Let's play a game called "The Hypothetical Bill"

[MNDemNY]

Let's say the the health "reform" bill that passes, has a Public Option, well kinda, it's set up by not the government, but a not-for-profit board of insurance and health care experts (More of a co-op kinda thing). The bill also contains an opt-out clause. In the end it is "revenue neutral" for 10 years, covers 85-90 percent of Americans. It does not change the anti-trust exemption for the insurance industry, it allows the "market place" to set rates. It specifically does not pay for abortions, it does out-law "pre-existing conditions.The "sort of'" public option is one of last resort, only those unable to find private coverage could get it. The question is :






What should the President do with this bill?

[SteppingRazor]

1. Need more info.

Is there something like the Wyden Amendment in the bill? Or will public health care only be offered as a health-care insurer of last resort?

[MNDemNY]

2. Last resort.

Reality being only the dregs that the insurance companies do not want.

[SteppingRazor]

7. If I were Obama, I'd veto that bill. n/t

[MNDemNY]

11. Do you think he would?

[phantom power]

Veto.

[BzaDem]

3. There is a 100% chance that the President would sign such a bill.

Even if the bill were much weaker than that. If you think for a minute that the President would veto any healthcare bill passed by Congress, you are completely delusional.

[phantom power]

4. I agree. Obama will be under crushing pressure to declare victory.

Even if it isn't really a victory.

[MNDemNY]

6. self delete 'cause i am an unobservant idiot.

[MNDemNY]

5. I know.

Is that OK with you?

[BzaDem]

12. Absolutely.

I would be OK with any healthcare bill that

a) was the best bill that could pass Congress
b) makes our healthcare system better on balance than it is today

Those that don't agree should really explain why they would oppose a healthcare bill that makes the system better overall, if it is the best bill this Congress (at the peak of Democratic control) can pass. In particular, they should explain why it would be OK to let those with pre-existing conditions today die and/or go bankrupt if we have the power to make that not happen.

[MNDemNY]

15. You are aware that this is the only shot at this for decades?

That is the attitude that allows this congress to compromise with nobody. Do you not see it as just a cave-in to corporate interests? All you've got is "Please sir may I have another"??????sheesh.

[BzaDem]

17. Not only am I aware -- that is the REASON I would support a bill that helped on balance.

You are arguing that because this is our only chance in decades, we should hope for the FAILURE of any bill that could actually pass Congress. For me, it is the opposite. As far as I'm concerned, we should hope for a bill that can pass BECAUSE this is our only chance in decades.

I'm still waiting for your explanations of how many people with pre-existing conditions you would be OK with dying and/or going bankrupt if you were able to achieve your goal of killing a healthcare bill that helped on balance.

[MNDemNY]

18. To except such a bill would , in the long run be more deadly than killing it and going for more.

Once it is signed, that is it done deal. We must have the courage to fight for more.

[BzaDem]

20. You keep assuming that "fighting for more" somehow gets you anywhere.

Do you have mind control ability? Maybe then you would be able to get Nelson or Lieberman to support a full public option.

[MNDemNY]

24. And you keep assuming it does not.

[BzaDem]

25. Yes, I do. If you have any actual evidence to the contrary, I am all ears.

After all, people have been fighting for single payer since Truman. Close to 30 Congresses have been elected since that time, and each one has FAILED to pass or even consider it. If any of those facts are incorrect, I would love to hear your source indicating otherwise.

The fighting happens on and before election day. The healthcare bill that will end up passing was essentially determined on November 4th. Some fighting might help if a proposal is on the margin (for example, if that proposal has 58 or 59 votes in the Senate, and the one wavering member is a Democrat in a blue or purple state). But it does not help reverse the results of elections beyond that point. Those that think we can pass single payer or a taxpayer subsidized public option available to everyone are really just not educated about the American political system.

[damntexdem]

8. Two elements are killers, but probably won't be in the bill:

1) there likely will be an end to anti-trust exemption,
2) there likely will be prohibition of pre-existing condition exclusions.

With these two, the bill you otherwise describe should be signed.

Lacking these provisions, the bill should be vetoed.

[MNDemNY]

10. My hypothetical does eliminate pre existing conditions.

But you would be ok with the rest? that is sad.

[ddeclue]

9. VETO.

[BzaDem]

13. YAWN.

[ddeclue]

14. Your YAWN has been VETOED..

:rofl:

[MNDemNY]

16. No You are the lazy one.

You will take whatever swill is handed you by your corporate masters, and like it. You are what is wrong with this country. At least the right wing idiots take a stand. You however are far to willing to cave. You are a coward.

[BzaDem]

19. At least I am not hoping for an outcome that results in as many deaths and bankruptcies as possible.

You, on the other hand, would only support a bill that could never pass Congress. You would only support failure and the status quo. Not only do I not agree, but I find it hard to understand how people like you belong to the Democratic party. There is another party out there that only supports failure on this issue.

[MNDemNY]

22. Ok How about a bill that insures only Jon smith of Tucson AZ.

Just him. Is that one ok with you too? It's the "best" bill that congress can pass. So that's better than nothing, right? You simple fool.Folks like you make it so easy for the corporate masters. I'm quite certain you would be a good friend to the occupying forces, should you ever find yourself in such a situation. After all "collaborating" will at least save your life. right?Maybe a couple of your Friends and family , too.

[BzaDem]

26. You keep talking as if somehow your non-acceptance of a resulting bill matters AT ALL.

You keep acting as if your opposition to a bill (the best bill Congress can pass) will somehow result in a bill that is better. That the choice is between fighting and "collaborating." As if the resulting choice you make affects anything.

That is baloney. No one with the power to change anything cares whether or not you "collaborate." Your "decision" is not going to make the bill better. I put the term "collaborating" in quotes because collaborating usually means that your actions to collaborate actually affect something (and that the opposite choice to not collaborate would also affect something).

[kjackson227]

21. VETO... giving so-called insurance "experts" any kind of...

authority is a BIG mistake. Don't like the opt-out clause. Revenue neutral for 10 years and after that the premiums would go through the roof. This bill would be a piece of sh*t, imho.

[MNDemNY]

23. Welcome to the likely reality.