It’s a watered down bill that is mostly a way to prop up the insurance companies at the expense of the general population. And it sucks up to the anti-abortion scum; they might as well have included a tax break for NAMBLA or the KKK. My feelings are “meh” at best. Perhaps it will do some good; but if this is the best that can happen when the Democrats hold all the cards I see no reason to expect it to be any stepping stone to anything better. I feel that ruadh has a point; it may well be too little, too late to actually stop the worsening of the American health care system, and when it fails to do enough I expect the Republicans will try to us that as an excuse to eliminate reform altogether for another generation.
The public option wasn’t “far left”; according to the polls it was what most people wanted from the start. UHC in general isn’t remotely “far left”, which is why it’s the norm in the civilized world.
I certainly would have preferred a public option, no doubt about it. Perhaps even single payer.
However, I still feel elated this morning, because the bill that did pass contained the two issues that I felt were absolutely essential: universal coverage (for all intents and purposes), and no denial of coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
So, do you consider 2014 “soon”? Because it’ll be that long before the government plans to do anything to help us afford health insurance or make our employers offer it.
Well, figuring it took 98 years to get over to the other side of the mountain, I think its great to be an American. Now they can go and tweek it to work correctly.
Just because UHC is common all over the world doesn’t mean it’s not a big,big change for the US. If it was so widely supported why did it take this long to get it passed?
Because the Republicans oppose helping anyone but the wealthy and religious institutions; and because they’d oppose a plan to stop an alien invasion as long as Obama is in office. And the Democrats are corrupt and spineless.
Were you under the impression that they actually cared what the people who voted for them wanted or needed?
Really? Anybody that disagrees with you on the abortion issue, no matter how sincerely, is not only scum , but the moral equivalent of NAMBLA or the KKK?
Yes. The anti-abortion movement is just another hate movement, one aimed at women. Supporting it is the moral equivalent of supporting segregation or worse. Forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will is the moral equivalent of raping her for nine months; a vile act that cannot be justified under any circumstances.
You can “:rolleyes:” all you like; I’m sure that I’d have gotten the same reaction or worse from most of the supporters of segregation or slavery if I’d called their position as evil as it was. Just because a position is politically powerful doesn’t make it any less evil.
Are you at all familiar with Der Trihs’s posting habits? Of course he’s going to say yes.
Anyway, no, I didn’t celebrate. Unless you count getting into fights with Republican friends on Facebook, saying some really inappropriate stuff, and then temporarily banning myself from Facebook before I could further alienate my friends celebrating.
P.S. I’m right, and my friend Adam’s position that it is somehow the responsibility of religious organizations to provide health care is shockingly stupid and ill-thought out.
They are part of that hate movement, among others. They’ve certainly caused plenty of misery and death due to their millennial hatred of most of the planet. Look at all the lives they’ve endangered by spreading lies about condoms. Look at all the nasty things they’ve done against women; abortion is only the tip of the iceberg there. Look at how they’ve fought against gay rights. Look at their support for the Nazis.
That being said, I’m not sure if they quite qualify as a hate group, since that term usually is applied to a more narrowly focused organization. They certainly are a hateful group, though.
Typical liberal. A conservative would’ve fired his fucking gun if he didn’t have any fireworks.
I’m really unsure if this bill is good or not. But I would offer a hearty congrats to Obama for engineering the politics of this and making it happen. Some might criticize him for sitting on the sidelines for too long, but hey, in the end he jumped in and pulled this back from the brink of death. Good job, Mr. President. I just hope to hell you know what you’re doing…
The very left wing site FireDogLake followed Jane Hamsher’s strong-anti stance, largely on concerns about the giveaways to the insurance industry and the abortion compromises. Sunday night/Monday morning, there was quite a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth. They actively campaigned against it, including organizing phone drives to call Congresspeople.
I haven’t been active in this issue because, while I think UHC is a laudable goal, trying to get it done RIGHTNOW is not what I’d rather it be. I’d rather we concentrate on actual reform in terms of process improvement, etc., then start with a just a couple of pieces, rather than the whole shebang…free preventative care (at the very least) for children. I would leave off paid coverage for working age adults, but do something to ensure access to some very basic insurance for folks who aren’t getting it from work. If this proves to be of benefit, then perhaps it would be worthy of expanding, but I’d want to make sure it was helping BEFORE institutionalizing it.
One of the provisions is that at least 80% of the amount they take in from premiums must be spent on paying for actual health care. So they could charge more, but only if they’re also doing more.
A fucking gun? That sounds pretty dangerous. I for one would prefer not to have any explosives in that area of my anatomy.
Although I don’t have a direct interest on the USA healthcare scene, on another very much larger and quite left leaning Board there are three or four very knowledgeable posters who all made good cases that the scheme, as it developed and eventually passed, is simply moving from one disastrous situation to another disaster with hard to predict consequences. The most optimistic one hoped that there would soon be a host of tweaks to make it more acceptable.
One of the things they all agreed on was that safeguards, eg against rescission, are toothless and are similar to those ineffectual safeguards that already exist in some states. The second objection is that it’s a huge giveaway to the health insurance lobby, and the full negative impact on most people’s finances won’t become fully evident for a few years.
Why does the USA have so much difficulty in passing a decent healthcare Act. Canada’s legislation is only 14 pages long. Australia’s is a much wordier 57 pages, including a lot of pages of cross references to other legislation, which hardly counts, yet with what? 1000 plus pages the USA cannot put together a law that anyone can easily understand?
