I'm starting to think democrats should should just shelve health care reform until 2011.

[FatDave]

The best we can hope for right now is watered down legislation that does very little to curb insurance industry abuses, and has at best a 50/50 chance of succeeding. What if Obama, Reid and Pelosi said "we tried, but were stopped by conservatives and their powerful special interests. We'll try again in 2011."

Then we make the 2010 elections into a referendum on health care reform. Candidates could campaign on "I'm for a strong public option" and probably easily beat anyone opposing. Maybe we could end up with a 70 seat majority in the Senate.

Sure, republicans would have a few moments of "we defeated reform" celebration, but this would likely just piss off the pro-reform majority that exists among the voters, further damaging the republican brand.

Am I crazy?

[harun]

1. Yes, you are crazy. What we do is get this HC reform passed then

make subsequent reform better. Like getting more people covered, improving the system, getting better funding for people, etc.

[Sebastian Doyle]

3. Right.... pass any shitty bill and fix it later.... Just like NAFTA?

Sorry. Not buying that bullshit again.

[peace frog]

17. Hear, hear

and I fervently hope the Progressive Caucus sticks to their guns and does not vote to pass a shitty bill.

[FatDave]

18. But that's where we potentially run into trouble.

Then the story becomes "we had a bill, but it wasn't good enough for the liberals, so they killed it." I think it has to be a coordinated effort to set it aside, so it doesn't look like it was stopped by democrat infighting.

[peace frog]

22. Everyone will know "who killed it"

just as everyone will know that blaming "the libruhls" is fatuous bullshit.

Hold fast, Progressive Caucus!

[dana_b]

20. fix it later..

yeah, the insurance companies will keep working to "fix it" to their liking - get rid of any public option by putting more $$ in the till for the 2010 elections.

I agree with you - don't pass a POS!

[county worker]

10. You are going to get a mandate to become a customer of the insurance industry.

Say you are an uninsured middle class person. Before the bill you could not afford insurance.


After the bill your "affordable" coverage will have a huge deductible. Maybe around $5K. Also you will have high co-pays and prescription costs.

Like many people you will pay for the coverage rather than get a tax penalty added to your annual tax bill. You cannot afford to pay the deductible so you still go without treatment.

Your are worse off with this bill then you were before.

[harun]

42. I am against the mandate as well. I don't even feel they are legal

and hope they get challenged in court and defeated.

You shouldn't be able to charge someone for simply existing.

[Warpy]

19. Exactly. The first Medicare that passed was lousy.

Tweaking it turned it into the program so beloved by seniors that even the GOP fascists don't dare try to destroy it.

[harun]

40. Correct, this bill opens the door. We then get through the door and kill the for-profit insurers.

Until then we can't touch em.

[Sebastian Doyle]

2. You may have a point

It certainly beats the alternative of losing Senate seats, if they pass some corporate mandate horseshit.

Just as long as the 10 new Senators were actually Democrats, and not more DLC/Blue Balled Cowards. Even 90 "Democratic" Senators wouldn't mean shit, if half of them voted against the people most of the time.

[FatDave]

9. Well, if 2010 campaigns boiled down to whether or not you support reform...

...then we should know what we're getting, at least in regards to that one issue. Single-issue voting isn't usually a good thing, but on an issue this important I'd be OK with it for an election.

[progthinker]

27. Ntt

A single issue. Health care has a wide impact on many issues. The nations financial stability is an example.

[midnight]

4. Mission Accomplished - Insurance Co.

[county worker]

5. I said something similar yesterday. Good luck and wear your asbestos suit.

[FatDave]

31. I don't leave homer without it.

I am kind of surprised by the trigger happiness on the unrec. I figured even an unpopular opinion was worth debating.

[Hekate]

6. Not just no, but hell no. Remember "Make this Obama's Waterloo"?

We won't get another chance like this one.

Hekate

[FatDave]

14. Why won't we get another chance like this one?

When I look at the state of the republican party, I think we pick up seats in 2010 no matter what. Changing demographics alone is causing a leftward shift among voters (though this is largely going unnoticed in Washington).

Now if we made the 2010 midterms all about a strong public option, which polling has repeatedly shown people want, we can definitely pick up enough seats to slide it through without having to water it down to appease the corporations and their cronies.

And when you consider that, frankly speaking, we're not gonna shit for real reform right now, I'm not sure what we have to lose.

[Birthmark]

7. I don't think you're crazy.

It's a bit risky, but probably less risky than passing a crap bill just to say you passed it, only to have the voters concentrate on the "crap" rather than your stellar achievement.

But it would also clarify the whole health care issue. If Democrats ran on a strong PO, we'd know where the voters stood. It would, in effect, become a national referendum on health care. So if health care is the biggest issue one cares about, I think your plan makes a lot of sense.

[Kansas Wyatt]

8. No, you're not crazy.

Pull back, then demand Single Payer next time.

Can anyone honestly say that they are getting what they expected, after Obama and the Democrats got a mandate from the American People?

Then why are there so many people willing to settle for a bad bill or 'foot in the door' bullshit chump change token efforts, while the Insurance Industry gets it's way?

[elocs]

11. If not now it will not be better after the Dems lose seats in 2010.

It would be downhill from there.

[FatDave]

15. Why will dems lose seats in 2010?

I know there's a lot of fear of that, but I don't really see it. Have you looked at republican approval ratings lately?

[Enthusiast]

28. Maybe we can actually gain seats? nt

[elocs]

32. A year from now is not "lately". Without passing healthcare reform now

does anyone actually believe that the Dems will win more seats in 2010? If healthcare reform cannot be passed now it will not be done later. Plus, it is a stupid mistake to underestimate the Republican's ability to come back again.

[Cleita]

12. Shelving it will take another thirty years to bring it forward again.

I don't care right now if it passes without a public option. Since most people can't afford health insurance today the way it stands, we need to covertly go out and start demanding access to Medicare. The case to be made is that everyone who has p/r taxes taken out of their paychecks for FICA, should be able to access the Medicare portion of it. That of course means that they have to go back to the table to figure out how to pay for it. Maybe this is the way to get single payer in through the back door. While the insurers are high fiving each other for winning the battle, we introduce the Trojan Horse.

[AllentownJake]

13. 2010 will be about the economy

Democrats defending their performance, republicans attacking it. Health care will only be discussed as an attack on the democrats for taking their eyes off the economy.

[kenny blankenship]

16. I would suggest to you that this current "reform" push was the effort to FORESTALL reform

and it will work-it will succeed in that aim of preempting and putting off real change- for a while, maybe for 8 yrs or 10. They are not going to willingly wait until they can get votes for a more credible reform program: the whole point is to act now (to put up an electric fence to protect the insurance co.s) before people FORCE them to act to break the insurance rackets.

The insurance rackets will get fat a while longer on forced tithing and subsidies, but anyone can see that the game can't last. Healthcare costs doubled in the last 10 years. The current "reform" will do nothing about that. So for a while the govt will hold you down while the insurance mafia empties your pockets. But you can't steal what ain't there anymore. So it will crash inevitably, "public option" and all.

Just don't get sick for the next 8 years, and maybe after the final collapse of the old racketeer system, the new system will be there to help you. Good luck meantime, you'll need it!

[Ozymanithrax]

21. If a Bill is not passed say goodbye to the House...

Think 1994 all over again.

Think Republicans with Subpoena power impeaching Obama on some trumped up charge.

We do it now or we won't do it at all.

If the bill is bad, we can fix it in 2011.

If there is no bill...

[progthinker]

26. Yes

They can't win if they don't vote for this.

[FatDave]

30. Why is that the conventional wisdom?

Especially if we went into the 2010 election with reform as a popular issue?

[Ozymanithrax]

36. Many people feel that the losses in 1994 were attributable to the failure of...

Democrats to pass Clinton's Health care bill. It was a monumental failure that led to those who wanted health care to lose confidence. It also showed how able the Republicans were that they managed to stop the bill.

Obama ran on this. If it fails, it will come down on his head. Progressives are going to be angry at every Democrat. They have the House, the Senate, and the Executive Branch and still refuse to deliver on an item this is critical Americans, especially since a very good majority want this to happen. This will not be a Republican failure, or a betrayal by Lieberman, but an absolute failure of the Democratic Party.

It will also help Republican efforts to quite the revolt in their own ranks. They will claim gleefully that they killed this socialist abomination, and that rogues like Palin are wrong in turning against the Party.

[Enthusiast]

23. Maybe not so crazy.

Because a few more years of abuse by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries would bring those pro public option figures to 90+%.

But we should have it now, the (Robust) public option. Actually we should have a medicare for all option, no questions asked. If you want the medicare option, you only have to sign up.

[progthinker]

24. Huh?

Huh?

[progthinker]

25. What

Lets just stop progress?

[joeybee12]

29. No, because the Repukes will then label Dems quitters...

...it's giving them more ammunition to fight later on.

[JackRiddler]

33. You should hope the Republicans and Lieberman filibuster it to death

Thank you, your thoughts inspired the following post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6875563

[BluinTX]

34. I wouldn't yet shelve it

but I would never agree to a POS bill that has individual mandates without a robust, affordable public option.

Moreover, I'm highly doubtful that Congress has the constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause to mandate individuals purchasing health insurance from private, for-profit organizations. I expect that the SCOTUS will rule it unconstitutional, leaving us with no reform and making the Dems look stupid for single handedly passing the POS in the first place.

[Vinca]

35. I'm beginning to think we'd need a 100 seat majority to get 60 Democrats.

[county worker]

37. Here is another thought I had today. If we get an insurance reform bill with new regulations and no

public option that is medicare for all, the next time the repukes take charge they can repeal the regulations just as they did with the financial institutions yet we will still be forced to buy insurance from the insurance industry.

The bill that will pass this year will cost us more out of pocket and not provide any more affordable care then we have now. That's why no bill is better than insurance reform only.

[elehhhhna]

38. WTF?!! Let's ingore Iraq & Afghanistan for a coupla years too. Geez.

[DireStrike]

39. I think you are right but it will never happen

We are going to get our fake reform and we're going to like it, god dammit! Siddown and vote for more corporate gatekeepers! Not like you have a choice.

[rvablue]

41. Yes, cause if we wait it won't be 2011, it'll be 2021 before we get another chance. n/t

[kenny blankenship]

43. It's not that you're crazy, it's that you're not crazy enough

to follow the sick, twisted machinations of our politicians. Everyone, whatever their take on the progress of "health care reform" whatever their loyalty and whether they are trying to justify the shitty state of "reform" or criticize it as worthless, points at how the insurance companies seemed to have prepared the legislative field for battle years in advance. "This" they claim, "was the pre-ordained outcome against which resistance is futile!" They are more correct than they guess...

The bill IS shitty and the shitty bill is being pushed now, prematurely it seems to some (you and others) because it has quite a hard time getting enough support for even this shitty excuse for a reform. But that's the beauty of the thing: the shitty bill is being pushed now -precisely now- in order to prevent a better bill from being pushed later. In time, a better bill would have forced itself irresistably on our politicians through the simple evolution of circumstances. Collapse of the "healthcare system" is coming. We can see it from here. This bill is being rammed through preemptively now to preserve the interests of insurance co.s, hospital corps., and the pharmaceutical complex in a legislatively frozen, propped up, and subsidized state against the coming onslaught of small-d democratic fury. The people will suffer for it, but that's Congress' job - sticking it to the little people.