will remain without adequate care.

[swirling_vortex]

There is but the opposition is marginalized. Nader was called every name in the book for costing Gore the election. New Democrat stooges like Eric Alterman and Joe Klein of Time Magazine wanted to kill the man. Christopher Hitchens back in the 90s said that the left in this nation has totally capitulated to Clintonism. Anything to the left of Clinton is considered "far-left".
Eh, I don't know if I would be that pessimistic about the progressive movement. I've noticed comments on sites like DU and DailyKos about the disappointment with no single-payer, public option, or Medicare buy-in program. Even commentators on MSNBC are getting the Obama hangover. The real question becomes: What will the progressive movement do next when the Democrats don't deliver? The progressives have gotten used to equating progressive policy as a sign of the Democratic party, so this shift rightward isn't going to be a nice surprise for them.

I honestly wouldn't be too hung up on this lack-of-a-reform bill since these type of Clintonian policies are expected, but the mandatory buy insurance option is a big mistake. I seriously hope it gets stripped out or health care premiums are going to increase very rapidly.

[RadioRaheem84]

Ralph Nader has called Obama an Uncle Tom for corporations, Howard Dean wrote an editorial for Washington Post (I believe) saying this bill should be thrown out and simply begun over again, if you meander over to the Huffington Post, who were among the largest Obama groupies in the election you can see them begining to turn on the democrats-- shit even Frank Rich and Paul Krugman of the NY Times are becoming obviously disillusioned.

I meant that the mainstream media casts them off as the far left or the left base of the party that's "out of touch", i.e. out of touch with corporate interests.



Eh, I don't know if I would be that pessimistic about the progressive movement. I've noticed comments on sites like DU and DailyKos about the disappointment with no single-payer, public option, or Medicare buy-in program. Even commentators on MSNBC are getting the Obama hangover. The real question becomes: What will the progressive movement do next when the Democrats don't deliver? The progressives have gotten used to equating progressive policy as a sign of the Democratic party, so this shift rightward isn't going to be a nice surprise for them.

I honestly wouldn't be too hung up on this lack-of-a-reform bill since these type of Clintonian policies are expected, but the mandatory buy insurance option is a big mistake. I seriously hope it gets stripped out or health care premiums are going to increase very rapidly.

Oh I know that the progressive community is up in arms. I read the Progressive publications all the time and they were the first to be openly critical (in the right way) against Obama's policies. The point is that the mainstream media had marginalized these views in favor of the more centrist Democrats. These centrists were what was considered "left" in the right/left punditry world of the mainstream media.

[RadioRaheem84]

PROOF:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zC-A7UdRj60

Dumb right wing hag Greta Van Sustren calls Dennis Kucinich's position on health care reform "far-left". As if supporting corporate interests is "left". :rolleyes:

[Angry Young Man]

In answer to the original question, by tip-toe-ing too much around the conservatives and not starting a counter-attack.

Socialised healthcare in the UK was the brainchild of one of the few real socialists in Labour's history, and just before its launch, he was due to give a speech in Manchester which everybody expected would extol the virtues of the new NHS. Instead, he went on a diatribe about the Conservative Party, concluding that they are worse than vermin.

[RadioRaheem84]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGgq7G_a9jk

Senior Adviser to Obama doesn't understand why the "left of the left" considers a public option to be a staple of health care reform.

"Left of the Left"?

[Robocommie]

Two words Obama -Epic Fail. Sigh.. And his election was supposed to be 'revolutionary'. Its not even freaking reformist.

Hooray! Another conservative president. We're worse of than before because the left-leaning population thinks they won!:thumbup1:

Don't worry too much, Obama's support with progressives is taking a huge hit, and his popularity is going to hurt for it. They're even calling him a liar to his face on MSNBC. The progressives are irritated and hopefully they're going to find some guts to fight back.

[Kayser_Soso]

Don't worry too much, Obama's support with progressives is taking a huge hit, and his popularity is going to hurt for it. They're even calling him a liar to his face on MSNBC. The progressives are irritated and hopefully they're going to find some guts to fight back.

Oh don't worry, once another election comes around all these newborn leftists will insist that we reelect Obama lest Sarah Palin or whoever the Republicans put forward win. You know, if Republicans win, they'll expand the war, and enact a lot of corporate friendly legislation.

[Robocommie]

Oh don't worry, once another election comes around all these newborn leftists will insist that we reelect Obama lest Sarah Palin or whoever the Republicans put forward win. You know, if Republicans win, they'll expand the war, and enact a lot of corporate friendly legislation.

I'm not exactly fawning over Obama at this point, but you can't tell me that he wouldn't still be better than Palin or whomever. Obama will at least act like a centrist, while people like Sarah Palin just might be the seed of a new American fascism, promoting the American Volk and their downhome values.

Framkly... I'm just tired of feeling like I'm losing in my own country, over and over.

[Rusty Shackleford]

The re-election of Obama would be favorable to any GOP candidate but it will not bring us any closer to socialism. The only use of re-electing Obama would be to counter a reversion to the right in bourgeois politics. thats where the benefits end. i also see it as dangerous to elect Obama because if the progressives still have faith in him, it sedates consciousness and may take longer to develop a more overt class struggle.

if the GOP wins, their policies would just lead to more suffering, exploitation of the thirdworld, stricter anti-labor laws, curtailment of civil liberties, and possibly a revival of that witch hunt known as McCarthyism. anti-communism is a big chunck of what the right are screaming about with the obama administration, and if they got power im sure theyd try to "clean up" america(at the extreme).

If there is a socialist candidate(which im sure there will be from a few parties) i will probably vote for one that is not affiliated with social-democrats if possible.

the 2010 congressional elections should provide some insight into the 2012 elections. if the PSL or any other socialist party runs a candidate in CA they will probably have my vote even though i lean towards anarchism by a great deal.

[Pogue]

Well he's no Nye Bevan, thats for sure.

[Kayser_Soso]

I'm not exactly fawning over Obama at this point, but you can't tell me that he wouldn't still be better than Palin or whomever. Obama will at least act like a centrist, while people like Sarah Palin just might be the seed of a new American fascism, promoting the American Volk and their downhome values.

Framkly... I'm just tired of feeling like I'm losing in my own country, over and over.


What would Palin really do that's worse? Expand the war? Obama's got that down pat. Enact legislation that puts more money in the pockets of the wealthy? Check. This is the trap that they get you in every time. Remember, these are two parties for one class. STOP giving the Democrats money, stop voting for them. Just stop, and tell everyone you know to stop. If Republicans start to run wild after a landslide victory- let them. Let them piss people off so much that it becomes unbearable for virtually everybody.

And while doing this- those who support this boycott should organize and push for proportional representation, and direct election for the presidency. This would enable the growth of third parties.

[RadioRaheem84]

The GOP doesn't care about the right wing base, anymore than the Dems care about their left wing base. Both parties just care about expanding their neo-liberal policies. A right wing president will just be a major dick while another Obama term will be the same only softer and with more PR fluff.

[Kayser_Soso]

The GOP doesn't care about the right wing base, anymore than the Dems care about their left wing base. Both parties just care about expanding their neo-liberal policies. A right wing president will just be a major dick while another Obama term will be the same only softer and with more PR fluff.

Exactly, which is why the GOP can hang itself by flirting with extremists, because these people would support a third party initiative as well.

[Autodidakt]

I think we can all agree, there is no difference between the parties when it comes to economics. The real reason that it is better that democrats stay in power is for social issues. The simple fact is that democrats are not witch hunters and they will not actively try to hurt social groups such as women, blacks, gays, socialists, communists and intellectuals. If, and I hate even to entertain the thought, Sarah Palin were ever president hunting season would be declared not only on wolves, deer, and any other animal the lives and breaths, but on real liberals, socialists, communists, anarchists, gays, blacks, latinos, non-Christians, secularists, women, intellectuals...not to mention the middle-class and working-class and poor. The list goes on.

And as much as we all love to hate the democrats for being centre-right wing politicians and calling themselves left-wing, we have to understand that the Republicans are now controlled, completely and openly, by fascists who are no longer afraid to hide their disgusting views of humanity. So, if we are given the choice between electing fascists or conservatives, I'm going to choose the conservatives. I think we put our rights and, perhaps even our lives in some cases, in danger if we allow Republicans collect power.

The US is no longer torturing prisoners by order of the president--Sarah Palin or any other Republican able to win a primary in the Fascist Party can only be worse than George Bush was for human rights, civil liberties, civil rights, and much more.

There's not much else I can say.

[Kayser_Soso]

I think we can all agree, there is no difference between the parties when it comes to economics. The real reason that it is better that democrats stay in power is for social issues. The simple fact is that democrats are not witch hunters and they will not actively try to hurt social groups such as women, blacks, gays, socialists, communists and intellectuals. If, and I hate even to entertain the thought, Sarah Palin were ever president hunting season would be declared not only on wolves, deer, and any other animal the lives and breaths, but on real liberals, socialists, communists, anarchists, gays, blacks, latinos, non-Christians, secularists, women, intellectuals...not to mention the middle-class and working-class and poor. The list goes on.

Is it? Democrats get elected, do the same thing as Republicans, and yet the militant rightists get bolder and MORE militant. Where's the gay marriage? Where's the abolition of don't ask don't tell? Where's legislation barring states from making it difficult to get birth control or abortion? Where's a more proactive stance on affirmative action, with better enforcement? Where's the guest worker program?



And as much as we all love to hate the democrats for being centre-right wing politicians and calling themselves left-wing, we have to understand that the Republicans are now controlled, completely and openly, by fascists who are no longer afraid to hide their disgusting views of humanity. So, if we are given the choice between electing fascists or conservatives, I'm going to choose the conservatives. I think we put our rights and, perhaps even our lives in some cases, in danger if we allow Republicans collect power.

The US is no longer torturing prisoners by order of the president--Sarah Palin or any other Republican able to win a primary in the Fascist Party can only be worse than George Bush was for human rights, civil liberties, civil rights, and much more.

There's not much else I can say.

You're falling into the same trap again. How do you know that the US is no longer torturing prisoners? The US has a whole host of allies in the Middle East which DO practice torture, and all they need to do is hand them over to those authorities.


There is no significant difference. Let the GOP run things into the ground. They will wake people up when the shit is on their doorstep.

[RadioRaheem84]

There is no significant difference. Let the GOP run things into the ground. They will wake people up when the shit is on their doorstep

The GOP ran things into the ground and the people were duped into voting for a fake progressive and the right wing became more militant, wanting idiots like Sarah Palin in office.

The next election will be complete and utter shit as it will be against Obama and the most right wing person ever seen on the national stage (granted as the GOP extremist base doesn't go third Party). Also granted that the right winger isn't just pandering to the base too.

There has to be a viable third party to rival the two party system.

[Kayser_Soso]

The GOP ran things into the ground and the people were duped into voting for a fake progressive and the right wing became more militant, wanting idiots like Sarah Palin in office.

The next election will be complete and utter shit as it will be against Obama and the most right wing person ever seen on the national stage (granted as the GOP extremist base doesn't go third Party). Also granted that the right winger isn't just pandering to the base too.

There has to be a viable third party to rival the two party system.

Right, and there will only be a third party, or fourth or fifth party, when there is a militant, broad movement to make the necessary constitutional changes. The first step is to convince the progressives to stop giving money to the DNC and stop voting for them. Every time the DNC keeps getting more and more brazen, all because they use fear of some GOP candidate to mobilize the base, with the same results every time.

[Pawn Power]

Well the healthcare industry likes the bill quite a bit. There stocks have sky rocketed over the last week.

* Coventry Health Care, Inc. is up 31.6 percent;
* CIGNA Corp. is up 29.1 percent;
* Aetna Inc. is up 27.1 percent;
* WellPoint, Inc. is up 26.6 percent;
* UnitedHealth Group Inc. is up 20.5 percent;
* And Humana Inc. is up 13.6 percent"

Healthcare industry stocks explode as bill progresses (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/12/22/health_care/index.html)

[RadioRaheem84]

Just to put this boon to health insurance stocks in perspective: according an Indianapolis Star article from June (http://www.indy.com/posts/susan-bayh-leaves-2-of-8-corporate-boards), Evan Bayh's wife, Susan, "owns from $500,001 to $1 million in employee stock in WellPoint, the Indianapolis-based insurance giant on whose board she sits." That would mean that the value of her personal holdings in that one health insurance company alone, in the last six weeks alone (since Lieberman and her husband (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/65247-bayh-withholding-decision-on-health-bill-filibuster) began menacing the public option), would have increased by a value of between $125,000 and $250,000. As part of the bonanza of health care industry board positions (http://www.indy.com/articles/dan-carpenter/thread/what-may-the-circle-betoken) she magically received since her husband became a Senator, Susan Bayh is given a quarter-million dollars each year in stocks and stock options (http://people.forbes.com/profile/susan-b-bayh-j-d-/24631) from Wellpoint. That's just a microcosm for considering how well Obama's so-called "special interests" have done as a result of this health care bill.

It's shit like this that pisses me off. These crooked scum get a pass from the mainstream media because they have a D next to their name. These idiots keep getting touted as "liberals" and progressives, the "left".


That said, I've been fairly repulsed by the 2003-like swarming, bullying efforts of the President's loyal supporters (both in the White House and from Beltway journalists and their partially cloned liberal bloggers) not merely to dispute, but to demonize and personally discredit, the bill's progressive critics as insane (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30728.html), crazy (http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2009/12/nate-silver-calls-progressives-batshit.html), childish (http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/12/16/the-left-blogosphere-melts-down/), idiotic and drugged-out (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/21/harwood-drugs/), Naderite, purist (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/12/things_that_are_cool.php) liars (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/jane_hamshers_10_reaons_to_kil.html) who -- we now learn today -- are the equivalent of "global warming denialists." (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/another-left-right-convergence.html) Whatever else is true, progressive opponents of the Senate bill (virtually all of whom offer strategic arguments for improving it, not for preserving the status quo), have been making well-informed and substantive critiques. I don't want to overstate this: there has been some very responsible and informative debate among these various factions, the insults have flown in both directions, and it's understandable that passions run high on an issue of this significance among adversaries, particularly as the process mercifully draws to a close. Still, it seems clear that campaigns by White House loyalists in government and the media to destroy the personal credibility (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1169424/posts) and malign the character (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2004/03/006210.php) of the President's critics -- and to depict "the Left" as shrill, unSerious losers -- obviously aren't confined to the Bush years or to Bush supporters.

[Pawn Power]

From start to finish, the insurance and drug industries -- and their army of lobbyists -- had control over the process that resulted in a bill that is reform in name only. The postmortems of how they pulled it off have already begun. On Sunday, the Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/arts-culture/mass-media/newspapers/chicago-tribune-ORCRP003016799.topic) published an exhaustive front-page analysis by Northwestern University (http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/education/colleges-universities/northwestern-university-OREDU0000132.topic)'s Medill News Service and the Center for Responsive Politics of how it was done. The main culprit: "a revolving door between Capitol Hill staffers and lobbying jobs for companies (http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/economy-business-finance/companies-corporations-04016046.topic) with a stake in health care legislation."

The study found that 13 former congressmen and 166 congressional staffers were actively engaged in lobbying their former colleagues on the bill. The companies they were working for -- some 338 of them -- spent $635 million on lobbying. It was money extremely well spent -- delivering a bill that, by forcing people to buy a shoddy product in a market with no real competition, enshrines into law the public subsidy of private profit.

As we approach the end of Obama's first year in office, this public subsidizing of private profit is becoming something of a habit. It is, after all, exactly what the White House did with the banks. Just as he did with insurance companies, Obama talked tough to the bankers in public, but, when push came to shove, he ended up shoving public money onto their privately held balance sheets.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-200912231659tmsahuffcoltq--m-a20091223dec23,0,6309565.story

[Sleeper]

The OP is entirely correct, although one must give it to the Republicans for touting this Bill as, "Socialist," when it is not. The reason that such is a good strategy for them (60-39 vote) is because it will enable them to effectively get a default vote from all of those who are disenfranchised with the Democratic incumbents come the next round of Congressional elections.

The OP is also entirely correct in stating that this Bill accomplishes absolutely nothing except furthering the interest of private insurers. Many who do not know better may argue that since the private insurers will now have to take all-comers and may not refuse to cover individuals with pre-existing medical conditions that this bill is not favorable to the private insurers at all. The flaw in this argument is the fact that it will ultimately be the average, healthy middle-class person that will be charged more for insurance.

Additionally, lower-class people who will not be able to afford the insurance will be fined if they choose not to obtain the insurance. By the way, am I missing something here, or is fining such people not going to really help them to afford it?

In any case, on a personal level, I have hospitalization/emergency only on myself with a 20% deductible on prescriptions. My wife and son more or less have the full package though. If I am made to pay around $1,700 for insurance before out of pocket expenses (based on the average cost) that will seriously put a crimp in my personal budget, as I only pay $600/year for my current insurance because I have never used it.

I'm a healthy guy, I don't need to see the doctor for anything, I just can't shell out $6,000 all at once if I happen to fall down and break my arm so my present insurance is just fine. I do not even use Tylenol unless it is absolutely necessary, so all the regular doctor will do is write me prescriptions that I will refuse to take for problems that I probably don't even actually have. I own a blood pressure machine and I also own a blood-sugar tester despite the fact that I am not diabetic. I am educated on how to care for myself and am proactive in doing so, with the only exception being that I am a smoker. (About four cigarettes a day)

In the end, Hospitalization-Only insurance probably will not be legal and I will just continue to keep my wife and son covered and ask this Corporation-Friendly Government to whom I am to make the check to pay my annual fine.

[Jegra]

It seems like whenever Democrats get in there to fix stuff, they make things much worse. They tend to take the worst of government and the worst of business and put them together.

Obama's bill started off with universal health care OFF the table.

Obama's bill now has eliminated the public option which was the concession to universal health care.

Obama's bill at first supported the admittance of people under 65 but older than 55 to buy into Medicare. That's now gone too.

Obama's bill also denied insurers to deny others because of pre-existing conditions. THAT'S GONE TOO.

All of these "socialist" provisions are now gone! The bill has been watered down to the point of utter uselessness.

So essentially all we have left is a bill that mandates everyone (unless you can prove you're too poor) to buy PRIVATE health insurance. That's right. This bill makes health care worse than before! Now I will be forced to buy health care I cannot afford unless I prove to the Feds, on a waiver, that I am too poor.

Ridiculous. And right wingers continue to insist that this is a "socialist" bill.

Let me start off by saying you're a fucking moron who probably gets his news from retarded blogs.



Obama's bill at first supported the admittance of people under 65 but older than 55 to buy into Medicare. That's now gone too.


Obama's bill now has eliminated the public option which was the concession to universal health care. The public option has been replaced by a private not-for-profit entity. The Private Not-For-Profit Option will be overseen by the federal Office of Personnel Management, the same government entity that oversees the plan provided to federal employees.


Highlights from an LAtimes article:


Under the compromise developed by a group of conservative and liberal Democrats, the Senate legislation would no longer include a new government-run insurance program, or "public option," for Americans who do not get coverage through their employers. Instead, the government would essentially contract with a nonprofit insurer to provide a nationwide plan that would serve as the public option, according to officials briefed on the discussions.
The government would oversee the nonprofit plan, ensuring that it met basic standards for quality and affordability.
The compromise would also create a mechanism for triggering the creation of a more traditional government-run plan like the one now in the bill, if the nonprofit option does not materialize.



Obama's bill also denied insurers to deny others because of pre-existing conditions. THAT'S GONE TOO.
[citation needed]



mandates everyone (unless you can prove you're too poor) to buy PRIVATE health insurance.
It only applies to people who can afford it. Meaning dumbasses who can buy insurance but choose not to and then when they have health problems, everyone else has their premiums increased.

[Sleeper]

The public option has been replaced by a private not-for-profit entity. The Private Not-For-Profit Option will be overseen by the federal Office of Personnel Management, the same government entity that oversees the plan provided to federal employees.

How much will the employees and Chairman of the private, but not-for-profit entity be paid? Will they travel by private jet? Will they dine out at $100/plate restaurants for, "Business Meetings?"

What not-for-profit means is that, at the end of the fiscal year, your goal is to break-even. However, you can have absolutely anything you want on your expense reports and still be a not-for-profit company.

Maybe one of the chairmen decide that they live too far away from headquarters, so the not-for-profit company should provide a $4,000/month penthouse for them to use during the workweek.

The list of potentials goes on.



The government would oversee the nonprofit plan, ensuring that it met basic standards for quality and affordability.


Oh, OUR Government is going to oversee it? Thank God, because for a second there I was worried it wasn't going to work out very well. Maybe they should get the guy that used to be head of FEMA, he did a pretty good job, by Government standards.

[Axle]

Let me start off by saying you're a fucking moron who probably gets his news from retarded blogs.


What an amazing asset you'll be to this forum.

Nevermind the fact that all of that is actually true in the Senate bill.

The House bill still has the public option, yes...but the idea in Congress is to merge both the Senate and House bills into a single piece of legislation that will probably wind up killing even that nice "private not-for-profit" settlement they reached.

Contrary to your liberal illusions of Obama and the Democrats, they're just as bad, and probably worse than Republicans. At least Republicans don't try to hide the fact they're going to fuck you over in the name of big business.

[Guerrilla22]

Actually Obama didn't scrap the public option. the spineless Senate democrats did. What a joke of a party, affraid to push legislation through even when they have an overwhelming majority. Why anyone would ever waste their time voting for them I have no idea.

[Axle]

Actually Obama didn't scrap the public option. the spineless Senate democrats did. What a joke of a party, affraid to push legislation through even when they have an overwhelming majority. Why anyone would ever waste their time voting for them I have no idea.

That's true, but it really doesn't matter much. The public option, never mind real, true universal healthcare; was dead on arrival to Congress.

[Jegra]

A supermajority isn't a cheatmode for passing bills like everyone thinks it is.

There's a tremendous amount of parliamentary procedure that can be leveraged to stonewall legislation (of which the filibuster is just one tactic). Historically, however, such tactics were used sparingly. Take the 97th Congress elected in 1980. The Democrats held on to a strong majority in the House, and narrowly lost the Senate. As such, they could have very easily obstructed Reagan's entire agenda. They didn't, however, because their leadership considered obstructionism to be less productive than compromise.
Y
ou could also look at the 108th Congress in 2005, and the brief gridlock over Bush's judicial nominees. The Republican majority actually threatened to eliminate the Senate filibuster over the Democrats' use of the tactic 10 times to prevent confirmation of Bush's nominations. In the end the gang of 14 was formed, and a compromise was brokered. (For all the claims of obstruction, however, the Democrats in the 2000s were using the filibuster far less than the Republicans had in the 1990s.)
Now, move on to the 110th Congress, where the Democrats took control of both houses after the 2006 elections. The Republicans used the filibuster 140 times; that's more than twice as much as the Democrats in the previous Congress, and far more than ever in the country's history. And consider the current Congress; its tenure isn't halfway through, and the Republicans have already used the filibuster over 100 times, which is entirely unprecedented.
My point here is that the Senate has a lot of complex parliamentary procedure, and the Republicans are using it to stonewall at every opportunity. That's why the Senate is in session today, when they should have been able to adjourn on Monday or Tuesday. And that's at a point where the Republicans didn't even have the votes to kill the health care bill. They were just trying to kill more time out of spite, and to continue clogging the legislative agenda.


Personally, I'd like to see reform of Senate's parliamentary procedures. I think it might have actually been a good thing if the 108th Senate had eliminated the filibuster, or at the very least curtailed it so that it's not such an easy method of obstruction. Although, I have yet to see a Senator campaign on parliamentary reform--or even mention the topic really.

[Guerrilla22]

A supermajority isn't a cheatmode for passing bills like everyone thinks it is.

The democrats have the ability to end any and all filibusters since they have a super majority. Congress changed the rules when the republicans had control for that very reason. The democrats are just being spineless, either that or theya re caving into pressure from the issurance industry.

[Sleeper]

The Democrats are being spineless, and pointlessly so. All you have to do is say, "Public HealthCare Bill," and almost half of the country will be against it regardless of what the Bill entails or what affects it has on the average citizen. It is for that very reason that there does not need to be any compromise with the Republicans on this Bill, whatsoever, because they are not needed for the Bill to pass.

Little to they realize that all they are doing is half watering-down and half benefitting gigantic corporations on a Bill that could have had serious potential...if a few people were willing to grow a pair.

[RadioRaheem84]

The public option has been replaced by a private not-for-profit entity. The Private Not-For-Profit Option will be overseen by the federal Office of Personnel Management, the same government entity that oversees the plan provided to federal employees.


Highlights from an LAtimes article:


Under the compromise developed by a group of conservative and liberal Democrats, the Senate legislation would no longer include a new government-run insurance program, or "public option," for Americans who do not get coverage through their employers. Instead, the government would essentially contract with a nonprofit insurer to provide a nationwide plan that would serve as the public option, according to officials briefed on the discussions.
The government would oversee the nonprofit plan, ensuring that it met basic standards for quality and affordability.
The compromise would also create a mechanism for triggering the creation of a more traditional government-run plan like the one now in the bill, if the nonprofit option does not materialize.



Which non profits? Kaiser Permanente?

I was mistaken on the denial of coverage. Yet, they can still deny until 2014.

Most of what I wrote was on the Senate bill and I acknowledged this in a subsequent post.



It only applies to people who can afford it. Meaning dumbasses who can buy insurance but choose not to and then when they have health problems, everyone else has their premiums increased.
I know. I said unless you can prove that you're too poor on a hardship waiver.


I don't know how you don't see this as a massive subsidy for the insurance industry.

[proudcomrade]

I dunno...I have been ranting myself hoarse about this very subject, in especial the mandatory-coverage horror, for so long now, that I find myself with little left to say.

Few people seem to realize how much of the responsibility for the train-wreck lies not with Obama, lying phony that he is, but with Joe Lieberman. I am from his constituent state, and am a low-to-no-income person (depending on my health and the economy in any given year), and have lived firsthand with the aftermath of his policies on the state level. His hideous deeds have left a wake of suffering behind him that out-of-staters rarely believe. We were a bellwether for things to come in other places, once he started exercising more influence in Washington. This man is ruthless and will stop at nothing. The man makes Reagan look like a socialist revolutionary.

The mandate will hit those of us, myself included, who cannot possibly afford privatized insurance on our own. They will force the destitute to fill out rainforests of paperwork for those "waivers" at welfare offices located in the most violent and rundown neighborhoods in the country; and anyone who is either mentally or neurologically ill, female or bodily disabled, or who simply does not own a vehicle in an enormous country with nearly no public transportation, will end up fined, or worse, prosecuted, for "failure" to file the paperwork at their "local" office in the so-called "community", 30+ minutes' worth of mandatory highway driving away from other "catchment area" towns, where unarmed, defenseless poor fear to tread.

As usual, for-profit insurance corporations "win", all right, while around 50 million people will still be deprived of one of their most basic human rights.

There are few words in the English language capable of describing accurately my near-psychotic levels of contempt toward these bastards.

Younger comrades, do NOT let the liberals' endless yammering about "progressivism" take you in! This is NOTHING but the same old three-card-monte game; only the stakes get painfully higher every year.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Proudcomrade, does this mean people like me who have no health insurance now have to apply for it somewhere or get fined?